Tuesday, 6 October 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Zakharov, who was absent on parliamentary duty when the certificates of election of senators to serve in this Senate from 1 July 1987 were tabled in the Senate and senators were sworn, is in attendance in the chamber. I ask the honourable senator to come to the table and make an affirmation. Senator Alice Olive Zakharov made and subscribed the affirmation of allegiance. 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: 1. We reject in principle the need for a national I.D. card on the basis that it will be a gross violation of individual liberty. 2. We reject the notion that the government can claim a mandate for the proposed legislation and state categorically it does not reflect our will. 3. We believe that, as with the proposed Bill of Rights legislation, the government's methods and arguments in promoting this legislation have been under-handed and undemocratic. 4. We believe as a matter of faith and judgment that the proposed legislation is anti-God and that its implementation will result in further attacks on individual freedom and responsibility, the family and the Church and that the real intent is the promotion of a powerful secular humanist ``big brother'' government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should together with the House of Representatives take action to reject this proposed legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Colston (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Clerk of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens shows that: An ID Card numbering system for all Australians would give future governments tremendous power to collect sensitive information and use it against us. Criminal elements could benefit by forging cards and documents needed to obtain them, or by illegally accessing the data in the system. The dangers are much greater than with current systems such as Medicare, as the Australia Card number could link so many different confidential records. The cost to government and private enterprise of implementing the ID Card would be enormous, outweighing any gains. Tax cheats can be stopped more effectively by better checks in the present system. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will reject the Australia Card Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 53 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: Whereas the Senate on two occasions voted against the proposed Australia Card legislation, resulting in the Prime Minister calling an early double dissolution; and Whereas the voting community was not given the opportunity to debate fully the proposed legislation because it was not given due publicity. Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate in Parliament assembled will again reject this Bill which is a dangerous invasion of privacy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 30 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID card proposal and that the card won't stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the Australia ID card proposal as the Australian public haven't given the Government a mandate to introduce it. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Tambling (from 2,135 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System as your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Teague (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australia Card'' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe the introduction of a National identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's action on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vanstone (from 450 citizens). To the Honourable the President of the Senate and Senators in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, demand that the Government of Australia abandons the proposed Australia Card Bill. The Australia Card could not control those large corporations and individuals eluding the tax system; the expense of administering the card would inevitably fall on the great majority i.e. the poor but honest. In the light of the military takeover in Fiji we believe that the lives and liberties of many Australians would be endangered by the Australia Card should there be a similar military take-over in this country. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Wood (from 113 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 Senators Sheil (from 29 citizens) and Vanstone (from 1,149 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 your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senators Chaney (from 99 citizens), Jones (from 19 citizens), Sheil (from 19 citizens), Vanstone (from 11 citizens) and Wood (from 10 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 Senators Ryan (from four citizens) and Walsh (from 120 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 we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 Oct. 86 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. This cut has reduced the base for future adjustments. The Government has promised to restore the base as soon as economic circumstances permit. Having regard to state of the economy as portrayed by members of the Government during the recent election campaign, your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to restore the pension base in the 1987 budget. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 60 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 Polychlorinated Biphenyl High Temperature Incinerator threatens to damage agriculture and with subsequent effects on trade in the Shire of Yilgarn, Western Australia, and could have possible adverse effects on the health of the residents of the area. Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Senate request the Commonwealth Government to use its influence with the Western Australian State Government to prevent the building of PCB High Temperature Incinerator at Koolyanobbing, Western Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Panizza (from 429 citizens). Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition, from 595 citizens, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form: That the Australia Card Bill be rejected. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition, from 51 citizens, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form: A group of citizens has joined together to express publicly their deep concern about the Federal Government plan to introduce the Australia Card. The Group is diverse in background, occupation and political belief. Each of the persons who has signed this declaration sought to awaken in the public mind an awareness of the long-term dangers of the national identity card system as proposed. It must be understood that the Australia Card is not simply an identification card system-it involves the collection, compilation, recording and assessment of information on the activities of every individual Australian. This system has never before been proposed in a free country in the form and extent now proposed for Australia, indeed, the U.S.A. has specifically rejected a similar identification card scheme. It is intrusive, expensive, inconvenient and will not fulfil the expectation of its proponents who propose to employ a further 2,000 civil servants and who say the system will run at a loss for four years. Neither the Federal Police not the Department of Social Security have supported the scheme. In acting to bring in this system the Government is acting against the majority report of an all-Party Select Committee of Parliament. It is beyond the Constitutional power of the Commonwealth to impose directly a requirement to have a card. Although there are provisions which avoid imposing an obligation to apply for the Card, this means nothing when the Card must be used for all employment, banking, medical and property transactions. The simple act of taking or continuing a job will be unlawful without the card. (Penalty up to $20,000). We express our deep concern that the Government proposes to require all Australians to establish identity through a national, centralised, computerised identification system which will additionally involve the collection of information about individual Australians, and the assessment and use of that information for Government purposes: that it is effectively compulsory; that it denies economic freedom; that it invades privacy; the effect of the Bill as proposed is that all Australians who wish to be employed or hold a bank or building society account must attend on the Government to be photographed and then prove their identity; that to the numbers of dole cheats and social security frauds will be added the card forgers and duplicators; that its principle impact will be on the lives of ordinary, decent, honest Australians and the cost and inconvenience to government, business and individuals will far outweigh any potential revenue gains; that it reverses the founding principle of a free society in that it makes the innocent individual accountable to the state, instead of the state being accountable to the collection of individuals in it; that it assumes the benevolence of Government against the overwhelming historical evidence that individual liberty is only maintained through the control of the power of the state; that future denial of the card will be a weapon available for the exercise of power over individuals, groups and those who disagree with the government of the time; that the available alternatives to eliminate fraud against the revenue and the taxpayers should be considered and where appropriate pursued. Those who have signed this Declaration have done so freely and to express their concern regardless of short-term political considerations, and invite others of like mind to join in signing and supporting this document. Petitions received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House consents to termination by the Commonwealth of the Airlines Agreement 1981. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders, the Order of Business on Thursday, 8 October 1987, be as follows: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Ministerial Statements, by leave (4) Discovery of Formal Business (5) Placing of Business (6) Questions (7) Adjournment. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of Senator Puplick, I give notice that, contingent upon a motion being moved to lay aside the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 3], the following amendment will be moved: At end of motion, add: That, while, in recognition of: (a) the overwhelming public opposition to the proposed national identity card system; and (b) the determination of the Senate to exercise its proper constitutional rights to disallow the regulations necessary to give effect to the national identification system proposed, the Government is not now pursuing the Australia Card Bill 1986, it has nevertheless not given any guarantees not to introduce the legislation in an amended form nor to establish a national identification system by some other means, and the concerns of the Senate regarding the effectiveness, cost and imposition upon personal privacy still remain, the following matters therefore be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for report on or before 1 May 1988: (a) the provisions of the Australia Card Bill 1986 considered in the light of the reports of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card and of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee; (b) the feasibility of any proposed national identity system operating in the event of a failure of any one or more States to co-operate on the establishment of a births, deaths and marriages register; (c) the extent to which new or updated computer systems and recent crackdown campaigns on welfare cheating and tax avoidance and evasion have obviated the need for a national identity system; (d) the appropriate responses which should be made to the recommendations contained in the various Australian Federal Police reports on fraud against the Commonwealth and the Report of the Review of Systems for Dealing with Fraud of the Commonwealth; (e) the direct cost to the private sector in establishing and maintaining any such system; (f) the capacity of the proposed Data Protection Agency to adequately safeguard and protect the privacy of the individual and to control un- authorised use of any proposed national identity card and/or individual identification numbers by commercial organisations such as credit insurance companies and unincorporated associations and clubs; (g) the desirability, timing and nature of comprehensive privacy legislation in Australia in the light of concerns raised in the debate over the proposed Australia Card legislation; (h) the extent to which any proposed system should accord with OECD guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data (1981); (i) the extent of personal data held on Australian citizens by Government Departments and Agencies and by private sector agencies, its level of accuracy, access to it and its cross-referencing within the Government sector; (j) the security of personal data held by Government departments and agencies; (k) the physical security of dedicated land lines and other data transmission facilities currently in use or proposed; (l) the appropriate range and level of penalties on individuals and other entities, which should be imposed for the improper use or release of personal data; (m) the evidence available from overseas as to the experience of other countries with identity card systems; including the taking of evidence from overseas expert witnesses; (n) the usefulness of any card and numbering system in achieving the objectives of reducing the extent of the cash economy, organised crime and large-scale tax evasion and welfare fraud; and (o) any matters relevant to the preceding. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, contingent upon the introduction of any legislation or administrative action designed to improve the integrity of and/or expand the use of the taxation file number system, I will move an amendment or a motion, or give notice of a motion, to refer such matter to a committee of the Senate, and to empower such committee to report upon: (a) the likely effectiveness of any such proposals to improve the efficiency of the taxation system and to eliminate fraud and abuses in the taxation and social security systems; and (b) the possibility of such a revised system developing into a de facto national identification card system with unacceptable impositions being made upon privacy and civil liberties. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the Family Law Act 1975 with respect to maintenance. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate congratulates Wayne Gardner of Wollongong, New South Wales, on becoming the first Australian to win the World 500cc Motor Cycle Championship. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the 200th anniversary of the United States Constitution and conveys its congratulations to the people of the United States on the 200 year existence of this dynamic document which has been the foundation of efforts to protect and maintain some of the most important fundamental rights in a democratic country; and (b) applauds the United States Constitution as a splendid example of commitment to liberty and wishes the people of the United States well for their celebrations and the continuing vitality of their Constitution. 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. A Taxing Solution-Report of Program Management Performance Review-May 1987. 2. Proposal to relocate the commencement column monument on the land axis between the old and the new Parliament House-Pursuant to section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974. 3. Veterans' Review Board-Annual Report 1986-87-Pursuant to section 215 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. 4. Australian Telecommunications Commission-Annual Report 1986-87-Together with the Auditor-General's report-Pursuant to section 99 of the Telecommunications Act 1975 5. Service and Business Outlook-Australian Telecommunications Commission Report-September 1987. 6. Review of Tender Procedures for Coastwatch Contract-Interim Report-Together with a short tabling statement. 7. Report on the conduct of ABC personnel in Brewarrina, August 1987-Together with a short tabling statement. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that Senator Richardson and Senator Reynolds will be absent from the chamber for Question Time today as they are undertaking community discussions in northern Queensland. Senator Richardson will also be absent tomorrow. Any questions in this chamber which would normally be directed to Senator Richardson in relation to his portfolio or those he represents should be directed to Senator Ray. Similarly, questions which would normally be directed to Senator Reynolds should be directed to Senator Tate. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I ask the Minister whether he will confirm that last week he told American journalists: For a variety of fundamental reasons I still think the Australian dollar won't go higher than it is now. I ask the Minister whether he also now recalls telling the Heavy Engineering Manufacturers Association on 22 September last year, when the dollar was just above US60c: Manufacturers should be making their investment plans on the basis that the dollar will remain very close to its current levels . . . The Minister having misled manufacturers on that occasion, I now ask: On what dollar value should manufacturers currently base their forward investment planning? Senator BUTTON —I find this question from Senator Lewis quite extraordinary, because on the revised business sheet-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Just give us the answer. Senator BUTTON —I can probably handle this on my own, without any help from the honourable senator. On today's business sheet Senator Lewis has listed as a matter of public importance: The damage caused to Australia's international financial reputation . . . by speculation about the value of the Australian dollar by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Senator Lewis, having put that matter of public importance on today's agenda, now invites me at Question Time to speculate about the value of the dollar. I decline to do so. Senator COONEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. What has been the turnover of staff at the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education between 1 January 1982 and 1 October 1987? Of any staff that left, how many left at the expiration of their contracts and how many left before such expiration; and how many resigned during tenure and how many were dismissed? For what reason did those who resigned during tenure do so and, if any were dismissed, for what reasons were they dismissed? Senator RYAN —As Senator Cooney might understand, I do not actually have answers to those questions with me. I will refer them to the Minister, Mr Dawkins, and see that he answers them as thoroughly and as quickly as possible. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and follows the question, not answered by the Minister, asked by Senator Lewis a few minutes ago. I remind the Minister that in September of 1986 he was prepared to advise manufacturers to rely on a dollar of somewhere over US60c in value, that just a few weeks ago we were presented with a Budget predicated on a dollar value of somewhere around US72c, and that at the beginning of this month he was prepared to say that he was hopeful that the dollar would follow the course of going down to 65c to 68c over the next few months. I remind him of that recent history because of the non-answer he gave to Senator Lewis. I also remind the Minister that the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia (MTIA) says in its latest Economic Review: It seems most probable that the Australian dollar will continue to strengthen against the US dollar, perhaps rising in due course to the 75-80 US cents range. Does the Minister agree with the Metal Trades Industry Association? If the Association is correct, does he agree that in those circumstances the only means of maintaining the competitiveness of the manufacturing sector is a sharp restriction of unit labour costs? Senator BUTTON —There is all sorts of speculation about the value of the dollar by groups and individuals in the community who are not operating in the market-place. Senator Alston —Like yourself. Senator BUTTON —Yes. Inevitably, such people will have views about this sort of thing. Let me say that the MTIA views might be right, and they might be wrong. The dollar having been floated, either thing is possible. But Senator Chaney then went on to ask me-and I take this to be the point of his question-whether, if the MTIA is right, in those circumstances the only way of maintaining Australia's international competitiveness is by reducing real unit labour costs. My answer to that question is no. The means of maintaining Australia's international competitiveness are quite wide and varied. Unit labour costs have a very important role in maintaining Australia's international competitiveness, and this Government has stressed that on a number of occasions. Indeed, its policies have been directed to that point in industrial relations matters. But a much wider variety of factors go to our international competitiveness, including things such as marketing skills and capacity, the quality of the products we produce and the service we can provide in relation to those products. I could go on and on. A whole range of factors determines competitiveness in various industries. The sole determinants of competitiveness are not exclusively the value of the dollar or the question of real unit labour costs. Those things have to be seen in the context of a much wider range of factors which influence one's international competitiveness. Let me say that the depreciation of the dollar in 1985 and 1986, for example, gave Australian manufacturers a sort of window of opportunity in relation to price competitiveness internationally. But price is not the sole determinant of international competitiveness, particularly in manufacturing. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. In regard to the Minister's reference to a window of opportunity having been opened up by the devaluation of the dollar, does he accept that if the dollar rises as predicted by the Metal Trades Industry Association, that window of opportunity will be closed, and, indeed, that it has already been partly closed by the fact that our nominal wages have risen faster since that time than those of our trading partners? Does he further agree, therefore, that if the dollar continues to appreciate, we need either a lift in productivity or a reduction in wages, and that, notwithstanding the various factors he talks about, we cannot escape the need to be more competitive by reducing our unit labour costs by one of those two means? Senator BUTTON —That supplementary question is just a rephrased version of the main question which I was asked. I do not see it as a supplementary question at all. As I said in answering Senator Chaney's original question, the relevance of unit labour costs is of very significant importance in terms of maintaining international competitiveness. I should point out that that fact has been publicly recognised by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) in its document Australia Reconstructed. That is a very important recognition by the ACTU. Certainly wages are vitally relevant and productivity is relevant. There is a whole range of means of obtaining improved productivity, which I do not need to go into now but some of which I referred to before. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. What contribution to gross domestic product (GDP) growth in 1986-87-that is, last year-came from increased net exports, the increase in export growth over reduction in imports? How did the result compare with the Government's August 1986 Budget forecast? Do Senator Short's comments of August last year on that year's Budget suggest that private market decision-makers should regard his economic forecasts as being more reliable than the official figures contained in the Budget Papers? Senator WALSH —The 1986 Budget Papers estimated that the contribution from net exports to GDP growth would be 1.75 per cent. The actual figure-the outcome-was 2.3 per cent, demonstrating that, of course, the 1986 Budget prediction had been very conservative. Senator Short said on 21 August-I think in the speech on the motion to take note of the Budget Papers: . . . it is highly unlikely that Australia will be able to lift its net export performance by anything like 1.75 per cent . . . I say again that the actual figure-the outcome-was 2.3 per cent. He also said: . . . the Government's revenue estimates cannot be relied on. They too are far too high. He added: . . . the figures for unemployment benefit expenditure are predicated on an increase in unemployment which appears to be far too low . . . As to the other matters raised by Senator Short, apart from the contribution of net exports to GDP growth, the fact is that revenue came in some $920m above the Budget estimate-not below the Budget estimate, as Senator Short had asserted. This is principally due to the base broadening measures associated with the Government's tax reform package having produced more revenue than the conservative estimates allowed at the time those measures were introduced. These are the very base broadening measures, and additional revenues of course, which the Opposition, during the election campaign, was pledged to repealing. It is not clear what the Opposition's position is now on those base broadening measures, but the Government and I welcome the apparent change of heart on those questions of some of the more responsible members of the Opposition. However, they are still obviously committed to assisting tax evaders. The Budget outlays on unemployment benefits-again, Senator Short had asserted that the cost estimates were too low-came in $139m below the Budget estimate. So, the basic answer to the third part of Senator Short's question-should anybody take any notice of Senator Short-is no. On the basis of his record nobody should take much notice of him. I can understand why he was replaced by Senator Stone, as shadow finance spokesman, with the reservation that some of Senator Stone's predictions were not much better. Senator MACKLIN —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to reports of an agreement between the United States Administration and the Canadian Government on a free trade plan to lower all trade barriers between those two countries. What are the implications of this agreement for Australia's current trade negotiations with the United States of America and Canada? What are the ramifications of the agreement for the Cairns group of free traders, of which Canada is a member? How will the agreement affect the stance and bargaining position of the free trade group during the current General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade round of multilateral trade negotiations? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case, as reported, that Canada and the United States have reached agreement in principle on the terms of a Canada-United States free trade agreement (FTA). The President notified Congress on 4 October that he intends to enter into a free trade agreement with Canada on 2 January 1988, subject to Congressional approval and to successful completion of the negotiations. Congress, then, has 90 days from 4 October to approve or reject the FTA. Details of the FTA remain to be negotiated but the major elements are as follows: It will come into force on 1 January 1989. It involves the removal of all tariffs, including those on agriculture, between the two countries on or before 1 January 1998. Each country has agreed to exempt the other from restrictions under their respective meat import laws. The elimination by the United States of all restrictions on the enrichment of Canadian uranium is also a provision of the agreement. There is agreement to work together to eliminate all subsidies which distort agricultural trade. There is to be an elimination of discriminatory mark-ups in the Canadian market for wines and spirits. Finally, the agreement involves the establishment of a bilateral disputes settlement mechanism. The fact that both countries have reached an agreement on issues, particularly agriculture, which are so important to the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations, as Senator Macklin indicated, is obviously a very positive step forward. The Australian Government has been following the FTA negotiations closely and will continue to do so. Australia has its own trade agreement with Canada and Australian officials have today had consultations with Canadian officials to ensure that Australia's trading interests are protected. Mr Duffy, in his recent visit to Canada and the United States, expressed to his respective counterparts the same concerns about the need to protect and develop Australia's trading interests in these markets. I should add that I think Mr Duffy is making a ministerial statement within the next few days in which, no doubt, he will expand on some of the themes I have addressed in this answer. Senator BOLKUS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade aware that the Government of Nicaragua has implemented the first major requirement of the Central American peace plan, authorising the pro-Opposition daily newspaper La Prensa to renew publication without restriction? In light of this, will the Minister convey to the United States Government Australia's support for the Central American peace plan and encourage that Government to accept the plan? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, the Government is aware of the Nicaraguan Government having recently lifted all proscriptions on the publication of La Prensa, the major right wing newspaper in Managua. It has also allowed Radio Catolica to resume broadcasting. The lifting of bans forms part of the commitments given by all of the Central American governments, as part of the peace accord of 7 August, to restore democracy and basic political freedoms within 150 days. The Government has previously applauded that accord and now welcomes the removal of censorship on La Prensa and Radio Catolica. It hopes that the accord is successful and will lead to an easing of tension and conflict in the region. The United States is not a party to the 7 August agreement, but its support will be essential. The Administration has given the accord qualified support to date but has foreshadowed further assistance for the Contras. The Administration is well aware that this Government's views on Central America are not in alignment with theirs. Senator STONE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the Minister agree that the recent upsurge in purchases of residential real estate in urban areas by non-Australians is a clear indication that by relative international standards the value of such assets at our current exchange rate for the Australian dollar is too low? Secondly, does the Minister also agree with his colleague the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce that even at its current level-let alone any higher one-the value of the Australian dollar is uncomfortably high from the viewpoint of either the import competing industries or the primary and resource exporting industries? Is the Government aware of this fundamental dilemma in a dollar which is too high from one viewpoint and too low from another, which its policies over the past few years have created for it? How does the Government propose to go about resolving that fundamental dilemma? Senator WALSH —The first part of the question invited me to do what Senator Button has just declined to do and what Senator Lewis, I think it is, in the forecast matter of public importance says should not be done; that is, to speculate about whether the value of the Australian dollar is where it ought to be, or whether it should be higher or lower. Like Senator Button, I do not intend to speculate about that here. In regard to purchases of real estate, it is my understanding that the buying pressure from overseas came principally, if not overwhelmingly, from Japan. I think there can be no reasonable doubt that the changes in the relative values of the Australian dollar and the Japanese yen have been a significant factor in that. Over the last 2 1/2 years the Australian-United States exchange rate has changed by about 15 per cent-that is, the value of the Australian dollar relative to the US dollar has fallen by about 15 per cent. The value of the Australian dollar relative to the Japanese yen has fallen by something more than 50 per cent; indeed, I think possibly closer to 60 per cent than 50 per cent. That enormous shift in the relative value of the yen and the Australian dollar is a function of the appreciation of the yen rather than the depreciation of the Australian dollar. Senator Stone appears to believe that the Government should do something about that. Frankly, I do not know what the Australian Government, any Australian government, could do which would have a significant effect on the international value of the yen, since Australia is, although a significant trading nation, by no means as big a trading nation as Japan, West Germany, the United States and a number of other countries. So, I do not think there is very much at all we can do about that, even if the implication that we should try to do something about the value of the yen is correct. Senator STONE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the response that the Minister has just made-and, incidentally, I take the opportunity of correcting his-- Government senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator STONE —I ask the Minister on what basis he puts forward the view that the only source of purchases of urban residential real estate is Japan. There is a great deal of evidence that New Zealanders are buying as much. In view of the Minister's inability to give an affirmative answer to the first of my questions to him, is he therefore suggesting that the Treasurer's action last week in forbidding such purchases was unnecessary? Clearly, if the answer to the question-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Stone, would you ask your supplementary question? Senator STONE —Is the Minister suggesting that the Treasurer's action last week was unnecessary? Senator WALSH —I distinctly did not say that the only source of overseas buying of Australian real estate was Japan. I believe I said that the principal, if not the overwhelming, buying pressure is coming from Japan, as I understand it. I said `as I understand it'. If there is evidence to the contrary, naturally I will look at that evidence. Some of us believe that Keynes was basically correct when, after having been asked, `If decisive evidence could be produced which contradicted your beliefs, what would you do?' he said, `I would change my beliefs. What would you do?'. Most of us belong to the Keynesian school, at least in that sense, although it was frequently alleged that a former Treasury Secretary did not support Keynes in that view or perhaps in a number of others. In regard to the New Zealand dollar, if I remember correctly, the present exchange rate is about $NZ1.30 to $A1, which is about the same as it was when I was in New Zealand five years ago. So if it is correct that there is a significant interest in New Zealand in buying real estate in Australia it cannot be attributed to any significant extent to changes in the relative exchange rate-over the last five years, anyway. Senator COOK —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Treasurer and is also about a non-Keynesian. Did the Minister hear the honourable member for O'Connor, Mr Tuckey, being interviewed by Pru Goward on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Morning Show today? If so, can the Minister clarify whether Mr Tuckey's objection to a system requiring an employer to ascertain his employees' tax file numbers is inconsistent with present principles applied under the Income Tax Assessment Act? Senator Puplick —Mr President, I take a point of order. Senator Cook's question asks for an interpretation of a statement which was made not by a Government Minister or by anybody for whom the Minister has any degree of responsibility. It is not a matter which falls within the responsibility of the Minister in terms of the discharge of his ministerial responsibilities. The PRESIDENT —The question deals at least with the taxation part of Senator Walsh's representation. I will allow the question. Senator WALSH —I heard Mr Tuckey this morning on the Morning Show going on at great length. Despite his verbosity, it was not entirely clear precisely what Mr Tuckey would support or would not support, let alone what the Liberal Party of Australia would support or would not support. The present pay as you earn (PAYE) tax system requires employers, and has long required employers, to act to some extent as enforcers of the income tax system. They are required to deduct what is thought to be an appropriate amount from wages and salaries, pay that money to the Australian Taxation Office and notify the Office of the amounts deducted and the name of the employee to whom those payments have been made. What the present arrangements do not do is require the employer, with the exception of one area, one special arrangement which I will refer to in a moment, to verify the accuracy of the name given or to supply the Taxation Office with the tax file number or alleged tax file number of the employee to whom the payments have been made. In other words, it would appear that Mr Tuckey seems to think that it is all right for an employer to supply a false name to the Taxation Office, but he is not so keen on an employer supplying a correct name. If I am wrong in making that assumption, I hope that Mr Tuckey will promptly correct me, but it seems to me that what Mr Tuckey is objecting to is any onus being imposed on employers to notify the Taxation Office of the tax file number of the employee to whom payments are made and on whose behalf an employer is required, under longstanding law, to deduct PAYE tax instalments. Without such verification or notification of a number to see whether such a number exists in the Taxation Office, it is impossible to stamp out tax evasion in the PAYE tax area. I would like to know whether it is the policy of the Opposition that employers must have no onus placed upon them to notify the Taxation Office of the tax file number allegedly belonging to the people whom they are employing. The one exception that I mentioned earlier is the prescribed payments system, which does require a sub-contractor or contractor to provide a deduction variation form which includes the tax file number of the person to whom the payment is being made. If the employer fails to produce that form with a tax file number, then, by law, tax will be deducted at a higher rate. That system was first announced in the 1982 Budget by the then Treasurer. It was enacted by this Government, and since it has been enacted some 50,000 new file numbers have been established in the industries to which the prescribed payments system applies. The only logical deduction that one can make from that is that most of those 50,000 people were previously employed under false names and did not have any identity as far as the Taxation Office was concerned. In other words, they were right there into the cash economy and evading tax. Within the ambit of the prescribed payments system, about 50,000 tax evaders have been picked up. The objective of the Australia Card, or the second-best option which the Government is considering, is to pick up what is almost certainly a very much larger number of tax evaders. There is no way in which those tax evaders can be picked up unless there is a requirement on employers to notify the Taxation Office of the tax file number or some other, more reliable means of identifying the employee. It has been suggested by a number of people, and this comes principally from Press reports, that, in respect of tax evaded on interest payments, there should be a withholding tax. In order to be fully effective, such a withholding tax would have to be applied at the maximum personal rate of 49c in the dollar, otherwise people could still be paying less than their proper amount of tax if they use a false identity. In other words, while it is technically feasible to ensure that there is no tax evasion on interest payments by imposing a withholding tax of 49c or 50c in the dollar, the effect of that would be to force tens of thousands of honest pensioners, for example, who have a few thousand dollars in a building society, to pay, in the first instance, half of that interest received as taxation, for the purpose of detecting taxation cheats who hold money in interest bearing accounts under false names. Finally, the Sydney Morning Herald of 25 September prophesied in an editorial that there would be significant resistance from the Liberal Party of Australia to any measure that struck effectively at tax evasion-the reason for that being, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, that tax evaders comprise a significant part of the Liberal Party's natural constituency. Senator Chaney's notice of motion tends to confirm that. But before the Liberal Party follows Wilson Tuckey too far down the road of protecting the tax evaders, I give it a bit of well-meant advice. Mr Tuckey has a record already of abusing public office for personal gain, and I warn it that it would be most unwise to follow him very far down that road. Senator Puplick —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. The Minister has cast a gross reflection on a member in another place. I ask you to ask Senator Walsh to withdraw it. The PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Walsh to withdraw that reference. Senator WALSH —Very well, I will withdraw it and think about tabling the file on the Carnarvon Shire Council. Senator CHANEY —I direct my question to the Minister for Finance. It follows his just concluded answer in which he misrepresented the Opposition with respect to various matters, including the tax file number. Is it a fact that access to an individual taxpayer's tax file number by persons other than the taxpayer and the Australian Taxation Office has already given rise to difficulties in tax administration? Does he agree that, for example, it resulted in the diversion of refund cheques which were payable to taxpayers to people who had access to numbers and used them to obtain the diversion of those refund cheques? Does the Minister accept that general access to tax file numbers can itself be a source of abuse of the tax system? Senator WALSH —I do not know the purpose of this question-other than, as somebody behind me suggests, to lay a smokescreen to conceal the fact that the Liberal Party is behaving in accordance with its tradition, that is, protecting people who cheat on the tax system. Senator Chaney asserts that there have been abuses of tax file numbers under existing arrangements. I do not know whether there have been or not. I will check out the accuracy of his assertion with the Treasurer who in turn, I expect, will pass it on to the Commissioner of Taxation. I am not aware of that having happened, except under circumstances where it is provided for by law and might well have got people into trouble. For example, section 16 authorises the Taxation Commissioner to provide certain information to the Secretary to the Department of Social Security, and for very good reason. The provision of that information might well have got some particular people into trouble-the sort of people, I hasten to add, who ought to be in trouble and who got into trouble because they were caught cheating on the system. But if innocent parties have been harmed under existing arrangements that would have nothing to do with a system which required employers to notify-and the notification, one would think, would have to be prompt-the Taxation Office of the tax file numbers, or at least the alleged tax file numbers, of the people they employ. If there is no such notification requirement-alternatively, I suppose, an employer could deduct PAYE tax at the maximum personal rate-obviously there is no effective means of preventing people holding jobs or receiving income in a number of different names. That is exactly what happens now. Senator Maguire-this was published last week-has an accountant friend who was approached by an individual asking him, as a registered tax accountant, to complete not only his tax return but his tax return plus five other tax returns with bodgie names, covering income that the same taxpayer had received. In other words, so far as the Taxation Office was aware, that particular person had six different tax file numbers and six different names. Senator Walters —What did Senator Maguire do about it? Senator WALSH —I would hope that the accountant dobbed in the individual taxpayer, but that is the accountant's concern, not Senator Maguire's. As one would expect, any friend of Senator Maguire's is an ethical person. This particular tax accountant told that tax cheat that he would not complete his returns on ethical and moral grounds; he refused to do it. I guess the tax cheat then went and found a Liberal Party accountant who did it with no trouble at all. I do not really know the point of Senator Chaney's question except, as was suggested to me from behind, to throw up a smokescreen to conceal the fact that the Liberal Party is reverting to type-that is, protecting tax cheats. This morning Mr Tuckey asserted that-- Senator Walters —So is Peter Garrett; so is Bondy; so is Alan Jones. Senator WALSH —Just for the record, I acknowledge that interjection so that it will go down alongside the name of Senator Walters that Alan Bond, Alan Jones and Peter Garrett are tax evaders. I do not know whether they are, but Senator Walters is asserting that they are. Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. The Minister continually misrepresents the position of the Opposition. He is now misrepresenting the position of Senator Walters. Those are quite clearly mischievous comments. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator WALSH —Mr Tuckey asserted that the Australian Taxation Office is always trying to get more power rather than enforcing the law. There is perhaps a grain of truth in that, because I recall that when various High Court decisions had made it virtually impossible to enforce the taxation law, over a period of many years the Taxation Commissioner wrote a series of increasingly desperate letters to the then Treasurer begging him to amend the Act. Of course, that finally culminated in the exposures in the McCabe-Lafranchi report on tax avoidance in Australia and the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union of widespread tax evasion centred around the bottom of the harbour activities. On the question of misrepresentation it is said that I have misrepresented the Liberal Party's view on stamping out tax evasion and in one sense I genuinely hope that I have; but my interpretation-and this is the most reasonable interpretation that anybody could come to-is that Mr Tuckey on behalf of the Liberal Party is asserting that it will not accept any system which requires an employer promptly to notify the Taxation Office of the tax file number of any employee on whose behalf the employer is making PAYE deductions. That is my understanding of what Mr Tuckey said. If that is wrong-- Senator Puplick —It is wrong. Senator WALSH —I am told it is wrong. I would welcome a statement from Mr Howard, Mr Peacock, Senator Puplick or anyone else who likes to say that the Liberal Party will not oppose such a measure. I would welcome any such statement from the Opposition. But that is my understanding of the Opposition's view or policy, as expounded by Mr Tuckey. If that is indeed the Opposition's policy, and if it gets the Australian Democrats to tag along behind, at some time it will, in the Senate, strike another major blow protecting tax evaders as it has so often done in the past. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of all honourable senators to the presence in the senators' guests gallery of a parliamentary delegation from the Federal Republic of Germany led by the President of the Bundesrat, Dr Wallmann. On behalf of all senators I extend to you, Mr President, and to the delegation a warm welcome and I trust that your stay in Australia is a success. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator COATES —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to an article in the Australian Financial Review reporting that Tasmanian Premier Robin Gray had responded to opposition to his announcement that taxes on fuel and car registrations would rise by up to 17 per cent in the State Budget by saying that the `hard decision' of raising State taxes and charges `had to be made because of a decline in Federal allocations'. Is resolution of the Tasmanian Government's financial problems a matter which only the Federal Government can address? Senator WALSH —The short answer to that question has to be no. It is not really a matter for the Federal Government. Indeed, Tasmania continues to receive per capita payments from the Commonwealth Government vastly in excess of those received by any other State. I do not have the precise figures in front of me but I think they are some 30 per cent higher than the highest of the other five States on a per capita basis and close to 50 per cent higher than the average of all the other States. So Tasmania is treated advantageously so far as the Commonwealth Budget is concerned. As to how the Tasmanian Government should address its financial problems, if there are any, I suggest that the Premier look at the report at the end of last month of the Tasmanian Auditor-General, Mr David Kirby. A summary of that report appeared in the Mercury on 1 October. It referred, among other things, to financial mismanagement in some State Government departments, lower priority being given to inventory control and failure to comply with Treasury instructions. The article said: Mr Kirby highlighted the Mines Department's accounting methods as particularly bad. One company had made a royalty return of $292,003 but had not made a payment until questioned by auditors. The company had put in a return which showed a liability of $292,000, but the Tasmanian Administration was apparently so slothful that no demand was made for payment until the Auditor-General picked up the fact that what was effectively the bill had not been paid. The article also said: Several companies had not paid royalties and no action had been taken. It then referred to a new computer coming on line for the Retirement Benefits Fund, the State superannuation scheme, with none of the necessary checks being taken. I could go on, but it is very clear-and that was not an accusation by the Federal Government or even by any of its agencies, but by the State's own Auditor-General-that there is a severe lack of fiscal control within the Tasmanian Administration. I suggest that Mr Gray should look to that before he starts complaining, quite unjustifiably, that Tasmania has in some way been treated harshly by the Commonwealth Government when, in fact, on a per capita basis, Tasmania receives far more from the Commonwealth Government than does any other State. Senator SHEIL —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs explain why there has been such a long delay in the reporting of cases decided by Mr Justice Kearney? In some cases years have elapsed since the conclusion of the hearings, and I cannot find a single case of a verdict being reported. Can the Minister tell the Senate when these reports will be provided? I say by way of explanation that I understand that these decisions have far-reaching implications with regard to land usage and land boundaries in Australia. It is quite a scandal that it is some years since we have had any report at all. Senator TATE —I regret that I am unable to assist Senator Sheil in his inquiries about any delays that have occurred in the reporting of decisions or conclusions by Mr Justice Kearney. I understand that he is the Northern Territory Land Commissioner. I do not know whether the query relates to decisions made by him in that role or whether the honourable senator has other cases in mind also. Senator Sheil —No. Senator TATE —Nevertheless, all I can do is ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Gerry Hand, to provide an answer, although I do understand that Mr Justice Kearney is attempting to put a report in Mr Hand's hands as soon as possible. Senator VALLENTINE —My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, concerns the potential for discussions on security and arms control in the North Pacific, with reference to the Foreign Minister's speech at the Australian National University (ANU) conference on that subject on 12 August. Given the increasing naval build-up in the North Pacific in the last few years by both the United States of America and the Soviet Union, and the destabilising nature of the United States maritime strategy, why is the Government apparently not prepared to act on some of the suggestions put forward by Mr Hayden at the ANU conference? What was the relevance of some of the constructive ideas floated by Mr Hayden, such as putting a ceiling on, or reducing, strategic nuclear weapons, limiting naval forces in the North Pacific, imagining various naval disengagement arrangements, or looking into the concept of a nuclear free zone, if the Government was not prepared to raise them with the regional powers involved, particularly those with whom Mr Hayden noted we have close connections in terms of trade, strategic interest and friendship? Finally, what confidence building measures in the North Pacific would the Government consider putting to the United States and the Soviet Union following Mr Hayden's speech and in the spirit of the recent intermediate-range nuclear forces agreement regarding Europe? Senator GARETH EVANS —Contrary to the implication in Senator Vallentine's question, the Government has acted on the proposals made by Mr Hayden in his speech at the ANU conference on security and arms control in the North Pacific last month. Mr Hayden said: There are any number of arms control objectives that one could, in theory, seek to have the States concerned set themselves. He then listed some of these theoretical possibilities, including those mentioned by Senator Vallentine. That is the context in which those particular matters were raised and articulated by the Foreign Minister. Mr Hayden went on to advocate, as first steps, two confidence building measures: first of all, open and frank super-power dialogue on security perceptions and concerns in the North Pacific and, secondly, the release of reliable and authoritative information on force levels and force characteristics and on the strategies these forces are intended to support. Mr Hayden's proposals have been conveyed to both the Soviet Union and the United States. Senator WATSON —My question is also addressed to the Minister for Transport and Communications in his capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Given Australia's abhorrence of the system of apartheid and the Minister's own strong views on the practice, I ask: Has the Government contributed to the Africa Fund to assist the front-line states which border South Africa, many of which are fellow Commonwealth countries? If so, what was the extent of the contribution and when was it made? Senator GARETH EVANS —The 1986 Non-Aligned Movement Summit established an Africa Fund, to which Senator Watson referred, to provide assistance to the front-line states. This fund is chaired by the Indian Prime Minister and its purpose is to provide broad-ranging assistance to the front-line states of southern Africa to withstand South African destabilisation and to develop their economies so as to lessen their economic and especially transport dependence on South Africa. The Fund met in New Delhi in January this year to elaborate a program of action. The response so far has been substantial, with considerable pledges in kind but few in foreign exchange-in fact, only $US100,000. Australia is committed to providing assistance to the states of southern Africa. Mr Hayden announced, I hope it will be recalled, a three-year program of assistance to the nine countries of the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference, known as SADCC. He made that announcement on 15 September and the program provided for a sum of $55m. It involved food aid. It also focused closely on training and staffing assistance needs in an effort to assist the SADCC nations to achieve professional and technical self-reliance. So far as non-food commodities assistance is concerned, it also involved particularly some targeted assistance in the transport and communications sector aimed at decreasing dependence on South Africa's transport system. So a substantial contribution has been made by the Australian Government to that particular exercise with the objectives that I have just described. The matter of an Australian contribution to the Africa Fund is one for continuing consideration by the Government. At this stage, while the Government is broadly sympathetic to the Fund's objectives and while, as I have said, the Government is giving increased aid to the southern African states, it is not presently intended to channel this assistance through the Africa Fund. Senator CROWLEY —My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State in her capacity as Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health. I ask whether the Minister has seen the Press release of 21 September in which the shadow Minister for housing and public administration, Mr Porter, commented on the July figures for housing, claiming: While many Australian families want a house, they still can't afford to buy one. Will the Minister comment on this claim by Mr Porter, and can she say whether it is an accurate picture of the current state of the housing market? Senator RYAN —Yes, I have had those remarks of Mr Porter drawn to my attention and I can assure the Senate that they are totally inaccurate. Mr Porter has chosen to quote selectively the statistics of the Australian Bureau of Statistics without referring to the context in which they are set. The use of one month's figures on housing loans in isolation is naive, particularly the use of the month of July 1987. Obviously with an election and a Budget looming and the prospect of falls in housing interest rates, home owners would have been holding off their decision-making. The return of the Hawke Labor Government, coupled with a balanced Budget, set the scene for falls in home loan interest rates and, no doubt, these positive results will be reflected in continued and significant housing loan approvals in coming months. The continued high level of housing finance, coupled with falling interest rates, indicates continuing improvement in access to home ownership for Australians. For example, the recent one per cent fall in savings bank interest rates to 14.5 per cent will reduce monthly repayments on a $50,000 loan over 20 years by $37 per month. The balanced Budget for 1987-88 and the withdrawal of the Commonwealth Government as a net borrower this year will further reduce pressure on the financial markets and help to sustain recent falls in housing and other interest rates. These developments augur well for the ability of housing lenders to compete for funds and to continue to provide a ready supply of more affordable housing finance. The affordability of home ownership will also be enhanced by the Government's decision in March this year to increase income limits for the first home owners scheme, which was particularly targeted to families. Since this Government introduced the first home owners scheme in 1983, over 255,000 Australian households have been assisted into home ownership. In 1987-88 this Government, through the first home owners scheme, will assist a further 52,000 families into homes. Senator TAMBLING —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Given the damage, both actual and potential, of the recent pesticide scare not only to beef producers but also to the Australian trade position, what action has the Australian Government taken to ensure that the standards that the United States of America and Japanese governments have applied to Australian beef imports are applied equally to their own domestic production? What testing does the Australian Government carry out for imports of agricultural products and how do Australian standards compare with those demanded by, for example, the United States? Senator WALSH —I have a note from Mr Kerin on this but I do not think it is really relevant to the central point of the honourable senator's question which, as I understand it, is in short: Does the United States apply the same standards to its domestic supplies, particularly of meat, as it applies to imports? Frankly, I do not know; I will make inquiries about that. If the United States applies to imports standards of something less than Australia applies, obviously that is some sort of anomaly. However, it may well be that the Federal Government in the United States does not have the same degree of control over marketing of domestically produced products as it has over imports. But I will see what sort of reply I can get to that. In regard to the standards applied by the Australian Government to imports of food, again I cannot give Senator Tambling any detail, but I will get an answer as soon as I am able to. Senator FOREMAN —I draw the attention of the Special Minister of State to an article on page 5 of today's Australian Financial Review entitled `Opposition fights Labor's ID card alternative'. In that article the Opposition spokesman on health, Mr Tuckey, attacked the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Boucher, for failing to crack down on tax avoidance. Mr Tuckey also stated in the article that the Opposition would fight any attempt to bring in a numbered identity code which would crack down on tax avoidance and social security fraud. Can the Minister advise the Senate whether a thorough crackdown on tax avoidance and social welfare cheating would be hampered if an enhanced file number is not used? Senator RYAN —I am aware of the variously reported comments of Mr Tuckey about the Opposition's intentions, or at least his intentions, it would seem, to try to obstruct anything that would enable the Government effectively to crack down on tax cheats. There has been some discussion of Mr Tuckey's comments during Question Time today. Speaking for myself and I think for other senators on this side of the chamber, I must say that we are not at all clear what it is the Opposition wants us to do. I know that Senator Chaney and some of his colleagues become incensed when there is a suggestion that the results of their actions protect the tax cheats. But when we try to get from them some sort of idea of what measures they consider are acceptable in order that tax evasion and tax cheating be cut down on, we get nothing but a lot of rhetoric and threats from Mr Tuckey. I should make it clear that, despite the decision of the Opposition parties to obstruct the Government's Australia Card legislation, the Government will not desist from honourable and proper efforts to crack down on tax evasion. We have a responsibility to the people of Australia to do something effective about the fact that tax cheats and welfare frauds are costing honest Australians about $900m a year. Simply because the Opposition parties have determined on some populist course of action to prevent us from implementing the most effective means of retrieving that $900m or so does not mean that we will resile entirely from our responsibility to the Australian people. I think that Senator Walsh has made some comments about the currently required use of tax file numbers in the matter of responsibility of employers and so on. The existing tax file numbering system administered by the Australian Taxation Office is to be examined urgently, as part of the package of measures that the Prime Minister has announced to crack down on cheating and fraud. Although the tax file numbering system would not have the same integrity as the Australia Card-that is, it is open to the kind of abuse and fraud to which Senator Walsh and, I think, Senator Chaney referred-it may be possible to apply it in such a way that it will still produce substantial net revenue gains over and above those that can be expected to flow from the other measures already being pursued by the Government. The Government is also pursuing fraud control, cash transaction reports legislation, a births, deaths and marriages register, privacy legislation and the establishment of a Data Protection Agency. I must comment in conclusion that, although we have heard a lot of huffing and puffing from Mr Tuckey and his colleagues about what they will not allow, we have heard very little from them, if indeed anything at all, by way of serious suggestion as to the steps that ought to be taken to provide some control over the data held on individuals not only in the public sector but also in the private sector. It seems that to this date-like Senator Walsh, I hope to be proven wrong on this-the Opposition parties have decided on a course of total negativism and obstructionism and are not prepared to have a constructive and co-operative approach with the Government on handling what all Australians know by now to be a massive problem of fraud and evasion. Senator CALVERT —I ask the Minister for Transport and Communications: What are the implications of the closure by Telecom Australia of the VNG standard time and frequency service? Senator GARETH EVANS —This is a matter that I addressed in my previous portfolio hat of resources and energy. The time signal that was given out by the VNG service was of some utility for a variety of scientific organisations, such as the Bureau of Mineral Resources, within my previous portfolio which were engaged in research that demanded absolute time accuracy. Regrettably, it has been the case that a number of other agencies and private organisations around the place which have wanted to use that time signal have been unable or unwilling to make a cash contribution to keep the service alive. Under the circumstances, Telecom was forced to the decision to terminate the service, it being of no continuing utility for Telecom itself, as part of its new attempt to keep itself streamlined and efficient economically. I probably need further information to fully appreciate the implications around the place for all the various people who have claimed to be affected by this before I can fully answer the question, but I believe it is the case that no significant public interest is seriously prejudiced by the termination of the service in question, although it has generated some inconvenience and made it necessary for some particular kinds of time signal data to be achieved by other means. I will see what further information I can dig up on the subject. I am pretty impressed with the extent of the information I have recalled in the last minute and a half, but I would not want to hang my hat permanently on the answer I have just given. I will see what further information I can supply. Senator CALVERT —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question-in an attempt to help the Minister. Will he please either confirm or deny that the closure of the VNG system has caused real problems for Australia's Antarctic scientists, who are now forced to use the American WWV system which provides only a three-day time check and is subject to wandering drift? If this is the case, can provision be made to extend the VNG system for two Antarctic summers to enable Australia's scientists to set up their Omega bases and cover the existing gap in services? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not believe it will be possible to arrange for any further extension of the VNG system. A few latecomers have got into the argument, and maybe the Antarctic people are one such group. The point is that it is possible for alternative arrangements to be made. Maybe they do not provide as good a service or exactly the same kind of service as was previously there; nonetheless, alternatives are available. I will take that particular point on board in the further answer I get. Senator McLEAN —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health. In the routine statistical analyses carried out by the Department of Health to determine which medical practices are abnormal in their use of pathological servicing, does the Department include any analysis of the frequency of use of other services such as pharmacology and radiology, or the frequency of patient visits? Is the Minister aware that under the present system medical practitioners using an essentially preventative approach to medicine will probably be more inclined to be brought under investigation for possible Medicare fraud? Will the Minister request the Department to undertake a review of its Medicare statistical analysis procedures in order to take all of these factors into account, and in particular will the Minister look into the case of Dr Mark Donohoe of Erina Heights, New South Wales, who appears to have been caught unfairly in this statistical net? Senator RYAN —I will refer all of those questions to Dr Blewett, and I suggest to the honourable senator that he make any details of the circumstances of the particular practitioner whose name he mentioned in the course of his question available to Dr Blewett's office so that the matter can be investigated properly. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Lewis proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The damage caused to Australia's international financial reputation and the uncertainty created for manufacturers and investors by speculation about the value of the Australian dollar by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.13) —Mr President, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has an unenviable reputation following his comments about the value of the Australian dollar. Almost a year ago to the day, the Minister was telling manufacturers in Australia to make investment decisions on the basis that the dollar would remain at about US62c, and once again, this week, he has been predicting that the dollar will not go any higher than it currently is. Of course, this Minister might well be called the two bob each way Minister because once again-as he always does-he has attempted to distance himself from his own Government's decision. The Minister is a very senior Minister in this Government-I think he is third in line-and as such he is responsible for the Government's decisions. Yet when he thinks that the industry people and the manufacturers in the electorate would not be happy with the actions of the Government, he tries to distance himself from those actions-as one of the political commentators said, as if he were an outsider looking in. But, of course, Senator Button cannot have it both ways. In fact, he is part of the decision-making process of the Cabinet; he is part of the process that results in the dollar value rising or falling according to this Government's actions. Let me quote what the Minister said on 22 September last year at the annual conference of the Heavy Engineering Manufacturers Association. He said to these gentlemen: The depreciation of the Australian dollar to a level just above 60 cents to the US dollar has substantially restored Australia's international competitiveness and will provide major opportunities for import replacement and economic growth. He went on: Manufacturers should be making their investment plans on the basis that the dollar will remain very close to its current levels . . . Senator Button —Which was what, Senator? Senator LEWIS —At that stage it was about 62c. The Minister had said that it was about 60c; in fact it was about 62c. It is now a lot more than 62c; it is up around 74c. The Minister told manufacturers to invest on the basis that the dollar would stay at around current levels. The very next day Senator Chaney, who was then the shadow Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, asked Senator Button a question about that statement. Senator Button responded: . . . if the dollar were to appreciate significantly in the next two or three years- not 12 months, I might point out- then investment plans they have, predicated on a 62c dollar, would be affected detrimentally. The Minister then tried to have two bob each way, as he always does. He went on: I was not in any sense attempting to debate the value of the dollar as at today's level. Of course he was not; he was just saying what would happen to the dollar in the future. He then went on: I was concerned to make the point that in my view it is unlikely to appreciate to that extent. There are very sound reasons for saying that. The Minister, having made that statement at the function the previous night, repeated it in the Senate on 23 September last year. In my first question as shadow Minister I put to the Minister the proposition that this was what had happened. Senator Button said: If he- that is, me- checks his facts-and he can ask me the question again tomorrow-I think he will find I did not make that statement when the level of the dollar was about 60c. I do not know whether the Minister will argue about that. He went on to say: I do not in any way resile from the fact that I believe that I said on a number of occasions during last year that my anticipation was that the level of the dollar would remain for some period in the mid-sixties. The third most senior Minister in this Government is constantly making references to this matter and admitting that throughout last year he constantly talked about the dollar remaining in the mid-sixties. I note that subsequent to that answer the Minister made a personal explanation. On 30 September, just a few days ago, Senator Button was talking to some United States journalists in Sydney. He said: For a variety of fundamental reasons, I still think the Australian dollar won't go higher than it is now. Of course, that sent the financial markets panicking. It sent industry into some sort of problem area. While predictions were being made by industry speculators that the dollar would go higher, Senator Button was saying that for fundamental reasons the dollar would not go higher. What was the market response? The dollar fell from US72.4c to US70.7c. Just imagine the losses which occurred among financial investors as a direct result of the remarks made by the Minister. Is it any wonder that he needs to sneak out of this chamber for a cigarette and a cup of coffee? The Treasurer (Mr Keating) was most unimpressed by what the Minister had to say. On 5 October the Treasurer, who was in the United States, told US investors that they ought not to take any notice of any of the remarks being made by this Minister, the third in line in this Government. I quote what the Treasurer is reported to have said in the Age of 5 October: The only utterances on the exchange rate you ought to be concerned with are those from myself and the Prime Minister-we control monetary policy. Senator Button might very well say that he was only talking about what the industry might prefer, but that is no excuse. As I have said repeatedly, Senator Button is the third most senior Minister in this Government. Notwithstanding those comments by the Treasurer, Mr Keating, it is quite reasonable for people around the world, whether they be in industry or in financial markets, to note what this senior Government Minister is saying when he states that there are fundamental reasons why no change should take place. Once again the Minister is in exactly the same position as he was 12 months ago. Of course, in fact the effect of Senator Button's comments of last year in regard to the value of the dollar is only now coming to light. I am aware of the situation of one manufacturer who heeded the Minister's advice to invest on the basis that the dollar would remain just above US60c. I have obtained the permission of this manufacturer to mention his name. The company is called A. Pilgrim Industries Pty Ltd of Victoria and manufactures golf buggies. It is the only manufacturer of golf buggies in Australia that has been able to compete with imported golf buggies on the basis of the Australian dollar remaining at or about the mid-US60c level. Pilgrim, relying on Senator Button's comments, invested some $100,000 on robotics and a further $300,000 on other plant and equipment. Now that the Australian dollar has appreciated nearly to the mid-US70c level Pilgrim is not able to remain competitive on world markets. The firm has invested substantial moneys because of Senator Button's reckless, in fact even negligent, advice. If Senator Button were in legal practice he would be sued for damages. That company went ahead on the basis of Senator Button's advice and made very substantial investments. It has now lost its world markets because it is no longer competitive. Worst of all, the company now has to start looking to the Australian industry and has to start seeking some sort of tariff protection in order to enable it to survive. As Mr Pilgrim has told me, Senator Button closed his file on that company some months ago. It appears that Senator Button does not care what happens to this Australian manufacturer. As I said, notwithstanding Mr Keating's denial of Senator Button's authority to make comments about the value of the dollar, on the basis of Senator Button's leadership of the Government in the Senate his comments on the value of the dollar must have authority. Of course, the point is that he should comment more carefully. One wonders when he will ever learn. He continued to make comments about the value of the dollar throughout the course of last year. He was still making comments about the dollar as recently as a few days ago. The net result of those comments last week was to introduce uncertainty and lack of confidence in the foreign exchange market. Financial markets, like manufacturers, need stability. Certainly this is not a quality offered by this Minister at the moment. Of course, Senator Button's comments reflect the conflicting interests of industry on the one hand and the economy as a whole on the other hand. That conflict was very clearly pointed out by Senator Stone in his question to Senator Walsh today. Notwithstanding Senator Walsh's failure to answer the question adequately it was perfectly clear that at present there is a conflict. Because of the low value of the dollar our assets are seen as cheap to buy by those people with overseas funds to invest. People with overseas funds to invest wish to invest them in Australia by buying Australian real estate. Australian manufacturers are unable to compete on overseas markets even with the dollar at this level, yet this Minister keeps talking about how manufacturers need to take more steps to export their products. I wonder whether the Minister had some political motives for his outburst when he made these comments. I wonder whether it might be some sort of payback to the Treasurer because the Treasurer managed to take the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) from the Minister by extracting it from the Minister's portfolio and including it in the Treasurer's portfolio. Perhaps Senator Button thought that this was some way of paying him back. Or is there some more obscure motive within this coalition of three Labor parties that we have on the other side of the chamber? We have the right wing Labor Party, the Centre Left Labor Party and the left wing Labor Party. We also have the other part of the coalition-the Australian Democrats. I just wonder whether there is some more obscure motive by Senator Button, some sort of retribution of the right wing faction of the ALP for the right's drubbing of the Centre Left in the recent Caucus brawl. One would not know what this Government and this Minister have in mind. Recently the Metal Trades Industry Association Inc. (MTIA) predicted that the dollar could go as high as 80c. I ask the Minister: What would be the effect on our manufacturers, primary industries and commodity markets if the dollar reached the prediction of the MTIA? I stress the importance of productivity increases for more efficient production to combat unexpected fluctuations in the exchange rates. I will quote from a letter to the editor in one of the recent newspapers by Professor Wolfgang Kasper. He stated that industry needs an: . . . overall climate for enterprise and industry rejuvenation by general policies on tax, trade, competition and deregulation of product and factor markets. I point out that they were the policies of the Liberal and National parties at the last election. I also draw attention to the conflict which has been existing between the second most senior Minister in this Government, the Treasurer, Mr Keating, and the third most senior Minister in this Government, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button. Early in 1986 they clashed over the effectiveness of the J-curve. Mr Keating was angry when Senator Button said after the 1986 Budget that there should be additional cuts to spending. Senator Button opposed Mr Keating's taxing of company cars in his fringe benefits tax. Of course, this was the Minister trying to have two bob each way and distancing himself from decisions for which he has a collective responsibility. The Government having made these decisions of which he has been a part, Senator Button then steps outside and tries in some way or other to distance himself from them. During the election campaign the Treasurer came out and said that the Government would not cut tariffs across the board, but recently Senator Button was reported as supporting such across the board tariff cuts. Some hours later, no doubt having been spoken to by the Treasurer, he changed his mind. I have mentioned their conflict over the Industries Assistance Commission. After the election Mr Keating approached the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to have the Industries Assistance Commission transferred to the Treasury. The Prime Minister did so apparently without consulting Senator Button, who had previously had the IAC within his portfolio. There was certainly major conflict between them on that occasion. One wonders from time to time what is happening because we get Senator Button making comments within the Treasury field and we get the Treasurer moving into the industry field. One wonders who is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce at the moment because Mr Keating has just set up an industry policy section within the Treasury. Now that he is controlling the IAC, he has been critical of Senator Button's lack of speed in reducing industry protection. Having taken control of the IAC, the Treasurer slashed spending on it by 6.7 per cent in the Budget. In conclusion, in the last week and over the last year Senator Button has sent the financial markets into a panic. From time to time he has sent manufacturers into a panic. He has sent investors into a panic. He has sent the Treasurer into a panic. In fact, the Minister's actions have created a panic button. I refer once again to the first question I asked the Minister in my capacity as the shadow Minister. Senator Button admitted that I may have got him on some sort of debating point. I say to the Minister that I got him that day, we got him again today and I will get him every day until this Government is out of office. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.30) —Mr Deputy President, I recall that at one stage in my career in the Senate the first speakers on matters of public importance were accorded half an hour. Listening to Senator Lewis, I was very grateful that the time has been cut back to 20 minutes because he was running out as he went on. He had a fairly trite sort of point to make which was gilded by a number of other allegations and was ably supported by an article in the Age by Michelle Grattan. What would we all do without Michelle Grattan? What would Senator Lewis do in a matter of public importance without Michelle Grattan raising some issues for him to raise to fill up 20 minutes? Senator Lewis invited me at Question Time today to speculate about the dollar. Now he chastises me for allegedly having done so. Let me set the matter in context before I deal with Senator Lewis's comments. Last Wednesday I had a background briefing session with some American journalists located in Australia relating to a forthcoming visit of mine to the United States of America. During that discussion questions were raised about the effect of the current value of the Australian dollar on the willingness of United States investors to invest here, its effects on various industries in Australia and so on. The conversation began with a colourful quotation from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) which he had used a week before that, `if you float the dollar the bloody thing floats'. I think I quote correctly. That quotation was used by one of the journalists who said to me, `I understand that would be your position and, given that, what do you say about the dollar value and its effects on certain industries?'. I repeat-I have no hesitation in doing so because it is a matter of public knowledge-that a number of sectors of Australian industry, particularly those engaged in export activities, had expressed concern about an increased depreciation of the Australian dollar and that many of them had expressed views about where they think the dollar ought to be. That is a matter of public knowledge. The Metal Trades Industry Association Inc., which Senator Lewis quoted, has done so. The Australian Mining Industry Council has done so. As I recall, the National Farmers Federation has done so, as have a number of other industry bodies and prominent companies, such as Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. I certainly indicated to the American journalists that that was the view of some of those export sectors in relation to the Australian economy. (Quorum formed) I was just setting in context the remarks that I made, on a background basis, to some journalists. Senator Lewis went on to discuss a number of issues relating to non-price competitiveness which I regard as very important in terms of the constituency that Senator Lewis purports to represent as an Opposition spokesman and on whose behalf he presumably moved the motion today. We had a significant discussion about some of those matters. The dollar moves around against various currencies for a variety of reasons. The day that I made the remarks in question it fell 60 points, which was reported by commentators as reflecting a changing sentiment in the market, sparked off by the Reserve Bank of Australia selling late last week, a stronger United States dollar and curbs on real estate investment. All sorts of factors influence the value of the dollar, and I am modest enough to think that remarks such as the ones that I made should not have the effect that some commentators claimed they did. In the Melbourne Herald of 30 September, the day that I made my remarks, was a report of a survey of manufacturing industry and competitiveness which said: Australian manufacturers are improving their competitiveness rather than relying on a depressed Australian dollar, according to a survey conducted by The Herald. The report went on: Commentating on the survey, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, said the devaluation of the dollar in 1986 showed that Australia needed its manufacturing services sector because the reliance on agriculture and mining was decreasing. `While initially it may have seemed enough to have a cheap dollar, the longer term lesson of the last two years is that enduring competitive advantage cannot depend on price alone. There will always be lower cost competitors' he said. It is interesting that the Melbourne Herald reported that as a comment on its survey when it was something that I had said in a speech the week before, and I was unaware of the survey. The survey makes various points about different views among various manufacturers and quotes in particular the view of the Australian Chamber of Manufactures, which claimed that the strengthening of the Australia dollar had caused a deterioration in competitiveness in the past six months. Different views were expressed in the same article. I simply make the point that these things have to be seen, even by markets, in some context. I think that my remarks were seen by most of the banks in the context in which I put them. Senator Lewis raised a number of points with which I ought to deal briefly. First of all, let me make it clear that I do not give advice about the value of the Australian dollar. The honourable senator was quite right to point to a speech that I made to the Heavy Engineering Manufacturers Association a year or so ago which contained some predictions which have turned out to be incorrect. I concede that point. I am not at this stage making any predictions about the value of the dollar, having made that concession to the honourable senator. It is extraordinary for Senator Lewis to come in here and claim that a company such as Pilgrim's made an investment on the basis of my advice, or alleged advice, to the Heavy Engineering Manufacturers Association dinner. He picked an extremely bad example, because Mr Pilgrim's real complaint is that we have lowered tariffs in respect of golf bags. Mr Pilgrim, who is the sole manufacturer of golf bags, has put in a tremendous game on behalf of his company-and invested, as Senator Lewis said, $100,000-in order to get the Government's decision on tariffs reversed. It is extraordinary that the honourable senator should call in aid in the argument he sought to advance Pilgrim Industries, so-called. The company will be readily available to the honourable senator for any purpose he wants. I suggest that he go back there for any advice he wants, because I have no doubt it will give it to him. I would not attach too much importance to that. Senator Lewis went on to pick up on the Michelle Grattan points, carefully culled from her article the other day. Senator Lewis —You are quite wrong. If you look at the article you will find it is very supportive of you. It is against Keating. Senator BUTTON —I know. What Senator Lewis seeks to draw from that article is strong differences of opinion between me and the Treasurer about a variety of issues. There have been none-with the possible exception of some misinterpretation of my remarks following the Budget of 1986 about the need for further financial rigueur, if that is an expression Senator Lewis understands. On the question of the effectiveness of the J-curve, the Treasurer and I had a different point of view about that. My view was based on observation of Australian manufacturing as distinct from-- Senator Stone —You were perfectly right. Senator BUTTON —I was absolutely right; but that does not matter. The Treasury view was that the J-curve operates automatically in particular circumstances of a devaluation. I think that it might in a country such as Germany, which has an integrated manufacturing sector and where price competitiveness becomes very important in international markets. I never believed for a moment that it would in a country like Australia, which does not have an integrated manufacturing sector. The real difference about that was the question of when, not so much if, the J-curve would operate. I think that it is now operating to a significant extent. But it was not my view that it would operate within three months of a major devaluation, as was being put forward in public at that time. Senator Stone —By the Treasurer. Senator BUTTON —Yes, and by a number of senior bureaucrats. Senator Lewis —There were no other differences? You had no differences with the Industries Assistance Commission. Senator BUTTON —None at all. I do not mind where the Industries Assistance Commission finds its resting place in terms of the Department to which it is attached. I was concerned only about the IAC's reports and the manner in which they were dealt with. That matter was not resolved until after the IAC had been transferred to the Treasury. That is a completely different issue from the location of the IAC. I do not have any major differences with the Treasurer on any of these matters. In fact, there are not any major differences in this Government on these major matters. I congratulate Senator Lewis on his efforts in trying to create some, but I do not think there is any substance in what Senator Lewis had to say on that topic. There were one or two other issues which Senator Lewis drew upon to try to make that point, but they all fall into the same category. Of course, there will be differences of opinion within governments, between Ministers, between departments, about the emphasis which should be placed on various government policies. There will be differences between departments and between Ministers about what is best in particular circumstances. The question is whether those issues can be resolved effectively. I am not particularly concerned about that. Senator Lewis referred to Professor Wolfgang Kasper's letter. I read the letter, which I thought was a good one. It drew attention to a number of the other non-price factors which affect manufacturing and export activity from Australia. Without Professor Kasper's letter in front of me I cannot give any sort of blanket endorsement to everything in it, but I recall that at the time I agreed with the substance of it. It is most important that we who are involved in manufacturing industry policy should address our main attention to these matters. I have no doubt that Senator Lewis will do so with the passing of time. Some of the non-price factors concerned with manufacturing include a whole range of matters relating to innovation, management, marketing, employee attitudes and work practices-the issues which contribute to better productivity and a greater degree of excellence in performance. In many firms those things are happening. The process of change is not as fast or as dramatic as one would like, but it is happening. I personally concede that from the point of view of the manufacturer or primary exporter the value of the dollar is important in terms of price competitiveness, but it is in the areas of non-price factors, particularly in manufacturing, that we have to ensure long term competitiveness, irrespective of movements in the currency. Enduring competitiveness does not depend on price alone; it depends on a whole range of other factors which I have mentioned. I hope that the comments I have made put Senator Lewis's proposal in proper context and satisfy him about the discharge of his virtue today in terms of the matter which he felt encumbered to raise. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.47) —I shall be brief in discussing this matter of public importance so that the Estimates committees can come on and the Senate can go about its duty, through those committees, of looking carefully at what the Government is doing, rather than spend too much time debating an item which is, I think, of only slight concern. The most uncharitable view that could be taken of the comments of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) on the Australian dollar is that which has already been taken; that is, that if the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is able to look at the Industries Assistance Commission, then the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce can look at the value of the Australian dollar. Quite frankly, Senator Button was saying that he believed the dollar was overvalued. I am not at all sure that there are too many people in Australia who would necessarily disagree with him. I am not sure that Senator Lewis would disagree that the Australian dollar is overvalued. That statement, in the context of Senator Lewis's proposal, is somewhat odd because a statement such as that-that the Australian dollar is overvalued-is precisely what Australian exporters are interested in hearing. They also believe that the Australian dollar is currently overvalued. When we had last year, with the floating of the Australian dollar, some rather hysterical media comments pointing to the fall in the Australian dollar, anyone looking at the value of that dollar and the need for us to be competitive knew that it would have to fall against the American dollar and certainly against the trade weighted index (TWI), and that its proper value was probably US68c to US72c. We were certainly not looking to having it pegged at the level at which it was pegged prior to its being floated. Australian exporters were looking to that value and, amongst the Australian exporters, manufacturers in particular were looking to a floating of the Australian dollar which they knew would take it down to that level. In the last few months they were beginning to fear that the rising Australian dollar would threaten their exports and the emerging development of some basic manufacturing competitiveness in that sector of our population. Signs of that have resulted from devaluation and the very considerable wage restraint shown by Australian workers in their responsibilities to the economy. Increased investment has taken place in the form of the purchase of new plant and equipment, although not proceeding at the pace one would wish, and hence the Australian manufacturing sector is looking to investors in industry, and doing so in terms of looking at the value of the Australian dollar vis-a-vis the US dollar or the TWI. In that context I think Senator Button was stating the obvious and was representing the views of the manufacturing sector, which presumably his Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce is looking after. Senator Lewis said that the Minister's statement created uncertainty. With all due respect to Senator Lewis, I do not think it did, as everybody is uncertain as to the value of the Australian dollar and that uncertainty was not caused solely by the Minister's statement. With any float, obviously everybody is uncertain from day to day as to what the value will be. The Minister's statement at most I think could have made some manufacturers aware that the Minister understands the problems that arise as a result of an appreciating Australian dollar. Those manufacturers do not want the dollar to appreciate to a level which would again make them uncompetitive. We need those exports to help overcome our balance of payments problems. If the dollar went down too far that would simply exacerbate the problem and, if it went too high, that would also exacerbate the problems. In other words, we want it within a containable range. I was rather surprised at the criticism of Senator Button's statement, since I thought-unfortunately I have not been able to check-that quite a number of people had been making statements about the Australian dollar, even those who were engaged in operating in the market-place. I thought Senator Button's comments were tagged on to quite an animated discussion about the value of our dollar, and about where most people concerned think it ought to be pitched. I do not think Senator Button's statement was so important. I hardly see, as Senator Lewis says, Australia's international financial reputation being damaged. If it has been damaged it must have been only in a minuscule sense and we would need a very large magnifying glass to see it. The types of reports that I have seen in the American Press as a result of Senator Button's statement I think are useful. We have an ever increasing problem with the United States of America, and probably will have a bigger problem as a result of the decision made at the weekend in relation to the free trading operation between Canada and the United States. We have a problem with America's attitude to our market and with the rather supine attitude to the United States that has been taken in some quarters. We must impress upon the US that we will use every available means to keep our share of that market. After all, Australia's international financial reputation-if one is concerned about that-is largely set by US and European markets and I hardly think that either of those two groups is in a position to lecture Australia on trade. Both of those blocs have the most exquisite means of milking the rest of the world to their own advantage and they do not care who gets hurt in the process. I would have thought that Senator Button's comments would not have done us any harm. In fact I would encourage Senator Button not to talk so much about the Australian dollar but to join the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) and the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) in saying as many hard and harsh things as they can about the United States and the European Community, if we are to maintain even a semblance of reasonable trading operations with those two large blocs, which seem intent on using every available device to destroy our export industries, and particularly our primary commodities, one by one. Quite frankly, I would have thought that that would make a much better topic. It might be that the sensibilities of the Liberal and National parties with regard to the United States are greater than those of some others in this chamber, but in that regard I would refer Senator Lewis to statements made in the United States by Ralph Hunt and the current Manager of Opposition Business in the House, Mr Wal Fife, with regard to the attitude to us that that country in particular is taking. I think that is where the damage is being done to our trade and, ultimately, that is the damage which is being done to our international financial competitiveness. The last point I want to make is that this matter of public importance comes rather oddly from a party which has as its Treasurer, and presumably its President-to-be, a person who spends a fair amount of time talking about exporting his entire operations from this country and putting his companies off-shore. That, I would have thought, was doing far more damage to our international financial competitiveness. It might also be worth while to look at some of those companies which, after all, have run up 60 per cent of our foreign debt with very little regard to our financial situation. Those are the types of problems I would have thought we ought to be looking at with regard to our international financial competitiveness; and not to some statement-which, after all, was stating the obvious-made to a group of American reporters about where we would like to position our dollar. I am quite happy to go on the record and say that I think that we should position our dollar round about where Senator Button is suggesting, at around 68c. I think that is round about the place at which it would do us best in terms of the balance of payments and our developing manufacturing trading operation. I cannot imagine that anybody will take any notice of that statement. I do not think any notice was taken of Senator Button's statement. After all, he was talking about what he thought would be the best possible situation. That is what I think it is. I think that his statement followed a lot of others suggesting that that is round about where our dollar should be. I would hope that we could even have a reasonable debate about the matter. If anybody is going to take any notice of these types of things, I would have thought that Senator Lewis's proposal may in fact be upsetting our international financial reputation, given the standing of the Senate vis-a-vis Senator Button. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The discussion is concluded. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Pursuant to section 9b (2) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present a report on the operation of the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff for the year ended 30 June 1987. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I report receipt of messages Nos 6, 7, 8 and 9 from the House of Representatives requesting the concurrence of the Senate in the appointment of the following joint committees: Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; Electoral Matters; Video Classification; and National Crime Authority. Copies of the messages have been distributed to honourable senators. Ordered that consideration of the messages be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bills may proceed without formalities, may be considered together and be now read a first time. Bills read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(3.59) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- OCCUPATIONAL SUPERANNUATION STANDARDS BILL 1987 In his Press releases of 11 June, 30 July and 22 December 1986, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced various operating standards which superannuation funds and approved deposit funds (ADFs) will be required to meet in order to be eligible for relevant taxation concessions. These standards were established following consultations with various interested groups and against the background of the Government's concern to ensure that superannuation arrangements are directed at meeting genuine retirement needs and that members' entitlements are protected. The Treasurer also referred in his June 1986 statement to the Government's decision to establish a new body called the Insurance and Superannuation Commission to be headed by a new statutory officer. The Commission would bring together the existing offices of Insurance Commissioner, Life Insurance Commissioner and Australian Government Actuary as well as the proposed office relating to occupational superannuation. The three Bills now before the Senate, namely the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill 1987, the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill 1987 and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1987 give effect to these announcements. The Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill 1987 establishes the conditions and the supervisory requirements which superannuation funds and ADFs must meet in order to be eligible for concessional taxation treatment under the Income Tax Assessment Act. The Bill provides that these supervisory functions are to be performed by a newly created office-the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. The purpose of the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill 1987 is to create the position of Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner and thereby establish an Insurance and Superannuation Commission. The basic objective of the Government's decision to establish such a Commission is to achieve improved efficiency and co-ordination through the integration of the Commonwealth's various insurance, superannuation and actuarial functions. It is also seen as better reflecting the growing importance of the insurance and superannuation industries in the national economy. This objective is reflected in the Bills before us which rather than adding, as originally envisaged, two additional statutory positions to those already existing, establishes the new senior statutory position of Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner and removes the statutory positions of Life Insurance Commissioner and Insurance Commissioner. The earlier proposed statutory office of Occupational Superannuation Commissioner is also not being established. The purpose of the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1987 is therefore to amend the Life Insurance Act 1945, the Insurance Act 1973 and other insurance legislation to remove the statutory positions of Life Insurance Commissioner and Insurance Commissioner and place their statutory responsibilities in the hands of the new Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. The new arrangements will not remove the legislative and institutional distinctions embodied in the Insurance Act 1973 and the Life Insurance Act 1945. These Acts will remain in force, and the specialist nature of the two industries will also be reflected in the management structure of the new Commission. Thus, the former positions of Insurance Commissioner and Life Insurance Commissioner will be replaced by positions of Deputy Commissioner (General Insurance) and Deputy Commissioner (Life Insurance) in the new Insurance and Superannuation Commission (with equivalent status under the Public Service Act). The proposed legislation allows the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner to delegate to these officers all the powers necessary for them to efficiently administer the specialist legislation. Similar arrangements will apply in the occupational superannuation area with the creation of the position of Deputy Commissioner (Occupational Superannuation). The Insurance Commissioner and recently retired Life Insurance Commissioner have fully supported and encouraged the Government to adopt the change in approach. They have done so in recognition of the benefits to be derived from the greater integration of the various functions and the difficulties in achieving that objective which could arise from maintaining a number of specific statutory offices. The Government will, of course, ensure that the conditions on which the Insurance Commissioner were appointed will be fully protected. The status and efficiency of the insurance and superannuation regulatory bodies will be significantly enhanced by the greater administrative and management autonomy, as well as the policy responsibilities, which it is intended will reside with the Insurance and Superannuation Commission. The integration of policy responsibilities with the regulatory and industry liaison functions of the Commission will also provide the insurance and superannuation industries with a focal point for discussing matters of concern and should ensure that industry issues are given specialist and co-ordinated attention. The office of the Australian Government Actuary will form part of the Insurance and Superannuation Commission but the professional independence of the actuarial advice provided by that office will, of course, be fully maintained. I would now like to outline the particular provisions of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill 1987. This Bill incorporates provisions to give effect to the handover to the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner of the supervision of those non-revenue superannuation requirements currently supervised by the Commissioner of Taxation. In essence, the Bill provides that, where the trustees of a superannuation fund or approved deposit fund provide to the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner certain information on the operations of the fund together with certificates as prescribed, the Commissioner will notify the trustees of the fund as to whether or not the Commissioner is satisfied that the fund has met the relevant standards and requirements for the purpose of establishing eligibility for concessional taxation treatment. Particulars of the Commissioner's notification are to be forwarded to the Commissioner of Taxation. In brief, these standards, which are to be prescribed in regulations under the Bill, provide for improved vesting of benefits arising from both employee and employer contributions, improved preservation requirements and measures to ensure greater member involvement in the control of superannuation funds and improved security of members' benefits. Funds will also need to comply with the existing requirements of the Income Tax Assessment Act, pending the passage of legislation expected to be introduced later this year to amend that Act and to relocate those provisions as requirements imposed under the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill. Implementation of the new standards, most of which commenced to operate from 1 July 1986, represents an important step in ensuring that taxation concessions made available to superannuation funds are directed towards the provision of genuine retirement benefits. To this end, the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill is an important element in the Government's overall retirement incomes policy. In developing the legislation, the Government has been anxious to establish a regulatory system incorporating the principle of self-assessment. The arrangements which I have outlined place the onus on trustees to ensure that funds satisfy the operating standards and minimise the degree of interference in the operations of those funds. This minimal supervisory approach is supported by the measures already outlined to provide greater member representation on the boards of trustees and for a greater degree of audit and disclosure of information to members on the operation of the funds. At the same time, it is necessary, in the public interest, to provide the Commissioner with powers to enable more detailed checking of the operations of a fund to test its compliance with the standards. Accordingly, the Bill provides that the Commissioner may, from time to time, require a fund to produce documents for purposes of undertaking routine checks and for initiating appropriate inquiries where there is reason to suspect that there may be non-compliance with the operating standards. The Commissioner is also to be given the power to revise any notification as to compliance or non-compliance that may have been provided if, on the examination of further material, the Commissioner is satisfied that the notification should be revised. As well, discretionary powers are provided to the Commissioner to treat funds as complying with the requirements in special circumstances where the standards have not been satisfied. The Bill also requires that a statement of reasons be included in any notice of non-compliance the Commissioner might provide and that decisions to notify non-compliance be reviewable. In this regard the appeals provisions in the Bill follow essentially the same pattern as the established appeals machinery in the legislation relating to supervision of the general and life insurance industries. Under the Bill, where a trustee of a superannuation fund requests that a reviewable decision be reconsidered, the Commissioner will have a maximum period of 21 days within which to confirm, revoke or vary a decision. The provisions will also ensure that upon expiration of that 21-day period (or earlier if the decision is confirmed or varied before then), the trustee will have a period of 28 days within which to apply to have the matter placed before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if the trustee remains dissatisfied with the Commissioner's decision. Thus the provisions will ensure that an administrator cannot impede the commencement of appeal proceedings through delay in reconsidering a decision. The standards reflect principles that are well understood in the industry generally and the requirements represent little more than those which should in any case be observed by well-managed superannuation funds. In formulating the standards, the Government took into account the views expressed by a number of bodies on the recommendations in the final report of the Task Force on Occupational Superannuation tabled in May 1983, and on the draft standards released in December 1985 for public comment. The groups which provided advice include the Life Insurance Federation of Australia, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia and the Institute of Actuaries of Australia. Consultations with the key industry bodies are continuing as part of the process of drafting detailed regulations to reflect the standards. The Government believes that there are clear advantages for both industry and government in seeking to have the detailed standards reflected in regulations rather than in the Bill itself. This approach is consistent with that taken in relation to other supervisory legislation, including in respect of the life insurance and general insurance industries, where highly technical administration is involved. More particularly, it recognises that there is considerable complexity in drafting provisions that will take full account of the diverse range of industry practices in circumstances where that industry is subject to rapid change. In the Government's view, the formulation of the detailed standards in regulations will provide a reasonable and desirable measure of flexibility to allow the standards to be administered in a way that will facilitate maximum co-operation between industry and government in placing the supervisory arrangements in this area on a sound footing. At the same time, the approach will limit the extent to which discretions are placed in the hands of those administering the standards and will, of course, allow parliamentary scrutiny of the standards when the regulations are tabled. I note that this approach has widespread industry support and in this context the Government wishes to acknowledge and endorse the supportive views expressed to the Treasurer by the President of the Institute of Actuaries in his letter of 24 July 1987. While the Government recognises the considerable size of the administrative task involved in implementing the standards, particularly given that well over 200,000 funds are involved, it is determined that this will not lead to any major growth in staff numbers. The Government estimates that a total staff of 77 will be needed to perform this work and that most of the required staffing resources (equivalent to 66 positions) will be provided by offsets in respect of existing positions concerned with superannuation functions in the Australian Taxation Office. Thus the significant increase in administrative workload will not involve more than the creation of 11 new positions. As previously foreshadowed, the Bill provides for the levying on superannuation funds and approved deposit funds of a prescribed annual fee which will be aimed at recovering the normal costs of supervisory operations. It is intended to set such fee at $30 for returns lodged in the current financial year. The Bill is generally to come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation, but earlier dates have been provided for in relation to two matters. First, regulations made for the purpose of relocating to this Act some of the existing provisions in the Tax Act applicable to ADFs are to come into operation on 1 July 1986. Second, the Bill provides that regulations to give effect to the standards announced in the Treasurer's Press statements of 11 June, 30 July and 22 December 1986 may be made with dates of effect foreshadowed in those announcements. The Government does not see any sound case for deferring implementation of any of the standards as has been suggested by some people. Clearly such deferral would not be in the interests of superannuation beneficiaries and would set aside the important advances that have already been made towards ensuring that employees, as well as employers and other relevant interests have an adequate input into the management and operational policies of superannuation funds. It would also run counter to the Government's concerns that superannuation arrangements justify the relatively high levels of taxation concessions directed to that area. The Government remains firm, therefore, in its resolve to implement all of the announced standards without delay so that the role of superannuation funds will be more closely targeted towards meeting the community's retirement needs. Finally, it should be noted that this legislation is not intended to set aside the recourse that members of a fund have by way of normal trustee law. The legislation will also not apply to public sector schemes. However, it remains the Government's intention that public sector schemes comply with similar standards to those applying to funds in the private sector. To that end the Government will be undertaking an examination of funds covering its own employees and where necessary appropriate adjustments will be made. Discussions will also be sought with the governments of the States and the Northern Territory to seek their co-operation in adopting similar standards in respect of funds covering their own employees. I commend the Bill to the Senate and present the related explanatory memorandum. INSURANCE AND SUPERANNUATION COMMISSIONER BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to create the office of Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. As I have already outlined, this Bill together with the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill 1987 and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1987 are designed to establish an Insurance and Superannuation Commission which would bring together in one organisation the Commonwealth's regulatory and other functions in the insurance, superannuation and actuarial areas. The statutory responsibilities of the Commission would be centred in the new single statutory office of Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. The Bill provides for the appointment by the Governor-General of a person as Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner for a period not exceeding seven years. The person appointed is not to hold office beyond the age of 65 and is to be paid remuneration as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. The Bill contains provisions to guard against conflict of interest. It proscribes the appointment of a person who is a trustee of a superannuation fund or approved deposit fund, and of a person who is a director or employee of a body that carries on insurance or life insurance business or is itself a trustee of a superannuation fund or approved deposit fund. The Bill also requires the Commissioner to disclose in writing to the Minister any pecuniary interest he may have in insurance business or life insurance business, a superannuation fund or approved deposit fund, as well as any other business. The Bill also provides for termination of the appointment of the Commissioner by the Governor-General under certain conditions and for the appointment of a person as Acting Commissioner for up to 12 months during a vacancy in the office or when the Commissioner is absent or cannot perform his duties. Finally, the Bill provides for the appointment of staff under the Public Service Act to assist the Commissioner to perform the functions of the position and confers on the Commissioner the powers of the Secretary of a department as provided under the Public Service Act 1922. I commend the Bill to the Senate and present the related explanatory memorandum. INSURANCE AND SUPERANNUATION COMMISSIONER (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1987 This Bill is one of the three Bills which are designed to integrate the Commonwealth's various regulatory and other functions in the insurance, superannuation and actuarial areas and bring them under the responsibility of a new single statutory officer-the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. The Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill 1987 establishes that position. The purpose of this Bill is to remove the statutory offices of Insurance Commissioner and Life Insurance Commissioner and to effect amendments to relevant provisions in the Insurance Act 1973, the Life Insurance Act 1945, the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984, the Companies Act 1981, and the Public Service Act 1922, consequent upon the assumption by the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner of the existing statutory responsibilities of those offices. I commend the Bill to the Senate and present the related explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Senate do now adjourn. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee A will meet in the chamber, Estimates Committee B will meet in committee rooms 1 and 2, and Estimates Committee C will meet in committee room 6. The bells will be rung for three minutes prior to the commencement of the sittings of the committees. Senate adjourned at 4 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Air Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 207. Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 219. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Order 1987 No. M33-AUS-MEAT Accreditation required for Slaughtering, Boning, Processing and Packaging of Meat for Export, dated 25 June 1987. Australian National University Act-Statutes- No. 196-Enrolment, Courses and Degrees Amendment No. 23. No. 197-Fees Amendment No. 2. No. 198-University House Amendment No. 12. Australian Protective Services Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules No. 202. Banks (Shareholdings) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 208. Bounty (Computers) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 218. Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act-Ordinance 1987-No. 2-Supreme Court (Amendment). Companies Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 206. Excise Act- Declaration in respect of rebate and amount of rebate in respect of Bass Strait Oil, dated 14 September 1987. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 212. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders 1987 No. 15-Export Control (Animals). Fertilisers Subsidy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 205. Fisheries Act-Fisheries Notice-No. 191-Prohibition of taking prawns off North-Western Australia, dated 8 September 1987. Fisheries Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 Nos 214, 215. Futures Industry (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 203. Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 211. Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 210. Migration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 221. National Health Act- Declaration made by the delegate of the Minister under section 85, dated 22 July 1987. Notices (4) for the purposes of sub-sections 47 (2b), 40ag (8), 4 (1) and 47 (2b), dated 3 June 1987, 5 June 1987, 21 June 1987 and 28 June 1987. Naval Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 209. Navigation Act- Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Marine Orders 1987- No. 5-Part 41 (Cargo and Cargo Handling-Dangerous Goods). No. 6-Part 34 (Cargo and Cargo Handling-Solid Bulk Cargoes). Passports Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 217. Public Service Act- Determinations 1987 Nos 67, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77. Quarantine Act-Determination under section 86e, dated 27 August 1987. Radiocommunications Act-Standard-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 220. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1987- No. 46-Child Welfare (Saving and Validation). No. 47-Building (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 48-City Area Leases (Amendment). No. 49-Lakes (Amendment). No. 50-Motor Traffic (Amendment). No. 51-Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Amendment). No. 52-Unit Titles (Amendment). No. 53-Children's Services (Amendment) (No. 2). Regulation 1987-No. 11-(Building Ordinance). Securities Industry (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 204. Ships (Capital Grants) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 213. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendment to the schedules to the subsidy scheme in relation to the States, dated 23 September 1987. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984 Directions- Nos 22, 23, dated 13 July 1987. No. 24, dated 10 July 1987. No. 25, dated 25 June 1987. No. 26, dated 2 July 1987. Trade Practices Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 216. Governor-General's Proclamations-Commencement of Acts: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Australian Protective Service Act 1987-25 September 1987 (Gazette No. S 249, 24 September 1987) Broadcasting Amendment Act (No. 2) 1987-14 September 1987 (Gazette No. S 231, 14 September 1987) Radio Licence Fees Amendment Act 1987-14 September 1987 (Gazette No. S 231, 14 September 1987) Television Licence Fees Amendment Act 1987-14 September 1987 (Gazette No. S 231, 14 September 1987) Television Licence Fees Amendment Act (No. 2) 1987-14 September 1987 (Gazette No. S 231, 14 September 1987)