Tuesday, 22 September 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —Honourable senators will notice the presence in the chamber today of television cameras and lights. In consultation with party leaders and Independent senators, I have granted the usual permission to the television networks represented in the parliamentary Press Gallery to film the proceedings in the Senate for half an hour today commencing at Question Time. The purpose of the filming is to enable the networks to obtain footage to illustrate television news items concerning the Senate. Permission has also been granted for the taking of still photographs to illustrate print media reports of the Senate. The filming will cease at 2.30 p.m. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth opposition to the introduction of any form of national identification system especially a system known as Australia Card. Your petitioners request that the Senate in Parliament assembled should oppose any Legislation designed to impose such a system on the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Calvert (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the proposed Australia Card is an intrusion into the rights of the individual in a free and democratic country. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Government not proceed with this Legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 54 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: that we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Government's Identity Card; that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; that we call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposed national ID Card and numbering system threatens the privacy of law-abiding Australians opening the door to computer matching of personal information, will cause inconvenience to rural people in particular, and will result in massive compliance costs for private business. That the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee Report of 1986 showed that the Australia Card will not be effective in combating taxation and social security fraud and illegal immigration, as its cost savings are based on faulty estimates. That accordingly the Senate and Parliament should reject the Australia Card Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 350 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: that we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Government's Identity Card; that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; that we call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Puplick (from 67 citizens). To the President and senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and our petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Michael Baume (from 68 citizens), Chaney (from 19 citizens), Childs (from 11 citizens), Morris (from 38 citizens) and Puplick (from 101 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned: (i) are greatly disturbed by the dangers to health posed by passive smoking, and evidence of which is being documented daily by medical authorities around the world; (ii) note that environmental tobacco smoke has been identified as the major pollutant in aeroplane cabins, and that its direct threat to health is recognised in the special leave provisions for flight attendants specifically on grounds of upper respiratory infections; (iii) appreciate the Government's undertaking to legislate for smoke-free travel on aeroplanes, but are dismayed at the apparent reluctance to follow up the Minister for Aviation's December announcement with action; and (iv) call upon the Government to make smoke-free aeroplane travel a reality without further delay, and to ensure that smoke-free areas which cannot be contaminated by recycled pollutants, are available at all aerodromes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 500 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 in view of the number of expert witnesses and government departments that have cast doubts on the cost, inadequate safeguards and purported benefits of the Health Department's claims for the proposed Australia Card and in view of the radical change in the proprietal relationship between Australian citizens and the bureaucracy implied in the Australia Card Legislation and in view of the demonstrated inability of the bureaucracy in general, the Health department in particular, to protect the privacy of information entrusted to them and in view of the contrast between the openness daily shown in media by our U.S. cousins in their open and televised inquiry into the ``Contragate'' arms for Iran scandal, and, the almost total absence of debate during the recent election on what was supposed to be the constitutional trigger for that election: Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will: Neither pass nor reject nor fail to pass the Australia Card Bill but rather refer the bill to an open Senate enquiry; That that enquiry be held in public; And that every assistance be given to the broadcast media, both public and private to record and/or broadcast the proceedings of that enquiry in its entirety. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 6,653 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 86 to 1 July 87 so that pensions are restored to the 9 Oct 86 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 Morris (from 16 citizens), Puplick (from 72 citizens) and Ryan (from 160 citizens). To the President and honourable members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: We the undersigned strongly protest 1987 cuts to ESL programs for adults, conducted by the Adult Migrant Education Service (AMES) in New South Wales. Evening ESL classes have been cut by 25% The ESL Correspondence course is to be abolished in a few months time. The English-in-the-Workplace Program has been reduced. Full-time on-arrival courses have been abolished. AMES day centres have had their teaching hours reduced. Community programs have lost teaching hours. We call for: (i) the full and immediate restoration of AMES teaching programs in New South Wales to at least 1986 levels and (ii) a substantial increase in funding to AMES programs in the 1987 budget, in view of the recently announced increases in the immigration intake. by Senator Morris (from 133 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Government's Identity Card. 2. That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and will not be effective in combatting the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigration or social security fraud. 3. That we are deeply concerned at the Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life. 4. That we call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Taxation Office and other departments to curb tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from six citizens). Petitions received. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Bills be introduced: A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so as to ensure that the Members of the Parliament of the Commonwealth and of the Parliaments of the States and of self-governing Territories are chosen directly and democratically by the People A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution in relation to the duration of the House of Representatives, the terms of service of senators, the holding of elections for the Senate and House of Representatives, and the office of Prime Minister A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so as to vest in the electors power to propose laws and to approve or disapprove such proposed laws A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so that the number of Senators need not necessarily be increased when there is an increase in the number of members of the House of Representatives A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to ensure that if the Senate fails to pass a proposed law appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government in respect of a year, an amount of money is appropriated for those services in respect of that year equal to the amount appropriated for those services in respect of the preceding year. 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. Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia)-annual report for the year ended 31 March 1987-together with the Auditor-General's report-pursuant to section 53 of the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946. 2. Academic Salaries Tribunal-annual report 1986-87-pursuant to section 12g of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I table explanatory notes on estimates of proposed expenditure for 1987-88 for the Department of Employment, Education and Training and the Department of Social Security. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister representing the Prime Minister and Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Given the uncertainties about the world economy and the possible consequences for commodity prices and capital flows affecting Australia, I ask whether the Minister agrees with Senator Walsh's 7 August comment: I fear however that though we have been going in the right direction, we have not been moving as quickly as the externally imposed circumstances demand. Senator BUTTON —Externally imposed circumstances demand different things at different times. The process of economic and structural adjustment-- Senator Stone —What do they demand at present? Senator BUTTON —Senator Stone will have a chance at Question Time no doubt to ask questions himself. I will answer this one. The process of economic and structural adjustment is an ongoing one. It has been so under this Government and will continue to be so. Whether one offers political knee-jerk responses to particular changes in external economic circumstances is a matter which I would be very cautious about and is, of course, a matter for judgment. This Government achieved a balanced Budget in its first Budget after the election, something which the Opposition promised to do in three years and probably would not have succeeded in doing in that period anyway. In substance, going back to the comment made by Senator Walsh on 7 August, let me say that again I think it is a matter for judgment by the Government. There are different views within the Government about it-that is no secret-as there are different views within the Opposition and within the community as a whole. Senator COLSTON —Has the Minister for Local Government noticed that the Queensland Government has recently grossly interfered with matters which are the province of local authorities? Are the Queensland Government's powers to override the wishes of local authorities really reserve powers which should be used only when local authorities are quite patently acting against the public interest? Does a suggestion by Queensland journalist Quentin Dempster that a royal commission should be carried out into local authority systems in Queensland have any foundation? Senator REYNOLDS —Senator Colston raises an issue that will be of great concern to local government, not just in Queensland but throughout Australia. Local government is an important level of government and should be consulted on all issues before State or Federal government takes precipitous action. Quentin Dempster's article last Sunday was headed `Crime is but one of the issues to probe'. It stated: Why stop at crime and police corruption? There are many other aspects of life in Queensland which need to be examined to restore public confidence in our system of government. I will be looking very closely at some of the issues raised in the article. The article states that since January 1986 Russ Hinze, the Queensland Minister for Local Government, has made amendments to town plans on his own initiative on at least 80 occasions. The article continues: On 14 of these occasions the Minister had, by Order in Council, exempted particular properties from the requirements of the relevant Town Planning Act. One has to ask whether each of those occasions was an exceptional circumstance. I am advised by the Department that the Local Government Association of Queensland has a long standing policy of opposing State government interference in major local developments, although it acknowledges the need for the use of the Local Government Minister's reserve power in exceptional circumstances. Again I would query whether local government in Queensland would consider that it was overridden on those 80 occasions because of exceptional circumstances. There are three current issues in Queensland that have caused local government to have grave reservations about the use of State Government powers. Ministerial rezoning of 80 hectares of land at the northern end of the Gold Coast is being carried out for the Lewis Land Corporation Ltd without any reference to council. How can local authorities make plans if they are not able to be consulted about-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Minister's answer seems to bear no relationship at all to any area within her responsibility. The fact that she has the name `Local Government' appended to her portfolio does not, I think, mean that she has any jurisdiction with respect to planning matters. It seems to me that all we are getting here are a series of opinions from the Minister on a matter which has nothing to do with her administration. I ask you to consider whether the question and indeed the answer are in order and whether the Minister should be asked to conclude her answer. The PRESIDENT —The question was in order as it was dealing with an area within the Minister's portfolio. I must admit that the answer is getting very wide, and I suggest to the Minister that she conclude her answer. Senator REYNOLDS —Thank you, Mr President. I remind Senator Chaney and Opposition senators that the Federal Government is involved in funding local government throughout Australia this year by an amount of $640m and therefore has a considerable interest in how local authorities are able to work with their respective State Governments. So Senator Colston's question is of very great relevance and concern to me and I look forward to the Queensland State Government taking local government views much more into consideration. Senator STONE —I refer the Minister for Finance to the following response given in the House of Representatives yesterday by the Treasurer to a question from the honourable member for Kooyong: Senator Walsh has never put any views in the Cabinet to the line that outlays should be cut further. I ask the Minister: Is that statement true? How does he justify publicly criticising his colleagues' lack of political courage in not cutting expenditure programs when, if the Treasurer is to be believed, within the privacy of the Cabinet room he has not argued that outlays should be cut further? Senator WALSH —I need to correct in this answer a few misstatements of fact, to put it politely. The first one I want to correct is the allegation that I had criticised Cabinet colleagues for their alleged lack of courage and so on. Senator Stone must know very well, since he was here yesterday, that in fact that was an anecdote from the Federal conference in the middle of last year, since which of course we have had two Budgets and have cut expenditure, depending on whether one wants to count assets in the States as well, by $3 1/2, $4 1/2, or $5 1/2 billion. In regard to the second correction-I acknowledge that it is fortuitous that this is on the public record-at the end of July this year, and this is something much more recent, I was interviewed by Steven Burrell of the Sydney Morning Herald, and he published in the 29 July issue his account of the interview, which quotes me as saying: . . . there is a more general agreement about the target we have set than in any previous year- that, of course, being the Budget target. So that has dispatched that one. Thirdly, unlike his earlier deliberate misrepresentation of facts-and that is the only way I can see it being interpreted reasonably-Senator Stone may not know this, but in Cabinet per se very little of the detail of the Budget is in fact considered. Indeed, most of it is done in the Expenditure Review Committee. I put up a lot of expenditure cutting items to the Expenditure Review Committee. Sometimes the other people on the Committee agree with me and they accept my recommendations and preferences; sometimes they do not. That is the way the system operates. It is also true, of course, that other people who are on the Expenditure Review Committee also put up from time to time, less frequently than I do, expenditure cutting options, and sometimes they are accepted and sometimes they are not. Senator STONE —I ask a supplementary question. In the light of the Minister's response, am I to interpret his reference to the distinction between the Expenditure Review Committee, on the one hand, and the Cabinet, on the other, as indicating either that he did in fact put views to the Expenditure Review Committee that outlays should be cut further, which would in fact technically validate the Treasurer's statement in the House of Representatives yesterday, or that he is questioning that statement by the Treasurer on the ground that it was an evasion of the question asked by the honourable member for Kooyong? Senator WALSH —No; it was just a question of supplying information for Senator Stone's benefit-that the detail of the expenditure side of the Budget, at least, is virtually all done by the Expenditure Review Committee. It is just a question of getting the information correct-I do not think it is of any particular relevance one way or the other-for the reason that I have already given: that I put up particular options. I put up most of the options for reducing expenditure; sometimes they are accepted by other members of the Committee and sometimes they are not. I repeat, since it seems to be beyond the comprehension-- Senator Michael Baume —So Keating lied. Senator WALSH —No, Keating did not lie, you silly fellow. That, I think, came from one of the four Opposition senators who have been sacked from the House of Representatives. When they got sacked from the House of Representatives they sneaked into the Senate because they knew that they could never hold a House of Representatives seat again. He is one of the rejects, one of the expellees, from the House of Representatives. I repeat and acknowledge again that it is fortuitous that this is on the public record. I said on 28 July in respect of the Budget-and this was published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 29 July: . . . there is a more general agreement about the target we have set than in any previous year. Whatever beat-up some journalist decides to put on the front page of the Australian, that is his affair. It is not the truth; it is not factual, and as far back as the end of July that was publicly demonstrated. Senator CHILDS —Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware of Press articles which have appeared in the past few days which have speculated about the future of the 150 per cent tax concessions for research and development and which have also criticised the Government for imposing a sales tax on software in last year's Budget? Can the Minister indicate whether the research and development concession is to be abolished and could he also indicate whether, in his view, the concerns of the industry about the imposition of sales tax on software are justified? Senator BUTTON —A number of the articles on these matters have been brought to my attention. The speculation contained in those articles seems to me to be slightly disruptive and damaging to an industry which has the potential to contribute substantially to industry competitiveness and export revenue. I think these speculations have arisen because of the announced review of corporate tax by the Treasurer on Budget night, a review which will examine all aspects of the business tax system, including concessional tax features. This review is designed to assist the Government in determining whether it is desirable or feasible to achieve a reduction in the company tax rate financed by a sensible broadening of the corporate income tax base. In the course of that review the research and development incentive will of course come under scrutiny, but review of particular concessions does not imply that they will be varied or prematurely terminated. In undertaking the review consideration will need to be given to the effect of any change in the international competitive standing of Australian industry as a whole, and the need for a smooth transition to new arrangements including recognition that research and development investments are often long term in nature. The views of industry on these matters will also be taken into account. Industry will be given fair notice of any changes which are to be made following the taxation review. It should be borne in mind that it will be undertaken during this financial year and if any changes were to be made to the research and development concession legislative change would be necessary. With regard to the question of sales tax on computer software, I understand some of the industry's concerns about its effect on the development of that industry. Most of those concerns now relate to the administration of the tax rather than to the fact that it exists. When I released the information industry strategy on 8 September 1987 I said that I would arrange for representatives of the industry to meet with the Department of Finance, the Treasury, and the Australian Taxation Office and that this meeting would address the issues of anomalies in the impact of the sales tax on software. That meeting will take place next week. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I preface my question by noting the welcome agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union for an intermediate nuclear forces (INF) treaty to eliminate intermediate range nuclear missiles from Europe and Asia and the fact that under the treaty ground launched cruise missiles such as those deployed at Greenham Common will be dismantled. Is the Minister aware of the fact that the US is currently arming its warships with 758 nuclear-armed Tomahawk cruise missiles and that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is developing its equivalent to the Tomahawk, the SS-NX-21? Is it not a fact that no arms control proposals yet advanced by the US or the USSR call for the elimination of these or other sea-launched cruise missiles, despite the fact that they increase the risk that nuclear war will begin in the north-west Pacific? Finally, will the Government endorse the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence that the deployment of sea-launched cruise missiles be arrested and, if so, will it take concrete steps to bring this about, such as working for the establishment of a Pacific conference on disarmament? Senator GARETH EVANS —Like the Australian Democrats and the Opposition as well, the Government very warmly welcomes the agreement in principle recently reached between the United States Secretary of State Shultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze, for the US and the USSR to conclude in the near future an agreement for the world-wide elimination of intermediate and shorter range intermediate land-based nuclear missiles. Australia has long advocated the elimination of INF missiles on a global basis in its discussions with both countries. The prospective INF agreement could set an invaluable precedent for arms control as it would involve worldwide destruction without replacement of an entire class of front-line nuclear missiles and would include path-breaking verification arrangements. The Government also welcomes-I say this in general terms before coming to the specifics of Senator Haines's question-the announcement that the two governments have agreed to begin, before 1 December this year, full scale stage by stage negotiations on nuclear testing. Obviously, the Australian Government has attached and continues to attach the highest importance to a complete cessation of all nuclear testing, to be achieved through a comprehensive test ban treaty. As to the specifics of Senator Haines's question, the treaty towards which the US and the USSR are working at the moment only deals with land-based missiles and accordingly the answer to Senator Haines's first question would appear to be yes. The sea-based intermediate range nuclear weapons will not be eliminated by the treaty. As for the second question relating to arms control in the context of the north-west Pacific, the Government does not accept that nuclear war is likely to begin in the north-west Pacific. However, President Reagan and Mr Gorbachev agreed at their meeting in Reykjavik in 1986 to examine the question of sea-launched cruise missiles. In this respect proposals have been tabled at the strategic arms reduction talks in Geneva. As for the last question relating to the report of the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee and the possibility of a conference on disarmament in the Pacific, the Government is still considering the report of the Joint Committee, which contains a large number of recommendations. So far as the proposal for a Pacific conference on disarmament is concerned, the Government considers that the issue of security in the north-west Pacific is one essentially for the states of the north Pacific to consider. The Government's approach was outlined in considerable detail by Mr Hayden in a lengthy and well reported and well received speech on the north Pacific. The Government will, of course, continue to work for any constructive proposals which are directed to the elimination of all nuclear weapons. Senator HAINES —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. For how much longer does the Government intend to consider the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and when can we expect the Government's response? Senator GARETH EVANS —We will consider it for as long as is necessary in order to produce a considered, reasoned, well thought out, comprehensive and credible response. Senator BOLKUS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister aware that in this chamber yesterday afternoon the Leader of the National Party of Australia claimed that the Government's 1 July tax cuts were a sham for pay as you earn (PAYE) taxpayers, and that the real burden of taxation on these persons is forecast in the Government's own Budget Papers to be higher in 1987-88 than it was in 1986-87? Can the Minister say whether this is a true assessment of the level of PAYE taxation, and can he also indicate whether PAYE taxpayers will face a greater or smaller burden in 1987-88 than they did in 1986-87? Senator WALSH —Senator Stone said yesterday-I have looked at the Hansard-that the Budget had forecast that the consumer price index would increase by 7 per cent, that is a year average figure, that average weekly earnings would increase by 6 per cent, and that net PAYE tax receipts would increase by 6.8 per cent. He concluded from that that there had been an increase in the tax burden on PAYE taxpayers. That conclusion would be correct if the number of PAYE taxpayers was unchanged. However, as Senator Stone will find if he looks at page 313 of Budget Paper No. 1, it is estimated that PAYE employment will increase by 2 1/4 per cent during the year. In the same paragraph it states that average weekly earnings will increase by around 6 per cent. The labour force is not stable, or the same number, and therefore the conclusion is incorrect. It is not just an arithmetical error that is revealed; it is also a conceptual error of failing to take into account changes in the size of the employed work force. I think that that conceptual error should be attributed to whoever wrote Senator Stone's speech-possibly to some meretricious player who has come back to haunt him; but I am surprised that he did not notice the error when he was reading it out. Senator BISHOP — I refer the Minister for Finance to his excuse for avoiding the sack over his remarks at the Labor lawyers conference last Saturday-namely, that criticism of the Government's lack of political courage in abandoning 200 wasteful programs was mere repetition of a view he had put at last year's Australian Labor Party Conference. Will the Minister tell the Senate what action the Government has taken in the past two Budgets, plus the May mini-Budget, to eliminate all or any of these programs? In other words, can he prove to the Senate that his earlier criticism has since been overtaken by Government action? Senator WALSH —That is the sort of question I would expect to get from a friend of Urbanchich. It opens up with a false assertion. I am sure Senator Puplick will share to a considerable degree my views on this matter and that particular very nasty, ugly faction of the New South Wales branch of the Liberal Party of Australia. I did not say yesterday or this morning that I was repeating the criticism last Saturday. I was repeating an anecdote that came from the 1986 Federal Conference. The honourable senator asked me what we have done since then to correct the fiscal imbalance and to cut Government spending. I am surprised that Senator Bishop was not here yesterday when I gave the figures. The Senate is going to get them again, and I do not think the honourable senator's colleagues on her side of the chamber will welcome that. Since that time we have cut $3 1/2 billion off recurrent Commonwealth outlays, plus a billion dollars off the States, plus another billion dollars on asset sales, which are recorded as an outlays reduction as well. So, if we count all of those things, $5 1/2 billion has been cut off government outlays. Government outlays in this Budget will be cut by 2.4 per cent in real terms and they were cut by 0.8 per cent in the previous year. There has not been, firstly, a fall in outlays of 2.4 per cent in all the years that accurate statistics have been kept, let alone following immediately on the heels of another year in which outlays fell. Senator Stone wants to make that adjustment. He said that the real drop in outlays was only 1.2 per cent, and if we take off the billion dollars of asset sales it is true that the figure comes down to 1.2 per cent. That is still the highest drop in outlays that has taken place for 30 years. I note again for the record that Senator Stone is more meticulous about identifying unusual elements in a Budget in 1987 than he was in 1980. When in that year the Budget Speech boasted for the first time in seven years the Budget would bring in a domestic surplus, it did not bother to mention that the reason it brought in a domestic surplus was that the Government was going to sell, in present value dollars, more than $300m worth of assets. That was not mentioned. Senator Stone did not see anything wrong with that as Secretary to the Treasury. But when this Government puts in neon lights that we plan to sell a billion dollars worth of assets in this financial year, he sees something wrong with it. He has a selective-- Senator Stone —We put the receipts on the receipts side of the Budget. Senator WALSH —Okay, it was recorded in the receipts in Budget Statement No. 4, I think it was. What does the honourable senator think produced that outcome of a domestic Budget surplus but a combination of receipts and expenditure? Senator Stone knows better than that. That is the action that this Government has taken-$3 1/2 billion off recurrent outlays in the last two Budgets, plus a billion dollars off the States, plus a billion dollars in asset sales anticipated this year and next year. On the other hand, we still have $2 1/2 billion worth of blue sky, totally nebulous spending cuts proposed by the Opposition during the recent election campaign, plus another $1,800m worth of blue sky on the revenue side from incentivation-although it was not identified as incentivation, of course, during the election campaign. Do honourable senators remember incentivation? Incentivation was going to rescue the country, said the snake-oil salesman back in February of this year. In June of this year he said: `I am going to put $26 a week in everybody's pocket from a tax cut. I am going to finance it from phantom revenue and unspecified expenditure cuts'. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Minister is clearly debating the question and he should be sat down. The PRESIDENT —Has the Minister finished his answer? Senator Walsh —I have finished, Mr President. Senator BISHOP —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. While not expecting the Minister to be able to recite all the programs referred to in his rather rambling answer, I would ask that he provide the Senate with a list of those under which action has been taken since July last year to eliminate or substantially reduce spending in those areas he has discussed. Senator WALSH —I knew Urbanchich was a thug; I did not know that he was stupid enough as well to ask for another serve. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. That statement is clearly an absurdity, but it was clearly meant, in a clumsy way, to be extremely insulting and in my view unparliamentary to the honourable senator who asked the question. I ask that it be withdrawn. Since it cannot be a reflection on the person named it must be meant as a reflection on the senator asking the question. In my view it is clearly unparliamentary. The PRESIDENT —The first time the reference was made I did not think it was unparliamentary. I think this time it probably is, and I ask Senator Walsh to withdraw. Senator WALSH —Very well, Mr President. I cannot remember how many decisions the Expenditure Review Committee-- Senator Walters —You still have not withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walsh withdrew. Senator WALSH —I cannot remember how many decisions the Expenditure Review Committee made in the last two years which cut Government expenditure, but my hunch is that it would be several hundred, ranging from decisions which cut $100m, and even more in some cases, off the Forward Estimates-- Senator Stone —Will you list them? Senator WALSH —No, I will not list them. If Senator Stone wants to know what Cabinet decisions are, he had better either get back into the Treasury as a senior official or start winning some elections so that he can get into government. There is no chance, I presume, of the former happening and, I suggest, there is very little chance of the latter happening either. No, the honourable senator is not going to get a list of those decisions. If it is not too much trouble I might find out the precise number of decisions taken in the last two Budgets which cut expenditure in either large amounts or small amounts. I expect, however, that it will be several hundred. Senator FOREMAN —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to an article in the Australian on 25 August 1987 headlined `Our tax similar to the US level', reporting the release of a paper by the Australian Statistician? What is the basis of the comparison which reportedly demonstrates that the Australian tax system is more equitable than that of the United States of America? Senator WALSH —This question was commented upon in a paper delivered to the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science congress held in Townsville this year, called `Money Income Distribution and Redistribution in Australia, Sweden, and the United States 1984', and presented by Ian Castles, presently the Australian Statistician and better known to me as a former Secretary to the Department of Finance. Castles shows in this report, among other things, that Federal income tax takes a greater proportion of gross income in Australia than in the United States-that is, 20 per cent in Australia compared with 12 per cent in the United States. There are, however, two significant additional taxes in the United States which have no counterpart in Australia. They are the State income tax, which is equal to 3 per cent of gross income, and a payroll tax levied on employees and the self-employed, equal to 5 per cent of gross income. If we add those three things together we come up with a figure of 20 per cent, the same as in Australia. I stress that although there is a limited payroll tax in Australia, it does not apply at all to the self-employed, nor does it apply to a vast number of people employed by others in small businesses. The effect of those direct taxes on gross incomes compensates virtually totally for the difference in income taxes between Australia and the United States. In terms of equity, it should be noted that in the United States the proportions of gross income paid in all direct taxes are significantly higher at lower income levels but are similar at higher income levels. For example, income earners in the lowest three deciles in the United States-the lowest 30 per cent-pay between 3 1/2 and 5 1/2 per cent more tax than similar Australians. Senator WALTERS —My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State. In view of our country's Constitution prohibiting the control of State banks by the Commonwealth, how does the Government propose to enforce the recording by those banks of the Australia Card numbers of existing account-holders, as required by the Australia Card Bill? Senator RYAN —I take it that Senator Walters's question refers to section 51 (xiii) of the Constitution. A similar question was put yesterday to the Treasurer in the House of Represent- atives. The Government has considered this section's implications in chapter 7 of its submission to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. On the basis of advice from the Attorney-General's Department, it was concluded that the Government has the constitutional power, particularly under its taxation power of section 51 (ii), to enact legislation authorising or requiring production or recording of a card of number in relation to transactions with the State banks. Senator BLACK —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. Is the Minister aware of a Brisbane newspaper report in which the Queensland Nurses Union expresses concern that Queensland is missing out on Federal funds because of that State Government's refusal to transfer nurse education to the tertiary sector? Is the Queensland Minister for Education correct in claiming that the transfer cannot be effected because of a lack of adequate Federal funds? Senator RYAN —I am aware of the Queensland Nurses Union's latest expression of frustration and anger at the Queensland Government's deliberate obstruction of the transfer of nurse training to colleges of advanced education. The only thing stopping that transfer from taking place is the Queensland Government's obdurate attitude. Some years ago, the Commonwealth offered assistance to all States to implement the plan for transferring basic nurse training from hospitals to colleges of advanced education over a period whereby the last hospital-based trainees would go into hospitals in 1990. After that, all nurse training would be college-based, just as all teacher-training and training in analogous professions is at present. One of the earliest decisions of the first Hawke Government was to support the long-standing nurses' campaign to have their basic training made equivalent to that of other professions and have it college-based. We reached agreement with the States about the level of contribution which the Commonwealth would make. We should bear in mind, of course, that the cost of nurse training has always been a cost to the States and that the States are given revenue for that purpose in the general revenue-sharing arrangements with the States. We have made no deduction from the general revenue grants to the States for their health purposes. In addition, we have provided a per capita grant for every student going into a basic nurse training course in a college. We also pay Austudy to those nurse trainees who meet the general eligibility requirements. On top of those two contributions to the cost of college-based nurse training, we have funded several millions of dollars worth of retraining programs for nurses who wish to take refresher courses and return to nursing. Undoubtedly, the Commonwealth has made a substantial contribution to several aspects that bear on the transfer to college-based training. Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory have entered into agreements with the Commonwealth on this matter, reflecting and accepting as they do the State governments' traditional responsibility for nurse education. All States, except Queensland, are well advanced with their plans for the transfer to higher education. The only barrier for Queensland, Queensland nurses and potential nurse trainees is the State Government's unwillingness to accept its funding responsibilities. Senator REID —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. I draw the Minister's attention to the continuing disruption to the provision of medical services to the people of Canberra as a result of protracted disputes between the Federal Government and both the nurses and doctors in the Australian Capital Territory, which saw a walk-out by nurses at Royal Canberra Hospital at 3 a.m. yesterday. I ask: Is the Minister satisfied with the progress which has been made, particularly in the nurses dispute which has dragged on since 7 May this year when the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission ordered the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority to implement a new career and wage structure for nurses? If he is not satisfied, when will the Government take steps to resolve this dispute and see that services to which the people of the Capital Territory are entitled under the Medicare system are restored? Senator RICHARDSON —Nurses in the Australian Capital Territory have adopted the practice of walk-outs in very recent times. Those walk-outs are endangering the lives of patients. During the total period of the walk-out on Sunday night there were no nurses in the accident and emergency departments, and only one on each floor, including critical care areas, in hospitals in Canberra. For a period of one hour or more there were no staff in one section of neo-natal intensive care. That sort of action from the Royal Australian Nursing Federation is totally irresponsible. It is only by good luck that no tragedy occurred. We cannot run the system forever on the basis of good luck. I say to you, Mr President, and to Senator Reid that neither can we simply acquiesce to the demands of the nurses. Their action was unnecessary. While the ACT Health Authority is eager to resolve the dispute, it is a matter of continuing negotiations. The Australian Capital Territory is responsible for its own territorial expenditure as a result of the Budget last week. Therefore, every dollar that is expended on local services must be paid for by the local community. The nurses' demands amount to about $20m. An amount of $15m has been set aside in the Budget. The Health Authority must be responsible for its own management; under this Government it will continue to be. We hope that negotiations will resolve this dispute in the very near future. It is the earnest wish of the Government that, whatever the future of the negotiations, the nurses in the Australian Capital Territory live up to their responsibilities as nurses, negotiate with the Health Authority and cease immediately the walk-outs that threaten lives in Canberra's hospitals. Senator SCHACHT —I direct my question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer to the Government's steel plan for the future of Whyalla in South Australia. As the Minister is aware, Whyalla is heavily dependent on the vitality of the operations of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd based there. Can the Minister indicate what is likely to occur in the steel industry, and particularly in Whyalla, once the steel plan expires in December 1988? Senator BUTTON —Mr President, I am in that sort of shuffly situation experienced by my colleague Senator Walsh. I have a note on this but I cannot put my hand on it at the moment. However, I think I can answer the question from memory. Opposition senators interjecting-- Senator BUTTON —Sleight of hand, they call it. I have now found it and Senator Walsh has given me another copy so I now have two copies. As I have bifocal lenses, the honourable senator will probably get four answers. Earlier this year I asked the Steel Industry Authority to carry out a review of the steel plan and to report before 30 June 1988. After the Government receives that report it will give consideration to appropriate arrangements for the steel industry after 1988. It is quite inappropriate for me to prejudice the results of that review but it is very important to note that the plan was put in place for a finite period to address a set of adverse circumstances in 1982-83-circumstances which no longer exist. Of course, there have been problems at Port Kembla, where production and industrial problems reduced output in April and May this year. But I am pleased to say that processes have now been established between the companies and the unions. The problem should be behind them at this stage. The figures for the December quarter should reflect the successful achievement of the plan's main objectives, that is, the creation of an internationally competitive and viable steel industry which provides job security for its employees. The benefits of the current plan have already put the industry in good shape to supply export markets with internationally competitive steel and steel products both in terms of price and quality. The long term products division at Whyalla, which Senator Schacht asked me about, has not been a bounty recipient under the plan but rather has benefited from the tripartite consultation arrangements with both industrial accord and productivity improving significantly over the last four years. That division has been responsible for a lot of steel industry exports and the division's output of heavy structures, rails and semi-finished steel is an integral part of BHP's overall product range. Recently, the company announced an investment of $18m at Whyalla. That is an indication of the company's longer term commitment to the operation. I understand that the company is also looking at the development of iron ore deposits in that region which again involve, in a sense, a degree of commitment to the long term future of the Whyalla steel industry. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentenary. I refer to the capital grants for the bicentennial commemorative program in table 47 of Budget Paper No. 4 and ask: Does the $5.656m allocated to Queensland include any contribution to Expo 88 in our State? Does the Minister agree that the $600,000 provided to assist the States and the Northern Territory to participate in Expo is somewhat discriminatory considering the fact that payments totalling $6m were made to Western Australia in 1986-87 to complete the Commonwealth's financial contribution of $30m to the defence of the America's Cup? Is it not a fact that Expo will be to our international visitors `Australia on display' with obvious potential to enhance the trade and technological developments of this nation and that there should, therefore, be a significant Commonwealth contribution to the event, as was the case with the America's Cup? Senator RYAN —I recently had the opportunity of visiting the Expo site in Brisbane. I concur with Senator Bjelke-Petersen's remarks that it will be a most important opportunity for Australia to display to the world what it has in terms of manufacturing, technology, secondary industry, service industries and so forth. I was most impressed with the site. It is a beautiful, natural site and very well selected. The extent to which the site has been enhanced by the various building and design features of the Expo project is outstanding. I expect that it will be the great success which Senator Bjelke-Petersen and we all hope it will be. My colleague Senator Walsh has just pointed out to me that the Commonwealth's contribution will amount to nearly $20m. I do not think there can be any doubt that the Commonwealth is giving very substantial and wide-ranging support to Expo 88. We are doing everything possible from a Commonwealth perspective to ensure that it will be the great success it deserves to be. As to the relevance of the bicentennial grants to the Expo project which Senator Bjelke-Petersen referred to, I will have to take that part of the honourable senator's question on notice. I hope to provide an answer to her shortly. I conclude by urging honourable senators who have not had the opportunity to visit the Expo site to do so. I am sure that they will decide then that the Commonwealth's contribution of nearly $20m was well worth while. I hope that all of Australia reaps the benefit of Expo 88. Senator COOK —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance in his capacity as Minister representing the Treasurer. Senator Puplick —See whether you can make it sensible for a change. Senator COOK —Don't worry, mate, it is going to be very sensible. Senator Crichton-Browne —Obviously it was not written by you in that case. Senator COOK —If it were the honourable senator would never understand it. The PRESIDENT —Order! All this time is coming out of Question Time. I call Senator Cook. Senator COOK —As I said, my question is addressed to Senator Walsh. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in yesterday's Australian Financial Review headed `Australian taxes low by OECD standards'? Has the Minister checked the accuracy of the figures cited in the report? He may have to draw a diagram of this for the Opposition, but can the Minister confirm that the headline is indeed a statement of fact? Senator WALSH —I have indeed seen that article in yesterday's Financial Review with the prominent headline: `Australian taxes low by OECD standards'. It also gives a bar graph which very clearly shows Australia as being third last of the 10 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries listed with a total tax revenue as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP). As those who are listening to Question Time cannot see that cutting, I would like to make a few other observations about it. I have had the accuracy of the most salient figures cited in the report checked and I can confirm that they are correct. In 1985, the most recent year for which full OECD data are available, total tax receipts as a percentage of GDP for the 23 principal OECD countries averaged 37.2 per cent. The figure for Australia was 30.3 per cent, almost a full seven percentage points down on the OECD average, and Australia was the fifth lowest of the 23. Australia is therefore very clearly not a high tax country by the standards of comparable countries. It is true that the Government's tax reforms have meant that many people who were previously avoiding or evading their legitimate tax responsibilities are now being required to pull their weight more completely than they were. That of course is intrinsically associated with the Government's base broadening tax reform measures, which will bring in on present estimates about $1 billion more in this financial year than had been very conservatively estimated at the time the tax reform was enacted. They are the very broadening of the taxation base measures to which the Opposition is committed to repealing. The Opposition's notion of tax reform is to restore every rort that previously existed. Senator Stone —Cut those 200 spending programs. Senator WALSH —Senator Stone would rather cut spending programs than close taxation rorts. I am glad we have got that on the record. His objective in cutting government expenditure is so that he can re-open taxation rorts. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. That is a clear misrepresentation of the interjection that Senator Stone made, and I want that to be clear on the record. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator WALSH —I cannot think of any less worthy objective for expenditure cutting than in order to pave the way for the reinstitution of taxation rorts. I must say that I am very surprised that a former Secretary to the Treasury would not recognise and concede the misallocation of resources and of so-called investment that was being caused by the previous tax treatment of employer supplied motor vehicles. There has been a very large decline in business purchases of motor vehicles. Business is still going on without the use of all the motor vehicles that were previously purchased. What does that show? That shows that a very significant amount of capital was being diverted into so-called business investment of a type for which there was clearly no functional need. Senator MacGibbon —That has hit the car manufacturers. Senator WALSH —So what was in fact consumption expenditure was previously misdefined as investment expenditure. Somebody said that has hit the car manufacturers, but I think it has hit the car importers more than the domestic manufacturers, and that in itself is a very good thing. I am not sure whether that interjection came from Senator Stone. I understand that it came from Senator Puplick. I did not think that Senator Stone would say anything as silly as that. The logic of that argument, Senator Puplick, is that the Government should supply the funds to purchase things for which there is no functional need just in order to keep some industry going. I know that the honourable senator is supposed to be one of the wets in the Liberal Party-- Senator Button —It was MacGibbon. Senator WALSH —I am sorry, I apologise to Senator Puplick as well then. I would have expected Senator MacGibbon to say something as stupid as that. Senator CALVERT —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Is the Minister aware of the precautions relating to the use of organochlorines which have been in force for many years in Tasmania? Does he know whether similar restrictions apply or are going to apply in other States? Senator WALSH —I have a note from Mr Kerin on this. It is a moderately long and rather boring answer, but I suppose I had better give it. Organochlorine pesticides are registered only for approved uses in all States. In Tasmania those uses have been limited in recent years to the use of DDT on golf courses and bowling greens and to the use of dieldrin in wood preservation, and they can be purchased only on permit. There are no permitted agricultural uses for DDT or dieldrin. Lindane, which is a less persistent organochlorine, is available without permit in Tasmania for some agricultural uses-for example, the control of cockchafers in pasture. Similar restrictions either already apply or are being introduced in all States. Through the Australian Agricultural Council, governments have been moving over several years to phase out the use of organochlorine pesticides. Senator Michael Baume —You are more boring answering. Senator WALSH —Was that Patrick Baume? I was just saying to Senator Ryan a while ago, `We haven't heard much from Senator Baume in this Parliament'. He usually pops up dutifully every day and moves some long, boring notice of motion which he thinks has some political significance so that he can get his name in the newspaper. I wondered whether he was still here. I trust he will continue to give us the sort of amusement that he has given us in the past. In addition, the Commonwealth has moved to include organochlorine pesticides on the prohibited imports list so that import for remaining approved uses must be by permit. Senator COULTER —My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts. Noting the reference in the Governor- General's Speech to the depletion of the earth's ozone shield and the Vienna Convention dealing with the use of freon gases and their role in this depletion, is the Minister aware that considerable difficulty has been experienced in getting agreement on limiting the manufacture of chlorofluorocarbons, or freons, particularly in the case of Great Britain? Moreover, is the Minister aware that freons 11 and 12, the two freons in the most widespread use, have a life in the atmosphere of between 50 and 150 years, so that even if a ceiling on manufacture could be agreed-and that seems to be the object of the Vienna Convention-levels in the stratosphere would continue to rise for about another century? Does the Minister therefore agree that the present agreements under the Vienna Convention are too little too late and that stronger measures need to be taken if there is not to be serious damage to the terrestrial and some aquatic life forms, including man? Is the Minister going to put Australia in the forefront of moves to decrease the manufacture and use of freons? If so, what are these moves? If not, why not? Senator RICHARDSON —I will do my best, Mr President. There have been intense international discussions over the last 12 months leading up to the Montreal Agreement on the protocol. I am not aware of how the individual countries have reacted. I am not aware, therefore, of the exact position in Great Britain, although I will endeavour to find out. I am aware that Great Britain and, I think, all of the European Economic Community countries except Greece and Spain, and the United States of America were in agreement with the protocol and I am assuming that they will honour their agreements. Australia, of course, acceded to the treaty only a week ago and we will be moving towards signing the protocol in the very near future. The level of the chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere is dependent upon not only the rate of emission but also the rate of breakdown. There are some different scientific opinions on that but, insofar as current knowledge is available, the protocol has a hard and practical edge in meeting the problem as we see it. There will be cutbacks of 20 per cent in 1993 and 1994 and a further 30 per cent in 1998 and 1999 in the production of chlorofluorocarbons. If that is to be the case, we think that a great deal of the problem will be addressed by Australians moving formally towards signing the protocol. Once that signing has taken place, we will need to look at the legislation that is needed in Australia. We will get advice on that legislation. We will consult with the States-including Queensland, if it will talk to us. Even though this is an international convention with global concerns, we will consult everyone here in Australia. It should be noted that consultation has gone on with industry over the last 12 months as well. I hope to be in a position in the very near future to announce the Government's intentions. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State) —by leave-I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a statement relating to higher education in the 1990s. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- THE CHALLENGE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIA In the 1987-88 Budget the Government announced that it would delay the start of the next funding triennium for higher education to 1989. Today I want to explain more fully the reasons for that decision in the context of the Government's longer-term plans for development of the higher education system. Specifically, I wish to relate the Government's decisions on funding for higher education in 1988 to the strategy it intends to pursue in the 1988-89 Budget context and beyond. In other Statements in the Budget context the Government has made clear its determination that our education and training system should play a central role in responding to the major economic challenges which still confront us. The ongoing adjustments required in the structure of our economy will place a much greater premium on technical knowledge and labour force skills, and likewise on quality, innovation and technology. These attributes will also be a vital factor in our productivity performance and in the speed of our adaptation to future changes in economic circumstances. We can no longer rely on established practices and institutional arrangements to meet these needs. Our traditional attitudes to education and skills formation in Australia have been conditioned by an economy which has been able to rely more on natural resources than on human skills to support our living standards and national development. Just as these circumstances have changed dramatically, so too must our attitudes and practices in education and training. This is not to dispute or belittle the achievements of the past, but rather to signal the need for further progress, at a rapid rate, beginning now. While improvements will be needed in all aspects of our education and training arrangements, the performance of our higher education system is of particular importance to the Government's objectives. Our universities and CAEs are the main source of the highly educated men and women so essential to our continued economic growth. They provide the scientists, engineers and technologists we need to develop and maintain a modern industrial structure, as well as the teachers needed to expand the skill base of the workforce and to educate the next generation. We must also recognise the crucial contribution made by our economists, historians, philosophers and others in the humanities as Australian society works its way through the complex range of issues arising from the shift in our national economic circumstances. The research activities of higher education are also vital. Universities provide the bulk of basic research in Australia and together with advanced education make key contributions to applied research and development. Moreover, they train the young researchers who will be prime sources of the innovation and technological development needed for Australian industry to achieve and maintain greater international competitiveness. For these reasons the Government is strongly committed to the further development of our national higher education system. Equally, however, it is determined that planning for such development should extend beyond the interests of individual institutions and their clients, and be consistent with broader national interests and objectives. Priorities will need to be set accordingly. Attitudes and some traditional arrangements will need to be changed. For reasons I will discuss shortly, the Government is not convinced that a perpetuation of our current funding arrangements for higher education would be in the best long-term interests either of the higher education system itself or of the nation generally. Over the next 12 months, therefore, we will be embarking upon a process of policy development and consultation leading to the establishment of a new set of arrangements for Commonwealth support of higher education from the beginning of 1989. In the meantime, the Government has decided to treat 1988 as a year outside the normal triennial funding process. OVERVIEW OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM Our higher education system is a major national resource. Its component institutions-19 universities and 46 colleges of advanced education across Australia-cater for a student population of 391,500, and employ a total of some 68,000 staff. Total expenditure on higher education exceeds $2,500 million per annum, while the replacement value of our public higher education facilities has been estimated at more than $5,000 million. Since 1974 the Commonwealth has invested over $31 billion in higher education on behalf of Australian taxpayers. In the thirteen years since the Commonwealth assumed full financial responsibility for higher education in Australia we have seen the number of students grow from 249,500 to 391,500, an increase of 57 per cent. Although the evidence is not clear-cut I believe that we have also seen an improvement, over this time, in the socio-economic balance of the student body. The unfortunate legacy that is disguised by these figures, however, is the sharp decline in youth participation in higher education which occurred under the Fraser Government. The policies of that era were dominated by cost-cutting considerations alone, and a notable absence of any vision of the future. As a result of those policies, participation in higher education by young people aged 17 to 19 fell from 11.0 per cent in 1975 to 9.6 per cent in 1982. Had the higher rate been maintained, an additional 11,000 young people would have been undertaking higher education at the time that this Government came to office. By contrast, and despite continuing financial constraints, the Hawke Government has sought to increase youth participation in higher education through steady and sustained growth; to improve the opportunities for participation in higher education by disadvantaged groups; and to make higher education institutions more responsive to the needs of industry. Substantial progress has already been made towards achieving these objectives: an extra 43,400 higher education places have been created in the four years since 1983, with a high priority given to strategic disciplines such as engineering, science, computer science and business studies; by 1985 we had restored youth participation rates in higher education to their 1975 levels, and this year some 120,000 17-19 year olds are undertaking higher education-a participation rate of over 11.5%, the highest level ever recorded in Australia; participation among groups traditionally under-represented in higher education has also been increased. An extra 1000 places for Aboriginal students have been provided since 1984, the proportion of women in higher education has continued to rise, and growth has been focussed on outer metropolitan and regional areas with low participation; links between higher education and industry have been strengthened both at the peak level and through initiatives involving particular institutions. There has been encouraging growth in the turnover of commercial research and consultancy arms of institutions, to around $100 million per annum. While the Government is justly proud of these achievements, it recognises that a great deal more remains to be done. We continue to lag behind our international competitors on a range of significant measures of education and training performance, including the rate of retention to the end of secondary education, the level of youth participation in higher education, and the proportion of the workforce holding post-school qualifications. Historically, also, we have given insufficient attention to the composition of our national skill base, and to the need for skills which directly contribute to the productive capacity of our economy. The Government has already begun to act upon these matters, but the recent sharp shift in our economic circumstances demands that the pace of change be quickened. A prime objective must be to achieve substantial increases in higher education participation, especially by our young people. The need to rectify the neglect of the late 1970's and early 1980's has left us now only slightly advanced on where we were in the mid-1970's in relation to youth participation in higher education. Many other countries, in the meantime, have passed us by, or have widened their previously existing advantage. We now languish towards the bottom of the league of OECD countries in this aspect of our educational performance. We need to recognise the potential costs of this situation to our national economic performance. It is more than coincidence that the world's most successful economies over recent years have given a high priority to basic education and vocational preparation of their young people. Australia has not seen this relationship so clearly, but the time has come to do so, and to act accordingly. There is a growing realisation on the part of young people themselves of the benefits to them of further education and training. In labour market terms, for example, the unemployment rate for persons holding degree-level qualifications stood at only 3.1 per cent in February 1987, compared with 11.6 per cent for those without any form of post-school qualification. The average duration of unemployment is also substantially less for those holding formal qualifications, while incomes and occupational status are significantly above the norm. In the face of these realities it comes as no surprise that there is a resurgence of interest by young people in furthering their education. Retention rates to Year 12 at school have increased dramatically and are continuing to rise, while the number of young people transferring from Year 12 to universities, CAEs and TAFE colleges is increasing. Some 61 per cent of Year 12 students now proceed directly from school to further studies, while a further 14 per cent defer for twelve months before resuming their studies. This resurgence of interest in education has coincided with a demographic bulge in the youth age group, which will have its peak impact on demand for higher education in the period to 1990. Taken together, the effect of these school retention and demographic pressures has been to create unprecedented demand for higher education places. Despite the substantial growth in places made possible by the Hawke Government's policies since 1983, our higher education system has still not been able to respond fully to this increase in demand. In 1987, for example, between 13,000 and 20,000 qualified applicants were unable to secure places in our universities and colleges of advanced education. This shortfall persists at a time when there are significant shortages of graduates in a range of key higher education disciplines. There is an urgent need to remedy this situation. Looking at the longer term, we need to consider also the further growth required in our higher education system to satisfy our future economic and social objectives. A plausible projection for the end of the century, if we are to close the gap on our international competitors, would see retention rates to Year 12 rising to around 80 per cent, with appropriate provision being made in the higher education and TAFE systems for this expanded pool of school leavers to proceed to further post-school study. This would require a major expansion of higher education places for youth, possibly of the order of 75,000 places by the turn of the century. At present average values, this would entail an additional commitment of community resources of around $750 million per annum by the year 2000. In current budgetary and economic circumstances, however, it is simply not feasible to achieve quantum leaps in participation in higher education by providing quantum leaps in public expenditure. Indeed, past increases in resources, seen as Government buying additional places at marginal cost, may have had the perverse effect of removing motivation for higher education institutions to consider how they might best employ all the resources actually or potentially at their disposal to meet demand. The problem was seen as one for Governments alone rather than for the institutions. It is not. The Government is prepared to play its part in the process of growth and improvement, but so also must the other key parties in our higher education system-the institutions themselves, State Governments, the private sector, staff and students. Significant improvements will be needed in the effectiveness and productivity of our current stock of resources for higher education. To the extent that further additions to resources will be necessary, the funding base for higher education will need to be considerably broadened. The implementation of these and other measures will require changes in at least three important areas: changes in attitudes, to reflect national imperatives and to ensure that the education system is more flexible and capable of responding quickly and positively to national needs; changes in processes, in the way of doing things, to enhance our ability to produce quality graduates with necessarily limited resources; changes in structures, to remove impediments to change and barriers that dampen innovative approaches. As part of this process of change we will need to give much closer attention also to the issues of quality of output and distribution of effort in our higher education system. Even with the best information on likely technological and structural change, we cannot confidently predict the types and mixtures of skills that will be needed in the future. The emphasis, rather, must be on broad and transferable skills, and attitudes which equip the workforce to adapt to and influence change. This applies both to `generalist' courses in the humanities and social sciences, and to more directly vocational disciplines such as engineering and commerce. The extent to which our higher education institutions are able to influence and respond to emerging skill requirements will be directly influenced by the involvement of industry in course design and monitoring. Industry must also play its part in turning the broadly-based skills imparted through higher education to the particular requirements of the workplace. The pattern of higher education enrolment has altered significantly over the past decade. In particular, enrolments in teacher education courses have declined as a proportion of total higher education enrolments, while increases have been registered in other vocational fields such as economics, commerce, computer science, applied science and engineering. Even so, our efforts in a number of these areas remain inadequate to meet even our current labour market needs, let alone to provide for likely future growth in demand for skills. We should look to the example of other countries in this regard. Japan, for example, has reaped the benefit of an educational emphasis which anticipates the requirement for persons with high levels of technological skills and knowledge as an integral element in its overall industry development strategy. In Australia, by contrast, the links between educational and industry policies have traditionally been weak, and while there have been recent significant shifts towards study in engineering and technology, these have occurred from a very low base. As a result, the proportion of our new university entrants enrolled in technology-based disciplines is still less than half of that in the United States, which in turn trails Japan. An increased priority for technological studies in higher education will need to be accommodated within an expanding system which protects the important place of the arts, humanities and social sciences. The Government recognises the essential contribution made by these disciplines to the quality of our skill base and culture, and will not relinquish its commitment to their support. The quality of graduate teaching and research training also needs to be enhanced, through measures such as a greater concentration of effort, increased mobility of both students and staff, better links with industry, and the attraction of additional sources of financial and other support. The flexibility of the higher education system is another issue of concern. Our institutions are increasingly caught up in a web of administrative and industrial entanglements which limit both the speed of their response and their attention to more substantive issues. The constraints imposed by the academic tenure system are another obvious source of rigidity. We need to address such issues directly and deliberately, where necessary using funding arrangements as a primary lever for reform. The Government will provide leadership and national direction in this process. In short, the Government believes that important changes are required in our higher education system to improve its response to a range of priority national objectives. The achievement of these changes will require a close examination of existing barriers and the identification of new policy responses to overcome them. Indeed, the capacity of the Government to provide additional resources necessary for the expansion of the higher education system will depend on the response of institutions and those who work in them to this need for change. THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANS The Government will give a high priority to these matters between now and the 1988-89 Budget. It will be examining the range of issues involved and seeking input from the education sector, from business and unions, and from the community at large. To assist in this process, the Government intends to issue a Policy Discussion Paper on Higher Education towards the end of 1987 as a basis for consultation and community comment. Following consideration of responses to this Paper, the Government will present its long-term policies in the form of a major Policy Statement on higher education, to be finalised in the 1988-89 Budget context and implemented from the beginning of 1989. I have decided to commission the Policy Discussion Paper from within my own portfolio. The Secretary of my Department will establish a Task Force, with participation by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. Consultations will be held with outside bodies as appropriate. The Discussion Paper will confront the range of concerns the Government holds about the current performance of our higher education system. Specific issues to be addressed will include: desirable rates of growth in higher education, the resources required to achieve this growth, and the appropriate division of responsibility for providing these resources; general productivity issues in higher education, including the scope for more effective utilisation of teaching resources and more efficient use of our massive investment in capital facilities and equipment; the scope for further improvements in efficiency from rationalisation of the operations of institutions involved in multi-campus teaching and amalgamations of smaller institutions, bearing in mind the importance of an adequate range of higher education opportunities in regional centres; more effective use of limited resources by eliminating the ``me too'' approach to course developments in institutions and promoting greater concentration of effort in teaching and research. There is too much unnecessary duplication of course offerings resulting in small, uneconomic classes; in other cases again, courses provided are of dubious merit and value to the community; better definition of each institution's role and mission in teaching and research within a co-ordinated framework of national objectives and priorities. For example, not all institutions can be funded for research and a substantial number will not be; equally, no one institution will be funded in future for research across all of its activities; the future of the present `binary' system of higher education, and removal of any distortions which this entails. Future funding arrangements, for example, should be based on agreed priorities for institutional activity, and performance against those outcomes, rather than on the vagaries of classification or nomenclature; without prejudice to academic freedom, means of providing greater flexibility in the use of staff resources in higher education, including for example: reform of the tenure system for academic staff, together with an increased emphasis on term appointments; schemes for selective early retirement, as a means of freeing up existing resources; staff management and appraisal systems in higher education, which should give appropriate emphasis to teaching performance as well as research capacity as a basis for appraisal; provision of greater incentives for performance, including the scope for greater flexibility in remuneration arrangements; a range of measures to better distribute resources across the system, based on efficiency criteria and incentives to achieve defined results. Over time, for example, the basis of funding should be shifted away from the current focus on input costs to a more competitive system which emphasises specified outputs and measurement of results, and allows institutions to bid for new places on this basis; means of enabling institutions to increase revenue from private sources and hence their ability to deliver services, bearing in mind the Australian Labor Party's policy of opposition to tuition fees; collaborative course arrangements with industry in a range of disciplines, along the lines announced recently in the information technology arena; reform of institutional management and decision- making processes, including changes to the operations of governing bodies and academic boards and the improvements of management systems, particularly at the middle management level; Commonwealth/State relationships in higher education, and the problems created for institutions by divided responsibilities and accountability arrangements; the place of private institutions established under State auspices within the overall framework of higher education provision, and the relationship between public and private institutions; the balance in our approach to postgraduate education, especially at the doctorate level, between intensive but highly specialised programs on the one hand and a more broadly-based and multi-disciplinary emphasis on the other; future requirements for teacher education resources in higher education, having regard to demographic trends, likely further increases in school retention rates, and the need for greater attention to mathematics and science within the secondary education curriculum; the appropriate relationship between higher education and TAFE, especially in matters such as the provision of higher education in small regional centres and arrangements for credit transfer between the sectors; the potential for providing increased higher education opportunities through external studies arrangements and possible rationalisation and concentration of existing providers of external studies. Many of these issues have been considered in the context of the recent Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education. The Government agrees with many of the directions recommended in that report, which provides a useful base for future policy discussions. The Government has also considered some of these issues in relation to research in higher education, as part of its examination of proposals to establish an Australian Research Council (ARC). The Government has decided that we must concentrate our research resources and plan for strategic directions in the future with defined objectives in mind. The ARC will be the key source of advice on means of increasing the effectiveness of research expenditure in Australia. We will be examining over coming months the appropriate pace and extent of transfer of research responsibilities to the new Council. There is a limit, however, to the scope of Government action. Much will also depend on the commitment to change on the part of the higher education system itself. Many within the system do accept the need for rapid change, and I have been heartened already to receive their encouragement and support of the Government's directions. On the other hand, there are those who have vested interest in protection of the status quo, regardless of the wider national interest. We will not be deterred, however, by the entrenched attitudes of a few, and I am sure that we will find in the academic community generally a real concern for the future economic performance of the country and a desire for change in the role of the higher education system in responding to national needs. I will be actively seeking the views of concerned people on all of these issues in coming months. Pending the resolution of these issues we must maintain the momentum that has been built up over the past four years. The last thing that the Government would want would be to have 1988 considered as a pause in the development of the system. It will not be a year for standing still. Some 5,800 additional places for young school leavers will be sought for 1988. Funding will be provided for an extra intake of 3,500 to 4,000 students-the highest level of intake funded since this Government came to office-and the remainder will be sought by adjustment to the profile of intakes by institutions. In addition, we have taken some early steps in the process of reform. Research funding will be less the exclusive province of the universities, and some existing research funding will be redirected through targeted schemes. The Government will also relax the prohibition on fees for a limited range of postgraduate courses involving professional upgrading for people already in employment, as for example in the case of specialised postgraduate courses for medical practitioners. This latter measure responds to requests made by a number of institutions which wish to expand their course offerings and revenue base. Fees will be charged at the discretion of individual institutions, subject to my approval, and the Commonwealth will not reduce the level of its general funding for institutions on account of revenue generated by fees. Full details of our Budget decisions for higher education in 1988 are set out in the attached Guidelines Statement on Higher Education Plans for 1988. [I table the Statement.] The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission will be bringing forward advice in the next few weeks on the detailed allocation of funds for 1988 consistent with these Guidelines. Before the end of 1987 I expect to receive a final report from the Task Force chaired by Mr Charles Halton which I have appointed to report on advisory arrangements and structures reflecting the integration of employment, education and training matters into a single portfolio. I will be giving early consideration to the recommendations of this Task Force, including those relevant to higher education, with a view to prompt introduction of any revised arrangements. In summary, there are critically important challenges ahead if Australia is to achieve the standards of intellectual capacity essential for success in an increasingly competitive world. The Government has committed itself to working towards change within an expanding system. In turn, it expects the commitment of the higher education system to accept the need for change and to co-operate in its implementation. I am confident that this commitment will be forthcoming. HIGHER EDUCATION PLANS FOR 1988 GUIDELINES TO THE COMMONWEALTH TERTIARY EDUCATION COMMISSION The Hon. J. S. Dawkins MP Minister for Employment, Education and Training In its 1987-88 Budget deliberations the Government agreed on a higher education program for 1988 of $2559.4m, an increase of 2 per cent on the previous year. These guidelines set out the priorities which the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission should follow in recommending on the allocation of these funds for the 1988 academic year. INCREASED PARTICIPATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION Despite steady growth in the higher education system over the past triennium, it is of major concern to the Government that unmet demand for higher education places, particularly by young people, continues to rise. In order to meet these continuing pressures, the Government has decided that an extra 5,800 higher education intakes in 1988 should be made available to young school leavers. The Government has agreed to provide an additional $38.4 million in 1988 to fund an extra 3,500 to 4,000 intakes. CTEC is asked to advise on means by which the further 2000 intakes might be achieved. To accommodate the priority for young school leavers, institutions may need to adjust the composition of their intakes in favour of this group. In allocating additional intakes for 1988, 200 places will be provided to further increase the participation of Aboriginals in higher education. The additional intakes will be funded at the same real recurrent level as applied in 1986 and 1987, that is, an average $6250 per student place in December 1986 prices. Within this level of funding the Government expects CTEC to continue to direct new places into courses that will provide the skill base essential to underpin future economic growth namely, science, technology, engineering, computer science, economics/accountancy/commerce (including in the tourism and hospitality area) and industrial and product design. In the context of the Government's Information Industry Strategy, aimed at improving the competitiveness of Australia's information industries, the Government has decided that 650 of the additional intakes for 1988 should be directed to computer science, electronics engineering and other information industries disciplines. Of these places, 200 are to be directed to the information technology courses being developed jointly with industry and to be conducted on a pilot basis in 1988 at Monash University, the University of New South Wales, New South Wales Institute of Technology and Swinburne Institute of Technology. In addition to increased recurrent funding, additional equipment expenditure will be required to set up new and expanded courses, particularly in the sciences and technologies. The Government has allocated an additional $3m in 1988 for equipment grants. The Government agrees with CTEC's proposal that equipment funds for 1988 for advanced education should be allocated to individual institutions after considering advice from State co-ordinating authorities. The Government recognises that the capacity of many institutions to absorb further students without an expansion of physical facilities is now limited, particularly in those institutions that have taken in large numbers of additional students over the past four years. The Government has allocated an additional $12m in 1988 for expansion of capital facilities across the system. It should be noted that the Government also has a major ($9m) commitment to capital funds for Chifley University College in 1989. In financial terms, therefore, the Government has agreed to provide additional funding for the extra 3,500 to 4,000 intakes in 1988 as follows: recurrent: $23.4m; equipment: $3m; capital: $12m. Subject to the directions above, the additional places created by these funds are to be allocated on a competitive basis in 1988. The additional intakes should be directed to those institutions able to demonstrate their capacity to accommodate enrolment growth in the most cost-efficient way. The Government is also mindful of the continuing need for improved access to higher education by those who are disadvantaged by geographic or socio-economic factors. Progress has been achieved by the Hawke Government in redressing low participation levels in outer metropolitan and regional areas, but rates in these areas remain below the national average and there needs to be continued growth in targeted institutions. CTEC is asked in allocating total resources for 1988 to make allowance for those institutions that have incurred substantial additional costs because of their commitment to achieving greater equity in participation. INCOME FROM NON-GOVERNMENT SOURCES The Government will continue to encourage institutions to seek alternative sources of funding to supplement grants from the Commonwealth. From 1988 institutions will have new options open to them to apply for limited relaxation of the fees prohibition for the funding of certain postgraduate courses. Institutions will be able to seek my approval to charge fees for formal award courses which are specialised post-basic courses designed for professional upgrading or extension purposes or which are directed primarily at those already well established in employment. Students proceeding direct from undergraduate courses to postgraduate studies will not be affected. This initiative will enable institutions to be more responsive to the needs of a rapidly adjusting modern economy, and to offer expensive specialised courses which may not have been viable in the past when they had to be funded from recurrent grants. The States Grants Act will be amended to enable this decision to be put into effect. Arrangements for the provision of these courses should ensure that there is no displacement of students from non fee-paying courses. HIGHER EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION CHARGE Following advice from the Monitoring Committee set up to investigate the impact of the Higher Education Administration Charge, the Government has decided that the following further categories of needy students will be exempt from the charge in 1988: part-time students in receipt of Sickness and Special Benefits for at least 3 months before enrolment; part-time students in receipt of the new Family Allowance Supplement at the time of enrolment; part-time students who are dependent spouses of exempt Unemployment, Sickness or Special Beneficiaries or of those in receipt of Family Allowance Supplement; students transferring direct from full-time study under AUSTUDY to part-time study as recipients of Unemployment, Sickness or Special Benefits. These further exemptions will assist very low-income students whose studies may otherwise have been jeopardised. It is estimated that up to 8,700 students will be exempt in 1988 under these arrangements, bringing to 139,000 or 35 per cent the number of students to be exempt from, or reimbursed for, the charge in 1988. As a partial offset to the cost of these further exemptions the Government will legislate to require students withdrawing from a course after teaching has commenced to be liable for the charge. In line with the Government's commitment not to increase the administration charge beyond the effects of inflation, the level of the charge in 1988 will be $263. This increase is in accordance with CTEC indexes for adjusting administration (non-academic) salary costs. In current budgetary circumstances the Government is unable to take up the further exemptions and adjustments to the charge that were recommended by the Monitoring Committee. By 1987 some $11.5m had been made available to higher education institutions under the Special Assistance for Students Program (SASP) for low-cost loans and grants to particularly needy students. With the introduction of HEAC in 1987 demand for SASP loans increased significantly. This pressure will be eased by further funding of this program in 1988. SUPERANNUATION The Government has recognised the increasing difficulties faced by institutions in financing the accrued liability of emerging cost superannuation schemes, and that the cost of these schemes will continue to rise in the coming decades. An increasing burden has been put on some institutions as a result of the operation of the 14% limit set by the former Government on the Commonwealth contribution to emerging superannuation costs. In these circumstances the Commonwealth will move to relax its requirements. The Government remains of the view, however, that the States must also share in these costs, partly as a consequence of their responsibility for higher education before 1974 and partly as a consequence of the continued operation of expensive State schemes beyond the date (1981) that the Commonwealth set its 14 per cent limit and agreed to fund the Superannuation Scheme for Australian Universities. Accordingly, the Commonwealth will share superannuation costs with the States in a way that recognises the respective responsibilities of Commonwealth and State Governments which prevailed when the liability was incurred. The basis of the sharing arrangement will be: the States and the Commonwealth will share the cost of accrued liability relevant to the period prior to 1974 on the same basis as the Commonwealth matched State funds for higher education at that time; the Commonwealth will bear the full cost of accrued liability between 1974 and 1981; and the States and the Commonwealth will share the cost of accrued liability post 1981 on the basis of the Commonwealth meeting all costs up to a limit of 14 per cent of salaries of staff in superannuation schemes. The Commonwealth will provide full funding for superannuation costs in its grants to institutions and recover the States' share. AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH COUNCIL Research funding arrangements were the subject of a separate Government announcement on Budget night. The Government has decided to establish an Australian Research Council (ARC) serviced by the Department of Employment, Education and Training. At the same time the Government has directed that the general recurrent grants to universities for research purposes be reduced by $5m in 1988 and that this amount should be applied to the establishment of new Special Research Centres and Key Centres of Teaching and research, and also to institutions in the advanced education sector for technological and applied science research in agreed areas of speciality. The ARC will advise the Government on the allocation of these funds in co-operation with CTEC. Further details of the ARC and future arrangements for research funding are provided in the Budget night statement. POSTGRADUATE STUDIES AND NURSE EDUCATION The Government recognises the urgent need in some disciplines for the provision of additional opportunities for people in the workforce to upgrade their qualifications and skills, particularly in the areas of computing science and nursing. The provision of post-registration study opportunities for nurses in the higher education sector is an inevitable consequence of the decision to transfer basic nursing education from hospitals to colleges of advanced education. Accordingly, institutions should note the importance of post-registration nurse education to the community and the nursing profession and be prepared to reallocate existing resources in favour of the development of post-registration courses. This reallocation should be achieved through rationalisation of existing provision to take account of changing student preferences and community needs, by co-operative action between institutions to eliminate duplication of course provision, and through the extension of opportunities for undertaking courses in the external mode. STAFFING AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ISSUES In pursuing the Government's objectives in the higher education sector and in developing its policy position for the next triennium, the Commonwealth will be reviewing academic staffing arrangements, including tenure. While I am in broad agreement with the general thrust of the staffing package recommended in the CTEC Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education, I note that issues relating to the salaries and conditions of service of academic staff are now matters under the jurisdiction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In these circumstances, the management of institutions have a key role in the wages determination processes. In particular, the Second Tier mechanism gives management and staff primary responsibility to secure lasting and beneficial productivity improvements. As the funding authority the Commonwealth also has a major role in the determination of these issues including in the context of the 3 per cent superannuation productivity claim and the 4 per cent second tier processes. Accordingly, the Government will be seeking early discussions with staff associations and employers at a national level about the scope for amendments to salary structures and conditions of service which would bring about greater efficiency and responsiveness within higher education. The Commonwealth notes that there are a number of moves for the introduction of awards outside the federal jurisdiction for staff in colleges of advanced education. We will oppose proposals for State awards. They do not reflect the national character of higher education and have the potential to inhibit the mobility of staff and resources across institutions. On similar grounds, the Government expects all higher education institutions which have not already done so to adopt the Superannuation Scheme for Australian Universities, in co-operation with State Governments. OTHER ISSUES There are a number of other important proposals in CTEC's Volume 1 Report for 1988-90 which the Government supports in principle. These proposals include the rehabilitation of buildings, upgrading of equipment, initiatives aimed at equity of access and provision of higher education places in regional areas through use of TAFE facilities. Where institutions wish to pursue such proposals, any additional resources required will need to be found from the redirection of existing resources, or from revenue generated from alternative funding sources. CTEC's REPORT FOR 1988 The following table summarises the Government's funding decisions for 1988. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission is asked to submit its recommendations on the distribution of funds for higher education in 1988 by 5 October 1987, to permit time for consideration of its recommendations and passage of the necessary legislation during the Budget sittings of Parliament. Higher Education Programs for 1988 SUMMARY OF RESOURCES: 1987 and 1988 ($million-Estimated Dec. 1986 Prices) Category of Grant 1987 1988 Change 1987 to 1988 $m $m $m % Higher Education (a) Recurrent Grants... 2 204.4 2 236.3 (b)...+31.9 1.4 Plus estimated revenue from administration charge (c)... 95.3 98.1 + 2.8 3.0 Total Recurrent Funds... 2 299.7 2 334.4 +34.7 1.5 Equipment... 123.6 126.6 + 3.0 2.4 Capital... 86.3 97.5 +11.3 13.0 Total Higher Education... 2 509.5 2 558.5 +49.0 2.0 Evaluations, discipline assessments and reviews... 0.9 0.9 . . . . TOTAL... 2 510.4 2 559.4 +49.0 2.0 (a) Includes Universities, CAEs and Institutes of Tertiary Education. (b) Includes $5.0 million of universities general recurrent grants for research purposes to be allocated on the advice of the Australian Research Council in co-operation with CTEC. (c) Estimated gross collections from the charge ($97.1 million in 1987 and $105.4 million in 1988) converted to estimated December 1986 prices. Variations between totals and sums of components are due to rounding. Senator RYAN —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.06) —The statement on higher education which has not been read here in the Senate is an important one and represents a refreshing change since the appointment of Mr Dawkins in the other place as Minister for Employment, Education and Training. It repudiates the failure of the Hawke Labor Government over the last four years and it is no wonder that the Minister representing that Minister, Senator Ryan, did not read that speech here but had it incorporated in Hansard. Despite its refreshing aspects, it represents, first, a delay of decision by the present Government to act upon the long agenda of necessary items in higher education. Through the setting up of an interdepartmental inquiry within the Minister's own Department, it has put off higher education measures by 12 months when we already know the situation in this country in higher education institutions and what needs to be done. Secondly, it represents an intrusive government approach to the important matters on that agenda and not the freer approach of the Opposition to allow institutions, universities and colleges to determine their own destiny on the guidelines that we would propose. Thirdly, it represents yet another step in the introduction of tertiary tuition fees by a Labor government. During the last Parliament, Senator Ryan announced the introduction of the higher education administration charge. It was a direct repudiation of the Labor Party's undertakings not to introduce tertiary tuition fees. Of course, in the statement we see that that $250 fee has been increased to $263 and has been made more onerous upon students. I will come back to that briefly later. This second step, which directly announces the reintroduction of tuition fees for postgraduate students, is tucked away on the fifteenth page of a 16-page statement. There is no reference in the Budget Papers, in any Press release or in any other public disclosure to this second major repudiation by the Labor Government of its policy not to reintroduce tertiary fees. I will highlight that matter in a few minutes. Finally, the matters of substance in this statement are yet another illustration of the Hawke Labor Government responding positively to the published policies of the Opposition. Before the last election a most careful, well thought through, comprehensive document on higher education policy was put forward by the Opposition. On the basis of that policy the present Minister, Mr Dawkins, has put forth this statement, not on the basis of his own Party platform or on the basis of the complete vacuum of statements that had been put by his own Party before the election. Let me deal briefly with the four aspects of my own evaluation of the Minister's statement. First, the statement is an unnecessary delay of 12 months to put off the decisions that we ought to be seeing the Minister make right now. It is a delay because he wants to distance himself from the failure of his predecessor of the last 4 1/2 years. Year by year the Opposition has criticised the Government for the ineffective growth in higher education places in our universities and colleges. We have said that given the restrictions upon public finance in the Government's Budget, we can see only a small increase from year to year in new places in universities and colleges. This year, true to our assessment, only 5,800 student places are added to the number of places already existing in our universities and colleges. Yet in the Minister's statement that is now before the Parliament the Minister admits that this year there is a net unmet demand of 13,000 to 20,000-that is, those who have been turned away from our universities. This is estimated by the end of the century to be as much as 75,000. All those families in Australia who find that their teenage school leaver sons and daughters are not finding the ability to enrol in a university or college need to face up to the criticism that we have levelled every year at the Hawke Labor Government, that there needs to be a freeing up of institutions so that they can put to work additional private resources to meet the unmet demand. Represented in the statement is a lame apology for the small increment in places of 5,800. The Government is providing additional money for only 3,500 to 4,000 of those places. It is a tiny increase of one per cent in enrolments, and by no means will meet the more than 20,000 net would-be enrollees who will be turned away next year from universities and colleges. The Minister wants to face up to that failure not overnight, not directly, frankly and honestly, but by allowing a 12 months delay to put some distance between himself and his predecessor. Secondly, the delay arises from the way in which this statement in setting goals for the Government is directly responding to Liberal Party of Australia policy. Again, it would be some embarrassment for Mr Dawkins to admit honestly that the main substance of his statement is a direct response to our policy, with the pragmatic Hawke Government yet again borrowing the tried and tested policies of the Opposition. The Minister wants a 12-month buffer in which he can slide into accepting the strengths of the Opposition's policy rather than have a complete turnabout overnight. Also, the reason for this delay is to put some distance between the Minister's own record as the shadow Minister for Education immediately prior to the Hawke Labor Government's election in 1983. We in this chamber remember that in 1982 Mr Dawkins was the shadow Minister for Education, and Mr Hayden sacked him from that job because he had alienated his constituency-the education representatives, not least the independent schools. Mr Hurford was put in to try to patch it up and to try to win back some approval from those whom Mr Dawkins had alienated. Let me remind the Senate of some of the things Mr Dawkins said in 1982 when he was shadow Minister, particularly on the matters to which he has now referred in his statement to the Parliament. Is this the Mr Dawkins who said when he was shadow Minister that the reintroduction of fees was `educationally unsound and economic idiocy'. That is what he said in the Press release of 30 June 1981. He also said that support for fees could be found only among `the back room and back bench ideologues of the Liberal Party'. On another occasion he described fees as `short-sighted folly'. That was said in his Press release of 21 April 1981. In April 1982 he described the then Liberal Government, which was considering fees, as a `dishonest government which is no longer fit to govern'. Does Mr Dawkins wish to apply that statement to his own Government? I ask leave of the Senate to have incorporated in Hansard a copy of John Dawkins's Press statement about the reintroduction of tertiary fees. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- PRESS STATEMENT BY JOHN DAWKINS, M.P., SHADOW MINISTER FOR EDUCATION RE-INTRODUCTION OF TERTIARY FEES Mr Fife's persistent attempts to re-introduce tertiary fees are rapidly giving him the reputation as Minister for Lost Causes. The bill will be rejected by the Senate just as an identical bill was rejected late last year. The case against this proposal is even stronger now than it was then. the re-introduction of tertiary fees in any form is a clear breach of an undertaking given by the Minister just prior to the 1980 election. the limited application of fees in this legislation is designed to establish a fee collecting mechanism which the government will extend to collect fees from all students. fees for post-graduate students will undermine our already inadequate research effort and will reduce the supply of trained research workers for business, government and higher education. these fees represent a thoroughly unfair penalty on post-graduate students already hard hit by completely inadequate financial assistance. The government should instead adopt policies aimed at the regeneration of Australia's research effort and the encouragement of increased enrolments in post-graduate studies. The Opposition will continue to reject this proposal and with the rest of Australia will scoff at the Government's threat to call an election to discipline the un-cooperative Senate. At the time of the next election, whenever it is held, the people's resentment will be directed not at the Senate but at this dishonest government which is no longer fit to govern. Canberra, 22 April 1982. Contact: John Dawkins, MP. (062) 72 6588 Senator TEAGUE —These are the reasons-political reasons-for this 12-month delay. No decisions were announced in today's statement. Rather, the Minister announced an inquiry which will give him 12 months to put a little distance between him and his statements on these issues that I have mentioned. He also wants time to percolate a change within the Australian Labor Party. He is lumbered with the platform of the Labor Party, which still stands quite clearly and sharply opposed to tertiary tuition fees. The Minister wants time to move because he sees that the plateau that I have described every month over the last several years in the Senate chamber-the situation that we in Australia are locked into until we free up private resources-needs to be changed. We have to get off the plateau by overcoming this ideological barrier to appropriate supplementary resources coming from private sources. There is explicit reference to this matter in the statement, which I regard as pragmatic in the Hawke tradition. I know Senator Robert Ray would welcome the betterment of higher education in Australia. In saying that these measures are all a delay, I remind the Senate very briefly of the reports and the information we already have. There is the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission review of efficiency and effectiveness in higher education. That review was extensive, and it has been with us for months. What is the Government doing in response to it? It is having another inquiry. There was a favourable reference to that review in the Minister's statement. It was described as a good starting point or a basis that will be useful. But instead of making decisions on the basis of that review, the Government is putting off the matter for 12 months. May I be a little self-indulgent and mention the tenure inquiry. I happened to initiate and chair a Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts inquiry into tenure and this Government, in five years, has not yet responded to the excellent set of recommendations that have been well received and acted upon by many higher education institutions. But the Government has not directly responded. Senator Messner —Mr Deputy President, I believe these arguments are of such import that we should have more Government senators in the chamber to listen to them, particularly the representative of the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. I draw your attention to the state of the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that all that is necessary is to call attention to the absence of a quorum. There is no requirement for a speech. (Quorum formed) Senator TEAGUE —We already have the reports of the efficiency and effectiveness review and the Senate tenure inquiry, and we have the institutions' own submissions for the coming triennium. They have all been received by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. They relate not only to 1988 but also to 1989 and 1990. All this information is fully available. The Government, instead of making decisions on these matters, wants a 12-month delay for political reasons. I refer also to the higher education policy of the Liberal Party. It is clear and has been published and even Senator Button, who is at the table, will have read it carefully and encouraged his colleague Mr Dawkins to respond to it. There are also international comparisons. We have known for years that Australia is falling short compared with Japan, the United States of America and West Germany. Yet again trotted out in the Minister's statement is the finding that Australia is inadequate. Instead of decisions being made to do something about the matter, it is just put off to another internal, interdepartmental committee inquiry. Similarly, the reports on unmet demand are well known. In May last year and May this year the Vice-Chancellors Committee and the Principals Committee published a tragic increase in unmet demand. We know that we have these problems, we know what we need to do about them, so why should we have this delay? The Government's approach is to be intrusive. It is the approach of a Big Brother government, distinctively different from the approach that the Liberal Party has advocated and continues to advocate; that is, to give guidelines and national goals to our institutions and to give them the real resources with which to prosecute those goals and to allow them the flexibility to make their own decisions, and to heighten their freedom and their autonomy. This statement, in great contrast, represents the Government being more intrusive upon those institutions. For instance, on page 9 we read: We need to address such issues directly and deliberately, where necessary using funding arrangements as a primary level for reform. The Government will provide leadership and national direction in this process. That is a set of euphemisms for a Big Brother approach, for increased government intrusion. Similarly, page 10 states that the announced policy discussion paper is to be commissioned entirely within the portfolio of the Minister. The Secretary to his Department will establish a task force, and there is only a halting reference to some participation-perhaps just one person; maybe not the Chairman-by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. Then we have this lame statement: Consultations will be held with outside bodies as appropriate. I impress upon the Minister-I do not wish to warn him-that the Opposition will be watching most carefully over the next six to nine months to see that consultation takes place not only with institutions but with every person and group in Australia that has a right to react to and respond to the statement that has been put down here today. The statement about fees is remarkable. I need to quote two paragraphs from page 15 in this regard. This will horrify all the Labor Party branches and all the students around Australia who thought that they could let the Labor Party off scot-free in the last election, and just demonstrate, I think quite wrongly, against the Liberal Party's approach of bringing supplementary private resources to higher education. The two paragraphs on page 15 of the Minister's statement read: In addition, we have taken some early steps in the process of reform. Research funding will be less the exclusive province of the universities, and some existing research funding will be redirected through targeted schemes. The Government will also relax the prohibition on fees for a limited range of postgraduate courses involving professional upgrading for people already in employment, as for example in the case of specialised postgraduate courses for medical practitioners. This latter measure responds to requests made by a number of institutions which wish to expand their course offerings and revenue base. Fees will be charged at the discretion of individual institutions, subject to my approval, and the Commonwealth will not reduce the level of its general funding for institutions on account of revenue generated by fees. If the higher education administration charge in the last Parliament by the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan), despite Australian Labor Party policy, was the first step towards the reintroduction of tertiary fees, Mr Dawkins's decision is the second step. It will provide for fees for postgraduate students. Clearly, the Opposition welcomes the flexibility and honest accountability associated with the supplementary resources which would be raised. I know from my consultations with vice-chancellors and principals that they welcome being able to initiate new activity, but the hypocrisy which this move demonstrates must be understood by the Government and the Labor Party. The statement represents a response to the positive policies put forward before the election by the Liberal Party of Australia. In enormous contrast to what happened during the last two Parliaments, when we did not hear any of these statements from Senator Ryan and the Labor Government, Mr Dawkins now, refreshingly, talks about the need for a change of attitude, processes and structures. He calls for increased priority for teaching and research related to Australia's direct development needs and for increased teaching and research priority in technology. Only a few years ago I put it to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) that there was an outcry among Labor Party supporters at the idea that there would be even a linking of education to employment need. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has started to change that approach in his Party and I welcome that move after all these years. The change is represented in Mr Dawkins's refreshing approach. He says, `Let us ensure that this country's education resources are used to achieve goals of priority for everyone in the community, not some indulgent scholastic activities which have no direct relevance to Australia's development needs, employment and technological resources.' Government senators have been hearing this type of statement only from us in recent years, and increasingly from Senator Button; and now we have heard it from another Minister, Mr Dawkins. We welcome the references on pages 11, 12 and 13 to growth, productivity and efficiency; yet when Opposition senators advocated those aims in recent years, Senator Ryan would parody us and on the Government's behalf criticise us for treating education too much like an industry or something in the market-place. I reject that parody. At last there is a Labor education Minister who is responding to what the Liberal Party has urged as being in Australia's best interests. I note the healthy, sensible references in the statement to the ending of the binary system, whereby colleges of advanced education were seen as second-class and separate from universities. Involved with that reassessment is a reassessment of the research element in the salaries of every university staff member. The Australian Research Council is to review the full resource in salary form of research in universities and make sure that it goes wherever the centres of excellence are, whether in one part of the former binary system or another. I have already referred to tenure and to the call in the statement by the Minister for flexibility, incentive and performance. These were exactly the criteria that determined our recommendations in the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts inquiry of which Senator Robert Ray, who is sitting opposite, and I were members some years ago. The freeing up of private resources and employing them in our higher education institutions will be important. Similarly, there is a place for appropriate private institutions. Here we have a healthy departure, in the Minister's acceptance of private institutions, from previous policy. It is in great contrast to Senator Ryan's knee-jerk response in rejecting, for instance, the Bond University on the Gold Coast in Queensland. I welcome the references to collaboration with industry, the importance of management, particularly at middle levels in our institutions, and the importance of bringing up to date in practice the relationship that higher education institutions should have with the Commonwealth as against the States. I also welcome the reference to post-graduate education, teacher education resources, particularly in maths and science, and the need to clarify and make more flexible and useful the relationship between higher education institutions and technical and further education. These sensible initiatives which, unfortunately, are compromised by the Minister's delay of 12 months, are long overdue for action in developing our higher education institutions. I urge the Minister to involve members of the Opposition in the Parliament in the review that is to proceed over the next nine months; not just to consult where he may, in a limited way, think is appropriate but to consult with all the interests around Australia to ensure that the good goals that are mostly set out in this statement can be achieved. (Quorum formed) Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.35) —The ministerial statement put down in the other place earlier today, and incorporated in Hansard by the Special Minister of State, Senator Ryan, on behalf of the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Mr Dawkins, entitled `The Challenge for Higher Education in Australia' is a rather curious document. It goes through and rehearses a number of the criticisms that have been made over time of the education system in Australia and seemingly accepts those criticisms that have been made in this place in education debates over the past four or five years. It seems to suggest that, yes, those criticisms have validity and that the Government is now about to have an inquiry to find out what it needs to do. The Australian Democrats support the Government's belated recognition of the important role of higher education in the economic development of this country. Honourable senators who have engaged in those previous debates will remember that over a long time-in fact since I came here in 1981-I have raised time and again the importance of funding higher education institutions. I have used as an argument, but as only one of the arguments, the enormous return that the country receives from its higher education institutions. On behalf of the Democrats I campaigned very strongly on this during the last election and criticised both the Government's record and the Opposition's rather odd policies, which I think would have only compounded the problem and not solved it. However, there must be a concern that the Government is seeking to direct higher education excessively into a particular dimension of activity while neglecting the obvious and important role that education has across the board. A very interesting article by a member of the World Bank research staff entitled `Links Between Education and the Labour Market: a broader perspective' in the European Journal of Education towards the end of last year made some very pertinent points with regard to this attempt. After summarising a range of measures that have been carried out in a whole series of countries, the conclusion was: . . . state intervention in education may in fact do a disservice to achieving a better link between education and the labour market. (Quorum formed) It also stated: The dismal account of failed policies may give the impression that achieving a close link between education and the labour market is like searching for the Holy Grail. The article goes on to detail some of the reasons why it is very difficult to achieve that link-which is the only major new item in the statement. Firstly, there is the simple lack of an empirical base linking education and the labour market. Secondly, governments are heavily involved in the financing and regulation of education. Thirdly, and very importantly, there is the political cost of adopting a policy conducive to long term social welfare, even if it is unpopular by present day demands. The Government wants a new catch-cry. It is probably relatively superficial. One hopes that in the ensuing inquiry it will be fleshed out and more attention will be given to the abundant amount of research which is available. The direction of research and teaching to short term goals to the detriment of other socially desirable and useful work which higher education institutions do is not the only problem we are likely to encounter if the Government lurches from its present position to a wholehearted embrace of the economic benefits of education. It is unfortunate that these Government moves do not tend to occur smoothly but rather in a lurching fashion. It rushes right across the spectrum, leaving all the intermediate points floundering. As was announced prior to the statement, the Government wishes to aggregate the various small research schemes into one larger Australian Research Council. This is something that I, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, have advocated for quite a long time. However, in doing so the Democrats have raised a series of safeguards which we believe ought to be incorporated into the Australian Research Council. We hope that the Government, in moving in this way, will incorporate those safeguards. It is very important who serves on the Research Council. There are a variety of ways in which one can allocate research. The best way is to try to get an adequate mix of those who are looking at the longer term needs of the community and those who are acutely aware of the current research taking place in any field. Professor Hanbury Brown, in a book called The Wisdom of Science, makes a pertinent point when he refers to the difficulty of funding research and what is likely to happen if we get it wrong. On page 117 of his book he says: Paradoxically, the popular, often self-righteous and apparently innocuous demand that all research should be relevant to our social needs is one of the greatest dangers to the advance of science, and to the long-term satisfaction of these needs. To insist on relevance in basic research is rather like insisting on naturalism in art; if you are successful you end up with something not radically new, but comfortingly familiar . . . To whom can we entrust the disbursement of money for basic research? As we have already seen the choice of what research we should support involves, amongst other questions, a judgment of what is most likely to advance the frontiers of science. That is inescapably a scientific matter and must be done largely by scientists. If we give the job to a group of non-scientists they will, especially if they are elderly, probably give most of the available funds to medical research which, like missionary work in the past, they will think of as being as good as beyond reproach. (Quorum formed) The professor raises a very interesting and pertinent example when he points out that cancer research in the United States has been done largely by pouring vast amounts of money into medical research, whereas the major advances in cancer research may, and probably will, take place in molecular physics-a branch of science apparently remote from medicine-and that the advance of molecular physics will depend on other branches of science, such as mathematics and computing. Whilst one might want to talk about relevance, it is often difficult to know what is precisely relevant to the item in question. By ruling out a priori certain areas as not being relevant, one is likely to stunt rather than to advance the operations of science and scientific research. These views conflict very much with the values which are expressed in the first part of the statement by Minister Dawkins, made in the other place earlier today. The second major part of the ministerial statement is devoted to a discussion of the types of items the Government intends to look at and on which it intends to put out a policy discussion paper towards the end of this year. Unfortunately, the inquiry is to be a departmental inquiry-a rather extraordinary proposal considering the extent of the operation that is concerned. (Quorum formed) I thought I was trying to go rather dispassionately through this, but it seems to have raised the ire of somebody. The point I was referring to, which is mentioned in the second part of the paper, states that the Government is looking at a departmental inquiry into the very wide-ranging operation of the tertiary education system in Australia. I think it is wrong in principle and in practice that such a far-reaching inquiry, upon which the Government will make an evident determination of its position, should be conducted behind closed doors by the Department of Employment, Education and Training without the benefit of input from the public and from those sectors and groupings within the community such as fellows, college academics, vice-chancellors committees amongst others, and the directors and principals of higher education; they should be allowed ready access to all of the points that have been raised in this inquiry. I would like to look at the propositions that the inquiry will address. It will address the desirable rates of growth in higher education and the resources required to achieve this growth. I think that to suggest in 1987 that we need an inquiry to look at that item is rather odd inasmuch as we have a fairly good understanding of the numbers that we need and the growth that we need. The problem is that this and previous governments have refused to finance the type of growth that we need. I think that any inquiry would better address its time to the availability of the resources from the Government either in this Budget or from future governments and, based on that make some determination. It is very easy. We know that we are, for example, short each year by between 13,000 to 20,000 places for young people who try to get into our tertiary institutions because we have failed to provide the money for them. We find in this statement also that furphy that was run in the Budget, that somehow there are over 5,000 new places. But there are not; in fact only 3,000 new places are being funded and those additional 2,000 places will be taken at the expense of mature aged students. Let us get very clear what we are talking about-the money is not being provided. It is being provided only at a level of about $3,000 to $4,000 per student, yet overseas students are being charged upwards of $5,000 or $6,000. That is supposed to be full cost recovery and sometimes that is said to be 50 per cent of full cost recovery. The Government cannot have it both ways and say on the one hand `We are funding you to the tune of $3,500 to $4,000 and that is all you are getting for these new places' and on the other hand say to another group of individuals from overseas that the 50 per cent of full cost recovery is $5,500, which it is saying to some students in some courses. The next item to be addressed is general productivity issues in higher education. We had the absurdity in the May mini-Budget when the Government said that cutting the amount of money available to the institutions would make them more efficient. The absurdity of that is exacerbated only by the previous item that I had referred to. The Government has said, `If you pick up more students, we will pay you less'. The next paragraph in the Minister's speech refers to the scope for further improvement in efficiency from rationalisation of the operations of institutions. If $1m is cut, for example, from the budget of a major university, such as the University of Queensland in my State, presumably that is going to make it more efficient. By the same token, presumably cutting $2m off the Budget will make it twice as efficient, and cutting $3m off will make it three times more efficient. I think the Government has not come to grips with the operation of the various levels of the institutions in this country and what effort they are putting in. Whilst it is all very easy to knock academics and higher education institutions, I am sure that when everybody in this place and most people in the community need a good lawyer they make sure that they hire one who has been academically trained. Equally, when they want a doctor they want one who is properly trained, and when they want a dentist they also want one who is properly trained. Everybody wants the services of properly trained individuals, but they are quite happy to knock those institutions which produce that wide range of groups of people in our society, whether it be social workers, art historians or people interested in Aboriginal languages or whatever. The point about Aboriginal languages is, I think, very interesting. If this Government and previous governments had funded the study of Aboriginal languages-which is one of the subjects mentioned by Mr Dawkins as being of any use-the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) might not now be running around with the type of problems that he has, trying to fix up the Bicentennial. If that funding had been provided we might have known more about Aboriginal society and we might have understood it better and been willing to move to a proper accommodation of the just demands of the Aboriginal people of this country. The next paragraph refers to the more effective use of limited resources by eliminating the `me too' approach to course developments in institutions. I am not against eliminating the unnecessary duplication of courses providing it is unnecessary duplication. Because a course happens to be taught in another institution does not necessarily mean that it is an unnecessary duplication, particularly if a student lives in Cairns and the course is being conducted in Hobart. This will apply until we are willing to put some money into student accommodation-which we have not been in the past-and until we are willing to fly students to, and accommodate them in different parts of this continent so that they can take part in the courses which are necessary for the fulfilment of their studies. About five years ago I advocated that rather than duplicating many of the things that have gone on in the previous five years we should spend some money on student accommodation, and since that time we have not done so. The future of the present binary system will be looked into. During the last election campaign, on behalf of the Australian Democrats I said that we would be happy to look at a movement away from the binary system. There has been a development within colleges of advanced education that I think indicates that we in fact, if not in name, moved away from the binary system a fairly long time ago. However, I have the distinct feeling that the movement away from the binary system is not a way of seeking rationalisation and getting the proper names of proper institutions, but rather it is a means of saving money. I am quite sure that the piddling amount of money which is provided for research in our colleges of advanced education (CAEs) will be taken as a new benchmark for research in universities rather than the other way around. Not until we get a clear indication from the Government that it will raise the resource level of the CAEs to the level of universities in terms of research I think that we should stay precisely where we are, thank you very much. That also goes for the institutes of technology. The statement goes on to mention that `without prejudice to academic freedom' the task force will look at a variety of issues, such as a reform of the tenure system, schemes for selective early retirement, staff management and appraisal systems and the provision of greater incentives for performance. However, the Minister fails to recognise that since a Senate report regarding tenure, there has in fact been a great movement in higher education institutions. Almost every institution in this country has schemes for selective early retirement. There are specific schemes for staff management and appraisal systems and there are incentives for performance and there has been a reform of the tenure system. In some cases this has been a poor move. I do not want to digress here by looking at the problems of tutors in our higher education institutions. Nevertheless, there have been movements but they have not been recognised in this statement. It seems as though the new Minister has decided that he will be the new broom and sweep this area clean, as the higher education institutions have been doing nothing since this matter was first raised in the Senate. As Senator Teague, who was Chairman of that Committee, said, the report was brought in on tenure. A lot has been done. I think it would only be fair that a major statement such as this, which is brought down in both chambers, should give some acknowledgment to the moves in the higher education institution area. The statement mentions a range of measures to better distribute resources across the system. The points I made just now referred to that, but the Minister goes on, very oddly, to talk about two items. He mentions fees and reiterates the Australian Labor Party's view on fees. I must admit to being in a total quandary on what that means. I thought it referred to the imposition of fees, but presumably the statement says something about there not being an imposition of fees. Whilst we see new avenues for fees to be imposed in post-graduate studies and in technical and further education institutions, we see a whole new movement down the line to accommodate that particular item. I would imagine that the Liberal Party would have been happy with that-although Senator Teague did not suggest this-because it is only when full fees are applied that some movement of the private education institutions into the mainstream of higher education will take place. As I have said in this place, the economics of private higher education institutions in Australia will not work unless they get subsidies from the Government. There is no such thing as a private education institution; let us get that clear. Some are subsidised more by the public purse, and some less. The report mentions the reform of institutional management and decision-making processes, including changes to the operation of governing bodies and academic boards. A great deal has taken place in the past five years, but those changes yet again have not been acknowledged in the Minister's statement. I think it is very important that we should look at the vital area of Commonwealth-State relations in higher education. We have had a jumble of operations in that regard. I think that this is a very important area that needs to be put under the microscope. However, I think it is rather odd that Commonwealth-State relations should be put under the microscope with a Commonwealth department looking at them. This is a very odd sort of situation. I cannot imagine that one would get very much co-operation from the State departments by going down that track. I could not agree more about the balance of our approach to post-graduate education, particularly at the doctorate level. An absurd situation has developed in Australia where in percentage terms fewer people are undertaking higher education, particularly in terms of undertaking doctorates in this country, than has been the case for many years. This is an extraordinary situation that we are now confronting. In fact, we are actively turning away the very brightest people who have finished their undergraduate courses because we do not have the resources to develop their education. We spend $15,000 to $20,000 getting people through primary and secondary education and their first graduate degree and then we say that we cannot afford to go on. We spend that money but cannot afford to spend a few thousand dollars which we should be spending to capitalise on that work. This Government, as with the previous Fraser Government, has not been willing to put up that money for the development of our major resource, our citizens. I welcome the comments that were made in regard to the requirements for teacher education. I hope that at long last we will get rid of the absurdity floating around this country that in fact we are oversupplied with teachers. Anybody who has actually visited schools will know that we have an acute shortage of computer teachers. We have an acute shortage of science teachers. In fact, in some of the high schools in Queensland, science-that is, physics and chemistry-is being taught by domestic science teachers because there is nobody else to teach this subject. In fact, English history teachers are teaching mathematics because we have no maths trained teachers. Those maths teachers have gone into computing education because we do not have any computer teachers. At the moment this country is bereft of qualified teachers. I hope that members of this chamber and the other place will not spread the types of rumours that have turned young people off going into teaching. We are at a crisis point in terms of getting qualified teachers only because young people have been led to believe that there is no longer a teaching profession-a very hard profession but a profession nevertheless-and that there are not openings for them. There are openings and we need those people. I would like to make many other points but about half of my time has been taken up by quorum calls. I hope that when the Government gets round to this inquiry, it does not have a departmental inquiry but will conduct a wider inquiry. The Government has identified major points of concern within the community. Let those points be of concern to the wider community and let that whole wider education community take part in such an inquiry. The inquiry should not be a little in-house job with the Government coming up with its own decisions which it has probably made already. The education community will not be convinced that those decisions have not been made already unless in fact that community is included in the wider study. Question resolved in the affirmative. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —I inform the Senate that letters have been received from the Government Whip in the Senate and the Opposition Whip in the Senate nominating Senators Colston and Archer to serve as trustees on the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948, the Senate, consequent upon the resignation of Senator the Hon. Robert Ray and the retirement of Senator the Rt Hon. R. G. Withers, revoke the appointment of Senator Ray as a trustee of the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust and appoint Senators Archer and Colston as trustees on and from this day. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.05) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The results, as indicated in the 1987 annual report of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (OTC) which has just been tabled, are very significant for the year and reveal that the organisation had a very good year with a profit of about $68m. Of course, about $40m of that will be coming back to the Government by way of dividend in order to fund, no doubt, the reduced Budget deficit, which is a matter of some contention as a result of the Government's cooked figures in the Budget. Before going too far into this matter, I think it is interesting to note some of the real achievements of the OTC, which I am sure all honourable senators would agree has been a very successful and most worthwhile statutory body. According to the information provided in the report, OTC has been a very profitable organisation when one compares its earnings with those of general media companies. Looking at the year ended 1986 we find that OTC made a profit on shareholders' funds of about 22.1 per cent compared with all media companies of 22.6 per cent-in other words, roughly the same. However, in the preceding year the comparison was some 22 per cent and 10.9 per cent. However, the profit of OTC as a percentage of shareholders' funds has now risen to 28 per cent. That is the kind of result we hope will continue as far as OTC is concerned. Having noted that, it is important to note that in the report OTC's Managing Director, Mr George Maltby, draws attention to the challenges of the future for the OTC. In particular, he makes this comment: Telecommunications services in Australia and around the world are undergoing major changes. Chief amongst the forces for change are the pressures from telecommunications users for a wider range of services at lower prices, and the emergence of technology which sweeps away past limitations. It is that last comment to which I would like to draw attention because it is expanded on in an OTC Press statement which states: Maltby said he believed government regulation should be reduced to the minimum necessary to guarantee the safety and integrity of the network. As far as possible, regulation should be a function of the interplay of market forces and competitive law. This almost precisely sums up the position of the Liberal Party of Australia in relation to the OTC. Indeed, this is exactly what we have been advocating. Our policies reveal a stance in favour of the deregulation of bodies such as OTC. They need to be given maximum opportunities for developing all of their capacities in terms of providing Australians with an effective, sophisticated and up to date modern service, both within Australia and overseas. I think that is the main message of the annual report. This is quite apart from the obvious incapacity of this Government to consider adequately the capital requirements of OTC. There has been some recent publicity within the Labor Party of an argument that has been going to and fro about whether it is necessary to fund more and more of the capital requirements of these companies from private sources. No doubt the Right, Left and Centre Left factions of the Australian Labor Party will have to work out whether the party will eventually support privatisation. However, the key point is that if one looks at a profit of about $70m and one requires about $40m of that to be paid back to the Government by way of dividend, and if one already has a massive investment of half a billion dollars or more, one is leaving very little in the kitty for the development of the new fibre optics technology, the new technologies that will be required for the future. I believe that the time has come for the Government to face up to its responsibilities, to settle this very divisive argument that it is apparently having within its own organisation over the capital requirements of such bodies and to support the Opposition's position, which is the sale of 49 per cent of OTC to the public. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(4.11) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Academic Salaries Tribunal's annual report for 1986-87 is only a few pages and the first comment I wish to make is to commend Mr McKenzie, the member of the Tribunal, the person appointed for the one-year period from 24 July 1986. I note that he reported two days before the expiry of that year. His report is clear and concise. It also demonstrates that there is no continuing need for the Tribunal and that it should be dismantled. I note that there is nothing in the report that indicates that any substantial decision was taken during the past year. The cost of the Tribunal was a little over $6,000-$2,000 in salary to the member of the Tribunal for the few days of sitting that were required, some $2,000 in travel allowance and air fares and $2,000 in administrative costs. There were only two activities of the Tribunal during the year. One was to note national wage decisions and the second was to receive two requests, both of which were quickly defused without there being any substantial decision. This demonstrates that given the present wage determination procedures in Australia and given the unionisation of academics and the initiative that can be taken by their employers in universities and colleges, there is no continuing need for the Academic Salaries Tribunal. Finally, I refer to a matter which was touched on in responding to the statement by the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan) less than an hour ago. The Liberal Party of Australia has called for a minimum of Commonwealth regulation. In `The Growth Plan for Higher Education', the policy put forward by the coalition before the last election, we had a reference under the heading `A Minimum of Commonwealth Regulation'. It says: The restoration of academic and administrative autonomy to higher education institutions is central to our policy plans. We believe that the higher education system will more effectively satisfy the diverse demands placed upon it if control resides with each institution, rather than the Commonwealth Government. We look forward to higher education institutions: determining their own admission policies; deciding their own staff policies; choosing their own special emphases and interests; interacting with the community as they see fit; and planning their own futures. Consistent with these expectations, the next Liberal/National Party Government will dismantle the Academic Salaries Tribunal so that institutions and their employees are again free directly to establish mutually satisfactory arrangements for salaries and conditions of employment. As a consequence of the changed nature of the funding of higher education, we will also allow . . . We then detail a list of other things which are part of our policy. That is still a realistic position not only for the coalition to adopt but also for the Government. I urge the Minister to consider it now in response to this report. We in the Senate are receiving this annual report. There is no reason to believe that this might be the last such report so I urge the Government to consider yet again adopting Liberal Party policies by dismantling the Tribunal. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(4.16) —by leave-On behalf of the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans), I move: That the following amendments be made to the Standing Orders: (a) Standing Order 33: Leave out ``Standing Orders'', insert ``Procedure''. (b) Standing Order 36A: Leave out paragraph (2), insert the following new paragraph: ``(2) (a) Unless otherwise ordered, the Committee shall consist of six Senators, three being members of the Government to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and three being Senators who are not members of the Government, to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators. (b) The nominations of the Opposition or any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators shall be determined by agreement between the Opposition and any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators, and, in the absence of agreement duly notified to the President, the question as to the representation on the Committee shall be determined by the Senate.''. Paragraph (3): Leave out ``four'', insert ``3''. After paragraph (3), insert the following new paragraphs: ``(3A) The Committee shall elect a Government member as Chairman. ``(3B) The Chairman may from time to time appoint a member of the Committee to be Deputy-Chairman and the member so appointed shall act as Chairman of the Committee at any time there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. ``(3C) In the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, shall have a casting vote.''. (c) Standing Order 36AA: Leave out paragraph (1), insert the following new paragraph: ``(1) At the commencement of each Parliament, Standing Committees shall be appointed, and each committee shall have power to confer or sit as a joint committee with a similar committee of the House of Representatives. ``(1A) Unless otherwise ordered, the Standing Committees shall be as follows: (a) The Standing Committee on Community Affairs; (b) The Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training; (c) The Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts; (d) The Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration; (e) The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; (f) The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology; (g) The Standing Committee on Infrastructure; and (h) The Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.''. (d) Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications: Delete Standing Order 38. Consequential Amendments (i) to Standing Order 96: Leave out ``IV. (in the case of a Petition against a return) `That the Petition be referred at once to the Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications;' or V.'', insert ``or IV.''. (ii) to Standing Order 327: Leave out ``, and shall forthwith refer the same to the Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications''. (e) Sittings of Committees during sittings of Senate: After Standing Order 300, insert the following new Standing Order: ``300a. All Committees of the Senate and Joint Committees of both Houses of the Parliament may sit during the sittings of the Senate for the purpose of deliberating in private session, but shall not otherwise sit during the sittings of the Senate unless by special Order of the Senate.''. Consequential Amendments (i) paragraph 36aa (19), leave out the paragraph; (ii) paragraph 36aaa (13), leave out the paragraph; (iii) delete Standing Order 39; (iv) Standing Order 300, leave out ``; but no Select Committee may sit during the sittings of the Senate''; and (v) Standing Order 301, leave out ``All Committees'', insert ``Committees sitting contrary to Standing Order 300a''. Senate Committees...22 September 1987 SENATE 467 468 SENATE 22 September 1987...Senate Committees Senate Committees...22 September 1987 SENATE 469 470 SENATE 22 September 1987...Senate Committees Senate Committees...22 September 1987 SENATE 471 472 SENATE 22 September 1987...Senate Committees Senate Committees...22 September 1987 SENATE 473 474 SENATE 22 September 1987...Senate Committees Senate Committees...22 September 1987 SENATE 475 476 SENATE 22 September 1987...Senate Committees Senate Committees...22 September 1987 SENATE 477 478 SENATE 22 September 1987...Senate Committees Senate Committees...22 September 1987 SENATE 479 480 SENATE 22 September 1987...Senate Committees Senate Committees...22 September 1987 SENATE 481 482 SENATE 22 September 1987...Senate Committees Senate Committees...22 September 1987 SENATE 483 484 SENATE 22 September 1987...Senate Committees Before I speak to this motion and the motion to follow I suggest that when it comes to debates and amendments we deal with them item by item, with the concurrence of the chamber, for the convenience of honourable senators. At the moment we have before us a committee system designed by a committee. Following the last election there was some desire evinced by back- bench members of the Australian Labor Party to look again at the committee system, not just in this chamber but also in the other place. Accordingly, a committee was elected by Caucus-a committee of seven-to look at the committee system. This committee has come up with a variety of suggestions, which survived the Ministry with a few minuscule changes, survived the Caucus with a couple more adjustments, and now appear before us today having been further amended to try to anticipate some of the views of the Opposition and minority groups in this chamber. We will try as much as possible to co-operate in order to get a general consensus approach, if you like, to the committee system. Like all compromises it probably has some irrationalities still within it. Of course, the major committee reform does not occur in this chamber. It occurs in the House of Representatives, which in the next two or three days will have a fairly full and comprehensive committee system for the first time. There has been an attempt as much as possible to have a mirror image set of committees in the Senate for the convenience of the parties and for people's understanding of each committee's work. There is a desire on all sides to make sure that the Senate and House of Representatives committees are not considering exactly the same reference, which I think we would all agree is a waste of resources. As it currently appears, the committee structure will again enhance the activities of this chamber, based on its previous work. The way in which these committees are set up means that again we should have some fairly comprehensive reports come into this chamber-reports written and arrived at in a slightly different atmosphere from that of debates in this chamber. Quite often governments are quite willing to accept the views of committees once they have looked at some of these items where previously they would never have given countenance to such suggestions. I commend the various suggestions to the Senate for its consideration and look forward to Opposition and other comments. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(4.19) —I was interested in Senator Robert Ray's description of this committee system having been designed by a committee. Of course, the old saying is `A camel is a horse designed by a committee' but I prefer the definition of a committee as being like `a baby with a loud voice at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other'. I will not say that this committee had no sense of responsibility. In fact it has drawn the attention of the Senate to a large number of matters which we must consider. Our committee system has been one of the great achievements of this Senate. For more than 50 years we have had a Senate Committee on Regulations and Ordinances which is by far the most effective method of control over delegated legislation in any Westminster-style parliament. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills is in my opinion a model for all parliaments. The eight legislative and general purpose standing committees, set up in the early 1970s with all party support, played an important part in the Senate performing its role of critically examining the actions and proposed legislation of successive governments. Now the House of Representatives proposes to set up its own committee structure loosely modelled on ours. I have severe doubts whether the committee structure in the House of Representatives will function effectively because, under responsible government, committees in the popular House will always be controlled by the government of the day. There is no way in which a competent Minister, party discipline being what it is, would permit committees to delve into areas the Minister does not want delved into. These are the very areas-whether they be actions or proposed Bills-which should be delved into by an effective committee system to find out why the government does not want them looked at. Nevertheless, we wish the House of Representatives well in its intentions and hope that its committees will be more effective than I think they will be. We must ensure at all costs that the setting up of these committees in the House of Representatives does not damage the effectiveness of our committee system here in the Senate. For the great quality of the committee system in the Senate is that it has not been controlled by the Government. Even during the six years from 1975 to 1981 when the Senate was controlled by the then Government there was sufficient feeling among Government senators of the importance of the committee system so that it continued to function free of government shackles, or excessive government controls. For instance, the Freedom of Information Bill was referred to a Senate standing committee during that period, because sufficient Government senators thought that the proposed Bill needed substantial public examination. One consequence-perhaps the only beneficial consequence-of the 1984 increase in the size of the Senate is to make it unlikely, at any rate for the foreseeable future, that any government will control the Senate. I am not saying that our system of legislative and general purpose committees is perfect. It is not. We have referred far too few Bills to these committees for public examination. Although almost everyone agrees that Bills that have been referred to standing committees for public examination have been substantially improved as a result, or at the very least that the subsequent debate in the Senate has been more informed, despite these advantages, governments of whatever persuasion will always be very reluctant to see their Bills subjected to such a process. I would like to see an improved mechanism for referring Bills to committee, and a greatly increased flow of such Bills to committees, and I shall be moving an amendment to that end in this debate. I repeat that the key reason for the effectiveness of the Senate committee system is that the structure is set up by agreement of all parties in the Senate, and the activities of the committees are not dominated by the Government. In the Opposition's view, the original motion to amend Standing Orders proposed by Senator Gareth Evans was defective in a number of ways. I should like to pay tribute to Senator Robert Ray for the reasonableness and open-mindedness with which he handled our criticisms of the original motion. I shall not go any further in praising him, Mr President, for fear that I might damage his reputation among his colleagues for ruthlessness. The agreements that were reached to meet the Opposition's concerns were these: first, we were concerned that foreign affairs, trade and defence would not be covered by a Senate committee, the surveillance being left to a joint committee, over which the Senate would have no control. We believe that it is fundamental that the Senate committee system should cover all areas of government activity. The Government has agreed to reinstate the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and this is reflected in the motion that is before us. Our second concern was over the question of separate Estimates committees. The arguments for and against separate Estimates committees-that is, whether they should be covered by the legislative and general purpose committees-are narrowly balanced, but the Opposition felt that the balance of argument was in favour of the continuation of separate Estimates committees. The Government agreed to this, and elimination of the Estimates committees is not in the motion before us. Thirdly, although the Opposition strongly supported the re-establishment of the Select Committee on Animal Welfare because of the important work it is doing, we were concerned that it would have four members only. As two of the places would go to the Government and one to the Australian Democrats, this left only one place for the Opposition. Although the Liberal and National parties in opposition are working very closely together, we are in fact two separate parties and we want to have a position available for both a Liberal senator and a National Party senator. The Government has agreed to an increase in the committee size to six which permits that. The Opposition was also mildly concerned about the handling of public works. In the past public works of over $6m have been considered by a joint committee of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Under the Government's proposals this activity would be handled solely by a House of Representatives committee. Although it would obviously be absurd to have two separate committees, one in the Senate and one in the House of Representatives, looking at public works proposals, the Opposition was concerned at the non-involvement of senators in this important function, and the Government has agreed to re-examine the problem. Fifthly, the Opposition was concerned about its representation on the standing committees. By the Standing Orders, the committee size, unless otherwise ordered, is six-three government and three non-government. This meant that if an Independent or Australian Democrat senator joined the committee-and we would welcome that senator's involvement-the Opposition numbers would fall to two, unless the committee size were increased. The Government has agreed to do this, to ensure that Opposition representation on these committees is three in every case. We are very grateful for that concession, which we recognise imposes difficulty on the Government which has only 23 senators available for all the Senate committee positions. This means that a number of Government senators have to serve on more than one committee. We understand the Government's problem and are grateful to it for meeting our difficulties. Finally, there is the question of co-ordination of the activities of the standing committees. During the time of the coalition Government there was an informal grouping of the chairmen of the legislative and general purpose standing committees. The Opposition feels that this organisation should be formalised and that the group should meet under the chairmanship of the Deputy President and Chairman of Committees. This is a bit awkward for me, Mr President, but in the House of Representatives the proposal was that this function should be carried out by the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. There seems no reason why the function of that position in the Senate should be different in this area from that in the House of Representatives. The fact that there will be members of different parties involved in such a committee serves to emphasise the non-party nature of the Senate committee system. Senator Puplick —Go on; you can handle eight Labor chairmen with no difficulty. Senator HAMER —I think that I could handle them, but perhaps I would be outvoted on occasion. The Government has undertaken to consider this matter, and I therefore put to it the following suggestions of what the functions of such a committee should be. First, it should review periodically the work load of the various legislative and general purpose standing committees and, if necessary, make recommendations as to changes in responsibility for government departments to even out the work load; and in the event of a reorganisation of the government, propose to the Senate any necessary changes in committee responsibilities for the various government departments. Secondly, it should make any necessary representations to the Standing Committee on Staffing and Appropriations. Thirdly, it should make regular reports to the Senate on the activities of the standing committees. As I said earlier, the Opposition is grateful to the Government, and to Senator Robert Ray in particular, for the way in which they have handled our concerns in these areas. Nevertheless, some difficulties remain. I should like to enumerate them for the benefit of the Senate. I will go briefly through the proposed amendments to Standing Orders as moved by the Government and I will point out the attitudes of the Opposition and the amendments I intend to move on its behalf. I deal first with standing order 33. It is proposed to change the name of the Standing Orders Committee to the Procedure Committee. The Opposition has no objection to this. The proposed name seems to describe more accurately the real functions of this Committee. Standing order 36a is being amended to reduce the membership of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances from 7 to 6, and to make provision for non-Government and non-Opposition senators to be members. The Opposition has no objection to this or to the consequential amendments. The amendment to standing order 36aa deals with the new standing committees. Here we have a number of criticisms which I shall deal with in turn. First of all, for reasons that have not been explained, the description of the committees as legislative and general purpose committees has been dropped. These eight committees are a generic group-they are not the only standing committees; there is quite a number of other standing committees-and it is convenient to distinguish them from other standing committees such as domestic committees like the Library and House committees. I have heard no reason why this description was suddenly removed, but I fear it might be because the Government does not like the suggestion that these committees might actually look at legislation. It is worth noting that the House of Representatives committee would have no power to look at legislation. To make quite clear the very important role of these committees, I shall be moving an amendment to reinsert the words `Legislative and General Purpose Committees' to describe these eight committees. Our second problem is that we do not think the names of these eight committees are very happily chosen. The Clerk of the House of Representatives wrote a paper on a committee structure for the House of Representatives in which he proposed a structure loosely based on the Senate's structure, but deliberately chose different names for the proposed House of Representatives committees to avoid confusion with the corresponding Senate committees. When the Australian Labor Party Caucus committee considered this matter it adopted, with some modifications, the deliberately different names chosen by the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and then decided that the Senate committee names should be changed to bring them into line with the names for the House of Representatives committees-the very thing the Clerk of the House was trying to avoid. Incidentally, in the United States Congress, where the two Houses have parallel committees, in nearly every case the two committees have different names. There is a clear necessity to avoid irritating confusion and, although there are strong arguments in favour of parallel functions, there are equally strong arguments in favour of different names. This is a complex issue, and one on which I believe the members of the Senate committees concerned should be consulted. So I will be moving an amendment which would provide that the names listed in the Government's motion would be provisional only, allowing the Senate committees, if they choose, to propose to the Senate an alteration to their titles. For instance, we had a well-known committee called the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, colloquially known as the `F and GO Committee'. For no apparent reason this motion proposes that that committee be known as the Finance and Public Administration Committee. I think its members would rather it be known as the F and GO Committee. Anyway, I think this is a matter which should be further considered in the calmer atmosphere of committees, and any changes the members want should come back to this chamber for decision. The Opposition also strongly supported the concept behind the Government's proposals that every government department should be clearly covered by one or other of the eight legislative and general purpose standing committees. This responsibility was made clear when these committees were also to deal with Estimates. But when the decision to retain separate Estimates committees was made this clear linking was lost. I shall therefore be moving an amendment, based on the Government's original motion, to assign primary responsibility for each government department to one or other of the Senate legislative and general purpose standing committees. Perhaps the area of greatest concern is the amendment to paragraph 1 of standing order 36aa which gives each of the standing committees the power to confer or sit as a joint committee with a similar committee of the House of Representatives. The provenance of this provision is curious. It was not proposed in the report of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, nor in the Labor Party committee report to Caucus. It seems to have been inserted, as far as I can gather, by the Executive for what I think are very ominous reasons. The great strength of the Senate committee system has been its independence from the Executive and the power of the Senate-and the Senate alone-to give tasks to these committees. This innocent looking provision would mean that power being taken away from the Senate. Let us look at the options open to a Minister who was concerned that a Senate committee was probing into areas that he did not want to probe into. Under the arrangements to be introduced in the House of Representatives, the Minister would be able to task the House of Representatives committees directly. If he wanted he could give them all sorts of interesting studies and investigations in areas he did not mind being investigated. Then, without consulting the Senate-remembering that the Senate committees are controlled by the Government, with which we do not disagree-a Senate committee could link up with a House of Representatives committee and effectively we would have our Senate committees being tasked by Ministers. This linking, by the way, could be done without the Senate even being informed. We could well find that when we wished to give one of our committees a task-to work at a particular problem or perhaps to examine legislation-we would be told that it was fully occupied in investigations ordered by the Minister. I believe that this proposal must be rejected if the Senate committee system is to survive as a proper inquisitorial system free of government control. The Opposition, the Minister will be delighted to hear, has no objection to the deletion of standing order 38 and consequential amendments. The Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications has not met for nearly 80 years. On the subject of the sitting of Senate and joint committees during Senate sessions, the Opposition is not prepared to accept the revised provision that these committees may sit in private, but not public, session during Senate sittings. We should prefer that they did not sit at all during Senate sittings, but if the Senate decides they should sit, we think the provision should make it clear that committee votes may not be taken while the Senate is in session. I think the reason for that is fairly obvious. We might well find that, if a committee were sitting, senators might be called for proper duties in the Senate, and it would be outrageous if a committee could then take a vote in their absence. Senator Crichton-Browne —If they played that trick we would just call quorums. Senator HAMER —I think we will leave the question of quorums out of this debate. We want to get on with it without digressions. I shall be moving an amendment also on the question of the organised referral of Bills to committees. Although these committees are described as legislative and general purpose committees-and, despite the Government's wishes, I think they will continue as such-the amount of legislative work they have done is very small, perhaps two or three Bills a year out of the 200 or so passed by the Senate. One of the problems is that whenever proposals are made to refer Bills to committees, the committee chairmen-always Government senators, of course-have said that their committee is too busy on other work to undertake such a task. I think we have to have a more orderly consideration of which Bills would benefit from public examination by a Senate committee and I will be moving an amendment-the one of which Senator Chaney gave notice in the last Senate-to give effect to this. I raise one final matter. This motion is a proposed amendment to Standing Orders. It is very substantial and, as I believe this debate will show, it has some proposals which are controversial. In particular, the distribution of activities to the various legislative and general purpose standing committees has been criticised as unequal and not representing a reasonable span of interests of likely committee members. Whether these objections have substance only time will tell, but I think it would be appropriate for the restructuring of the committee system to be enacted as a sessional order rather than as an amendment to Standing Orders. I shall be moving an amendment to that effect. The advantage of having it as a sessional order is that it will force the Government of the day to bring these matters back to the Senate in the next session when senators can make their views felt as to whether this substantial modification of the existing system is working satisfactorily. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.40) —I do not wish to go into all the details of this matter and certainly do not wish to give the sort of run-down that Senator Hamer has given. I just indicate on behalf of the Australian Democrats that we will be proposing only one amendment to the Government's proposed amendments to Standing Orders, which will deal with standing order 36aa. I want to make it clear, however, that we do not see as arising out of the exercise the vaguely conspiratorial problems that Senator Hamer sees. We see something quite different. To us the difficulties do not relate to the non-government majority in this chamber being able to stop any rampaging government from filling up Senate committee times. If we are so asleep in this chamber we deserve to have the committee times filled up. But there is a procedural problem that has concerned us. I refer to the Government's proposed amendments to standing order 36aa, particularly the part which confers on standing committees the ability to sit jointly. To give an example, let us say that a Senate committee decides to sit with a House of Representatives committee with a similar name which is conducting a hearing into an item referred to it by the House of Representatives, not the Senate, that witnesses are present and that there is not a quorum of House of Representatives members. If for some reason or other-I am sure this would not apply to any of the honourable senators in the chamber-those present get rather contentious and wander into making defamatory remarks, or lead a witness into making defamatory statements, and the witness concerned decides to go to court, what will be the standing of the senators with regard to privilege? It is not at all clear what their standing will be. That is a difficulty and I do not believe that we should expose honourable senators to possible problems down the line in that regard. The courts have made some fairly erratic decisions in the past with regard to parliamentary privilege and I do not want to dangle out to them an opportunity to do so again in the future by our passing a motion which is in a sense defective. There is no problem, however, with the ability to confer. I think it is perfectly reasonable that a Senate committee ought to be able to nip down to a House of Representatives committee and say, `We want to look at some of the material you have on such and such a reference. It might be useful for us', or, `We would like to sit in on the questioning of a particular witness'. I think that is perfectly reasonable, but I think the joint sitting of committees would raise problems of privilege. I can see times when the joint sitting of committees might be useful. For example, the Government has now accepted an Opposition proposal to have both a joint committee and a Senate committee on foreign affairs, defence and trade. If a particular witness, such as an overseas witness, is being questioned by the joint committee-that occurs fairly regularly-it would be useful for the two committees to be able to sit together, at least to give the Senate committee the opportunity of questioning the witness. Senator MacGibbon —There is no problem at the moment. Senator MACKLIN —There is not really any problem but I am saying that we could allow that to occur in a formal sense. I think it might be useful on such an occasion and on others. But in that event there would be no problem in seeking from the Senate approval for two committees to sit as one. I am quite sure that the Senate would give such approval, after being given the reasons in the short space of time that would take-it would be only one or two minutes-because members of the Opposition, the Democrats and the Government who sit on those committees have already determined that it is a reasonable prospect. Hence the thing will be coughed through anyhow. I do not see any major problems in seeking such a reference from the Houses on occasions, and I hope there will be a number of occasions when committees wish to sit jointly. I think it is a useful development. We were willing to accept the standing committees operating as Estimates committees. We saw advantages in this. We are particularly interested in developing standing committees as high-powered committees. We hoped not only that such committees would undertake references, thereby getting a detailed understanding of the policy side and, through that, being better able to engage in an Estimates inquiry, but also that further down the line those committees would undertake specific audits to replace the rather odd operations that often take place in the Estimates committees when we drag in every bod from around Australia and keep witnesses waiting in the corridors for ages, some of whom, when they come in here, are not asked any questions at all. There are costs involved. I would hope that down the line standing committees may pick a particular part of a department that they have investigated or touched on in undertaking a policy reference and really go through their operations doing a good audit as only this chamber can do. I refer not to the type of departmental audit conducted by internal and external auditors but one which would be done by this chamber. I believe that it was partly the intention of a government committee to look into that type of activity. As I said, I do not lean much towards the conspiracy theories and I think it can be shown that the Government was genuine in the developments it was proposing by its ready acceptance of a whole range of items put up by the Opposition. Senator Hamer has graciously accepted that the Government did display good will in this regard. I hope that what the Government was seeking to achieve in that development will not be put aside and that we may see further intrusive inquiries by the standing committees into the operations of departments. Most of the other points that Senator Hamer raised he has raised with me. I accepted those points. However, we will not be supporting them. I think arguments can be put for each one and, if required, I will be quite happy to put the arguments of my Party as to why we were happy to give the operation proposed by the Government a trial. We were inclined initially to accept that the amendments proposed to the standing orders should take the form of sessional orders. However, the Government has accepted the major problems, apart from names, that the Opposition has raised. Therefore, we feel that there is not a great deal of substance left in these changes. We are happy enough to accept them as standing orders. I say to the Opposition that if the operation goes disastrously wrong at some stage we will be quite happy to look at it. After all, given the overwhelming predominance of non-government senators in this place, it will be quite easy to bring on a debate on this matter if we want to do so. It is as easy, under those circumstances, to change standing orders as it is to change sessional orders. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(4.48) —Some things need to be said about the proposal to change dramatically the committee structure of the Senate. I can understand, perhaps, that the Government wants to establish a committee structure in the House of Representatives. One might be cynical in thinking that it is to keep those on the back benches out of mischief by giving them something to do. But even that is not particularly convincing when we see the way the House of Representatives forces Bills through with scarcely any significant or relevant debate. If it took its Bills more seriously and looked at legislation in more depth we might think that something would flow from that and that it would want to look at the other matters and have a committee structure. But when we observe from Hansard the way it deals with legislation I do not see that there is very much to be said in favour of its having a committee structure, particularly in light of the way it is proposed to be put together and the control that Ministers will have over it. The extent to which the Government wishes to link the Senate with a House of Representatives committee structure leads me to conclude that the whole exercise is designed to erode the status of the Senate, status it has acquired because of the good inquiries that it has undertaken over the years. I commend Senator Robert Ray on the modifications to the original scheme, which are now before the Senate, but I still feel that my comments in relation to its background are relevant. I applaud the fact that the Estimates committees are to be preserved. I disagree with Senator Hamer only on his point that the arguments are narrowly balanced. The reasons why the Estimates committees should be retained were convincing. The people on the committees which investigate and report probably differ from those who look into the financial structure of departments, and it would be a pity if that system were broken. Caucus decided to explore the idea of a committee system in the House of Representatives. Suddenly, the Senate was swept up in the move and our system dramatically changed. We could have been left with a good committee system, such as the one we had, perhaps one involving more co-operation with joint committees, if that were desirable. The decision has been made with little explanation to the Senate as to why our system needed to be changed. There is little benefit in the proposal. We have heard about the names and groupings. There seems to be no logic in the proposal, other than to meet the present administrative arrangements. I should have thought that the aim of a Senate committee system would be committees with names similar to those we have had for years and with the opportunity to look into the full range of government activities. To link them to the administrative arrangements which are made from time to time is a retrograde step. It shows a desire to undermine the purpose of Senate committees. I hope that that is not true, but the way in which the system is put together leads me to conclude that it is. Undoubtedly, there will be confusion for the media, witnesses and departments and, from what we have seen this week, probably even confusion between Ministers. The same argument applies to the change of names. Senator Hamer has spelt out the reasons why the Senate should retain its original names, and I support his amendment. The committee should be allowed to consider the names and report to the Senate before these ridiculous changes are made. I suppose that it is of no consequence that a financial burden will be involved in changing the names. Even the stationery for the old committees will have to be thrown out and new stationery printed. There is no reason to do that and, undoubtedly, there will be confusion and a cost burden. I shall not go through all the canvassed arguments-they were well put by Senator Hamer-but I could not speak without commenting on the balance of the matters which each committee will investigate. Some committees will be extremely busy if they cover all aspects properly, or some aspects will not be pursued in depth. Industry, technology, commerce, industrial relations, primary industries and energy are in one grouping and the Attorney-General's Department is in another. Either the system is designed to ensure that some matters will not be given any attention or the Government does not understand what the committees should contribute to Parliament's work. The load is very uneven. The Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory is quietly to be abolished. The paper which went to Caucus referred under the heading `Public Works and Infrastructure' to the functions of what would be only a House of Representatives committee. The paper stated: Functions would include those of the Joint Statutory Committee on Public Works and Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. I shall list the other functions to show what is happening to the Territory in this little manoeuvre. The paper stated: functions to be expanded to include ability to conduct other enquiries Transport and Communications- a big matter- Administrative Services (excluding Electoral Reform)- that was lucky- takes over role of the Transport Safety Committee the Public Works Committee Act would need to be amended to change the committee from a joint committee to a House of Representatives committee the committee would not have statutory rights in enquiries not referred to it under the Public Works Committee Act Where would the Australian Capital Territory finish in such a committee? I am sure that the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) will tell us that these matters will be considered by a self-governing body in the Australian Capital Territory `in time'. But in what time? Why should not the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory be preserved until that time so that the people of the Australian Capital Territory retain the same access to Parliament that they have had since the Joint Committee was set up in 1957? I remind the Senate of some of the Joint Committee's more recent inquiries. In 1981 the Committee reported on `Energy Use, Distribution and Conservation in the Australian Capital Territory'. Later it reported on `Retail Trading Hours in the ACT', `Parliamentary Zone Draft Development Plan', `Murrumbidgee River in the ACT Region', `Hospitality in the ACT' and the metropolitan plan of Canberra-all large inquiries. In addition, since 1981 the Committee has dealt with a series of variations to the city plan of Canberra, from the seventy-fifth to the last, the ninetieth. Lest honourable senators should think that variations to the city plan of Canberra are of no consequence, I remind them of a recent variation-the minor road variation in the city to enable section 78 of the city plan to be developed as proposed, thus closing a small portion of Ainslie Avenue. That detailed inquiry brought forward all the arguments on parking problems in Civic. It brought before the Committee the Burley Griffin plan and his proposal for access from City Hill to Mount Ainslie. The committee considered the impact of parking on the suburb of Reid. I could take a great deal of time giving more information. These issues, with the changes to the plan of Canberra, have been brought before the Joint Committee and enabled the Territory's citizens to express their views on matters of great concern to them. Without self-government there has been no other forum. Once the Australian Capital Territory has its assembly, that will be taken care of. In the absence of such a local assembly, the Joint Committee has filled an important role. I could consider a number of issues in recent years showing how what might seem to be a minor variation to the city plan of Canberra has enabled a full and in-depth inquiry to be made. The Joint Committee is not a planning committee, but some of the matters which it has had to consider recently have almost made it appear as though the Committee were a part of the planning function. To bury this Committee in a public works and infrastructure committee, where little attention can be paid to changes in the city plan, is not looking after the national capital in the way the Government should. The new committee's work will mean that there will be no time for in-depth inquiries such as those of the past which included a review of the metropolitan plan and an inquiry into the hospitality industry, from which significant conclusions have come. Only last week in the Budget, I am pleased to say, the Government responded to the hospitality industry inquiry report, which made the same recommendation as the Joint Committee had made previously-that the Food School at the Reid College of Technical and Further Education should be expanded to give young people training in skills where there are available jobs. Those who inquire of some of the Canberra people who, since the Joint Committee was established in 1957, have had the opportunity to make submissions and be heard will find that those people are disappointed, to put it in its politest terms, that this last vestige of communication with government is to be withdrawn. In the Budget last week most statutory authorities and advisory committees in the Territory were abolished. That was done in the name of savings. It is funny, really, how the Government can abolish all these authorities to save a few shillings or dollars but it can change all the names of the Senate committees and say, `To heck with the cost of doing that'. Senator Crichton-Browne —And have three new Ministers. Senator REID —Yes, there are three new Ministers as well. Marvellous, is it not? But, when it comes to a bit of representation for the Australian Capital Territory, the Government is not prepared to put up an electoral system that is fair or to put a proposal to enable self-government to come into effect. It is certainly quick at abolishing any means that the community has of communicating with government and having a say in things. Let us not forget that, even when self-government does come into effect and there is a community government in Canberra, there will still be areas where there will need to be a partnership between an Australian Capital Territory government and the national government. There are areas where that relationship will need to continue. I would have thought that, even after self-government in the Australian Capital Territory, there would be functions that ought to be performed by a joint parliamentary committee on the Australian Capital Territory. Members of the Senate and of this Parliament ought to want to preserve for themselves the right and the place to have such an input. For the Senate to let these functions be buried away in the new Public Works and Infrastructure Committee-which is still just to be a House of Representatives committee; I hope that will be changed-is really to renege on some of its responsibilities to the national capital. Without going into great detail on these matters and to sum up, I think the whole proposal with relation to the Australian Capital Territory is unfair and unreasonable. As far as the Senate committees are concerned, I regard the proposal as downgrading them. I conclude by saying that I am pleased with the changes that have been made to the original proposals; this is not quite as bad as the original proposal. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.02) —I rise to speak against the cut in resources to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. It is unfortunate that the number of expert staff that the Committee has available to help to maintain its significant work on behalf of the Parliament is to be severely cut. Unfortunately, this cut will not only hamstring and curtail the activities of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts but also reduce the number of inquiries that it can undertake. On the one hand, while it will make life very much more comfortable for government, on the other hand governments will miss out on much of the expertise because the reports of the Committee were essentially constructed as an aid in the stewardship function of a responsible parliament. After all the horse-trading that has gone on, I suppose we should be grateful that we do at least have a Public Accounts Committee, although a shackled one, in existence. Over time, with the setting up of these new committees in the House of Representatives, the Government will find that it will be fairly difficult for the Opposition to man a number of these committees as effectively as the Government expects. That is a fact of life. The fact that the secretarial staff assisting the committees will not be increased will mean that the joint committees must be reduced in effectiveness, and so must the Senate committees. I am surprised that the Senate has taken so lightly the reduction in resources to be made available not only to joint committees but also to the Senate committees. The concept of a Public Accounts Committee is one of the features of the British Parliament that the Australian Parliament and all the State parliaments, with the exception of Queensland, have adopted. The history of the Public Accounts Committee shows that not only has the Committee earned a significant role in the Parliament in the 1980s and beyond but also that it has been consistently maintained by all governments of all political colours. The Committee's role was even expanded during the last Parliament to meet the need for increased scrutiny. But the Government wants to reduce the expert and overworked Public Accounts Committee Secretariat to only five-to one-third of its current complement. There has been some suggestion that that figure may be increased. In addition, the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, still wants the Committee to examine major computer acquisitions, including the important $700m purchase by the Australian Taxation Office. I submit that there has not been enough liaison between the Minister co-ordinating the setting up of these committees and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Finance Minister. The Public Accounts Committee is still expected to approve the appointment of independent auditors and has always been consulted and expected to comment upon all changes to the Audit Act. In fact no changes have been made to the Committee's duties as outlined in section 8 of the Public Accounts Committee Act, yet this Committee is expected to continue with those responsibilities but with only one-third of its current staff. At the very least the secretariat, which as Deputy Chairman of that Committee I am proud to say has so expertly and loyally served the Committee, must be maintained at its present numbers if the Parliament is to keep a demonstrated, efficient and worthwhile scrutiny of the public sector. This is what is at risk under this Government's proposals. I submit that the Public Accounts Committee has undertaken many significant inquiries and subsequently reports. I will mention just a few of them. In October 1982, the Committee produced a report entitled The Selection and Development of Senior Managers in the Commonwealth Public Service. This subsequently led to the establishment of the Senior Executive Service. More recently, many of the ideas were endorsed by the Block report, the report by the Efficiency Scrutiny Unit of Proposed Successor Arrangements of the Public Service Board. These reports have been constructive and ongoing and have been picked up by this Government. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) embraced these reorganisations and yet his Government now seeks to stunt this Committee that played such a large part in their fruition. I remind the Senate that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts was established under the Public Accounts Committee Act of 1951. It was one of five committees established by statute. It is composed of government and opposition members of both Houses of the Parliament. It operates under its Act with complete independence; perhaps that is the concern of the Government. It determines its own program of work and the inquiries that it should undertake and has consultation with Ministers and with the Auditor-General. Unlike some of the House of Representatives committees, it does not accept directions from Ministers per se. Each House of the Parliament may refer any question relating to public accounts for inquiry and report. The Joint Standing Orders may assign other duties to the Committee. I remind the Senate that in the last Parliament the Public Accounts Committee produced 55 reports-significantly more than any other committee of the Parliament. However, if its resources are to be depleted, we can look forward to only between 19 and 22 reports. It will cut the reporting ability to the Parliament, and it will affect the scrutiny of public accounts and so on. In November 1981 the Public Accounts Committee produced a comprehensive handbook entitled Commonwealth Government Financial Administration- A Handbook, which is used by people from high school to government level in order to understand the financial infrastructure and institutions of the Australian Federal Government. The Public Accounts Committee also produced a very valuable report on standards of financial reporting for Commonwealth undertakings, as well as reviewing the guidelines for departmental annual reports to ensure a high standard of disclosure. These sorts of things will certainly be at risk as a result of the depletion in resources. I appeal to the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray)-he is not even in the chamber at the moment-to listen to these arguments and to improve these resources. It seems that things are all cut and dried. It seems that the Government is no longer interested in scrutiny. It wants to go on its own merry way, to determine its own agenda and reduce the chance of the legislative branch being able to carry out its proper role. We have all too often heard that the power of the Executive is increasing. This matter before the Senate today will only increase the power of the Executive over the legislative branch and as such is to be deplored. I have mentioned only three reports of the Public Accounts Committee. Other significant reports recently have included those relating to medifraud, defence project management, the Department of Social Security Stratplan project and a review of the Australian Capital Territory and repatriation hospitals. As I mentioned, in the last Parliament the Committee presented 55 reports of varying complexity. Every year exhaustive examinations of different departments and authorities and their programs were carried out. A forthcoming reference is a review, on behalf of the whole Parliament, of an audit of the Parliament House Construction Authority on the arrangements surrounding our new home. The Public Accounts Committee, to maintain its current level of efficiency and respect, must not have its secretariat reduced. I hope that the Minister for Home Affairs, who has just come into the chamber, will reconsider his plan to reduce the resources available to the Public Accounts Committee. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(5.11) —I understand that there is some arrangement between the Government and the Opposition that will enable us to deal with this matter reasonably expeditiously, so I will be brief. However, let me say from the outset that I am not yet able to understand why it is the Government's wish to amend Standing Orders and not sessional orders. Senator Robert Ray —We will give in on that; we don't care. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The Government will give in on that? Okay. Senator Tate —Sit down. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Hang on! If it is that easy I will go on. Let us get on to something else that I can seduce Senator Ray into agreeing to. While Senator Ray is in such a generous mood let us consider the amendment to standing order 300, the addition of proposed standing order 300a, which provides for committees to meet in private for deliberations-I see Senator Ray shaking his head but he has not heard me out yet; he is about to be convinced-during the time the Senate is in session. It seems to me that it is not wise to require senators to attend Senate committee meetings and attend to their duties in the Senate at the same time. Perhaps I have a rather old fashioned and, as I said earlier, quaint view about the role and the function of the Senate chamber, but in my view the real risk is that the functioning and operation of the Senate chamber will be diluted and downgraded in favour of the committee system. The balance between the two is already very fragile. It is my view that if the Senate chamber is to be a proper continuing debating forum, if we are to have intelligent, robust and informed debate and if the Senate chamber is to discover and debate the whole range of issues which senators are required to address, there ought not to be compulsory distractions of senators by Senate committees. As I said earlier, the real risk is that the functions of the Senate chamber will be usurped by the functions of the committee system. The problem can be simply overcome by continuing the present system of having Senate committees meet outside the hours of the Senate. I already spend between 12 and 13 hours a week travelling backwards and forwards between my electorate and Canberra. Senator Robert Ray —But under my other hat I have to pay for it. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —If Senator Ray is paying for it, it is the best investment he has made since he has been a Minister-after his salary, no doubt. It is an integral responsibility of all senators to fulfil their obligations to the committee system. If the committee system is to function properly it requires full and proper deliberation and attention which can be achieved only by having the meetings outside the times when the Senate is meeting. I will be interested to hear from Senator Ray how he allocated the various departments under each committee. The Senate Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology covers references concerning the departments of Industry, Technology and Commerce, Industrial Relations and Primary Industries and Energy. So references concerning our export departments, all our export earning industries and all our wealth generating industries are under the one committee. Primary industry, non-farm industry, manufacturing industry, industrial relations, technology and commerce are all under the one committee. I put it to Senator Ray, with respect, that very few senators have either an interest or expertise in that whole gambit, that whole range, of departments. Many senators will have an interest in rural matters-the farming industry, the pastoral industry. Some honourable senators will have an interest in the mining sector. Some senators will have an exclusive interest in the manufacturing sector. Senator Watson —Not many, unfortunately. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Perhaps Senator Watson is right. Some honourable senators will have an interest in industrial relations but not in manufacturing, farming or mining. So we are reducing the potential resources available to these committees by having senators on the Industry, Science and Technology Committee who have only limited interest in some aspects of it. If we divided that committee into a more sensible committee it would have the full benefit of all its members. I compare that Committee with the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts. They are compelling topics, no doubt-likely to change the course of history. But the Environment, Recreation and the Arts Committee, which covers references concerning the Department of Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, is hardly a committee whose work load will cause its members to have a nervous breakdown. Yet it sits there, in splendid isolation, alongside the mammoth Industry, Science and Technology Committee. The Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration covers references concerning the departments of Parliament, Finance, Prime Minister and Cabinet and Treasury. Will Senator Ray tell me about Prime Minister and Cabinet? Then there is Treasury. The bottom line is that the Finance and Public Administration Committee is Treasury, and nothing else. The Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training is again a very light committee. References concerning the Department of Industrial Relations could very easily have come under that Committee. The Senate Standing Committee on Infrastructure covers references concerning the departments of Transport and Communications and Administrative Services-again a very light committee. It could have been attached to one of the other committees. Finally, there is the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. I remind honourable senators that in the terms of reference undertaken in the last several years by both the Senate and joint foreign affairs and defence committees very little attention has been given to trade. I am not saying that that is right. It is my view, and I think it is the view shared by most of my colleagues, that trade is an intrinsic part of foreign affairs. But as a term of reference trade is a quite separate issue for a committee. It ought to be tied more to industry and commerce. It seems to me that there is no logical reason for having the committees constituted in their present form. When I look at the terms of reference previously in existence but not concluded I see that under the allocation of terms of reference to the new committees `the potential of the Kakadu National Park region'-in fact the wrong words have been used; the term of reference given in October 1985 was `the potential resources of the Kakadu National Park'-has been given to the Environment, Recreation and the Arts Committee. This reference was previously inquired into by the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources-an obvious choice because it examined the resource potential of Kakadu. It also looked at tourism, but essentially the mainstream thrust of the inquiry was to examine the potential of the Kakadu National Park with respect to uranium, gold and its other resources. Logically, that term of reference ought to stay with a committee which has those general interests. After many months and thousands of pages of evidence, that reference has reached its concluding stages. No doubt the members of the Environment, Recreation and the Arts Committee will in no way be the same senators, either some of them or all of them, who were on the National Resources Committee. The Government will have to start that Committee's inquiry all over again if it is to do the job properly and provide a comprehensive report to the Parliament. I say to Senator Ray that what we have received from him by way of concession is modest when we look at the bottom line in terms of the functioning of the committees. It begs the question of logic and of how much concern the Government has for the committee system. Senator Watson —You tell them what the logic is. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am asking him to explain the logic of this. It seems to me that the logic is that it is intended to fit comfortably with government departments and the super-ministries and the Ministers with responsibility. It is not in any way designed to serve the interests of the Senate. It is designed to serve the benefits of government and not the Parliament. It is a prostitution and an abuse of power and a destruction of the committee system. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.21) —I move: Leave out ``That the following amendments be made to the Standing Orders:'', insert: `That the Standing Orders have effect as if they were amended as follows:''. This amendment has the effect of changing Notice of Motion No. 1 from being an amendment to Standing Orders to being a sessional order. This was canvassed in my earlier remarks and I do not propose to repeat them. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(5.21) —The people on this side of the chamber do not feel very strongly about this. It is our intention to accede to Senator Hamer's suggestion. Some of the senators who have made a contribution have looked to the question of motive in all of this. There is a saying in the Australian Labor Party that if there is a choice between a muck-up and a conspiracy, we should always take the muck-up. More often than not that is the case. There is no well intentioned secret agenda to wreck the Senate committee system. For example, the thought that joint sittings of a committee would be done in the way explained by Senator Hamer, and I think hinted at by others, was never thought of on our side. I might have to go back and ask why those on my side did not come up with this particular line of thinking. Maybe it was an oversight! Although we have had a good group therapy session this afternoon, honourable senators must not let paranoia run too rampant. It is not all a plot. If there are errors, we are happy to rectify them provided the changes have some logic. But we are happy to accept the first amendment. Amendment agreed to. The PRESIDENT —I put the question: That the proposed amendments to standing orders 33 and 36a be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.22) —I move: Proposed new paragraph (1), before ``Standing Committees'', insert: ``Legislative and General Purpose''. This proposed amendment to standing order 36aa has the effect of putting in the words `Legislative and General Purpose' before `Standing Committees', to explain their role and to distinguish them from other standing committees. They are a generic group and I think they would benefit from being described in that way, which has been a tradition in the Senate for nearly 20 years. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(5.22) —The Government has no objection to this amendment. Amendment agreed to. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.23) —We have dealt with the easy amendments and now I come to a slightly more difficult amendment, amendment No. 3, which seeks to leave out all words after `appointed'. That would have the effect of stopping the Senate committees meeting jointly with the House of Representatives committees. I know that the Australian Democrats have an amendment which we are prepared to support and which really reiterates the present situation with regard to committees. I think it would be appropriate to leave the words out, and I think Senator Macklin's amendment will move to insert words into the gap. I therefore move: Proposed new paragraph (1), leave out all words after ``appointed''. Amendment agreed to. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.24) —My amendment will now come within proposed new paragraph (1). I move: Proposed new paragraph (1), after ``appointed,'' insert: ``and each committee shall have power to confer, and, in accordance with a resolution of the Senate, to sit as a joint committee, with a similar committee of the House of Representatives''. Amendment agreed to. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.25) —I move: After new paragraph (1a), insert the following paragraph: ``(1aa) Unless otherwise ordered, references concerning departments shall be allocated to the Standing Committees as follows: (a) Standing Committee on Community Affairs Aboriginal Affairs Community Services and Health Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Social Security Veterans' Affairs (b) Employment, Education and Training Employment, Education and Training (c) Environment, Recreation and the Arts Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (d) Finance and Public Administration Parliament Finance Prime Minister and Cabinet Treasury (e) Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Foreign Affairs and Trade Defence (f) Industry, Science and Technology Industry, Technology and Commerce Industrial Relations Primary Industries and Energy (g) Infrastructure Transport and Communications Administrative Services (h) Legal and Constitutional Affairs Attorney-General's.''. The reason for this amendment I canvassed in my earlier remarks. The Government's original proposal allocated government departments to these various committees. With the elimination of the proposal for them to take over the Estimates committees' role this linkage was lost. This amendment merely restores the original intention of the structure of these committees. I would like to point out to those honourable senators such as Senator Crichton-Browne who are concerned about an imbalance that one of the other proposals I made in my general remarks was that the role of looking at the balance of committees and possibly the suggestion of future Senate changes is proposed to be given to the new committee of the chairmen of the standing committees. They may look at that role in the future. At the moment this amendment merely clarifies the responsibility of the various committees of the government departments to ensure that each government department is covered by one committee. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(5.28) —For very obvious reasons I support the amendment. It is regrettable that the Government is not now prepared to look at a sensible rearrangement of the committees so that there is an equal distribution of the work load of the various committees and an equal distribution of interests and groupings. The Government's logic defies me. If the committee system is found to be unsatisfactory at a later date, it can be reviewed. A cursory observation of the arrangement will tell the dullest member of the Government that there is a major dislocation in terms of the distribution of work and the responsibility of those on the committees. Sadly this will mean that some members on committees will have only a partial interest in the workings of the committees. Amendment agreed to. The PRESIDENT —The question now is that standing order 38 be deleted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.29) —by leave-In place of the old standing order 38, which has now been removed, I wish to move my amendment to insert new standing order 38. This matter has been canvassed many times in the Senate. We do need a more systematic consideration of which Bills should be referred to committees. I am aware that both the Government and the Australian Democrats are not prepared to support this amendment, so I merely put on record that this is the view of the Opposition as to what an appropriate procedure should be for the orderly consideration of which Government Bills would benefit from being considered by Senate committees. In the circumstances I do not propose to force this matter to a division. I move: Insert new Standing Order 38, as follows: `38. (1) A Standing Committee, to be known as the Selection Committee on Bills, shall be appointed to consider all Bills introduced into the Senate or received from the House of Representatives, except Bills which contain no provisions other than provisions appropriating revenue or moneys, and to report: (a) in respect of each such Bill, whether the Bill should be referred to a Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee; and (b) in respect of each Bill recommended for referral to a Standing Committee: (i) the Standing Committee to which the Bill should be referred, (ii) the stage in the consideration of the Bill at which it should be referred to the Standing Committee, and (iii) the day which should be fixed for the Standing Committee to report on the Bill. `(2) The following provisions shall apply to the Committee: (a) the Committee shall consist of the Government Whip, the Deputy-Government Whip, the Opposition Whip, the Australian Democrat Whip and one Senator nominated by the Chairmen of the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees; (b) the quorum of the Committee shall be 3 members; (c) the Chairman of the Committee shall be the Government Whip, and the Deputy-Chairman shall be the Deputy-Government Whip; and (d) in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, shall have a casting vote. `(3) Where the Committee reports on any sitting day, the report shall be presented after the presentation of papers by Ministers pursuant to Sessional Order. `(4) Following the presentation of a report by the Committee, the Chairman of the Committee, or a member of the Committee on behalf of the Chairman, may move without notice a motion, in accordance with a recommendation of the Committee, that a Bill, at the conclusion of any stage of the consideration of the Bill, stand referred to a Standing Committee. `(5) Following the disposal of any motions moved in accordance with paragraph (4), a Senator may move without notice a motion to refer to a Standing Committee any Bill of the kind referred to in paragraph (1) which is not the subject of a motion moved pursuant to paragraph (4). `(6) A motion moved pursuant to paragraph (4) or (5) shall specify: (a) the Standing Committee to which the Bill is to be referred; (b) the stage in the consideration of the Bill at which it is to be referred to the Committee; and (c) the day on which the Committee is to report. `(7) Upon a motion moved pursuant to paragraph (4) or (5), no Senator shall speak for more than 5 minutes, and at the expiration of 30 minutes, if the debate be not sooner concluded, the President shall put the Question on the motion and any amendments before the Chair. `(8) Where a motion moved pursuant to paragraph (4) or (5) is agreed to, at the conclusion of the stage of the consideration of the Bill referred to in that motion the Bill shall stand referred to the Standing Committee referred to in the motion, and the further consideration of the Bill shall be an Order of the Day for the day fixed for the presentation of the report of the Standing Committee. `(9) In considering a Bill referred to it pursuant to this order, a Standing Committee shall have no power to make amendments to the Bill or requests for amendments, but may recommend amendments or requests for amendments which would be in order if proposed in a Committee of the Whole. `(10) A report from a Standing Committee relating to a Bill referred to it under this order shall be received by the Senate without debate, and consideration of the report deferred until the Order of the Day relating to the Bill is called on. `(11) When the Order of the Day relating to a Bill which is the subject of a Standing Committee report pursuant to this order is called on, the following procedures shall apply: (a) a motion may be moved without notice that the report of the Standing Committee be adopted; (b) if a motion under subparagraph (a) is moved, following the disposal of that motion a motion may be moved by a Minister, or, in respect of a Bill introduced into either House of the Parliament other than by a Minister, by the Senator in charge of the Bill, that consideration of the Bill be an Order of the Day for a future day, or that the Bill not be further proceeded with; (c) if no motion under subparagraph (a) or (b) is agreed to, a motion may be moved without notice that the Bill again be referred to the Standing Committee for reconsideration, provided that such motion: (i) indicates the matters which the Standing Committee is to reconsider, and (ii) fixes the day for the further report of the Standing Committee; and if such motion is agreed to the Bill shall stand referred to the Standing Committee, and the further consideration of the Bill shall be an Order of the Day for the day fixed for the presentation of the further report of the Standing Committee; and (d) if no motion under subparagraph (b) or (c) is agreed to, consideration of the Bill shall be resumed at the stage at which it was referred to the Standing Committee, provided that, if the consideration of the Bill in Committee of the Whole has been concluded and the Standing Committee has recommended amendments to the Bill or requests for amendments, the Bill shall again be considered in Committee of the Whole.'. Amendment negatived. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.30) —Proposed standing order 300a addresses the problem of joint committees and Senate committees being permitted to meet while the Senate is in session. The attitude of the Opposition is that this practice should not be permitted. As a result, we would like to oppose proposed standing order 300a. However, the Opposition feels that if the Senate is of the view that committees should be permitted to hold private sessions while the Senate is sitting, at the very least an amendment should be made to make it quite clear that votes cannot be taken in the absence of committee members on their proper Senate duties. Mr President, I am not quite sure how you would like to handle this. Our initial position is that we oppose completely new standing order 300a. I would like to be given an assurance that if the proposed standing order is agreed to, I will be given leave to move my amendment to proposed standing order 300a. Mr President, would that be acceptable to the Senate? Our first position is that we would like to oppose the proposed standing order altogether. But if that fails, we would like to amend it. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(5.32) —I just want to make the attitude of people on this side of the Senate very clear on this matter. The initial proposition was to allow committees to meet while the Senate was meeting; that is, to allow public hearings-the lot. I suppose, as a concession, we could cut it back to private sessions. If we want to be truthful about this, we would admit that Senate committees meet in private session while this Senate is meeting. This practice is a breach of Standing Orders and I think it puts a very unfair burden on both the Presiding Officer and his assistants at the table in terms of trying to enforce that standing order. Committees quite often meet because they might have only half an hour's discussion to go. They cannot always fit such discussions into a lunch time or, if they can, the meeting trickles over to 2 o'clock and a legal meeting suddenly becomes illegal. It seems to me irresponsible on many occasions for those committees which actually take up responsibility never meet while this chamber meets, to have to fly everyone, including Senator Crichton-Browne-and we all know about his famous trip from Perth to Canberra, at $1,000 a go-- Senator McKiernan —And $1,300 return. Senator ROBERT RAY —And $1,300 return every time just to have private hearings. One of two things happen: either the standing order is breached or committees have an unofficial meeting at which members of the committee get together. Let us say that a committee's unofficial meeting starts at 11 a.m. and goes right through to 12.45 p.m. The moment that 12.45 p.m. is reached, the committee has an official meeting and everything that it has done in the previous hour and three-quarters is ratified. This standing order really should be enforced or the Opposition should support the proposition that we have put up. Four Government members and four non-Government members will comprise most of the committees. So one does not have to make a meal out of it on most occasions. There should generally be enough senators to vote to ensure that this proposed standing order is used only as often as it is needed. I come back to an earlier point which was made by Senator Macklin. If this proposal does not work, clearly there are enough numbers on all sides of the chamber to have this standing order changed again. In other words, it is undesirable to have all the committees having their private sessions while this chamber is in session. All we seek to do is to give committees the right-hopefully this right will be used only occasionally-to complete their hearings, especially when they are right at the end of their reports. We are not arguing for public hearings to be held while the Senate is sitting. Anyone who attended the Murphy hearings would know that it would be impossible for this chamber to operate correctly if public hearings are held while the Senate is sitting. I hope that we are not about to say that everyone sits in this chamber at all times and that everyone is available at all times. One only had to look at the size of the audience when Senator Teague spoke earlier to know that we do not always have enthusiastic senators here listening to every word. Indeed, it is rather unusual that we have so many honourable senators here at the moment. Senator Ryan —Because it is you. Senator ROBERT RAY —I do not think so, Senator Ryan. Whilst we have been willing to try to accommodate, help and get consensus on this issue, we feel fairly strongly that previously Standing Orders have been honoured more in the breach than the observance and we might as well make it legal. I say again, in conclusion: if committees make a meal of it and have all their private hearings while the Senate is in session, it is entirely open to honourable senators to come back and to oppose and change the Standing Orders or, as they are now, the Sessional Orders, in this regard. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(5.36) —I respond to the Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Robert Ray), who suggested that I am going to spend 12 hours in an aeroplane just to come to a brief private meeting. The Minister misunderstands, either accidentally or purposely, the proposition that I put. There is no reason at all that one cannot have private meetings during the sitting week when the Senate is not sitting. There is nothing to prevent one having private meetings either immediately before or immediately after public hearings when the Senate is not sitting. It is not a question of flying long distances; it is not a question of forming in non-sitting weeks; it is a question of functioning while the Parliament is sitting outside the houses or adding private meetings on to public meetings. I have been on a number of Senate standing committees, Senator Ray, I do not know which ones the honourable senator is attached to, but I do not recall-- Senator Robert Ray —None at the moment. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Bless you. I do not recall one occasion on which I have attended a private meeting when the Parliament has been sitting. We have always been able to so arrange our affairs as to ensure that we have had private meetings immediately before or after public hearings, or after hours if a short meeting is required. The problem I see with the Government's proposition is that it will become the norm very quickly and not the exception, and out of convenience senators will find themselves sitting regularly in private meetings when the Parliament is sitting. The Minister has put it to us that if that becomes the case, if a meal is made of it-to use his words-we can come back and try again. I say to the Minister, with respect, that we are saying now that we are opposed to it. Coming back in a fortnight's time is not going to change a thing. The Minister is not going to change his mind because the proposal suits him. The Minister says to me, `Come back if it does not work'. I do not know what he means by the words `if it is does not work'. Under his criteria the proposals to have the vast majority of private meetings when the Parliament is sitting will work admirably. This practice will detract from the contribution that honourable senators make in this chamber; it will detract from the contribution they try to make elsewhere; and it will detract from the general level of debate and contribution in this chamber. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.38) —I indicate on behalf of the Australian Democrats that we will be supporting the proposition to allow committees to sit in private session during the sittings of the Senate. During the last Parliament I was a member of six committees. Quite frankly, I found that admirable co-operative arrangements were entered into by the members of all of those committees as to when we would sit. One of the first things that the members of all of the committees of which I was a member did when we met was to get out our diaries and try to work out when we could sit the next time. Honourable senators know that there are many occasions on which committees do not in fact have meetings as such. We all get into a room, go through all of the business and then, when the Senate rises, we have a quick meeting to ratify everything that we have done. Quite frankly, that seems to me to be a slightly absurd way of operating. We know what goes on and we know what has to happen. The time of senators is simply coming increasingly under pressure. I would have thought that the least we would do was to attempt to streamline some of the operations. I must admit that my Party proposes that I be a member of four committees, rather than the six, and thank goodness for that. Because I pick up a number of portfolio areas for my Party in this chamber, I do not very much relish the thought of sitting in committees while the chamber is sitting. Nevertheless, I think we can get some of the necessary items out of the way. One can often fit in another meeting. Last night was a good example-although possibly not, because by 10.30 p.m. the speakers' list had collapsed. But up to that point there had been a fairly good indication, even before dinner, of who would be speaking at what time until 10.30. If members of a particular committee did not appear on that speakers' list and if that committee needed to get through some business in a hurry prior to a public inquiry, that would have been an admirable opportunity to do so. Let us offer that opportunity. I am quite sure that senators who serve on those committees are all reasonable people. If there are senators who object to meeting at that time and if there is sufficient objection I am quite sure those committees will not meet. I have always found that there is very little problem and that committees generally try to operate to meet the requirements of all the senators who are members, not just the majority. The types of problems that Senator Hamer raised related to votes. Indeed, if I were on a committee that sought to take a vote while I was on chamber duty or unavailable for some other reason, I would think that that was a very odd committee. Senator Crichton-Browne —All the Opposition has to do is keep calling quorums. Senator MACKLIN —I am sure it would not do that; I am sure it would not be needlessly obstructive. I am sure that those committees, comprising sensible adults working sensibly together, can always come to an amicable arrangement about when the vote will be taken, if there has to be a vote. In my seven years of serving on Senate committees, I must admit that I have not found the types of problems that have been outlined. Let us give it a go. If we run into problems and if the committees do the types of things that Senator Hamer suggested-and that is the major objection-then obviously we come back to this place and change it. Until that time let us give it a try and see whether we can make things a little more efficient. Question put: That proposed standing order 300a be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Aulich, T. Haines, J.Beahan, M. E. Jenkins, J. A.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. Macklin, M. J.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R.Coates, J. Morris, J. J.Collins, R. L. Powell, J. F.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. E.Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F.Coulter, J. R. Ryan, S. M.Crowley, R. A. Schacht, C. C.Devereux, J. R. Sibraa, K. W.Devlin, R. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Vallentine, J.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Wood, W. R. Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Michael Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E.Chapman, H. G. P. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J.Hill, R. Teague, B. C.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Vanstone, A. E.Lewis, A. W. R. Walters, M. S. Zakharov, A. O. Baume, PeterBlack, J. R. Chaney, F. M.Button, J. N. Watson, J. O. W.Jones, G. N. Macgibbon, D. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.48) —by leave-I move: New Standing Order 300a, delete ``, but shall not otherwise sit during the sittings of the Senate unless by special Order of the Senate.'', insert: ``but shall not make resolutions or take votes unless all members of the relevant committee are present, and shall not otherwise sit during the sittings of the Senate unless by special Order of the Senate.''. I canvassed this amendment in the earlier part of the debate on this new standing order. While I accept that the committees may meet while the Senate is in session, it would prohibit votes being taken in those committees. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(5.49) —I doubt whether circumstances would arise that would require Senator Hamer's amendment but in case they do the Government will agree to it. Amendment agreed to. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(5.49) —by leave-At this stage I have to move some consequential amendments that I think were dependent on the carriage of earlier items. Accordingly I move: (i) to Standing Order 96: Leave out ``IV. (in the case of a Petition against a return) `That the Petition be referred at once to the Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications;' or V.'', insert ``or IV.''. (ii) to Standing Order 327: Leave out ``, and shall forthwith refer the same to the Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications''. (i) paragraph 36aa (19), leave out the paragraph; (ii) paragraph 36aaa (13), leave out the paragraph; (iii) delete Standing Order 39; (iv) Standing Order 300, leave out ``, but no Select Committee may sit during the sittings of the Senate''; and (v) Standing Order 301, leave out ``All Committees'', insert ``Committees sitting contrary to Standing Order 300a''. Amendments agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) proposed: (1) That, in accordance with Standing Order 36aa, the following Standing Committees be appointed: (a) Community Affairs; (b) Employment, Education and Training; (c) Environment, Recreation and the Arts; (d) Finance and Public Administration; (e) Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; (f) Industry, Science and Technology; (2) That, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the following matters, referred to Legislative and General Purpose Committees on the days indicated during previous sessions and not disposed of by those Committees, be referred under the same terms to the Standing Committees indicated: Matter Standing Committee Retirement Income Systems (6 September 1983) Community Affairs The Education of Gifted and Talented Children (17 October 1985 Employment, Education and Training The Potential of the Kakadu National Park region (9 October 1985) Environment, Recreation and the Arts Capacity of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau and Australia's effectiveness in relation to the assessment of environmental impact of proposed projects (19 February 1987) Environment, Recreation and the Arts Statutory Authorities-The continuing oversight of the establishment, operation, administration and accountability of bodies established pursuant to Commonwealth statute (6 October 1977, as amended 8 October 1986) The proposed sale of the Australian Dairy Corporation shareholding in P.T. Australian Indonesian Milk Inc. (P.T. Indomilk) Finance and Public Administration Non-statutory bodies-The continuing oversight of the establishment, operation, administration and accountability of bodies for which the Commonwealth is wholly or partly responsible, being bodies which are not departments (or parts of departments) nor statutory authorities (or sub-bodies of statutory authorities) nor incorporated companies nor incorporated associations (17 November 1983, as amended 8 October 1986) Finance and Public Administration Companies and associations-The continuing oversight of the establishment, operation, administration and accountability of incorporated companies and incorporated associations owned by the Commonwealth and of those in which the Commonwealth holds a major or substantial interest (8 October 1986) Finance and Public Administration Australia's relations with Papua New Guinea (3 May 1984) Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade The Australian Army's rapid deployment capability (26 March 1985) Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (26 March 1985) Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Acquisition of land for the purposes of the relocation and co-location of the Australian Army's School of Infantry and Infantry Centre, Artillery Training and for Army Manoeuvres (9 October 1985) Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade The adequacy of current contingency planning by Federal and State authorities to deal with the accidental release of ionizing radiation from visiting nuclear powered or armed vessels in Australian waters and ports (17 September 1986) Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Certain Aspects of Australia's manufacturing Industry Revitalisation (13 June 1986) Industry, Science and Technology Continuing oversight of the implementation of reports of the Law Reform Commission (24 September 1981) Legal and Constitutional Affairs The operation and administration of the Freedom of Information Legislation (29 November 1985) Legal and Constitutional Affairs Continuing oversight of the Commonwealth Ombudsman Special Reports (22 August 1986) Legal and Constitutional Affairs The nature, function, ambit and adequacy of income tax rulings issued by the Commissioner of Taxation and the process by which these rulings are formulated and disseminated (27 May 1987) Legal and Constitutional Affairs (3) That- (a) the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Community Affairs: The comparison between private hospitals conducted for profit, non-profit private hospitals and public hospitals in respect of the type and frequency of services provided and waiting lists for these services, with particular reference to discretionary services; (b) for the purpose of its inquiry and report the Committee have power to consider the minutes of evidence and records of the Senate Select Committees on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes constituted in previous Parliaments; and (c) the foregoing paragraphs, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.51) —I move: Paragraph (1), before ``Standing Committee'', insert: ``Legislative and General Purpose''. This amendment is consequential on an amendment that was accepted earlier. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(5.52) —The Government finds that amendment quite acceptable. Amendment agreed to. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.52) —Before I deal with amendment No. (8), I wish to draw the Minister's attention to what I think is a printing error in the list of standing committees. Two standing committees, (g) and (h), the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, have been omitted from the ones to be established. I take it that was using the earlier principle that when one thinks of a conspiracy or a foul-up, one goes for the foul-up every time, because the Government proposes to refer matters to one of the committees it has failed to list. Therefore, I think that by way of amendment we could put in the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I do not know whether that needs to be moved or whether it can just be done. Before I go on, I would like the position to be clarified because we want those two committees to be established. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(5.53) —I have been caught. I did delete them deliberately; I admit it! I ask that they be re-inserted. I think that is the quickest explanation. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.54) —I move amendment No. (8): After paragraph (1), insert the following new paragraph: ``(1A) That the title of each committee be considered by such committee and that any proposals for variations be reported to the Senate at the earliest opportunity: Provided that the chairman of a committee shall not use the chairman's casting vote in any decisions concerning the title of that committee, and that upon an equal vote of a committee in any such decision, the matter shall be reported for determination by the Senate.''. This is a matter of concern to the Opposition. I mentioned in my general remarks the way in which changes of title of well-established Senate committees came about. We do not think they were wise, but we felt that it would be difficult to move amendments which would be acceptable to the Senate as a whole. We think that it is a matter on which the Senate committees concerned should be consulted. This amendment means in practice that these new titles should be considered by each committee, and that if they have any proposals for variation, such as the Finance and Government Operations Committee going back to the name with which we are familiar rather than this arbitrary new one, for which no argument has been advanced, the committees should be entitled to put to the Senate that their titles should be varied in that way. As this is not a party matter, although we accept that these committees have a Government majority with the casting vote to the Chairman, we do not think that on an issue such as this it should be done by a casting vote. Opposition senators feel that if there is a dispute in the committee the matter should be sent to the Senate for decision. This is merely a matter of tidying up the names rather than having them arbitrarily opposed. We do not want to delay the setting up of these committees. We therefore propose that it should be done in the way canvassed in my amendment. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(5.55) —What Senator Hamer says is eminently reasonable, but I do not know that it is well enough based for the Government to agree to this proposition. It seems to me that if there is sentiment around to change all the names, it will come back to haunt us over the next few months in debate after debate. Therefore, we are disposed to oppose this proposal at this stage. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Hamer's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Alston, R. K. R. Messner, A. J.Archer, B. R. Newman, J. M.Baume, Michael Panizza, J. H.Bishop, B. K. Parer, W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Patterson, K. C. L.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E.Calvert, P. H. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W.MacGibbon, D. J. Aulich, T. Giles, P. J.Beahan, M. E. Haines, J.Black, J. R. Jenkins, J. A.Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N.Burns, B. R. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. E.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Baume, Peter Zakharov, A. O.Chaney, F. M. Black, J. R.McGauran, J. J. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(6.00) —by leave-I move: (1) Paragraph (2), leave out: ``The education of gifted and talented children (17 October 1985) Employment, Education and Training'' (2) At end of motion, add the following new paragraph: ``(4) (a) That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report to the Senate on a matter which had been considered by the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts during the previous Parliament, and had reached the draft report stage, namely: The education of gifted and talented children. (b) That the Committee consist of Senators Beahan, Colston, Newman and Teague. (c) That Senator Colston be Chairman of the Committee. (d) That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. (e) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote. (f) That the quorum of the Committee be two members. (g) That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to move from place to place. (h) That the Committee report on or before the first day of sitting in 1988. (i) That for the purpose of its inquiry the Committee have power to consider and make use of the relevant evidence and records of the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. (j) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.''. The reason for these amendments is that the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, which is now to be defunct, had been holding public hearings for nearly two years on the reference of the education of gifted and talented children. It was proposed by the Government that this reference be taken on board by the new Standing Committee for Employment, Education and Training. However, several members of the former Standing Committee are still very keen to complete the work that they had nearly completed. I understand that the hearings, held all around Australia, had all been finished, and the Committee members were about to finalise a report. It would be a great shame, if the existing committee members were willing to complete the work, not to have it completed by those who were present for all the hearings. It seems to me that changing horses in midstream would be inefficient and as dangerous as this can sometimes be. We on this side of the chamber have always had co-operation from Senator Colston as Chairman of the Committee. We have had some very extensive and interesting hearings. It is a matter of extreme importance to this nation whether we are making maximum use of our gifted and talented children. In the light of the emphasis which the Government now appears to be placing on the need for the nation to have an educated population, the work that has been done over many months now by this Committee should be completed by the people who undertook that work. For those reasons I have moved these amendments. They provide that the Committee consist of Senators Beahan, Colston, Newman and Teague, the last three of whom were part of the original Committee, and that Senator Colston be the Chairman of the Committee. They also provide various requirements for the running of the Committee. I commend the amendments to the Senate. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(6.03) —I am starting to feel a little bit like Marlon Brando at the end of Apocalypse Now when he said something like, `The horror of it all'. There is some enthusiasm on this side of the chamber for Senator Newman's proposition. Senator Colston has done a lot of very good work on the Committee. Especially since Senator Newman has put a very strict timetable on her proposition and it would therefore not be a forever ongoing committee, the Government will agree to her amendments. Amendments agreed to. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(6.04) —Mr President, before you put the question on motion No. 2, I wish to clarify a matter. Presumably this motion, being contingent on an earlier sessional order, will also be treated as a sessional order. There is confusion, as the motion is worded, as to whether it will be a sessional order or an amendment to Standing Orders. I take it that it will be a sessional order. The PRESIDENT —I believe what you say is correct. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray for Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That, in accordance with Standing Order 36ab, 6 Estimates Committees be appointed, to be known as Estimates Committees A, B, C, D, E and F; and that, unless otherwise ordered, the Committees consider the Proposed Expenditure in relation to Departments as follows: Estimates Committee A Parliament Industry, Technology and Commerce Prime Minister and Cabinet Industrial Relations Estimates Committee B Transport and Communications Foreign Affairs and Trade Estimates Committee C Finance Treasury Primary Industries and Energy Estimates Committee D Employment, Education and Training Community Services and Health Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Veterans' Affairs Estimates Committee E Attorney-General Aboriginal Affairs Defence Administrative Services Estimates Committee F Social Security The Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories Senator HAMER(Victoria)(6.04) —The Opposition has no objection to this motion which will re-establish the Estimates committees. We are grateful to the Government for its agreement to re-establish them and not have their role taken over as was previously desired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray for Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: (1) That the Particulars of Proposed Expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1988 in relation to the Parliamentary Departments, the Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending on 30 June 1988 and the Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1988 be referred forthwith to Estimates Committees for examination and report. (2) That expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1987 be referred to Estimates Committees for examination and report prior to its consideration in Committee of the Whole. (3) That the Committees consider Proposed Expenditure and departmental expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance in the Estimates Committee groupings agreed to by Resolution of the Senate. (4) That the Committees report to the Senate on or before Thursday, 5 November 1987. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray for Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: (1) That the Committee known as the Select Committee on Animal Welfare, constituted by Resolutions of the Senate on 16 and 17 November 1983, be re-constituted, unless otherwise herein provided, under the same terms and with the same functions and powers. (2) That the Committee have power to consider and use for its purposes the Minutes of Evidence and records of the Select Committees on Animal Welfare appointed in previous Parliaments. (3) That paragraphs (1) and (6) of the membership and powers of the Committee, contained in the Resolution of the Senate of 17 November 1983, be varied to read as follows: ``(1) The Committee shall consist of 6 Senators as follows: (a) 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate; (b) 2 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and (c) 1 to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats. ``(6) That the quorum of the Committee shall be 3.''. (4) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(6.06) —The Opposition welcomes the re-establishment of the Select Committee on Animal Welfare, which is doing very important and valuable work. As I said in my earlier remarks, the Committee originally comprised four members. We asked, and the Government agreed, that the Committee be increased to six, because with the four members there were two Government members, one Australian Democrat and only one Opposition member. This did not allow for the two parties that comprise the Opposition to be represented, and we are glad that the number has now been increased to six. We look forward to some more valuable work from this important Committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 21 September, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Puplick had moved by way of amendment: Leave out all words after ``That'', insert: ``, whereas: (a) while the Senate has received a report of a committee on the proposed identity card, the committee did not have the benefit of examining the Government's proposed legislation, as its reference was limited to consideration of the concept and not the Bill; (b) further, the committee was a joint select committee and not a Senate committee; (c) the Bill presented by the Government is particularly complex, being both very technical and lengthy and thus requiring close scrutiny; (d) recent public statements made by several Ministers and the Government's responses to the relevant Scrutiny of Bills Committee report have revealed the necessity to make amendments to the legislation; (e) the Minister responsible for the legislation, Senator Ryan, has, since the election, been reported as acknowledging the need to consult with civil liberties organisations on measures to strengthen privacy safeguards; (f) one of the Government's responses to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report was unsatisfactory and requires further consideration; (g) the Government stressed the significance of the Bill in seeking the recent double dissolution and accordingly the legislation should be the subject of thorough and careful examination by the Senate through a select committee; and (h) there have arisen changed circumstances since the matter was last considered by the Senate, and in particular: (i) heightened concern in the community that the issues have been inadequately debated in the Parliament and the community, (ii) the election of a number of new Senators (thus reflecting current feeling in the electorate) who did not have the opportunity to participate in the previous committee, (iii) the inability of the previous committee, due to the legislation not being drafted, to obtain a full assessment of the costs to business of compliance with the proposal, and (iv) the possible failure of some State or Territory Governments to cooperate in vital aspects of the proposed system, this Bill be referred to a select committee, the powers and composition of which be considered in a subsequent resolution, and the committee: [Terms of Reference] (a) examine in detail the provisions of the Bill; (b) consider the provisions of the Bill in the light of the reports of the Joint Select Committee on the Australia Card and the Scrutiny of Bills Committee; (c) examine the integrity of the card manufacturing process in order to assess the likelihood of forgery and fraudulent or criminal misuse; (d) assess the feasibility of the proposed system in the event of a failure of any one or more States to cooperate in the establishment of a births, deaths and marriages register; (e) examine the extent to which new or updated computer systems and recent crackdown campaigns on welfare cheating and tax avoidance and evasion will obviate the need for the proposed system; (f) assess the costs to the private sector of the introduction of the proposed system; (g) determine the capacity of the proposed Data Protection Agency to adequately safeguard and protect the privacy of the individual and to control unauthorised use of the card and/or individual identification numbers by commercial organisations such as credit insurance companies and unincorporated associations and clubs; (h) investigate the desirability, timing and nature of comprehensive privacy legislation in Australia and the extent to which it might or should replace the privacy protection arrangements proposed in relation to the Australia Card; (i) examine the extent to which the proposed system accords with OECD guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data (1981); (j) consider the appropriateness of the range and level of proposed penalties on individuals and other entities; (k) determine whether any, and if so what, limits or penalties should attach to unauthorised use of identification numbers by Federal, State and local government agencies and private sector bodies; (l) take evidence from overseas experts as to the experience of other countries with analogous identity card systems; and (m) present a final report on or before the first day of sitting in 1988- and upon which Senator Powell had moved by way of amendment to Senator Puplick's proposed amendment: (1) Leave out the words ``this Bill be referred to a select committee, the powers and composition of which be contained in a subsequent resolution,'' insert: ``this Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report, upon the establishment of that committee, or, if a committee of that name is not established, to a committee specified in a subsequent resolution,''. (2) Paragraph (f) of the proposed terms of reference, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(f) assess the direct cost to the private sector in establishing and maintaining the system;''. (3) Paragraph (j) of the proposed terms of reference, at end of paragraph, insert: ``, including the differential in penalties which applies to breaches of the legislation by the Authority and breaches by private citizens and corporations''. (4) Paragraph (1) of the proposed terms of reference, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(1) examine the experience of comparable countries in the adoption or rejection of an ID card system such as the one proposed, this comparison to include the USA, West Germany, Canada, Netherlands, France, UK, Austria, Belgium, Italy, Denmark;''. (5) Paragraph (m) of the proposed terms of reference, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraphs: ``(m) assess the constitutionality of the Government's proposed Australia Card and personal identification system; (n) examine the implications for the system if a significant number of people whose activities fall within those for which the card and number are required refuse to apply for the card; (o) consider the financial implications and administrative delays in the public and private sectors in complying with the system and the impact of this on Australia's economic situation, consideration of these matters to include assessments of the system's impact on transactions specifically affected by the legislation-e.g. auction sales; (p) assess the likelihood of more cards and numbers being issued than there are entitled card-holders (as has already occurred with Medicare cards) and the implications of this if the Medicare number is to be used in the Australia Card system; (q) determine the need for privacy protection legislation and a data protection agency and what form such protection should take, with particular reference to legal remedies for such matters as refusal to correct incorrect data; failure on the part of the Authority to perform its functions; and compensation for damage suffered; (r) make a comparison of the costs and benefits of the Government proposal with the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card majority recommendation for using a high-integrity tax file number to combat tax and social security fraud; (s) assess the appropriateness of linking sensitive personal information such as medical data with a system which is designed to address financial matters; (t) examine the constitutional implications of the legislation's use of terminology such as `The Authority' and `card-subjects' in a common law country such as Australia; (u) examine the problem of distinguishing between requiring someone to produce a card as a means of identification (which attracts a penalty if it is unauthorised) and `requesting' someone to do so; (v) determine the adequacy of protections against misuse of the unique personal identification number, as distinct from misuse of the card; (w) examine the appropriateness of fees being charged for card-subjects to have access to their details on the register, other than the annual inspection permitted under the legislation; (x) assess the likelihood of increased access to the register by government departments and the private sector in the future; (y) examine the ease of linkage between information on the register and information on the computer files of other government departments, agencies and private sector bodies where those bodies use the unique personal identification number for purposes required under the legislation; (z) assess the usefulness of the card and numbering system in achieving the objectives claimed for it, with particular reference to the case economy, organised crime and large-scale tax evasion; (za) examine any matters relevant to the preceding; and''. (6) At end of the proposed terms of reference, add the following paragraph: ``(zb) present a final report on or before the first day of sitting in March 1988.'' Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(6.07) —I agree with some honourable senators who have said that it is very difficult to maintain one's enthusiasm for the debate, if not for the subject. It has already been mentioned in the chamber that what we are going through is something of a failed-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Speak into your microphone. Senator COLLINS —I do not normally have problems with anyone hearing me. I am pleased that someone is interested enough to listen. When I first addressed the question of the Australia Card, as I did earlier, I said that some of the contributors to this debate were going over the top in the extravagant claims they were making about the consequences of the card. I went on to say that other contributions were marked by unprincipled opportunism rather than principled opposition. Certainly the contribution of Senator Puplick, who opened this particular debate, is in the first category, and all of the contributions of the National Party of Australia senators who have spoken so far in this debate are in the second category in which they are joined by other Liberal Party of Australia senators. I was amazed to hear some honourable senators-I think at least two-from my own side describe Senator Puplick's contribution as Shakespearian. That astonished me. Senator Ryan —Shakespeare would turn in his grave. Senator COLLINS —I thought they were obviously referring to Bottom in A Midsummer Night's Dream when making those references to Senator Puplick, because what he said made absolutely no sense to me at all. In fact, his contribution reached the heights of claptrap. Having done my homework on this subject and having assiduously read not only the report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card but also much of the Hansard transcript of the submissions that were given to that Joint Committee what astounded me was that people's views in this debate seemed to have changed substantially over the last 12 months. Senator Walters —Ha, ha. You really wouldn't know, would you. You are pretty new. Senator COLLINS —I have been listening patiently to the non-stop noises from Senator Walters for the last fortnight. They never seem to stop. If she wants to continue to play games at this late hour this evening, why does not the honourable senator go outside and find a nice big king brown to play with in the garden somewhere and let me get on with this? Senator McKiernan —The Animal Welfare Committee would have something to say about that. Senator COLLINS —Well, the snake would be taking its life in its hands to have a go at the honourable senator; I will admit that. Claims have been made that the card was going to become an internal passport. Quite astonishing claims were made by my colleague Senator Tambling of the Northern Territory that queues of thousands of tourists would be banked up at airports around Australia waiting to be issued with their Australia Card before they could get into the country. Indeed, I heard echoed in the chamber yesterday the same nonsense about tourists being banked up. Senator Watson —They have to be here for six weeks. Senator COLLINS —In response to the idiotic interjection from opposite, I just say that people who come to Australia as visitors and who after six weeks wish to take advantage of our Medicare system or our social security system or to involve themselves in the financial transactions of this country should be issued with an Australia Card, because they then cease to be tourists; they are not tourists at all. If they want to involve themselves in business which involves their-- Senator Walters —For goodness sake! Pull yourself together. Senator COLLINS —Senator Walters has had a fair go. I remember that years ago, when I worked for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, we had a hell of a problem trying to keep birds away from sorghum crops in the Northern Territory. If we had had Senator Walters in the Territory with a pole stuck up her dress we could have saved thousands of acres of sorghum 15 years ago. Why does she not get back into her box? Senator Walters —The State Government- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Senator Walters, I would be pleased if the interjections were to cease, and I ask Senator Collins please to address the Chair. Senator COLLINS —It is quite extraordinary that although members of the Opposition want some answers from government or from those who belong to the Government party one cannot even get further than addressing the Chair in a debate in this chamber before they all start chattering like monkeys and do not stop, to the point where one literally cannot complete a sentence. They do it at their rallies, I notice. They are like Pavlov's dog. You ring a bell and they dribble all over the floor. The nonsense that has been issued during this debate does no credit to the people who have been delivering it. From my side of politics it has been fascinating indeed to listen to National Party senators talking about civil liberties when they represent a State that has the most grossly gerrymandered electoral system in the country, where people cannot gather on a street corner without being locked up and spending the night in gaol and where people cannot implement the fundamental principle of any democratic society-the right to withdraw their labour without being sent to gaol for it. And they come in here and talk a load of cant and hypocrisy about civil liberties! They are the unprincipled opportunists to whom I referred earlier in this debate. The sloganeering and claptrap that we hear in opposition to the Australia Card degenerates into outright gimmickry and, to my great regret, some of that gimmickry surfaced in this chamber when this debate commenced the other day. We have had the contributions of some outstanding representatives of the conservative parties in opposition to this legislation. I will concede this much about the Australia Card debate-I have noticed this on my home patch of the Northern Territory: it has given conservative politicians in this country a great opportunity to try to score, as they see it, a few free kicks as a substitute for doing anything else of any value to the country. People such as John Elliott, for example, have said that the Australia Card should be issued only to the poor. I raise that matter because one of those opposite actually brought it up just the other day. I have some experience with being an official poor person. I have seen that system in operation. The conservatives introduced it when they scrapped Medibank. My Aboriginal constituents in the Northern Territory, if they fronted up at a public hospital, had to pay $15 to get in the front door, $15 to get a consultation and $15 if they required an X-ray. Up to $45 in cash was required before they could get treatment at a public hospital after Medibank was scrapped. As a result-I remember very well the proposal put by those opposite to introduce a special card for the poor only-an official pauper's card was introduced. One could actually get a card that declared one a pauper, and that exempted one from the great benefits that Medicare has brought to this country. Thank God for Medicare! Members of my own Party sometimes run out the stupid line that one cannot tell the difference between the Hawke Labor Government and Liberal government. What claptrap and nonsense that is! I am proud to belong to a party that introduced a national health care system to Australia. It has the great advantage of being a universal system. That, of course, is the advantage that the Australia Card will have. Many honourable senators opposite will not like going to the local Medicare office and suffering the ignominy of having their photographs taken like ordinary people. They will not like that at all, but they will just have to wear it. As I said, I saw in operation the proposal from those opposite that the card be issued to one category of person only, and it was not a pretty sight. I noted the other day one interesting argument put by Senator Haines of the Australian Democrats. I will be very kind to the Democrats in this debate, because I would have to concede that they at least are the only people opposing the card in this chamber who can come to the debate with clean hands. At least they raised the matter during the election campaign. The Australian Labor Party tried to provoke those opposite into campaigning against the card. We called the election on it. We ran our very first full-page newspaper advertisements on the Australia Card and got an absolutely zilch response from those opposite-and why? Because these highly principled members of parliament, the people who are taking the high moral ground on this issue, looked at the opinion polls and saw that opposition to the card was not then a very popular stand to take. There was not a mention in six weeks of campaigning of civil liberties or intrusion on personal privacy. The problems of the Australia Card did not get a mention during the campaign from anyone except, to their credit, the Democrats, because the polls showed that it was not a very popular issue. Opposition to the card has nothing to do with high moral ground at all; it is just common or garden politics. John Howard, during the campaign, provided some distraction on his own from the Australia Card when he produced his famous tax package, adding two and two together and coming up with three and a half. That took everybody's mind off the Australia Card for a few weeks as well. We in the Labor Party tried very hard to get a response. I had a number of personal contacts in the campaign headquarters in the Northern Territory, and I could not get any response whatever from the conservative parties during the election campaign. It is a very opportunistic campaign that they are running at the moment. It has been said in this debate by Senator Bjelke-Petersen and by a number of others-I am astounded by it-that the Australian Taxation Office has admitted that it will not be able to recoup any tax losses through the introduction of the Australia Card. It has been said again and again in this debate. It is just astonishing. I refer honourable senators, in particular the honourable senator whom I have just mentioned, to the report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. Paragraph 1.12 on page 8 states: The Australian Taxation Office's estimates of taxation revenue gains based on 1985/86 prices, for a Card without and with a photograph are shown in the Tables 1 and 2. . . . These Tables indicate that revenue gains in the scheme's fourth year of full operation are estimated to be $551 million (without a photograph) and $724 million (with a photograph). That is what the Taxation Office actually said. Page 26 of the report, which obviously a number of members of this chamber have not read lately, states that the Australian Taxation Office: . . . suggested that the proposed Australia Card system would have some effect on the cash economy . . . The Australian Taxation Office said: An essential element of the Government's submission was the extent of the revenue gains from ATO uses of the Australia Card. The Committee probed Departmental witnesses at length on this issue. From the outset the ATO indicated that the tax benefits from the Card were extremely conservative. Mr McDermott told the Committee: I would say without fear of any sustainable argument to the contrary being advanced that the figures in the Government's submission relating to tax benefits are conservative in the extreme. Firstly, they do not take account of additional taxes and penalties that would ordinarily arise from amendments to returns where we have detected omissions of income, secondly, they do not take account of amendments of prior returns which could ordinarily be expected where we detect evasion and, thirdly, by many standards the estimates of evasion on which the estimates of benefits are based are extremely low. * * * If the third factor is taken into account and tax evasion is therefore in the order of $6-7 billion per annum, the possible benefits of the Australia Card program could be more than double the $750 million estimates provided in the Government submission. The ATO was of the view that no other single action could be taken that would produce revenue gains of the magnitude estimated as a result of the proposed Australia Card Program. That is what the Australian Taxation Office said, rather than what people keep saying it said. Page 4 of the Northern Territory Treasury's annual report for 1985-86, dealing with tax avoidance and evasion, states: Experience in the Northern Territory and States has shown that there is an increasing number of taxpayers turning to minimisation schemes which range from legal minimisation (avoidance) to illegal minimisation (evasion). Most tax avoidance schemes in the area of stamp duty involve lengthy and complex documentation, particularly where the legislative provisions sought to be avoided are themselves complex. Tax avoidance in the payroll tax area often involves paper arrangements purporting to convert employees to contractor status . . . That is the very problem that the Australia Card will comprehensively remove. For many years I have seen that evasion operate on the ground in the Northern Territory. Senator Puplick carried on at length about the dreadful result of being numbered. That was another piece of the outstanding claptrap which has been introduced into the debate and needs to be exposed. A careful reading of the report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card shows that Senator Puplick and the other honourable senators recommended that we should all be numbered. Page 202 of Senator Puplick's addendum to the report states: The majority of the members of the Joint Select Committee share many of my concerns about the Australia Card proposal. As a result they have decided on balance to recommend against adoption of the Government's proposal . . . The addendum continued: The Report of the Joint Select Committee thus proposes as its central recommendation the use of an improved and upgraded system based upon a tax file number of higher integrity than that currently used. Senator Puplick's final paragraph stated: These recommendations have my support. I believe they adequately address areas of prime concern without at the same time posing the threats to privacy and civil liberties which I see as inevitable consequences arising from the Australia Card. Turning to the submissions to the Joint Select Committee to find out what is involved in upgrading the tax file number, one sees some interesting information. Senator Puplick features in this, too. Page 3949 of the Hansard transcript of evidence to the Joint Select Committee shows questioning of Mr McDermott of the Australian Taxation Office. The transcript reads: CHAIRMAN-Mr McDermott, basically what you have presented us with is an alternative to the current proposal using pretty much what has been proposed- that is true enough- specifically, of course, with a tax point of view in mind. Could we get down to the tin-tacks as to where it would differ. Did you say it is likely that there would be a plastic card with the file number on it? Mr McDermott-Yes. CHAIRMAN-Will there be a photograph? Mr McDermott-No. CHAIRMAN-It would be given out subject to an interview or whatever, at tax offices, post offices or country centres that would be appropriate? Mr McDermott-Yes. CHAIRMAN-It would include the extra four million adults not currently paying tax? Mr McDermott-Yes. CHAIRMAN-Would it include the four million children not paying tax? Mr McDermott-Yes. . . . . . . CHAIRMAN-Would you require a decision from the Government for legislation to come up in the Budget session to meet that deadline of 1988? Mr McDermott-Yes, to meet the benefits that we have outlined . . . CHAIRMAN-Can I add to that then the other question of a photograph. If you decided to go for a plastic card with a tax file number and a photograph, is that of value to you and would it enable you to meet that schedule? Mr McDermott-No. Mr McDermott went on to say that the Australian Taxation Office wanted the introduction of the much higher integrity Australia Card. Later, he said: Yes, I think so. That is probably the main reason why we- the Australian Taxation Office- have supported an Australia Card approach rather than a taxation file number approach because there are many other benefits and uses that can be obtained besides the taxation benefits that are likely to accrue. It would be very difficult for us to sell that concept, I think, from a taxation agency viewpoint. The Chairman said: So technically you could have a mini Australia Card, if I can put it that way, that specifically did the job . . . Replying to Senator Puplick, Mr McDermott said: Are you saying to me, Senator, would we rather have a taxation file number or nothing? If so, the answer is that we would much rather have the taxation file numbers. The transcript continued: Senator PUPLICK —I am glad to hear it. CHAIRMAN-It would operate in this proposed vein. Just make sure that is on record. Mr McDermott-Yes. It was worth reading all that out. Senator Walters —Does it include medical history? Senator COLLINS —I shall talk about that point now. It is interesting that despite the fact that all Committee members unanimously supported the upgrading of the taxation file number, with interviews, a plastic card and a single number issued to each person-that system would cost almost as much as the Australia Card, although it would not have anywhere near the same number of benefits-a number of Opposition senators have been moving from that idea as the debate has picked up speed in terms of misrepresentations. I should be interested to know whether Senator Puplick remains firmly of the view, as clearly illustrated in the transcript of evidence and his addendum to the Joint Select Committee report, that the upgraded tax file number, with a plastic card, interviews, and so on, is the appropriate way to go. What happens if we follow up all the claptrap dished out on how easy it will be to break into the system? There is a vision of thousands of hackers running around, digging holes in the ground, plugging into the dedicated lines and somehow decoding all the electronically coded information in the line and, after all that effort- Senator Walters —Just the big boys. Senator COLLINS —coming up with a name and telephone number-I assure Senator Walters that no one will be after hers. What will those people do with that information? If it is easy for hackers to probe to that extent and plough into those records, it will be just as easy for them to do so with an upgraded tax file number database system. Where is the conflict between these two proposals? Comments on how easy it will be to forge the cards have been trotted out. We have been told that we will be able to get the cards on street corners. Someone said the other day that they will cost $15, or 25 bucks if one has to get a fake birth certificate. Instead of the rubbish, we should look at the matter again. If we spend all this money setting up parliamentary committees, it is always instructive to read what they have said. I turn again to the evidence given to the Joint Select Committee. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator COLLINS —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I was discussing the many statements that have been made during the Australia Card debate about the ease with which these cards will allegedly be forged. Those statements surprised me because of the very widespread use of this kind of technology around the world today. Indeed, I am carrying a Northern Territory drivers licence with my ugly mug attached to it. That reform of identification in the Northern Territory has been very largely welcomed by the people who live there. I also note that Victoria is bringing in a similar reform. Indeed, in New South Wales there is talk of enhancing that technology so that the licences with photographs attached will be able to be used as a form of credit card. Senator Knowles —Are you trying to say that is the same as the ID card? Senator COLLINS —It is straight after dinner. Can you restrain yourself for just five minutes? I will not be long. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Powell) —Senator Collins, please address your remarks through the chair. Senator COLLINS —I was attempting to do that. Senator Knowles —Are you saying that is the same as the ID card? Senator COLLINS —If the honourable senator will wait, all will be revealed unto her. To refer to the fact, rather than the fiction that has been put about during this debate, I once again refer to that invaluable and very expensive committee, the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, which investigated the matter on behalf of the Parliament. I refer to the submission made by a not disinterested organisation, Polaroid Australia Pty Ltd, which, seeing as it has just won a recent court battle with Kodak (Australasia) Pty Ltd, has a monopoly on the market. Its submission at page 1302 of the Hansard states: All 51 U.S. States carry color portraits of the licensed persons. The two main manufacturers are DEK (wet process) and Polaroid (instant film). It also states: In Australia, the Victorian Government has begun introducing photos on cards for its 1.5 million drivers using the DEK (wet process). The NT Government is introducing an over-the-counter color photo drivers licence using Polaroid technology. That great State concerned with civil liberties, Queensland, is in fact the largest user of this system. The submission also states: The largest high security color portrait banking card programme in Australia is the Cashcard introduced by the Metropolitan Permanent Building Society in Queensland for 180,000 depositors. As we have heard no complaints about it, it has no doubt been introduced with great success. The submission goes on at page 1298 to state: There is substantial evidence that the use of a photograph provides a greater degree of security to an I.D. or banking card. It is for this reason that all 51 U.S. States which issued drivers licences in 1985 used color photographs. Some 400 financial institutions around the world issue a banking card with a color portrait of the customer. Later it states: In 1976, Interbank which operates Mastercharge- I do not need to point out to honourable senators that it is one of the largest credit card organisations in the world- evaluated the security of photo identification and found that although three million portrait cards had been issued, there had been only four fraud attempts, none successful. In the Australian experience, the Launceston Bank for Savings Visa Card with 6,000 Visa color portrait cards on issue has reported only two attempts at fraudulent use-- both unsuccessful and-- both at the same venue in Spain. Those are the facts rather than the fiction which has been put about in this debate. In referring to the protection that will be offered by the Data Protection Agency, it is instructive to consider the information that one needs to provide to a bank in order to take out a Bankcard. I would like to know how many honourable senators in this House do not have a Bankcard. I have here a typical Bankcard application form. It requires applicants to give the maiden name of one's mother, the State in which she was born, the number of one's drivers licence and the State in which it was issued. One is required to fill out two full pages of the most meticulous financial information about one's affairs, including all the money one owes, money that one has loaned, the rent one gets from any property, even down to how much rent one gets from one's own children. A complete financial account is required and there is no protection provided as to how that information may be used. That does not seem to concern anybody. I turn very briefly to the support given to the Australia Card by the Australian Taxation Office and to the reference I made earlier to the other uses that can be made of the card, one of which is to combat the problem of illegal immigration in this country. It is a very serious problem, particularly in my neck of the woods, with people coming into the country illegally, getting false identities and then living off our social security system. I refer honourable senators to an article in the Adelaide Advertiser of Monday. The opening two paragraphs state: Australian Federal Police have smashed a massive passport racket involving payments of up to $15,000 by illegal immigrants for fake permanent residency documents . . . Police have arrested six men . . . That is the very abuse that the Australia Card system will remove. The reality in this country-thank goodness for it-is that we have a government, leaving aside its political persuasion, which intervenes on a regular basis into people's lives, and I am glad for that. When people in this country get sick and have no money to pay for medical care, the Government intervenes and pays for it so that they do not die or suffer unnecessarily. When people do not have jobs, the Government intervenes and provides them with a living allowance so that they can maintain some dignity, feed themselves and look after their dependants. That is the system that we have and it currently costs us in excess of $20 billion of public money per year. For us to continue to operate that system-I hope we can in the foreseeable future-two things are required to offset that massive cost. One is an efficient and honest taxation system to get the revenue in in the first place and the second is to ensure that people do not double dip and take more than is their due from the other end of it. The Australia Card will accomplish both of those ends and I urge all honourable senators to support the legislation. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(8.07) —Listening to this debate, what is obviously very clear is that everybody here is after the same goal. We all want to see the tax rorts and the welfare cheats done away with. Nobody would disagree that this is what must be done. The Special Minister of State, Senator Ryan, in her second reading speech introducing the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 3], said: Honest Australians should not be subsidising those who are operating dishonestly within the tax and welfare systems. Honest Australians have a right to expect Government to protect the community as a whole from fraud and abuse against the tax and welfare systems. They have a right to expect that the Government ensures as best as it can that everyone contributes their fair and reasonable share of tax. They have a right to expect that welfare benefits are paid only to those who are truly entitled to those benefits. I do not think that anybody in this chamber could possible disagree with those statements. So the question in hand is: How can we best achieve that? When the Australia Card was first thought up as a way to combat tax fraud and social welfare cheating in 1985, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) put out a White Paper which contained the germ of the idea. This was entitled `Reform of the Australian Taxation System'. But what has happened is that the idea has gone overboard, so to speak. We do not want to be a country like South Africa and in trying to have some controls cause imprisonment without trial. We do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. There is a very easy way to cure a headache; that is, to cut your head off. But I do not think anyone would suggest that that is the best cure for a headache. There are many oddities in this Bill that I would like to discuss. The first oddity is that, if it comes to fruition, the Australia Card will be administered by the Department of Community Services and Health. That is typical of the rather muddled thinking that is being proceeded with in the attempt to achieve these goals. Once the idea of an identification card had been mooted, the Government agreed to the establishment of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card to look at all the possibilities. The Committee had eight members, from both Houses and from all parties. The Committee examined 129 submissions and many witnesses and took a great deal of evidence, which was just about measured in tonnes. In May 1986 the Joint Select Committee reported to the Parliament. The Committee did not want the Australia Card, according to its majority report. On the evidence collected the majority said no. I remind honourable senators that the evidence included the Government's own 300-page submission, `Towards Fairness and Equity', as well as the Health Insurance Commission's final planning report. This report is rather like a telephone directory. It contains all the possible ways of administering an ID card, with some colour plates in it of what it might look like, with photograph, without photograph, adults, children, resident, visitor and so on. But the majority of the Committee still said no. The majority consisted of Liberals James Porter and Senator Chris Puplick, National Party Charles Blunt, John Saunderson from the Australian Labor Party and Democrats Leader Senator Janine Haines. The majority represented all parties, including the Government's Party. Three members of the Committee, all ALP members, put in a dissenting minority report: Senator Terry Aulich, Bob Brown and John Brumby. The Committee, which said no to the ID card, did, however, make a number of recommendations. It recommended a computerised register of births and deaths which should be restricted to a few government departments, notably the Australian Taxation Office. The Committee recommended the establishment of a data protection agency to control the collection and use of personal data. Above all, it recommended that the Government introduce a series of measures, which are generally referred to as option B and which relate to ranking and taxation and an upgraded tax file number. This was felt by the Committee to be necessary to combat tax and social security fraud. The Committee proposed that the use of the tax file number be extended to cover all the financial transactions proposed in the Government's submission for use of the Australia Card number by the Australian Taxation Office as well as for social security purposes. It is most unfortunate that Senator Ryan in her speech should describe this as the shoddy alternative. I do not think that a parliamentary select committee from both Houses should have its solution termed the shoddy alternative. The Committee also decided that Medicare should continue as a separate entity with a separate numbering system. The problem here, as would be the problem with the proposed Australia Card, is one of low integrity documents. Birth certificates as issued now are low integrity documents. Even with option B, tax file numbers would have to be investigated over a period of years. But this could be done. The Committee's recommendation was that it should take about five years and that the Department of Social Security should progressively review proof of identity of all existing pension and unemployment benefit beneficiaries to bring them within the system of controls based on tax file numbers. It is very important to note that at this stage the Committee had not seen the proposed legislation, the Australia Card Bill, as it stands now. It simply did not exist. The Government had the idea of the card and set up the Select Committee to look at the options. But then it ignored the Committee's recommendations and went ahead with the card anyway. The Bill was introduced into the other place. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) gave the second reading speech in October last year. The Bill was then defeated in this place. When it was defeated the second time, in December last year, it nominally became the trigger for the Federal election. But we all must admit that it really was not an issue during the election campaign. It was not a campaign issue at all. I would like to ask why the Government was so silent on the issue during the election campaign. Senator Reynolds —The Prime Minister announced it. Senator JENKINS —Yes, but as an election campaign issue it was not a hot issue, shall we say. Senator Reynolds —Ask the Opposition why that was the case. Senator JENKINS —The Opposition was also quiet, I agree. So were the media. The media were very blase about the whole subject. The Democrats certainly tried to raise the issue. In our Party's national journal we carried a major article on why we opposed the card, written as early as December last year. Time and again during the election campaign the Democrats Leader Janine Haines spoke out against the Australia Card, particularly on talkback radio, all over Australia asking the hard questions about the card. Those questions were: `Is it necessary?', `Is it a threat to civil liberties?' and `Will it work?'. But as I said, the issue did not get picked up. The ID card did not become a hot election issue. Because of that I ask: does the Government really have a mandate, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Senator Ryan claim? The issue certainly was the trigger for the double dissolution, but what actually is a mandate? The Government has a mandate to govern according to its published policy platform. The Government has a mandate not to reintroduce tertiary fees. The Government has a mandate to introduce land rights. The Government has a mandate not to sell uranium to the French. But I do not believe that the Government has a mandate to impose numbers on the Australian people, to bulldoze legislation through the Parliament or to ignore the clear wish of the majority of Australians with the thin promise that the legislation will be amended after it has been passed. As I said in my inaugural speech only yesterday, democracy functions only if the electorate understands what is going on. I do not believe that the electorate understood the full implications of the proposed Australia Card legislation. The details of the Bill were not spelt out to the electorate. Most people also thought-I have spoken to a number of people about this-that once the Bill was defeated that would be the end of it, even if it caused a double dissolution. Out in the electorate people just did not understand the full implications of the double dissolution and of a proposed joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament. The Constitution says that, in the event of a joint sitting, the same Bill which was used as a trigger for the election has to be used. In other words, the Bill cannot now be amended. We cannot even take out its more objectionable parts. It is a straight yes or no situation, take it or leave it. We cannot change the Bill at all. I hope that we can try to change the minds of Government senators so that the Bill can be referred to a Senate committee of inquiry. Honourable senators will recall that the original Joint Committee never actually studied the legislation. Until recently, when we started to publicise the details of the Bill, members of the general public had no real idea of the consequences of the proposed law. There is no doubt that people are changing their minds. One has only to look at the polls reported in today's Australian. In June 1986 the total number of people in favour of the Australia Card was 68 per cent, as polled. But in September 1987 the number was down to 39 per cent. In June 1986 the people who believed that we should have no identity card at all numbered 29 per cent of the population. By September 1987 this had risen to 57 per cent. That is a remarkable increase and it must reflect a change in public opinion since the details of the Bill have been made public. When the Bill was first introduced a few law students and people in civil liberties organisations, some, but not all, Australian Democrats and quite a few people who had come to Australia from left or right wing totalitarian states objected to the card, but now this objection has snowballed as people start to look at the whole thing. Public meetings have been held all over Australia. An organisation in Western Australia called `People Against the Australia Card' held a meeting in the South Perth Civic Centre. More than 2,000 people turned up. The hall seated only about 600 to 700 people, which meant that some people were standing up around the sides and in the foyer and even outside in the car park. This has been the pattern throughout Australia. There have been newspaper editorials against the card. Trade unions, first in South Australia and now everywhere, and Labor lawyers provide all the traditional support that the Government usually relies on, but that support is slowly slipping away. I appeal to Government senators to listen to what is going on, to listen to the community and to realise that people do not want this draconian legislation. The Government claims that the Australia Card is being introduced to combat tax fraud and social security fraud, but unfortunately this legislation goes much further than that. Senator Beahan —How? Senator JENKINS —I will come to that in a moment, Senator. Mr Hawke said on the Willesee show that he would amend the ID card legislation, when passed, if it were to the benefit of people. That is an admission that this legislation should be changed before rather than after the event. There is another problem in that statement made by Mr Hawke. If the card can be amended to the advantage of the people after it has been passed, it can also be amended to their disadvantage. I believe that we are all here to represent ordinary people. At least I feel that I am, and I presume that the Government senators feel the same way. For the most part, ordinary people are fair and willing to pay their fair share of tax and do not want to cheat the welfare system. They are willing to see that tax and welfare cheats are brought to justice. The problem is that the Australia Card will not necessarily do that. The Government says that it will, but a vast number of people in the community are not so optimistic. Computer societies around Australia are also unhappy with the card. Senator Nick Bolkus, who should be on the Government's side, wrote a penetrating paper on the Australia Card in which he demonstrated that, far from making tax fraud harder, the card would make it easier. It is telling commentary on the way the Government functions that Senator Bolkus has been rather silent on the issue ever since. The Health Insurance Commission has admitted that more than 20,000 duplicate Medicare cards have been issued and that many have been used to defraud the Department of Health. In a recent Four Corners program on Australian Broadcasting Corporation television, Frank Costigan, QC, the man who gave his name to the royal commission investigating tax fraud, stated that the problem was simply not one of identification. He said that tax fraud is a matter of clever operators finding loopholes, setting up bogus companies and operating at the bottom of the harbour. An ID card is not going even to touch the big operators. Neal Blewett, in his second reading speech on the Bill, said: I would urge members of both Houses to read the Bill with care, and not to reject it on the basis of a Luddite distrust of technology, or on the basis of unexamined assumptions about the threat to privacy. But far from having a Luddite distrust of technology, it is because we and the computer organisations understand the possibilities of technology that we distrust it. That is why computer experts such as Professor Jennifer Seberry distrust it. At the recent Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science conference Professor Seberry said: It is frightening just how little security exists to protect computer data from the curious . . . She said that the Australia Card could lead to an unprecedented invasion of privacy. So much for the Government's stance that the innocent have nothing to fear. As the Law Council of Australia argued in its submission to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card: Honest people would remain honest but encumbered by the card; dishonest people will remain so-unaffected by the card, yet having it available as an additional tool. It is precisely the innocent who have the most to fear and who can be manipulated. I now turn to Senator Beahan's point. Nobody objects to having an identity-to being someone. Most of us do not object to carrying cards associated with that identity. We all have Bankcards, library cards and driving licences and taxpayers all have, or should have, a tax file number. But where the Australia Card legislation goes overboard and far beyond any of these other cards, is that it links all the information into one great computerised centre. There will be one number for each citizen, and that number will give access to the citizen's tax records, health records, the date of marriage, birth and death and address and occupation of the citizen. At the moment there are 35 separate bits of information proposed for the central databank on each citizen. But the legislation is open-ended. More can be added as the Government requires. Who has access to all of this information? A whole army of bureaucrats from different Government departments have access and, after that, it is anybody's guess. I recently spoke to a person who used to work in the Taxation Office, but I am happy to say that he does not work there now. He said that the first thing he did when he started work there was to look up all the taxation records of his friends, just out of curiosity and with no malice in mind, and he was able to do that quite easily. I put it to honourable senators that bureaucrats will automatically have access to information to which they have no right. Senator Beahan —They have now. Senator JENKINS —Yes, but at least there is no cross-referencing. At least the taxation records are limited to taxation. That is the whole point. Senator Ryan has repeatedly claimed that the system will be secure. I refer her to the computer section of today's Australian for an account of how enthusiastic and sophisticated amateurs in West Germany had three months access to the supposedly secure National Aeronautics and Space Administration network in nine countries. I put it to honourable senators that Senator Ryan's secure system would provide an exciting challenge to hackers. I wonder how long it would take them to crack the code. Yet the greatest danger to the security of the system is, as I have just said, probably the small army of public servants who would have some legitimate access to the system. I mention a subtle but important philosophical point. Under our free democratic system, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The onus of proof is on the state. Yet the ID card proposal effectively reverses this presumption. Here I am, a free person in a free society, and I do not need a card to tell anyone that I am a free and and innocent citizen. Let me quote from a recent editorial in the Australian Financial Review. It is a fairly unlikely ally, perhaps, but its editorial of 28 August made some very important points: There is no requirement in Australia that anyone follow a particular religion or even a particular style of government other than one which is obviously subversive of a free system. Yet it is all too obvious that even today various authorities and police forces hold different views. The notion of `freedom' is not really well entrenched in this country, let alone given legal protection. If Australia's social freedoms become established around a formal `identity card', it is hard to believe that they will not be weakened. The Australian Financial Review went on: The role of a self-styled reformist government such as that led by Mr Hawke should be to reinforce the bulwarks of democracy and not to destroy them. It is simply obscene to use revenue arguments (`we can make more money out of the Australia Card') as support for authoritarian impositions rather than take the road of broadening national freedoms. Very well then, but would it work? Some people might argue that we have to give up some of our freedoms in order to live in a reasonable society-we all drive on the same side of the road, we conform to all sorts of rules and regulations-but would the centralised databank actually have an effect on tax fraud? Well, have a look at some of the countries which have something of the sort-Sweden, and Italy and other European Economic Community countries. The black market in Italy is estimated to be between 30 per cent and 50 per cent of that country's economy. It just flows around the official, regulated market. The same is true in the rest of Europe. In Sweden, where the databank system is most sophisticated, and which the Australian Government is looking at as a model, there are further and darker ramifications. The Swedish black economy is thriving but, at the same time, so is the level of electronic snooping by the Swedish Government. That country's databank agency was established with the same sort of optimism as Neal Blewett has when he talks about the Australia Card. But quite recently, Jan Freese, the Chairman of the Swedish Data Inspection Board, actually resigned from the Board because of what he saw as a serious misuse of the collected information. He was deeply pessimistic, he said, about a `computerised future' and the existing abuse of interlinked information systems. This was the system, remember, which is the model for the proposed Australian system. If one tries to find out about the card itself, the actual piece of plastic, one comes across a curious vagueness. There is something called the Australia Card Secretariat, attached to the Department of Community Services and Health. But my understanding is that no actual work on the administration of the card took place after the first defeat of the Bill last year. There are various mock-ups in various Government reports. There are also some worrying reports of a so-called `smart card', which is a wholly different can of electronic worms. Right at the beginning of the Bill it is stated that no one is compelled to carry the card. But, to quote Neal Blewett: If people wish not to carry a card, they'll just have to recognise they will have that particular inconvenience . . . What sort of inconvenience? Under clause 49 (2) it is an offence for an employer to pay a non-card-carrying person; under clause 49 (1) a cardless person may not be hired anyway. Widows and the sick, supporting parents, the aged and invalids cannot expect to be paid their pensions or benefits without a card. Under clause 40 (2) cardless citizens will not be able to get at their own bank accounts; or have access to money in a trust or other financial institutions; or sell or rent a house; or claim Medicare benefits; or perhaps even receive hospital treatment. All of this is in the name of tax fraud. This is why I say that this legislation has gone overboard. And remember that the Bill states that no one will be compelled to carry the card-that is, if they do not mind the inconvenience of becoming a non-person in their own country, not being paid through their bank accounts and not receiving social security benefits. `Strange bedfellows' is a political cliche. We do not all oppose the Australia Card for the same reasons, but in this chamber we are all in very good company. The card is opposed by honourable senators from three political parties and, I believe, the independents as well. Only the Australian Labor Party's rigid and undemocratic Caucus system prevents us counting among us many on the Government side of the chamber who are on record as being privately opposed to the Bill but who will not buck the system. Finally, I would just like to add that 200 years ago the First Fleet brought 1,000 people to Australia in chains. But these people were in iron chains which could be struck off with a hammer, and they were. Australia became a free nation of free citizens. But the chains imposed by the Australia Card are more subtle. They will entrap a whole nation, and no one knows where the captive nation will be led in future. All we know is that the new chains have been forged by a deceit. I do not believe that it has been deliberate; nonetheless, I believe that that deceit is there. In the past many of us have taken up the struggle against wrong laws. We have taken up the struggle in the streets and taken it to the people. We have protested at the Vietnam war, blockaded the Franklin River, and we have walked against war. I certainly support the amendment that has been moved. I say: let this Australia Card legislation go before a Senate committee of inquiry; let the debate continue; let it be put to a referendum of the people of Australia. (Quorum formed) Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(8.37) —I rise to support the amendment moved by my colleague Senator Puplick. We have heard very little in the Government's case, such as it has been, for this piece of legislation, about either the costs of the measure or the benefits purported to flow from it. Yet, it is that narrow financial calculation which the Government presents as being the basic justification for the introduction of what I refrain from calling the Australia Card-the ID card. We on this side of the chamber certainly do not accept that, even if it were possible to justify the claim that there is a valid cost-benefit ratio for this particular measure, that in itself would justify its introduction. We happen to believe that there is a great deal more to matters of this grave kind than mere dollars and cents. Let us, nevertheless, address the proposition first on the ground which the Government itself chooses-namely, those dollars and cents. The Government has, so far as I am aware, produced no basis for its estimates of the cost of this measure. Indeed, it is not altogether easy to ascertain what those costs are estimated to be. One sees figures in the order of three-quarters of a billion dollars floating around over some indeterminate period-something like the next four to five years. We see equally cloudy estimates of the asserted financial benefits, which seem to change almost whenever the Treasurer (Mr Keating) rewrites his Budget Speech. I think it has recently been claimed by the Treasurer that the benefits will amount to no less than $1 billion a year once the scheme is in full swing. In any case magnitudes of that kind are not being compared on a like basis because the stream of benefits alleged to flow from this measure is not being converted-at least as far as I am aware; I have seen no calculations of this-into present values, nor is the stream of costs. Until both those things are done one cannot actually compare them on a like to like basis. Apart from the fact that that elementary-rudimentary, one might have thought-estimate is not offered to us, we have no details. As far as I am aware we have had no details whatsoever on either the cost side or the benefit side. We have had no detail as to how much the introduction of this card, when fully operative-years ahead of us-will garner by way of additional revenue-and that is the key point-over and above what would otherwise be obtained from the normal operation of the taxation system from income taxes on individuals or company taxes or, indeed, from any other source. On the other aspect of the alleged financial benefits of this measure, equally we have seen no estimates in any way broken down of the gains or savings to be had on the expenditure side of the Budget as a result of the introduction of this card from the minimisation or reduction of those whom this Government only 18 months ago was refusing to call `dole bludgers'. The Government now seems to have discovered dole bludgers and it seems to believe that it has them coming out of its ears. Nevertheless, it is totally reluctant to give us any figures as to the savings that it, or the government of the day, might obtain from that quarter. As far as I know, the Government has given no details of the savings-additional savings over and above those that might otherwise be obtained by normal administrative measures-from the area of the supporting parent's benefit. It has given no estimate of the savings to be had in the areas of sickness benefits or invalid benefits. Indeed, we have no detail whatsoever for these totally unsupported figures which, on the face of it, the Government appears to have plucked largely out of thin air. When senators on this side of the chamber have made their now considerable objections known to this measure, some Government senators-not all have been so dishonourable-have had the impertinence to allege that people arguing as we have argued are guilty of supporting tax rorts and welfare cheats. I know of no more discreditable line of argument than that. I certainly do not convict all or even most Government senators of that line of dishonourable argument, but certainly some have been guilty of it. It is only proper to say, speaking for myself and, I am sure, for everyone on this side of the chamber, that opposition to this measure has nothing to do with sympathy for tax or welfare cheats. It has to do with a totally proper regard for the invasion of civil liberties which this measure principally represents. Apart from that aspect, there is another aspect to this whole question of the Government's lack of estimates in this area. Such estimates as we have had from the Government-figures plucked largely out of thin air-are themselves considerably dated. In one breath the Government continues to say that it requires the introduction of the ID card in order to obtain these additional savings in the tax system, for example, but at the same time it is claiming-and with some substance, one must say-to have made great strides in already tightening up the administration of the tax system and in other ways garnering revenue that had not been obtained previously. In the past few years we have had the introduction of the prescribed payments system. That was introduced before I left the Treasury. We have had the introduction of the fringe benefits tax and the introduction of non-deductibility of legitimate business expenses for entertainment. We have had on an increasing basis-and it is promised to increase further-the audit system in the Australian Taxation Office, the introduction of the self-assessment processes and the diversion-I think perhaps long overdue-of a large portion of the Commissioner of Taxation's staff into audit procedures rather than assessment procedures. As we know from both the anecdotal evidence and much evidence in the journals of opinion, a good deal of success is being achieved in those areas. In addition on the welfare side, earlier this year the Government belatedly introduced what I call its `search and destroy' teams. These teams go out into areas of the community where the level of unemployment benefit claimants appears to be abnormally high. They investigate the claimants in those areas. On the basis of the last figures I saw on that subject their strike rate-their kill rate, if you like-was something like 25 per cent of people who are being knocked off the unemployment benefit recipient rolls. I think I am also correct-in fact, I know I am-in saying that they are conducting similar `search and destroy' missions in the area of supporting parent's benefits. If one reads the Budget Papers-I am not making these matters up-which the Government produced only last week, one will find its claims for the savings being achieved in all these areas by these measures. This Government has been in office for four and a half years during which all these things have been going on. Only now has it got around to dealing with them. Yet this Government, far from reducing its estimates of financial benefits from the introduction of this card, has actually increased them. So much for that. One has to ask why it is that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is so adamant-or appears to be so adamant-in the face of such mounting opposition, to introduce this ID card, this un-Australian card. I can only conclude that he is seeking to get the Australian people united, as for example, to choose a prototype at random, Bismarck did to Germany over a century ago. How he has succeeded. We have never seen Australians so united in their views. The trouble is, from the Prime Minister's point of view, that they are united against him, unlike the German people under Mr Bismarck. In this case the Prime Minister has shown some of the attributes of Bismarck of whom it was said that he had once declared that it was not by speechifying and majorities that the great questions of the time would have to be decided. In his memoirs Bismarck is said to have `fostered the impression of himself as a man of iron will, utter ruthlessness and studied purpose'. Perhaps we have seen some of those attributes coming to the fore in the Prime Minister's conduct in relation to the debate in and outside the Parliament on this un-Australian card. It is notable that anyone who dares to deny the Prime Minister's `iron will and studied purpose' in this regard is abused and denigrated. We have seen a massive response, almost all of it adverse, to the un-Australian Card in all our major newspapers. The response has amazed even otherwise hard-nosed editors. I have chosen a letter from today's Australian as illustrating the kind of letter that is being written to our newspapers on this topic by people who do not normally write to the newspapers. I happen to know the author of the letter I am about to quote. The author is Mr Ewart Smith, who for many years was a colleague of mine in the Commonwealth Public Service. He was for many years, as long as I can remember, in fact, in the Attorney-General's Department of the Commonwealth. Senator Aulich —Which is why he agreed to sign your letter. Senator STONE —I will respond to that interjection, Madam Acting Deputy President, because it is typical of the quality of interjection coming from that quarter of the Senate-a new senator who perhaps has yet to learn better, and therefore I will not name him. Nevertheless, in the interjection the senator has slandered a man who has given probably 40 to 45 years service to this country in a manner which has certainly not yet been emulated and may never be emulated by the honourable senator opposite. He has chosen to suggest, through his interjection, that this honourable man has signed a letter which I drafted for him. I say no more, Madam Acting Deputy President. That kind of remark would normally be treated with contempt, but I thought it necessary to point it out as an example of the kind of interjection coming from that quarter of the Senate, which I think does the Senate no credit. I return to my theme and continue with my remarks. Mr Ewart Smith, as I said, was for many years an officer of the Attorney-General's Department, rising to become a deputy secretary in that Department, a post which he held for 10 years. On his retirement from that Department he became for six years a member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, a position from which he has recently retired. He does not therefore speak from the position of ignorance of these matters which characterises the kinds of interjections coming from the Government benches. Therefore, I want to place on record one or two of the comments made by Mr Ewart Smith in his letter in this morning's Australian; he published a similar letter in the Canberra Times a couple of days ago. Mr Ewart Smith said: Sir, I have never felt more strongly on any issue than the projected Australia Card. I am not, nor have I ever been, a tax cheat or a social security cheat . . . I have not engaged in any tax-avoiding family trust. Indeed, if I have an axe to grind, it is to seek the stopping of fraud. After noting his service, which I have already enumerated to the Senate, Mr Ewart Smith said that in his capacity as an officer of the Attorney-General's Department he was a constitutional adviser to the government of the day: . . . and enjoyed the confidence of the Liberal and Labor governments whom I served. I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of a political party. But the time has come to speak out against this evil card. Those of us who served in the Second World War- as he apparently did- fought for freedom and that freedom must be jealously guarded . . . The price of liberty is eternal vigilance and never has our liberty been so threatened as at present. The 130-page, 189-clause Bill that seeks to enmesh us all on the pretext that it is essential that we be properly identified to prevent tax fraud and social security fraud by a comparatively small proportion of society is an obscenity that must be stopped. He goes on later in the letter to say: The all-pervasive nature of the card system, apparent from a study of the Bill (which I have made)- I cannot think of anyone more competent to make such a study- will bring needless complication to all our lives and fear and worry to countless citizens (especially migrants), while sprinkling offences around like a fish-and-chips proprietor would with the salt. I suppose that other senators' inward mail is rather like my own, reflecting the concerns of ordinary Australians. I received a letter today from which I propose to quote one paragraph only. This is from a Sydney medico, a woman whom I do not know very well but I know her well enough to know that she is a person of quality whose bona fides are not in question. She says: Although I had not thought to write to you and Mr Hawke on one night, the sight of you walking the streets of Brisbane- I think she must have seen the television footage of our anti-ID card demonstration there just over a week ago- has prompted me to what must be every citizen's duty in opposing the imposition of the tyranny of the pernicious plastic card and the all-knowing data banks. It seems that 2,000 years of the supremacy of the individual over the domination of the state, in search of which so many have left lands of oppression, may yet hold sway in Australia. If not, at least I shall have added my invective to quell the arrogance of the coiffured puppet- that is rather a harsh term to describe the Prime Minister- who struts the stage and thinks himself untouchable. She concludes the paragraph by quoting: In order for evil to triumph it is necessary only that good men- and she should have added `good women'- do nothing. What is this proposed law a law with respect to? Every Commonwealth law must be characterised as a law with respect to some subject of Commonwealth power conferred on the Commonwealth Parliament by the Constitution. We read in clause 3 of the Bill what its objects are. Taken at their face value, they appear to relate to the subject matters specified in the clause, which are undoubtedly Commonwealth powers. But are they to be taken at their face value? I ask: Is not the pith and substance of this proposed law rather a law to provide for the registration of the Australian people? That was regarded as a valid exercise of the Commonwealth power during the Second World War. Everyone had to be registered under the national security regulations at that time, but when the war ended the power shrank accordingly. Are we now to be taken to be in a state of war? The Prime Minister just over 14 or 15 months ago suggested that we might be in a state of economic war, a statement which accords ill with his current euphoria over the Budget brought down last week. Nevertheless, are we taken to be in a state of war such that no one, for example, may operate his own bank account duly established before the `first relevant date', to use the term in the Bill, without producing an ID card, when he might have been known to his banker for perhaps 40 years? On the question of people being legally debarred from operating their own bank accounts without going through the procedures and processes laid down in this legislation, how dare the Government-how dare any government in Australia-legislate to deprive people retrospectively of access to their own assets in this manner. The Bill is such an extensive product that it is not surprising that Government senators appear to be ill-informed about its contents. Indeed, one would have to say that the fact that it is such a wide-ranging document has meant that many people in the community have until recently been ill-informed about the detail of its contents. Consider only the processes related to the photographing of the Australian people which are laid down in the Bill. As I read the Bill, every person who has attained the age of 18 years is required to fill in a quite complicated application form and present himself or herself at an Authority office, an office of the Health Insurance Commission, for a photograph to be taken as required by the Authority. That is provided for in clause 12 (1) of the Bill. The mind boggles at the thought of upwards of 10 1/2 million people-that, I think, was about the number on the electoral roll at the last election-rolling up at the Authority's offices at the Authority's convenience-not the convenience of the people, of course, as that must take second place to the regimentation of the people. The Authority will not just ask them to come in to have their photographs taken. If that were done only about 20 per cent of them would come in to be branded. Not even an external passport system-I emphasise the word `external'-requires this sort of process. After all, if one wants to get an external passport in this country, one can bring one's own photograph so long as it is properly authenticated. But that is not the case with the Australia Card; people must learn to obey. I suppose that one way to delay the legislation coming into force would be for everyone to object, under clause 12 (3) of the Bill, on some ground or other to having a photograph taken. For example, if only half of the 10 1/2 million people did this, what a grand shemozzle that would be. The objection could be based, for example, on the photographing being expected to cause-I quote from the relevant clause of the Bill-`an unreasonable amount of distress to the person or to a member of his/her family'. If 5 1/2 million people were to make such a claim, the Authority, and the Data Protection Agency, would have to go through the duly laid down procedures mentioned in division 4 of part VII of the Bill in relation to each of those 5 1/2 million objections and each decision on the objections. I mentioned this matter to draw attention to the enormity of the problems and the way in which this legislation can be frustrated by determined people-and there are an awful lot of people out there who are very determined about this legislation at the moment, in case the Government has not yet noticed. Any such legislation of this conscription type demands, above all, consensus. It is the kind of legislation in respect of which, during a war, one may just possibly be able to achieve some kind of national consensus, although the history of conscription in Australia does not suggest that even in that case one is likely to be unduly successful. But certainly only in such times of extremes can one hope to achieve the kind of national consensus which is required to make legislation of this kind sufficiently acceptable to be operable. I am not talking now about principle; I am talking about the practical questions of bringing this thing into being. There is not only no consensus for the legislation; there is an overwhelming consensus against it. Just to round out this part of my remarks, I note that the photograph process will be repeated forever on a five-yearly basis. The Government, and in particular the Prime Minister, are justifiably proud-at least I think the Prime Minister is-of our national anthem, Advance Australia Fair. Have they ever thought of the meaning of the words in the opening lines? In case they cannot remember them, let me repeat them for the benefit of Government senators. Senator Reynolds —Would you like to sing? Senator STONE —They are: Australia's sons- I am sure that would be an acceptable beginning for Senator Reynolds- let us rejoice For we are young and free It is no accident that the word `free' appears in those opening lines-for that is what we have been, and it is in stark contrast to our old convict heritage. It was said of Britons that they `never, never, never shall be slaves'. That is what this legislation is about-enslaving us. How appalling it is, as our bicentenary year approaches, that Australians are once again having to fight for their freedom against a government which has been elected ostensibly to preserve it. Senator BEAHAN(Western Australia)(9.05) —Like Senator Jenkins-I refer not to her speech this evening but to her maiden speech yesterday-I was told about the higher standard of debate in the Senate. Obviously, I came in at the wrong time if this debate on the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 3] is any example of the standards that are normal to this place. I was also told that the Senate is, in a sense, an orderly and predictable place, and last night I found that even that is not true. Much of the debate, even from the normally rigorous Senator Stone, has focused on the perceived depth of feeling in the community. Of course there is depth of feeling in the community. The depth of feeling is caused by the sort of debate that is occurring here and publicly outside. I refer to the hysterical outbursts that are being perpetrated by the Opposition and its partners in this campaign, the Australian Democrats. I refer to the sort of emotive language, bordering on hysteria, and the whipping up of fervour in the community so that it will oppose the card in a way in which it obviously did not during the election campaign, which was the reason that the Opposition did not fight the election on that issue at all. I refer to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 11 September by Alan Mitchell headed `The Crazies against the ID Card'. Referring to comments by Peter Garrett for example, the article says that the: . . . `all-important numbering system' would give access to peoples' medical records, including treatment for sexually-transmitted diseases and psychiatric consultations. It says further that Ben Lexcen `fears for the future of European Australia' and says that `he would be forced to leave the country'. Dr Shepherd apparently thinks it will start a civil war. Those sorts of statements along with others used in this House are the sorts of things that are stirring up this emotion and hysteria in the community, and it is no wonder that the position has changed since the election. I will argue that the position is coming back very slowly but very surely. Examples of some of the emotive language that has been used in this place can be seen in the words of Senator Knowles. She referred to `dog tagging'. She went further to talk about tattooing on the forehead. Where in the Bill does she get that from? What item in the Bill gives any notion of that sort of totalitarian approach? Senator Michael Baume talked about the Hitler card or the Stalin card. Many people talk about the Moscow card. These are all attempts to link emotively very simple, straightforward and logical ideas to people's notions of what Hitler, Moscow or Stalin represent. Every rhetorical and propagandist trick is being used to stir up hysteria in the community, even to the point of gentle Senator Jenkins talking about this measure being reminiscent of the situation in South Africa and talking about imprisonment without trial. Where could she possibly get this out of this legislation? Who can tell me? The language is emotive; the arguments are at best subjective and at worst irrational and even absurd, and the imagery is simply florid, although it cannot be said to be very picturesque. So zealous is the campaign that even the media, which have been filling in during the interlude after the election when they have had nothing to write about, are starting to comment. Let me quote some of those media comments. I quote again from that same article by Alan Mitchell, `The Crazies against the ID Card': But I don't understand what the other prominent opponents of the card-people like Peter Garrett and Dr Shepherd and Joan Coxsedge- a nice motley group- . . . find so terrifying. What is this extraordinary threat to privacy and liberty that might start a civil war or drive Ben Lexcen out of Australia? In an article by Mike Steketee in the Sydney Morning Herald of 11 September headed `much ado about a host of wild misconceptions' he says, among other things: For emotional claptrap, it is hard to go past the present debate on an identity card. There has seldom been a subject on which there has been so much misunderstanding, so much misrepresentation and so much downright irrational fear. That irrational fear is the sort of thing that is being engendered by debates in this House and by those who express the same views at public meetings. I think that is quite wrong on the part of the Opposition and in particular on the part of the Australian Democrats, who pride themselves on a more rational approach. Members of the Liberal Party have a vested interest in upsetting the passage of this legislation no matter what their beliefs are, because it upsets the Government. The Democrats pride themselves on having some sort of sincerity, some sort of depth and some sort of analysis, but they are not showing it here. Senator McGauran —What about the Nationals? Senator BEAHAN —The National Party is as bad as the Liberal Party, and normally worse, if Senator Stone's contribution is any example. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald headed `The doubts about Australia Card' makes the following comment: The fears of the identity card's more vociferous opponents sometimes verge on the neurotic. That is another adjective that might apply to some of the things that have been said today and some of the people who have been saying them. In an article in the Age of 5 August 1987, headed `Card compatible with liberalism', Claud Forell says: Of all the objections that can be raised against the proposed national identification scheme, the argument that it represents a threat to civil liberties of the honest individual seems to me to be the least convincing. An article in the Australian of 5 September 1987 headed `In praise of the ``villainous'' ID card' makes the following point: If totalitarianism depends on a plastic card, how did Hitler get as far as he did? More contemporaneously, how is the Soviet Union able to control its citizens in much the same way without one, either? Because the means is being confused with the end. A totalitarian society can compile dossiers on its citizens with no trouble at all. The card makes no difference. An article in the Daily Mirror of 10 August 1987 states: The Australia Card may not be the perfect solution. But its opponents have not come up with anything better. The media is turning. It is starting to look at the more rational side of the debate and to analyse the emotive and hysterical language being used by the Opposition. I believe that in time this debate will be turned around when people start to think about the issues in a less emotional way. Senator Puplick's amendment defies logic in my opinion. It is based on the nonsense that we have not had enough time to debate the question. So we are to go into another committee, resulting in more words and a thick document, to debate the whole thing again. It has been debated ad nauseam. Let me remind honourable senators of the gruelling history of this legislation. As Senator Jenkins tonight reminded us-I will not go into the detail because she has it on record already-the concept was introduced in the draft White Paper entitled Reform of the Australian Taxation System in 1985 following estimates by the Australian Taxation Office that $3 billion was lost through tax evasion and that much of this was caused by the problem of identity. The Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card was established in November 1985 and delivered its report in 1986 with, as has already been pointed out, a minority report. Agreement was reached in a number of areas. I think this needs to be recorded, because it seems to be conveniently forgotten by members of the Opposition and the Democrats. Firstly, it was agreed that tax evasion is widespread. It was agreed that there is a problem with welfare fraud. It was agreed that this is contributed to by the lack of a proper process of identification. It was agreed that the problem can and should be attacked by means of a unique numbering system. It was agreed that the current collection of statistics on births, deaths and marriages is inadequate and that there is a need for computerisation and a consequent need for Commonwealth assistance. It was agreed that the question of a unique numbering system raises civil liberties questions and that the Data Protection Agency should be set up. It was agreed-I think Senator Stone ought to look at the report once again, if indeed he has looked at it at all-that the net benefits of the schemes referred to by Senator Stone were underestimated. The whole Committee agreed that the benefits of the Australia Card or its counterpart, the tax file numbering system, were underestimates, not overestimates, despite what Senator Stone has said. The only major dissension was over whether the unique numbering system should be in the form of a tax file number or in the form of an Australia Card. That was an important argument, but it was the only one. That seems to have been forgotten in this debate. The Government in response rejected the tax file number approach. I do not think Senator Ryan in her second reading speech was wrong when she referred to it as a shoddy alternative, even though Senator Stone objects to that description, because it is a lower integrity system and simply not as reliable-and there is no way of making it as reliable-as the Australia Card. As a result it has the potential for impersonation. In addition the cost benefit was found to be inferior. The estimated net revenue over a 10 year period from the tax file number approach was $1.6 billion. The estimated net revenue from the Australia Card was $4.7 billion. Finally, of course, the legislation was rejected twice and the Government went to the polls. I say that simply as a reminder, even though it is to repeat what Senator Jenkins has already said. So the comments made by a number of honourable senators about not having time to canvass the issue are simply nonsense. Comments like those of Peter Garrett's in the Sydney Morning Herald of 11 September: [The people] weren't told they will have to apply for the card, they weren't told about the all-important numbering system, about the storing of information on computers, about who will have access to it and who will guard it-- That is utter nonsense, as are the various accusations that have been made here about the time to debate it and the lack of information before the election. But even so, say the opponents-and Senator Jenkins made this point again tonight-the Government does not have a mandate. I refer to Senator Cook's contribution to this debate, recorded on pages 76 and 77 of the Hansard for Thursday, 17 September, in which he referred to the 7.30 Report. I will not go through that report because he quoted in detail the people interviewed. They are the country's top journalists. Let me summarise. All of these people agreed that the Government had a mandate. No one who participated in that program was in any doubt about whether the Government had a mandate. Geoff Kitney, Kerry O'Brien, Michelle Grattan, Greg Hywood and Laurie Oakes all thought that the Government had a mandate. I far prefer to go on the word of professional journalists of the nature of these people than to go on the letter of an individual expressing a personal point of view. I prefer that to the individual rantings of a person writing a personal letter to a newspaper. They are professional journalists making a judgment on an issue. On the matter of the combined parties opposing the card gaining more votes than Labor, I shall do no more than quote Michelle Grattan, who said: The claim that the Government does not have a mandate on the card because the conservatives and the Democrats were against it and they got more votes than Labor, is also a bit of nonsense. We cannot know what weight was given to the ID card in people's votes. Anyway, surveys showed a majority in favour of the card. The fact is the card was used as the Double Dissolution trigger. The Government was re-elected and, if it has a mandate for any measures, they include the ID card. Senator Short —That is nonsense logic. How can you argue one way and not the other? Senator BEAHAN —There is no nonsense in that logic. If the honourable senator can separate the issues in any election and say, `For that, you have a mandate; for that, you haven't; for this, you have, and for that you haven't', he is a better man than I am. Opposition senators interjecting-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! Senator BEAHAN —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I can accept the fact that in the current climate, some people can feel emotional about the issue. It is not rational, but it is understandable. I do not suggest that everybody does it with the same sincerity. I was originally emotional on the issue of capital punishment. I have a strong aversion to that concept. It worries me greatly, just as it did before I became involved in politics. But it is incumbent on those people who start with an emotional view to develop a rational case to back it. I can now do that with capital punishment and argue the case against it cogently and rationally and adduce evidence to back my facts. Others might not agree with me but I can present my case rationally. No Opposition senator even bothers to do that because there is more in it for Opposition senators if they are emotional and hysterical. They whip up fervour in the community and get the whole campaign moving along. That is not good for Australia and is a poor thing for the standing of the Senate, which I was told was a much better place than the other House. There has been no attempt to adduce rational argument to back up emotional positions. The Opposition's arguments appear to be exclusively of the `could be' or `might be' variety rather than the `is' or `likely to be' variety. The Opposition wants to look at the worst possible scenario because that is the best one to represent to the people to make the Government look worse. It is incumbent on Opposition senators to come up with a sensible and workable alternative. Despite what Senator Stone has said, if they do not they are de facto supporting the tax cheats and welfare frauds. They might not be in all sincerity personally supporting them, but de facto they are, and that is the important point. The problem is too big to ignore. We cannot ignore the fact that so much money is being lost to the Treasury and that that is imposing a burden on honest people. There is much talk about rights and liberties. Of course that is important, but citizens, too, have a right to expect a taxation and welfare system which is fair and not subject to abuse, just as a car driver has a right to expect certain behaviour on the road so that he or she can drive safety home at night. To put it another way, does freedom mean the right to rip people off? That is what the current `freedom' which the Opposition defends so vehemently is all about. It is all about the right to rip people off and impose a greater burden on those people paying fair taxes-the majority. From being an initial sceptic of the card and one who was a little concerned about its civil liberties aspects, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the argument on civil liberties is, in the main, emotional nonsense. The same is true of the arguments on security. We have been using a variety of cards and numbering systems for years, as even Opposition senators have admitted. These include driving licences, credit cards, tax file numbers and Medicare cards. Most of them hold much more information than the Australia Card ever will, they have no controls over them and are not questioned by anybody. Despite the fact that over the years we have come to have all those cards, there is now a sudden fear. Methinks that sudden fear is a matter of a number of Opposition senators protesting too much. It does not sit comfortably and I do not think that it is genuine in most cases. The argument about security goes to two aspects of the system-first, the transmission of storage and data and, secondly, the card. Senator Schacht alluded to safeguards in transmission and storage of data. He said that the data will be transmitted on landlines which cannot easily be broken into. I am not saying that one cannot break into the system but it would be a major task. He said that the material on the card will be encrypted, compressed and segmented and that one will not be able to make sense of the material even if one gets into it. Let us suppose that one of these hackers does all those things. Senator McGauran —There are plenty of them. Senator BEAHAN —There is no great evidence of that. But let us say there is a really bright operator who gets into the system. If he got through the major task of breaking into the code, he would find only a name, a digitised picture, a residential and postal address and a record of verifying information, plus some records on access to the card and reasons for it. To talk of that information being linked with all sorts of other agencies is nonsense. None of the other agencies can get more than that information. The Australia Card will have even less information than I have described. Let me stress also that neither the card nor the Register will contain information on religion, marital status, family composition, employment or medical history, despite what Peter Garrett and some Opposition senators say. Furthermore, there will be no amalgamation of data. With the Data Protection Agency, there will be more protection for this scheme than there has been before. There is no protection now for the cards which we so glibly obtain and trust. Those cards are run by private industry, not by governments and public enterprises which do not have the same vested interest as private industry, yet we trust those systems. No one has thought about the fact that there is no protection for those systems. The Data Protection Agency will provide protection for the Australia Card and, ultimately, for a much wider net of stored information. I am heartily fed up with the cant and gibberish which have accompanied this debate. It does little credit to those who espouse it. It does even less credit to the chamber. It is unbecoming of the Senate to reach that level of debate. I urge honourable senators in the interests of more sane debate to do two things-first, to up the level of their contributions, so that they deal with the real issues, and, secondly, to get this debate over now instead of shoving it off to another talkfest of a committee. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(9.29) —I lend my voice in opposition to the Australia Card- Senator McGauran —For the third time. Senator SHEIL —Yes, for the third time. It is a most un-Australian Bill and card. I hope that Senator Beahan will not hear a lot of cant and gibberish from me. He has accused Opposition senators of being emotional and florid in our condemnation of the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 3], yet the Australian Labor Party is trying to lull us into a sense of false security by telling us that this card differs little from all other cards, such as membership cards, credit cards, including Bankcard and American Express, and drivers licences, even those containing a photograph. But this card differs from all those. One honourable senator floundered on that difference and blamed it on the linkages. But that is not the case. It is the number that makes the difference. With all of those other cards the number belongs to the card. With the Australia Card the number belongs to you. That is an enormous difference. In other words `they' will know where you are. They will be able to establish an audit trail, follow whatever you do and wherever you go. In the language of the bureaucrats, you will become a `card subject' until you have your card and then when you get your card you will be an entity entitled to operate. But, if you can be an entity entitled to operate, you can also be an entity not entitled to operate. This is one of the great fears and why we have heard people described by honourable senators entering this debate tonight as non-people. It has surprised me that the debate has always been on the pros and cons of the card, on whether it is any good or not and how well it will work or not work. The real debate ought to be on whether we have a card at all. This situation has arisen because of the gradual development of a welfare state and a welfare mentality in Australia. I suppose it has followed what has happened in the United Kingdom, which has again been as a result of governments promising more and more welfare in order to buy votes from the people. In order to provide more welfare one needs a bigger and bigger bureaucracy and the bureaucrats need more control. Finally, they have decided they want a card so that they can control us. In fact, I see the card as making a bureaucrats' valhalla. They want to know where you are, what you do, what you buy, what you sell, what you eat, what you drink and the presents you buy. I even saw in one of the analyses of this that they would even know if you bought a set of women's underclothes in a size different from your wife's when they could have been bought for your daughter. This could create problems. We have heard a lot of talk about tax cheats and dole bludgers. But who is to say that the bureaucrats are such paragons of virtue anyway? They are ordinary people. I presume they have the same number of crooks amongst them as there are amongst the ordinary population. I know that they argue that they have stringent selection processes; but so do the police. That sort of argument has been put up before but it does not fill me with a lot of confidence. To get back to old Rome, the Romans were looking at putting more control on their people and they wound up with a saying, `quis custodiet ipsas custodes?'. That means: who is going to look after the looker-afterers? All of a sudden one finds that the looker-afterers are completely out of one's control. People may think that the Data Protection Agency and the committee advising it will protect us, but there is very little chance of that working. The Chinese have a proverb, `once two people know, it is no longer a secret'. That is very true because there is no way of guaranteeing the privacy of computers. It would be impossible to police the computers, even if all the information on them were correct. What if the information is wrong? Even if it is wrong by design, what is to stop a bureaucrat going on a fishing trip through one's affairs? It has been mentioned in this debate that the Australia Card will turn our laws topsy-turvy. We operate under common law which has taken 2,000 years to develop from precedents. It is a basic principle of our law that one is innocent until proven guilty. If any authority wants to investigate someone, it has to get a search warrant and the search warrant has to be specific. In other words, it cannot go on a fishing expedition through all one's affairs. But, with the Australia Card, a bureaucrat will be able to go on a fishing expedition through one's affairs and he can do it without one's knowledge and without one's permission. That has been mentioned in the debate tonight. He can go through one's Medicare files. I have heard arguments from the Government that there will not be a big data bank that can be tapped. There does not need to be a big databank to be tapped; the data is in a whole lot of banks that may be remote from each other. It is quite possible to connect them up and get the information. It is wrong to say that they will be locked off from each other. Already they are being used in a way that I would say is illegal. A whole list of existing data banks-one's social security file, Medicare file, tax file and immigration file-can quite readily be tapped. The Special Minister of State, Senator Ryan, has given repeated assurances that the Health Insurance Commission's database is and will be secure for the purpose of the ID card. However, during the 1985 New South Wales doctors dispute, details of the Medicare incomes of prominent surgeons-notably Dr Bruce Shepherd who was mentioned here tonight-were revealed in a move calculated to discredit the surgeons' case in the dispute. The details were leaked from the Health Insurance Commission. There are abuses that the ID card will exacerbate. I cite the Dr McGoldrick case in which patients' medical records were targeted by the Health Insurance Commission and released to the police, who raided the doctor's surgery and took those cards away. They were then revealed to a court and used to procure witnesses without the patients' knowledge or consent. The patients were girls who were minors. It was all done in the public interest. Public interest is a reason often given for robbing people of their privacy and liberty. I cite the case of an asthmatic chap in Sydney who went to the outpatients department of a hospital, gasping so much for air that he just handed them his Medicare card and asked for treatment. When the hospital tapped the computer for his file it revealed that he had a criminal record because he had received treatment while he was in prison. I can imagine other such cases involving details of requests to the Government for permission to prescribe some drugs. For example, doctors have to get permission from the Government if they want to prescribe under the national health system expensive drugs such as Zovirax, which is used for genital herpes. All that will be recorded on the database too. In other words, traditional confidentiality between doctor and patient will be pretty well lost. There are lots of things that one may not want people to know but they will be on one's records. For example, one may have had a miscarriage, had a divorce, failed an exam, been sacked from somewhere, seen a psychiatrist or committed a traffic offence-any of those things. Let us suppose that someone is the authorised signing officer for a corgi dog club, for the local branch of the Australian Labor Party, or the National Party of Australia for that matter, or any of the little clubs in town. As the authorised signing officer, will he have to give his Australia Card number for that purpose because financial transactions are involved? If he is the newly elected secretary, he may have to make a first transaction. All of a sudden the bureaucrats will know that he is the secretary of the local branch of, say, the National Party. He may not want people to know that he is the secretary of the local branch of the National Party-or secretary of the local branch of the Labor Party, or whatever. The important point I want to make there is that I would not want anyone to think that the Data Protection Agency will in any way protect our privacy. I also would not want anyone to think that the government does not intend to use its information and to get control of the people by harassing them. As I have mentioned, the Government has already shown its colours. Once we are recorded on all these databanks the Government can target any one person or group of persons. If it wants to attack architects, engineers, dentists or doctors, it can. I have mentioned the Greek conspiracy case in Sydney, which was a blatant misuse of the Health Insurance Commission's information. Senator Richardson —That was your government. Senator SHEIL —Any government does it. The bureaucracy does it. Any government will do it. I have not specifically accused the Labor Government of doing it. The Government can target groups in the community. In the Greek conspiracy case the doctors had to defend themselves in court. They were all found innocent. It was very expensive for them. The Government did not even apologise to them. Senator Richardson —I am advised that Senator Chaney was the Minister at the time of the Greek conspiracy case. Is that correct? Senator SHEIL —I referred merely to government. Senator Brownhill —You are really talking about this Big Brother Government here now, aren't you? Senator SHEIL —Yes, it is the Government I am mainly talking about. It is the Government which is bringing in the Australia Card. All it will do will be to facilitate the same sort of harassment. As I said, our soldiers have fought and died for the principle that we are innocent until we are proven guilty. The Australia Card is a mechanism to reverse that principle. If the Government is not going to use the Australia Card as a method of control by harassment, why is it forcing this card on the people in the face of mounting opposition to it? We have seen the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) do an about turn when issues were losing him public popularity and support. This issue is having exactly the same effect but he is not turning around. The Government is claiming that the introduction of the Australia Card will vastly reduce tax fraud, social security fraud, immigration fraud and organised crime. I do not think that it will do so. Is the Government going to issue identity cards to companies? I imagine that the big tax losses in Australia have been due to company manipulations. But companies will not be involved in the Australia Card. However, I notice that the Commissioner of Taxation is putting auditors into companies now, which he thinks is doing a bit of good. It is only the people who will be harassed. The Government is not fixing the real problem, which is the high rates of tax. Once again, I am reminded of a bit of Roman history. There was a pax romana which lasted for 500 years-the roman peace. The Romans were the top dogs in all of Europe. They sent tax collectors out amongst the community. If the tax collector collected too much tax the taxpayer was entitled to kill him. So the tax collectors never collected too much tax. There was enormous happiness and peace in the empire and the Romans ran the place for 500 years. The whole thing collapsed only when the Romans tried to collect too much tax. The Government's basic problem is that it is overtaxing the people, so they are trying to dodge tax altogether. Senator Brownhill —There is no incentive in their tax system, is there? Senator SHEIL —None at all. The Australia Card is not going to fix the cash economy, and that is the main thing the Government is trying to do-fix tax fraud. The card will not fix welfare fraud. The problem is not one of identity. It involves changes of status and other things. We have had careful investigations by well-qualified committees and departments, all of which say that, not only will the card not do the things it is supposed to do, but also it is likely to exacerbate the problems. It may even start a big crime business, both inside and outside Australia, in the manufacture of false cards. It may create a black market in cards which has occurred in all countries that have the card. Senator Collins —It hasn't. Senator SHEIL —It certainly has. One can buy cards to get into America in Tijuana at quite reasonable rates. There is competition there. Senator McKiernan —Who wants to go there? Senator SHEIL —About two million people a year want to go to the US. Senator McKiernan —For what? Senator SHEIL —None Irish, I think. They are not that clever. Senator Richardson —They are all wanting to go to the wet tropics we are saving. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! Honourable senators interjecting can make speeches later if they wish to. Senator SHEIL —I oppose the Australia Card, and the National Party opposes it, because not only is it a bad thing in itself but also it has already caused enough trouble to the Australian people. It was the reason why we had the double dissolution and have now been inflicted with three more years of Labor government. I consider that punishment enough. The card hardly rated as an issue during the election campaign, but it was not for want of trying. It was largely ignored by the media. I raised the issue in every speech I made. I issued endless streams of Press releases about it but they were all studiously ignored. Opposition senator after Opposition senator got up and made the same bleat and the same complaint. The issue is a prime example of the media taking the freedom of the Press as licence without responsibility. We all know that the more freedom one gets the more responsibility one has to exercise. And not only that, but the more freedom one has the harder one has to fight to keep it. That is what the Opposition and the Australian Democrats are doing for Australia now-fighting for the freedom of the Australian people. The Australia Card represents the greatest threat to our freedom since the world wars. People have to be made to realise that. It represents enslavement, a fact which was mentioned in the chamber tonight. It is enslavement and control. It represents harassment and the invasion of privacy. It is a reversion of our common law to civil law. The Government expects us to pay for it. The enormous cost of the introduction of the card has also been mentioned tonight. I deplore the Bill. I support Senator Puplick's amendment to it. I will be very happy when we can forget the Australia Card. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(9.47) —About the only thing that is left to say about the Australia Card Bill 1986 to those who are listening to this debate is that it has gone on for quite some time. It has been going on for two years since it was introduced. It is interesting to note that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is starting to find that the Australian people have woken up to what this Bill is all about. They are now having their voices heard in the Parliament of Australia. The Prime Minister's office is now receiving some 21 bags of mail per day, whereas it received only six bags of mail per day some time ago. That was before people became so concerned about this pernicious legislation which the Labor Party is trying to foist on the Australian people. The Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson), who is at the table, with his interest in the environment would be aware of the number of trees that are being cut down to produce the paper used for the protests about the legislation the Government is trying to foist on us. This is not the first time the legislation has been debated at length. The National Party and the Liberal Party in particular have spoken out against it on many occasions. We have not had any satisfactory replies from the Government on the issue. The Australian Democrats will join us at this stage to make sure that the Bill is scrutinised. It will probably be even more frightening to the Australian people by the time the scrutiny is finished. Many people on the Government benches are just as worried about the Australia Card as those on this side of the chamber. Senator Georges, our former colleague in this place, had the guts and the determination to speak up for what he believed in, and he suffered the supreme sacrifice as an Australian Labor Party member and ended his term in this Parliament as an independent. He was one of the people on the Labor Party side who definitely spoke out against the card, but there are a lot of others on the Government side who are thinking about it. It will be interesting to see what happens when the vote is taken. What will they do when we vote on this Bill? Will they vote according to their conscience, the way that their heart feels and their constituents think? Senator Short —No. Senator BROWNHILL —Of course they will not, Senator Short. They will not have the guts that Senator Georges had to speak and vote against it. They will probably go to the wire and push this Bill on to the Australian people. The only people who will save Australians from this Bill are those in the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia. Honourable senators opposite can argue all they like that the card will make Australia a better place, but Australian citizens will have to prove that they are citizens by producing a piece of plastic. I think that is the most retrograde step that this country has ever taken. Under this draconian legislation, if a card is lost and that loss is not reported there is a $500 fine. If an employer when employing someone fails to sight the card, he can be up for a $20,000 fine. What if somebody hires a cardless person? That could easily happen. If that happens the employer can be fined $20,000. The penalty for destroying or defacing a card is imprisonment for two years or a $5,000 fine, or both. They are just a few of the penalties in the draconian legislation that can be imposed if a card is lost or destroyed. The legislation is quite clear on these penalties. They are spelt out in the legislation that the Government is trying to foist on to the Australian people. All the reasons that the Government has given for the necessity for the introduction of this card are spurious when we take into account the problems that it will cause the Australian people. I cite the experience of West Germany, which has an ID card system, and it should be enough to terrify the most disinterested Australian voter. In the mid-1970s in West Germany a new wave of student protests panicked the Government of the day into making greater use of its surveillance and identification system. The system was used for surveillance of suspected terrorists, people presumed to be sympathisers and anyone else who happened to be in the wrong place at the right time. Spearheading the new form of police investigation was the President of the police, who set up a profile of what a terrorist would look like. That is no different from the system that the Government is trying to set up in Australia. The description was established as someone between 25 and 35 years of age who lived in a high rise apartment and had a rented car. Following a terrorist or related incident the police were asked to look for people fitting such a description. Since this surveillance system was wide open to interpretation by the police as to who would be caught in this net, the profile of a typical terrorist expanded to anyone who bought lots of newspapers, who lived in a commune, who paid cash for his electricity, who wore a certain type of glasses, who paid his rent in cash, who used transit lanes to Berlin, who met members of parliament in Bonn, who moved frequently, who covered his face during demonstrations, who had a car with an anti-nuclear sticker and who patronised leftist pubs. The list was virtually endless, and thousands were caught up in this surveillance net. At one stage the computer had 11,000 terrorists registered-do not forget that we are going on to a computer-which even surprised the West German police. To increase the accuracy of the information and surveillance-- Senator Collins —Talk about the Bill instead of your fantasies. Senator BROWNHILL —I think it is very necessary that the Australian people have an opportunity of knowing what the Bill is all about. That is why we are debating it. Senator Collins —That is not what it is going to be about. Senator BROWNHILL —This is what it is going to be about. This is the sort of thing that could happen here, in our Australia; the Australia that we thought we were citizens of. We did not think we would have to own a piece of plastic card to prove that we were citizens of this country. Surely that is a good enough answer for the honourable senator. To increase the accuracy of the information and surveillance, the West German police even introduced a video camera with a microphone, which was placed near the residences of important politicians-of which the honourable senator would not be one-and generals and at railway stations. In this camera surveillance, licence plates of frequently passing cars were noted and persons passing these spots were often followed. Police surveillance and misuse of the national identification card system became so widespread that it became a farce. Senator Sheil has already mentioned that identification cards can be bought and the system can be abused. Yet people in West Germany lost their jobs and were no longer allowed to practise their professions, simply because they were unfortunate enough to be caught on the state-run identification card system. Surely the card introduced in Australia could cause the same problems which were caused in West Germany. Senator Collins —How? Tell us. Senator BROWNHILL —I thank the honourable senator for his indulgence in listening to that little story. It is not a bed time story but a story of something that actually happened in another country that had an identity card system. Senator Collins —Not the same as this one. Senator BROWNHILL —The Government has to prove that that will not happen to the Australian people. I think the effect of the card will be the same. There will probably be even bigger problems than those faced by West Germany. Senator Collins —Rubbish! Senator BROWNHILL —The honourable senator can call it rubbish if he likes. He should go out and tell the Australian people that it is rubbish. It is something that the Government is trying to foist on us. Senator Collins —You were not game to do that during the campaign. Senator BROWNHILL —The Prime Minister said that he would call an election because of the rejection of the Australia card. How often did the Prime Minister mention it during the election campaign? He did not mention it at all apart from one line in his election speech. Senator Collins —It is like talking to a brick wall. Senator BROWNHILL —Is the honourable member saying that talking to the Australian people is like talking to a brick wall? Senator Collins —No, you lot; you dozy lot. Senator BROWNHILL —The honourable senator has just said that when the Prime Minister spoke to the Australian people it was like speaking to a brick wall. He should go back to the Northern Territory and tell the people that. I think that the citizens of Australia deserve a better deal than having the Australia Card foisted on them. The Government wants to put Australia into a police state situation. We cannot ignore the experiences of other countries. The Government keeps on saying that the ID card system is being introduced to stop the tax cheats and the social security frauds. Why does the Taxation Office not admit that the card will not stop them? Have honourable senators read what the report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card says that this card will do? Do they know why the Joint Select Committee came down with a majority report against the card? The Government has introduced so much legislation that has not been thought out fully. It introduced legislation on the fringe benefits tax which Government senators, except for Senator Collins from the Northern Territory, told us would not have any effect on the motor car industry. But what has happened to the motor car industry? Is it thriving? Of course it is not. I would like to ask a few more questions about the Australia Card. What will happen, for example, if a woman has two names, one business and one family? We have many instances of that in this Parliament. The wife of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) has a different name from that of her husband. Many other wives in the community have different names from those of their husbands. It is not uncommon for married partners to have different names. What happens if a business person, Ms X, opens a bank account in that name and has a credit card in her family name, Mrs Y. Does she get two ID cards? Does she in fact become a non-person? Senator Collins —I wish you would. Senator Walsh —I thought he already was. Senator BROWNHILL —God love us, the senator from Western Australia has come back into the chamber. Will the Government force that lady to choose and use one name? What happens in the case of an overseas visitor who obtains a permit to work in Australia? Will such a person also have to obtain an ID card and, if he does, what happens when he leaves Australia? How will we know if he has left? The Government tells us that the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs will not have any access to the ID data bank. So how will the Government know that a person has left the country? I presume that later in the debate Senator Ryan will be able to tell us how that will happen. What is to stop the card being passed on to a person coming into the country? That is what happens with social security cards in the United States of America, as my very good colleague Senator Sheil mentioned earlier in the debate. I am asking senators on the Government side why that will not happen here. The Government says that we will not be able to do any business without the production of the card. Therefore, it is only reasonable to assume that banks and other financial institutions will establish files based on ID card numbers and other information. The databank will supposedly be hacker-proof. Of course, the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, Mr Duncan, Senator Ryan and the Prime Minister all have different ideas about whether the card will be hacker-proof and whether the data bank will not be hacker-proof. I am asking what protection there will be in respect of information of a similar nature which will be filed by the banks and other people. Again, Senator Sheil told us earlier tonight how the databank can have information stacked in it. He said that if people got access to this information they would know more about individuals than most probably wives or husbands know about each other. We read just about every day about data systems being breached by computer hackers. This is happening both here and abroad. One of the most recent examples of this was the hacker who got into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation computer system. Can the Government really convince us that the Australia Card databank is safe from such abuse? Can it guarantee the Australian people that this card is going to be safe and that all the files that will be kept on it will be kept secret? Can the Government guarantee to the Australian people that all of the databank material will be secure? We must bear in mind that that has not proved to be the case in other systems in Australia and elsewhere. I wish to quote from one of the many letters that have been written by Australian people about the card. One of the letters was written by Peter Allenbone, of Rylstone, New South Wales, who, like some 60-odd per cent of the Australian people, is very concerned about the card. In part, he said: . . . social welfare fraud is less than half of one pc (of expenditure) and that bureaucratic inefficiency resulting in overpayment of welfare cheques is the greatest source of loss in the welfare area. The Government has not mentioned that matter. Mr Moore of Inverell says in his letter: I cannot support the myth that our existing data banks are not already being cross referenced. Can this Government guarantee the people of Australia that the databanks are not being cross-referenced? Mr Moore went on to say: There will be no privacy. It will be prone to much abuse. This already happens. Why add to the problem? The Act is to be administered by the bureaucratic authority but is to be policed by the `Data Protection Agency'. This `Agency' has unlimited powers and will have an appointed advisory committee. This committee has no representatives from either employers or primary production industries. This `Agency' has unfettered powers without any accountability. That is what this Government is doing. Without any accountability, it is trying to foist this card on to the Australian people. Surely this is the most draconian piece of legislation that this country has ever had to face. I am sure that the Australian Democrats will support the Liberal Party and the National Party in making sure that this Bill does not affect the Australian people in the way it surely would if it were passed in this place. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.08) —We are debating again the Australia Card Bill 1986, which we clearly oppose. Senator Walsh —You are one of the people who had good reason to oppose it probably. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It seems that the Government is going to insist on pressing forward and thus ensuring that the legislation is defeated on this occasion and then on submitting it to a joint sitting of both Houses to have it passed. One might well ask why it is that the Opposition parties oppose the Australia Card and why it is that there is a growing army of people within our society who totally oppose it-people as diverse, and with as diverse backgrounds, as Peter Garrett from the rock band Midnight Oil, Sir Noel Foley, the past Chairman of the Westpac Banking Corporation, Mr Justice Michael Kirby, a former Chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission who was subsequently appointed by the New South Wales Labor Government as President of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, the Victorian Society of Labor Lawyers, former royal commissioner Frank Costigan, the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission, civil liberty groups right around Australia and Dr Shepherd, the President of the Australian Medical Association. I note Senator Walsh's earlier interjection. Is this opposition to be explained away by Senator Ryan's pathetic cheap suggestion that anyone who opposes the identity card is a friend of a tax cheat or a social welfare cheat? Is she saying that of the Labor lawyers, of Mr Justice Kirby, of Peter Garrett or of the Catholic Social Welfare Commission? Of course she is not. It is just so easy to link these people with tax and welfare cheats in order to create hysteria within the community. It is as dishonest as most things the Government says in this chamber. The reason these people oppose the card is that the card will not achieve its aims, the amount of data the Government is able to collect and readily access about all the citizens in this country will grow, and there are alternatives which will achieve the same objectives of combating tax and welfare fraud which do not carry the same threats and dangers to the Australian way of life. I shall describe briefly the proposal itself to indicate how wide ranging it is and how it could result in the recording of an ready access to intimate details of people's lives. The legislation before the Senate aimed at implementing the identity card will establish a national register of information such as names, addresses, date of birth, changes of name, employment status, changes of address and date of entry into Australia and entry permit data for people who are not Australian citizens. The unique number given to every person in the country will be recorded against this file of information. The same number will appear on the person's identity card along with that person's name and the expiry date of the card. In the case of minors age will be shown, and in the case of aliens employment details and eligibility for Medicare will be shown. Although the Government had tried to deceive the public into believing that the card will be optional and that no one need apply, as has been put to us in the Senate on a number of occasions by Senator Ryan in response to questions, it will be quite impossible to live, to earn, to save, to spend and to buy in this community-- Senator Maguire —To cheat. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, it will be possible to cheat with the card. Senator Collins —Harder. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —With respect, Senator Collins, you are wrong. It will certainly be impossible to live without the card. Should a person choose not to apply for a card he will be unable to receive a medical benefit or a social security payment; he will be unable to engage in land, shares, futures or foreign currency transactions. That person will be unable to withdraw his own money from his bank account and he will be unable to cash a cheque or have access to a safety deposit box. A farmer will be unable to receive payment from a primary produce marketing authority or a produce agent. Landlords of houses will not be able to receive rent from real estate agents acting in respect of their houses. In each case these activities will be banned unless the person has provided the other party with his identification number. Earlier Senator Beahan sought to be persuasive in his argument that the Government had a mandate to introduce this legislation and to have it passed. That is quite untrue. The general thrust of his argument was that because the Australian Labor Party gained the majority of seats in the House of Representatives that gave it a mandate. That is absurd, superficial logic. The Victorian Society of Labor Lawyers, for instance, I assume would have probably voted Labor in the last election. Yet those lawyers have made it clear they are totally opposed to the card and that if a referendum were put they would vote against it. Senator Walters —Barrie Unsworth. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, of course, the Premier of New South Wales. Finally, the Government conceals the fact that for the House of Representatives, on first preferences, 52.12 per cent of the people voted for parties opposing the card-the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia, the Country Liberal Party, the Australian Democrats and the Independents-and 45.78 per cent voted for the Australian Labor Party. If Government senators seek to argue on the basis of mandate they must accept that the majority of people voted against the card at the last election. If they are arguing that the card was an issue and that they won the election they must admit that. It is a contortion of logic not to do so. I am simply putting to rest the absurd argument that was put by a Labor senator earlier. If Government senators believe they have a mandate and they believe that the majority of people support the card, they should put the matter to a referendum. They should put the matter in splendid isolation so they can see whether the majority of people support the legislation. Senator Maguire —We have just had the referendum. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Oh, so you have just had the referendum! Will Government senators then concede that the majority of people voted against the card? The majority of people voted for parties that opposed the card. If that was a referendum, why is the Government still pursuing the card? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Powell) —Order! There are too many interjections. I ask Senator Crichton-Browne to address his remarks through the Chair. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Perhaps we could now turn to the taxation claim. Senator Walsh loves to tell us about the taxation cheats. At the very best, the ID card could be effective only against false names. As former royal commissioner Frank Costigan has said, there is no reason to assume that the bulk of taxation evasion can simply be attributed to fraudulent identity. There was a time when Mr Costigan was very respectable in the eyes of the Australian Labor Party. There was a time when Labor members use to quote him ad nauseam day after day. Senator Walsh —He certainly flushed out a few crooks in your Party. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Walsh keeps saying those sorts of things but even as he says that I am reminded that he is the only Minister that I can remember in the history of the Senate who has been censured by the majority of senators because he deceived the Senate. He failed to table a cheque with Lionel Murphy's name on it. He knew that the cheques were false, the Australian Federal Police have since proved they were false and Senator Walsh got nailed to the floor. Even his own colleagues-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Senator Crichton-Browne, could I ask you once again to address your remarks through the Chair? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, you certainly could. Let me remind you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that the vast majority of Senator Walsh's colleagues were ashamed of him and embarrassed by him and they came and apologised to me for his conduct. In the last 24 hours they have been ashamed of him again, embarrassed by him and humiliated by him; they have attacked him, not the least of them being the Prime Minister of this country, Mr Hawke, who dragged him into his room by the scruff of his neck, gave him a smack around the ears and sent him out looking contrite and embarrassed. He misled his own Prime Minister yesterday. He said it was anecdotal evidence of two years ago. On the front page of today's Australian we find that he misled the Prime Minister. He has misled the Senate and he now is trying to mislead the whole community. If I were Senator Walsh I would not be too proud of my record. He is all talk. Senator Walsh —What about the insider trading you did in those Poseidon shares? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! There are too many interjections. Could we please proceed with some decorum. Senator Walsh —He made a lot of money out of them. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Eat your heart out! The truth of the matter is that the identity card cannot touch cash out of the till transactions. That is the most obvious example. That is the real problem we face at present with respect to tax evasion through lack of disclosure. I make the point that that is not a question of lack of disclosure of identity. In Italy, which has an identity card system, black money is guesstimated at approximately 30 per cent of gross product. That is a country where the ID card operates, yet the black market flourishes. There is no guarantee that the system can stop false identities and it is not intended to do so. In fact it is likely to institutionalise, legitimise and legalise them. That is one of the reasons that Costigan, QC, is totally opposed to the ID card system. Senator Maguire —Tell us how. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It is very simple. It is not beyond the wit of top quality criminals to duplicate cards and legitimise their business by being able to open bank accounts and flourish in the normal commercial sense. Senator Collins —There was no evidence given to that effect to the Joint Select Committee. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I think that the honourable senator will find that Mr Costigan made that point in a compelling way. The Government says that it needs an ID card because it cannot rely on drivers licences, birth certificates and the information that is presently used, and yet it is from precisely these documents-low integrity documents as they are described-that it will compile the identity card database. Senator Puplick —Ask Senator Aulich about the in camera evidence before you speak, Senator Collins. Senator Collins —I can only work on the public documents. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I know the honourable senator can. What he ought to do is inquire further and not carry on superficially like flotsam and jetsam, on the wave of emotion that the Labor Party has whipped up for him. The ID card system will have all existing errors transplanted to it. To the extent that one can create forgery of birth certificates and wedding certificates, there will be a transfer of incorrect and improper information on to the ID card. To appreciate the magnitude of potential errors, it should be remembered that it was Roger Clarke from the Australian National University Department of Information Systems and Chairman of the Economic, Legal and Social Implications Committee of the Australian Computer Society who said that it is quite common knowledge that 15,800,000 Medicare cards are on issue in Australia. Yet the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that that we have a population of only 15,200,000 people. In other words, a great many more cards are circulating in society than there are bodies. Clearly there are duplications and forgeries. Let me turn to the subject of immigrants. More than 20 per cent of people in this country were born overseas. How does a Vietnamese refugee obtain a birth certificate or, more to the point, how does an Australian official know that the document such a person presents is genuine? When he goes for his ID card, he can make up any name he likes. He climbs off a ship or boat and can have four or five names. One of the real problems in our society is that a small group of people, and I emphasise that it is a small group, are able to duplicate names, are able to claim not to be married, and are able to claim unemployment benefit-their wives are able to claim single mothers' supporting benefits-while at the same time they are working in the black economy. This is happening simply because there is no integrity in their birth certificates. It seems to me that, because of the anonymity afforded by an ID card, it will be very easy for cards to be forged and for them to obtain a market value. I believe that a forgery industry will spring up very quickly. The United States social security department estimates that between four million and five million Americans hold more than one social security number. It is assumed that the vast majority of those result from forgeries. The greatest nonsense is contained in the Bill itself. To try to avoid forcing residents of a place such as the Pilbara, or the Kimberleys in Western Australia to climb aboard an aircraft to fly to Perth, in a round trip of several thousand miles, at enormous cost simply to open an account and to identify themselves with their card with their stockbroker, stock agent or real estate agent in the event that they want to buy a block of land in Bunbury or in the south-west of Western Australia, the Government has chosen to include in clause 36 of the Bill provision for certain `prescribed persons' such as lawyers, justices of the peace and those presently entitled to witness passport applications to sign a certificate saying that they have seen a person's identity card, have recorded its number and have sent it where it is required. Senator Walters —They won't even get any Labor lawyers to do that. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I would say to Senator Walters that it would be open to massive abuse. Who in a stockbroker's firm in Perth or the land title office is to say that the information in the certificate is correct? Who is to say that the cardholder, the number and the witness are not all made up, or that perhaps the name and number of an innocent third party have not been used? They may have been used without that third party knowing about it. One can only imagine what will happen if the fraud is successful and if subsequently it comes to light in terms of income. How does an innocent third party explain the existence of that income to the Commissioner of Taxation, if all the statistics and evidence show that it was revenue earned in that year in his name and that a bank account had been opened accordingly? I suspect it is for just these reasons that the Department of Social Security has indicated that it will not accept the identity card alone as sufficient proof of identity. It judges its integrity to be such that it does not accept it at face value to identify the holder of the card. Furthermore, while we are discussing social security fraud it is important to remember that the Department of Social Security does not expect to make any savings through the use of the card because less than one per cent of forgeries on the department occur through the use of false identities. In fact the figure, as I recall it, given to the Committee was that 0.6 per cent of all social security frauds, and no more, occurred as a result of false identification. The vast majority of fraud was due to change of circumstances by the recipients and lack of notification of the Department or simply clerical errors by the Department. The Department also said that the added administrative costs will absorb any financial benefit it might have obtained. Even in the modest number of cases where there is false identification, the introduction of the identity card has nothing to offer because the Department already has the legislative power to cross-check its forms and receive information from the Australian Taxation Office. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders 1987- No. M34-Revocation of Meat Order ``M'' Series, dated 15 July 1987 No. M35-Monitoring by the Corporation of 1987 Meat Shipments to USA, dated 13 August 1987 Defence Act-Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal-Determination 1987 No. 7 and reasons, dated 17 September 1987. Fisheries Act-Fisheries Notice-No. 190-Prohibition on the taking of prawns off Northern Australia, dated 19 August 1987. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Declarations (2) under the Rates and Land Tax Ordinance, dated 24 August 1987 Determinations made under the following Ordinances- Adoption of Children, dated 9 September 1987 Agents, dated 9 September 1987 Architects, dated 9 September 1987 Betting (Totalizator Agency), dated 13 September 1987 Building, dated 9 September 1987 Building and Services, dated 9 September 1987 Cemeteries, dated 9 September 1987 City Area Leases, dated 9 September 1987 Co-operative Societies, dated 9 September 1987 Credit, dated 9 September 1987 Hawkers, dated 9 September 1987 Housing Assistance, dated 8 September 1987 Lakes, dated 9 September 1987 Machinery, dated 9 September 1987 Motor Omnibus Services, dated 9 September 1987 Motor Traffic, dated 9 September 1987 Nature Conservation, dated 9 September 1987 Plumbers, Drainers and Gasfitters Board, dated 9 September 1987 Pounds, dated 9 September 1987 Racecourses, dated 9 September 1987 Real Property, dated 9 September 1987 Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages, dated 9 September 1987 Sale of Motor Vehicles, dated 9 September 1987 Scaffolding and Lifts, dated 16 September 1987 Sewerage Rates, dated 24 August 1987 Stock, dated 9 September 1987 Surveyors, dated 9 September 1987 Taxation (Administration), dated 9 September 1987 Unit Titles, dated 9 September 1987 Water Pollution, dated 9 September 1987 Water Rates, dated 24 August 1987 and 9 September 1987 Weights and Measures, dated 9 September 1987 Exemption under Children's Services Ordinance, dated 14 May 1987 Postal Services Act-By-laws 1987-Postal Amendment No. 5. Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Act-Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the following States: New South Wales, dated 21 July 1987 Northern Territory, dated 6 July 1987 South Australia, dated 24 June 1987 Tasmania, dated 3 July 1987 Victoria, dated 31 July 1987 Western Australia, dated 1 July 1987 Queensland, dated 24 June 1987