Tuesday, 27 October 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Jones (from 329 citizens), Powell (from 225 citizens) and Puplick (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition from certain citizens of Western Australia respectfully showeth: That in view of the number of expert witnesses and Government departments that have cast doubts on the cost, inadequate safeguards and purported benefits of the Health Department's claims for the proposed Australia Card and in view of the demonstrated inability of the bureaucracy in general, and the Health Department in particular, to protect the privacy of information entrusted to them and in view of the gross infringement of an individual's civil liberty that would be created by the proposed Card: Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will neither pass nor reject nor fail to pass the Australia Card Bill but rather refer the Bill to an open Senate inquiry that is held in public and that after all the facts have been considered a national referendum be held on the Australia Card Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 65 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. (2) 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. (3) That we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life. (4) That we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Taxation 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 Chaney (from 12 citizens) and Messner (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Government's Identity Card; That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; That we call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Powell (from 95 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members 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. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senators Jones (from 30 citizens) and Messner (from 101 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the 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 that 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. We humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Numbering System. by Senator Powell (from nine citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. The present Australian national flag is not distinctively and uniquely Australian and is confused with other national flags. 2. The people of Australia have never had an opportunity to express their views on an appropriate Australian national flag in a referendum. 3. The present Australian national flag does not properly represent Australia as a sovereign, independent nation. 4. The present Australian national flag incorrectly proclaims Australia as a colony, homeland, protectorate, dominion or government department of Great Britain. 5. The first condition in the flag competition of 1901 required that the design should show Australia's loyalty to the British Empire. The British Empire no longer exists. 6. A public opinion poll held in 1984 using the Gallup Method revealed that 52 per cent of Australians surveyed wanted a competition for a new design for the Australian flag. 7. There is no inherent link between Australia proclaiming a unique and distinctive flag and the political issue of Australia moving to a republican form of government. 8. The adoption of a truly Australian national flag would serve as a focal point for Australia's bicentennial celebrations in 1988. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: (a) Appoint a Committee of the Parliament with representatives from both Houses and all parties to invite and consider proposals for the design of a new Australian national flag, and (b) Require that Committee to make recommendations on the form of a minimum cost referendum in which the electors will be given the opportunity to vote for a flag from a selection of at least three designs, one of which will be the present Australian national flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Coulter (from seven citizens), McLean (from 22 citizens), Powell (from 23 citizens) and Sanders (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, (i) are greatly disturbed by the dangers to health posed by passive smoking, and evidence of which is being documented daily by medical authorities around the world; (ii) note that environmental tobacco smoke has been identified as the major pollutant in aeroplane cabins, and that its direct threat to health is recognised in the special leave provisions for flight attendants specifically on grounds of upper respiratory infections; (iii) appreciate the Government's undertaking to legislate for smoke-free travel on aeroplanes, but are dismayed at the apparent reluctance to follow up the Minister for Aviation's December announcement with action; and (iv) call upon the government to make smoke-free aeroplane travel a reality without further delay, and to ensure that smoke-free areas which cannot be contaminated by recycled pollutants, are available at all aerodromes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-1986 Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 134 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains a satellite communication dish, that sends to the United States the information, gathered by the ``joint high frequency stations'' in Australia and New Zealand, indicating the position of the Soviet naval ships and submarines. This information from Watsonia is combined with data from satellites and underwater sensors to calculate the location of the Soviet vessels with great accuracy. 2. This would make it possible for the US nuclear naval ships and submarines to destroy all nuclear Soviet naval ships and submarines, while the US nuclear submarines, naval ships and bombers launch their missiles in a ``first strike'' attack. 3. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disas- trous effect on Melbourne. 4. The ``joint US-Australia'' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to the nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `joint Australian-US' electronic communication facility in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senator Cooney (from 108 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, call on the Federal Government to give notice to terminate the lease of the US base at Pine Gap before October 1986. We believe that in the interests of world peace and the Australian people, this lease should be terminated and the base closed because Pine Gap is a spy base and a war base: Since it was opened in 1969, it has eavesdropped on Australian telephone and telex communications. Information obtained in this way was used by the CIA to destabilise the Whitlam Government in late 1975. It provides communications facilities for CIA activity in countries throughout the world, much of which is connected with overthrowing other countries governments. Last year it became clear Pine Gap was spying on Greece. The electronic and photographic information its satellites receive is used to select nuclear targets in the territory of the Soviet Union and its allies. Many US military activities short of nuclear war are also co-ordinated by Pine Gap. These include the war against Vietnam and the invasion of Lebanon by US marines in 1984. Pine Gap spends only a tiny percentage of its time monitoring arms control agreements, and even then the data gathered is so top-secret Australia has no access to it. Pine Gap's role will be expanded under Reagan's Star Wars scheme to extend the arms race to outer space, threatening the existence of our planet. by Senator Sanders (from 1,631 citizens). 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 the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act 1942 and the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Act 1987, and for related purposes. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications) —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 Broadcasting Act 1942, and for related purposes. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications) —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 Radio Licence Fees Act 1964, and for related purposes. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications) —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 Television Licence Fees Act 1964, and for related purposes. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1987 be referred to the Joint Committee on Electoral Matters for inquiry and report. 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) Heritage 200 plaques-(b) High capacity fire hydrants-Proposals for work in the Parliamentary zone-Pursuant to section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974. 2. The winding up of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority-Report for the period 28 February to 30 June 1986. 3. Pollution Control Authority-Annual Report 1985-86. 4. Tasmanian World Heritage Area Council-Summary record of the third meeting-Cradle Mountain-4 and 5 December 1986. 5. Federal Airports Corporation-Report for the period 13 June to 31 March 1987-together with the Auditor-General's report-pursuant to section 54 of the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986. 6. Australian Biological Resources Study-Annual Report 1986-87. Senator CHANEY —The Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate would be aware of continuing uncertainty in the stock market today with Australian shares having now lost about 40 per cent of their value since the beginning of last week. In this state of continuing great uncertainty, how can the Government justify closing off options which would give it greater flexibility to respond to rapidly changing circumstances? In particular, does the Minister agree that it would be absurd for the Government not to seek a further deferment of the national wage case hearing, at least until early next year, to give it time to make a proper assessment of the dramatic developments of the past two weeks on the Australian economy? Senator GARETH EVANS —As I said yesterday, the Government does not see any need for a mini-Budget at this stage. We have no plans to have one before the end of 1987. However, we reserve the option of an early economic statement in 1988. The question as to the implications of the events in the stock market for the national wage case will be the subject of extensive consideration by the Government and the Cabinet this afternoon, and I do not propose to make any further comment on that subject until then. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note the Minister's answer and, given that the wage case decision, on which the present hearings will be based, requires no more than consideration in October of a possible across the board rise, does the Minister not agree that simple prudence requires postponement of any decision in circumstances of great uncertainty? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have nothing to add to my previous answer. Senator SCHACHT —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the situation in French occupied Polynesia? Does the Government have any information to verify media reports that the strike called by Polynesian waterside workers affected the shipment of materials to Mururoa Atoll, which is the centre of French nuclear testing activities? In view of the Australian Government's strong public opposition to the French nuclear testing program in the South Pacific-the latest test occurred only last week-will the Australian Government express its appreciation of the Polynesian workers who have publicly demonstrated their opposition to the nuclear testing program? Whilst in no way condoning the reported violence, will the Government express to the French Government its concern that French Foreign Legion troops, and other military forces, were required to suppress the aspirations of a significant number of Polynesian people who support independence and the cessation of the nuclear testing program? Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the developments in French Polynesia, we are of course aware of reports relating to the violence and disorder in the town of Papeete in French Polynesia on 23 October, including paramilitary police and gendarmes mobiles who were sent to the territory from New Caledonia. Two hundred Foreign Legion troops from Mururoa were flown to Tahiti, and a state of emergency has been declared on the islands of Tahiti and Moorea until further notice. A curfew has been imposed from 1900 to 0500 hours in the communes surrounding the port area in the main city, and is likely to remain for the next seven to 10 days. I am aware of the fact also that paramilitary police forces did break up a picket line set up by striking dock workers, following which the dock workers proceeded to rampage through the port and town, causing substantial damage and injury. French Ministers are reported as claiming that the situation is under control, and denying that there is any political importance to the riots. Our post in Noumea, which has responsibility for French Polynesia, is keeping us informed of developments. No tourist has been harmed in the various incidents which have taken place. The local authorities have made arrangements for tourists to move from the airport to hotels. In relation to the most recent nuclear test in French Polynesia, I remind honourable senators that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Hayden, yesterday made a public statement strongly condemning French nuclear testing in the South Pacific, and called once again for international support for a comprehensive nuclear test ban. That followed the report that France had carried out another nuclear test at the Mururoa Atoll, the fifth this year. As to the particular matters about further possible representations to the French Government that Senator Schacht raises, I will refer those questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Senator STONE —My question is addressed to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. Having in mind the further very large falls overnight on Wall Street and London, and the further fall on the Australian stock exchange this morning, will the Government now accept that markets are looking to the Government for some signs of action to deal with the fundamental economic problems of the Australian economy, which have been exposed by the crash in our financial markets? Will Senator Evans agree that in these circumstances stoicism is one thing, but that the Government's present posture is more akin to that of the rabbit in front of the boa constrictor-frozen into immobility? In particular, why does the Government persist in closing off its option in regard to an early mini-Budget, to be brought down before the Parliament rises for the Christmas recess? Senator GARETH EVANS —Intelligent stoicism is very much to be preferred to vulgar populist grandstanding of the kind that we have just heard from Senator Stone and from so many of his colleagues in recent days. The reality is that movements in share market prices in Australia are not reflections of any particular developments in the real Australian economy. Our economic policy settings are well and truly in place and have been in place for some time. The efficacy of them is demonstrated, among other things, by the consumer price index figures released today, which demonstrate that inflation is manifestly on course in terms of the budgetary targets that were set. Balance of payments improvement, continued growth in output and employment and reduction in inflation of the kind I have just mentioned are all crucial elements in maintaining the climate of economic confidence which this Government, contrary to its predecessors, has restored and developed. Of course, the situation is one that demands constant and careful monitoring. Of course, the Government will do just that and make its response to emerging further developments as they occur. As I said yesterday, the whole climate of fiscal responsibility which this Government has stood for and put in place-most conspicuously with the last Budget, a balanced Budget-contrasts fairly dramatically with some of the much less effective, much less aggressive and much less energetic policy responses of other economies around the world. We stand to lose nothing by way of contrast of our performance with that of every other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country in recent times, and we will weather this internationally imposed storm-it is not a domestically imposed one-as best we can. Senator STONE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In the light of the answer given by the Minister, why, therefore, does he find himself in persistent disagreement with the views expressed this morning by the Chairman of the Australian Stock Exchange and by one of our most respected businessmen, Sir Arvi Parbo, both of whom are calling for an early mini-Budget? Senator GARETH EVANS —It would not be the first time that either I or the Government had disagreed with the economic nostrums and prescriptions of Sir Rode-rick Carnegie, Sir Arvi Parbo or any one of a dozen other industry figures who have particular axes to grind or particular views to put. We, of course, listen to their views. We take them seriously. The whole consultative process with the business community has been conducted with much greater efficacy and mutual confidence than was ever able to be managed by honourable senators opposite when they were in government-not least by Senator Stone when he was previously incarnated as Secretary to the Trea-sury. We have, I repeat, absolutely nothing to apologise for in our conduct of this country's macroeconomic policy, and I make no such apology. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the Minister's answer yesterday to a question regarding the call by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, for a mini-Budget and his offer to provide a detailed list of spending cuts. Has the Minister seen a transcript of an interview between the shadow Finance Minister, Senator Stone, and Mike Carlton on radio this morning? Will the Minister extend to Senator Stone the same invitation he made yesterday to Mr Howard to specify where the Opposition would propose making those spending cuts? Senator WALSH —I have seen the transcript and the relevant section has Senator Stone saying that what is needed are `real cuts in the Commonwealth's own spending programs, not cuts in programs for State governments but cuts in the Commonwealth's own spending'. In relation to that, I point out that health and education are functions where some of the expenditure is direct expenditure by the Commonwealth and some of it is payments to the States. I am not sure precisely what Senator Stone had in mind, but in the functions of benefits to individuals, and excluding those paid under the health and education function, expenditure is $20.7 billion-that is, more than 25 per cent of Commonwealth outlays-public debt interest expenditure is $7.9 billion and defence expenditure is $7.4 billion. That totals $36 billion, which is almost one-half of the total Commonwealth Budget outlays in areas which are unquestion- ably the Commonwealth Government's own spending. When we add to that the cost of administration of the Commonwealth Government, we indeed have probably 80 per cent or more of what can be classified as the Commonwealth Government's own spending. Therefore, it follows that if there are to be very significant cuts in the Commonwealth's own spending programs, cuts will have to be made in the three big areas of defence, public debt interest and pensions. I note, however, that the Opposition is still committed to a policy of increasing expenditure on pensions by abolishing the assets test. That measure will cost an extra $300m a year. I do not know whether Senator Stone proposes reducing the Commonwealth superannuation scheme pension or imposing an income test on that pension so that retired departmental secretaries who receive a pension of $33,000 or $34,000 a year and also a parliamentary salary will lose part or all of that Commonwealth superannuation scheme pension. I do not know whether he intends to cut family allowances or even the family assistance scheme which is due to start, I think, next month. Finally, I would certainly welcome Senator Stone's proposals for cuts in specific Commonwealth Government expenditure programs. In particular, I would welcome his clarifying whether he intends to cut the age pension, to cut or means test the Commonwealth superannuation scheme pension, to abolish the family allowance or not to proceed with the family assistance scheme. Senator SANDERS —I ask the Minister for the Environment and the Arts: Is it a fact that logging is now taking place in areas on the interim list of the National Estate in the Eden region? Also, what measures is the Government taking now and what measures will it take in the future to protect the National Estate from the clear-felling practices associated with the Daishowa woodchip mill in Eden? Senator RICHARDSON —No land presently on the National Estate Register is being logged in the Eden area and I am advised that all National Estate land in the Eden area is within national parks and no national parks are within State timber forests. So it would appear that the National Estate in the Eden area is not being logged at the moment. As far as the interim list to which Senator Sanders has referred is concerned, I am advised by the New South Wales Department of Forests that no logging has occurred on land on that list either. Rather, there are complaints from conservation groups which want land added to that list and some logging is going on in those areas but they have not yet been listed. There are no plans for logging to begin in any area on the interim list until the current deliberations of the New South Wales Government are finished. I am assured that that decision will come down very shortly. That is worth mentioning because the final environmental impact statement on the Daishowa woodchip project was completed in December 1986. Following an examination of that statement it became obvious that it would not be possible for the Commonwealth to proceed in making a final recommendation prior to the State Government's decision which would indicate just how much of the resource is to be used. Therefore, in accordance with the procedures under the Act, agreement was sought with the company for the Commonwealth to delay making its final recommend- ations. The company has seen me in recent weeks and it suggested that that agreement has been stretched to the limit by the length of time it has taken. However, as I have said, I believe that the result of State investigations will be known to us all very shortly. Therefore, the environmental impact assessment can be completed and the final recommendations will be made to my colleague the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Senator BLACK —Has the attention of the Minister for the Environment and the Arts been drawn to Press announcements concerning the Premier of Queensland's proposal to hand over an area of 8,000 hectares of the central Queensland coast, identified as the proposed Bayfield national park, to the Yeppoon tourist resort developer, Mr Iwasaki? What action will the Commonwealth Government take on this matter? Is there any possible conflict of interest for the Premier of Queensland with his proposal? Senator RICHARDSON —My attention and I am sure everyone else's attention has been drawn to those Press reports. They suggest a possible handover of an 8,000-hectare area, identified as the proposed Bayfield national park, to Mr Yohachiro Iwasaki. The area involved is north of the Iwasaki international tourist development, which was the subject of an environmental impact assessment under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act in 1978. The Commonwealth's approval under the Government's foreign investment policy was announced by the then Treasurer, John Howard, on 30 July 1978. I want to quote a couple of paragraphs from that statement made by the former Treasurer. He said: Any land to be acquired by the company was to be limited to the boundaries set out in the franchise agreement submitted to the Foreign Investment Review Board in April, 1978. Federal Government approval would need to be obtained before the company acquires, makes any arrangements, signs any contracts, or negotiates to acquire any additional land in any part of Australia. So, Mr Howard was being very strict with Mr Iwasaki on that occasion. Since that time, on several occasions Mr Iwasaki has sought to grab some more land. The last occasion was in 1984. The additional land sought by Mr Iwasaki was allegedly to secure an assured water supply for the resort complex. The provisions of the Commonwealth environment protection Act which I administer would apply to such a proposal if a Commonwealth decision were required. However, at this stage no proposal has been put before us, and I await such a proposal with some interest. In relation to the question of conflict of interest, I would be the last person to suggest that that would be possible. It is worth noting that the Premier's son-in-law, Mr Lester Folker, was made a director of the Iwasaki company in 1984, but the Premier of Queensland has said that there is no conflict of interest and, of course, I would accept that. However, this raises a number of other questions. While I may accept the Premier's words in relation to conflict of interest, that having his son-in-law on the board is not in any way influencing him to give away half of Queensland, I would say that there is a bit of a problem, though, on the question of hypocrisy. In the past couple of months I have been subjected to an extraordinary campaign in north Queensland, part of it being that the Commonwealth Government was handing over the World Heritage listing area to foreign interests-that it was giving it all away. Colonel Gaddafi's name was mentioned as one of those who would benefit from World Heritage listing. Having said that, we now find that the Queensland Premier is prepared to hand over a vast tract of land to a Japanese company. The World Heritage listing hands over no control but, of course, what the Queensland Premier suggests would. However, given the number of people who are at the moment picking on the Queensland Premier, the number of people who have been trying to get rid of him, the trouble that he has had with his own party, and the extraordinary criticism of him by the Liberal Party, I would hate to join in that parade of picking on the Queensland Premier, and I shall say no more. Senator PARER —I refer the Special Minister of State to the speech that she made when launching the women's policy of the Australian Labor Party on 26 July this year in which she condemned the reintroduction of negative gearing proposed by the Liberal and National parties as a `rort for the rich which would be paid for by cuts in essential services to women'. I also refer the Minister to her media release of 16 October, just three months later, in which she said, `The decision to allow negative gearing will help housing investors and boost supply'. How does the Minister account for this startling reversal in her attitude to negative gearing? Senator RYAN —I am trying to recollect what I said at the launching of the women's policy in July. It was a very happy event, I recall that. I seem to recollect that when commenting on the effects of the Liberal Party's proposed tax policy I did draw attention to the effects that those proposals would have on services for the poor and for women. I recollect that I was referring to the whole gamut of tax proposals that the Liberals were trying to entice the Australian electorate with. For example, they were promising to knock off the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax provisions, and they were promising to remove the assets test and do a number of other things. I seem to recall that Mr Carlton and Mr Howard put forward a package of taxation measures. Of course, they were promising tax cuts and at the same time exhorting us to make huge cuts in services and programs. Certainly it is the case that in launching our women's policy I drew to the attention of Australian women the inconsistencies, and indeed the contradictions, between the promises of all of the rorts-the fringe benefits tax being removed and the capital gains free provisions and so forth being brought back-and at the same time the promise to reduce the deficit. So I do not think that any specific item was the particular object of my attention; rather, it was the general approach taken by John Howard, which my colleague the Minister for Finance has pointed to often enough in this place. On the one hand the Liberals were saying to the people in the Australian electorate, `You will have to pay virtually no taxes next year. You can have all your rorts back, but at the same time we will magically reduce the deficit and cut back services-but we will not tell you which ones'. Certainly the launching of that policy was extremely successful. The women of Australia showed a very intelligent appreciation of the contradictions in what the Liberals were putting forward and they voted significantly to ensure the election of the third Hawke Government. I move on to negative gearing, about which I have had a number of questions in this place. I explained, I thought at illuminating length, to Senator Watson a couple of weeks ago that we changed the negative gearing provisions on the first occasion in the context of overall tax reform. That was done at a time when we had not yet implemented a capital gains tax and, 18 months later, after monitoring the effects of those very dramatic tax reforms that we had put in place, we decided that there was no longer a case for restricting negative gearing in the housing sector. We decided because of the many changes that had taken place in the housing sector since the tax reforms, and other reforms in the economy, that it was a time to allow investment in housing, in the private rental market, to operate on similar terms to investment in other areas of the economy. So we once again allowed negative gearing. But I remind the Senate that we are now doing that in the context of the Government getting significant revenues from the effect of the capital gains tax on properties and on real estate, and it is now reasonable to put investment housing on the same footing as investment in other areas of the economy. It is certainly the case, and this view is accepted by the real estate institutes and the various housing organisations, that there will be growth in the availability of private rental accommodation partly as a direct result and partly as an indirect result of the negative gearing decision. In conclusion, the overall effects of the various tax reforms which the Hawke Government has put in place have meant for women voters and for Australians generally a much improved level of home ownership and a much improved capacity for people to get their first home, and of course for women voters a much improved package of assistance to women with young children. Senator PARER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister deny that on 26 July she actually said, among other things, that the Liberals would introduce negative gearing, and went on to refer to it as a `rort for the rich . . . paid for by cuts in essential services to women'? Senator RYAN —I have the Press release of that launch here in front of me now. It stated: Launching Labor's policy for women in Melbourne, Senator Ryan said the consequences of the Opposition's plans for changes to the taxation and health systems- Senator Michael Baume will remember the health systems- would be devastating for women. I was referring to the package. I said: Howard's tax cuts are a grab bag of promises which will provide no net advantage to women . . . `The rorts for the rich would be paid for by cuts in essential services to women'. That is absolutely right. Senator Chaney —I ask the Minister to table the document from which she has been quoting, which is not the document that was referred to in the question. Senator RYAN —I am happy to table the document. I understand that it was helpfully provided to me by somebody on the other side of the chamber. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. In view of the recent need for extra flights for tourists wishing to return to Australia, and anticipated heavy demand for flights in 1988, can the Minister advise what action Qantas Airways Ltd is taking to deal with this dramatic growth in demand for air travel to Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am pleased to be able to advise the Senate that Qantas Airways Ltd has today announced additional international flights in response to the increase in demand for air travel to Australia. Qantas will operate an additional 34 flights over the coming summer months. This is in addition to the 43 supplementary services which I referred to in the Senate just a week ago, on 21 October. Taken together with some 60 additional New Zealand services previously planned and announced, this will bring the number of additional Qantas services to 137 over the peak period. This will provide an extra 51,000 seats in each direction. Destinations served by the supplementary flights will be Tokyo, Hong Kong, Athens, Los Angeles, Singapore, Harare, Tahiti, Kuala Lumpur and Manila. I would add that Qantas said today that further capacity on top of all that would be provided should there be a good response to the present program of additional supplementary flights. In addition, officials of my Department, Qantas and Tourism Australia are now consulting closely to monitor whether further additional capacity is required in the short and medium term. The Government is, of course, also ready to give prompt consideration to proposals for supplementary services from the 34 foreign airlines flying to Australia. I have no doubt that in those circumstances, and in view of the response Qantas is showing to the present difficult situation with the boom in international air travel, most of the difficulties which have been the subject of recent Press and public attention will not persist. Senator NEWMAN —I address my question to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. Does the Affirmative Action Agency, which polices the private sector and tertiary education institutions, have a staff of 24? What is the staffing level in the remnants of the equal employment opportunity (EEO) unit that was in the Public Service Board and is now in the Public Service Commission? Is it a fact that the number of staff in the important equal employment opportunity unit has been slashed to nine? In view of the imbalance, does the Minister consider that staff in the Public Service and its authorities are in less need of equal employment opportunity than are those in the private sector? Senator RYAN —I must begin by correcting a couple of errors in the way in which Senator Newman framed her question. The Affirmative Action Agency does not police the implementation of the Affirmative Action Act. It monitors and advises corporations that employ more than 100 staff and higher education institutions and assists them in their preparation of their affirmative action plans, and of course will receive annual reports from them. Also, the coverage of the education field, which is the responsibility of affirmative action, is not tertiary education, which includes technical and further education; it is higher education, which includes universities and colleges of advanced education (CAEs). I am not entirely sure whether 24 is the precise number of staff in the Affirmative Action Agency, but it sounds right to me. I would take this opportunity to say that, although it is a relatively small staff, members seem to be doing an extremely good job and have harmonious relationships with the private sector. I have heard many unsolicited comments in favour of the work of the Affirmative Action Agency and Val Pratt and her team as I have spoken to chief executives. With regard to higher education, there are the 19 universities and 46 CAEs which they are assisting to develop and report on their affirmative action plans. The equal employment opportunity unit in the Commonwealth Public Service is now placed within the Public Service Commission. The number of staff specifically allocated to this unit is nine. The reason why there has been a change in the structure and the size of that unit is that legislation covering the Commonwealth Public Service generally has now been in place for over two years and the EEO plans of Commonwealth departments are very well developed. The employment policies which are to take account of various groups, not just women but also Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, disabled persons and people of non-English speaking backgrounds, are well in place. The need for constant advice, monitoring and assistance from a central agency is, of course, not as great as it was when the legislation was first passed. It is also the case that each department and Commonwealth agency is now required to take upon itself more of the EEO aspects of recruitment, training, promotion and so forth, so the implementation of the EEO requirements is now decentralised throughout the Commonwealth Public Service rather than centralised within a particular agency. It is nonetheless the case that there will be a central overall monitoring of EEO within the Commonwealth Public Service and the unit of nine people within the Commonwealth Public Service Commission is very well placed to do that. Senator DEVEREUX —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations aware of repeated calls from right wing ideologues for an ending to penalty rates for evening and weekend work in the hospitality industries? Do such calls reflect the widespread views of employers in those industries? Is there a logical economic rationale for those penalty rates? Senator WALSH —In response to the last part of the question, I think that any sensible disciple of the free market would concede that there is an economic rationale for penalty rates. Indeed, such people should assume that in a perfectly free market a higher pay rate per hour would be needed to attract the labour required to work at inconvenient times, such as night shifts and weekends. Indeed, that is clearly recognised in a report in the Australian of 3 August this year which quotes a Mr Brian Burch, who is the resident manager of the Intercontinental Hotel in Sydney. The Australian reported Mr Burch as saying that, although penalty rates made life difficult for the hotelier, abolishing them would not be the solution. Mr Burch was quoted as saying: We are already finding it hard to get staff on weekends and if penalty rates were abolished it would be even harder to get anyone. Mr Burch, from his actual experience, is confirming what any rational person who understands the free market theory would have expected in the first place. Probably more importantly, I am not sure that any proper quantitative assessment has been done but I understand that the great bulk of people who are employed in the hospitality industry during weekends and probably on night shifts are casual employees anyway and therefore not likely to be greatly affected by the overtime rates or even penalty rate provisions. Senator WALTERS —My question is to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. I refer to the recent announcement of a Government plan to investigate the way women are portrayed in the media, particularly in advertising. Will the Minister consider funding research into how the portrayal of men in the media, advertising and literature can demean the status of women-for example, by portraying a womaniser in a positive light? Will the Minister approach the Prime Minister and ask for his advice on the steps which need to be taken to change attitudes towards the respect for or exploitation of women in the light of Blanche D'Alpuget's authoritative biography of the Prime Minister? That biography records the following: There was much that was known about Hawke-his drunken bad temper, his womanising, including outrageous public propositioning of women when he was drunk. Senator RYAN —Perhaps I should explain to Senator Walters why it is that the Government, through the Office of the Status of Women, has decided to investigate the way in which women are portrayed in advertising. The reason why we have taken this step-it is an investigative step; we are not making any assumptions about what we will discover-is that, when I was conducting consultations with women all over Australia, and Senator Walters will be very well aware of them, to see what expectations and aspirations they had for themselves and their families from now until the year 2000, I constantly received complaints from women about some advertisements in the media, not all, and about the portrayal of women or women's sexuality in some advertisements. I was surprised that there was such a broad-based expression of resentment. It came from country women, from women of different ethnic backgrounds and from older women. It certainly was not a complaint that came from only one section of women or just from feminists. There was a feeling of unease about two areas: the gratuitous use of women's sexuality in some forms of advertising and the caricaturing of housewives as being very silly people who were absorbed with trivial concerns and so forth. Because there was a substantial body of complaint about this I have asked the Office of the Status of Women to do a research project in which there will be some monitoring of media advertisements to see what basis there is in fact for the concerns that women have expressed. If there proves to be a basis in fact, if there proves to be a part of advertising which confirms the kinds of complaints that women have made, my intention then is to have a discussion with the advertising industry to see whether we can agree to discard that sort of advertising and to proceed to other sorts of advertising. Obviously, there are many advertisements which are effective and which do not affect women. I do not think that the problem, to the extent that it is shown to be a problem, will be difficult to solve. I am sure that the advertising industry wants to advertise in a way which is effective and which does not offend or put off the intended consumers and that we should have a happy and constructive outcome. As to the other part of Senator Walters's question, I have not received consistent complaints about the portrayal of different kinds of men and the different behaviour of males. I do not think Senator Walters's reference to the official biography of Bob Hawke is to the point, so I will not comment on it. Senator BEAHAN —Has the attention of the Minister for Home Affairs been drawn to the comments of Mr Don Cameron in the other place last night in which he attacked the integrity of the commissioners of the Australian Electoral Commission? Can the Minister assure the Senate that these commissioners are absolutely impartial? What substance is there in Mr Cameron's claim that the 1984 Federal redistribution was biased in favour of the Australian Labor Party? Is this the same Mr Cameron who made wild allegations about the fairness of the 1977 Federal redistribution? Senator ROBERT RAY —My attention has been drawn to the comments made by Mr Cameron last night. In his rather erratic speech he made several wild accusations that have no substance in fact. His first allegation relates to the integrity of the commissioners. He implied that they were stooges of the Labor Party. It might be instructive to go through the methodology of how those commissioners are appointed. Firstly, legislation requires that the chief of the Electoral Commission will be a Federal Court of Australia judge. The procedure for choosing that individual is that the Chief Judge of the Federal Court supplies a short list of names to the government of the day. The government then chooses one of, usually, three names supplied by the Chief Judge of the Federal Court of Australia. So the government would have very little discretion if it wanted to politicise the Electoral Commission by picking one of its favourite judges. The two judges who have so far served on the Electoral Commission, Mr Justice St John and Mr Justice Morling, are both people of the highest integrity and the choice of them at the time was not criticised by anyone opposite in politics. The second person who serves on the Electoral Commission is the Chief Statistician. Again, we have had two of those serve over the last four years, Roy Cameron and Ian Castles, both of whom probably served their substantive careers and gained their promotions under Liberal governments. Again, there has been no criticism of their integrity. The third member of the Commission is the Chief Electoral Officer, Professor Colin Hughes. At the time of his appointment in 1984 all political parties affirmed their belief that he was a fair and impartial person, well qualified in his knowledge of Australian electoral law and well suited to serve on the Commission. I reject absolutely any accusation that those individuals have not approached their task with absolute impartiality. The second point of Mr Cameron's accusations is that the Queensland redistribution of 1984 was in some way biased against the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. I well remember that when those proposals came out the Queensland details were one of the last sets to come out. Western Australia's were already out and the Liberals were crying foul because on balance, when one added up the figures, they were slightly disadvantaged. But, in the case of Queensland, at that stage in 1984 the Australian Labor Party held 10 of the 19 seats. The Parliament was expanded to 24 and on 1983 figures Labor would have held nine seats out of 24, so on the same figures under which we achieved 10 out of 19, we went to nine out of 24. What was the reaction of the Liberal and National parties then? They were dancing in the streets with joy. The State Director of the Liberal Party was publicly quoted as saying what a magnificent redistribution it was. The wheel always turns in these things. In the 1987 election a small swing to Labor saw it pick up four seats; and now the whinges come. The reality of our picking up four seats in Queensland is that we worked those four seats with particularly brilliant candidates and particularly astute campaigns. The Liberals and the Nationals lost four seats in Queensland, the new jewel in the crown of the coalition of conservatives, and they are now in a minority. A further inaccuracy from Mr Cameron was that he now says that the Labor Party has 58 per cent of the Federal seats in Queensland. A very quick calculation with one's calculator will tell one that we have 54 per cent of the seats. It appears to me that Mr Cameron's only experience with figures is related to girls jumping out of birthday cakes. He is not too good with a calculator. As to the last part of the question, I must acknowledge one thing: Mr Cameron is a great survivor, but he is also the greatest whinger I have seen in Federal politics. He made similar wild allegations about the 1977 redistribution. He made allegations in 1977 that the boundaries were fixed and that the fix was put in by his own colleagues. We know how much loyalty there is in the Liberal Party. At the time I almost believed Mr Cameron that his Party may have tried to dud him in that way. Through those accusations, he forced the appointment of a royal commission by the Fraser Government. His accusations were rejected by the royal commissioner and the charge against Mr Eric Robinson was thrown out. The commissioner at the time said that he had no reason to believe that Mr Cameron's views should be given any more weight than the views of those against him. Of course, as a side show to that, Senator Withers, who has recently departed from this chamber, was politically assassinated as a result of that inquiry. So what happened through those wild allegations targeted at Mr Robinson was that they hit someone else. Senator Peter Baume —Quite unfair. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Peter Baume says that Senator Withers was unfairly treated. I have said so on several occasions in this chamber. He was hanged for a very minor offence. Let me say two other things. Mr Cameron's late conversion to electoral reformism is amazing. During the 15 years that the Liberal Party was in coalition with the Bjelke-Petersen National Party Government, I do not recall Mr Cameron criticising the redistributions or the electoral boundaries in Queensland. He was typical of that attitude of the Queensland Liberal Party which was wimpish, which was craven and which failed to stand up and say, `We need fair electoral boundaries in Queensland'. The Liberal Party now in Queensland whinges, but for 15 years it slept in the same bed as the electoral rorters of the National Party. I have a rough idea what is motivating Mr Cameron's attack on the Electoral Commission. We have had lots of problems in trying to locate a divisional returning office in his electorate. Over the last few weeks he has made a variety of hints that, if we do not relocate a divisional returning office in his electorate, he will seek to get even. I do not mind his seeking to get even in a public and direct way, but to impugn the integrity of the electoral commissioners in the 1984 redistribution is a fairly pathetic way to go. Senator VANSTONE —I refer the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health to her answer to Senator Harradine's question last week relating to the question of medical practitioners agreeing to terminate pregnancies on the basis that the parents want a child of a sex other than that of the existing foetus, and to her response indicating that she had no information on this matter and would refer the question of Medicare payments to the Minister for Community Services and Health. I further refer the Minister to her Press release of 29 July 1987 where she said: I will be taking the lead in policy development in this area. That is, in the bioethics area. As the Minister has indicated that she is taking the policy development lead in this area, why is she referring the matter to Dr Blewett, and can she now answer the question? Senator RYAN —The matter referred to in Senator Harradine's question is a matter of medical practice already in place; it is not a new thing. If what was reported in the Press is actually happening-I express my shock and horror that women would make a decision on those grounds-it is a matter of State law that regulates access to abortion and it is a matter of Commonwealth payments for Medicare. What I have referred to Dr Blewett is the question of what Senator Harradine was interested in; that is, whether the procedures were covered by Medicare payments. I presume that they are, but I do not know, and I have referred that matter to Dr Blewett. A new responsibility for me is the development of a Commonwealth position covering the area of bioethics. It is in response to the inquiry of the Senate Select Committee on Human Embryo Experimentation into reproduction technology and the various recommendations that are made there. We are now at the stage of looking at the way in which the Commonwealth can usefully develop a position in the field of bioethics, probably by way of accepting the Senate Committee's recommendation to have an expert advisory body to which medical matters that raise complex ethical issues could be referred. Again it is not an area where the Commonwealth would be anticipating legislating; it is an area where the States could legislate. Victoria has already legislated but has recently amended its legislation. I understand that South Australia intends to legislate quite soon and I will be having discussions with the South Australian Government later this week about that. But at this stage the Commonwealth is seeking to play a useful role in the consideration of ethical issues that arise, and arise with a very complex character, as a result of new medical technologies that are available. Certainly, research reported in the Press gave rise to Senator Harradine's concern that women are able to use the results of amniocentesis tests and, as a result of those tests, they find out the sex of the baby and may then decide not to proceed with the pregnancy. They are in the position of being able to make that choice because of a new technology, although it is not such a new technology; it is not one of the very new technologies that were of particular concern to the Senate Committee. But it certainly raises ethical issues and it may be the sort of issue that a Commonwealth advisory body could develop a position on to advise the States. But legislation in this area is a State matter. Senator Harradine —The Senate Committee said there should be legislation in the Commonwealth sphere. Senator RYAN —The Commonwealth is considering that at this stage. We are not contemplating legislation but rather the setting up of an expert advisory body which could assist on matters. Senator Harradine —That would not be in accordance with the Senate Committee's recommendations. Senator RYAN —As I said, the Commonwealth is considering that Committee report. One of its recommendations was an advisory council and that is the one we are giving particular consideration to at the moment. If there were such a body, the ethical issue that arises from this particular reported use of the information gained from amniocentesis would be a kind of issue that could be referred to it. At this stage I think the response I made to Senator Harradine is the appropriate response: insofar as Medicare payments are available for the procedures, that is a Commonwealth matter-and I have referred that to Dr Blewett. Insofar as there may be legislation for the State of New South Wales to respond to this matter, that is a matter that I understand the New South Wales Government is looking into. Senator VALLENTINE —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Defence read the directive dated 8 May 1984 from Admiral William Crowe, former United States Navy Commander-in-Chief in the Pacific, which ordered Pacific commanders to remove evidence in case of a nuclear weapons accident abroad involving United States warships and to treat such accidents as those involving conventional explosives? Further, is the Minister aware of the fact that the nations mentioned included Australia, along with seven other Pacific states, and that the document says that the United States has a representative in Australia responsible for dealing with nuclear weapons accidents here? Can the Minister say what the Government proposes to do in the event of a nuclear weapons accident in an Australian port, in light of this report? Have United States naval commanders been ordered to cover up the real nature of such an accident? Can the Minister also say whether the United States Government does have such a representative in Australia responsible for dealing with nuclear weapons accidents in this country? Senator ROBERT RAY —I have not read the instruction, but I understand that it provides broad policy and administrative guidelines for the US Pacific command activities on nuclear weapons safety. The instruction makes no specific reference to Australia, other than to include CINCPAC-Commander-in-Chief, Pacific-representatives in Canberra in a list of CINCPAC representatives and area commanders with responsibilities in the Indian Ocean and Pacific region. The instruction makes it clear that the host government would be informed of any nuclear weapons emergency. The Australian Government, in accordance with its sovereign responsibility, would take full charge of the management of any accident on Australian territory. For reasons which the Government has stated on many occasions, the Government considers that a nuclear weapons accident in any Australian port is extremely unlikely. Senator VALLENTINE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Why should the Australian Government be satisfied with United States assurances on this or any other matter, when its stated policy is to deliberately deceive its allies? That is its stated policy in this document that I have referred to. Senator ROBERT RAY —I think the assumptions on which the question are based are not accurate, and I have no further comment. Senator MACKLIN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Is the Minister aware of an article in the October edition of the Pacific Islands Monthly entitled `Fiji at Flashpoint'? In view of the allegations made in that article by the deposed Deputy Speaker of the Fijian House of Representatives that the men who arrested him and his colleagues were not Fijian, and other allegations of police and military brutalisation, predominantly against members of the Indian community in Fiji, can the Minister inform the Senate whether the Government has any information on these series of allegations? What action does the Government propose to take with regard to them? Senator GARETH EVANS —There have been reports of a number of actions taken against Fiji Indians by the military forces in that country in particular. We are aware that a growing number of civil servants, both senior Fiji Indian and others, have been summarily dismissed, and the dismissals or enforced resignations are becoming more common at lower levels. We are also aware of persistent reports that some Fiji Indians in particular are subjected to harassment by Taukei youths and petty criminals, apparently again in some cases with the connivance of elements of the military. Short term detentions continue of former coalition supporters, trade unionists and other citizens who may have connections to identified opponents of the regime. The ban on activity on Sunday, other than attendance at church, discriminates against the very large numbers of non-Christian Fiji citizens. Colonel Rabuka has announced on a number of occasions that the political and civil rights of Fiji Indians will be protected and that Fiji Indians are welcome to remain in Fiji. We simply hope that these assurances will be heard and acted upon. Australia is concerned about infringements of international human rights standards, wherever they may occur. We are particularly concerned that there may have been violations in Fiji of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government has repeatedly made clear-both directly and, of course, most recently at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting through the Prime Minister-that the best interests of the people of Fiji will be served by as rapid a return as possible to the parliamentary processes. Senator CROWLEY —My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. I refer the Minister to the Government's Register of Women which is maintained by the Office of the Status of Women. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the purpose of the Register of Women, and does the Government plan to extend the use of the Register so as to enable women to obtain better access to employment and business opportunities? Senator RYAN —The Register of Women, held by the Office of the Status of Women, is one project about which I am happy to say there is bipartisan support. In fact, the Register first started being built up in the period of the Fraser Administration. Its purpose is to provide a readily available list of women-and their qualifications-who are prepared to serve on government boards, statutory authorities, commissions and the like. It has been the policy of our Government to seek, wherever possible, to have up to 50 per cent of appointments to such boards and authorities filled by women. But in many areas it has not been possible to get anywhere near to the 50 per cent because of an inadequacy of information about competent and experienced women in the community who are willing to accept such appointments. During 1986-87, the computer system used for the Register was enhanced and a new registration form was introduced. At the end of June 1987, records were held for over 1,600 women, and updating of details has been sought. In August of 1987, about 170 women occupied 15 per cent of available appointments to statutory positions and authorities endorsed by Cabinet and the Executive Council. In 1987-88, emphasis will be placed both on increasing the number of potential appointees on the Register and on increasing the use made of the Register's current information. The Government welcomes nominations. In fact, we are particularly seeking nominations from women with a business background, from women from ethnic minority groups and from Aboriginal and Islander women, because they are the groups which are under-represented on the Register. But women with any background relevant to a government appointment are invited to fill out a form and make their details known to the Register. I point out, in the light of recent debates we have had in this place and for the benefit of potential registrants, that the information made available to government will not be divulged to persons outside of the public sector without the consent of those persons. I hope, as I said, that there will be some bipartisan action on this matter and that names of appropriate women will come forth from all members of this chamber and from the women's organisations with which members of this chamber have active relations. Senator BROWNHILL —I direct my question to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. Following the answer she has just given to Senator Crowley, I refer the Minister to the statement announcing the appointment of the new Austrade board, which followed the Government's announcement that it was giving increased emphasis to the appointment of women on boards. Why are there no women on the Austrade board? Was the Minister or the Office of the Status of Women consulted? Is it the view of the Government that no suitable women are available? Senator RYAN —It is not the practice of Ministers to consult me on this matter. But Ministers have been reminded that the Register of Women is available for them to consult. It is disappointing if names of women suitable for appointment to the Austrade board were not forthcoming or if the women whose names were forwarded were not regarded by the Minister responsible as being appropriately qualified. But I think that the honourable senator has pointed to what is, happily, these days a rare example of a body without female appointees. I will certainly refer the matter to the Minister responsible, and I reiterate the remarks I made in my answer to Senator Crowley that the Register is rather light on with details of women with business or trade backgrounds. If the honourable senator who asked the question had in mind women who are appropriately qualified, he might ensure that they get on the Register. Senator Button can then make a more balanced selection of Austrade commissioners on the next occasion. Senator ROBERT RAY —I have a supplementary response to a question Senator Bishop asked last Friday. As it runs to 2 1/2 pages, I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- Last Friday, Senator Bishop asked a number of questions about Defence force resignations. I dealt with the matter of pilot losses and undertook to obtain answers from the Minister for Defence on the other questions about Defence Force retirement entitlements and standards of housing for Defence Force personnel. I am pleased now to be able to provide answers on these matters. Senator Bishop asked whether the Minister for Defence is aware that resignations of Defence Force personnel with 20 years service are in many cases due to fears that superannuation entitlements will be reduced. The Senator also asked whether the Minister for Defence is aware that rumours about superannuation entitlements are generally rife among Service men and women at Budget time and whether steps could be taken to allay such fears and to prevent such resignations. There is no evidence to support the Senator's contention that fear of perceived changes in Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (DFRDB) Scheme entitlements is a key factor in decisions by Defence Force personnel to resign after 20 years service. Defence Force personnel have access to authoritative sources of information and I believe the great majority of members would be careful to seek proper advice before making decisions which affect their future. The Minister is aware that rumours concerning change to the Scheme arise from time to time, more particularly in the lead up to budgets. The Government has clearly demonstrated its support for the DFRDB Scheme in its White Paper on Defence which states that in the light of the overall trend supported by the Government to improve and extend occupational superannuation throughout the community, the Government has no intention of reducing the basic Scheme entitlements. The Government's statement in the White Paper should put to rest the unfounded speculation to which the Senator has referred. On the matter of Defence housing Senator Bishop asked whether the Government is aware that some of the stock is below standard; whether some new houses are being built without ensuites; and whether some standard project homes for Defence Force personnel are having ensuites removed from their design. The Government is aware of the serious shortcomings in the quality of such of the Defence housing stock. Since 1983 the Government has taken positive action to overcome the deficiencies which have existed for many years and has initiated and funded programs to substantially improve the stock. Clearly an ongoing and significant investment in Defence housing is necessary to achieve a lasting improvement in the situation and the Government has made a commitment to an expanded capital funding program of around $750m over this decade. As well as increasing the financial allocation the Government has introduced legislation to create a Defence Housing Authority to manage the stock and streamline arrangements for the construction, upgrading and maintenance and to enable quicker disposal of unsuitable dwellings. Subject to the passage of the legislation it is planned that the Authority will commence operation this financial year. Defence Housing Scales and Standards provide for a range of housing aligned to the rank structure of the Services. This range is intended to mirror community norms and expectations with the size and amenity of housing varying according to the status of the prospective tenant and the rent to be charged. Defence personnel of the rank of Major and above are entitled to ensuites. Unfortunately, many do not have them but we are progressively improving the situation. It is also a fact that some new houses do not have ensuites. These houses are for personnel below Major rank. The Minister for Defence knows of no cases where standard project house plans have been modified by deletion of an ensuite facility with resultant higher house costs incurred by the Commonwealth. I would be pleased to pursue that subject with the Minister for Defence should Senator Bishop require any further information. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Walsh) 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 WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(3.08) —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- FISHING INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BILL 1987 [No. 2] This Bill gives effect to the Government's rural industries research policy insofar as the research and development requirements of the fishing industry are concerned. The Bill replaces, but does not repeal, the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969 which has since its commencement provided a total of $28,540,000 to support research for the benefit of the Australian fishing industry. The Fishing Industry Research Trust Account established by that Act has supported scientific and biological research in many Australian fisheries. It has provided funds for exploratory fishing projects, fishing gear technology studies, education for fishermen and research into the handling and marketing of fish products. CSIRO, universities, government agencies, fishing companies and individual fishermen have received funding from the Account to undertake research. The account has funded a wide range of industry-related projects, for example, experimental longlining for tuna as the basis of Australia's entry into the lucrative Japanese sashimi market, squid jigging off Tasmania and development of a marketing database on the Viatel system which is attracting interest from exporters, Japanese importers and fishermen's co-operatives. Full details of the operations of the Fishing Industry Research Act are set out in the annual reports of the Fishing Industry Research Committee. The Australian fishing industry has, in my view, received important benefits from the operation of the Fishing Industry Research Act that have contributed over time to the welfare of the industry and its place in the national economy. The Bill provides a basis for this to continue under more modern and representative administrative arrangements consistent with the modern legislative framework for rural industries research generally. The Bill makes two fundamental changes to the basis of determining the amount that the Commonwealth will match by way of appropriation to the Fisheries Research and Development Trust Fund that the Bill establishes. The Commonwealth will match expenditure from approved State funds rather than revenue collected from industry and credited to those funds. And there will be a ceiling to the Commonwealth appropriation to the Trust Fund, equal in any financial year to 1 per cent of the average annual gross value of production by the catching and culturing sectors of the Australian fishing industry during the three preceding financial years, as determined by the Minister. The mechanism for determining the amount of the appropriation will remain much the same as under the existing legislation. That is, the Minister will determine one fund under each State's fisheries law to be an approved fund and specified money in that fund to be approved money. The Bill requires all those determinations to be tabled in Parliament and provides for their disallowance as if they were regulations. Before making any determination under part III of the Bill in relation to the trust fund, the Minister will have regard to the legislative and administrative basis of State funds and the moneys credited to those funds. The Bill establishes administrative machinery closely resembling that provided by the Rural Industries Research Act. There is to be a Fishing Industry Research and Development Council, which will prepare 5-year plans of fisheries research and development and annual programs for giving effect to that plan, for approval by the Minister. The Council will undertake the decision-making and administrative functions associated with the trust fund, employing staff in classifications approved by the Minister for that purpose. The members of the Council appointed by the Minister will comprise an independent chairperson, a government member experienced in formulation of government policy and public administration, and not fewer than three or more than seven members with experience and knowledge of the fishing industry and fisheries research and a high order of general administrative and managerial ability. The Bill provides for the Minister to appoint members of a Fishing Industry Research and Development Council Selection Committee, comprising an independent chairperson, a member with experience in fisheries administration or management, a member experienced in fisheries research and development, a member nominated by the Australian Fisheries Council and three members nominated by the National Fishing Industry Council. The selection committee will, whenever the Minister requests, put forward so many nominations as there are vacancies on the Council, having regard to the mix of skills and abilities that the Bill requires the Council to possess. The Minister may reject any nomination and request the selection committee to submit another one. Previous rejection or non-selection is not a barrier to subsequent nomination. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to honourable senators. FISHING INDUSTRY RESEARCH AMENDMENT BILL 1987 [No. 2] This Bill provides transitional arrangements between the effective termination of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969 and the proposed operation of the Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill 1987 already before the House. The Bill amends the Fishing Industry Research Act in a major sense. It repeals the appropriation and abolishes the Fishing Industry Research Committee, the functions of which will be replaced by the Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill. The remaining shell will preserve the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account until the money in that account has been spent or otherwise disposed of. The Government has decided to apply the money in the research account, after settling all outstanding accounts and recovering all moneys due to the account, to acquiring a fisheries research vessel for the CSIRO Division of Fisheries Research. Should that outcome not occur, the Ministers for Finance and Resources are to confer about the disposal of the residue. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to honourable senators. FISHING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1987 [No. 2] This Bill makes amendments of an essentially administrative and procedural nature to the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968, the Fisheries Act 1952 and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984. I can inform the Senate that there will be further amendments of the Fisheries Act to give effect in Australian law to the multilateral treaty between the United States and the Pacific island countries that are members of the Forum Fisheries Agency with respect to the operation of United States tuna boats in the exclusive fishing zones of those countries. The treaty, which was signed on 2 April 1987, will come into force when ratified by 10 Pacific island countries and the United States. The Australian fishing industry is undergoing a period of profound change and it pleases me to say that this Government has in considerable measure been keeping in step with those changes. The Government approaches management of our fisheries on a cooperative basis with the fishing industry. We have established the Fishing Industry Policy Council of Australia to provide a forum for government and industry to discuss issues of mutual interest. In the long-established framework of the Australian Fisheries Council, we have strengthened the institutional framework for consulting with the relevant industry sectors about the management of our major fisheries such as northern prawns, tuna, south-east trawl, southern shark and North West Shelf crustaceans. Statutory management plans are already in place with the full cooperation of industry in the two first-mentioned of those fisheries. We are working toward having management plans in place for the others in the near future. The Government has implemented the fisheries element of the off-shore constitutional settlement with all but two States, with which negotiations are continuing. The off-shore constitutional settlement creates the statutory basis on which the Commonwealth and the States can enter into formal legal arrangements whereby a fishery is managed under a single law, be it Commonwealth or State, from the coast to the outer limit of our fisheries jurisdiction. Arrangements with Queensland in the Torres Strait protected zone have been in place now for more than two years. Four arrangements with Tasmania and Victoria have been in place since June 1986. In June 1987, a further 18 arrangements with Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania came into force. This Bill forms part of a package that includes a Bill to restructure the Commonwealth's involvement in fisheries research and development. This will follow lines essentially similar to those in the Rural Industries Research Act, taking account of the unique institutional factors that make a separate Fisheries Research and Development Act necessary. In 1986-87, the volume of fisheries production was estimated at 152,500 tonnes, with an estimated gross value of $639m. The fishing industry ranks sixth among all Australia's rural industries on a value of production basis. Exports of fishery products have increased from $230m in 1980-81 to an estimated $591m in 1986-87 and have significantly exceeded the value of imports each year during that period. There are more than 9,000 boats in the Australian commercial fishing fleet with an annual consumption of about 240 million litres of diesel fuel. Estimated annual per capita consumption has risen from 6.2 kilograms in 1979-80 to 7.5 kilograms in 1984-85, measured as edible weight. These figures give a general picture of a vigorous fishing industry which is making a very important contribution to the domestic economy and food supplies as well as to foreign exchange earnings. Against this fairly active domestic background, the provisions of the Bill reflect a wide range of recent administrative experience accumulated by the Australian Fisheries Service and the State fisheries authorities which undertake the day to day administration of the Acts that the Bill amends. The Bill brings the three principal Acts that it amends into line insofar as their administrative provisions are concerned. The Bill shifts the emphasis of the provisions authorising the Minister to make notices for the regulation of the fisheries, away from the notices to the prohibitions in them. This will facilitate the preparation of notices containing several prohibitions each requiring separate endorsements of licences. The Bill strengthens the powers of officers so that they may be better equipped to enforce the three Acts. It does so in accordance with those principles of Commonwealth legal policy that have regard to civil liberties and individuals' rights, taking account of the special circumstances in which the principal Acts are enforced. The difficulties of detecting fisheries offences at sea far from the nearest land and a magistrate who can issue warrants with reasonable facility, make it necessary to provide fisheries enforcement officers with powers that in other circumstances might seem excessive. The Bill provides powers in this regard that the Government considers to be an acceptable balance between the need for effective enforcement and the protection of civil liberties. The Attorney-General's Department has advised that the Bill conforms with Commonwealth criminal law legal policy. The Bill provides a basis for ascertaining the state of mind of a director or other agent of a body corporate where it is necessary to do so in legal proceedings for offences for which the Acts provide a penalty for a body corporate. The Bill is of an essentially machinery nature for the better administration of the laws affecting Australia's fisheries and has no financial implications. The explanatory memorandum summarises its clauses, thus making it unnecessary for me to take the time of the Senate in a detailed explanation of them. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(3.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- In the May economic statement, the Government foreshadowed its preparedness to sell its interest in the Primary Industry Bank of Australia (PIBA). The Commonwealth, along with all the shareholders in PIBA, subsequently accepted an offer from the Rural and Industries Bank of Western Australia (R and I Bank) to acquire all of the shares in PIBA. The sale of PIBA was completed on 30 June 1987 and resulted in revenue to the Commonwealth of $2.5m. PIBA was established in 1978 under the provisions of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977 specifically to provide long term funding to the rural sector through a refinance facility. Prior to the acquisition of PIBA by the R and I Bank, the Commonwealth had a 12.5 per cent shareholding and the four major trading banks, and a consortium of the four State banks, each had 17.5 per cent of the shares. The deregulation of the financial system resulted in there no longer being a need for direct Commonwealth involvement in PIBA. Also, the multiple ownership of PIBA by a consortium of banks and the Commonwealth was proving unwieldy at that stage of PIBA's development. In selling its interest in PIBA, however, the Commonwealth has sought to ensure that the rural sector would not be disadvantaged in its access to banking services previously provided by PIBA and that the rural sector would continue to have a voice on the PIBA board. Following its sale to the R and I Bank, PIBA is now in a position to build upon the valuable service it has provided to the rural sector in the past. In particular, opportunities for accelerated growth and the development of new financial services by PIBA are expected to arise. This will be of particular benefit to farmers given that PIBA's prime commitment will continue to be towards meeting the funding requirements of the rural sector. PIBA was granted a banking authority under section 9 of the Banking Act on 30 June 1987 and as a result the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977 is now redundant. The purpose of this Bill is to seek its repeal and to make certain consequential amendments to the Banking Act 1959. Accordingly, clause 3 of the Bill provides for the repeal of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977. Clause 4 of the Bill contains certain consequential amendments to the Banking Act 1959. The effect of these amendments will be to ensure that the provisions of the Banking Act 1959 apply to PIBA in the same way as they apply to all other trading banks. That treatment is now appropriate following the granting to PIBA of a banking authority under section 9 of the Banking Act. I commend the Bill to the Senate. In doing so, I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 23 October. Schedule of the amendments made by the House of Representatives- No. 1-Clause 2, page 1, line 12, omit ``1 October'', insert ``30 September''. No. 2-Clause 4, page 2, line 39, omit ``1 October'', insert ``30 September''. No. 3-Clause 4, page 3, line 12, omit ``1 October'', insert ``30 September''. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(3.10) —I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill 1987, and I move: That the amendments made by the House of Representatives be agreed to. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.11) —The Opposition has considered the amendments and agrees to them. I remind honourable senators that the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill 1987 was debated in this chamber prior to debate in the House of Representatives. The Bill covers a range of initiatives which will provide the customers of Australian National (AN) with better, upgraded, and more efficient services and which will enable it to expand into new areas of operation. These measures are all part of the overall strategy of improving AN's financial viability. The matter before us at the moment concerns the fact that the Bill also made provision to preserve existing workers compensation entitlements for Australian National employees who were transferred from the South Australian Railways in 1978. The House of Representatives has amended two clauses of the Bill dealing with the date of operation. The revision changes the date of operation from 1 October 1987 to 30 September 1987. The amendments involve technical changes to which the coalition has no objection. I take this opportunity briefly to reiterate our concern about the need for the protection of children in the special entertainment cars that provide gambling facilities for patrons. This matter needs consideration, and we look forward to the regulations which, we have been assured, will provide this protection. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(3.13) —The Australian Democrats support the amendments. We are firmly of the opinion that railways in Australia should share more and more of the burden of transporting goods and people around this country. Anything that would increase the ability of the railways to so serve the country will be warmly welcomed by the Democrats. I indicate that we do welcome these amendments. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: (1) That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No. 26 of the House of Representatives relating to amendments to the resolution of appointment of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. (2) That the provisions of the resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (3) That the foregoing resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by message. Debate resumed from 26 October, on motion by Senator Richardson: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria)(3.14) —I want to recap on many of the points that I made during the contribution that I made to the debate on this legislation last night. I outlined the great benefits provided by the tourist industry, particularly in the employment area, and the great investment stimulation that the tourist industry has given this country. That is shown clearly by the many international hotels that have sprung up in every capital city of Australia, and particularly in Melbourne we have finally the new Hyatt Hotel. I outlined many of the areas of employment in the tourist industry, including the employment of waitresses and waiters, and the different facets of other industries that depend on tourism. It is estimated that the tourist industry provides as many as 400,000 jobs. Of course, the industry itself is the great home of the entrepreneurs. It is a self-generating industry. I do not think the Government can claim at any time that it has stimulated this industry to any great extent at all. As I say, it is very much a self-generating industry and the home of some of Australia's finest entrepreneurs. Last night I spoke proudly about many of the fine attractions in Victoria and in Melbourne, although I do correct something I said then. I spoke of Melbourne's fine eighteenth century buildings when, of course, I meant to refer to our nineteenth century buildings, to the buildings built in the 1800s. But that in no way diminishes my great pride in Collins Street and Bourke Street in Melbourne and the many fine buildings we have there. The main point I was trying to make last night was that clearly the tourism and hospitality industry in Melbourne and in the State of Victoria will be able to grow to a far greater extent only if allowed to by this Government. It will be able to grow only if there is not such a direct and obvious bias shown by the New South Wales Australian Labor Party right wing towards the city of Sydney. I highlighted last night an article that appeared in the Melbourne Herald only yesterday, clearly indicating such bias. It is headlined `Victoria may miss $200m contract'. I will read it again: Victoria is in danger of losing the race for a major telecommunications contract because of the expected New South Wales election. That is one indication of how the New South Wales right wing is commercially disadvantaging Victoria and Melbourne, and I have clearly outlined the fact that the movement of the Australian Tourist Commission to Sydney shows a bias toward that city, and it is a very costly exercise for the Australian taxpayers. All this will backfire on Sydney because that city is really heading towards chaos, and any chaos that Sydney is now experiencing is a direct result of the sacking of the Sydney City Council and the taking over of the central city area by the New South Wales right wing. It has allowed the inner city area to run amuck. This is of great concern because, as we know, 57 per cent of direct international flights land at Mascot, so Sydney is the first view that overseas guests get of Australia and its people. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald written by Tracey Aubin says that Sydney: is a city in crisis. Poor planning is fast turning it into a New York, with its shadows and smog. I have spent some time in Sydney over the last couple of months, and the great pedestrian and traffic chaos in the city has really led the people, on a bad day, to be ruder to tourists than any New Yorker. That is of great concern to any Australian when we think that tourists turn up to Sydney first. Sydney has run amuck. It has absolutely no strategy plan at all for its inner city area, and that is well demonstrated by the words of the Executive Director of the New South Wales Chapter of the Royal Institute of Architects, who has said that any planning strategy decided on by the New South Wales Government must put an end to incremental development in the city, and that Sydney needs an overall planning strategy. The New South Wales right wing is turning Sydney into something very un-Australian, just so it can pick up the glory while it is in office-though that will be for a very short time in relation to the New South Wales State Government, anyway. It is picking up the glory, and it is developing a very slick society, a very nouveau society. Members of the right wing are the ones who have taken over the society of Sydney. I have listed in front of me, again in that fine Fairfax newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, a whole bunch of the New South Wales right wing who turned up to a very glamorous party held by a billionaire in this country whose name, of course, is well known to all. They all turned up, including Laurie Brereton, the man who is probably creating the greatest chaos ever seen in Sydney-the Darling Harbour. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) turned up for that party, as did Neville Wran and Senator Graham Richardson. They are the new slick `nouveaus' of Sydney society. They are the ones who are hell bent on running Sydney into the ground, at the cost of Melbourne and cities in many other States. Speaking as a Victorian senator and Melbourne city councillor, these are my deep concerns. I have a deep concern that in the long run all this promotion of Sydney at the expense of Melbourne will backfire. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(3.21) —I was wondering what was the excuse for an honourable senator to get up and deliver 30 minutes of absolute gibberish that had nothing to do with the Australian Tourist Commission Bill. The final statement by that honourable senator may well have provided it when Senator McGauran said that he was a Victorian senator and member of the Melbourne City Council. I have to take issue with one statement made by Senator McGauran, because it showed a deep and profound ignorance of how the tourist industry operates. I refer to his comment that the tourist industry is self-generating and that the Government does not have a role to play. That statement was crass nonsense. I would have thought that even Senator McGauran, simply by reading the Press and without knowing anything about the industry in any deep way, would have known the remarkable success, in the past two years particularly, of the promotion of Australia overseas which is so essential to the continuing health of the tourist industry. Not one private entrepreneur in the business would disagree. The promotion of Australian tourism overseas has been an outstanding success. Any Opposition senators who take part in this debate have a hide, unless they are prepared to preface their remarks by saying that they concede that their Party's policy, just four or five short months ago in the run-up to the election campaign, to close down the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) was wrong. I remember reading statements made by the Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, at the time. Although it had nothing to do with politics or political feelings, I was genuinely upset, angry and disappointed that in the list of government organisations which the Leader of the Opposition said he would cut he intended to include the Australian Tourist Commission, which was giving Australia a visible and acknowledged return for the money that was being vested in it. I said at the time publicly that I thought that it was a stupid and short-sighted thing to do, and I am pleased that Opposition senators who participate in this debate concede that that was an error and are prepared to admit it. The Australian Tourist Commission legislation that this Bill replaces is 20 years old. Tourism is one of the most dynamic industries in this country and the legislation certainly needs changing. The changes have two bases: the recommendations of the Kennedy Inquiry into Australian Tourism which the Government acknowledged were supportable in 1986, and the general thrust towards accountability by statutory authorities. I would draw attention to a few clauses in the Bill. Clauses 6 and 7 outline the aims of the Commission, which are to increase the number of visitors to Australia from overseas and to maximise the benefits to Australia from overseas visitors by promoting Australia overseas as a tourist destination, enhancing awareness overseas of Australia as a tourist destination and enhancing awareness in Australia of the Australian tourism industry. We in the Northern Territory are conscious of all those aspects on a day to day basis. The Northern Territory Tourist Commission has been highly successful in working in conjunction with the Australian Tourist Commission in a co-operative way to increase substantially the tourist visitation to the Northern Territory. That has been publicly acknowledged again and again. Many examples could be given, but the most recent one with the most spectacular results was the use made of the film Crocodile Dundee and Paul Hogan in promotions that were run overseas by the Australian Tourist Commission and the Northern Territory Conservation Commission, aimed at targeting the audiences that were to see that spectacularly successful movie, half of which was shot in Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory. The results were on the board. A spectacular increase in tourist visitation occurred. I hasten to add that this was not necessarily from people who were coming to the Northern Territory, but from many thousands of Americans who were coming to Melbourne and Sydney and who said that their decision to make Australia their tourist destination that year was encouraged by seeing the movie and by the promotion that was run by the ATC in conjunction with it. So the statement that governments do not have a role to play in encouraging our tourist industry is crass nonsense, as I said before. I would like to place some acknowledgment on the record-I think it is due to be placed on the record-of the spectacular personal success of the Government's Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Mr John Brown, in this area. John Brown is certainly a public figure who has not managed to survive without controversy. At times he has been a controversial figure and, indeed, it is that very controversy that may have assisted him-one cannot have it both ways-in being the success that he is. But it is freely acknowledged in the Northern Territory amongst tourist entrepreneurs, who are by no means Labor supporters, that John Brown has been a spectacularly successful ambassador overseas for Australian tourism. People who are in the industry often express to me the hope that John Brown stays in his position as tourism Minister for a very long time. The Australian Tourist Commission is being restructured under this Bill. The Commission is being cut from 13 to nine, which I applaud. I have always been a great believer that small, workable committees are far more effective than large, unworkable committees. It is precisely that sentiment which is responsible for this restructuring, and I applaud it. The other thing that was instituted by this Government, in conjunction with the overhaul of the Australian Tourist Commission, was the implementation of the annual tourism awards which, I am pleased to say, have become a fixture on the landscape of Australian tourism. These awards are greatly appreciated by the industry because of the promotion they give to entrepreneurs in the industry. The Northern Territory was extremely successful at the recent awards just a week or so ago. The Northern Territory Tourist Commission won an award for being pre-eminent amongst the State tourist commissions in its promotion-government promotion, I might add-of the tourist industry. This is of great benefit to the people who operate in the tourist industry. I think this is now the second time in a row that the Yulara resort has taken out a major award in the tourism awards, as has Australian Kakadu Tours. I come now to clause 16 of the Bill dealing with the appointment of the Chairman of the Australian Tourist Commission. The present Chairman of the Commission is currently the Director of Federal Hotels Ltd in Australia, Mr John Haddad. It is with a great deal of regret that I mention this next matter, and I think that privately the present Government of the Northern Territory would probably acknowledge what I say. It is unquestionably one of the greatest blots on the tourist landscape of the Northern Territory. One of the most gross and horrible financial and political decisions ever made in any parliament in this country or, indeed, in the Westminster system, was the extraordinary expropriation by an Act of parliament of $50m worth of private assets owned by Federal Hotels, which came to the Northern Territory to establish the casinos in Alice Springs and Darwin on the basis of a written contract giving it 15 years guaranteed monopoly over gaming in the Northern Territory in exchange for building a casino which it knew would lose money for the first five to 10 years. The reason that I feel so badly about this in terms of tourist promotion in the Northern Territory is that it cost the Northern Territory taxpayers-or to be more accurate and in deference to Senator Walsh, I should say the Australian taxpayers-$14m cold in the payouts that were made because of the mess that was created by that ejection of Federal Hotels. What really made me angry-and I am sure that some honourable senators are aware of what happened-was that last year Federal Hotels was ejected from the Northern Territory. The Chairman of the Australian Tourist Commission was ejected from the Northern Territory on the grounds that the hotel chain that he operated was about to go bankrupt overnight. That was the reason given. Last year Federal Hotels celebrated its centenary of operating hotels in Australia. It is the oldest hotel chain in Australia. I do not hesitate to give praise where it is due in the tourist industry because that is what it is all about. That is what the Commission is about; it is what the tourism awards are about-giving credit where it is due. Last year the Australian Labor Party held its national conference at the Wrest Point Casino in Hobart. Without question, as a professional conference attender, I can say that it was the most impressive convention venue I have ever attended in terms of the logistic support that was received, the faultless organisation and the assistance we got from the hotel staff, which was spectacular. I am no longer a member of the national executive of the Labor Party, so I was not present at the discussions that took place, but obviously it impressed more than me because I note that the Party has decided to go back to Hobart next year. It was with a feeling of irony that I sat at the table at a dinner hosted by John Haddad at the last conference in the beautiful resort convention centre in Hobart knowing that the Federal Hotels chain had been booted out of the Northern Territory by an Act of parliament from a conservative government. I can still remember my astonishment the day that shameful legislation was introduced, legislation expropriating $50m worth of private property, not for a public purpose but to hand it over to another private company that had been selected by the Government to receive the benefit of it. I assure honourable senators that the wounds are still fresh-that is the reason I am raising this matter today-in the Northern Territory from that outrageous action by the Northern Territory's former Chief Minister and Government. It has not been forgotten. Federal Hotels circulated correspondence to most members of the Federal Parliament in response to the outrageous claims that were made under privilege in Parliament that the hotel chain was about to be bankrupted within 24 hours. We now know, four or five years on, that the only result from the Northern Territory's point of view was $14m down the chute cold in payouts, including massive legal bills, that had to be made to fix up a casino which arguably has not been run as well and certainly not run any better than when Federal Hotels ran it and a black eye for the Northern Territory legislature in terms of having legislation on the books which is unprecedented outside totalitarian countries. Now that the casino situation in the Northern Territory has settled down and now that Yulara is proving to be the success that it is with Kakadu, Uluru and Katherine Gorge national parks all receiving about 200,000 visitors each year, tourism in the Northern Territory is booming. As I said in my first speech to this chamber, as a result of the Federal Government's completion of the sealing of the south road from Alice Springs to Adelaide, tourism is booming to an extent where it is currently placing a great strain on the infrastructure along the highway, which simply cannot keep up with the pace of development. No doubt there is more of that to come. I want to say a few words about a matter related to the promotion of Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park which has been in the news recently. There is a serious problem at Uluru: the Ayers Rock to the Olgas road. It has been a problem for the park's administration and for the Government ever since the park was created. It is currently closed again because it is unusable. It is a gravel road. The amount of visitor pressure and tourist traffic on the road now is so great that it would require regrading every 24 hours even to keep pace with the amount of traffic that flows over it. It is obvious that something has to be done about it. The solution, of course, is not to close the road and leave it closed. I do not think anyone is suggesting that that is the solution. The options that are currently being faced include the complete upgrading of the road-26 miles of it-as a major bitumen sealed road through to Ayers Rock. Everyone acknowledges that the continuance of the gravel road simply cannot go on. What I have said publicly-I do not hesitate to say it-is that if we are looking at the expenditure of $6m of public money on the upgrading of a road, we should at that time responsibly consider all of the other transport arrangements that are available these days as possible alternatives. As a result of that, I floated the idea of seriously considering the establishment of a mono- rail at Ayers Rock. The word `monorail' has a very interesting effect on people these days; this was commented on earlier today. One can say to people, `Look, there is a serious problem with the Olgas road; we will have to do something about it. We cannot keep upgrading it. Each year $300,000 is being spent on maintenance of that road just in keeping it graded. We should run a train, a railway, out to the Olgas'. People say, `Gee, that sounds like a great idea'. But when they are told that the railway will run on one rail instead of two, they jump out of the nearest window. That seems to be the effect that the word `monorail' has on people. I just want to make it clear that what I am talking about is not the kind of monorail that is about to operate in Sydney. It does not have to be elevated. Of course, in Sydney it has to travel above the existing traffic and in amusement parks a monorail has to travel above the park so that people can look down and see the park from a great height. What I am talking about is a monorail system that will operate like a normal railway, at ground level, and be completely non-intrusive in the environment. Anyone who has been to Ayers Rock and the Olgas knows that it is a spectacular desert environment. Of course, it would be criminal to suggest the construction of a monorail that would intrude in any way on that environment. The more I consider the proposal of a monorail, the more attractive from an environmental point of view it seems to be. It would be used as a substitute-not as an alternative-for the road and it would have the great advantage of providing an extremely safe system of transport which would be non-degrading of the environment because there would be no erosion problems associated with it. It would allow complete control of the tourist traffic to the Olgas, which is an area of great sensitivity to the Aboriginal owners of the park. They would be able to keep an almost total control on the visitation to the Olgas as a result of such a proposal. In my view it is without question that it would be an extremely attractive addition for visitors to the Uluru National Park in terms of safe, dust-free and erosion-free transport. It is not beyond possibility that, if discussions were held between the Government and an organisation such as Thomas National Transport Ltd, which of course has expertise in this form of transportation, some agreement could be reached whereby that proposal could be constructed as a joint venture between the Government and a private company and run on a revenue-raising base. The reason I suggest that is that I think it would have the further advantage in years to come of the Aboriginal owners of the park being able to operate it for the generation of income for themselves, in the same way as the Aboriginal owners of Kakadu National Park currently use the Gagudju Association in that park to run the very successful tourist ventures at Cooinda and the motel that is currently being constructed at Jabiru. I look forward to following through that suggestion and determining precisely how feasible or not it is. Senator McKiernan —On a single track. Senator COLLINS —Yes, on a single track. I simply conclude my remarks in this debate by saying that one of the great advantages that the tourist industry offers in the current economic circumstances of Australia is that it is the best value for money, as far as the community is concerned, in terms of the dollars invested. No other industry in Australia provides the level of employment per dollar invested that the tourism and hospitality industry does. There is no question that in the Northern Territory, with our three major tourist attractions of Kakadu, Uluru and Katherine Gorge national parks, currently receiving the extent of tourist visitation that they do, that is the case. I want to comment on something that an Australian Democrats senator said the other day in participation in this debate and with which I agree. A major tourism seminar which I attended in the town of Jabiru a number of years ago was opened by the then Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Ian Tuxworth, saying that the experts, the advisers to the Tourist Commission in the Northern Territory, were telling us that the key to selling the Northern Territory as a tourist destination was our wildlife, our wilderness and the Aboriginal aspects of our culture and our community. I do not suppose that that came as any great surprise to anyone; nevertheless, that was enunciated by the then Chief Minister and I believe that it is precisely right. One of the great advantages, and one of the things that people find attractive, is that the unique Aboriginal culture of the Northern Territory and the spectacular Aboriginal art produced in the Northern Territory are being drawn from a living and not a dead culture. What depresses me at times is that the same people who are promoting Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory solely in terms of the extent to which they can be exploited on behalf of the tourism industry also assert in the same breath that they are not entitled to any real place in our society, are not even recognised as Territorians and, indeed-as has been said in some quite extraordinary statements that have been made by people in public life in the Northern Territory-are not really recognised as part of the human race. We cannot have it both ways. I must say that one of the noticeable and great benefits already derived from Aboriginal ownership of both Kakadu and Uluru national parks is the extent to which that ownership is commented upon and sought after by our visitors to the Northern Territory. Just a week or so ago, in a fairly lively radio session on talkback radio in Darwin-a program not renowned for its radical leanings-a visitor from Queensland who had been to Katherine Gorge National Park commented that, having just visited Kakadu and being extremely impressed by having been shown around Kakadu by the Aboriginal ranger staff-the Aboriginal people who live in Kakadu National Park and whose country it is-he was extremely disappointed that the same emphasis on Aboriginal ownership and Aboriginal care and protection of the park was not being shown at Katherine Gorge. As a result of Mr Justice Kearney having brought down a recommendation in his report on the Jarwoyn land claim that Katherine Gorge should be included in the grant of land, that situation might be resolved in the not too distant future. There is no question that government has a real role to play in the tourism industry in Australia. The Government should not seek to override or duplicate anything which is being done by the entrepreneurs who work in that industry. In fact, it is a contribution which is freely acknowledged by those entrepreneurs as being valuable and beneficial to them, and I hope that it will continue. There is no question that the restructuring of the Australian Tourist Commission will be beneficial to the industry. I hope that, in future years, the annual tourism awards will continue to be the great success that they are. There is no doubt that, with all the care and consideration that has to be given to the social and environmental impacts of tourism on Australia, tourism will continue to be the great benefit to the Australian economy that it is at the moment. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(3.44) —Today we are debating the Australian Tourist Commission Bill and the Australian Tourist Commission (Transitional Provisions) Bill. The Opposition will be supporting these Bills, although amendments will be moved later during the committee stage. At this stage I think it is appropriate that I should declare, once again, that I have had a personal interest in the tourist industry for some years now in my home State of Tasmania. Senator Collins has just given us the benefit of information about his home Territory, the Northern Territory, and the importance of tourism to him. Equally, of course, tourism in my State is a vitally important industry. Consequently, any senators representing Tasmania will inevitably find that tourism is a very active issue in their home State. I have some concerns about the Australian Tourist Commission Bill. I have concerns as to whether the Commission will adequately represent and co-ordinate the needs of the whole of Australia so that we can all benefit from the hoped for increase in international visitors. Last year was a very good year for the tourism industry in Australia. It was a year of major achievement. Let me refer to some information which my colleague Senator Puplick mentioned in his speech to show just what we are looking for in the coming year. It is expected that tourism will contribute in the order of $24,000m to Australia's gross domestic product, making it probably our largest industry in terms of turnover. We believe that it will contribute about $3,000m in foreign currency income and will employ in the vicinity of 405,000 Australians in a huge variety of occupations scattered over the whole country. Something which is often forgotten is the tremendous flow-on effects to other industries of the benefits of the tourism industry. As I have said, last year was certainly a year of major achievement in the industry and it is hoped that the coming year will be better than ever. The Government is claiming full credit for that marvellous year. Frankly, I find that unacceptable. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) is a master of self-promotion, but we know that behind every successful man there is usually a woman plugging along-and, in the case of the Minister, I think she has been plugging along quite well. Although we have a Minister spectacularly successful at promoting-John Brown-the Government can only really be seen in this industry as a facilitator and the Government cannot take all the credit. In this industry, we have had masses of businesses, large and small, playing their individual parts in bringing our product up to international standard. A lot of work has gone into making the Australian tourist industry one which will confidently appeal to overseas visitors. That takes a lot of effort by a lot of people. It is not a one-man band, despite claims to that end by the Minister. Not only have all these small and large operators played their part; the Government has really played a part in the sense of its misadventure. By its economic mismanagement, causing the fall in the dollar, Australia has seemed a very attractive place for people to holiday in. I do not know whether the Government really wants to claim that, due to its mismanagement, we have had so many overseas tourists, but it is a fact. Many people have been attracted to holiday here because of the low value of our dollar. That has been an incidental benefit of the mismanagement which we have all had to face, which has caused problems in other areas, but which has been a blessing in disguise for the tourist industry. Another thing that the Government cannot take credit for is the fact that so many other tourist destinations have become dangerous places to visit over the last two or three years. Australia, thank God, can still be regarded as a safe tourist destination. We should not underestimate the importance of that when we consider how successful our tourism industry has become and when we consider the growth that we have experienced. The ability to protect our tourists when they come here, in comparison with protection in other places, is very important in any assessment of how well we have been doing. I hope that the Government will see to it that our airports are safely protected in the future. We have been fortunate in not having incidents of terrorism. It is not something which we can take for granted and be complacent about as a nation. When we have cutbacks or a lack of manpower in some of the protection areas we must signal that there is concern that the safe reputation which we now have may not be one that we can enjoy forever, unless we work at it. I think the time has now come when we must consolidate the gains we have had in the industry and make sure that the benefits are shared, not just by the big States but also by the smaller and more distant States. I am sure Senator Collins would agree that we do not want all the visitors ending up in Melbourne and Sydney. It is difficult to get tourists out of Melbourne and Sydney. This is one of the matters on which I have had a continuing interest concerning the work of the Australian Tourist Commission. I recognise that the Commission is trying to do something and to inform the tourists of other destinations in Australia, but I have long believed that not an active enough part is played by it in actually persuading tourists to come to parts of Australia other than Melbourne and Sydney. For so many foreigners, Australia is the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Sydney Opera House, yet we know that in Sydney we have the most congested airport in Australia and Sydney causes the greatest difficulties for tourists who are trying to get accommodation. There is also a curfew on the airport. In comparison, other places have excellent international airports, good accommodation and the ability for planes to fly in around the clock, yet constantly we have this imbalance in our tourists entering Sydney as the major entry point. I am very glad that Sydney gets so many tourists, but I think we have to try to create a balance around the country so that the benefits are shared by all Australians and undue pressure is not put on that one entry point, with the frustrations and the delays to tourists that such congestion causes. The figures for distribution of international tourists around Australia are quite revealing. I recall that northern Queensland gets at most 12 or 15 per cent of the international visitors who come to this country. My State gets only 3 per cent of the international visitors. It is a great shame if we cannot send out visitors to some of the most beautiful and special parts of our country. We have heard at length from Senator Collins about the beauties of Kakadu National Park and Uluru National Park. Having visited those parts of Australia, and as an Australian, I am very proud of them and glad to think that we have such beautiful places for visitors. But equally we have the Great Barrier Reef, we have the islands off the coast of Queensland, we have tropical and temperate rainforests and we have the beautiful island of Tasmania. We have so many places, yet we seem to be funnelling all our visitors into one little triangle in the south-east corner of Australia. It is important that we take a more active role in encouraging people to come to other parts of the country. Therefore the decision that was taken to move the Australian Tourist Commission to Sydney seems to me a great pity. Inevitably when an organisation, which is very actively involved in selling Australia to overseas visitors, is located in the one area which is overcrowded with tourists, I believe that we must inevitably expect to find that its employees will develop a mind set on Sydney and that they, like so many Sydneysiders, will come to believe that Sydney is Australia. Those of us who come from other parts know full well that it is not. But it is very easy for Sydneysiders to think that Sydney is the hub of existence and that the world revolves around it. If the Commission is expected to sell the rest of Australia, I think it is a pity that it has moved to Sydney and its attitude will be contaminated. I think the move to Sydney is an absolute fiasco. At a time of great economic difficulty in this country, it is a waste of the taxpayers' dollar to be spending $3.3m to move to Sydney an organisation that was established in Melbourne. Only four of the 45 people in the Melbourne office elected to move. The Government paid off people who were not prepared to move and gave them redundancy payments amounting to $1.4m. The largest share of the costs of relocation went in the redundancy payments for those 41 people. As I said, only four of the original experienced group in Melbourne have seen fit to take up residence in Sydney. I think the decision to move there was not the wisest to begin with. It worries me that it will add to this heavy emphasis on tourism beginning and ending in Sydney. I am also disappointed to see that the Government has reduced the number of board members from 13 to nine. I am not a great believer in large boards or large committees, but I do not consider 13 to be large. I think that with 13 we had an opportunity to have a wider range of views and representation. I think nine is too small and that it limits opportunities for representation that the previous board of 13 offered. The automatic inclusion of members from each State and Territory, on a rotational basis, has been cancelled. I think that is unbelievable, a shame and most disappointing. In the past the States criticised the rotational system, saying that they were disadvantaged when they were not participating on the Commission board. In other words, they found that the ability to participate on the board was a great advantage, and they did not like it when it was not their turn to be on it. So the Minister used this criticism as a reason to cut out their participation entirely. That is just a nonsense. Does he honestly believe that this will resolve the dissatisfaction of the States? It could only have been made worse. The interests of the various States are so diverse that I believe there should be wider representation than we are now going to get. Sadly, there is no more provision for industry to nominate board members. They will all be political appointments. Over the last 4 1/2 years we have had a very politicising government. As the years have progressed we have gradually come to see that no matter what the people who have a cosy relationship with the present Government are being appointed to boards. I am very apprehensive about what political appointments we are going to see this Government make to the new Tourist Commission. Industry will find that the voice it has from the board will be the Government's voice and not its voice. There is a very real danger that there will be nobody to keep the board accountable to the industry that it serves, and it is something about which I shall be satisfied to the contrary only when I see it operating more effectively than my fears would suggest will be possible. In discussing the Australian Tourist Commission Bill, I want to refer to the tourism overseas promotion scheme (TOPS). This scheme has had its up and downs, but I believe it was very important for the Australian tourist industry. It is a great disappointment that the Government has seen fit to abolish it. In fact, I think that stronger language is really required, when we realise how many businesses have been left in the lurch by the Government through the abrupt cancellation of the scheme. It has been of great assistance to people trying to advertise overseas. As most honourable senators would realise, it is extremely expensive for a small business to advertise overseas, or even for a business of almost any size, without assistance from the Government and the co-operative arrangements that were in place. The Minister himself said not long ago that it was a cost-effective incentive scheme, and I agree with him. Its cancellation will very much restrict the abilities of firms to advertise overseas, and that does not mean just those particular firms; Australia will be advertised that much less overseas. What worries me is that a number of firms have committed themselves and have suddenly been left without funds. The Government will say that they should not have committed themselves, as the rules were laid down as to how they would get reimbursement, and it is their fault if they went out on a limb and committed themselves. But I think in the present circumstances that could not be a fair rejoinder. The Minister committed $9m for the TOPS scheme in June of this year to cover 1987-88. As I said, this scheme has had its ups and downs. The Minister's commitment of $9m was made after there had been very real fears in the industry that the scheme was to be axed. I would like to quote from a speech which I made in the Senate on 12 May concerning TOPS. It was the result of inquiries that I had been involved in with an Estimates committee in that same month. I said: Only a month or so ago, the Australian Hotels Association drew attention to the fact that of 33 organisations using that scheme, which were contacted by the International Tourism Organisation of Australia, 30 were experiencing problems with delays in approval, delays in payments or both. I asked the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism a question about that during an Estimates committee hearing. Officers agreed that they were having trouble and that the administrative situation was in some sort of chaos. They said that they were getting too many applications to be able to cope and that the Minister was in consultation with the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) on the question of forward commitment for future proposals. I understand that they are now somewhere between $8m and $15m in arrears on this matter. The idea of the scheme was good, but the scheme itself was very defective because of the way in which it was being administered. When the Minister said that the applications which had been held up pending the resolution of the matter would be `processed forthwith', the industry had a fresh lease of confidence. He said that $9m would be committed and so the industry went ahead with its advertising, having been held up for so long while the scheme was in such a mess. So much for the Minister's word. As I said earlier, he is great on promotion but he obviously is not so great on winning his case in Cabinet. This $9m commitment made in June this year, which was to cover 1987-88, has been axed. Some of these firms that have gone out on a limb expecting that the Government's word was its bond are facing financial ruin. I urge the Government to look again at what it can do to help those people who acted on the commitment of Minister Brown. The Government has just recently taken another action which has an impact on the tourist industry, and I think it is one to be criticised. I am very disappointed; it is a backward step, as far as I am concerned, for the depreciation allowance to be cut from 4 per cent to 2.5 per cent. The Government had previously increased the allowance to 4 per cent from 2 1/2 per cent, and the Minister was skiting about that in only May this year-making a great good fellow of himself. Once again, he does not seem to have carried much weight in Cabinet and we are back to 2 1/2 per cent again. It looks as though the Government has decided that the tourism industry has enough infrastructure which is built by Australians. Of course, Australians are the ones who also have to cope with the high interest rates that this Government has imposed on this nation. That puts them at a distinct disadvantage when they are trying to develop properties in this industry in competition with their foreign competitors. So we now have the prospect of foreign investors in this country buying up Australian real estate and developing properties often for the nationals of other countries and also making their profits out of Australians. But the Australian developer and the small business people who are so crippled with high interest rates have now had their depreciation allowance reduced by a government that is supposed to be encouraging this industry. In the tourism industry the depreciation allowance is of great importance. Another little action that the Government has slipped into the tourist industry which I think is a very sneaky one is the arrivals tax. For the first time Australians will have to pay to get back into their country as well as to get out. It is a wonder the Government has not put a padlock on the door. Most overseas visitors also pay a departure tax in their own country when they leave. They now have to pay to get into their country of destination as well and then again when they leave. It is these little ways that governments find of milking the tourist that gradually start to make a country look like an expensive or unacceptable destination. I think the Government will get away with this measure because it will not ask those tourists to hand over their money as they arrive; it will slug it to the carriers-and that just simply makes Australia look like a more expensive destination in terms of travel costs. That is how it will get away with that. It will not have to deal with the fury of individuals, but it deserves to. Tourism has become Australia's largest industry. It is also a very important industry, as I have said, in my home State of Tasmania. We do not believe that Tasmania is getting the share of international visitors that it should be getting. I think that this legislation will only make the situation worse in that Tasmania, as a State, will not have a voice on the board. It is also losing out from the axing of TOPS because operators in my State are largely small operators who have very little chance of promoting themselves overseas without assistance. I just query: How will my State have a voice on such an important board, the decisions of which will affect the State, on which it is not represented, and from which it is geographically quite isolated? The Government has done a quite good public relations job for itself on its efforts in the tourism area, but when we look very closely at the achievements we see that the record is not so glowing. We have had the politicisation of the Australian Tourist Commission. We have the waste of funds in the move of the Tourist Commission. We have the mismanagement of TOPS. We have had the breaking of commitments and faith to the industry over the scheme. We have had the cut in the depreciation allowance. We are selling off the farm to foreigners and making it more difficult for locals to develop tourism infrastructure. The Government excuses itself over its inability to come to grips with the penalty rate problems of this industry. It has failed to deal with the problems of Sydney airport-with the curfew and the need for a second airport. And it has introduced an arrivals tax. I do not think its record is very glowing at all. We on this side of the Parliament support efforts to improve the tourist industry. We believe that it is good for Australia and we believe that it is good for jobs for young Australians, but we want to see the Government doing better. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(4.08) —In addressing the issues that are raised today by the Australian Tourist Commission Bill and the Australian Tourist Commission (Transitional Provisions) Bill, I want to concentrate on a number of key types of areas. I want to concentrate on what I see as the centralisation of the promotion function in Australian tourism. I would also like to look at, as have a number of honourable senators already, the structure of the board and also its salary structure. The issue of the relocation of the Melbourne office, of course, has already attracted some attention and it deserves further comment. I would like to look also at the scrapping of the tourism overseas promotion scheme (TOPS) and particularly the impact that this scheme has in smaller areas of Australia that are perhaps struggling and need this type of support. I would like to relate a few of my comments specifically to my electorate, the Northern Territory, which is, after all, the pioneer frontier of Australia. It is still seen with that image; it is still the great promotional front card of every pamphlet and brochure that is issued for Australian tourism. I would also like to concentrate a few comments on the promotion of Aboriginal activity in the tourist industry, which I think has been sadly lacking in any statement by the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) or indeed a number of other authorities. The Bills before us today are based on the recommendations of the report of the Kennedy Inquiry into Australian Tourism. In that report there were 96 recommendations, the majority of which were directed at the future structure of the Australian Tourist Commission. All but two recommendations were accepted. I will be talking about two of the recommendations in that report: the one concerning TOPS, to avoid disruption to industry; and the recommendation to make the salary structure for board members more flexible. The Australian Tourist Commission will take over overseas promotion of Australia as a tourist destination. In the second reading speech of the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson), he stated: The major thrust of the Commission's activity will now be towards promoting Australia as an attractive tourist destination in the international market place. In the next paragraph the reason for this is given as follows: But it needs to be emphasised that rationalisation of the amount of money spent overseas by governments and industry is required to maximise the effects of those resources for the benefit of Australia's economy overall. That needs to be looked at very carefully as a statement. If the Minister is attempting, perhaps in his ministerial aspirations, to aim for a more economic portfolio he might be compromising what ought to be seen as an area of major economic activity in the tourist area. We need to ask very seriously: What will be the role of State and Territory tourist commissions in overseas promotion? If a State or Territory wishes to promote its specific areas of tourist attraction and it does so in a sensible and rational manner with appropriate consultation with the Australian Tourist Commission, such effort should be seen as complementary to Australian Tourist Commission activity. I put to Senator Richardson and Minister Brown the question: What input will the States have into the Australian Tourist Commission? More specifically, I would like them to address the input industry groups will have into the Australian Tourist Commission. The number of Board members has been cut from 13 to nine and the appointment procedure of members of the Board is unclear. Clause 13 sub-clause (2) of the Australian Tourist Commission Bill states: The Minister may appoint a person as a member other than the government member only if the Minister is satisfied that the person has expertise relevant to the Australian tourism industry. State representation on the Board has been scrapped. The Minister in his second reading speech stated: This Bill removes the current formalised State representation on the Board. However, close consultations with the States is essential to the operations of the Commission and alternative and more effective consultative mechanisms are now being developed and implemented. What are these consultative mechanisms? What is to be put in place? More important is the fact that industry groups will have no representation. I again quote from the second reading speech: . . . the Bill provides for the Board members to be appointed by virtue of their individual skills, expertise and experience relevant to and in the tourism industry, rather than as representatives of associations, States, Territories or other bodies which may have particular tourism interests. That statement seems to go round in circles and allows unusual, different and perhaps not necessarily conducive to tourism type appointments in this area. It is wise to give the industry some distinct input into how it is being promoted overseas. I refer to the statutory relationship with the Australian Public Service. It is interesting to note that although the Australian Public Service Board has been disbanded, the terms and conditions applying to employees of the revamped Australian Tourist Commission apparently remain firmly entrenched within the bureaucracy in that they are largely determined by the Federal Department of Industrial Relations. It is to be argued that the Australian Tourist Commission is involved in an industry which is essentially entrepreneurially orientated and must have the capacity to respond immediately and creatively to new and changing opportunities and circumstances. I would like to see the Minister address the particular points of how, within the structure, he will be able to maintain, while working alongside an industry that is largely entrepreneurially orientated, the capacity for the Commission to operate as effectively as it ought. The Melbourne office was relocated to Sydney and the expenditure was $800,000 on each relocated employee. Out of 45 staff, 41 decided to accept the redundancy package offered and stay in Melbourne, involving a cost of $1.485m. Once the four remaining staff and some files had been moved to Sydney, the total cost was $3.2m. I refer honourable senators to the Estimates committee hearings on this matter. That is not a bad start for a body whose job it will be to administer, in an efficient fashion, funds for overseas promotion. Surely more comment and attention should be given to looking carefully at the financial situation. The TOPS scheme was abolished as one of the 15 September Federal Budget initiatives. This broken election promise was made by the Minister, Mr John Brown, who assured the industry that TOPS would continue. On 4 June this year he said: I'm happy to say that the Government has agreed to afford commitment cover for the TOPS of $9 million for 1987/88. On 6 October 1987, in the other place, he said: Certainly statements have been made by me prior to the election, at various forums, that the Government had committed $9m for the provision of TOPS payments for the year 1987-88. I might inform the honourable member that, despite the fact that the Government has decided to discontinue TOPS, that promise will be honoured, and $9m has been made available-$6m to honour commitments made with ministerial approval and the additional $3m for the Australian Tourist Commission for additional promotion. If the Minister promised $9m knowing full well that $6m was to go in already approved funding, he must have had it in mind to scrap TOPS anyway because a $15m backlog of unapproved applications was being processed. I am familiar with tourist operators in the Northern Territory who have been left seriously out of pocket as a result of this measure. They budgeted for their overseas promotions expecting that assistance would be provided through TOPS. The pre-election statements by the Minister gave them confidence. Now they are in financial trouble. Let me quote from two industry leaders-one a pioneer establishing a new enterprise in tourism in the Northern Territory, Mrs Penni Tastula, the General Manager of Northern Gateway Pty Ltd. I have a copy of a letter that she wrote recently to Mr John Brown and I propose to quote parts of it. Mrs Tastula stated: I have received advice of the cancellation of the Tourist Overseas Promotional Scheme and I am extremely disappointed in your failure to uphold the promises made to us at ATE in June this year. I have a newly formed company in the Northern Territory and my sole function is the promotion of inbound package holidays to Northern Australia, using Darwin as a gateway port. On the strength of your promises, I have budgeted for: 1 A full colour brochure for overseas distribution. 2 A special priced insert to attract inbound tourists during the wet season. 3 Participation in Australian Tourist Commission promotions TABS in Bangkok, the Jakarta Promotion in Jakarta and Royal Brunei Airlines Promotion Travel Forum in Brunei, Sabah and Sarawak. 4 Production of a promotional static display to use at the above promotions to enable me to emphasise the potential of the north as a tourist destination. Mrs Tastula continued with details of how she put together her financial package. She arrived at a subsidy of over $10,000 for which she would have been eligible. Her letter continues: I would not have undertaken promotions of this dimension, without having believed that your commitment to this scheme was sound. For a new small business, struggling to get established and promote tourism into remote regions, the withdrawal of this subsidy of over $10,000 after our commitments had been made, is devastating. I ask that you reconsider your stand and at least allow current claims such as that of Northern Gateway to be honoured. At another end of the tourist spectrum in the Northern Territory is a much longer established, larger firm, CATA Tours, or as it is often known, Central Australian Tours Association Pty Ltd. This firm, which is a sightseeing tour specialist in the Northern Territory, wrote to me on 15 October. I quote the Director, Keith Castle, who stated: I would like to bring to your notice the problems now being encountered by this company owing to the TOPS scheme being removed for an export grant scheme. This company, in conjunction with two of our member companies, made use of the original E.M.D.G. scheme which later became TOPS. Part of this use was to establish overseas offices to further promote, sell and reserve products. This commitment, naturally is an ongoing responsibility and has proved to be successful. However, with the Australian dollar being weak compared with the United States dollar and English pound, the removal of TOPS means to this company a direct annual loss or reduction in profit of $A150,000 to maintain the necessary overseas promotions. I would welcome your thoughts on this matter and your support to have the decision re TOPS reversed and reintroduced for genuine operators such as this company. I certainly concur in the opinion that those two examples indicate the heartlessness and callousness of the Hawke Government in not properly honouring its own commitments and really evaluating and assessing where export marketing-which is really what tourism is all about-really comes from. I want to talk for a few moments about the Northern Territory and its different tourist scene. It is interesting to note that at the national and international levels it is the Northern Territory-in fact, all the north of Australia, through Western Australia and Queensland-that provides the essential marketing image of why Australia is different. This still relates really to that pioneer and frontier part of Australia, where the climate, the topography and the people are different. As a consequence of media support in the past few years, some of it favourable and some unfavourable, we have attracted to Australia hundreds of thousands of tourists. The Azaria Chamberlain case, for all its tragedy and trauma and personal factors, provided a focus internationally that has highlighted Ayers Rock around the world. A tourist payola has derived from that unfortunate incident. The movie Crocodile Dundee, of international reputation and good fun, has, for example, made people see that the people of the outback of Australia have something very special to offer in the way of tourist destinations. The hard work of groups like the Northern Territory Tourist Commission, and similar bodies in both Queensland and Western Australia, has involved them in really going out of the way to prove that governments and industry can co-ordinate and liaise in these areas. In the area of Aboriginal tourism, it is interesting to note that very significant economic and sociological advantages flow from the involvement of Aborigines in tourism. I highlight to the Senate the recent developments that have taken place at Kakadu, at Uluru near Ayers Rock, on the Cobourg Peninsula, and with the Tiwi Tours groups and organisations at Bathurst Island. In Central Australia, Aborigines from outstations such as Hermannsburg are becoming involved in very special tours. People are invited to go bush and experience unusual aspects. These are very unusual and different organised tours. Further, at Nhulunbuy in north-eastern Arnhem Land and on the Wessel islands the Aboriginal people are developing very special fishing experiences that will involve many people. This involvement of Aborigines in tourism enhances their economic situation and it provides the broader community with the opportunity to understand the cultural differences and the importance of Aboriginal culture in Australia. At the same time, it allows Aboriginal people to become involved in profitable and educational ventures for the future. Yet, neither Minister Brown nor the Australian Tourist Commission has set out specifically to look at areas of research for consideration in relation to the potential impact by Aboriginal people on tourism in Australia. For that matter, nor has any detailed consideration been given to the question of how Aboriginal people can benefit from and be involved in the tourism industry. I believe that that matter needs to be carefully considered. Naturally, this Bill is one that excites the industry throughout Australia. Just about every Australian family on at least one occasion during the year comes into contact with the products of local Australian tourism while on their annual holidays. However, I would argue that just about every Australian family is also involved at least annually in meeting at least one international or overseas visitor family. I think that that sort of impact into our lounge rooms, our businesses and the community demands much more considered and detailed work than is currently being given to this proposal by the Hawke Government that we are considering. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(4.26) —From this debate it is clear that people do realise the importance of tourism in Australia, which brings in an income in excess of $20,000m a year. Some $3,000m of that amount comes from overseas tourists who come to Australia either on holiday or on business. The tourist industry is particularly important in the area that I represent, namely, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). We are putting great emphasis on getting tourists to come here and on diversifying our economy and, of course, we are very mindful of the opportunities that will be available to us in 1988, with the activities of the bicentennial year and, of outstanding significance, with the opening of the new Parliament House. Thus, it is important that we look at the proposed changes that the Government is making to the Australian Tourist Commission. The matter of its being moved from Melbourne to Sydney has been debated. In passing, I might say that if there is dispute between whether it should be in Melbourne or Sydney one should not forget that the national capital is here for exactly the reason of accommodating the great departments of state and government instrumentalities. I can understand the argument in this instance for the Australian Tourist Commission being in either Melbourne or Sydney, but it is interesting to note that, while the Government has declined to locate the Commission in the national capital, it seeks to retain control over it in the way that it does. I shall refer further to that matter as I address further relevant matters. Senator Peter Baume —Where is your electorate? Senator REID —My electorate is the Australian Capital Territory, where some 260,000 people live. The Kennedy Inquiry into Australian Tourism report forms the basis of the changes that are being made in this legislation. Some 76 recommendations were made, many of which have been adopted. One might think it is churlish to mention just the few that have not been adopted but, in fact, they relate to significant points, and I think we have to dwell on them. I think that the legislation has been marred by the decision of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) and by the way that he has gone about the matter. I refer in particular to his refusal to give the tourism industry an opportunity to participate in the naming of members of the new Australian Tourism Commission. The Kennedy report refers to this matter. It suggests that the number ought to be reduced. Senator Newman referred to the fact that the States will no longer be participating in the way that they have done in the past. The proposal is that the number of members on the board be reduced from 13 to nine. Recommendation 21 states: That the enabling legislation of the Australian Tourist Commission be amended to enable the appointment of a Board of nine members, including the Managing Director and a senior departmental representative. A smaller board might be more efficient, but whether leaving State representation off is in the best interests of tourism, I do not know. However, in most circumstances a board of nine members would certainly be a quite efficient group. Recommendation 22 states: That appointments to the Board be made by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, with the exception of the Managing Director, who shall be appointed by the Board. A provision that the Minister should appoint members of the board is in itself not exceptional, except that in this case the Minister has translated that to mean that he shall choose all appointees to the board. That is what is causing many of us a considerable amount of concern. Recommendation 23 suggests: That the Board members be appointed by virtue of their individual skills, expertise, experience in the tourist industry, rather than as representatives of associations, State/Territories . . . I can understand why one would want to have people on it who do have expertise in the area. This reminds me of the recent appointments made by this very same Minister to the Canberra Theatre Trust. He has failed to reappoint Ms Libby Smith, a woman with expertise in the theatre area. At the same time, Mrs Ellnor Grassby and Mrs Ingrid Murphy are to be members of the Theatre Trust. I am sure they both have something to offer but one wonders about the appointments that are made from time to time, especially when it is recommended that individual skills should be taken into account. We have further evidence of the Minister's decisions in relation to appointments, including his failure to appoint Mr David Crossin to the Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority. He is a man of incredible experience, and there is now only one member of that Authority who has any background in racing. I could mention other cases where expertise, experience, et cetera have not been taken into account when this Minister has made appointments. That is one of the worries I have in relation to the future of the Tourist Commission: how will the Minister interpret individual skills, expertise and experience? Clearly the industry would prefer to be involved in Board appointments. It is not right to say that it is happy with the arrangement which is now to operate. As I have said, the nine people appointed will be those whom the Minister chooses. I can see no reason why he should not include in the legislation the provision that the industry should, if not appoint two people, put up to him two or three names from which he can choose; people whom the industry regards as having skill, expertise and experience in the industry. It really is quite extraordinary for a Minister to feel that he is so almighty that he is the one best placed to choose the people who will be members of something as important as this. I want to mention just a few things in relation to our experience in the ACT. The Minister has abolished the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, which has served the Parliament well, and he has abolished other authorities and advisory boards in the Territory which in the past have been available for those who have a particular interest to communicate with government. As I said, it causes me to worry about what will be the real implication for the Australian Tourist Commission. I raised this the other night in an Estimates committee hearing, and it was interesting to see the other Minister from the same department, the Minister for the Environment and the Arts, (Senator Richardson) come to his senior Minister's aid. He made what he thought was a reassuring comment, saying that the Minister was very popular with the industry, and he had no doubt the industry would have great faith in whatever nominations he was prepared to make. That is fine, but I do not believe that is the way the industry looks at the matter. I think that is presumptuous and ill-founded, and I think the Minister would have been much more convincing had he decided to invite the industry to put up names and give him an opportunity then to make the appointments. The Opposition will be moving an amendment to restore that right, and I would certainly urge honourable senators to support it. We will also be proposing an amendment to clause 29, which involves some of the same problems and issues I have just referred to. Under clause 29 the Minister will have the right to give directions in writing to the Board in relation to the performance of its functions, and the exercise of its powers, and the Board, of course, shall comply with the directions. Sub-clause (2) indicates that the Minister shall not direct the Board unless certain things have happened, and the Minister will cause a copy of any direction to be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and laid before the Houses of Parliament for a certain number of sitting days, and the annual report will include such directions. That would be fine, perhaps, but it really does take the Commission right into the heart of the Minister's office, especially when we find that sub-clause (4) says: Subsection (3)- that is, the sub-clause in the Bill relating to the publication of directions- does not apply in relation to a particular direction if the Minister determines, in writing, that compliance with the subsection would be contrary to the public interest. Where have we got to? We have a situation where the Minister has the right to appoint the board that he wants. He can give it written directions and, if he does not really want to, if he thinks it is not in the public interest-whatever that might mean-to disclose the fact that he has given instructions, he need not do so. I really wonder what sort of a commission we will finish up with on that basis. I cannot understand how anyone could feel that the Commission is being improved, bearing in mind the two issues I have referred to so far. The Kennedy report has stressed the need for the Commission to comprise skilled members who will have the ability to make decisions, who know more about the tourist industry than the Minister. But perhaps the Minister thinks that he does know more about the industry than those with experience in it. I suggest that, with the number of interests he has in his portfolio, that really would not be the case. We want the industry to have the maximum possible opportunity to consult with government and to have an input into the decisions being made. I think that the legislation falls short in this regard. Many speakers have referred to the tourism overseas promotion scheme (TOPS). I cannot say that that has been referred to and then not mention it myself, because it is too significant that the Government has turned its back on the industry, and it has, by abandoning this scheme. When the scheme was launched in June 1985, the Minister in a Press release informed the tourism industry that TOPS had been developed to meet the industry's special needs. This was the Minister telling the industry that he knew all about it. He said: It will have the advantages of producing a more co-ordinated and efficient promotional effort and will enable specialist advice to be given to prospective promoters. In another Press release, of September 1985, he claimed that the scheme `would provide enormous benefits to the burgeoning tourism industry'. It had, he said, `been tailor-made to suit industry requirements'. It is not fitting too well now, is it? In the same Press release he said: The new TOPS scheme removes the element of uncertainty of any previous export incentive schemes. There is plenty of uncertainty now. He went on: Tourism operators can plan marketing strategies safe in the knowledge that their expenditure falls within TOPS guidelines. That is significant. He also said: The other major advantage is the prompt payment of rebates. Previously, operators had to wait up to eighteen months or more for payments to be approved, processed and paid. In April this year the Minister was claiming that TOPS, along with other programs conducted by the Government, was the best thing that had ever happened to Australian tourism, and as recently as 4 June this year he made a statement indicating that the Government had agreed to a forward commitment for TOPS of $9m in 1987-88. In September, only three months later, the Minister announced that the scheme would be terminated-after all those words, after all that build-up. In the process, many who had anticipated approval had prepared applications for assistance and had put those applications in. Others had them ready but had not put them in. One might say that they should not have spent any money until approval had been given. On many occasions that would be a very valid comment, but I take honourable senators back to the Minister's promotional words: Tourism operators can now plan marketing strategies safe in the knowledge that their expenditure falls within TOPS guidelines. There was very little discretion, if any, for the Minister to refuse to approve schemes which were put forward. The guidelines were clear and any operator who wished to be involved could know what the guidelines were, could prepare his application within those guidelines and be confident of approval. Even so, to get approval considerable funds had to be spent to put up a package to meet the guidelines, and people have been left in difficulty. Some had put in applications which had been approved, but they did not receive their money even after applications had been processed. In regard to one matter to which I referred specifically in the Estimates Committee, I am grateful to an officer who is present in the chamber. He has followed up the matter and tells me that the claim has been approved and a cheque will be sent to those concerned. But many others are waiting for money. People who spent money preparing proposals were certain in the knowledge that they had complied with the guidelines, but then suddenly in September of this year, following a statement in June that there would be money for 1987-88, they discovered that the scheme had been cut off and terminated. There is good reason to think that many operators in tourism are not just disappointed with the Minister's performance but rightly feel that they have been left high and dry and that the Minister has no understanding of the industry. People cannot operate on a stop-go basis. If they are attempting to build up tourist developments to attract overseas tourists they need to know that they will be able to proceed with their projects and will not have their market strategies cut off, as has happened. It is a disgraceful performance. The Minister should know that the industry is not pleased with him and is not impressed with his ability as an expert in the area. One of the other recommendations of the Kennedy report was that the Commission be removed from its statutory relationships with the Public Service Board on industrial matters, and particularly terms and conditions of employment. It is interesting to note that this recommendation also has been rejected. The Opposition supports the recommendation. The recommendation indicates that it is necessary for a body such as the Tourist Commission to be able to operate more on the lines of a private sector activity, to be out in the market-place and not to be tied down by the restrictions, rules and regulations that generally cover Public Service operations. But for some reason the Government has rejected that. Again, it looks odd when one sees that the Minister would appoint the commissioners and that by way of clause 29 (4) he has virtually retained unto himself the ability to run the place from his own office. The Government keeps saying how expert it is in affairs and how talented is its front bench. Now we see that the Minister is the one and only expert in the area of tourism. I believe that the Government should take back this Bill and have another look at it. It should consider what role it believes the Tourism Commission should be playing and what steps the Government should be taking to assist and work with the tourist industry to maximise the number of tourists who come to this country. At a time when it is necessary to earn export income, we need to do as much as we can to that end, rather than proceeding in a way that is counterproductive to the development of the proposals which many tourist operators have. The Opposition will be supporting amendments that it believes will be significant in improving the legislation. I hope that the Government will seriously consider our amendments and our reasons for putting them forward. We want to increase the number of tourists to Australia. In the case of the electorate that I represent, we want to give an opportunity for tourism to expand and flourish. We want the tourist area to increase its percentage of the work force in the Australian Capital Territory from the present figure of 7 per cent. Canberra has many tourist facilities that are attractive to people. Well over one million tourists come to the Territory at present and I believe that we have hardly scratched the surface. But we need to use the expertise of those who have experience in the industry to make sure that we go about it in the right way. I hope that the Australian Tourist Commission will become a significant part of the industry, but let us not leave it in the state it is with the legislation that is now before us. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(4.45) —I wish to offer my comments on the Australian Tourist Commission Bill 1987, the purpose of which is to give effect to the restructuring and reorganisation of the Australian Tourist Commission in line with the recommendations of the Kennedy Inquiry into Australian Tourism which were endorsed by the Government in 1986. However, as Senator Reid has just done, I also want to draw attention to the fact that the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) and the Government have not seen fit to adopt one of the most important recommendations of the Kennedy report, namely, that the Australian Tourist Commission be removed from the Public Service Board terms and conditions of employment. Tourism is a competitive industry and needs entrepreneurial skills in a free enterprise environment. I believe that this recommendation of the Kennedy report should have been adopted so that employees can be away from the Public Service Board rules and regulations. Tourism is increasingly becoming Australia's major industry and as such requires the sophistication of planning and growth management towards which the former legislation was not adequately geared. The potential for tourism growth in this country is enormous, and with the right sort of planning, research and development techniques Australia will become the world's number one holiday destination. I like to think that it is gradually getting there and doing very well indeed. That is the bottom line, and that is why a restructuring of the Australian Tourist Commission is welcome as it will enable the Commission to perform its functions more effectively. However, I regret, as other speakers in this debate have regretted, the fact that in the restructuring of the Australian Tourist Commission direct representation of the industry on the board has been eliminated. The board has always had two representatives from the Australian Travel Industry Association (ATIA). We have on the board a very fine Queenslander, Sir Frank Moore, and he has given wonderful service to tourism in Queensland and, of course, in Australia as a whole. This is an aspect the Government should examine because Australia needs people with expertise such as Sir Frank Moore on the board. The Minister needs to be able to get advice from people like Sir Frank who have the know-how about tourism, to ensure that Australia will be promoted as an attractive tourist destination in the international market-place. This is an area with which I am a little familiar because I have been overseas twice on behalf of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation on promotional visits aimed at the North American market. I do not try to compete with Crocodile Dundee. I know I am not as smart as Paul Hogan-- Senator Reid —I think you would be much tastier. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I am glad to hear that, Senator. I like to think that the little bit I did while there had some good results. I believe that people from America and also Japan are having a love affair with Australia at the moment. I was pleased when Sir Frank Moore asked me to go to the United States and do some media work to encourage Americans to come down under. When people come to Queensland they automatically go to the other States. I know Senator Tate would agree that they would love to go to Tasmania while they are in Australia; I feel sure about that. I had the opportunity to go to Dallas in Texas and to Los Angeles where I appeared on television, and only last May it was my privilege to open a new Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation office in New York to encourage Americans from the east coast of the United States to come to Queensland, and indeed to Australia. Senator Tate —Did you throw a scone on the barbie? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I did not get to throw a scone on the barbecue, but I could have done so if I had had enough time. The trouble is that the Americans go in for pumpkin pies rather than pumpkin scones, so I did not really have the opportunity to do that. When I went to New York I said that I came from the land of the big pineapple to the city of the big apple because that is what New York is all about. I thought that all honourable senators might be interested to know that I have been doing my bit for tourism in Australia and Queensland. Figures released by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in March this year showed that Australia topped the developed countries league tables for the percentage increase of tourists and the rise of income from tourism. In 1986 we saw a substantial international tourism growth in the Australian tourist industry and a continued increase in capital development and investment. Hotel-motel accommodation capacity in Australia grew at accelerating rates during this year and employment growth for hotels and motels has been very strong over the last three years. Net inbound tourism has been the strongest component of the industry over recent years, reflecting the effects of substantial devaluation of the Australian dollar, especially against the Japanese yen and the United States dollar. In this context, campaigns promoting Australia as a travel destination have facilitated a substantial acceleration in short term overseas arrivals to Australia and a reduction in short term Australian resident departures. As a result, short term overseas visitor arrivals have exceeded resident departures since late 1986, reversing a pattern of net Australian resident short term departures that had been the norm until recent decades. The Australian tourism industry is making a major contribution to improved economic performances through its beneficial effects on Australia's balance of payments. That is why this legislation that we are discussing today is very important. However, we all have to accept that there is a diversity of performance across different States and in particular regions. In terms of growth performance, it appears that northern and some eastern regions of Australia are recording stronger results than other parts of Australia. Of course, I suppose that I am biased, but I believe that Queensland is Australia's premier tourist State and thus makes an enormous contribution to Australia's tourist industry. Last year tourism contributed close to $9 billion to Queensland's economy. Employment in the tourism and hospitality industries has achieved a growth rate of 130 per cent since 1979. More than 145,000 Queenslanders are employed in those industries. More than half of Australia's investment in major tourism projects, either under construction or firmly committed, is taking place in Queensland. When World Expo 88 is held next year Queensland certainly will be tourism-oriented. A display was held in King's Hall last week and I am sure that those senators who had a look at it had their appetites whetted to come to Queensland to see Expo. It will be a very exciting six months in Queensland. Expo, with its theme of leisure in the age of technology, was offered to Victoria by Malcolm Fraser when he was Prime Minister. That State was asked whether it would like to hold Expo for our bicentennial year in 1988. But Victoria said that it did not want it, so then it was offered to New South Wales. When New South Wales said that it thought it could not manage it, it was offered to Queensland. I believe that Queensland is a State with a vision, with a Premier who knows what is good for it and a progressive government. That government said it would take on Expo. I believe that Expo will be a significant contribution to Australia's bicentennial celebrations as it has the potential to advance trade and technological developments in our nation. In reply to a question in the Senate recently, Senator Ryan informed me that the Commonwealth Government would contribute $20m to Expo. To date nothing like that amount has been received by the Queensland Government. Advice that I have been given from the Expo authority informs me that no Federal money has been given directly to the Expo authority. The $20m contribution that Senator Ryan mentioned the other day is for the Australian pavilion. All the other nations that are coming to Expo have to provide millions of dollars for their own pavilions. Thus, there actually has been no financial grant whatsoever to Queensland for the staging of Expo. An amount of $1.23m has been allocated for assistance to Third World countries for participation in Expo and also to give financial help to encourage other Australian States to come. I believe that the other States of Australia should have come without help from the Federal Government. They should have been willing to put in their money just as Queensland has been willing to put in its money. At least it now looks as if most of them will come. They probably think they will be left out of the party if they do not come. I believe that Expo is a significant contribution to Australia's bicentenary celebrations. As a matter of fact, I was quite interested to read an article in one of our papers the other day which said that success for Expo 88 was assured. I was interested to note that the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Mr John Brown, said that the five State and Territory governments that had not yet agreed to take part in World Expo 88 were `crazy' if they missed their last chance. Expo now has 42 governments involved, making it the third largest special Expo ever. It is great to know that Brisbane's Expo 88-one of the expected highlights of the bicentennial year-is assured of financial success with 96 per cent of its site already booked by exhibitors and ticket sales running at seven times the expected rate. Sir Llew Edwards was talking to Cabinet last week; that is why the display was held in King's Hall. It is good to know that everything is going ahead very well. Australia is set to see a boom in Japanese tourism with an increase of 35 per cent a year in the number of visas to come to Australia. Official figures prepared for both the Federal and Queensland governments show that an additional 100,000 Americans and 600,000 Japanese will visit Queensland by the beginning of the next decade. I listened to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson), in Question Time today, answering a dorothy dix question from Senator John Black of Queensland about the environmental park next to Mr Iwasaki's resort in central Queensland. I have been to that resort and have had a look at it for myself. When I recalled what that country looked like before Mr Iwasaki invested millions of dollars to build this beautiful resort, I wondered why he had done it because at the time nobody else really wanted it. He has put his money where his mouth is-not that I can understand his Japanese. Nevertheless he has invested a lot of money to make the most beautiful tourist resort. I recommend to honourable senators who have not been there that they see it for themselves and stay there because it really is very good. Senator Richardson, in his answer to the question, went on about how wicked it was that Queensland was going to give all these hectares to Mr Iwasaki. The whole strength of the matter is that the environmental park will be owned by the Government. All Mr Iwasaki has done is to offer to build 10 kilometres of expensive road and an expensive bridge over the Corio River so that guests staying at his resort will be able to walk through that environmental park, which will still be owned by the Government. I do not know where Senator Richardson got the information that he was giving to us in answer to that question today. Sometimes the media play things up so much that they do not really tell one the whole facts of the case. I thought that today's debate on the tourism legislation was an excellent opportunity to speak about a great tourist development in central Queensland. The figures I have given in relation to the number of Americans and Japanese who will come to Queensland during the next decade represent about half the total for the six States and the two Territories combined. The Australian tourist industry can also expect an influx of tourists from Britain, continental Europe and Asian countries, both for World Expo 88 and for other bicentennial attractions, which will prove to be a catalyst for inbound tourism. Talking about continental tourism, it was my privilege in May this year to open a new office in Munich for the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation (QTTC). People might ask why the QTTC is opening an office in Munich when the Australian tourist industry office is in Frankfurt. The QTTC believes that when the new international airport is opened in Munich in the early 1990s it will be the right place for the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation office to be. When I was walking down the mall in Munich I was delighted to be tapped on the shoulder by a girl who asked me whether I was Mrs Bjelke-Petersen. I answered yes, thinking that everybody over there would be speaking in German. She said, `I come from Warwick in Queensland'. So one can walk through a mall in Germany and meet a girl from Warwick. I went 20 paces further down the street and, lo and behold, I met four young people who also asked me whether I was Mrs Bjelke-Petersen. I said, `Yes. Are you from Queensland?'. They said, `No, we are from New South Wales, Victoria and New Zealand'. But they knew me. It is nice to be known by people from other places. Perhaps it says something for being a senator. Perhaps it says even more for being the wife of a man who has been Premier of Queensland for almost 20 years. Tourism is clearly the growth industry of the next decade and will provide job opportunities for many thousands of people, security for families and overall economic prosperity for decades to come. It is timely, therefore, that this restructuring of the Australian Tourist Commission has been proposed to increase the number of visitors to Australia from overseas and to maximise the benefits to Australia from overseas visitors. I am certainly very happy today to support the amendments that are to be moved by the Opposition to the Australian Tourist Commission Bill. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(5.04) —This afternoon the Senate is continuing discussion on the Australian Tourist Commission Bill 1987 and the Australian Tourist Commission (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1987. I have a number of concerns, although not with the principal Bill. It is a very good Bill, long-awaited and much needed. I have general concerns about the whole area of tourism that bother me, which I will come to later in my speech. I want to address some comments made by the previous speakers from the other side of the chamber, but before doing so, I quote the functions of the Commission, as set out in clause 7: 7. The functions of the Commission are: (a) to promote Australia overseas as a tourist destination; (b) to enhance awareness overseas of Australia as a tourist destination; (c) to co-ordinate the overseas promotional efforts of the Australian tourism industry, in co-operation with State and Territory tourism authorities and with the Australian tourism industry; and (d) to enhance awareness in Australia of the Australian tourism industry. I have heard most speakers in this debate. A number of Opposition speakers have not read, or if they have read they have not understood, what the functions of the Commission are. I know that some licence is given in debates such as this to range far and wide but it has gone a wee bit too far. I am not going to go through the Bill addressing it clause by clause. Quite enough has been said. As we all know and as we have all been told innumerable times, the Bill is the result of the Australian Government Inquiry into Tourism established under the chairmanship of Mr Jim Kennedy. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) established the inquiry to consider an Act of Parliament that had been in existence for 20 years. This Bill will bring this dynamic industry and the Commission up to date. As I said in my opening remarks, the Bill has been long awaited. The Kennedy committee of inquiry did not make its recommendations in isolation. Its consultation ranged far and wide throughout the community and all States. A number of interested parties made representations directly to the inquiry. In turn, the Government, upon receipt of the report from Mr Kennedy, considered it in great detail before finally bringing the Bill down. One of the most important recommendations the Bill has taken up is the question of State representation on the Commission. Most of the speakers I have heard in this debate have disagreed with the recommendation of the inquiry and the provision in the Bill that the States cease to have direct rotational representation on the Commission. I think this is a very good thing because, as we have witnessed in this chamber during debate on this Bill, there is a great deal of State rivalry. One could imagine what would happen if a commission had representation from three States, with three States locked out and not represented at all. Obviously, the debate would weigh in favour of those States which had direct representation. Like Senator Newman, I think it was, I am not in favour of large boards. The smaller the better-the more business one can get done and the less waffle one will have to endure if one is a member of the board. To have given each of the States direct representation would have made the Commission far too large and unwieldy. So the Government has taken up the recommendation of the Committee and done away with direct State representation. In the long term interests of this very dynamic industry that is a very good thing and the Government and the Minister, in particular, have to be commended for it. Another thing which Opposition speakers have made a great line about in the debate is the matter of industry representation. Again, I think there is a lack of understanding by honourable senators opposite as to what the Bill is about. The Minister's second reading speech is enough to set the record straight on what the Government is about in putting forward this Bill in its present form: Accordingly, and in line with the report's recommendations endorsed by the Government, the Bill provides for the Board members to be appointed by virtue of their individual skills, expertise and experience relevant to the tourism industry, rather than as representatives of associations, States, Territories or other bodies which may have particular tourism interests. It is also envisaged that a Board appointee will have extensive commercial experience at a senior level, and have a demonstrated track record of successful management. To meet that criterion one would have to come directly from the industry and have had an association with the industry over a period of time. One does not get to senior level of management without some necessary qualifications and experience. Hopefully, that argument can now be put to rest. I want to respond to a couple of other things. I was not surprised when Senator Puplick used this debate the other night to have another crack at the wages of workers, and in particular the penalty rates paid to workers in this industry. Senator Puplick and the rest of us senators in this place work weird hours. Unfortunately, the hours that we work are not recognised and we are not paid for them. I think somebody mentioned today that politicians get about $4.50 an hour. But many people who work in the tourism industry actually get less than that. They can make up their wages by being rostered on duty at weird and unusual hours-by working through the night, by starting very early in the morning or by finishing late at night-and having their social lives completely and utterly disrupted. That is compensated for by virtue of payment of penalty rates. Of course, many people in the industry do not even get penalty rates, despite the weird and wonderful hours that they work, because a vast number of them are on casual rates and do not have a permanent job. People really need to look into this matter before they make bland statements about overpayments in the industry. It did not surprise me that that came from Senator Puplick, but I was surprised when the Australian Democrats jumped on the band-wagon. The other night Senator Jenkins also mentioned that this was `an aspect that would need to be examined'. One expects such statements from the conservative side of politics, but it is a little bit too much from the people who pretend, or at least used to pretend, to be the conscience of the political system in this country. I am not really surprised that this was said because we have from time to time witnessed the Democrats saying one thing and voting the opposite way. That comment could come from a member of the Opposition benches just as easily as from us. But I hope that when the Democrats pontificate in the community they will in turn openly admit that they are joining with the conservative forces in this country in attacking the wages and conditions of workers in this industry. The tourism industry is a dynamic industry and a growth industry. It is a very important industry. It is estimated that some 400,000 people are employed in the industry. It is also estimated that overseas visitors bring in some $2.5 billion. Not all, but a lot of the effort in this area can be attributed to the responsible Minister, John Brown. John Brown is a shy, retiring individual who is not given to boasting and bragging about his achievements. But we have to be humble enough to recognise that we have on our side of the Parliament a brilliant individual, and we are lucky to have him promoted into the best Cabinet and the best Ministry that this nation has ever seen. I pay a personal tribute to Mr Brown in saying that. It has been alleged on a number of occasions that the honourable member for Parramatta, John Brown, is claiming all the credit for the growth and the dynamism of the Australian tourism industry. That is not true; it really is not true. If people want to refute what I am saying, I refer them to what Mr Brown said in the debate in the other place on 7 May and they can see for themselves what he said. Mr Brown has been criticised for not directly putting industry representation on the Board. A certain individual has been named in this. John Brown, like everybody else, has his detractors. His detractors mainly come dressed in fancy dress, in white shoes and probably safari suits. They serve an interest. John Brown serves Australia. `Brownie' is willing and able to listen to his detractors and move on. Talking about moving on, it is probably about time that I moved on to speak about the matter that I particularly want to talk about in this debate. I am motivated to do this because of the amendments put forward by the Australian Democrats. Although I have not had a chance to talk to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson), who is at the table, I hope that he will look favourably on these amendments because they are very important. A couple of weeks ago I was lucky enough to visit the Bungle Bungle region in the Kimberley in Western Australia and to see for myself one area of immense beauty. I am not going to stand here and claim that Western Australia is a more beautiful State than any other State in Australia. Senator Knowles —But it is. Senator McKIERNAN —I do not disagree with Senator Knowles, but I am not going to claim that. If we are talking about the most beautiful country in the world, we could probably get into a disagreement. I heard our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) say words about a certain European nation that he visited recently. I did not disagree with him. But I do not think we need to argue about the States. It is Australia, the nation, that is important. The Bungle Bungle region of Western Australia is of particular beauty. It is a rediscovered area of mountain ranges in the north-west of Western Australia. It is extremely rugged terrain made up of many high ridges, deep gullies and stratified rocks. It is reputed to be over 350 million years old and it covers 270 square miles. It has been rediscovered and, unfortunately, it is currently being visited by tourists-not always by tourists who have an interest in the environment, an interest in protecting the environment they are looking at, an interest in preserving it for the future generations. Even though it is a very rugged and very isolated area, and only a small number of people have been to it, a lot of damage and desecration has been done. It is an area that needs to be protected, and protected very soon. In my short visit to the Bungle Bungle region I witnessed a number of acts of desecration, not the least of which was the disturbance of an Aboriginal burial site that had been used for countless generations, one would assume. All that remained in that burial site was one human bone; the rest had been souvenired away. It makes one wonder what the human race is like when people can visit an area to see its beauty and walk away with the remains of a fellow human being as a souvenir. Senator Puplick —I hope you didn't leave any cigarette butts up there, Senator. Senator McKIERNAN —I tried not to. The Western Australian Government, in particular, has to act quickly. It has to act in the interests of the nation because Bungle Bungle does not belong only to Western Australia; Bungle Bungle belongs to Australia as a whole, to the people of Australia and to the world. It is an area from which we can benefit. If a proper management plan is implemented after a detailed study of the area, this area could perhaps in years to come rival some of the areas which Senator Collins talked about this afternoon, such as Ayers Rock, the Olgas and so on. But this needs to happen reasonably quickly. While I was there on my very short visit, I noticed another piece of desecration-done by a government department, the Department of Conservation and Land Management of the Western Australian Government. We were met by a ranger who just happened to be in the area at the same time as the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand). The park ranger is not stationed there on a permanent basis, but he knew that the Minister was coming. He was waiting for a fencing contractor. Apparently, a bulldozer had been put through an area without any consultation with the local people and a fence was being put up to stop cattle roaming through the area, which would not do a great deal for tourism. We need tourism, but it cannot be at any price. We have to protect what we have and preserve it for future generations. To change the subject somewhat, Senator Collins used a one-track argument when he talked about a concept for which he recently received a little publicity-a monorail, a single-track railway, or a `people mover' as other people have called it. During the debate earlier today I was reminded also of some pending Government action which might be detrimental to the tourist industry. Of course, that action is the recent decision by Caucus to ban smoking on internal air flights. I was just wondering whether our Government would look to putting on a single-track people mover from Canberra to Perth to cater for smokers who will not be able to travel on the smoke-free aeroplane. Such a mode of transport would probably do more damage to human beings and to the environment than anything else, including smoking. Perhaps that is something that can be done in the future. The final point that I want to make before I sit down is a point that puzzles me somewhat. Recently I had cause to return to Ireland and visit two towns that are less than 10 miles from the border that separates that nation. Everyone here would know about Ireland because we get constant news about it stating that it is an area of great trouble, violence, gunfire and so forth. I am not refuting that; it is a sorry nation. I wish that it were not so, but it is. The forces of law and order are present and members of the police force, even in those troubled areas, do not walk around with guns on their hips. I find it amazing that whatever State capital one goes into in a peaceful country such as Australia, one finds members of the police force, even though they are only on point duty, with guns on their hips. It often makes me wonder what overseas visitors think about our nation when they see this happening. They must wonder what kind of society we live in. I know that it is a matter for State governments to look at rather than the Federal Government. But it must be something of concern because I have visited, and I have heard evidence from, so-called police states overseas and I do not believe that this is the practice in those states. It is something of concern to me which probably needs to be looked at, and we might get opinions from overseas visitors. In conclusion, I commend the Bills to the House. A number of furphies have been raised in the debate so far. I hope that people will read my comments about the Bungle Bungle region, take them with the sincerity in which they were given and establish a framework for consultation and co-operation to protect this one small area of a very vast and beautiful nation. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(5.23) —in reply-A great many points were raised in the speeches that were made during the second reading debate on the Australian Tourist Commission Bill and the Australian Tourist Commission (Transitional Provisions) Bill. I will try to cover as many of the points as I can. I wish to begin, not where the second reading debate began, but with Senator Collins's question concerning the monorail from Ayers Rock to the Olgas because my office has been deluged with phone calls about my response to the proposal, if that is what it can be called. I would like to begin by answering all those calls in a few words here. The first thing to note is that no one is studying a proposal for a monorail, a people mover, a railway, or anything else, from Ayers Rock to the Olgas. An idea has been floated, loudly and considerably, during the course of today. As a result, I think people have jumped to a number of conclusions which they probably ought not to have done. As I have said, the reality is that there is an idea and a number of people in the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service have believed in this for some time. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown), having had a tour of the area, has given his views on it, and that is fine. There have been a great many problems with the road, as a number of people have spelt out today, here and in another place. It is true to say that the road is dangerous, difficult to maintain and it would be extraordinarily costly to do anything about it. In any event, funds are not available for that purpose at this time. So any alternative that would make the lives of tourists safer ought to be examined. I do not criticise anyone for doing that. I just point out that there are three prerequisites for a proper examination of this idea. The first pre- requisite is that there be an actual proposal-there is not one yet; the second prerequisite is that if there were we would need to have a proper environmental assessment under the legislation; and the third prerequisite is that we would need the agreement of the Uluru Board of Management. Given that none of those three is in place at the moment I see no reason to get myself too excited about it. It will not happen on Friday afternoon. I suspect that it will be a long time before any of those three prerequisites needs to be examined. So on that basis I propose to say no more. Before getting on to the substantive matters that were raised during the debate, I would like to make one other comment concerning Senator McGauran's reference to me and a number of other people-and I think I am quoting him correctly-as `slick nouveau'. I think it is true to say that the old country money of Victoria has been looking through somewhat jaundiced eyes during the last couple of decades as power has slipped from its fingers. One Victorian grazier managed to reverse that trend for a time. However, I think it is true to say that, for most of them, the trend they have been witnessing for the last few decades will continue in the next few, and thank God for it. I am not even sure what a `slick nouveau' is. If the suggestion is that it is nouveau riche I hardly qualify. I may have been invited to the party but I think I was one of the few people there who were not millionaires. I would hardly call myself slick. All I can say is that it was a great party, John Farnham was fantastic and the only disappointment I have is that my memento of the occasion, the cufflinks that were presented, were knocked off by a party or parties unknown. Whether that was a guest or a member of the staff has never been established to my satisfaction. Unfortunately, that has somewhat coloured my memory of an otherwise great event. Senator Puplick —Was that a plug for a new set of cufflinks? Senator RICHARDSON —I fear that the lapse of time between the party and now means that my cufflinks have gone forever. I am reminded, though, that one person at the party, upon receiving the gift, took the cufflinks out of the bag and replaced them with his old cufflinks. No doubt the person who purloined mine also purloined those but I am sure that he was disappointed when he opened the package. I should turn now to more substantive matters. The first one that I would like to raise, given that it was common to a number, if not all, of the speeches today, concerns the move of the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) office from Melbourne to Sydney. I have noted a great many comments about it. It should be noted, firstly, that the ATC's own submission to the Kennedy Inquiry into Australian Tourism argued for the retention of Melbourne as the head office, but also argued for the strengthening of the Sydney office. In its submission to the inquiry it referred to the `need to service journalists, publicists and members of the travel trade who, by virtue of Sydney's position as the major international gateway, tend to land there first'. The maintenance of two offices was obviously expensive. One can understand why that cannot continue forever if we are trying to rationalise operations. A number of submissions to the inquiry raised the issue of the head office location and the confusion associated with having the two offices. A close assessment of the Commission's activities confirms that there were a number of advantages in consolidating the two offices. Without going into an exhaustive list, let me make a few obvious points. The Australian headquarters of virtually all international airlines are in Sydney. Qantas Airways Ltd has its headquarters in Sydney, a high percentage of key inbound tour operators' headquarters are in Sydney, the headquarters of most advertising agencies naturally enough are in Sydney, a high percentage of international tourist industry executives with whom the Tourist Commission has to deal are in Sydney, and a high percentage of Australia's industry meetings take place in Sydney. So moving to Sydney not only would combine efficiency and rationalise operations by putting two offices into one; it must over time save the Government money by bringing the office to the industry rather than, as too often happened in the past, making the industry go to it or flying people up from Melbourne to go to the industry. While we can look upon this as a once only cost, the reality is that, even in communication costs alone, we are looking at an immediate saving of $250,000 a year, according to the Commission's estimates, and those savings can only grow. The costs for relocation this year are: salaries and related expenses, including termination payments, $1,486,000; administrative and operational expenses, that is the physical costs of moving, $1,797,000, including some $60,000 to close the small Sydney office. The reference to four staff moving to Sydney is misleading. It is not unusual, when an office moves from one city to another, that not all of the staff want to go. Obviously the change from Melbourne to Sydney is a big one. Personally, I cannot understand why anyone who lived in Melbourne would not jump at the opportunity to move to Sydney! Nonetheless, there are people in that category, and this exercise has demonstrated that there are quite a few. A substantial number, 20, of the Australian Tourist Commission staff have remained with the organisation. Some of these were already in Sydney and some were overseas. So the reasons people did not move from Melbourne were personal and were not related to the operation of the Commission itself. Further, some of those people were nearing retirement, and they have now been replaced by younger and more aggressive staff. We all hope that the Commission, or Tourism Australia, can now go on from strength to strength. One other point raised concerned the immigration service charge. I do not wish to say much about it, but I hardly think it will be a great dampener on tourism in Australia. The United States of America already has in operation both a Customs service fee and an immigration inspection fee of $US5 each. I have not looked at the market today so I do not know exactly what that is in Australian dollars, but it certainly is more than $A10; it is probably about $A12 or $A13. As I said, I am not certain of today's events-and these are, as people say, uncertain times. The fee is consistent with the cost recovery principles that have been adopted by the Government, and given that it was after all the Fraser Government that introduced the $10 departure tax in one year, and then the next year dropped in, not so casually, a 100 per cent increase to $20, it is hardly a responsible move for those opposite to complain. We also had a great deal of comment on the ending of the tourism overseas promotion scheme (TOPS). We have seen quite a bit of drama in the chamber over that, I think drama not shared by a great many people in the industry. I wish to go through a few points on both the history of the scheme and the impact of the Government's decision so that we can all work out where we are. The scheme began in May 1985, when $5m was allocated to it. It was subsequently reduced to $3m, and in any event less than $2m was expended. Four million dollars in notional approvals was carried forward for payment in 1986-87. The low rate of expenditure was due to the time taken for operators to become familiar with this scheme. In 1986-87, $5m was appropriated, all of which was expended. Six million dollars in potential claims was carried forward to 1987-88, although applications with a notional value of $14m had been processed but not approved. TOPS guidelines state that an application is not valid until the Minister has specifically approved it. Approvals are based on 70 per cent of funds expended on legitimate promotional activities after meeting an annual $5,000 threshold. In August 1986 the Minister had to cease approvals after he had reached the limit of the funds available for that year. A forward obligation of $4m was approved in October 1986. Some operators had carried out promotions during the interregnum. When forward commitments were available these were approved retrospectively. So approvals continued until February 1987, when that level of forward obligation had been committed, and approvals again ceased. In June 1987, $9m was agreed to as an allocation for 1987-88, and a further $2m of applications were approved on 29 June. In the Budget it was announced that the scheme would close but that all applications approved, totalling $6m, would be paid; that the $3m left out of the $9m allocated would go to the Australian Tourist Commission for co-operative programs. Obviously the scheme had been popular with operators. Its introduction coincided with the boom, and no doubt helped to keep it going. It is impossible to assess specifically what the effect of the scheme was. Information from operators is that they will have to curtail some of their overseas activities, but with increased funding Tourism Australia no doubt can take them over. This scheme's open-ended nature meant that the cost to government could have gone anywhere. No responsible government could have allowed that to continue, and therefore the decision taken by the Government this year was, in my view, appropriate. Those operators who were prepared to spend money without approval, given the specific nature of the wording requiring ministerial approval, will have to accept the risk. Senator Puplick raised a number of matters about tourism training which I would like to cover. Far from ignoring the wide-ranging recommendations contained in the reports of the Tourism Training Review Group and the 1986 Sprokkreeff Committee released earlier this year, the Minister personally, and the Government generally, have initiated a series of actions to deal with the complex issues involved. The progress in implementing the 1985 report recommendations was evaluated by the Sprokkreeff Committee and is acknowledged in its report. The extent of increased public and private sector support for industry training merits recognition more widely. I want to go through some examples, giving some specifics and some statistics. Annual Commonwealth allocations to the National Tourism Industry Training Committee (NTITC) have been more than doubled since 1983-84 to $1.2m in 1987-88, while industry contributions have increased to around 40 per cent of the Committee's budget; and $71m has been spent since 1982 on tourism training facilities in technical and further education colleges providing 3,000 extra places. A further 14 facilities are proposed for construction in the next triennium. Seven projects will be funded in 1988, including $7.7m allocated for the Australian Capital Territory School of Hotel and Catering Management. Largely as a result of ministerial representations following the release of both reports, the Commonwealth Government has accorded the tourism and hospitality sectors higher priority in resource allocations. Total expenditure on the industry through labour market programs, Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) placement services, capital funding and educational assistance was estimated at over $70m in 1986-87. Tourism and hospitality have been further recognised in the 1987-88 Budget as one of the key areas of shortfall where additional resources are to be allocated for education and training to generate the skills required to cater for industry growth. The Commonwealth has also taken action to streamline procedures for recruitment of trained staff. The CES hospitality service has been very effective in securing specialised staff placements, particularly for major new developments and major events. Immigration procedures for temporary entry of skilled staff are being facilitated to help reduce current shortages while maintaining employer commitment to training. Many of the report's recommendations on policy issues related to training, however, involve the responsibilities of State authorities and a range of government and industry organisations. Accreditation and industry recognition of courses is being extended, and the results of NTITC research are being applied to establish career paths and minimum national standards in core curricula. The development of core curricula in hospitality, travel and tourism courses is well advanced at tertiary institutions. I mention also the establishment of a chair of tourism at James Cook University, the proposed development of a national centre for tourism and hospitality studies in the Australian Capital Territory and the introduction of short training courses and videos in the Japanese language and culture. Most significantly, at the national level, Mr Brown has initiated action in a number of areas within the Federal tourism portfolio to implement major recommendations of the reports. These cover the undertaking of a labour force survey in conjunction with the NTITC and the new Bureau of Tourism Research; the extension of the national tourism awards to encourage excellence in training within both the government and industry; and support for closer industry-education co-operation in tourism studies in the school system and in tertiary institutions. A resolution of the Tourist Ministers Council urging a higher priority for tourism training has been conveyed to the Australian Education Council. I mention also developments in training and education in the Australian Capital Territory which will serve as a model for the rest of Australia, the extension of the national tourism awareness campaign and an increased focus on training and career awareness. All of that should surely prove not only the Government's commitment but also that the Government has lived up to that commitment. It is determined to maintain and raise the standards of the industry and also to increase the standard of skills of its work force. I would suggest that no Minister could have done more. Having said that, I wish to deal with a number of things that were said about the Minister, because the Minister seemed to come in for quite a deal of comment from a number of Opposition senators, including, of course, Senator Puplick. No mean carrier of a bucket is Senator Puplick! We have seen him in action before. Today we heard him again, rivalling Rex Jackson as the person to hold the title of `Buckets'. Looking at the role of John Brown I can say only that, having listened to Senator McGauran, Senator Puplick and Senator Newman, there has been the venting of a great amount of spleen-the spleen, of course, that comes from envy; the envy of the powerless for someone who is in a position to do something. John Brown has shown extraordinary leadership for tourism in Australia and he has a record to be envied. That envy was obvious during this debate. In 1983 tourism was not regarded as a serious industry in this country. In 1987-88 tourism is taking its place as one of Australia's great industries, and the growth rates that have been achieved in Australia have been achieved nowhere else in the world. Much of that can be put down to the extraordinary efforts of John Brown. I want to go through some of John Brown's record and compare it with that of the Fraser Government. Honourable senators opposite may have some memories of what that government did for tourism but I want to make sure that they have a really good memory of just what it did. Let us go through the record of John Brown and the Government in the last few years. Tourism is now universally regarded as one of Australia's major industries, contributing 6 per cent to gross domestic product and providing jobs for 6 per cent of the work force. Seventy thousand jobs have been created in tourism alone since this Government came to office. A further 25,000 will be created through this year and to the end of 1988 as a result of the continuing increase in tourism growth. When we came to office, the net value of the tourism industry was some $8 billion. It is now conservatively estimated at $24 billion. International visitor arrivals have increased from just under 1,000,000 when we came to office to an expected 2.2 million in 1988. It was claimed by Senator Puplick and a number of others that this can all be put down to a drop in the Australian dollar. That apparently is not the view of American tourists who visit this country. A recent United States communication research survey done by HBH-Creamer has indicated that some two-thirds of American tourists said they did not know about and were not influenced by the fall in the dollar in their coming to Australia. Only a third of them believed that it was any factor at all. No matter what the value of the currency is, tourists will not come to a country unless they have heard about it and heard about it favourably-and that is what John Brown has been responsible for during the last four years. He has done a magnificent job. The value of the remarkable increase in funding for the ATC under John Brown should not be forgotten. It has more than trebled and is now more than $30 million. There has been an enormous increase in major tourism plant with the value of plant under construction at over $10 billion and with $8 billion worth of plant already at an advanced stage of planning. John Brown can personally take credit for launching the Hogan campaign. He was the one who was searching for that idea in the first place. One would be flat out remembering who in the Fraser Government was ever a Minister responsible for tourism. For all those honourable senators opposite who wish to complain, let me go through some figures for the Fraser Government. The Fraser Government increased Tourist Commission funds from $7 1/2m to $10m in seven years-that was that Government's record-and decreased its staff from 140 to 75. Those were the Fraser Government's priorities. In contrast, this Government, with John Brown leading the way, increased funds from $10m to $30m in three years and we are giving it an additional $6m this financial year. That is some contrast, but it does not end there. Let us look further at just how much the Fraser Government-and many honourable senators opposite-cared when they had a real say. That Government introduced a 20 per cent sales tax on tourist boats in August 1980-and it stopped the industry stone dead. It was over, finished. When this Government came to office there just was not a tourist boat industry any more. Under John Howard it was gone. As a result of what this Government did-which was simply to take off the sales tax and retrospectively return the money to those from whom it had been purloined in the previous few years-the industry is undergoing a construction boom in Australia and, I might say for the benefit of Senator Bjelke-Petersen, particularly in Queensland. That is something for which the honourable senator has a Labor government to thank. I only hope that in the honourable senator's next contribution to this debate she will acknowledge what we have done-in contrast to those nasty Liberals who picked on the Nationals again and in their own peculiar style managed to hurt a Queensland industry. It was a shame. If we need any further proof of what the Fraser Government did for tourism in Australia we ought to look at what American travel writers think. They usually have a fair idea of these things. They were around during the years of the Fraser Government. They never came to Australia; not many Americans did either. No one had heard of it; no one cared. Last week more than 400 American travel writers gathered at a conference in Melbourne. John Brown addressed that conference and, when their president go up to thank him, all he could say was: `What we really want to hear from you, Minister, is: how have you done it? The world cannot believe the transformation'. They are the words of their president. Let us look at the position of tourist developers. They were given a 4 per cent depreciation allowance, which is now down to 2.5 per cent. Negative gearing has been restored. The Government has allowed a 5:3 ratio for depreciation on the construction of lift wells and air-conditioning. These things have been done for that industry and no one on the other side could ever have dreamed of them. In order to consider what would have happened if honourable senators opposite had come to government, of course, we should really remember what they were about. They were going to demolish the industry. They were going to abolish the whole tourism department. Tourism would have gone back to where it was under the Fraser Government-in a nowhere land. That is something that this Government and John Brown will never allow to happen. I know Senator Stone is not here at the moment, but as far back as 1973-he might not remember back that far but a few of us do-he signed a report that recommended a reduction in the Tourist Commission dollars and its imminent abolition. Fortunately, the government of the day was more enlightened, and today's Government is more enlightened still. It should be remembered that the Opposition pledged a $1.2 billion cut in industry support during the last election campaign. By the way, there is no doubt, that, for all the bleatings about TOPS, there is no way it would have survived at all under a Howard Government. The hypocrisy involved in Senator Puplick and others getting up and criticising this Government's decision is extraordinary. I know he is a wet and does not always agree with dry decisions. But, nonetheless, he had a say. He was the member of a party and he went along with the policy. I have not read anything in which, during the election campaign, he criticised the abolition of the then Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Perhaps he can produce a sheaf of papers and Press releases to show that I am wrong, but I will bet that he cannot. The reality is that this Government has built the tourism industry from nothing into one of Australia's great industries, and John Brown will continue that process. In my last few words perhaps I should correct something else that Senator McGauran said, as he is now in the chamber. He foully libelled Sir Peter Abeles when he claimed that one reason for moving the Tourist Commission was so that it could be put in a building owned by Sir Peter Abeles. I have to inform the honourable senator that he does not own the building or have a share in the building. So I think the honourable senator should go back to school-obviously he missed out-and I look forward to seeing tomorrow his apology to Sir Peter Abeles for making not only an ill-advised statement but also a pretty poor effort in treating a citizen who must read the statement with surprise and disgust, as I am sure it will be greeted by all fair-minded Australians. Senator Bjelke-Petersen has also walked into the chamber. I heard some of her contribution earlier. I know that she is very concerned about Mr Iwasaki. I am told that the development is magnificent. That is something I have never disputed. However, I dispute the need to give him another 20,000 acres of national park. Senator Bjelke-Petersen —We are not giving it to him. Senator RICHARDSON —I know that the National Party cannot win in Cabinet in Queensland any more, but it is worth noting that the proposals have been opposed bitterly by such people as Minister Muntz-- Senator Bjelke-Petersen —They don't understand. Senator RICHARDSON —He does not understand? That is interesting; I will inform him of the honourable senator's comment. All I can say, having read his comments in the paper, is that he thinks the Premier of Queensland does not understand. That is now the opinion of the majority of Australians and the majority of Queenslanders, not to mention a majority in his Cabinet and his Party. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. AUSTRALIAN TOURIST COMMISSION BILL 1987 Clauses 1 to 5-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 6 (Principal objects of Commission). Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(5.53) —I move: (1) Page 2, after paragraph 6 (b), add the following word and paragraph: ``; and (c) to ensure that Australia is protected from adverse environmental and social impacts of international tourism.''. The Australian Tourist Commission already has two principal objects. The first-the whole point of the Australian Tourist Commission Bill-is to increase the number of visitors to Australia from overseas. As a tourist commission Bill, that is what the Bill is about. The second offers to the people of Australia protection to maximise the benefits to Australia from overseas visitors so that people gain something. Paragraph (c) follows on. At the same time we want to ensure that what we are offering to our increased number of visitors from overseas continues and is not destroyed. In other words, as a number of honourable senators have said during the debate, what people from overseas mostly want to see is the landscape and the beauties of Australia which in many cases are unique. Although tourists want to come here to view our landscape, it is unfortunate that they do not always respect them. One hears of people scribbling on Ayers Rock, leaving their autographs in heritage buildings and taking a little piece of this and that home with them. It is for this reason that I have moved this amendment. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.55) —The Opposition is not minded to support this amendment because, quite simply, we do not believe that the Australian Tourist Commission is the appropriate body to undertake what is a very serious responsibility as far as the Australian environment is concerned. Detailed in the publication of the Australian Heritage Commission entitled Tourists and the national estate: procedures to protect Australia's heritage are a number of recommendations about the sorts of attitudes and policies which should be put in place by those authorities which are primarily responsible for the protection of the natural environment from the man-made environment as it may be impacted by tourists. It seems to us that that responsibility lies primarily with the authorities which are the custodians of the site or building in question or the respective management authorities of the natural areas which are potentially at risk from tourist activities and other forms of human degradation of the pristine values concerned. Therefore, because we do not see this as being the role of the Commission per se, we will not support the amendment. I rise simply to make the point that the objective of the amendment which Senator Jenkins has moved is a very important objective and one which we believe ought to be pursued. It is simply our view that the Tourist Commission is not the appropriate body to undertake it. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(5.56) —The Government accepts the amendment from Senator Jenkins. I would be the last to oppose any additional environmental protection. The relevant authorities are encouraged to abide by the regulations of the Australian Heritage Commission and I do not see that any extra encouragement could do any harm. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.57) —In that case, I ask the Minister what steps he proposes to take to ensure that Australia is `protected' from adverse environmental and social impacts of international tourism. Why does the Minister restrict this to international tourism when the greatest amount of damage which is done is done by domestic tourism? What does he intend to do positively to give the Australian Tourist Commission, firstly, the authority and, secondly, the resources to protect the environment? Will he indicate to the Committee the legal authority which the Australian Tourist Commission will have that will allow it to protect the environment and to protect Australian society from alleged deleterious social impacts of international tourism? Will he also explain to us why it is that only international tourists, and not domestic tourists, are to be picked on in this regard? Will he provide us with an explanation of why the acceptance of this meaningless amendment is anything more than the sort of unintelligent tokenism for which this Minister is becoming extraordinarily distinguished? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(5.59) —I thank Senator Puplick for his attempt at civility. I have looked at the words and, as I said earlier, I would be the last to oppose any additional attempt to ensure that our environment is looked after. Surely that is not only what I am here for but also, one would hope, what we are all here for. As far as why we are picking-I think those were the honourable senator's words-on international tourists, it is a little difficult to pick on anyone else in a Bill that deals with international tourism. I would hope that the new body, as constituted under the Australian Tourist Commission Bill, would be able, through its promotional campaigns, to ensure that our environment is protected and that international visitors are made aware of all of the wonders of our environment and what they can do to protect it. I would not see this as being in any way a problem. I am sure it is something the new Commission will be delighted to take on. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 7 (Functions of Commission). Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(6.01) —I move: (2) Page 2, after paragraph 7 (d), add the following new paragraph: ``(e) to closely monitor and report the effects of international tourism on Australia's natural environment and society.''. The functions outlined in clause 7 are obviously designed to promote Australia as a tourist destination, to enhance the awareness of that and to co-ordinate the necessary promotions. The function given at paragraph (d) is `to enhance awareness in Australia of the Australian tourism industry'. I consider that the further function in the suggested new paragraph (e) is necessary to ensure that all the previous functions given in clause 7 do not result in destroying our natural environment or the framework of our society as it exists at present. Therefore, I consider that the Commission will also need to undertake a monitoring and reporting role of the effects of international tourism on our natural environment and society. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 8 (Powers of Commission). Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(6.02) —I move: (3) Page 2, paragraph 8 (1) (b), leave out ``the'' (first occurring), insert ``sensitive, environmentally and socially sound''. I have moved this amendment for the reasons that I have previously stated. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.03) —Once again, the Opposition considers that this is an absolute nonsense of an amendment. The legislation is designed primarily to withdraw the Australian Tourist Commission from day to day involvement in domestic tourist operations, and to change its focus to primarily one of dealing with the international promotion of Australia in terms of the recognition of Australia and the promotion of Australia as a tourist destination. This amendment requires the Commission to perform certain functions. The preamble to clause 8 provides that the Commission shall have power to do `all things necessary or convenient to be done', and then various functions are listed. With this amendment they would include providing information and advice to assist the `sensitive, environmentally and socially sound' development of the Australian tourist industry. I am at some considerable loss to know exactly what the `sensitive' development of the Australian tourist industry involves. As to what is `socially sound', again, I am at a considerable loss to understand that term of legislative draftsmanship. I do not know whether the Government will accept this amendment, but if the Minister intends to accept it, I would be grateful for some explanation of it. I am fascinated beyond belief as to what are Senator Richardson's definitions of the terms `sensitive' and `socially sound'. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(6.05) —I have not brought in the Oxford Dictionary this afternoon; nonetheless, I hope that we would all be about not promoting insensitive or environmentally and socially unsound development of the Australian tourism industry. So, I do not see any problem arising from accepting the wording involved. One notes that there are all sorts of amendments and all sorts of words used. In relation to Senator Puplick's own draftsmanship, he speaks of `normal private enterprise terms and conditions'. One wonders what they are. I will be fascinated to hear details of that from the honourable senator later. But I can see no problem with the wording of the amendment and nor can I see any problem from the Commission in relation to this. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 9 to 12-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 13 and 14-by leave-taken together. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(6.07) —I move: (4) Page 4, after subclause 13 (2), insert the following new subclause: ``(2a) At least one of the persons appointed as a member by the Minister shall be a person who has environmental or sociological expertise relevant to the tourism industry.''. This amendment is in accord with the previous amendments. There is no reason why one of the nine board members-and it has already been established that people on the board should be involved with the tourism industry-should not also have knowledge of and a sensitivity towards environmental and sociological aspects of tourism. I see this person as having the responsibility of liaising with the various environmental agencies which need to be involved in relation to development that may involve tourism, and I refer to developments that might involve putting up facilities for tourists. Liaison in this matter would be very sensitive and also very necessary: sometimes the requirements of people involved in tourism are not the same as the requirements of those involved in protection of the environment. So, a very special kind of person needs to be involved in that sort of liaison. There is no reason why such a person should not be included on the board. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.08) —I take it from the Minister's indication that the Government is of the mind to accept this amendment. I simply record once again that I think this is really getting to the stage of making an absolute nonsense of the procedures of appointment of members to the Australian Tourist Commission board. The Opposition understands clearly the arrangements which have been arrived at between the Minister and the Australian Democrats: I simply indicate that we regard this proposal as simply reducing the status of the measure to an absolute farce. I formally record that we are opposed to this amendment. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(6.09) —I have to say that I am enthusiastic about supporting this amendment. I am delighted that my colleague the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) is also happy with it. I would have thought that to ensure that the membership of the Commission had among its numbers a person with the sort of expertise referred to in Senator Jenkins's amendment would be essential. This would certainly be welcomed by all those people in the environment groups around the country who are concerned about the tourism industry and its direction. I know it would certainly be appreciated also by many people in the industry itself who are concerned about where the environment groups stand on so many issues. I would have thought it would have been a logical way of resolving some problems, and the Government is more than happy to accept it. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.10) —I wonder whether we can be told in what manner the Minister intends to inform himself about who is environmentally or sociologically an expert in relation to the tourist industry. If we are to make changes in that area it would be interesting to know how the Minister will choose such people. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(6.11) —I would have thought that the Minister would, before he appointed anyone, look pretty carefully at the curriculum vitae of the candidates and make sure that they did have such expertise. If he is not sure at that point, perhaps he can interview an applicant himself and make himself certain. I would not have thought it terribly difficult to find the sort of person referred to in this amendment, and not very hard to verify such a person's qualifications. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.11) —That may be so, but where does the Minister get the curriculum vitae from in the first place? Where does he get the people to consider? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(6.12) —From my experience, a number of people are pretty keen to serve on such bodies. Normally the Government does not have to scour the countryside to make appointments. One often finds that people do wish to have greatness thrust upon them and in doing so they tend to extol their virtues to the Minister who has the power of appointment. So I do not think there will be any problem in that respect. One could imagine that a number of people in the industry now would more than qualify on either or both of the criteria outlined, and it would not be beyond the capacity of the Minister to approach them and see whether they are prepared to serve. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(6.13) —It strikes me that during debate on these amendments Opposition senators seem to be at somewhat of a loss-perhaps it comes from their experience-to understand that there are in fact people in the tourism industry who are environmentally and socially sensitive. I am motivated particularly by the fact that one such person has been designated a national treasure by this nation. His name is Mr Wilf Reichelt, who lives in Nhill, the town in which I was born. He has developed an enormously successful aspect of the tourist industry by nurturing mallee fowl in the west Wimmera. I am sure this project is reflected throughout the country. It is not just the Iwasakis of this world who are building tourism in Australia, and I do not think the Opposition should be so concerned that it will be difficult to fulfil the new provisions brought into this Bill by Senator Jenkins's amendments which, most thankfully, are supported by the Government. I just rise to reassure the Opposition that a number of people actually in the tourism industry are well qualified in this area. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.14) —This piece of tokenism gets worse as it gets allegedly more explained. The functions and powers of the Australian Tourism Commission are set out in clauses 6, 7 and 8. The objectives of the Commission are to increase the number of visitors, and to maximise the benefits to Australia of overseas visitors. The functions of the Commission are to promote Australia overseas as a tourist destination, to enhance awareness, to co-ordinate promotional efforts and to enhance awareness in Australia of the Australian tourist industry. The powers of the Commission are to do various things to promote tourism-to provide information, to conduct promotional activities, to undertake research, to distribute things which have the approved mark on them, to establish offices and do all the rest of it. What the Commission does not have the responsibility to do is actually evaluate tourist projects or indeed designate which tourist projects shall go ahead and which shall not. If the function of the Commission were to do those things, there would be a very sound argument for having a person on the Commission who could bring to bear the skills designated in the proposed amendment Senator Jenkins has moved. But arguing over whether a person has sociological and environmental experience when the Commission itself is not primarily charged with doing anything other than promoting and increasing tourism seems to me to be symptomatic of the tokenist approach being taken in this regard. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.15) —I suggest that it is the Australian Democrats who are totally confused about the role of the Australian Tourist Commission, and there is absolutely no confusion within the Opposition as to what the role of the Commission will be. We know that there are tourist operators who are sociologically and environmentally conscious. There is absolutely no doubt about the ability of people to fill this sort of role in an area where that sort of expertise is required. There is no need for the Australian Democrats to go on in a patronising manner as they are doing now. The point I make is that there are people who have the expertise to fulfil the role set out in this Bill, to fulfil the marketing and promotional role that is required. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) ought to look to the industry and get some advice from it as to what people would best serve the purposes of the Commission. It is the Minister's arrogance in taking unto himself the sole role of choosing all nine members, whatever the criteria, that I think is an affront to the Parliament. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(6.17) —I like to be neither patronised nor matronised, and I am sure that Mr Brown is in the same situation. When one looks at the functions of the Australian Tourist Commission as listed by Senator Puplick, a number of things spring to mind. One would hope that in the promotion overseas, in whatever country, of Australia as a tourist destination, the Commission would not be involved in any encouragement of an interruption, as an example, to significant Aboriginal cultural feelings which are held very dear. One could also imagine some extraordinarily sensitive environmental sites that would come under that category as well. But also, under sub-clause 7 (d), we are to enhance awareness in Australia of the Australian tourism industry. So even within the country the Commission has a role, as well. As Senator Puplick said earlier, we should not be picking on international tourists and leaving out domestic tourists. Perhaps in the fulfilment of sub-clause 7 (d) the Commission, aided by the sort of person referred to in this amendment to clause 13, would be able to enhance awareness in Australia of the industry without upsetting any delicate sociological balances or any delicate environmental balances. Amendment agreed to. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.19) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 4, after subclause 13 (4), insert the following new subclause: ``(4a) Of the members appointed pursuant to para- graph 12 (e), at least 2 members shall be appointed by the Minister from persons nominated by the Australian Tourist Industry Association.''. (2) Page 5, subclause 14 (2), at end of subclause, add ``, provided that if the member was appointed following nomination by the Australian Tourist Industry Association, the person appointed in that member's place shall be appointed from persons nominated by the Australian Tourist Industry Association.''. As the role of the Australian Tourist Commission is primarily an industry role, we believe that the persons appointed to the Board should reflect certain industry skills in a more specific and more direct fashion than the Government is proposing at the moment. It is certainly the case that the Government has intimated that the members appointed to the Board will have certain expertise and certain skills. If my memory serves me correctly, in discussion of recommendation 22 of the Kennedy report of the Australian Government Inquiry into Tourism, the question of whether people should be directly representative of associations, and indeed of State governments, was considered. The Kennedy inquiry concluded that such representations should be people with the appropriate industry skills. The Opposition, however, believes that the peak organisation, the Australian Tourist Industry Association (ATIA), should have the right to put to the Minister nominees to be considered for appointment to the Board of the Commission. Section 6 of the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967, under the heading `Constitution of the Commission', indicates specifically that there should be direct industry representatives, they being representatives of industries in Australia connected with tourism. Since the original enactment of that legislation, the growth and development of the tourist industry in Australia has been largely co-ordinated through the growth of the Australian Tourist Industry Association. At the second reading stage, I adverted to the attacks made by Mr John Brown on the Association as being part of what he saw as some New Right conspiracy and to his attacks on certain persons connected with the Association as being members of the so-called white shoe brigade. Nevertheless, given the Minister's attitude on these matters, we are not moved by the personal attack made by the Minister both on the Association and on individuals. We believe that ATIA should have the right to nominate. When one has a clear peak organisation such as ATIA, it is interesting how selective the Government can be in regard to the sorts of peak organisations that it wishes to recognise and to provide with the right to be represented. For instance, there is never a case when the Government is looking to establish some new board or corporation where it does not believe that the rights of the workers involved should be represented by the appointment of representatives from the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) to those institutions. Whatever one may think about that, that is the Government's consistent argument in relation to a peak organisation within an industry in the development of what it sees to be the appropriate model. Whether that happens to be appropriate or not is not the issue for debate at the moment. But in the Government's corporatist approach to these things, the ACTU is recognised and provided with representatives, or when it comes to wage determinations, anomalies hearings or the like, it is the Confederation of Australian Industry or the Business Council of Australia. In the health industry it is the Australian Medical Association or the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. The Government goes out of its way to give those organisations direct representatives on the governing boards or on the important structures which it establishes. The problem is that the Minister has a view about the ATIA and about individuals connected with that Association. He is therefore not prepared to concede the sort of direct industry representation from the peak council which we believe ought to be put forward. I do not want to anticipate the debate, but I understand that the Australian Democrats will seek to move an amendment to my amendment. I will deal with that when it has been formally moved. Nevertheless, we believe that ATIA should have the right to submit to the Minister certain names for appointment as two of the members of the nine-member Board, that the Minister should be at liberty to draw from that list which has been submitted to him, and that section 14 (2) also should be amended to ensure that any replacements are dealt with in the same fashion. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(6.25) —I am fully in agreement with Senator Puplick that there should be direct industry representation on the Board of the Australian Tourist Commission. However, when I looked into the amendments, I was puzzled as to why the Australian Tourism Industry Association (ATIA) had been singled out. This is why I shall also be moving amendments to the same two clauses. The Kennedy report of the Australian Government Inquiry into Tourism, from which most of the recommendations for the Australian Tourist Commission Bill were taken, states on page 16: There are numerous tourism industry organisations. Although they essentially represent private-sector interests, federal and state bodies are represented on many because of their involvement in the industry. Two major industry bodies are described below . . . The two described are the Australian Tourism Industry Association and the Inbound Tour Operators Association. The second association was formed in 1972 and serves primarily the overseas visitor market. Personally, I could not see the logic in singling out the ATIA as opposed to a second association which dealt primarily with the overseas visitor market. This is why the amendments that I shall move will state that, of the members appointed, at least two members shall be drawn from representative national tourism organisations. I seek leave to move my two amendments together. Leave granted. Senator JENKINS —I move: Amendment (1), leave out proposed subclause (4a), insert the following new subclause: ``(4a) Of the members appointed pursuant to paragraph 12 (e), at least two members shall be drawn from representative national tourism organisations.'' Amendment (2), leave out the proposed amendment, insert the following amendment: Page 5, subclause 14 (2), at the end of subclause, add ``, provided that if the member was drawn from a representative national tourism organisation, the person appointed in that member's place by the Minister shall be drawn from a representative national tourism organisation.'' Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(6.27) —While the Australian Tourist Industry Association (ATIA) would describe itself as a peak council, one wonders whether it can live up to the definition. In the view of other significant organisations within the industry, it does not. If one looks at the operation of the Australian Tourist Commission in the past with a larger Board, where a number of bodies were able to nominate members, we can get some idea of what would happen if the Government were to adopt Senator Puplick's amendments. It is the case that with the reduction in numbers from 13 to nine the States will no longer have direct representation; they will not be nominating members. It seems just a smidgin incongruous if one can say to the State of New South Wales, Queensland or wherever that it cannot have a nominee, yet an industry association-not the peak one but an industry association-lays claim to some spots on the Board as of right. The Government cannot accept that. The Australian Federation of Travel Agents, the Inbound Tour Operators Association, the Australian Hotels Association and so on will not accept it either. I have no doubt that, given that the Government had received numerous requests for representations from all sorts of bodies on the Board of the last Commission, it would not be possible, if there were to be a smaller Board, for us to agree to them all. That being the case, the Government rejects Senator Puplick's amendments. I think Senator Jenkins's amendments go a long way to overcoming the problem. The Government has never had an objection to industry representatives and indeed always intended that there be such representatives. Therefore, Senator Jenkins's amendments are acceptable to the Government. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.29) —I am grateful that the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) has confirmed the view that we have formed about the Government's reaction to our nomination of the Australian Tourist Industry Association as the peak body to be represented. I am grateful also for the Minister's advice. We will not support Senator Jenkins's amendments, and indeed will divide. Question put: That Senator Jenkins's amendments to Senator Puplick's amendments be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Aulich, T. Jenkins, J. A.Behan, M. E. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P.Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. Macklin, M. J.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R.Coates, J. Morris, J. J.Collins, R. L. Powell, J. F.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. E.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M.Devereux, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O.Haines, J. Alston, R. K. R. Messner, A. J.Archer, B. R. Newman, J. M.Baume, Peter Panizza, J. H.Bishop, B. K. Parer, W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Patterson, K. C. L.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Calvert, P. H. Sheil, G.Chaney, F. M. Short, J. R.Chapman, H. G. P. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J.Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S.McGauran, J. J. Watson, J. O. W. Button, J. N. Crichton-Browne, N. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Baume, MichaelChilds, B. K. Durack, P. D.Cooney, B. Lewis, A. W. R.Schacht, C. C. MacGibbon, D. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is that Senator Puplick's amendments, as amended, to clauses 13 and 14 be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 13 and 14, as amended, agreed to. Sitting suspended from 6.37 to 8 p.m. Clauses 15 to 22-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new clause 22a. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.00) —The first of the four amendments which relate to the same issue arises in relation to proposed new clause 22a. We are seeking to insert in the legislation a requirement that the Minister observe normal private enterprise practice and conditions in relation to a number of matters. The first is in relation to the terms and conditions of appointment to the Board. The subsequent amendments are to clause 39, relating to the Managing Director; to clause 42, relating to employees; and to clause 43, relating to consultants. They all touch upon the same central issue, that is, that in the Commission's operations it should be encouraged to observe the general practices which are common in the private sector rather than those which are fundamentally characteristic of the public sector and of the control of the Public Service Board, in particular. A great deal has been made rightly in this debate of the recommendations of the Kennedy inquiry, the Australian Government Committee of Inquiry into Tourism. The Kennedy inquiry was established to advise the Australian Government on the best ways to conduct its tourist operations and, in particular, the restructuring of the Australian Tourist Commission. One of the matters which came directly before the Kennedy inquiry was the question of terms and conditions of employment. On pages 100 to 102 of volume 1 of the Kennedy report, there is a great deal of discussion on this matter. In essence, it is summed up by the submission of the Western Australian Tourist Commission, which is quoted on page 101 of the report: The Public Service jurisdiction places unnecessary restrictions on the Australian Tourist Commission insofar as the administrative procedures, employment of staff from outside the Service and hours of operation are concerned. Australian Airlines, in its submissions, said: Financial restrictions and the public service structure of the Australian Tourist Commission are significant impediments to the Australian Tourist Commission's ability to attract management and staff with strong marketing skills, a prerequisite for the Australian Tourist Commission to ascend to a leadership role. The Association of Australian Convention Bureau Inc., in its submission, said: The Public Service conditions that currently constrain the activities of the Australian Tourist Commission inhibit a result-geared mechanism necessary to measure effectively the activities of the Commission. The Kennedy report goes on to analyse what the Government had said in its policy discussion paper entitled `Statutory Authorities and Government Business Enterprises'. It quoted from that paper as follows: Those bodies- that is, statutory authorities- not staffed under the Public Service Act will generally be required by statute to co-ordinate pay and conditions of employment with the Public Service Board. The report then goes on to say: We consider that such a strong case could be mounted in favour of the removal of the Australian Tourist Commission from its current statutory relationship with the Public Service Board. Of the 96 or 97 recommendations of the Kennedy report, this is the most important recommendation which was not picked up. In effect, two recommendations were not picked up. Recommendation 46 states: The Committee- that is, the Kennedy committee- therefore recommends that the ATC be removed from its current statutory relationship with the Public Service Board in industrial matters, particularly terms and conditions of employment. In so recommending, we note that the ATC will continue to be subject to review by the Co-ordination Committee within the Federal Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. We regret that the Government did not see fit to pick up that recommendation. In the examination of the Department in Estimates Com- mittee F on Thursday, 8 October, I asked representatives of the Commission what their general view was of the Public Service Board control of the Commission or the capacity of the Commission to operate on more normal private enterprise guidelines. I asked Mr Rowe, from the Commission, what his view was in relation to that recommendation of the Kennedy Committee. I quote from the Hansard record of Estimates Committee F on 8 October. Mr Rowe said: What that recommendation would have allowed, of course, was more competitive salaries in the commercial sense, to get the right people for the key jobs around the world. What it has meant- that is, the rejection of the recommendation- is that we have recast our structure and have employed a lot of new staff based on the existing system, with government levels of seniority, et cetera. What we are seeking to achieve in this series of amendments, the first of which is to insert new clause 22a, is a more genuinely private enterprise approach to the operations of the Commission. New clause 22a relates to the question of the appointments to the board and proposes: In determining terms and conditions of appointment pursuant to section 22, the Minister shall observe normal private enterprise terms and conditions of appointment. As I have said, our amendments then deal with the position of the Managing Director, the position of employees and the positions of consultants. We believe that, if the Tourist Commission is to operate effectively, it should not be required to operate, as it were, with one hand tied behind its back. It is competing on behalf of the Australian nation in a very competitive, cut-throat world. We have a great responsibility to ensure that we have a commission which is free from unnecessary constraints in order to attract to Australia the maximum number of tourists. To do that, the Commission must be able to offer terms and conditions of employment and salaries which are commensurate with those offered in the private sector, both within Australia and at an international level. We are competing in a very difficult international environment. It is our belief that by passing these amendments, the first of which is now before the committee, we will have the opportunity to establish the Commission on a more private enterprise-based set of principles, which will allow the Commission to attract the sort of people necessary and to offer them the terms and conditions of employment which more genuinely reflect what they could earn and what they could expect to achieve within the private sector and within the internationally competitive sector. Therefore, I have pleasure in proposing to the committee the insertion of a new clause 22a which will be the first clause to give effect to that principle. I move: (3) Page 6, after clause 22, insert the following new clause: Minister to observe private enterprise practice `22a. In determining terms and conditions of appointment pursuant to section 22, the Minister shall observe normal private enterprise terms and conditions of appointment.'. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(8.10) —These clauses have presented the Australian Democrats with something of a dilemma and have been discussed at length. We did discuss what `normal private enterprise terms and conditions of appointment' means. I thank Senator Puplick for going down that path. I am fully aware of what he is aiming at in relation to these clauses in the Bill. However, for some companies, normal conditions can also mean lurks and perks and megabucks for top executives and shareholders. Some of these lurks and perks have caused both the Fraser Government and the Hawke Government to introduce anti-avoidance taxation legislation, earning them the contempt, I am very sorry to say, of their private enterprise friends. It must also be observed in the present circumstances that the Cabinet has already endorsed changes in the guidelines for statutory authorities and government business enterprises along the lines of the Green Paper released in June 1986. These proposals have yet to be approved by Caucus, as I understand it. The Opposition is suggesting these changes to the Australian Tourist Commission alone. I am not sure that this is the right time for such changes in any case, but I do not see why they should be made to only one government enterprise just because this legislation happens to be before the Parliament right now. I believe that the changes approved by Cabinet will include the establishment of financial targets for each authority as a trade-off for the many controls that are permanently exercised over government authorities. These include controls over salaries, industrial relations, borrowings for capital purchases and land acquisition and sales. I would welcome the opportunity to examine such changes in detail and to seek the views of those currently employed by the relevant organisations. The Opposition's amendment is not an acceptable basis for embarking on yet another process of deregulation at a time when the clamours for government control, regulation and assistance are only beginning following the recent share market collapse. The Democrats cannot support the four amendments on those lines. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(8.12) —The Government opposes the amendment on a number of grounds. The first and most obvious ground is that of trying to determine what `normal private enterprise terms and conditions of appointment' amount to. Are they the terms and conditions of appointment that would apply in the case of a company like Peko- Wallsend Ltd, whether it is running a battery factory or a coal mine in the Hunter Valley? If that is the case, I would have to say that the Government would be opposed to them. Or are they at the other end of the scale? Are they the terms and conditions that would have applied in, say, a merchant bank or a stockbroker's prior to Tuesday of last week? Admittedly, the last week may have brought about some changes in the way stockbrokers and merchant banks handle their employees. Nonetheless, the extraordinary salaries being paid to people in that industry in the last few years could never be paid by a body such as the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC). The next ground is to remember and to stress that the Australian Tourist Commission is funded by the taxpayers. It is the taxpayers to whom we are responsible. The Government is not prepared to distance itself from the controls relating to numbers of people hired and their salaries and conditions. In his contribution, Senator Puplick referred to the Kennedy report of the Australian Government Inquiry into Tourism. It should be remember that the Government actually opted to accept all of the recommendations of the Kennedy report bar two, this being one of them. But even on this question of salaries and controls, the Kennedy committee recognised the call for public expenditure restraint. It drew attention to the fact that the Commission is still classified as a Budget-dependent authority. Indeed, in recommendation 46 concerning this issue, the committee recognised that the ATC would continue to be subject to review by the co-ordination committee within the then Federal Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Therefore, we have to oppose the amendment on those two grounds. There is a third ground for opposition to this amendment and to the amendments that will subsequently be moved along the same lines. It is that there has been no difficulty in attracting suitably qualified staff under the present arrangements. The Commission is more than happy with the people it has been able to recruit. If that is the case, there is no need to depart from the present arrangements which protect the taxpayers' interests. I hope that it is in the taxpayers' interests that we are all acting. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.15) —I will have a bit more to say about the underlying principles of this when we come to my proposed amendment No. 5. But, in relation to the last comment of the Minister, I simply draw his and the Committee's attention again to the exchanges that took place in Estimates Committee F on 8 October. I posed a question to Mr Rowe, who I think the Minister will concede is a most experienced and senior officer of the Australian Tourist Commission. I asked Mr Rowe this question: So in other words, the ideal situation, in terms of your ability to attract the sort of people you would have wanted, vis-a-vis their relationship with the private sector as far as tourism is concerned, has not been as great as it would have been had the recommendations of the Kennedy inquiry on this matter been adopted? Mr Rowe replied: It is hard to tell. In theory, the answer to that is yes. I believe that is in fact a correct summary of the situation. I appreciate that there is a great deal of legislative pressure building up on the chamber. I share with Senator Richardson a capacity to count heads and to understand what the outcome of these matters will be. Therefore, I do not propose to take this particular clause further-although I will have something to say on proposed amendments 5, 6 and 7 when we come to them-other than to reiterate that the Opposition believes that the Commission should have been given the capacity to operate in a more effective fashion. I draw attention to only two examples of what I mean by the operation of normal private enterprises practices which I do not believe can now be achieved as a result of the rejection of these amendments. The first relates to the question of shopping hours and to the way in which firms such as Darrell-James Ltd, for instance, operate. The Minister will know that I have had a long and fairly detailed association with the duty-free industry throughout Australia. Darrell-James is a company which makes it quite clear-its Chairman, Mr Bresnahan, has made it abundantly clear-that such firms cannot operate on the normal Australian 9 to 5 type operations and attract the Japanese tourists who are their primary market for duty free sales. If necessary, they have to stay open until one o'clock in the morning to accommodate the demands and requirements of Japanese tour parties. They do so and they justifiably make a lot of money doing so. That simply is an indication of people's flexibility, their ability to operate outside the normal terms and conditions of what are understood to be the operative guidelines for the Australian economy, and I congratulate them on that. If the Commission does not have the flexibility to do that sort of thing, it will find itself on the short end of the argument. The other example which I cite, and which I am particularly pleased to do so, is the outstanding success of the Regent of Sydney as Australia's undoubted premier hotel. I will say two or three things very briefly about that. The first thing-I hope the Minister is prepared to join me on this-is that I say with the greatest of goodwill to my colleagues Senator McGauran, Senator Tambling, Senator Reid and Senator Newman, that it is about time they stopped picking on Sydney. It happens to be the best city in Australia. It happens to be the city which, naturally, the majority of people want to visit. Simply because those honourable senators happen to be colleagues on this side of the chamber, I do not see any reason why I should put up with some of the absolute nonsense that has been said about the disadvantages of the great city of Sydney. If the majority of tourists want to come to Australia and spend their money in the great city of Sydney I would encourage them to do so. Senator Sanders —Once they get there they will spend their money; that's for sure. Senator PUPLICK —That is what this debate is all about. I am glad that Senator Sanders appreciates that, in the great city of Sydney, people have the opportunity to do this. I know that he would prefer them to starve to death in the dark and the cold of what he would regard as an environmentally sound environment. But, undoubtedly, no tourists would be attracted to such an area, which I am sure would please the honourable senator immensely. However, that would defeat the purposes of this legislation. The other point I was making was that a magnificent hotel operating at the highest international standards such as the Regent of Sydney, which continues to win the leading award for providing the premier standard of accommodation in Australia, requires and demonstrates an attitude of flexibility-a capacity to operate outside the normal rather ordinary terms and conditions of the market. It does extraordinarily well and I pay enormous tribute to its dedicated staff and its intelligent management for doing so. It is just a pity that the Government and the Democrats are not prepared to allow the Australian Tourist Commission the same sort of flexibility to compete in a very rough international environment. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(8.22) —I will be very brief. I want to answer a couple of points raised by Senator Puplick. The first point relates to the remarks made by Mr Rowe in Estimates Committee F. I think he talked about `It is hard to tell', and `In theory'. In practice, the Australian Tourist Commission has had no difficulty in filling the positions that it has sought to fill. It has filled them more than adequately with salaries and conditions attractive enough to get the right people. I have often thought that there was no hope for Senator Puplick but, in view of his remarks about the city of Sydney, I would have to say that there is some small hope-- Senator Sanders —A scintilla. Senator RICHARDSON —That is a good word, Senator Sanders. There is a scintilla of hope for Senator Puplick in the future. In respect of his remarks about the Regent of Sydney and its ability to compete, the Australian Tourist Commission is not there in the main to make a profit, but rather to spend money in making a profit for the Australian tourist industry. Therefore, I think it is in a slightly different category from that of the duty free stores or the Regent of Sydney. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Puplick's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Panizza, J. H.Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E.Chapman, H. G. P. Sheil, G.Durack, P. D. Short, J. R.Hamer, D. J. Stone, J. O.Hill, R. Tambling, G. E. J.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Vanstone, A. E.Lewis, A. W. R. Walters, M. S.McGauran, J. J. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. Harradine, B.Beahan, M. E. Jenkins, J. A.Black, J. R. Jones, G. N.Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P.Burns, B. R. McLean, P. A.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. E.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M.Devereux, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Devlin, R. Schacht, C. C.Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Button, J. N.Teague, B. C. Gietzelt, A. T.Bishop, B. K. Childs, B. K. Question so resolved in the negative. Clauses 23 and 24-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 25 (Corporate plan). Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(8.30) —Clause 25 deals with the corporate plan for the Australian Tourist Commission. My amendment to clause 25, sub-clause (6), is an addition to that clause, which states: The corporate plan shall also outline the strategies and policies that the Board intends to adopt in order to achieve the Commission's objectives. I therefore move: Page 8, subclause 25 (6), at end of subclause, add: ``, including strategies and policies to determine and manage the environmental and social impacts upon Australia of international tourism.''. This amendment is in keeping with the four amendments which have been moved and passed within this committee stage of the Bill. If the corporate plan is to plan for the general strategies and policies of the Bill, obviously now that the Bill, I am happy to say, is also concerned with the environmental and sociological impact of international tourism on Australia, the corporate plan should also deal with strategies and policies concerned with the environmental and social impacts. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 26 to 28-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 29 (Minister may give directions in exceptional circumstances). Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.32) —I move: Page 11, subclause 29 (4), leave out the subclause. The purpose of this amendment is relatively simple. Clause 29 deals with the capacity of the Minister to give directions to the Board. Clause 29 (1) provides that the Minister, in certain conditions: May give written directions to the Board in relation to the performance of the functions, and the exercise of the powers, of the Commission, and the Board shall comply with the directions. Sub-clause (2) provides: The Minister shall not give a direction to the Board under subsection . . . unless the Minister: (a) has informed the Board . . . that the Minister is considering giving the direction; has given the Chairperson an opportunity to discuss the need for the proposed direction . . . is satisfied that, because of the existence of exceptional circumstances, it is necessary to give the direction to the Board in order to ensure that the performance of the functions, or the exercise of the powers, of the Commission does not conflict with major government policies. I have no objection to any of those types of arrangements. They are perfectly normal and perfectly proper where a statutory authority, a board or a commission operates, and the Minister is entitled to insist that policies of the Government, where they are potentially in conflict with those of the Board, or where the Board is not paying attention to the policies of the Government, should prevail. Sub-clause (3) of clause 29 then provides: where the Minister gives a direction to the Board . . . the Minister shall cause a copy of the direction: (i) to be published in the Gazette as soon as practicable . . . (ii) to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House giving the direction . . . Again that is perfectly normal and proper parliamentary practice. We then have a quite extraordinary sub-clause (4), which provides that sub-section (3), that is the sub-section which requires the Minister both to publish in the Gazette and to lay before Parliament the directions: does not apply in relation to a particular direction if the Minister determines, in writing, that compliance with the subsection would be contrary to the public interest. This is the most extraordinary power that the Minister seeks to take to himself. In order to demonstrate to the Committee just how extraordinary it is, I draw attention to the Reserve Bank Act 1959. This Act provides for the relationship between the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Reserve Bank of Australia. It provides much the same as sub-clauses (1), (2) and (3), that the Treasurer may give directions to the Reserve Bank and that the Reserve Bank shall in fact obey the directions of the Treasurer. Sub-section (7) of section 11 of the Reserve Bank Act states: The Treasurer shall cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament, within fifteen sitting days of that House after the Treasurer has informed the Board of the policy determined . . . (a) a copy of the order determining the policy; (b) a statement by the Government in relation to the matter in respect of which the difference arose- that is the difference between the Board of the Reserve Bank and the Treasurer- (c) a copy of the statement furnished to the Treasurer by the Board- in certain circumstances. In other words, a direction which the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia gives to the Reserve Bank through its Board has to be presented to the Parliament. There is no exception to that. Apart from perhaps legislation dealing with the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation or some other piece of national security, I cannot imagine anything which is more fundamentally sensitive than a direction which the Treasurer may give to the Reserve Bank when there is a conflict between the two. Under the Reserve Bank Act, the Treasurer does not have the capacity to conceal from the Parliament, on the basis of some spurious public interest, the nature of the direction which he has given. Frankly, if the relationship between the Treasurer and the Board of the Reserve Bank is of such a quality that it is not protected from the scrutiny of the Parliament, I simply cannot imagine how it is that a direction given by the Minister for tourism to the Australian Tourist Commission should attract a greater protection than that given by the Treasurer to the Board of the Reserve Bank. If the Minister wants to give directions, he is perfectly entitled to. If he wants to give instructions to the Commission, he is perfectly entitled to. That is proper and that is why he is the Minister. But then to turn around and say that he can determine in writing that it is contrary to the public interest to inform the Parliament of the direction which he has given seems to me to be absolutely ludicrous. In this amendment we have quite clearly sought to delete that extraordinary power in the hands of the Minister. We have expressed our concern about the way in which this Minister operates as an individual. I have drawn attention to the fact that we are not happy with his powers of appointment. This Minister, after all, has enormous powers of patronage-he in fact has more than 120 government based positions to which he is entitled to appoint people within his portfolio. It is a wonderful power of patronage. We are not happy with his powers as far as that is concerned. My colleague Senator Reid has drawn attention to the problems that she has identified in appointments to boards, such as to the Canberra Theatre Trust, when somebody as well established and well qualified as Miss Libby Smith is not reappointed, but Mrs Grassby is reappointed, for reasons which are never explained. We are not persuaded that any Minister, and this Minister in particular, should be given that unfettered power. Senator Richardson, in his comments, was unkind enough to allude to the fact that in terms of my capacity to talk about the propensity of individuals to do various things perhaps I was aspiring to the mantle of the somewhat unlamented Mr Rex Jackson. We all know Rex Jackson. He is a guest of Her Majesty for a period in the future. We know that Mr Jackson was one of the prime products of the Labor machine in New South Wales, of which Senator Richardson was, for so long, a prime mover, shaker, manipulator and operator. I concede to Senator Richardson a far greater knowledge of Mr Jackson and his activities than I am ever likely to have, or indeed would ever want to have. Nevertheless, whether it happens to be the internal network which runs these operations, or the way in which Mr Brown makes appointments, that is up to him. What we will not permit, if we have any say in the matter, is for him to have the power to give directions to the Board and not to tell the Parliament that he has given those directions because of some spurious public interest criteria, criteria which the Government would not even permit to the Treasurer in his dealings with the Reserve Bank of Australia. We are certainly not prepared to permit the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, or whatever else he is, to give those directions and to conceal them from the Parliament in the way in which this legislation proposes. Senator Richardson —You left out tourism. It is pretty important tonight. Senator PUPLICK —It is an asset, is it not? He is the Minister for Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. We are not prepared to allow Mr Brown to add to his assets this ability to conceal from the Parliament the directions which he gives to the Board. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(8.40) —It is with the greatest of pleasure that the Australian Democrats support Senator Puplick's amendment to sub-clause 29 (4). Such a clause which would permit the Minister if, in the Minister's opinion, it is contrary to the public interest for the Minister to do so, to refrain from publicising a direction he may give to the Commission is complete anathema to us. As I mentioned in my speech at the second reading stage, this particular sub-clause was also picked out by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, which suggested that it should be drawn to the attention of the Senate. It has no place in this Bill. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(8.41) —I think I should explain just why this sub-clause is here at all. It has been claimed that it is an extraordinary sub-clause that does not exist anywhere else. That is not right; it in fact does. The Australian Trade Commission Act 1985 has such a provision-sub-clause 92 (2). The Wool Marketing Act which passed through the Senate this year has such a provision-sub-section 120 (4). I will read out that sub-section from the Wool Marketing Act just so that honourable senators will understand how ordinary, rather than extraordinary, this clause is. It says: Subsection (3) does not apply in relation to a particular direction if: (a) the Minister, on the recommendation of the Corporation, determines, in writing, that compliance with the subsection would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial activities of the Corporation; or (b) the Minister determines, in writing, that compliance with the subsection is undesirable because compliance would, or would be likely to, be prejudicial to the national interest of Australia. It is possible to envisage situations where the Minister-for reasons of national security or for reasons of commercial interest, in that it was prejudicial either to the Corporation itself or to companies with which the Corporation may at the time be dealing-might decide that the information would be so sensitive as to not be released in the public arena. Having said that, I do not think the Government is prepared to go to the wall on this matter. It is not a matter of principle on which we should waste a great deal of time. Accordingly, the Government will not oppose the amendment. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(8.43) -The point that Senator Richardson has made is not relevant to this debate. I do not think we would have any strong objection if a Minister were given permission in any Bill to withhold information, provided that the Bill contained conditions that would pertain to that withholding of information; in other words, if there were a recognition that under very carefully specified conditions the Minister had that right. The section which Senator Richardson read out contained such conditions, whereas in this particular Bill before us the Minister is simply given a carte blanche to withhold information. I therefore do not think those conditions are relevant. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.44) —In relation to clauses 39, 42 and 43, I have three amendments. I seek leave to move them together. Leave granted. Senator PUPLICK —I thank the Committee. The three amendments seek to require the observation of private enterprise principles and practices in relation to, in clause 39, determining the terms and conditions of the appointment of the Managing Director; in clause 42, determining the terms and conditions of employment; and, in clause 43, determining the terms and conditions of engagement of consultants. Given the attitude which has been taken by the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) and by the Australian Democrats on this matter, I understand that they will not be successful. Although I will formally move them and the Opposition will formally vote for them, we will not seek to divide on them. I simply indicate that we are naturally disappointed that, in terms of the arrangements which have been entered into between the Government and the Australian Democrats so far as this legislation is concerned, the Government has managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the Democrats by picking up all of the amendments which are totally meaningless, all of the motherhood statements which it knows that it could put into the legislation but has no intention of acting upon or enforcing. It has resisted all of the hard amendments which would have imposed any degree of discipline on the Commission. Senator Richardson is kind enough to smile and laugh in agreement with precisely what I have been saying. In typical fashion, the Australian Democrats have been sold the thimble and pea trick. They have once again revealed themselves to be the $1.50 Democrats. I call them the $1.50 Democrats because my understanding is that that is the smallest amount of money one can get for 30 pieces of silver. I now formally move: (5) Page 12, after clause 39, insert the following new clause: Board to observe private enterprise practice ``39A. The Board, in determining terms and conditions of appointment of the Managing Director pursuant to section 39, shall observe normal private enterprise terms and conditions of appointment.''. (6) Page 13, subclause 42 (2), insert the following new subclause: ``(2A) The Board, in determining terms and conditions of employment pursuant to subsection (2), shall observe normal private enterprise terms and conditions of employment.''. (7) Page 14, after subclause 43 (2), insert the following new subclause: ``(2A) The Board, in determining terms and conditions of engagement pursuant to subsection (2), shall observe normal private enterprise terms and conditions of engagement.''. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(8.47) —I cannot leave all of those remarks unanswered. I was laughing earlier but only in total disbelief at the nonsense which was sprouting from Senator Puplick. I would have to say that this Bill has naught to do with thimbles and peas, pups or anything else like that. Unlike Senator Puplick, when I am faced with the opportunity of enhancing the cause of the environment in Australia I will always opt to take it. Amendments negatived. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. AUSTRALIAN TOURIST COMMISSION (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1987 Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Australian Tourist Commission Bill 1987 reported with amendments and Australian Tourist Commission (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1987 reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Richardson) read a third time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Peter Baume) —Order! The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition requesting a change in the membership of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training. Motion (by Senator Richardson)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator Peter Baume be discharged from attendance on the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training and that Senator Watson, having been duly nominated in accordance with standing order 36aa, be appointed a member of the Committee. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Reynolds) 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 REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(8.50) —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- COMMONWEALTH BORROWING LEVY BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the imposition from 1 July 1987 of an annual levy on all borrowings, including raisings of money otherwise than by borrowing, by Commonwealth semi-government authorities. The levy is imposed in place of the Commonwealth guarantee charge introduced in 1986-87. The Commonwealth guarantee charge was introduced to take account of the favourable interest rates paid by Commonwealth authorities where their borrowings are explicitly guaranteed by the Commonwealth. The Government's objective in imposing the charge was to ensure that the effective cost of borrowings to authorities was more directly comparable with that faced by private sector borrowers, thus ensuring that authorities take full account of the cost to the community of their investment decisions. Following a review of the operation of the charge in 1986-87, the Government has decided that the arrangements should be modified in three respects: First, the charge on explicit Commonwealth guarantees should be replaced by a levy on all borrowings by authorities. This is because the authorities' government-owned status confers advantages in financial markets similar to those which arise from an explicit government guarantee. The cost of funds to Commonwealth authorities appears to reflect an expectation by lenders that the Commonwealth will stand behind those authorities whether or not an explicit guarantee has been given; Second, the levy should not apply to Commonwealth-owned financial institutions, such as the Commonwealth Banks and the Australian Industry Development Corporation. These institutions gain only little advantage in terms of borrowing costs from Commonwealth ownership beyond that arising from their status as financial institutions; Third, the rate of the levy should be lowered to more closely reflect the benefit authorities gain from Commonwealth ownership. These modified arrangements are to apply to borrowings undertaken on or after 1 July 1987. Borrowings undertaken in 1986-87 which were subject to the Commonwealth guarantee charge will continue to bear that charge until they mature. The Bill provides for the imposition of the levy at a rate not exceeding 0.5 per cent per annum, the rate of the Commonwealth guarantee charge applying in 1986-87. It is intended that, in respect of 1987-88, a levy at the lesser rate of 0.125 per cent per annum will be imposed by regulation. The levy imposed by this Bill is expected to raise revenue of some $1.3 million in 1987-88, while ongoing revenue from the Commonwealth guarantee charge is estimated to amount to $7.6 million. The impost is now described as a levy because it will apply comprehensively to borrowings and will not be related to the provision of a guarantee, which in most cases could be sought by authorities at their discretion. I commend the Bill to the Senate. COMMONWEALTH BORROWING LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the collection of the Commonwealth borrowing levy imposed by the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Bill 1987. The Bill defines the borrowings in respect of which the levy may be payable to include all borrowings and other raisings of money which the Commonwealth authorities subject to the levy Bill are empowered to undertake, and provides for the making of administrative arrangements to collect the levy. The Bill also provides for the repeal of the Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Act 1987 except insofar as it applies to borrowings undertaken in 1986-87. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(8.51) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Act 1987 so as to clarify the incidence of the levy imposed by that Act and collected under an associated Levy Collection Act. The amendments sought stem from advice received by the Government before the levy legislation in question had completed its passage during the last sittings. Plans for incorporating the amendments at that stage were, however, frustrated by the dissolution of the Parliament. The levy imposed by the Levy Act is paid by egg producers to support research programs financed jointly by industry and Government. It is levied on hen quotas held by egg producers under State or Territory licences, that is, on the number of laying hens a producer is entitled to keep. As a matter of convenience and economy, collection of the levy in the States is undertaken on behalf of the Commonwealth by State Egg Boards. When the levy legislation was awaiting debate in the Senate, after being passed by the House of Representatives, advice was received from industry that the provisions defining the application of the levy did not appear to cater for some variations in State hen quota practices. Examination of these practices against the relevant provisions confirmed that there was room for doubt as to the adequacy of the provisions concerned. Amendments to remedy this shortcoming were drafted for introduction during the debate in the Senate, but in the event, this course could not be followed. Senate debate on the levy legislation was brought on when the Autumn Sittings were all but ended and the house had already concluded its legislative business. This meant that if the amendment process were initiated at that time, it could not be completed before the dissolution of the Parliament and the legislation imposing the levy would lapse. As the arrangements embodied in the levy legislation depended on the levy commencing on 1 July 1987, significant problems would have resulted if no levy mechanism was in place by that date. Accordingly, it was decided to seek passage of the legislation as it stood and to pursue amendment of the Levy Act in the Budget Sittings. All State authorities concerned with collection of the levy on the Commonwealth's behalf were informed of the intention to amend the Levy Act and of the nature of the proposed amendments. This has enabled levy collection to proceed on the basis to be confirmed by the amendments. Against this background, I will now explain the genesis and intent of the amendments contained in the Bill. When the Levy Act was being framed, the definition of the term ``hen quota licence'', which largely governs the incidence of the levy, was formulated on the premise that State licences issued to egg producers in all cases specify a hen quota which is the maximum number of laying hens that may be kept. This formulation was adopted after examination of relevant State legislation. It has come to notice, however, that because of the varying ways in which individual States express and notify hen keeping entitlements in actual practice, the definition in question is-at least on a narrow interpretation-at variance with administrative procedures followed in some States. In order to remove any doubts as to how the levy should apply, the proposed amendments will alter the definition of the term ``hen quota licence'', add a definition of ``hen quota'' and make appropriate changes to all provisions of the Levy Act where these expressions occur. The effect of these alterations will be to establish clearly that the levy applies to operative hen quotas-that is, actual hen keeping entitlements-irrespective of how or where these are specified by the States under their administrative procedures. The levy was applied from 1 July 1987 with first payments due on 1 September 1987. As I mentioned earlier, by virtue of prior arrangements with State authorities collecting the levy, the application of the levy has proceeded from the outset on the basis to be confirmed by the amendments. Accordingly, it has been necessary to include a provision making the amendments retrospective to 1 July 1987. It should be stressed, however, that the proposed changes will not impose additional liability on levy payers. Indeed, the position with regard to financial impact is that the amendments will not increase the financing commitments of the Commonwealth or the industry. I commend the Bill to Honourable Senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Debate resumed from 22 October, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(8.52) —The Senate is about to commence debate on a Bill for an Act to amend certain legislation relating to off-shore petroleum and for related purposes. The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill seeks to remove the current restrictions on the cash bidding system which were imposed on certain oil explorers by the 1985 legislation. Let me say right at the outset that it is clear there is nothing in the legislation to indicate that the ambit of cash bidding will in future be limited to the existing areas. The coalition opposes the amendment Bill in toto. In 1985 when we argued against the legislation introduced by the then government, we accepted and supported an amendment moved by the Australian Democrats which inserted a sunset clause for a trial period of two years. In this legislation clause 19 seeks to remove that sunset clause. Let me refer to what happened in 1985 when we were opposed to the legislation. There was thought to be a highly prospective area adjacent to Ashmore and Cartier Islands. This Government thought that people were being given an opportunity to make some very substantial profits and the Australian Labor Party, in typical Labor Party fashion, could not get its hands on those potential profits quickly enough. The Labor Party is always opposed to any wealth creation and this was a chance for some wealth to be created so it said, `Let us move in and attack it'. We opposed that legislation but could not get the support of the Democrats to knock it out so we accepted the amendment which inserted the sunset clause. The Government is now proposing to remove altogether that sunset clause and that means that not only will this cash bidding system be able to continue beyond the sunset period but also the legislation is wide open and can be imposed upon any oil explorers. It is not in any way limited to what was then thought to be the highly prospective areas adjacent to the Ashmore and Cartier Islands. Two years down the track it has been established beyond any doubt that they were not highly prospective but only moderately prospective areas, and I will come to that in due course. As late as noon today my information was that the Democrats still had not made up their minds what they would do with this Bill. They were still consulting the Government. Originally the Democrats said that they were opposed to it but that they would let the Government have a go for a couple of years, so they put in a sunset clause. Senator Sanders —Read the Hansard. Senator LEWIS —We shall find out tonight what the Democrats are prepared to do now that they are faced with a crunch situation. Democrat senators can interject as long as they like but the truth of the matter is that we want to see where they put their bottoms in this chamber when they vote. We want to know whether they will be voting with members of the Opposition who are opposed to the Bill or whether, as usual when there is a crunch situation, they will support the Government and allow it its legislation. Senator Knowles —Get them to do another deal on logging. Senator LEWIS —Another deal on logging-deals are being done all over the place. The only time we ever see the Democrats voting against the Government is on some innocuous issue on which they think there are a few votes, a little voting niche from which they may be able to get some support. But on a crunch issue such as this of vital importance to the oil explorers of this nation, we shall see where they vote. The arguments against this legislation which we outlined in 1985 have changed little. The truth of the matter is that there has been a continuing downturn in off-shore oil exploration and that downturn only strengthens the arguments which we made in 1985. Australia is running out of oil. Bass Strait, the major producing area, is two-thirds exhausted already. When I say that it is two-thirds exhausted, I mean that two-thirds of those areas which we have already discovered are exhausted. Of course, there may be other areas which have not yet been discovered but under this Government's guidance we have not yet been able to ascertain those areas. Worse still, Bass Strait will supply only 65 per cent of Australia's liquid fuel needs this year and little more than 40 per cent by 1990. Australia will then be facing an oil import bill of up to $3 billion in today's currency. Given this fact people would expect us to be undertaking massive exploration but clearly this Government does not expect to be in office in 1990. If this amending Bill is passed the Liberal and National parties, as usual, will be left to clear up the mess. Cash bidding, imposed by the original legislation and extended and adopted by this amending legislation, is nothing more than an impost dressed up as an auction system for the right to undertake the risk of exploration. There are no guarantees of success in this industry. The work program, which currently applies to the bulk of applications for oil exploration permits-that is other than the Ashmore and Cartier Islands areas-has successfully operated for years and with our serious balance of payments problem it would be a most inappropriate time to produce any impediment at all to petroleum exploration. But this Bill will enable the Government simply to do that. The Australian Democrats cannot make up their minds about whether to oppose the legislation. Unlike the Government and the Democrats, who are also unlikely to be around in the 1990s, the coalition recognises that Australia can ill-afford the diversion of high cost risk capital from exploration budgets. If oil is found the Government will get its revenue from taxes. There is no need to get up front and to stop people from exploring by imposing fees on them before they even get a chance to go out and find the oil. If the oil is found the Government will get its opportunity to obtain tax revenue from those companies. The cash bidding system concept elsewhere has been linked to areas of high prospectivity. That is a jargon word in the oil industry which relates to likelihood of success. In the United States of America (USA), the United Kingdom (UK), off-shore, and Norway the cash bidding concept applies. The USA has tried, in fact for the past decade, to find some other leasing method. In the interim it has shut out industry from some of the most promising acreages of the whole outer continental shelf. As a concept, it is totally inappropriate to Australia, which is rated with the lowest prospectivity for oil discovery. Frankly, governments get into trouble with off-shore programs as seen in the UK and Canada, where they became too greedy and sought too much. Governments get into trouble when they forget that the reason for granting exploration rights is to accommodate exploration; it is not for the purpose of enriching national treasuries or to cater for special interest groups. It is quite clear that the reason for this legislation is simply to raise revenue. This legislation ignores the real need to encourage exploration by removing impediments. Many overseas governments, for example in Canada, China, India, Malaysia, Nigeria and Norway, are in fact relaxing their imposts to help maintain industry activity in the wake of the oil price collapses. It is hardly surprising that in these circumstances more than 50 Australian-based companies have expanded their petroleum exploration interests overseas-not in Australia, but overseas. They have mainly gone to Indonesia, to the United States, Papua New Guinea, China, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada. The fact that this Government refuses to acknowledge the relationship between tax levels, especially those imposed before exploration has begun, and exploration and discovery activity, is a major cause for concern, given the rapid decline in current reserves of oil in Australia. This legislation illustrates the Government's determination to ignore the advice of the experts, such as the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association and the Australian Institute of Petroleum Ltd, which are opposed to it. Further, the Northern Territory Government is opposed to the measure, and until 1985 the Western Australian Labor Government also opposed it. Premier Burke is at this stage strangely silent on the proposal in this Bill. We do not know what will happen in regard to Western Australia. I note that Senator Richardson has come into the chamber; I would bet my bottom dollar that if New South Wales had off-shore oil this Bill would not have been introduced. If there was something to be gained in New South Wales, the honourable senator opposite would be making dashed sure that this Bill was not put through. However, he does not have to worry about such consideration for New South Wales. So, the States of Australia which do have off-shore oil will have to suffer this impediment imposed on them. The Government has rejected the concerns expressed by the oil exploration industries; it rejects the concerns expressed by the States and the Northern Territory. The Government claims that it has reviewed the effectiveness of cash bidding. We ultimately managed to get the results of that review, and I might say that we had to put in a freedom of information application in order to get that. Finally, the Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) produced that review. However, it proved to be nothing more than a document which set out the arguments that the Government had put back in 1985. We know what the arguments are. Senator Walsh keeps producing those same sort of arguments in the chamber day after day. Here is a possibility that some companies might create some wealth, and the Government wants to get its share of that wealth before they do. We have seen Senator Walsh pushing these ideas through Cabinet, the Caucus and the Parliament. When we managed to get hold of this document, which was supposed to be a review of the effectiveness of this policy, it turned out that it was simply a regurgitation of the same quasi-economic arguments that we hear daily from Senator Walsh, who is worried about what he calls rorts being perpetrated by some companies which may be able to make a profit as a result of getting out there and spending very substantial amounts of money on oil exploration. The review simply asserts that we ought to have cash bidding because, in effect, the Government needs the revenue. An objective review would have shown that the oil explorers had voted with their feet against this Government's imposts. The oil explorers have deserted Australian oil exploration in droves. In 1983 there were 49 exploration wells and 49 wild cat wells off-shore in Australia. Now, in 1987, there are only 16 exploration wells and 11 wild-cat wells. Exploration expenditure has fallen from $520m in 1983 to a mere $130m in 1987. The reality is that world oil prices are low and uncertain. Australia's known oil reserves are rapidly diminishing, and petroleum exploration has been severely cut back as more companies look to greener pastures. Among the companies recently announcing the acquisition of United States gas or oil interests are Lennard Oil NL, Lakes Oil Ltd, Peko Oil Ltd, Stirling Petroleum NL, Bligh Oil and Minerals NL, BHP Petroleum Pty Ltd, Barcoo Petroleum NL, Orca Petroleum NL and Bridge Oil Ltd. They are Australian companies which have gone to the United States to undertake exploration work. I see that Senator Richardson is bored by all this, but I can assure him that the oil exploration industry of Australia is not bored by all these problems that the Government of which he is a part is imposing on it. I refer to the penalities and the taxes which this Government is imposing on the companies in that industry. It is not giving them a chance to go out there and explore for oil in the places where they might be able to find it. The companies involved might be prepared to have a go if only the Government would give them the opportunity to do so. The Government simply does not appear to understand that our off-shore explorers have failed to find an off-shore oil field in excess of 50 million barrels, and yet Australia needs to find the equivalent of two or three such fields every year if it is to maintain fuel self-sufficiency at 50 per cent by the year 2000. That is a very significant factor. The companies involved in exploration have been unable to find off-shore such substantial fields. Our known crude oil reserves are about 1.9 billion barrels, and at current consumption rates of some 170 million barrels a year those reserves will last for only another 11 years. In his second reading speech the Minister argued that cash bidding is a more efficient and equitable system than the work program system, especially in areas where competition is expected to be intense. But the truth of the matter is-and by contrast-that the industry argues that the work program which applies to the bulk of applications for oil exploration permits has operated satisfactorily for some years. While that system is more regulatory-and that, of course, worries us-it has still proved to be far superior to the cash bidding system which is being imposed by this Government. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) claims that exploration risks and costs are reduced by cash bidding because the system is more flexible. However, under the cash bidding system successful bidders need give no undertaking of what work will be done or when it will be done. This is hardly the way to provide the systems and the incentives to encourage the pace of exploration in the face of declining reserves. The work program favoured by industry requires such a commitment. Furthermore, the prospectivity of the Timor Sea has now been brought into question. The cash bid concept, as I mentioned before, introduced in 1985, was introduced in the belief that because prospectivity in that area was supposed to be high the Government stood to collect substantial income and it was not going to allow any of these exploring companies to make windfall profits. But we now have the benefit of hindsight. Subsequent drilling in the Timor Sea has delineated reserves at less than 20 million barrels at Jabiru and about 40 million barrels at Challis. Senator Parer —Fourteen. Senator LEWIS —My colleague corrects me-it is 14 million barrels, not 40 million, at Challis. This suggests that the area is more likely to contain simply a number of small fields, not one gigantic field which the Government had anticipated. But still the Government persists in coming back with this legislation. Even though the Timor Sea, Ashmore and Cartier fields have been reassessed and oil prices have collapsed, to date not a single well has been drilled on any permit awarded on a cash bidding system, and only very limited seismic work has been carried out in only one permit area. I ask the Government: Is this the basis on which the cash bidding system has been reviewed? As a large part of Australia's remaining undiscovered oil reserves are believed to be located off-shore in generally deeper water, the Government should be doing everything it possibly can to encourage off-shore oil exploration, with its attendant high costs and high risks. The Government is deluding the people by claiming that cash bidding is one way that the Australian people can receive some compensation for the resources that belong to all Australians. But first the oil has to be discovered, and then recovered. Cash bidding is a real impediment to both the discovery and the recovery process. No convincing evidence has been put forward by the Government to support cash bidding, and no plausible case has been put forward for the removal of the sunset clause. Australia is running out of oil. A tax rate of up to 91 per cent on existing production and a proposed additional tax of 70 per cent on new discoveries provide little incentive for oil producers to go out and look for it. Adding the impediment to oil exploration proposed in this amendment Bill is patently absurd, and the Opposition will oppose the legislation. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(9.13) —I have observed during my long life that if a person really has nothing to say in a debate, has no facts at his or her disposal, that person simply abuses those who disagree with his or her point of view. That is what we have heard tonight-a litany of abuse, very few facts and certainly no sustainable philosophy. Senator Lewis said that we should not expand the cash bidding program, which in fact is what this Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill would do. He said that in fact the program should be eliminated entirely. He called off a list of companies that had gone overseas, that had gone to the United States of America to participate in the oil industry. But apparently Senator Lewis does not realise that the US has a cash bidding program which has been successfully run for a number of years, and the companies are still happy to go to the US and operate under such a program. So I do not think we can give much credence to anything that Senator Lewis said. He also seems to ignore the low price of oil and the increasing cost of exploration. He ignores these facts and tries to say that exploration is decreasing simply because of some legislation that the Government has put in place. This is simply not so. He lives in his own world. Obviously he does not participate in the real world of oil exploration or economics. The Bill before us is basically an enlargement of the legislation we passed two years ago. Time does fly when you are having fun. The cash bidding legislation came before us two years ago and we passed it. We were quite pleased that it passed, although we did put in a sunset clause because at the time the oil industry was saying that it would hurt the small Australian oil companies. That may be a contradiction in terms; I do not know whether there is such a thing as a small Australian oil company. They all seem quite large. But still the industry claims that they might be hurt, and that is why we agreed to cash bidding. Senator Richardson —After last Tuesday there are a few. Senator SANDERS —After last Tuesday a lot may be smaller than they once were. It turns out that their operation has not been hampered; they are not going to the wall. There is no lasting difficulty for the small oil companies. In fact, no one has been disadvantaged by this program at all. Of course the oil companies will complain no matter what. They are a bit like the farmers in that respect. Senator McKiernan —And the Poms. Senator SANDERS —And the Parliament. They will complain. I suppose it is the job of their lobbyists, such as the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, to complain. The Bill will abolish the special arrangement with Western Australia whereby disagreements in the Joint Authority are resolved on a Premier-Prime Minister basis. It is about time. Why should Western Australia, with all respect to those in the chamber, be singled out for special treatment and have its difficulties resolved by a special conference between the Prime Minister and the Premier when no other Territory or State has that privilege. Senator McKiernan —`Premier' not `Preemier'. Senator SANDERS —I do have trouble with the language, as does even the honourable senator. I do not think that Western Australia, for all its accomplishments in the arts and other areas, should be singled out for special treatment when it comes to oil. Therefore, the Australian Democrats are firmly behind the move to abolish this special arrangement. The Bill will allow matters which were previously dealt with by the Joint Authority at the discretion of the Commonwealth Minister to become automatically matters for Joint Authority decision. This, too, is a step in the right direction, and Senator Lewis should agree with this because it will allow these matters to speed more swiftly through the decision-making process. The Bill will also abolish the over the counter award of petroleum exploration and production titles. Of course this is because we do have cash bidding, which makes it unnecessary to have the over the counter award of production titles. An important facet of the Bill is that it will allow a location to be declared over all of the blocks which cover a petroleum pool or pools found in a permit area, and remove the restriction on the maximum size of the location, presently a maximum of nine blocks. This is very important, and I am sure Senator Lewis would approve of it because it means that, if a pool extends over a number of artificial lines on the map, it can be produced effectively and efficiently rather than having to be either left unproduced or produced inefficiently because of some artificial constraint put on by those who drew the lines in the first place. So this is a recognition of the reality of geology, of the fact that these pools do not necessarily obey the lines drawn by human beings. The Bill will protect confidential information contained in instruments evidencing dealings registered under section 81 of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967. This is another very worthwhile part of the Bill because, if people are actually investing large amounts of money in petroleum exploration, they simply do not want this information to be bandied about. It should remain confidential. On the other hand, the Bill allows for the 1985 amendments to section 118 of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, which provide for improved public access to data and information, to apply the data and information supplied under the Act prior to the proclamation of the 1985 amendments. When it is not to the economic disadvantage of an oil company, information should be freely available to the people. This comes under the principle of freedom of information, and I am sure that Senator Lewis, who obtained some information under the Freedom of Information Act, would approve. I believe that there is a lot in the Bill that Senator Lewis does approve of, and I wonder why he has not mentioned those aspects. The Bill also provides for the Commonwealth Minister to direct the Designated Authority to obtain documents related to petroleum operations being carried on in the adjacent area. This will add to the free flow of information. It removes the sunset clause on the cash bidding legislation to allow that legislation to remain in force after 21 November 1987. The sunset clause, as I have already mentioned, was put in by the Democrats. We did so because of the fears expressed on the lines I have mentioned. There is no reason that this sunset clause should not come out. Let us look at the oil companies themselves and at what they have been doing and saying. I have an address given to the Australian Pipeline Industry Association 1987 international convention by Keith Orchison, Executive Director of the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association. This was in Adelaide on 28 October 1987. Mr Orchison kindly sent me this. It is the same line that the oil companies, not only in Australia but around the world, have been using. I have been working in this area for 20 years, and it has not changed in that time. Basically the industry is crying wolf. It is like the little boy in the fable who liked to get attention by crying wolf. He would come running home to his family and say, `Wolf! Wolf! There's a wolf'. They would all go rushing out, and the boy would get what he wanted, which was attention. The oil companies have been shouting, `We are running out of oil' and all the parliaments and congresses around the world and their legislators have been giving them what they wanted, which is basically open slather. But even as the wolf in the fable did not appear for a very long time, this has not appeared in the 20 years that I have been dealing with these issues. I am a geologist and have worked for the oil companies; I have also worked as an environmentalist trying to pound some sense into their heads in the United States. I have found that they have used the same line over and over again. Keith Orchison kindly included some of their very low key advertisements. I have one in black and red which reads, `Oil imports: oil production' and shows that we are importing more oil. The message is: Unless we find more of the black, we will find ourselves more in the red. Is that not a wonderful statement? Some advertising person must have spent a lot of time on that. I have another interesting one that says, `Australia is running out of oil'. The implication is that we are soon to freeze to death in the dark if we do not give the oil companies everything they want. I have heard this before. I heard it in the United States. In the United States, after the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969 a number of us, scientists and politicians, got together to try to limit off-shore oil drilling in the United States because obviously the technology was not up to it. There were a number of blowouts, a number of disastrous ecological occurrences there because of the oil spills, and we obtained a moratorium on off-shore drilling. At that time the oil companies said, `Oh, there will be dire consequences and you people will run out of oil. You won't be able to run your cars, your power supplies will go off' and so on. They found that they could improve their technology and they did not go broke. The technology was improved to the point where the oil companies' record is better than it was. Drilling for oil off-shore is still a finite hazard and there have been spills. There is no way to contain an oil spill off-shore in the open sea. Skimmers will not work, booms will not work, various artificial methods will not work, and this is an area where more attention should be paid to research into alleviating the disastrous consequences of oil spills. Senator Lewis —Where will that money come from? Senator SANDERS —The money should come from the oil companies because those companies are using the people's resource, and that resource includes not only oil but the environment. It is time that we internalised those externalities of the environment. Why should we make the environment pay for low cost, shonky, ill-prepared operations when the environment belongs to all of us? Why should the environment pay? The oil companies should pay. Senator Lewis —But if you allowed them to make a profit, they could do those things. Senator SANDERS —Talk about profits, I have never heard the oil company saying that they do not have enough profits. They may complain that they would like more. During the oil crisis, which was engineered by the oil companies in 1973, their profits were climbing at 400 per cent a year. Do not talk to me about profits in the oil companies. What about exploration? Implicit in all the material given to me by Keith Orchison is that exploration will solve our problems. This is a very short term way of looking at things. Is the world made of oil? Is there an infinite supply of oil? If we just keep exploring forever, will it solve our problems? Of course not. We are living on the never-never. When are we to start paying our dues? When are we to start being responsible and to say, `Yes, Australia is running out of oil, and let us start implementing the alternatives before we actually run out of oil'? A stitch in time saves nine. Senator McKiernan —You are on the nuclear argument now. Senator SANDERS —There are other arguments. I am talking about oil at the moment. I think that we should stick to this greasy subject. We have implicit in all this the idea that exploration and increased oil production are good. But when will the oil companies allow us to start harnessing our renewables? The technology is there. During my tenure as a university professor at the University of Santa Barbara one of the west coast managers of Exxon Oil spoke to my environmental pollution class. One student said, `Why aren't you oil companies interested in solar power?' He said, `Well, if we could get a blanket and throw it over the sun and then have a hole in the blanket and sell the hole, sure, we would be interested in solar power'. He was being very honest. The attitude of the oil companies is that, unless they can control all facets of this product, if they cannot bring it out of the ground, refine it and sell it, they do not want to know about it. They are moving into the renewables industries, but only very cautiously and only as a hedge against the day that they may take off. We have to start now getting away from the attitude that merely to drill for more oil will solve our problems. We have to stop listening to the oil companies. We must stop kowtowing to them-and the Government kowtows to them. The Opposition does so as a knee-jerk reaction, and the Government does, too. It is time that we took a good, hard look at what will benefit Australia, not the oil companies, many of which are owned overseas anyway. Australia can benefit only when it is not merely self-sufficient in oil, but truly self-sufficient in all forms of energy so that we can continue to operate into the future. This Bill is a step in the direction of putting the oil industry on notice that it will not get exactly what it wants. It will get an adequate profit out of this, it will get a good enough deal, but it will not get exactly what it wants. As for Senator Lewis saying that we have not made up our minds, we have had our minds made up for months, and indeed for years, even since we passed this legislation in the first place. I wonder why he can make such a statement. Certainly he never talked to me about whether we had made up our minds. I do not know who he is talking to. Perhaps his bug into our party room is not working correctly-we do not know-but we have always been in favour of cash price bidding since we passed the Bill in the first place, and we are in favour of it now. The legislation before us is a logical consequence of the legislation which has gone before. It is time to renew the cash price bidding program, which has proved itself to be worthwhile. The Australian Democrats support the Bill. Senator PARER(Queensland)(9.29) —I support Senator Lewis in opposing the petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. When considering how to respond to the remarks made by Senator Sanders, I decided that there was not much to respond to, except to draw the attention of the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) to the fact that Senator Sanders may be a serious competitor to Senator Richardson as a born-again greenie. If I were Senator Richardson, I would be on my guard. The Opposition opposes this Bill, as do most other organisations in Australia, such as the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, which represents more than 100 companies-not only the large companies, but the small and medium companies as well-the Australian Institute of Petroleum Ltd, most State governments and the Northern Territory. Cash bonus bidding is really nothing more or less than a tax on exploration. The Government's excuse for introducing this legislation is that the present program bidding or work bidding system is difficult to administer; yet the majority of exploration areas will continue to be subject to the present arrangement in every State of Australia. That is the way that areas are let for exploration in almost every mineral, including oil, coal and so on. How can the Minister argue for the introduction of a new system because the old system does not work when the supposedly old system will continue operating in most cases? Cash bidding is simply nothing more or less than a revenue raising exercise for the Government. It is a tax on exploration. The purpose of the legislation is made very clear in the Australian Labor Party Platform, Constitution and Rules, which I quoted the last time this matter was debated. On page 168, under the sub-heading `Taxation' it states: Labor will- this is worth listening to- replace existing taxes on petroleum production with a resources rent tax- which, as we all know, is phase 2 of this proposal- in conjunction with front-end payments by tender for the right to explore highly prospective areas. I know that Senator Lewis has drawn attention to what he calls highly prospective areas or what have been termed `highly prospective areas'. Australia is not in a highly prospective oil province. It never has been and probably never will be. I can recall very clearly some 20 years ago when the problem that really exercised the Menzies Government of the day was what on earth we could do because it was apparent that we would be importing more and more oil, which, of course, would have an adverse effect on the prospective balance of payments. Probably more importantly, we would be relying on somebody else for the supply of liquid fuels in this country. I can recall speaking to a real oil geologist-not the failed geologist who has just spoken-who came from Switzerland. At the time his view was that Australia did not have the geological structures that would rate it as a prospective area with the possible exception, perhaps, of the Bonaparte Gulf. As everybody knows, the then Government encouraged as many people as were prepared actually to explore for oil in Australia because of what it perceived to be, quite correctly, a problem down the track. As most people realise, on the advice of an American geologist, Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) decided to put down a wild-cat well in Bass Strait. BHP was not confident of the advice given so it decided to share the cost of that well-because it was expensive-with the Exxon company or Esso Australia Ltd. Senator Richardson —A bad decision. Senator PARER —Senator Richardson says that that was a bad decision, but it is a very risky area. I am sure that, coming from New South Wales, Senator Richardson, with his great experience of numbers, would also have spread the risk. BHP decided to share the risk-a risk from Australia's point of view, although not by world standards-and as a result the Bass Strait oil fields were discovered. Generally, Australia has not been a great oil province and in the main the discoveries that have been made have been made off-shore. I will talk briefly about the work program bidding system. This is the system that is used by all State governments. Like any system, it does have its imperfections. However, it has operated satisfactorily for many years and is supported by the oil exploration industry. Of course, the reason why the industry supports it is that it knows where it is going. It knows that when it puts in a program it must be a program that is acceptable. The industry knows that the program must be one that will be attractive to the incumbent government, whatever government that may be, so that it will say, `Yes, let us adopt this particular proposal rather than the others'. It is opportune to give some brief details of how this process continues to work in the States and, until a year or two ago, worked with the Federal Government of the day. Proposals are generally made by a number of consortia, either together or on their own, and they highlight a number of matters that I believe are very important. I say this because the cash bidding system is simply a matter of cash bidding and to hell with the sort of program to be developed and the sort of exploration program to be done. The Government is not interested in that. All it wants is the up front money. I think that was reflected in the proposal within the Labor Party's Platform, Constitution and Rules to which I referred earlier. Under the existing system a consortium or a group of companies first of all has to show a technical ability with a proven track record. It is usual for the curriculum vitae of key people to be provided in detail. Secondly, the consortium has to show not only its financial capability to carry out the exploration but also the ability to go into production, should the exploration be successful. Thirdly, consortia generally must show a proposed level of Australian control and equity at each level which has some influence on decision making. Fourthly, a detailed work program is required which shows an understanding of the genealogy of the area, gleaned from nearby work or work carried out previously; a program of exploration including required seismic surveys, the type of drilling and the pattern of the proposed work and a preliminary development program should viable reserves be discovered. A decision is then made on the proposal considered most likely to provide the best exploration program and hence development. The work program bidding system is more regulatory but superior to the cash bidding system in that it requires a firm commitment from companies to undertake development. That is really the basis of the difference between the two programs. By contrast, the cash bidding system does not require successful bidders to give any undertaking whatsoever of what work will be done or when it will be done. This is not the way to encourage the pace of exploration in the face of declining reserves in Australia today. The Government says that it has reviewed the effectiveness of cash bidding and rejects the concerns expressed about it. The review has assessed these concerns in the light of experience from the one and only cash bidding release to date. The cash bidding trial has been a one-off exercise and could not pretend to be a comprehensive or conclusive study of the effects of cash bidding on oil exploration. It has been claimed by small Australian producers-and I certainly agree with them-that cash bidding will disadvantage the smaller Australian companies. Small Australian companies involved in exploration will be squeezed out of cash bidding by the large foreign concerns because they will not be able to finance their offers or their payments at a cost equivalent to that of larger companies. It should also be borne in mind that often the larger organisations do not really have a time frame-they do not have the incentive to worry about finding, exploring and developing a resource. They can wait. The Minister's inadequate response to this problem is that the Government has always acknowledged that it would be difficult for smaller companies to participate in off-shore exploration because of the costs and risks involved. He also stated that the Government expected no change to the existing practice in the industry of forming consortia to bid for permits. It is a matter of great concern that cash bidding will deter exploration, and exploration is something we vitally need in Australia today. It is absolutely essential. Cash bidding is a tax before discovery and must reduce the funds available for genuine exploration. The following point is not often grasped. If front-end money must be paid by a genuine exploration company there is only so much money in that bucket. This will therefore reduce the amount of money that is able to be spent on genuine exploration. A portion of money which would have been spent on drilling holes and buying seismic equipment or employing people to operate that equipment will go into the bottomless pit of government revenue. It is estimated that the $30m paid recently in the cash bid for the Ashmore and Cartier permit could have been directed to another five or six wildcat wells. In the Minister's second reading speech he admitted that the impact of cash bidding on exploration activity in other areas held by companies involved in bidding could not be assessed. Australia's future as a self-sufficient oil producer is becoming increasingly uncertain. It has been mentioned by Senator Lewis and, in his roundabout way, by Senator Sanders that Australia has been consuming more oil than it has been discovering over the past 10 years. The problem is being compounded by an alarming fall in off-shore exploration investment. As I mentioned earlier, the most prospective areas in Australia are off-shore. That is relative because, compared with many other parts of the world, Australia, including its off-shore areas, is not prospective. In 1983, $520m was expended in off-shore exploration. By 1987 that figure has dropped to $130m. Similarly, in 1983, $47m was invested in wildcat wells. In 1987 that figure has fallen to just $11m. If we are to remain self-sufficient the Government should be doing everything in its power to encourage off-shore oil exploration where a large part off Australia's remaining undiscovered oil reserves are believed to exist. I mentioned earlier that the most highly prospective areas, in a not very prospective country, are off-shore. Instead, the Government wants to impose a punitive front-end tax on off-shore exploration, while admitting that it does not know what the full impact of that will be. Australia is currently 80 per cent self-sufficient for its oil supply, but without future oil discoveries net input costs will cost this country, in 1987 dollars, an estimated $3.2 billion a year by as early as 1990 or 1991 and $5 billion by around 1995. Revenue from cash bidding will pale into insignificance compared with the very large dent in our balance of payments that oil imports could make if this situation were allowed to continued. It is not just the dent in our balance of payments; it is also the reliance on something that is absolutely essential to the ongoing industry of this country. We may have to rely on another country and not be sure of obtaining supplies. It was that uncertainty during the first and second oil crises that moved many of the countries dependent on energy imports into coal developments from Australia-to the benefit of Australia, I agree. Australia is in a very fortunate position. We must not let it go. We must not go back, particularly now, to the situation we were in in the early 1960s when we were concerned about where we were going to get our oil. One does not have to be a genius to realise that it does not take much of a disturbance in the oil producing countries for the oil supply to be cut off. There is nothing in the legislation to suggest that cash bidding will be limited to the so-called highly prospective areas. The Government could extend the system to all areas of oil exploration. I presume that that is the intention of the Bill, irrespective of where they may be as long as they fall within the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth. A recent article in the Bulletin headed `Painful Energy Decisions Ahead for the Government' kicked off by saying, `Australia is running out of oil'. The article goes on to cite the figures I gave earlier relating to net input costs to this country. One would be a fool to imagine that those figures will not change. It would not take much for those figures to double. That is the sort of thing that we have to consider. Senator McKiernan —Or halved; it could be cut in value. Senator PARER —They could be cut in value, but not long ago the forecasts were that we were going to be short of oil and that the price was going to go up substantially. A lot of investments were made on that basis and people had their fingers burned. I am convinced that it is only a matter of time before that will occur. There will be shortages and reductions in the supply from volatile areas overseas. When that occurs, the price will increase substantially. We must be in a position to maintain our production. Oil exploration is to a country or an oil company what research and development is to industry. If one cuts back on research and development in industry one is doomed to failure. If one cuts back on oil exploration in oil provinces there is no doubt that one will suffer the consequences. I reaffirm that the Opposition opposes this Bill for the reasons given. We believe that every incentive should be given to more oil exploration in Australia. Disincentives should not be given, encouraging explorers to go off-shore and seek oil somewhere else where the conditions are better. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(9.48) —Tonight we are debating the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 which proposes amendments to a number of Acts, including the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Cash Bidding) Amendment Act 1985. According to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) the purpose of the Bill is `to improve the administration of petroleum exploration development activities in Australian off-shore waters and correct some of the anomalies in the legislation'. The main purpose of the Bill is to entrench cash bidding for the award of exploration permits and to increase the power of the joint authority over off-shore exploration. The industry has suffered a dramatic decline since this Government took office, a government-I remind the Senate-that promised lower fuel prices to the consumer and greater flexibility and exploration. Nothing could be further from the truth in terms of what has been delivered since March 1983. The Hawke Government has the dubious distinction of being responsible for changing the whole climate in the industry from one that provided significant advantages during the term of the coalition Government to the more adverse situation we are seeing today. These changes are due largely, if not solely, to a range of taxation measures brought in by this tax junkie Government, such as increases in company tax, the capital gains tax on farm-out deals, the fringe benefits tax on remote area costs, the proposed resource rent tax and, of course, let us not forget, cash bidding. To add insult to injury, if that was not all bad enough, and to highlight the insensitivity of this Government's approach, it has imposed these additional burdens at a time when international oil prices remains very weak indeed. This Government's average tax take levels are a disincentive when it is considered that oil reserves are far more difficult to find in Australia. Relatively greater expenditures are needed to locate the oil in the first place and therefore producers can generally expect a lower return from oil investments in Australia. It therefore follows that Australia's tax regime should be lower than that in other countries in order to attract foreign capital as well as Australian investment. But, of course, that is not so under this Government. As we have heard tonight, cash bidding legislation with a two-year sunset clause was passed in November 1985 when the Australian Democrats did another one of their well-known backflips in order to do a deal with the Australian Labor Party so as to force Federal intervention against logging in Tasmania. When Senator Sanders made a great outburst of rage during Senator Lewis's address this evening, I thought there was some hope of light at the end of the tunnel and that the Democrats may have seen the folly of their ways. But then I listened very carefully to Senator Sanders's address-what for, I am not too sure-and of course the Democrats have not changed their attitude. They are still barking up the wrong tree, they are still doing deals and they can still not see that they made the wrong decision in 1985 purely and simply, as I have said, based on the logging deal in Tasmania. Here we are, two years down the track, and the Democrats are still blinded by doing deals with this Government. Of course, Senator Sanders's whole address was so flippant on such an important issue that it is almost a disgrace to the Parliament. I would expect someone who purports to speak in an advisory capacity in such a portfolio to have more sensitivity to the plight of Australians generally and to the plight of this industry. But, of course, we have long since learned what to expect from the Democrats. Cash bidding replaced work program bidding whereby exploration leases were given on the amount of exploratory work promised. Cash outlays were not deductible against other taxes, including the proposed resources rent tax, which I add has already been rejected once but is going to be retrotted through this Parliament. Anything for more tax is the motto of this Government. It will do absolutely anything to get more tax out of anybody who moves. The amazing and illogical thing about this Government is that the revenue raised by cash bidding is more than likely to be less than what would be derived from taxes on production. Therein lies the lunacy. This Government brings in cash bidding but does not look at the taxes that could be derived from a higher rate of production. The coalition and the industry have consistently opposed the concept of cash bidding, as did the Western Australian Labor Government back in 1985. Members of that Government are Senator Richardson's mates and they are the ones who opposed it in 1985. Of course, curiously, the Burke Government has been very silent on this same issue this time around, and one could well ask why. We will be left to wonder why. This Bill seeks to abolish the special arrangements previously established whereby the Federal Minister could not exercise any power on a matter unless satisfied that the Western Australian Minister's decision would endanger or prejudice the national interest. The decision then became one for negotiation between the Prime Minister and the Premier, not the Joint Authority. But the crux of the Joint Authority decisions is that the final decision rests with the Federal Minister, and the States will lose all power. I will never support a Bill that comes into this place that means that the States will lose all power in such a vital area as exploration. Yet Premier Burke must be quite relaxed about this whole thing, as evidenced by his deafening silence on the matter. As I have said, we may well ask why. He was so vocal in 1985 that cash bidding would be a disaster and yet in 1987 the silence from him is absolutely deafening. The Bill takes away the special rights that Western Australia obtained in the early 1980s, and Premier Burke and Western Australian Labor senators just simply do not care, do not have a clue or do not want to know. Cash bidding has had adverse effects on off-shore exploration in the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States of America, where in 30 years only 20 per cent of off-shore exploration areas have been leased. Yet Senator Sanders-admittedly he is rather ashamed of being a former American-had the audacity to tell the Senate this evening that cash bidding in the United States had been a very successful program. What absolute and utter rot! The evidence speaks for itself in that, as I have said, in 30 years only 20 per cent of off-shore exploration areas have been leased. It is a disgrace that Senator Sanders stands in here and sings the sermon that it has been successful in the United States. It has been a disaster in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. This Government, as with so many of its other decisions to adopt tax measures that have been implemented in other countries, now wants to lead this country down the same dark path, and quite intentionally so, in the same way as it did with the capital gains tax and all those other things. Because other countries have such taxes, this Government believes we must have them no matter how disastrous they may have been in those other countries. Let me just examine the state of the industry and trace its continuing decline since this Government came to office. In 1983, 49 exploration wells were drilled. In 1986 the figure was 29 and in 1987 there have been 16 so far. In 1983, 47 wild-cat wells were drilled. In 1986 the figure was 20 and in 1987 there have been 11 so far. I am being very generous in adding the `so far' to all of these, but let us give the Government the benefit of the doubt. But we are still looking at 49 exploration leases versus 16, and 47 wild-cat wells versus 11. As my colleagues Senator Lewis and Senator Parer have already said, expenditure has reduced dramatically from a level of $520m in 1983 to $130m so far this year. Employment in oil exploration fell by 33 per cent in 1986. Australia has been consuming more oil than it has been discovering for the past 10 years-in fact double the rate. The Federal Government's own estimates of discoveries reveal that Australia will need to import 320,000 barrels of crude oil by 1992-93. Just imagine the cost of that to all Australians. I do not just mean the cost that a lot of people associate with increased costs in oil, that is, what they pay when they pull up at the bowser. The decline in Australian production and its self-sufficiency will have important ramifications for Australia's balance of payments, government revenue and security of supply. The only realistic solution to the problem is to find more crude oil and to have realistic petroleum policies, of which this is not one. It is the fundamental responsibility of the Federal Government to provide greater incentives and give greater encouragement to off-shore exploration than it is currently displaying. As I have said, the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) are all tax junkies. They are not happy unless they are introducing another tax. They do not have a fix until they have put down another tax. They are tax mad. They have to have another tax. They are absolutely killing this industry. They have no idea of how all these tax measures that they are putting down impinge on the Australian community as a whole. It is just tax at any price. Let us not be mistaken about the fact that the world oil price has fallen. The domestic price of Bass Strait crude oil has fallen. Australia's production outlook has deteriorated. Australia's outlook for self-sufficiency has worsened. Off-shore exploration expenditure has fallen and is expected to fall even further. Australia has become less attractive to explorers, the overall economic situation has deteriorated, high interest rates have been sustained, business taxation has increased, yet this Government wants to bash the last breath of air out of the industry's lungs. With all that has preceded it, this Government wants to go further. It wants to entrench cash bidding. We had the tokenism of the Australian Democrats two years ago in putting in a sunset clause. The Government had no intention whatsoever of saying, `Let us pull out the sunset clause'. It was just a measure to try to appease both sides at the time. As I have said, this Government is quite happy to bash the living daylights out of what is left of the industry. The Government needs to have a real rethink on this whole issue and, in particular, the issue of cash bidding. My only hope was that the Democrats would have made a responsible decision. I suppose that it is a bit of a joke in itself even to contemplate such a thing. I would have hoped that they would have made a decision with only the consideration of Australia's future in mind and not the consideration of what they could get out of the Government for voting with it as they saw fit to do in 1985. I think this Bill is a great tragedy for Australia and for the industry. These decisions are long term decisions. This Bill needs to be defeated if ever the plight of the industry and Australia is to be turned around. I support the opposition to this Bill. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(10.03) —I hope that Senator Knowles will remain in the chamber having said, `We know what to expect from the Australian Democrats', and I hope that she will listen to what I have to say. She has used a number of non sequiturs and has not based any logical argument on the observations which, to some extent, she has correctly made. It is true that the rate of discovery of new oil in Australia exceeds the rate at which that oil is being exploited. But Senator Knowles apparently has failed to notice, as have several other honourable senators, that on a world-wide scale the rate of oil exploitation exceeds the rate of new discoveries and has done now for quite a number of years. Furthermore, both Senator Knowles and Senator Parer have noted that the price at the moment is weak. Yet, given the nature of this limited non-renewable resource, they now wish to exploit that resource at an even faster rate. The points on which Opposition senators have based their case are predicated on a view of resources which fails to take into account the non-renewable nature of liquid petroleum, which is one of the class of fossil fuels, all of which are in limited supply and will run out-in the case of liquid petroleum certainly within the next century. To support one of the points that Senator Parer made, the indications are that petroleum prices will be rising by about 1992-93 as North Sea oil goes into decline. There will be a shift back to a situation in which the Middle East countries will then be in the strong position that they were in in 1972 and 1973. The present low price of oil on world markets, and markets everywhere, reflects only the immediate supply and demand. It takes no account of future shortages. One of the things that many of us in the conservation movement, including a number of Democrats, have been concerned about for a long time, is that we should be putting in place ways of conserving these resources, not ways of increasing their consumption. The view that we need to increase our rate of exploration and exploitation takes no account of the needs of future generations for these resources. I point out that the uses to which petroleum may be put, and to which it is put in our generation, go well beyond the needs for transport where most of the petroleum is used by our generation. I point to the uses in the manufacture of unusual chemical building blocks which go into the plastics, drugs, dyes and a whole range of other things. It may well be that the profligate use of this resource by our generation will be condemned by later generations because we will have denied them the opportunity of using that very valuable resource for these other purposes. The Opposition's view is also predicated on the view that there are no alternatives other than simply using oil at a faster and faster rate. Apparently, members of the Opposition have not heard of conservation, nor have they heard of the very severe consequences of increasing the rate of consumption of petroleum and fossil fuels. Briefly, I would just like to mention that there is now universal credence among the world scientific community given to concerns over the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a consequence of burning fossil fuels which is leading to a greenhouse effect. To put a few figures to that, before the beginning of the industrial era, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 270 parts per million. Currently, it is about 340 parts per million and it is rising at the rate of about half a percentage point per year; that is, half a percentage point compound. In addition, because we have built a profligate exploitative technological system on the use of fossil and other fuels, we are also increasing a number of other gases in the atmosphere. The nitrous oxide concentration in the atmosphere is increasing at about 0.6 per cent per year, methane is increasing at about 1.1 per cent per year and freons, the gases which are used to expand foams in refrigerators and air-conditioners, are increasing in the global atmosphere at between 5 per cent and 7 per cent per annum. As a consequence it is expected that there will be an increase in the global temperature of between 1 1/2 and 4 1/2 degrees over the next 40 to 50 years and a rise of approximately one metre in the sea level, with quite disastrous consequences on a global scale. As I have said, these effects are now accepted by the World Meteorological Office, the International Council of Scientific Unions, the National Academy of Science in the United States of America and the Australian Academy of Science. These are the sorts of effects which will face our children. They are not dim, distant effects; they are effects which are just around the corner. In fact, many people who are now alive will see those effects. Against that background, we need to look very seriously not at further exploration and exploitation of fossil fuels but at increased efficiency. I would like to pick up a point which was made by way of interjection. Nuclear energy was mentioned as one alternative. The sixth report on environmental pollution, the so-called Flowers report in Great Britain, looked at this situation quite closely and showed that the move to nuclear energy would actually increase the demand for fossil fuels and not decrease it and that, as I have said, the greenhouse effect is due to a number of other gases, which is predicated on the increasing use of resources generally and an exploitative attitude which needs to be turned around. I would also point out-this should be fairly obvious to anybody-that oil is principally used as a source of mobile energy, whereas nuclear energy can be used, and is used at the moment, only as a fixed source of energy for the generation of electricity. So nuclear energy is not a substitute for oil. We therefore need to move to a situation in which oil and indeed all other fossil fuels are used much more efficiently. I believe it is possible to save $2 billion to $3 billion a year-forecast by several speakers this evening-in oil imports by the years 1991-92 and into the future. To go down that path will provide long term benefits, which simply attempting to increase the rate of exploration and exploitation will not do. Indeed, we have left it rather too late properly to put in place these alternative technologies. We should have been doing this much earlier. Simply to put off these developments for a further five or six years, because currently the price of oil is low, is to leave to our very near future a problem which will become extremely difficult to solve. To put into place some of these energy efficient alternatives requires relatively long lead times. As an aside, I would mention that I think the Government has made a mistake in relation to its car plan in that insufficient emphasis is placed on the efficiency of motor vehicles, when in fact they use about 40 per cent of all the liquid petroleum used in this country. I believe we could have developed vehicles which would use only half as much petroleum and provide the same service in terms of distance travelled. Petroleum and, indeed, all other non-renew- able resources in Australia are owned by all the people; they are not owned by the oil companies. It is right and proper that the oil companies should pay for the right to exploit any of those resources. As a consequence of that and of the observation that we need to conserve these resources, both for the reasons that they are limited, non-renewable resources and that their exploitation is posing, and will pose, an increasing and severe environmental problem for which there is no solution, I believe we should very strongly support this Bill. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.16) —I have not been here for the whole debate, but I understand that the same old hoary chestnuts were run out by some members of the Opposition, in particular about the cash bidding. The logically indefensible argument was asserted that Australia and Australian off-shore waters are not particularly prospective for oil. Therefore, it was asserted, completely illogically, that would deter applications for exploration licences. For anybody who has an IQ above about 35, it should be apparent that, if it was the perceived wisdom that off-shore acreage was so unprospective that it could not justify any cash bid, the cash bid would be zero. Therefore, the argument that that would deter exploration falls to the ground. In other words, if it was assessed by the possible explorers and producers that the acreage was worth nothing, the bid would be nothing. Therefore, as a matter of simple logic, the argument put by Senator Knowles, in particular, is completely invalid. If I may be excused for making one other observation, that sort of puerile argument demonstrates that those in the so-called Right of Australian politics are economically illiterate because they do not understand the market theory upon which their ideology is supposed to be based. I also understand that Senator Knowles-and this is not surprising, given that she comes from the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party, which is probably the most rednecked branch of the Liberal Party in the whole country-objected to the removal, which the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill provides, of the so-called special consideration for resolution of disputes in Western Australian off-shore waters, which the present legislation says have to be resolved between the Premier of Western Australia and the Prime Minister. That, of course, was on the craven provisions that were put into the old legislation by the craven Fraser-Howard Government. (Quorum formed) Before Senator Puplick pulled a quorum, thinking at the time it was a clever or good thing to do, I was referring to the craven surrender by the Fraser-Howard team to Charlie Court-or Sir Charles Court if one wants to be properly respectful-the then Premier of Western Australia, who insisted on having written into the existing legislation that matters concerning off-shore oil exploration, production and so on had to be resolved at a Premier to Premier level. That was, as I have already indicated, a craven surrender by the Fraser-Howard team to the delusions of grandeur of the then Western Australian Premier, who was responsible, among other things, for signing the take or pay contract to purchase North West Shelf gas for which there was no market. The then Premier of Western Australia, Charles Court, quite gratuitously, added on about 20 per cent to the amount that the State Electricity Commission was contracted to purchase for no particularly good reason at all. Senator McKiernan —Disgraceful. Senator WALSH —It is absolutely disgraceful, as Senator McKiernan says. It is not only disgraceful but also displayed Charlie Court's grandiose belief that reality could be bent to conform with his will. The present Commonwealth Government has bent over backwards to rescue the Western Australian Government from the financial consequences of Charles Court's grandiose decision. I understand that there are no amendments to be moved to this legislation-or at least I have seen no indication of any amendments, at either the second reading stage or the committee stage. Therefore, I do not propose to delay the passage of this Bill any longer. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Aulich, T. Jenkins, J. A.Beahan, M. E. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P.Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. Macklin, M. J.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R.Coates, J. Morris, J. J.Collins, R. L. Powell, J. F.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. E.Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F.Coulter, J. R. Ryan, S. M.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O.Haines, J. Alston, R. K. R. Messner, A. J.Archer, B. R. Newman, J. M.Baume, Michael Panizza, J. H.Bishop, B. K. Parer, W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Patterson, K. C. L.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Calvert, P. H. Sheil, G.Chaney, F. M. Short, J. R.Chapman, H. G. P. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W.MacGibbon, D. J. Button, J. N. Crichton-Browne, N. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Baume, Peter Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., pursuant to sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator SCHACHT(South Australia)(10.30) —I take the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on a matter concerning French Polynesia. Today at Question Time I asked a question of Senator Evans, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), about the situation that had developed in French Polynesia or, as I like to call it, French occupied Polynesia. I must admit I have a prejudiced view in some senses about the French administration in that country. In 1983 I visited that country as a guest of the Polynesian Socialist Party, Ia Mana Te Nunaa, and while I was there I publicly expressed my support for the cessation of the French nuclear testing program and for independence for French Polynesia. When I did so it was indicated to my host by the French secret police that it would be a very good idea if I left the country forthwith. As I was leaving the next day, I did not take heed that I should leave immediately. It was interesting to note when I was leaving that there was a considerable display of gendarmes present with guns, et cetera at the airport just to make it clear that they did not think I was a desirable visitor to the country. Since then I have always had a passing interest in the situation in Polynesia. As a member of the Australian Labor Party's foreign affairs committee, I have debated and moved motions at our national conference supporting independence for French Polynesia or, as I like to call it, French occupied Polynesia, a phrase that sends the French Government into apoplexy when it hears it mentioned. The French try to tell us that Polynesia is a part of France. To me that is like saying Bulgaria is part of Australia or Iceland is a part of the Argentine. That is the myth, the rationale, that the French use to stay in French occupied Polynesia. It is there as a subterfuge only because the French Government wishes to continue the French nuclear testing program. It is one of the great tragedies for Polynesia that in 1963, as a result of the French withdrawing from Algeria, President De Gaulle had to find another place where he could test nuclear weapons to develop the so-called force de frappe. In my view he chose Polynesia because it was the place furthest from metropolitan France. If one says to the French, `If French testing is so safe why don't you do it in Sardinia, the central Massif or the Pyrenees?' they say that the geological shape of the rocks and the mountains in those areas means that it is not safe. I think it is probably safer to test where there are underground rocks than on a coral atoll in the South Pacific. Since 1963 the French have established in Polynesia a major military establishment. It has drastically affected the cultural life and the social fabric of that country and, tragically, in a very adverse way. We all have a notion that Polynesia is paradise, and this goes back to when the first European explorers found this beautiful country and a very friendly people. That is the image tourists still have of Polynesia. It is a terrible shock to go to Papeete, the capital of Polynesia, and find that just a few blocks away from the city centre are some of the worst slums imaginable. I find it incredible that the French would build three or four-storey concrete blocks of flats, which were obviously designed by the French housing commission for Paris or northern France for a cold climate, in Polynesia without air-conditioning, without appropriate ventilation and without any consideration for the surrounds or the Polynesian style of living. There is a terrible situation in Papeete of very disparate examples of wealth. The French civil service is made up of people who have gone there to develop and become part of the French nuclear testing program. The French civil service and a small number of Polynesian people who have been able to become part of the French middle class are living a very comfortable lifestyle. However, at the bottom end of the scale the overwhelming majority of the Polynesian people live, in my view, in one of the worst colonial situations one would see anywhere in the Third World. It is a disgrace to the French administration that that situation exists. It will tell people that it spends hundreds of millions of Australian dollars on development in Polynesia but it does not tell people that most of that money goes towards providing a lifestyle for the French civil service involved in the French nuclear testing program or the administration. Australia and certainly the Australian Labor Government are to be commended for the effort they have been making in supporting independence for New Caledonia. That has my full support and, I believe, the overwhelming support of the Australian people. However, because of our strong support for independence for New Caledonia, the issue of independence for French occupied Polynesia has not been given the coverage or publicity it should have in Australia. We will not end French nuclear testing in the South Pacific until we get independence from the Polynesian people. Those two issues-independence and the cessation of French nuclear testing-are intricately woven together. Senator Reid —Do you have the same view about the indigenous population in Fiji? Senator SCHACHT —I certainly have the view that where there is a democratic constitution it should continue. There is no democratic constitution in Polynesia. It is considered by the French to be a part of France and therefore the Polynesian people do not have independence. The French will certainly say that in the 1950s there was a referendum on some sort of self-government and the Polynesian people did not vote for it. The way the referendum was put it was almost impossible to vote otherwise. That leads me to the historical perspective of French colonial rule in Polynesia and the dreadful situation that occurred with one of the great patriots of Polynesia, a man called Pouvanaa, who volunteered to fight for the French in the First World War against the Germans in the trenches of France. He was a major figure in the Polynesian community. When he returned to Polynesia after the First World War he was an advocate for independence and self-rule for Polynesia. In 1940 Polynesia was the first territory of France that declared in favour of Free France and General De Gaulle. Pouvanaa was one of the major people who argued that De Gaulle and Free France should be supported, not the Vichy regime that the administrators in New Caledonia were trying to support. This meant that Australia had to intervene to stop New Caledonia from becoming a part of the neo-facist rule in the world at that time. Pouvanaa supported De Gaulle in 1958. He was clearly the leader of the French Polynesian people. When De Gaulle had to shift the nuclear testing program to Polynesia, Pouvanaa opposed it and called for independence. On a trumped up charge brought by the French administration, Pouvanaa ended up getting 10 years gaol for opposing the French rule of General De Gaulle. He spent eight years in a gaol in Marseilles, which nearly killed him. He did not return to Polynesia until the late 1960s or early 1970s. His health was wrecked and he was never again able to fulfil the role of the leading proponent of independence for the Polynesian people. He died in the mid-1970s. Pouvanaa's treatment was a disgraceful episode and, in my view, it is the equivalent to the Dreyfus case of trumped up charges to get rid of a political opponent to De Gaulle's program of French nuclear testing. De Gaulle knew that independence could not be given to French occupied Polynesia while he needed to test nuclear weapons. In my view the history of France in this region has been all but disgraceful. Since the 1970s a number of Polynesian people have got together to start a campaign for independence and to oppose the French nuclear testing program. I must say that it has been one of the honours in my political career to have met Jacqui Drollet, the Leader of the Ia Mana Te Nunaa Party, which is both in favour of independence and opposed to French nuclear testing. It has yet to become a major Party, but that Party is represented in the Tahitian Territorial Assembly. I had the opportunity today to speak to Jacqui Drollet in Papeete about the episode that took place last Friday concerning the waterside workers' strike and the reaction of the French people and the French military forces. I understand from Jacqui Drollet that by this time he will have issued a public statement explaining the position of his Party and of the Polynesian people towards that episode. I want to relate to the Senate what really happened. The waterside workers went on strike because, among other things, they wanted more workers employed to work on the wharfs, including work involving shipping material to Mururoa Atoll. They went on strike for several days. As explained to me by Jacqui Drollet-and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of his remarks or his integrity-last Friday, in typical Polynesian style, the people concluded the time that they had spent on the picket line with a prayer meeting, as they are all Protestant Christians, and at five o'clock while they were praying and leaving the picket line they were attacked by several hundred French Foreign Legionnaires, armed military gendarmes and other military people. They were attacked with batons and, as I understand, tear gas. Several people were injured and a number of them were arrested. Clearly, it was a provocative act by the French Administration in Polynesia against a peaceful industrial strike. I think the French should stand condemned for that. Since five o'clock last Friday Polynesian time French officials have said nothing in any of the public statements that have been made that gives the lie to what I have just stated. Obviously, in a city the size of Papeete, when that episode occurred the word got around about the provocation of the French military forces. Many young Polynesians who for several years had become increasingly resentful about the way that the French had been administering Polynesia went on what has been described as a riot, a rampage. Jacqui Drollet admitted that between 50 and 60 shops were absolutely destroyed, and obviously they were looted, and cars were burned. Jacqui Drollet said that it was a culmination of a number of years of frustration that the French authorities have not addressed-and this relates not only to the political issues of independence or French nuclear testing in Polynesia but also to the economic and social issues pertaining to the standard of living of ordinary Polynesians in that country. As I have said before, the French make great claim about the money that they pump into that country, saying that they spend enormous amounts of money, but it does not get to the ordinary Polynesian worker, the ordinary Polynesian family person. Unemployment amongst those people is high and they have bad housing, a bad education and no opportunities for the future. They are the frustrated ones, especially the young people who were part of the riot. I think that when those circumstances are understood it becomes apparent that the riot was a manifestation of the other ills prevalent in that country and that it was not something that took place as some sort of off-the-cuff criminal activity. I believe that we must ask the French to address these social and economic problems, and that is not to mention the political problems of independence for Polynesia. In the past couple of days some extraordinary statements have been made by French spokespeople. The French Security Minister, Robert Panraud, said during a radio broadcast in Paris today that he saw `no direct proof that Australia or New Zealand was involved in the weekend's unrest in Tahiti'-it was a backhanded attack on Australia and New Zealand-`although those two countries do not apply a policy of defending the Western world in this part of the world'. That statement was made in Paris, which is 15,000 kilometres from Polynesia. It is part of the French paranoia to say that the real reason that Australia is against French nuclear testing, in favour of independence in New Caledonia and in favour of independence for Polynesia, is that we want to get the French influence out and to play a hegemonic role in the whole region, applying it to both ourselves and New Zealand. However, that betrays the fact that it is the French who are about hegemonic policies; it is their attitudes that are hegemonic and not ours. In supporting the idea of independence for New Caledonia and Polynesia, I indicate that I would hope that both countries will keep part of their traditions coming from the past 150 years of French involvement. I see nothing wrong with having that French culture as part of the culture of those countries. The Polynesians in Tahiti make no bones about the fact that they will continue to use the French language and that they will continue with French culture and use French institutions, for example. I think that that is to be supported. However, as to the question of independence, the people of Polynesia will make that choice themselves and they will not rely on being dictated to by the French Government. I think that the Australian people and the Australian Government have every right to be extremely critical of the role that France is playing in that part of the world. I hope that in coming years not just the Labor Party but all political parties in Australia and all interest groups in the Australian community will indicate their support for independence for French occupied Polynesia, because not only are we anti-colonialist but above all else it will mean the end of French nuclear testing in the region. As far as I am aware, all political parties in Australia, and certainly 99.9 per cent of Australian people, are opposed to French nuclear testing in that part of the world. My final comment deals with the role in particular of a certain other gentleman in the French Administration, Gaston Flosse. Until February this year he was the Chief Minister of the De Gaullist Party in the Polynesian Territorial Assembly. On the election of the Chirac Government he was offered the job of Minister for Territories in the South Pacific. Not only has he been assiduous in promoting French interests in New Caledonia and in Polynesia but he has been touring all the other countries of the South Pacific. For example, I believe that he was the person responsible for making an offer to Colonel Rabuka in Fiji, along the lines of, `Are you interested in having some sort of joint military exercises? Are you interested in sharing military intelligence?'. He has also recently been in other South Pacific countries and made offers of aid from France, to increase the French influence and to reduce the hostility, as he would see it, of other South Pacific countries towards French nuclear testing and French colonialism in the South Pacific. In my view, the tour undertaken by Gaston Flosse around the South Pacific should be monitored closely by the Australian Government. In conclusion, I want to place on record my full support for Jacqui Drollet and all the other people of French occupied Polynesia who support independence and the cessation of French nuclear testing. They are in a very difficult position. They are discriminated against politically, but they are very brave people and I hope that in the not too distant future, before I get too old, I and all other Australians will have the opportunity to welcome Polynesia into the United Nations as an independent country. I hope that that is a view all other members of the Parliament, in both Houses, would share. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to speak tonight. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.50) —On 22 October I raised the matter of policing in the Belconnen area. I asked a number of questions, and they were answered yesterday by the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate. He indicated the level of police patrols for each of the three eight-hour shifts that apply in the Belconnen area. I suggest that the Minister has told me the level of policing that is scheduled to be offered to the community for each of those three shifts, but what I would like him to tell me is what was the actual level of policing for each of the three shifts operating over the last three weeks. I understand it is the case that if a policeman is sick or absent from duty because he is attending court or for any other reason, there is no means of replacing him and the shift is short by that one person, or however many might be the case. I would really like to know the actual numbers who provided police cover to the area in the period that the Minister referred to in his answer. The Minister also indicated that in the Belconnen area the average time for answering a call is eight minutes. This has caused an interesting response because since then I have had a number of telephone calls from constituents in the Tuggeranong area, specifically, indicating that they wished they could get a police response in eight minutes. Fifteen minutes is the most likely time, and thirty or more is frequent. I have had reported to me on at least two occasions instances where, when a police patrol finally came, it apologised for the delay, indicating that it was the only patrol available. I would like to know not what number was scheduled to operate-I accept the information the Minister gave as to what the scheduled level of patrols is-but the actual patrols available over that time. That information might give a more realistic indication of the level of policing in the Australian Capital Territory. It may also be much closer to people's perceptions of the level of policing being provided. I certainly suggest that it really is lower than what is reasonable for the size of the population and for the calls which are made upon it. I would ask that the Minister for Justice produce the actual records from Tuggeranong and Belconnen police stations over, say, the last three weeks of the actual number of police on duty out in the community during these shifts. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(10.53) —The Federal Labor Government has turned its back on the isolated children of the Northern Territory and elsewhere in Australia. I refer in particular to a question I addressed to Senator Ryan on Friday. It related to the Labor Government's decision to cease funding for the vital home loan video scheme. This scheme was set up in 1982, and it enables outback students to supplement their studies with video cassettes. The Special Minister of State, Senator Ryan, gave a blatantly hypocritical answer to this Senate the other day. She set out and acknowledged the success of the scheme, but she also managed to buck-pass it away in exactly the same breath. We were told how the scheme would now be available under the capital grants program for the States. Just what does that mean? It means that the States and the Northern Territory will have to discount other projects and force the video program to compete for funding with other education and State-type programs, thus depriving the kids of the bush of opportunities and the things they need. The Labor Government is simply pulling out the rug from under a program so obviously needed for children in Australia's outback. I would call on all Labor senators and all Labor members of the House of Representatives-and in particular my two Territory colleagues, Labor Senator Bob Collins and Labor member Warren Snowdon-to use their influence within the Government to reinstate this most important program. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(10.55) —This evening Senator Schacht raised concerns about the political situation in French Polynesia. In particular, he has highlighted Australia's ongoing opposition to French nuclear testing. I am sure that many honourable senators will share his views about the unprovoked attack on a peaceful trade union demonstration at the weekend. We all hope that such unrest is very short lived and that solutions can be found to many of the tensions in French Polynesia. Senator Reid raised her concern about policing, particularly in Belconnen, although she is seeking overall figures of the actual number of police on duty at any given time. I can understand her concerns because I have sought precisely the same information for different areas of country Queensland, where police numbers have been seriously lacking over a number of years. I will undertake to seek those details from the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate. Senator Tambling raised the question of a particular video scheme of benefit to isolated children. I must admit that I am not familiar with that scheme. Senator Tambling —That is a pity, particularly as you represent Queensland. Senator REYNOLDS —I am not sure that this particular scheme is in fact in operation in Queensland, but I will certainly have a look at it. Only a couple weeks ago I received a deputation from a number of isolated parents who were presenting their concerns about certain issues, but they did not raise this particular one with me. That is why I am somewhat surprised to hear of the problem. Senator Tambling —It is certainly in all of the general submissions from the Isolated Children's Parents Association. Senator REYNOLDS —All I can say is that they were more concerned, on this occasion, with communication issues-we were discussing issues relating to Telecom Australia-and road funding. But I will raise the matter again for the honourable senator. I understand he has already raised it in Question Time. I will ask Senator Ryan to put forward the actual details for his benefit. He should also check his facts about the increases that were made in the last Budget in overall funding for isolated children. Again I will undertake to get those facts, because I do recall seeing them at Budget time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.58 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Defence Act-Determination 1987-No. 71-Overseas Living Allowance and others. Lands Acquisition Act-Land, etc, acquired for-Pipeline Authority purposes-New South Wales. Navigation Act-Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Marine Orders 1987-No. 8-Part 2 (Fees). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1) Senator Colston asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 14 September 1987: In which States of Australia (including the Northern Territory) does `provisional' Federal electoral enrolment also result in `provisional' enrolment at the State level, with the enrolee being automatically placed on the State roll when the person attains the age of eighteen years. Senator Robert Ray —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: In Victoria and South Australia `provisional' enrolment at Federal level of 17 year olds will also result in `provisional' enrolment at State level, with the enrolee being automatically placed on the State roll when the person attains the age of eighteen years. In New South Wales an amendment to the State Electoral Act to provide for `provisional' enrolment for 17 year olds has been passed by the Parliament and is awaiting proclamation. In Western Australia an amendment to the State Electoral Act to provide for `provisional' enrolment for 17 year olds is presently before the State Parliament. Queensland, Tasmania and the Northern Territory do not have provisions for the enrolment of 17 year olds, and 17 year olds who provisionally enrol for Commonwealth purposes have to re-enrol for State/Territorial purposes upon attaining the age of eighteen years. (Question No. 48) Senator McLean asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Did the Minister for Community Services and Health see the article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 26 August 1987 which was titled: `Alcohol a life sentence for babies'. (2) Given the alarming statistics in the article, will the Federal Government legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol on radio and television. (3) Will it also encourage State governments to ban the advertising of alcohol in newspapers and magazines. (4) Has the Minister's Department done a study of the economic feasibility of equating the level of excise tax levied on alcohol products with the actual alcohol content of the product; if so, what were the results of the study; if not, will the Minister's Department undertake such a study with a view to initiating a policy whereby the level of excise tax levied on alcohol products begins with no excise tax being levied on products with less than 0.1 per cent alcohol and increasing thereafter, at a level to maintain the existing amount of revenue raised by this tax. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) While it is not the Government's intention to ban alcohol advertising from television and radio there is a need for the alcohol and advertising industries to be more socially responsible in relation to alcohol advertising generally. I am particularly concerned at alcohol advertising which is attractive to our youth, and this has already been the subject of discussions between a delegation of Ministers of the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy and the Media Council of Australia. It will also be reviewed at the next meeting of the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy on 6 November 1987. Community education on alcohol consumption is an important part of the Government's strategy to prevent alcohol misuse. A very valuable recent educational aid is the National Health and Medical Research Council publication `Is there a safe level of daily consumption of alcohol for men and women?'. On the question of alcohol consumption and pregnancy it states (page 32)-`At our current level of knowledge, responsible drinking during pregnancy must be considered to be abstinence'. The publication deals with a range of alcohol related issues, and a copy is available from the Parliamentary library. Later this year, under the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse (NCADA), a national campaign on alcohol is to be launched which will focus initially on adolescent alcohol abuse. This will complement a range of other initiatives under NACADA which aim at educating people in the responsible use of alcohol. (3) Not at this time. In discussions with my colleagues in the States and Territories I will seek a continuation of their current activities in pressing industry to adopt a more socially responsible stand on alcohol advertising in all media. (4) The matters raised lie within the responsibility of the Treasurer. He has advised that the excise levied on potable spirits is applied on the basis of alcohol content whilst the excise levied on beer (per volume of beer) is applied at a reduced rate for lower alcohol beer. He also advised that there are no plans to change the excise arrangements to levy excise on all alcoholic beverages on the basis of alcohol content.