Thursday, 17 December 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That changes to the Defence Service Home Loans Scheme will have the effect of reducing existing benefits to Servicemen and Veterans and are therefore to be condemned. 2. That the results of a review of the scheme should be published by the Government. 3. That the Scheme should be amended to increase the amount of the loan, speed up the processing of loans, and widen the eligibility to include all Servicemen by way of recognition of their service to Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Newman (from 133 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The Humble Petition of certain Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth. The Government by persisting with the Australia Card Bill has wilfully rejected the advice and recommendations of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia's ``Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card'' which unequivocally rejected the Government's proposal in these words: ``The majority believes the creation of a new bureaucracy of 2000 public servants within the HIC (Health Insurance Commission), with the sole task of identifying every man, woman and child in Australia, is a wasteful exercise which will not address the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud but will provide the mechanism by which the very fabric of our society will be irreversibly altered, opening the way for the greatest attack on the privacy of individuals as the `Identity Bureau' identifies, monitors, and updates information on every person in Australia'' (Report, 4.55, page 148). Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government now withdraw the Bill as being contrary to the Common Law and traditional freedoms we have hitherto enjoyed in Australia, and should the Bill be nevertheless re-introduce, that the Members of the Senate without regard for party should unanimously reject the Australia Card Bill as being contrary to our personal liberties and the national interest. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jenkins (from 24 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. by Senator Walters (from 21 citizens). To the President and Senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senators Brownhill (from 20 citizens) and Walters (from 412 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 Brownhill (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: We consider the Federal Government's decision to have a Telecom charge for the cost of ``Directory Assistance'' enquiries will greatly disadvantage, the sick elderly and the handicapped. Specifically, it will impose an unjustified financial burden on those with sight impediments and reading difficulties, such as the elderly. It will also disadvantage physically handicapped people and persons confined due to illness. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should urge the Government to: Reverse its decision to have Telecom charge for ``Directory Assistance'' enquiries. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that: There is widespread concern at the increasing breakdown of public order in the A.C.T. This breakdown is shown by the recent increase in reports of violent assault-one of which concerned the tragic death of a young man at a school fete. The involvement of groups of youths in some of these assaults causes particular concern. Such behaviour is affected by the ready availability, to young people, of alcohol and video and films which depict extreme violence. Your petitioners therefore ask the Parliament to: Make unlawful the creation of a public nuisance by loitering. Ensure the enforcement of laws which prohibit the public consumption of alcohol by under-age persons, and Legislate to restrict the production, distribution and sale of material which depicts extreme violence. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vanstone (from 146 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. This cut has reduced the base for future adjustments. The Government has promised to restore the base as soon as economic circumstances permit. Having regard to the state of the economy as portrayed by members of the Government in recent months and the interaction between Social Security pensions and the above mentioned adjustment, your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to restore the pension base for the calculation of future adjustments and that the restoration be effected in conjunction with the Social Security adjustments in November 1987. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 44 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of the city of Tamworth New South Wales, respectfully showeth: that there is a very limited range of cultural provisions for rural areas; that the provision of ABC Concerts significantly enriches the options available to rural residents; that regional centres permit residents of wide country areas to attend concerts when they would not be able to journey to the metropolitan areas; that the youth of country areas have an equal right to access to visits by outstanding musicians and should not be disadvantaged; that significant savings could be effected without the complete elimination of the country concert program; complete elimination in the BiCentennial year would be a retrograde step. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Broadcasting Commission be asked to continue its provision of country concert tours by leading artists. And your petitioners as in duty bound will never pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 443 citizens). To Honourable President of the Senate and Senators in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, strongly urge that the Australian Government prohibit the entry of nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered vessels into Australian ports or waters during our bicentennial celebrations and at any other time in the future. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Burns (from 1,380 citizens), Childs (from 1,424 citizens), Jenkins (from 1,276 citizens), McLean (from 1,627 citizens), Sanders (from 1,298 citizens), Vallentine (from 1,443 citizens), and Wood (from 1,513 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of Joan Ansell, a resident and elector in the Australian Capital Territory, respectfully showeth: That formal requirements of fairness to employees within the Australian Public Service are in jeopardy in some cases. A concern about the conditions of her own employment within the Australian Public Service. Your petitioner therefore prays that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, ensure that fair conditions of employment apply in her case. And your petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Patterson (from one citizen). Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petitions from 37 citizens, which is not in conformity with Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form, praying that there be a referendum on the Australia Card Bill 1986: I totally reject the Australia Card Legislation. This legislation, the full contents of which have never been revealed to the Australian people, should be publicly debated before being put to a National Referendum. It is my Constitutional right to have a say concerning any major changes which may threaten my freedom as an Australian citizen. Petitions received. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting the Federal Government's professed commitment to encouraging a greater contribution from the private sector to the economy of the Australian Capital Territory (a) condemns the Federal Government's failure to provide incentives for industry in the ACT, and in particular its failure to increase the payroll tax exemption level for businesses in the ACT to the equivalent of the New South Wales payroll tax exemption level; and (b) calls upon the Minister with responsibility for the ACT to act immediately to bring ACT payroll tax exemption levels to $400 000 in line with those in New South Wales. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the statement by former Prime Minister E. G. Whitlam in the Australian Financial Review confirming what the Opposition has repeatedly stated, that Australia's inflation rate relative to the rest of the world is now worse then ever under this Government; (b) further notes that while Mr Whitlam's 19.3 per cent inflation rate in the second half of 1974 was 40 per cent higher than the OECD average inflation rate at that time of 13.7 per cent, the latest Australian inflation rate of 8.3 per cent under the Hawke Government is 120 per cent higher than the OECD average; and (c) calls on the Government to cease its misleading and deceptive claims that it has been responsible for any improvement in Australia's inflation situation, when it is clear that this Government's policies have given Australia one of the worst ever inflation rates compared to the rest of the world. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, five sitting days after today, I shall move: 1. That the Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum Products) (Amendment) Ordinance 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 58 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1912, be disallowed. 2. That the Gaming and Betting Laws Amendment Ordinance 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 61 of 1987, and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1912, be disallowed. 3. That the National Parks and Wildlife Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 254 and made under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, be disallowed. 4. That the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation (Annual General Meeting of the Industry) Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 264 and made under the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980, be disallowed. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short explanation of the issues which concern the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. Leave granted. The explanation read as follows- 1. Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum Products) (Amendment) Ordinance 1987 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 58 of 1987) The Committee has asked the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories to consider whether a discretionary refusal to issue a copy of a lost certificate of diesel fuel exemption should be reviewable by the AAT. An unfair refusal could cause the holder considerable inconvenience and even raise imputations of lack of good faith or dishonesty. 2. Gaming and Betting Laws Amendment Ordinance 1987 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 61 of 1987) The Committee has sought from the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories clarification of the effects of, and justifications for, provisions which place evidential burdens on defendants in criminal proceedings. 3. National Parks and Wildlife Regulations (Statutory Rules 1987 No. 254) The Committee has sought from the Minister for the Environment justifications for the inclusion of strict liability offences in provisions where a prosecution requirement of knowledge or at least recklessness might not unduly impede law enforcement. 4. Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation (Annual General Meeting of the Industry) Regulations (Statutory Rules 1987 No. 264) The Committee has asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy to re-examine whether provisions in these Regulations are adequate to protect the confidentiality of winemakers' levy liabilities. Voting rights at the AGM are based on levy liabilities. However, no sanction reinforces the obligation of secrecy imposed on the tellers. Senator COLLINS —I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —My predecessor, Senator Cooney, started the practice of making a Chairman's report to the Senate about the Committee's work prior to a long adjournment. The Committee is happy for me to continue that practice. Before my colleagues on the front bench begin to suffer, I hasten to add that I will be seeking leave to incorporate my statement-before they threaten to rip my tongue out. Firstly, the Committee is awaiting a larger than usual number of replies from Ministers about regulations where there is no notice of motion of disallowance to concentrate wonderfully the minds of advisers. We would respectfully ask Ministers to do what they can to get replies to us. Secondly, as honourable senators know, the Committee operates on the basis of withdrawing notices of disallowance as soon as it receives undertakings from Ministers to amend legislation. In its eightieth report in 1986, the Committee stated: No undertaking is viewed lightly by the Committee for the simple reason that an undertaking is accepted as an alternative to recommending disallowance. In my statement on 23 November, I said that the Committee would be examining delay in implementing undertakings because such delay `can undermine the whole basis of honour on which the Committee withdraws notices'. The speedy implementation of undertakings is of considerable importance to the credibility of the Committee's method of operating. The Committee would respectfully ask Ministers to inquire of officials what action should be taken to expedite the making of promised amendments. Thirdly, I would like to advise the Senate of the work of the Committee during the 10 sitting weeks of the Budget sittings since 14 September 1987. The Committee has met 15 times, held one hearing of evidence with departmental officers, considered 31 legal adviser's reports, had laid before it for scrutiny 622 instruments of delegated legislation, and reported within the space of two weeks on a complex reference from the Senate-only the second specific reference of a matter in the Committee's history. As Chairman, I have made 12 statements to the Senate about its activities and the Committee has received some 20 undertakings from Ministers to amend delegated legislation. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a more detailed statement of the Committee's bipartisan role during these past sittings. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Chairman's Statement In 1932 the British Donoughmore Committee on Ministers' Powers observed that ``Between liberty and government there is an age-long conflict''. In Australia part of that conflict has been reflected for the past 55 years in the work of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee in scrutinising delegated legislation in order to impose parliamentary standards of fairness and equity on that most significant power that Parliament devolves to the executive government-the power to make laws outside Parliament. Over 30 years ago Senator Nick McKenna described that as ``an enormous power [which gives rise to] a responsibility upon every individual member of this Parliament to satisfy himself that that power is not abused [since] it is capable of very great abuse . . .'' (Senate Hansard, 4 September 1959, page 59). Senator Lionel Murphy also considered that ``the most dangerous encroachments upon the liberties of the people have occurred . . . under delegated legislation'' (Senate Hansard, 28 October 1965, page 1291). These sentiments have been echoed time and again by those politicians who are sensitive to their historic parliamentary responsibilities. A particularly frank and graphic expression of this cautionary view was given by the Rt Hon. Edward Short, the former British Cabinet Minister, who said that ``Delegated legislation is one of the worrying aspects of democracy. It is law made by civil servants. I know from experience that very often Ministers who sign the orders do not have time to scrutinise them. Frequently they are worded in completely incomprehensible gobbledygook which only lawyers understand and the Minister himself often does not know what laws are being made in his name. It is extremely important that Parliament should have the opportunity to scrutinise and debate these matters.'' (House of Commons Debates, 22 March 1973, page 686). Yet each year the task of subordinate legislative scrutiny becomes more difficult because of the increasing numbers of delegated legislative instruments subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the ever increasing pressure of time on all parliamentarians including Committee members and the limited resources of the Committee's smaller than usual secretariat. It is disconcerting today to be able to adopt words spoken almost 30 years ago by Senator Sir Reginald Wright who said that ``The Senate would have a false idea of the scope and activities of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee if it believed that the Committee was able to scrutinise closely every one of the huge number of regulations and ordinances that are issued. Even with the aid of our legal adviser who makes reports upon all regulations and ordinances submitted, it is a very complex task to examine them in the setting of previous regulations and ordinances, the statutes authorising them, and the Constitution'' (Senate Hansard, 8 October 1959, page 997). During the 10 sitting weeks of the Budget sittings since 14 September 1987, the Committee has met 15 times, held one hearing of evidence with departmental officers, considered 31 legal adviser's reports, had laid before it for scrutiny 622 instruments of delegated legislation, reported within the space of a few weeks on a complex reference from the Senate, only the second specific reference of a matter in the Committee's history, I have made 12 statements to the Senate about its activities, and the Committee has received some 20 undertakings from Ministers to amend delegated legislation. The following table gives some indication of the volume and variety of legislation scrutinised by the Committee during these sittings. Legislation Considered by the Committee during the Budget Sittings 1987 Legislation Statutory Rules... 191 A.C.T. Ordinances... 67 A.C.T. Regulations... 13 Christmas Island Ordinances... 10 Christmas Island Regulations... 1 Cocos (Keeling) Island Ordinance... 3 Public Service Board Determinations... 90 Remuneration Tribunal Determination... 3 Defence Determination... 40 Commonwealth Teaching Service Determinations... 3 Customs Notices... 4 Excise Notices... 4 Navigation Orders... 12 Export Control Orders... 11 Postal By-laws... 4 Meat Inspection Orders... 4 Australian Meat and Livestock Orders... 7 Orders under Acts Interpretation Act... 1 Orders under Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act... 1 Orders under Broadcasting Act... 1 Petroleum Products Freight Scheme Amendment... 1 Notices under A.C.T. Credit Ordinance... 26 Amendment to Schedules under States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act... 15 Determinations (Bass Strait Oil) Act under Excise Act... 5 Quarantine Act Determination of Fees... 2 Fees Determinations under A.C.T. Ordinances... 32 Fees Declarations under A.C.T. Ordinances... 1 Determinations under A.C.T. Health Authority Ordinance... 2 Notices under Nursing Homes Assistance Act... 2 Principles, Determinations and Approvals under Disability Services Act... 3 Telecommunications By-Laws ... 2 Fisheries Notices ... 17 Exemptions under Children's Services Ordinance ... 1 Exemptions under the A.C.T. Credit Ordinance ... 2 Excise Act Declarations ... 2 National Health Act Declarations ... 2 National Health Act Standards ... 1 National Health Act Notices ... 4 Approvals under States Grants (Tertiary Education) Act ... 8 Health Insurance Act Approval Principles Determinations ... 7 Principles under Nursing Homes Finance Act ... 1 A.C.T. Determinations of Rates ... 8 National Health Act Determinations ... 3 Pharmaceutical Benefits Determinations ... 1 Copyright Act Declarations ... 1 Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act-Certificate Determinations ... 2 Variation to the Plan of Management of the City of Canberra ... 1 Total ... 622 In applying its scrutiny Principles to this legislation, the Committee considered a range of matters and obtained a variety of important ministerial undertakings including the following: 1. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories undertook to amend the Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) Ordinance to provide for AAT review of certain discretionary decisions affecting rights and entitlements. (Senate Weekly Hansard, 22 October 1987, page 1096) 2. The Department of Industrial Relations undertook to amend Public Service Board Determinations to delete wide powers of Secretaries in the ``the public interest'' when what was meant was the narrower power to act ``in the interests of the public service''. (Senate Weekly Hansard, op. cit.) 3. The Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation undertook to revoke an AMLC Order that the Committee had identified as being probably invalid because it incorporated future, non-legislative documents into the Orders in contravention of section 49a of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. (Senate Daily Hansard, 14 December 1987, page 2969) 4. The Committee obtained from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce adequate justifications for the very strict controls and unreviewable discretions conferred on the Minister by the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. The Committee also obtained the Minister's undertaking to amend the Regulations to ensure that decisions to prohibit exports of dual-use technology and weapon-potential chemicals to certain prescribed countries would only be taken by the Minister personally and not by ministerial delegates. (Senate Daily Hansard, 23 November 1987, page 2188) 5. The Minister for the Environment gave the Committee certain undertakings concerning the Order containing the Administrative Procedures to be followed under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, in particular to ensure the Minister's personal involvement in certain decision-making, to produce public guidelines to govern the choice of alternative impact inquiries procedures, to ensure that certain matters about environmental impact are made public through publication in the Gazette, to ensure that written reasons for decisions are given, to facilitate public representations about proposed actions and to limit ministerial powers to exempt proposed projects from compliance with the Procedures. (Senate Daily Hansard, op. cit.) 6. The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs undertook to amend the Australian Citizenship Regulations to provide a right of internal review for persons refused copies of extracts from citizenship registers. (Senate Daily Hansard, op. cit., page 2191). 7. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy undertook to introduce a Bill to validate Wheat Tax Regulations which were probably invalid on a legal technicality because they had been made after consultation with a representative body other than the body specified in the enabling Act. (Senate Daily Hansard, 24 November 1987, page 2348) 8. The Committee agreed not to press the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for AAT review of a ministerial discretion to refuse access to a register of declarations of preservations under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Regulations because access was to be dependent on a political process of consultation by the Minister with local Aboriginal communities. (Senate Daily Hansard, op. cit.) 9. The Minister for Science and Small Business undertook to amend Bounty (Ships) Regulations to provide, (in one case retrospectively) for AAT review rights where there is a refusal to reserve bounty and where sub-contractors are refused approval to perform certain work. (Senate Daily Hansard, 24 November 1987, page 2270). 10. The Minister for Territories undertook to amend the A.C.T. Remand Centres ordinance to ensure that Official Visitors enjoy appropriate independence from Government and security of tenure. (Senate Daily Hansard, op. cit.) 11. The Minister for Resources undertook to amend Meat Inspection Orders to remove reference to the incorporation into the Orders of future instruments contrary to the powers in the enabling Act. (Senate Daily Hansard, op. cit.) 12. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy undertook to amend Wool Marketing Regulations to remove reversals of the onus of proof, to confine to reasonable limits demands for information and ensure that inspectors use proper photographic identity cards and follow protective procedures when entering property by consent. (Senate Daily Hansard, op. cit.) 13. The Minister for Territories undertook to amend the A.C.T. Gaming Machine Ordinance to provide for the tabling and disallowance of certain ministerial determinations, to redraft certain strict liability offences, to ensure the use of photographic identity cards by inspectors and to provide a right of appeal to the AAT for review of certain discretionary decisions. (Senate Daily Hansard, op. cit. page 2271) 14. The Minister for Territories undertook to amend a number of A.C.T. Taxation Ordinances to provide additional AAT review rights regarding certain decisions taken after a tax assessment had been made, to remove an imposition of strict vicarious tax liability on agents and attorneys of companies, to redraft certain provisions in a more objective way, to remove drafting that creates subjective discretions, to confine the A.C.T. Tax Commissioner's subpoena powers to `reasonable' limits; and to improve the protection against self-incrimination to the use/derivative-use standard. (Senate Daily Hansard, op. cit. 2271) 15. The Minister for Territories has undertaken to amend the A.C.T. Co-operative Societies Ordinance to provide that when the Administrator takes over a Society, contracts of employment and service will not be terminated without compensation unless, in the opinion of the Administrator, this is necessary to ensure the viability of the Society (subject to the Constitutionality of this under placitum 51 (xxxi)). The exercise of that discretion would also be made subject to AAT review (Senate Daily Hansard, op. cit. page 2272) 16. The Minister for the Environment undertook to remove strict liability offences from the National Parks and Wildlife Regulations (Senate Daily Hansard, op. cit.) 17. The Minister for Defence undertook to remove similar strict liability offences from the Defence (Public Areas) By-laws (Senate Daily Hansard, 15 December 1987, page 3033) 18. The Minister for Territories undertook to amend the A.C.T. Lakes Ordinance to reduce to a more reasonable level a prescribed penalty of 6 months imprisonment for being a passenger in an unauthorised power boat. (Senate Daily Hansard, 16 December 1987, page 3136) 19. The Minister for Territories undertook to amend the Children's Services Ordinance to ensure that except in unforseeable circumstances, a detained child would be brought before a magistrate within 24 hours and not merely ``as soon as practicable''. (Senate Daily Hansard, op. cit.) Certain features of these undertakings are worth no-ting. Firstly, there is a degree of repetition in the flaws identified by the Committee as compared to previous periods. When the Committee tabled its Eightieth Report in 1986, Senator Vanstone noted that ``One frustrating aspect of our work arises when the Committee writes to a Minister to repeat a point which had already been made to that or another Minister on an earlier occasion . . . Although the Committee has adopted the practice of being as open as it can be about its work, making statements in the Senate and incorporating or tabling its correspondence, it still seems to take a very long time before particular flaws in delegated legislation are dealt with and weeded out.'' (Senate Weekly Hansard, 15 October 1986, page 1342). The Committee would again respectfully urge Ministers to ensure that problems identified by the Committee are not repeated. Secondly, the Committee has had to expend considerable time and effort to obtain certain undertakings. It seems to be the case that where the Committee identifies an error or oversight in delegated legislation the existence of the flaw is conceded willingly enough and remedied quickly enough. That is not the case, however, where the Committee's scrutiny results in it substituting its parliamentary judgment about the effects of certain provisions on rights or proprieties for the judgment of the officials advising the Minister. In such cases, for example, where appeal rights have not been provided, or where the Committee perceives a role for Parliament to scrutinise sub-delegated instruments, the Committee seems to face an uphill struggle with officials before effluxion of time forces a busy Minister to become actively involved. At that stage Ministers, with their sensitivity to parliamentary proprieties and public rights, usually cut through the Gordian Knot by agreeing with their parliamentary colleagues on the Committee, and asking why officials did not agree in the first place. The Committee often asks that question also. A lot of the Committee's time and effort is occasionally taken by official advisers who wish to protect at all costs, including the cost of the Minister's valuable time and reputation before the Committee, their initial judgments about legislation found wanting by the Committee. It should be realised that the Committee is a strictly bipartisan Committee which does not criticise the merits or policy of regulations but rather as Senator Cooney has pointed out ``Its task is one of technical scrutiny in which it examines the justice, the fairness or the propriety of the way in which regulatory measures are determined and imposed''. (Senate Weekly Hansard, 4 June 1987, page 3528). This process is designed primarily to protect in advance people who might otherwise lost rights. But others also benefit. On the one hand, when the Committee remedies legislative flaws, the Government benefits because the Committee's preventative and curative work restrains bureaucratic over-enthusiasm. It presses caution on those who might seek unnecessary subordinate powers for themselves by means of unnecessary subordinate laws made by themselves. It seeks the removal from legislation or the inclusion in legislation of provisions whose presence or absence, as the case may be, could cause real public distress further down the track. One of Australia's greatest public servants Dr H. C. Coombes reported in his Royal Commission into Australian Government Administration that ``in the Commission's view, over the years, the Committee has more than justified its existence ... its compass is modest and well-defined and ... the standards it applies have a settled core of meaning readily understood by most draftsmen''. (Report, para. 5.1.18). Whatever the attitude of the current public service chiefs to the Committee, the Committee in its role assists Ministers to avoid future problems with delegated law-making. The Committee is a safety-valve for Ministers, a lightning-rod to disperse potentially harmful public or parliamentary grievance over regulations which trespass on personal rights or create sub-delegated powers whose exercise might by-pass parliamentary processes. On the other hand, the Committee is a focus for bipartisanship and concern about the rights of Parliament. It therefore fosters a spirit of bipartisanship and equity which is vital to the balanced and truly democratic operation of a House of Parliament. Senator Ian Wood said that ``The Committee is concerned with the preservation of the rights of the Parliament and of parliamentarians. Whatever power belongs to parliamentarians should remain with them. The Committee exists as a custodian of the rights of the Parliament, not as an irritant. It has been delegated certain duties by the Senate and it tries to perform those duties in accordance with the highest parliamentary principles''. (Senate Hansard, 4 October 1960, page 839). In 1973, Senator Wheeldon described the Committee as ``probably the most important Committee of this Parliament. The role which it performs is a role which is essential to parliamentary democratic government.'' (Senate Hansard, 27 March 1973, page 575). In 1974, Senator James McClelland said that he regarded the Committee as ``one of the most important institutions of this Parliament.'' (Senate Hansard, 31 July 1974, page 649). As long ago as 1962, Senator Lionel Murphy said ``This Senate has done something by way of supervision of delegated legislation of which the people of Australia may be proud''. (Senate Hansard, 23 October 1962, page 1076). In spite of the large expenditure of effort needed to maintain its position, the present Committee will not be deflected from preserving these high standards. To do this, it requires the co-operation of Ministers especially in regard to the implementation of ministerial undertakings. The following table lists a number of undertakings that are overdue for implementation: LIST OF MINISTERIAL UNDERTAKINGS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF WHICH IS OVERDUE Legislation and Undertakings Date of the Minister's Undertaking Meat Regulations (Amendment) (A.C.T. Regulations No. 15 of 1985) To provide for AAT review of certain discretions 4.10.85 Meat (Amendment) Ordinance 1985 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 26 of 1985) To provide for proper I.D. cards for Inspectors 25.11.85 First Home Owners Regulations (S.R. 1985/267) Redraft provisions which permit a release of information which may amount to an invasion of privacy 19.3.86 Air Navigation (Charges) Regulations (S.R. 1986/169) To provide for certain AAT review rights 7.10.86 Navigation Orders 5-12 To provide for certain AAT review rights (A Bill for an Act is proposed) 18.11.86 Motor Omnibus Services (Amendment) Ordinance (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 48 of 1986) To repeal provisions that confer unduly wide powers 11.11.86 Air Navigation Regulations (Amendment) (S.R. 1986/141) To provide for certain AAT review rights 11.11.86 Optometrists (Amendment) Ordinance 1986 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 51 of 1986) To provide for certain AAT review rights 11.11.86 Apple and Pear (Conditions of Export) Regulations (S.R. 1986/219) To provide for certain AAT review rights 13.11.86 Meat Inspection (General) Orders (Amendment) (Meat Inspection Order No. 4 of 1986) To provide that reasons for decisions be supplied 20.03.87 New South Wales Acts Ordinance 1986 (A.C.T. Ord. No. 91 of 1986) To progressively remove outmoded provisions 28.04.87 Plan of Management No. 12-Northern Prawn Fishery (Special Provisions) Management Plan To amend various provisions to lend greater certainty to the scheme 29.04.87 Blood Donation (A.I.D.S.)(Amendment) Ordinance (No. 2) 1986 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 90 of 1986) To place a sunset clause in the Ordinance to ensure that it is remade and reexamined in the Parliament 8.05.87 Lands Ordinance 1987 (Christmas Island Ord. No. 1 of 1987) To provide for tabling and disallowance of guidelines 11.05.87 In its Eightieth Report the Committee stated ``. . . It is difficult to foresee circumstances where more than 6 months would be needed to draft amending legislation and bring it into force. (para 5.4) The Committee also stated ``It is the Committee's view, that in the absence of compelling justifications, where undertakings are not implemented within 6 months, Ministers could be invited to explain to the Senate why it is necessary for rights and liberties to remain in jeopardy when promises have been given to safeguard them. Alternatively where undertakings have not been implemented and fresh problems arise in new legislation the Committee could consider whether it would be justified in accepting any further undertakings in lieu of disallowance. The Committee has a responsibility to the Senate, to the citizen and to itself to ensure that rights having been infringed by legislation are not further undermined by administrative delays.'' (para. 5.7) Undue delay in implementing undertakings will undermine the basis of honour on which the Committee accepts undertakings from Ministers and result in increasing pressures actually to disallow offending provisions. There was a time when the Committee's practice of declining to recommend disallowance in lieu of ministerial undertakings was sharply criticised in the Senate. In 1970 Senator Murphy said that ``Once it is recommended by the Committee that a regulation be disallowed the Parliament should deal with the matter straight away. This would be one way of keeping a check on those who are not paying proper attention to the standards laid down by Parliament'' (Senate Hansard, 19 March 1970, page 457). Later that same year Senator Murphy said ``It seems clear to me that once the Senate is of the opinion that a regulation offends against the standards which have been set up, it should be disallowed. I should think that only in some very grave emergency or in some very special situation would a departure from that approach be permitted. The standards have been adopted for many years. They should be well known by those in the departments who are responsible for the making of the delegated legislation. The standards should be observed. If they are not observed and if they are broken, I do not see why the Senate should bend over backwards to allow the regulations to continue and in effect to give the message that it does not matter if the standards which have been set out and which are well known are broken because if they are broken the Senate will not worry but will wait until the matter is adjusted by the introduction of some kind of legislation. It is important that the standards be observed.'' (Senate Hansard, 16 April 1970, page 863). On another occasion Senator Murphy said ``I believe that it is quite regrettable that when regulations are considered by the Senate's Committee an endeavour always is made, by means of this kind of assurance or that kind of assurance, to induce the Senate not to disallow the regulations and, in effect, not to perform its duty . . .'' (Senate Hansard, 20 August 1970, page 147). As history shows this approach was not preferred by the Committee. The preferred view, at that time and now, is best summed up by reference to a statement by Senator Cavanagh who said ``If I have been impressed by any one feature of the work of the Committee it has been the extent to which the Committee has been prepared to go from time to time to try to fit in and to meet necessary remedial action by discussions with Ministers and departmental officers, by calling witnesses from departments and from time to time by calling the Parliamentary draftsmen. (Senate Hansard, 16 April 1970, page 864). Since these debates Committees have maintained the practice of giving protective notices of motion and withdrawing them on receipt of satisfactory ministerial undertakings. However, the efficiency of that practice is almost exclusively based on honour and the assumption that promises given will quickly become promises fulfilled, notwithstanding that as soon as the notice of motion of disallowance is withdrawn there is absolutely nothing the Committee or the Senate can do to remedy the offending legislation. As Senator Harradine reminded the Senate recently, ``the chamber has no power to amend delegated legislation'' (Senate Daily Hansard, 25 November 1987, page 2412). In its 80th Report the Committee reported in some detail on its attitude to ministerial undertakings. In that Report the Committee stated that ``To give a ministerial undertaking, the implementation of which is not immediately expedited could, without more, be viewed as a discourtesy to the Senate. This is so because the Senate has consented to the withdrawal of a notice of motion which would otherwise have resulted in disallowance of the instrument. It is equally a discourtesy to the Committee which, having received an undertaking in a sense publicly vouches for a Minister's bona fides by withdrawing a notice of disallowance. In common parlance, the Committee has gone guarantor for the implementation of the undertaking. To continue the metaphor, like any guarantor the Committee has confidence in the Minister and trusts that the promise will be honoured within a reasonable time.'' (para. 5.3, pages 125-126) The Committee went on to say that in most cases no more than 6 months would be a reasonable period within which to make amendments promised to the Committee. Even this was suggested by the Committee with some trepidation since the Committee could not always be certain that no prejudicial administrative actions and decisions were being made on the basis of the continued presence in the delegated statute book of provisions offensive to the Committee's Principles. In its 80th Report the Committee suggested that there could well arise a need to amend the Acts Interpretation Act to provide for the retabling of regulations which had remained unamended for 6 months after the Senate Committee had criticised them and obtained undertakings to amend them. On automatic retabling, the regulations could be disallowed if the undertakings were not implemented forthwith. The Committee respectfully requests Ministers to use their best endeavours to ensure that officials take the necessary steps to bring unimplemented undertakings to Ministers' attention for expeditious action. Finally, throughout all of 1987 the Committee has been campaigning to ensure that all delegated legislative instruments that are subject to tabling and disallowance and therefore come before the Committee, are accompanied by an adequate explanatory statement which rather than merely repeating the text of the instruments, attempts to explain the background to the instrument, the consultations that preceded its making and gives some indication of its purpose and likely effects. It is somewhat ironic that this same subject was on the agenda of the Committee's very first meeting on 4 May 1932 when it was ordered that a circular should be sent to each Department asking that when regulations and ordinances are sent for tabling they should be accompanied by a memorandum explaining their purpose. As is shown by the foregoing list of instruments now subject to scrutiny by the Committee the scope of the Committee's inquiries extends far beyond regulations and ordinances. However, the requirement for an adequate explanatory is if anything more pressing for the Committee today than it was for the first Committee half a century ago. Ministers are respectfully urged to ensure that skilled and knowledgeable officials are delegated the important task of preparing an explanatory statement to accompany all disallowable instruments. In conclusion, a former Chairman of the Committee, Senator Lewis, succinctly summarised the role and philosophy of the Committee when he said that ``the Committee, with a low-key profile and style, seeks to apply standards of agreed principles to delegated legislation and through the moral suasion of its bipartisanship, to persuade Ministers to amend instruments to remove possible infringements on personal rights or insert better or clearer protections of those rights.'' (Senate Daily Hansard, 9 April 1986, page 1523) That remains the Committee's goal. I thank Ministers for their cooperation which continues to make this approach possible. I also thank my colleagues on the Committee for the bipartisan commitment to the Committee's scrutiny role. Postponement of Notice of Motion Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —Mr President, it is my understanding that notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name was to be a formal notice of motion. I understand that there is some doubt about that in the Government ranks and that, unfortunately, the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) is not able to be in the chamber at present. So I seek leave to move that any consideration of this notice of motion be postponed until a later hour this day. Leave granted. Senator LEWIS —I move: That Business of the Senate, of notice of motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Lewis, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: (1) That discussion of matters of public interest be not proceeded with this day. (2) That, at 12.45 p.m., intervening Government Business be postponed till after consideration of Government Business, Orders of the Day No. 6-Management and Investment Companies Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 No. 7-Commonwealth Legal Aid Amendment Bill 1987 No 8-Dried Fruits Export Charges Amendment Bill 1987 No. 9-Dairy Produce Amendment Bill 1987 Nos 10 and 11-Fisheries package No. 12-Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill 1987 (3) That this Order have effect till 2.00 p.m. this day. Debate resumed from 16 December, on motion by Senator Richardson: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(10.09) —Last night before the debate on this package of legislation was adjourned, I was detailing to the Senate my grave concerns as to how this legislation in part would seriously affect beef producers, particularly in my State of Western Australia, and how those producers in the main could ill afford any additional levies and charges being imposed on them. These additional levies are also being foisted on Western Australian producers at a time when their stock prices are falling. They are receiving $200 less per steer than they received a few months ago. That is, of course, a substantial amount in light of the fact that they will be confronted with these increased levies. In some cases the increased levy does mean not simply a reduction in profit but an increase in loss. That is what really bothers me about these elements of this package of legislation. How can we possibly hope to keep an industry viable when we are legislating to increase losses? Last night I also spoke about the effect of the voluntary levy that we have had in Western Australia for quite some time. One of the greatest benefits of a voluntary levy is that it can be wound down far more quickly when the need for it diminishes, in comparison to a centrally imposed levy, as is being proposed in this legislation. Differing responses by State departments of agriculture mean, in effect, that the levy requirements of each State need not be uniform, as is being proposed here today. Western Australia is the only State that pays the cost of soil and fat tests for quarantining farms. There is far greater support for an increased levy for promotion that takes us further towards proper labelling for effective overseas marketing. The levy for increased promotion is something that I believe is highly desirable and that the Western Australian producers are very much in favour of. Sadly, it is being lumped together with all of the other levies, including the pesticide inspection levies, and no distinction is being made in this legislation between any one of them. As I say, the levy for promotion is most desirable. However, some producers in Western Australia have voiced reservations. They trust that the promotional dollar will be spent to full advantage and that it will not be dissipated in the costs of administration. Of course, they are speaking from experience in this regard. They have seen previous levies consumed by the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, and not actually spent in the way in which they were meant to be spent. Let us not forget that producers are not guilty of actions in defiance of instructions by inspectors or of labelling instructions. The greatest tragedy is that they are in a position that is not of their own making. It concerns me that Senator Walsh, another Western Australian senator and the Minister responsible for primary industry in the Senate, has brushed the whole issue under the carpet and is on record as saying that contamination has been caused `by chemicals used by farmers'. I think that is rather outrageous. Admittedly, the farmers have used some chemicals, but they have done so in the full knowledge that the departments of agriculture, primary industry, and so forth, and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, have said that these chemicals are quite safe to use. So it is not good enough for Senator Walsh to say, `It's their own fault, and they have to wear the consequences'. The Government and the Australian Democrats are demonstrating enormous contempt for the industry by asking farmers to pay more and more towards additional costs for the export inspection that is needed to clean the meat of chemical residues. The Democrats, as we indicated the other day when we debated Senator Lewis's motion, have little or no regard for the problems of beef producers. I found it rather interesting that late yesterday afternoon Senator Jenkins suddenly put her name on the speakers list. Obviously, she woke up at the eleventh hour to the fact that there is a problem associated with this matter in Western Australia. Of course, Senator Powell, who has responsibility, as Democrats spokesperson, for this package of legislation, said as recently as 8 December that she `would prefer to see positive action taken rather than an inquiry which would be time consuming and would cloud the issue.' The Democrats chop and change their minds. Notice of motion of disallowance of a regulation was put down by the Democrats a week or so ago. That was withdrawn because they did not think that was appropriate. That was at about the time the Press release was put out by Senator Powell saying she thought an inquiry would be time consuming and would cloud the issue. The Democrats have now given notice of a motion asking for an inquiry. The Democrats, as per usual, would not have a clue which way is up. Sadly, it is obviously up to the coalition to make sure that the Parliament is cognisant of the problems being experienced by rural Australia. The Democrats demonstrate contempt for the value of this vital industry to all Australians, who benefited to the tune of $2 billion in 1986-87 in export income. That is not an insignificant amount; it is a substantial amount. We should be encouraging expansion of this amount and not a decline through trying to put further restraints and restrictions on the industry. Governments have enjoyed the taxation revenue collected from producers. They have also enjoyed the excise revenue on the imported chemicals that cause the residue problem in the first place. So they have got it on both sides. Nor could it be said that the beef industry has enjoyed long years of high prosperity, thus enabling it to pay to correct these problems. The improved prices of earlier this year in real terms simply took the producers back to what they received seven years earlier. Let us not underestimate the problems faced by the producers. Out of a national total of 579 farms in quarantine, there are now 200 farms quarantined in the south-west of Western Australia where horticulture and potato growing have long been carried out in close proximity to beef production. Quarantining involves both loss of income and expensive disposal of unusable stock. As I said in the debate the other day, once a farm is quarantined the only options that are being given to the farmers are having their cattle agisted on another property and getting feed for them elsewhere. This is great, but how do they get the money to do that? That problem is not being addressed. The solutions available to the producers are not really being looked at. The effects extend beyond the farms involved as the whole matter of pesticide residues has caused a reaction among processors, who may decline to accept stock if there is any residue whatsoever, even when it is below the limit specified. Furthermore, properties out of quarantine or even just under investigation can find themselves blacklisted by abattoirs. So there is a real problem there which we should not be ignoring. Because of the number of farms quarantined in the Manjimup region, an area where there has been extensive potato growing for a long time, all of the 600 farms in that area face a very uncertain future for livestock production. While I have spoken in great detail about the Western Australian situation, let us not forget that this is a national problem and should be treated as such by both the Government and the community generally. It is not just a case of the farmers asking for a handout or to be bailed out of problems that they caused themselves; it is a case of looking at a situation where, to the benefit of the entire Australian community and the entire Australian economy, we should be making rational and sensible decisions. Governments do need to be directly accountable for the chemical residue situation that has arisen; let us not forget that. The national residue survey that monitored residues in meat exports prior to 25 May this year was a sampling process rather than a screening process that allowed contaminated meat to be exported and it provided no guarantee that the source of meat was traced back. The responsibility for the first issue lies with the Federal Government and the responsibility for the second lies with the States. This is an area in which governments need to take responsibility but they have not done so until recently. It was only two years ago that the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) informed Senator Bolkus that the agricultural uses of aldrin, dieldrin, heptachlor and chlordane had not been totally phased out and that reviews by the National Health and Medical Research Council suggested further restrictions, but that no immediate action was required. This was only a couple of years ago. Yet, as I said last night, we are going back into the mid-1970s when these chemicals were banned in the United States of America. Why was it that only two years ago the Minister for Health, as he then was, said that no immediate action was required? This attitude makes the Government even more culpable for putting at risk the whole industry by not even taking the lead from other countries, particularly from the United States which just happened to take 61 per cent of all the beef and veal that we exported last year. Yet it was not important enough for the Minister to treat the problem seriously and to say that we must ban these chemicals. It says a lot that the Federal Government has not used its powers to standardise pesticide registration nationally or even to produce a pest control ordinance for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). Indeed, it may have been possible to import illegal pesticides into the ACT and transport them to the States where they were banned. Once again the question needs to be asked: why has the Federal Government not introduced an ordinance for the ACT banning these chemicals? Blame must certainly attach itself to the chemical manufacturers who exported their products to Australia after their agricultural use had been banned in the United States. But ultimately the responsibility falls on the Federal and State governments which failed to enforce the standards necessary. Let us not forget that it is up to governments to lay down the rules and regulations for such an important matter as pesticide control. Furthermore, I think it is almost inconceivable that, after heptachlor was banned for all uses except termite control, it was possible to buy it labelled as suitable for use on lucerne. This may have cost a Kempsey farmer the production of half his dairy farm because of contaminated milk. We are not just looking at the beef problem as such; we are looking at all the other by-products that can be equally affected. When we consider that we had to wait until August 1987 for the banning of DDT and dieldrin in agriculture, import bans and restrictions and the recall of chemical stocks, we should surely acknowledge a national responsibility to affected farms and not just turn it all back on to the farmer by saying, `You created the problem; you solve it even if you cannot afford to do so'. It should not be forgotten that government agencies have themselves spread organochlorines over farms. This occurred in Western Australia when the State Energy Commission used chemicals for termite control on power poles. I remind the Senate of Liberal and National Party support for payment of export inspection costs by government because of the national importance of export industries. But we must not forget that these chemicals have often been used with the positive support of State departments of agriculture. Dieldrin has been used on potatoes, in response to official advice, in such areas as the Bellarine Peninsula in Victoria, and this is now causing anxiety to cattle producers in the area. There is no record that warnings were given that cattle should not be grazed over former potato fields. Last night I also spoke about some concerns that I had over the conduct of the annual general meeting (AGM) of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (AMLC) on 3 December. There are a few issues that I would like to express concern about in that area because I think many questions need to be asked about the conduct of the Corporation's procedures at that AGM. The first one, of course, is that many of the delegates in Western Australia received their voting papers two days after voting had closed. The answer the AMLC gave as to why these people had received their voting papers two days after the voting had closed was that delays can be expected through bulk postage. If that were meant to be a joke, I suppose it would be quite funny. But we are looking at a very serious situation here. The AMLC could not get its act together to ensure that voting papers were sent out early enough to allow recipients to get them on time. It should be noted that 75 per cent of the vote, as opposed to 51 per cent, is needed at an AGM to defeat a levy motion. Surely there is something skew-whiff about that. In addition, 75 per cent of the votes are cast by one person, namely the Chairman, who holds all the proxies. To be specific, on this occasion he held 9,600 votes. So what chance did many of the producers have when the Corporation firmly decided what it was going to do long in advance and just one person had 75 per cent of the votes-9,600 votes-in the form of proxies? As a result of the way in which the AMLC is operated, many producers are sceptical about phasing out the levy once it is no longer needed. As I said before, that is a major concern because they have experienced this problem before. They are very worried that once it is there it is there to stay. I come back to the effective way in which the Western Australian Department of Agriculture and the Western Australian Farmers Federation have conducted the voluntary levy program. Voluntary levies have already provided $24m for pesticide residue testing on top of the $40m cost to the livestock industry for export inspection. The effect of this legislation will cause the industry to pay some $75m next year to the AMLC, of which $35m will be for residue testing. So, once again, I stress that a centralised levy collection is that much slower to flow through to the producers and also far more difficult to wind down once the need for a levy diminishes. So, I have real concerns about this matter. I know that the producers in Western Australia are terribly concerned, and rightly so. It is because of this national importance and the fact that chemical residues are a national problem that I have such grave concern about this legislation which increases costs to producers at a time when this Government is failing to recognise that greater assistance is justified, on both pragmatic and moral grounds. I feel very deeply about this. I think we must look at this matter very seriously because I do not believe that the beef producers can suffer any more. I seek leave to move together the amendments of which Senator Archer gave notice. Leave granted. Senator KNOWLES —In respect of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, I move: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate is of the opinion that recommendations for levy changes in future should be made direct to the Minister by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation only after it has consulted with appropriate industry organisations''. In respect of the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1987, I move: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government: (a) in honouring its policy of meeting 50% of the cost of export inspection charges, should include in this cost-sharing policy the additional export inspection charges required of the meat industry to meet the chemical residue requirements of importing countries; and (b) should sympathetically consider requests from the industry for assistance with any special and additional export costs imposed on the industry by the chemical residue issue''. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(10.29) —I rise to speak briefly on the package of five livestock Bills which are now before the Senate-the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1987, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1987, the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill 1987 and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 1987. As a senator from Western Australia, a State which has suffered and is suffering from the effects of chemical residues and pesticides, I rise specifically to speak on the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1987 and the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1987. I have spent a lot of time assessing how I should respond to these Bills. Over the last few weeks I have been in touch with the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia (Inc.), the Western Australian Farmers Federation and representatives of the South West Farmers Action Group to find out how those organisations feel that Western Australian senators should vote on these issues. So I take issue with Senator Knowles's statement that I made up my mind yesterday. That is in no way true. As we are now rushing legislation through and as Senator Powell was speaking for the Australian Democrats, initially I did not have the intention to speak on this legislation but with all the Democrat bashing that went on yesterday in the Senate from the coalition Opposition, I felt that I should speak up for myself and the Democrats. Essentially, the proposed levy increases are increases which the industry has asked the Government to impose on producers, via a motion passed at the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (AMLC) general meeting in Albury. Western Australian delegates at the meeting supported this motion. But it is common knowledge that they did so reluctantly, recognising that the motion had very broad support from producers in the eastern States and, therefore, was certain to succeed. As I ascertain it, the position of the industry generally is that strong and expensive measures need to be taken in the short term to overcome the pesticide residues problem. The conclusion is that half-hearted measures at this stage would increase the likelihood of further consignments of contaminated beef slipping through the inspection net, thus placing the entire industry at serious risk. To support strong measures to secure a quick resolution and to restore confidence in Australia's meat exports on the part of significant importing industries, the beef industry has accepted the need for significant expenditure and the need to provide it urgently, by way of levy increase. It also appears to be agreed by the industry that the cost of the necessary measures should be pooled and equalised among all producers in Australia. This again implies that Western Australian producers should pay the same levies as are to be paid by producers in other States. There is broad recognition that the industry in Western Australia responded quickly and effectively to the pesticide residues crisis through the acceptance of a voluntary levy. I will quote from the West Australian of 22 July this year which states under the heading `Meat groups act to ensure quality': The W.A. meat industry has united in a bid to ensure `clean' beef exports from the State. The action involves a dramatic increase in cattle testing for chemical residues after the discovery of unacceptable levels in meat shipments from Australia to the U.S. So it seems to be accepted that Western Australian producers may be to some extent disadvantaged in being required to pay slightly more than they have been paying under this successful voluntary scheme and that in effect a subsidy will be paid by Western Australian producers to producers in other States. On the other hand, it is being argued that producers in other States for some time have been subsidising the Western Australian meat industry by subsidising the brucellosis testing program in Western Australia, since brucellosis is now mainly a Western Australian problem. The conclusion seems to be that if we are to adopt a national program and to average costs across the industry, some producers will always be slightly advantaged and others slightly disadvantaged. But, over time, what one loses on the swings, hopefully one gains on the roundabout. It is also a fact that the proposed national levy will cover more matters than currently are provided for in the Western Australian voluntary scheme. One important such element is the proposed buy-back scheme which will make possible the repurchase of contaminated meat consignments. There is an expectation that this element will be able to wind down within 12 months if the stricter inspection provisions are successful, as there would then be little-or ideally, no-contaminated meat to be repurchased. If this expectation is realised, it may be possible, quite soon, to reduce the operative level of this levy. One of the arguments by the South West Farmers Action Group is that if a maximum levy of $18 is set, it is inevitable that that is the levy which will be charged by the Government. In fact, as I understand it, this is not likely to be the case, and there is an accepted system of maximum levies and operative levies already in operation. Maximum levies are set at rates higher than are immediately required so that legislation can remain in place without the need for it to go back to Parliament to have increases ratified, for a period of, perhaps, five to 10 years. There are plenty of examples in the primary industry area of operative levies set well below the maxima provided for in the legislation in question. An example is that maximum levies under the Live-stock Export Charge Act are currently set at $5 per head for adult cattle, and I am told that the operative level is currently $3 per head, having been reduced from $4 per head some time ago. I understand that the position of some beef producers in the south-west is so marginal that any increase in costs will threaten their survival in the industry and I suspect that the decision of the AMLC general meeting on levies implies an assessment that the sacrifice of some producers is preferable to the loss of the entire export industry. This will be cold comfort for those producers whose livelihoods are threatened, but apparently the majority judge it to be a necessary decision. In order to cushion the effect on individuals as much as possible and to ensure that this crisis leads to the tackling and resolution of the problem of wide ranging use of agricultural chemicals, which will ultimately affect other export industries if we are not very careful, the Australian Democrats are pressing the Government for three steps to be taken immediately. The first of these is a commitment which we are seeking from the Government to make sure that rural adjustment finance is made available at an adequate level to assist those producers whose continued survival in the industry would be impossible without that assistance. The second step is to set up a Senate select committee to investigate thoroughly the problems of agricultural chemicals, Australia-wide. The committee is needed to produce the recommendations which will finally resolve the problems which have wounded the meat industry and which have the potential to do similar damage to other agricultural export industries. The Democrats ask for a notice of motion for the committee to work in three stages, with the first stage being the preparation of recommendations for immediate steps to overcome, in the shortest possible time, the organochloride problems as they affect the beef industry. The third step that we propose is the broadening and extension of the national pesticides residues survey to cover all aspects of agriculture and the dispersal of the costs of that survey across all rural industries and, more broadly, across the community as a whole, because the community as a whole has to bear some responsibility for this. I believe that this step will answer the demand of the South West Farmers Action Group for the Government to take responsibility for the costs of the cleaning up, since it was the Government's advisers who told farmers over many years to use these chemicals, even though the same chemicals had been banned for many years in the United States and other advanced countries. The effect of this third proposal will be to disperse the costs across the community rather than to leave the beef producers carrying the can alone for what is a national problem and not one brought on the beef industry by beef producers alone. For example, the chemicals that they have been using were those recommended by the Department of Primary Industry, by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and by State departments of agriculture. They have been recommended by State and Federal governments, both Liberal and Labor, over the years. For example, DDT was first used after the Second World War in the Goulburn Valley, where it was used to kill codling moths, and it was discovered to be so successful that it was also used to kill mosquitoes. As I have said, in the last 20 years various Federal and State governments and national regulatory bodies such as the National Health and Medical Research Council have recommended the use of this pesticide despite the fact that it was known to be dangerous and that it had been banned in other countries. The Democrat senators plan to support these Bills because beef producers in their States support this national decision. The advice that I had by telephone the other day from a representative of the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia and from the National Farmers Federation in Western Australia, was that both these peak organisations want Western Australian senators to support the Bills. I am sure that the majority of, if not all, Western Australian senators will do this, despite the fact Senator Boswell and Senator McGauran implied yesterday that only National Party senators were really interested in rural affairs in this country. As we do not have a single National Party senator for Western Australia, it is certainly up to senators who belong to other parties to support those interests in that State. Senator Panizza —You have got all of us here. Senator JENKINS —Yes, indeed. Like the other Democrat senators, I believe that it is in the best interests of the meat producers and of the rural industries as a whole to support the increased levies as a necessary short term emergency measure while fighting to get adequate adjustment finance or compensation for those who are most seriously affected. I think it is necessary to hold a full inquiry, to develop long term corrective measures and to spread the cost of this across the rural industries, the community and the Government. The whole community, because of the guilt that we all bear, must bear the burden of the costs and the problems which we now face. I feel that we must bear a community guilt for having continued to use pesticides over the last 20 years-pesticides which we have all known are extremely dangerous. That is why the Democrat senators support this package of meat and livestock Bills. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.43) —We are debating a package of Bills relating primarily to the Australian meat and livestock industry. I direct my attention in particular to the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill and the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill, which propose to increase the global levy applying to all export animals. It ought to be understood that the Bills increase the maximum rate of export charges that may be imposed. The actual effective rates to be levied are set by the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (AMLC), subsequent to the approval of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy and then, by way of regulation, the approval of both Houses of Parliament. These two Bills propose to impose a levy of $18 on cattle which, I remind the Senate, represents a 300 per cent increase. The levy applying to goats is to be increased from 60c to $1, and the levies applying to lambs and sheep are to be increased from 60c and 67c respectively to $1. The levies provided for are the same in both Bills. Therefore, they cover the live trade and the export carcass trade in identical terms. On this occasion I will concern myself primarily with cattle, not because I suggest for a moment that the increased charges for other animals are not significant but because the beef producers are being required to carry the very significant burden of costs. The operative rates for cattle under the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill proposed at the annual general meeting of the AMLC are as follows. An amount of $1.20 is proposed for research and development. This represents an increase of 50 per cent, up from 75c. It is proposed to increase the levy for promotion from $3.30 to $6.30. There is a new and additional levy of $5 for pesticide residue testing. That makes a total in this package of $12.55. I find it rather peculiar that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) said in his second reading speeches on both the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill and the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill: The amendments proposed in the Bill will increase the maximum level of the slaughter levy and therefore the AMLC's potential share of the levy, while not changing the amount set aside for the AMLRDC or disease eradication. In other words he is saying that the increase will go to the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation but not to the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation. By any measure that seems, on the surface, to be wrong because there is an increase from 75c to $1.25 for research and development. When mentioning the $5 pesticide residue testing fee one should refer to the fact that the Government, due to the problems with pesticides, intends to upgrade the national residue survey (NRS) testing program with an additional Budget allocation over three years of $11.3m, concurrent with the already in place Budget allocation of $1.8m. We must not lose sight of the fact that the upgrading of the NRS program and the costs of that upgrading are to be borne almost exclusively by the cattle producers who are required, for the moment at least, to carry exclusively the cost of the intensive testing which is being extracted from them by way of the export levy. It ought not to be forgotten that the upgraded NRS testing program is intended to cover all animals and not just cattle. There is also now to be a heavy emphasis upon the non-meat rural products, including dairy products, eggs, honey, grain, fruit and vegetables, yet the total cost of that upgrading, in terms of what producers are paying, rests exclusively with the cattle producers. It is not without significance to note that the enhanced program falls that way. I turn to the various increases in the levels. I believe that the percentage increase in research and development, together with the increase in the promotional levy, is quite exorbitant. If I were a grower I would be asking the AMLC to justify the one-off increase in the promotional levy. However, I understand that the producers, while somewhat distressed about the level of the increases, accept the need for increases and accept the allocation and the direction in which the funds are heading. The levy which has created the greatest controversy, particularly in my State of Western Australia, is the $5 pesticide inspection charge. To put the debate in some sort of perspective, it is perhaps worth our reflecting upon the events which led to the introduction of the levy and the particular objections which the growers in Western Australia have. I have to say that I find the objections immeasurably reasonable and understandable and ones with which I, for my part, thoroughly agree. Prior to 25 May, prior to the pesticide crisis, pesticide testing, particularly meat testing, was done almost exclusively by the Commonwealth Government under the national residue survey program, conducted by the Bureau of Rural Science section of the then Department of Primary Industry, but now, of course, it is to be done by the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service, although some States, such as Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria in particular, are doing their own testing for pesticides at domestic abattoirs. New South Wales and Queensland, which were doing some testing, were involved with the national residue survey. The State agriculture departments were actively engaged in taking the samples and testing them for the non-meat component. Under the NRS, the meat component was always managed and under the control of the former Department of Primary Industry. Due to the crisis of 25 May, residue testing in export abattoirs was increased tenfold so that one in every hundred cattle were tested, one in every 300 pigs were tested and one in every thousand sheep were tested. Subsequent to 25 May and, significantly, when the Americans detected violations in meat being imported from Australia, more stringent testing arrangements were put in place and agreed upon by our Government. The costs of this increased testing were borne by the industry at a rate, in ball-park figures, of between $38.50 and $40 a test. This $40 was paid, in the first instance, by the abattoirs, which were advised by the industry that they would be paid in full when some sort of voluntary levy arrangement was put in place. Accordingly, the abattoirs held the accounts and rendered them to the grower funds, when they were later established to hold the voluntary le-vies imposed for intensive lot testing which by then was taking place. Therefore, not only did the levies have to pay for the new intensive arrangements but also they had to pay for a two-month backlog of abattoir accounts. In other words, a levy had to be raised which was ad-equate to cover the costs of a two-month backlog of testing which had already taken place, plus the intensive ongoing lot testing which was current. Of course, that is when the real problems of the voluntary testing program began. In Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria, all the levies were paid to an umbrella organisation, Residue Testing Pty Ltd, that was set up in Sydney and run by the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia. Each State set its own levy but the levies were collected, administered and distributed under the umbrella of Residue Testing Pty Ltd. Significantly, as at 23 November this year, Residue Testing Pty Ltd had received, by way of voluntary levies, an amount of $3,313,000. But at that point, total claims were being made for $5,419,000-which left a shortfall of $2m. Obviously it can be seen from these calculations that a significant number of growers were simply just not paying the levy. It has been put to me that the figure was 10 per cent but, be that as it may, it was certainly delinquent of accounts worth $2m. To add to the problems, growers, particularly in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, were being encouraged by stock agents, who themselves were designated collectors of the levy, not to pay the levy. In fact, a number of stock agents, in order to promote themselves, were saying publicly by way of advertisement, `Deal with us and we promise not to collect the levy'. So they were actually promoting themselves by holding themselves out as agents who would not collect the levy, thus putting added responsibility on the growers. Of course, this shortfall in the voluntary levies, and the ongoing failure of some producers to pay the voluntary levy and to pay for their testing, caused the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation to call upon the Government to introduce a statutory levy. In other words, the AMLC has asked us to legislate to force its members to pay their bills; in other words, to turn a voluntary levy into a statutory levy. Hence we have the present legislation. It is quite proper that I make the observation that the levy is not only to pay for the intensive testing, but it is purported to use that $5 levy to contribute in a significant way to the pyramid testing which is taking place in the United States of America on beef already exported and also to contribute towards the buy-back scheme. I understand the Australian Government so far has made a contribution of $500,000 towards pyramid testing. By any measure that is a very modest amount of the total costs. But the bottom line is that the AMLC has asked this Parliament to compel the eastern States growers to pay a levy which, at this point, a number have declined to do. To add to the problems of outstanding levy debts in the eastern States, there was some considerable delay in putting the voluntary levy-in place and there was, as I said earlier, a significant backlog of payments for tests which had already taken place. The weaknesses and major defects in the national residue survey which have led to the organochlorine pesticide residue problem are matters which I addressed yesterday in my speech in support of our proposal for the disallowance of regulations which were costing an additional 15c per head for every beef producer. This was opposed by the Australian Democrats. Yesterday the Democrats voted that the beef producers of Australia should pay an additional 15c per beast because of the failure of the NRS. They have the gall to stand here today and show compassion, care and concern for the beef producers of Western Australia. Senator Jenkins —I did not vote for that. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The honourable senator is quite right, she did not. She was the token Democrat and, knowing that she could not change the vote, she had the courage to cross the floor at no expense to herself. She knew that the regulation would not be disallowed. So the honourable senator can say that she supported the farmers of Western Australia knowing that they were going to be defeated on this occasion. Senator Peter Baume —At the very least she failed to convince her colleagues. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am quite sure she did not fail. I am sure she did not attempt to convince them. I will say more about that when the Opposition proposes the setting up of a select committee for the purpose of inquiring into not only the administration of pesticides, but also the failure of the application of the pesticides and what compensation or assistance ought to be provided to farmers. At the moment it is sufficient to say that due to the failure of the NRS program the cattle industry is being held responsible for enormous costs for which almost exclusively, without exception, it cannot be held properly responsible. I return to the circumstances in Western Australia. The industry in Western Australia very quickly and very efficiently set in place its own voluntary system. I do not wish to draw contrasts between Western Australia and the other States of Australia but simply state the facts as they are. As a result of the promptness in putting the voluntary levy in place there was no backlog, there was no previous testing to be paid for. Since that time the voluntary levy in Western Australia has been complied with 100 per cent by the growers of Western Australia to the point where the cattle industry trust fund of Western Australia is now in considerable surplus and is able to make a contribution, modest as it might be, towards the buy back-I say `modest' because the buy back is likely to be between $12m and $40m-and towards pyramid testing. In fact, the scheme has worked so well that the original $2.50 levy has now been reduced to $2. Hence, here lies the rub for the Western Australian producers. As I have already spelt out-it has been spelt out by the AMLC-part of the proposed statutory levy is now to go to pay the outstanding debts of the people in the eastern States. In other words, the West Australian growers are now being asked to pay for the delinquent accounts of the growers in the eastern States who have refused to pay their debts. The added insult in the minds of the Western Australian growers is that their levy is a great deal less than that being proposed in this legislation. This legislation proposes a levy which is 250 per cent higher than that which is proposed in Western Australia. Just so that it cannot be suggested that there is a sleight of hand, it is obvious that the voluntary system in Western Australia is based on $2 per transaction as distinct from one levy at the abattoir. It is well understood that it is not the intention of the AMLC to strike the initial levy at the maximum statutory rate. However, despite the soothing words of Mr Hunter, the Deputy Chairman of the AMLC, that the levy may begin at $3.50, I draw the Senate's attention to the words he used when proposing the levy at the annual general meeting. He stated: I also draw your attention to the fact that the levy increases will not cover the estimated costs which will be incurred in the short term. In order to minimise the immediate impact on the industry we propose to supplement on funds through borrowings against future levy incomes. In other words, the $5 levy will not be sufficient to pay for previous debts and ongoing testing. In other words, by having the $3.50 levy the AMLC is proposing to reduce artificially the real cost. To overcome the problem of accommodating the real cost it will simply extend the period of the levy so as to make up the difference between the artificial levy and the real levy. The Minister has indicated in rather vague and general ways that he hopes that random testing will be resumed in low risk areas and, as a clear delineation of these areas becomes apparent, there is to be a very good argument for more selective testing in the future. Hopefully that will reduce the overall costs. However, these are matters yet to be resolved. It needs to be understood that the schedule of levies is to commence on 1 January 1988. Under the legislation it is proposed that the abattoirs are to be given one month's notice of the change from the date of the regulations. Therefore at the end of February, after one month's operations, the abattoir will advise the Department of Primary Industries and Energy of the kill count in order to determine the month's levy that it is required to pay. Once worked out the abattoir is given a further month to pay the account. So the accounts will not be paid for the testing until the end of March or the beginning of April-a period of three months from the proclamation of the levy. The inevitable conclusion that one can draw from this fact is that at the same time as there is a compulsory statutory levy the voluntary levy will have to persist to accommodate the costs being incurred for that three-month period. The truth of the matter is that, at a time of considerable financial difficulty for the beef industry, at a time of high interest rates, high on-farm costs and high off-farm costs-with the average farm income for beef producers being $20,400 for the family farm-at a time when the rate of return on investment is minus 1.9 per cent and when income per work year on the family farm is estimated at $13,000, the Government has chosen, through this legislation, to shovel the added costs of the crisis which it created through the incompetence of the NRS, plus the costs of the intensive testing, on to the beef producers of Australia. Whilst the Government and the AMLC have chosen to set maximum operative levels for residue testing, it is interesting to note, as I said earlier, that no similar levies have been struck for sheep, lambs or goats. The total cost is to be carried by the beef producers. It can be said, quite properly and reasonably, that the Government's response to this crisis, for which it must carry the major share of responsibility, it to cast the financial onus on the the beef producers. The burden imposed on the producers is not limited just to those two components. The producers are now required to pay for the pyramid testing, in other words, for the testing of beef in the United States and for the buy back. No financial onus is cast upon the Americans, the international purchasers of the beef, the shippers or the abattoirs. The total cost will be imposed on that poor soul, the producer on the farm. In the south-west of Western Australia, where there are very real problems, an area of 85,000 hectares has already been established as being affected. This area is already under quarantine. It affects 14,661 beef cattle. The total potential area that might be affected is 3.5 million hectares, encompassing half a million cattle. What can these farmers do? They have suddenly had their income-producing asset frozen. Their tangible revenue producing source is unable to be realised for a minimum of three months and, even then, provided the farmer can afford a source of agistment. Alternatively he could have a fire sale and sell his stock at dramatically reduced prices or, as is likely to happen in the next few weeks, he could start shooting some of his breeders. Let me tell the Senate about some of the costs imposed in an indirect way. The cost of agistment will be between $1.50 and $2.50 per week, depending on the age of the cattle and the quality of the agistment. Additional costs which will be incurred will include transport. For example, if a farmer is carting stock over 300 kilometres on a double tray truck he is incurring a cost of $13.94 per head. On top of that, one has to pay for the additional food required to be brought in for agistment. Depending on the quality of the hay, it is presently priced at about $80 a tonne or $2.50 a bale. Very little agistment is available in Western Australia at present. Most of it has already been taken up because of the pesticide problem or the dry season. It is an inescapable fact that the organochlorine pesticide residue problem has created a beef crisis in Australia, particularly in Western Australia. Many of these farmers are on the verge of bankruptcy. There is a very real need for relief. It is my view that they should not be required to carry the full responsibility presently expected of them by this Government. The Government, rather than offering assistance, has chosen to cast the cost of remedy exclusively and squarely on the shoulders of Australian beef producers. The cattle breeders who have used organochlorine pesticides have done little more than apply chemicals which were available in Australia and recommended for use by government departments and instrumentalities. That is the sin of the producers. They did what they were told to do by the Government. The tragedy is that the majority of land affected by pesticides was used by either the present growers or previous growers for different purposes, very often for growing vegetables. It is the organochlorine pesticide residues still contained in the soils as a result of their application to those vegetables which is wreaking such chaos in the beef industry at present. The problem is due only to a change in land use. The farmers certainly should not be required to carry the costs. Farmers are now finding themselves, almost inevitably, the innocent victims of this crisis. They are guiltless of any complicity in the events which are now visiting them. I conclude by touching on one matter, the motion carried on 3 December by the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, which set the levy. I say this on behalf of the farmers and growers of Western Australia. The AMLC represents 25 per cent of beef producers. Within its voting system there is no capacity for a negative vote. The Chairman had more than 50 per cent of the vote. The meeting was stacked. Before it was held the occasion was lost. The Government and the Australian Democrats are now in collusion to cast a further onus, a further financial responsibility, on the growers of Western Australia and the beef producers of Australia generally. I will watch with interest tomorrow to see what the Democrats do with our notice of motion to set up a select committee to inquire into the faults, failings and weaknesses of previous applications of pesticides. I will watch with interest what their concern, interest and compassion is in terms of compensation for the beef producers of Australia. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Peter Baume) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(11.13) —Today we are debating five Bills concerning the Australian meat and livestock industry: the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1987, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1987, the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill 1987 and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 1987. I am speaking from experience. My family and I have been involved in the cattle industry for the past 25 years. Fortunately, I can report that my experience has been on a clean farm. That is certainly a happy position to be in. My first objective is to put the Western Australian position. During the past six months the residue problem has taken off around Australia. Originally I thought it was another red herring used by the United States to downgrade our beef, which may have been the case with the kangaroo meat scandal. Nothing has convinced me to this day that that scandal was not organised beyond our shores. Senator Crichton-Browne —What's wrong with good kangaroo meat? Senator PANIZZA —Nothing. History has shown that beef with unacceptable levels of pesticide has got through the system at the Australian abattoirs. This caused great concern to our world traders. I will give the chronology of what has happened. The difficulties with the meat industry began in May 1987 when United States authorities found five residue violations in meat sent from Australia. In June one more violation was found. The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation and exporters and importers decided to fund testing. In August another violation was found. The United States Food Safety Inspection Service decided to classify into three categories any meat that was either in transit, on United States wharves or in the testing phase. The three categories were as follows: category 1 was no risk of contamination; category 2 was low risk and category 3 was high risk, that is, meat produced in agricultural areas where pesticides had been used in horticulture. Interest on and storage for 9,500 tonnes of meat held in the United States pending pesticide testing is costing the beef industry $25,000 per month. Half of the category 2 meat has yet to be tested. The future testing requirements of category 3 meat will depend on the results of the testing of category 2 meat. Low results for the tests of the category 2 meat will lead to less intensive testing of category 3 meat, while high results for tests of category 2 meat will lead to very intensive testing of category 3 meat. The future of the meat will be negotiated in the market-place after the testing has been done. After a protracted argument, the AMLC decided to buy back the meat that was stored in the United States. It is now stored in about 20 different stores houses. Voluntary levies were imposed in various States with varying degrees of success. In Western Australia the scheme has been working very well. The voluntary levy started at a level of $2.50 per head, as has been pointed out by other speakers, at each point of sale. I say to those who may not be conversant with farming practices and the running of cattle that cattle are sold at various stages of their lives, on an average of three times. Happily, in our situation, we raise them from calves until they are ready to be transported out of the gate. If that figure of $2.50 is applied, on average, three times, we were paying $7.50 a head for this pesticide testing levy. Last week Western Australia dropped its levy from $2.50 to $2 per head per transaction because it had a credit balance. To my surprise, the eastern States' schemes have a deficit of $2.67m which is increasing daily, as outlays total $550,000 per week but collections total only $350,000. A State by State breakdown is as follows: South Australia has a deficit of $309,000; Victoria, $1,044,000; New South Wales, $869,862; Queensland, $447,000; Western Australia and Tasmania are in credit. Of course, a purpose of the compulsory levy that has been mooted is to pay off the eastern States' debt. I have found it very hard to convince the Western Australian growers that their contribution to the compulsory levy should be used to pay off this debt. Cattle growers in Western Australia attacked the problem earlier by paying for a voluntary scheme. The levy contained in the Bill includes a buy-back scheme to pick up the cost of the meat that was bought back, as I said earlier, by the AMLC from America. I agree with the scheme, even though many Western Australians do not. It cleans up the beef pipeline from the grower to the domestic market, America, or wherever it goes. It will help to regain world confidence in our beef, just as it was regained after the kangaroo meat scandal. One must keep in mind that the whole market, including residue free cattle, has dropped on average by $100 per head. As I said earlier, our `clean' farm has taken a drop in the market-place of $100 per head. That is a vast drop. As Senator Crichton-Browne pointed out, we are now getting per head only what we were getting in 1976. As honourable senators may remember, there was a big crash in prices in about 1973-74. The market then recovered and prices in the market-place in 1976 reached a peak of about $600 for a top steer. Since this scandal broke out, prices have dropped by $100. On my visit to the European Economic Community last year, I found that similar steers were bringing about $1,400 per head. I am still in favour of the buy-back scheme. It is a pity that it is not extended to cattle on quarantine farms that cannot be sold in the foreseeable future. Once again, Western Australia does not see why the farmers must carry this burden alone. After all, the buyers had bought the meat in line with a commercial decision; the abattoirs had processed it and had been paid for it; and the shippers have been paid. We consider that at least half of the buy-back scheme should be borne by the Government. So far the Government has refused to budge on the matter. Several more properties in Western Australia have been quarantined and testing of the ground and cattle is under way. The end result in Western Australia is that over 200 farms have been quarantined. In Manjimup, in the deep south, there are 10,000 cattle involved but only one-third of the farms are quarantined; the rest are quarantined by association. All butchers except for one are boycotting the whole area. Although I would like to name that butcher, I will not do so. Because of the compassion he has for the area, he is buying in order to return the favours that have been done for him in the past. The great unresolved problem concerns those farms that are quarantined, which have cattle that are due to go to market which cannot be moved. Next year's calves are ready to drop. The farms cannot get agistment, as Senator Crichton-Browne pointed out, and they have no cash flow to buy supplementary feed. Farmers have been using uncontaminated ground which is usually poorer. The feed on the better ground cannot be used. Females in calf cannot be run on pesticide contaminated ground, otherwise the calves that will be dropped will already be contaminated. This year Western Australia has had a drought in the medium to high rainfall areas. There is no agistment left because the sheep in that area have taken up any agistment that is available. A point to keep in mind is that fat stock must be kept up if one eventually wants to get it out of quarantine into the market-place. If one lets the condition of the animal deteriorate, the concentration of the pesticide remaining in the fat builds up. So when the test is done it would show that the residue level has not gone down. Soil on about 35 farms in Western Australia has been contaminated by the actions of the State Electricity Commission (SEC). This land would not have been contaminated by the use of chemicals on horticultural crops. This is a very serious affair. The SEC, through the State Government, must come to the party, not only to clean up the residue but also to pay compensation for forgone income and future loss. The chemicals that cause the contamination are mainly DDT, heptachlor and dieldrin. As most people now know, after the debates in this chamber, these chemicals were banned in the United States of America more than 10 years ago, yet various State departments of agriculture around Australia gave them the green light as recently as July 1987. In fact, I could have bought a very cheap 200-litre drum of DDT on 1 August 1987. I am afraid that the trouble with DDT over the years is that it has been too cheap and too easy to use. Of course, safe chemicals have a place in Australia, as they have in all agricultural areas around the world. It is well known that there would be far more starvation in Africa and many Third World countries if these chemicals could not be used. Amongst these can be included Sprayseed, which is a total knockdown used as a pre-emergent. As I have already said, either not enough research was done on these chemicals, or not enough conditions were put on their use. There were insufficient warnings. A case in point is a chemical, the name of which I cannot remember, which was used for horticulture and the control of termites. It carried on it the warning, `Do not graze after use', but the instructions did not say, `Do not graze forever'. If the warnings are well pointed out it is up to the landholder to make a judgment whether to use the chemicals. I have had 25 years experience of using chemicals on farms on both crops and livestock, and I cannot emphasise enough their value as one of the tools of successful farming. I know that in the past few years various agriculture departments around Australia have pushed the idea of direct drilling or minimum cultivation for cropping as a soil conservation measure. That has already proven to be a failure because of the drop in return. There has been a return to minimum cultivation with less use of chemicals. I again stress the need for the departments of agriculture to investigate farm chemicals before they are released for sale and to monitor them once they have been released for use in Australia. Most of the chemicals are developed and patented overseas and there must be a wealth of research results available overseas. As I said, I have 25 years experience with the use of chemicals. When I was using dieldrin in sheep dips in a spray race and when the sheep would not come out, I would breathe it in when I would go in to chase them out. I am still here and I hope I will be around a little longer. Nonetheless, I understand that, with the present residue levels in beef, one would have to eat nine tonnes of it in one sitting to be affected. I will leave it to the experts to argue that question. Mr Kerin, the Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, has put the blame squarely on the senior members of the State public services, as reported in the Australian of 26 November 1987 and the Victorian Weekly Times of 2 December 1987. I seek leave to have the two Press articles incorporated in Hansard. I had them cleared with the Minister who was on duty last evening. Leave granted. The articles read as follows- STATES NEGLIGENT OVER PESTICIDE, SAYS KERIN By rural writer JULIAN CRIBB THE States had been negligent in the way they handled the agricultural pesticides issue, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin, said yesterday. He told the National Farmers Federation council in Canberra that he was ``still trying to bludgeon the States into taking a more responsible attitude with respect to the whole question of pesticides''. Mr Kerin placed the blame for the failure of Australia to establish a national register of pesticides squarely on senior members of the States Public Services. ``Recently, with (State Agriculture) ministers I said, how about we get our senior people to see whether we can have central registration and deregistration of chemicals?'' Mr Kerin said. ``The ministers were quite happy with that until they were wound up by the bureaucrats. No one will give up anything. ``I think the way we handle chemicals in this country has been deplorable. ``Sure there are different environmental conditions between States-but there is just as much environmental difference within a State, if you take States the size of Western Australia, Queensland and NSW. ``I just don't think that washes. The States have been negligent with respect to these chemicals, quite frankly.'' The background to Mr Kerin's remarks is continuing public concern over the lack of uniformity, excessive duplication and conflicting application of pesticide laws in the various States. This issue was given recent prominence in complaints by the United States Congress and Food Security Inspection Service during the recent beef DDT residue scare. Mr Kerin was responding to a question from the president of the Cattle Council of Australia, Mr Wally Peart, who said the huge cost of testing Australia's beef herds for pesticide residues was unfairly hurting the cattle industry, which was largely not to blame for the problem. He asked whether the Government was prepared to contribute to the cost of lot testing. Mr Kerin indicated that because the pesticide residue issue was not related to a health risk, but only to arbitrary maximum permitted residue levels, there was no need technically for all the lot testing of beef which was costing farmers so much. STATES TOLD TO PAY UP By CHRIS MCLENNAN Chemical residue testing on beef will be widened to include other fresh foods under a pilot program of laboratory tests starting in Victoria this week. Testing will extend to lamb, pork, chicken, eggs, milk, fruit, vegetables and grain products. Agriculture Minister, Mr Evan Walker, said the four-month program of testing would monitor the levels of chemical residues, antibiotics and heavy metals in most of Victoria's fresh food products. The $160,000 program will involve about 2500 individual tests. Mr Walker said that after four months a clear picture of any problem areas should emerge. Pressure is mounting on the State Government to help cattle producers with properties affected by chemical residue problems. And the war of words has reached new heights with Primary Industry Minister, Mr Kerin, accusing State governments of bungling the residue crisis. The states have been negligent and should provide compensation, Mr Kerin claimed. Producers, convinced they would win a fight for compensation through the courts, have seized on Mr Kerin's remarks as a way of solving the represent stalemate. The Victorian Farmers' Federation presented a virtual log of claims to Agriculture Minister, Mr Walker, last Friday calling for a commitment to help ``innocent'' farmers. A veiled threat is made in the submission on the potential for legal action. Far from retreating, Mr Walker has rebuffed the latest attacks, firstly by saying Mr Kerin ``was talking through his hat''. He maintained his attacks on the VFF and Opposition parties for the demise of a Government assistance scheme through a refusal to allow partial funding from the Cattle Compensation Fund. He again rejected a suggestion that interest from the fund could be used, saying he had inherited the arrangement where interest was credited to general revenue from the previous Liberal Government. Liberal Party spokesman on Agriculture, Mr Tom Austin, in a reference to Mr Walker's ``Open letter to cattle producers'' in last week's Weekly Times, said taxpayers' money would have been better spent buying contaminated cattle instead of attacking the VFF and the Opposition. ``It is obvious the Government should compensate farmers who are innocent victims of advice given by departmental officers,'' he said. Mr Walker said the department and its extension officers had acted under the best intentions by recommending various chemicals to contain pasture pests. ``There is no negligence on the Government's behalf.'' Mr Walker said producers must bear the onus for chemical residue problems. He said although DDT had been banned for over 20 years, a recent amnesty had revealed thousands of litres of the chemical were still kept on farms. He also said the Government would make no apology on the use of dieldrin-treated fertiliser. He said producers had failed to follow the directions. Ninety-three Victorian farms have been found to have livestock exceeding the maximum allowable residue limit-70 resulting from dieldrin use and 23 from the use of DDT. VFF Pastoral Group president, Mr Bill Bodman, said the new approach to the Government argued that producers who have legally used chemicals, particularly dieldrin, in accordance with departmental recommendations, and even specific advice, should be provided with a range of assistance measures. The assistance measures being sought by the VFF are: A stock movement certification scheme to allow stock to move from quarantined properties (under departmental control) to generate some cash-flow to the owner; That the cost of soil and animal confirmation testing be shared on a 50-50 basis between producer and government; That the Government meet the cost of monitoring the residue status of herds/flocks and properties in quarantine, as part of their responsibilities for quarantine property management; That a slaughter compensation scheme funded by the State Government be introduced as part of the herd/flock clearance program; The Government consider the benefit of agisting quarantined livestock; And, a range of additional assistance measures be provided similar to those provided in natural disasters. Senator PANIZZA —I thank the Senate. I call on all the States, and especially my State of Western Australia, to face up to the facts and immediately to announce a compensation program. This does not mean, of course, that the Federal Government should not shoulder its own responsibilities and contribute to the clean-up of a very important trade. The domestic market is worth $1.6 billion and the export trade is worth $1.9 billion. I turn to State responsibility. A warning was sounded way back in 1981 about pesticide residue by one of the officers of the Western Australian Department of Agriculture. When I spoke to him on the phone yesterday he gave me permission to release his name but I will not do so unless pressed. Senator Robert Ray —We can force you to table the document. Senator PANIZZA —`Unless pressed', I said. Is the Minister pressing me? Senator Robert Ray —No, we will not force you. Senator PANIZZA —Incidentally, he does not work for the Department any longer. Senator McGauran —Is he on superannuation? Senator PANIZZA —I do not know. He is in the financial game now. He sent off a paper to his Department at the time, giving the findings of the work he had carried out. This led to a meeting between the animals section of the Department and the horticultural section in Bunbury. The meeting was inconclusive, with the vegetable section not wanting to cease the use of the chemicals DDT and dieldrin, which would lessen the return for the horticultural industry. That may have been a reasonable compromise at the time but the fatal mistake was not advising farmers not to graze animals under any circumstances on land on which these chemicals had been used. Of course, the chemical companies have a lot to answer for. They marketed these chemicals in Australia and collected their profits along the line-large profits except, I presume, in the case of DDT, unless it costs very little to manufacture. The chemical companies have been noticeable by their silence. Over the years there have been many precedents of chemical companies bearing the responsibility for the use of chemicals. I cannot give many, but the more eminent scientists in this chamber may be able to help me out. The only one I can think of is the public scandal involving babies affected by thalidomide. My side of politics is adamant that a full inquiry is required to ascertain where the responsibility lies for the fiasco that has occurred over the past six months. As I have stated previously, I maintain that State and Federal governments, as well as some sections of the meat trade, are dodging their responsibilities and leaving the cost to the farmers. An inquiry would provide findings, whatever they may be, so that from that point on nobody-and I mean nobody-would be able to sidestep the issue any longer. I do not subscribe to the fear that the attention an inquiry would draw to our beef trade would drive off our customers. Quite to the contrary, not only would buyers regain the confidence in us that they have lost, but also we would confirm the faith that many customers have always had in our beef. It was definitely shown after the kangaroo meat scandal that we got back confidence. An inquiry would put an end to all red herrings. I am not going to talk on the fisheries legislation; that is probably as close as I will get to it. Such problems are used by our competitors to downgrade our exports when they can. In brief, the Western Australian beef industry-I am sure this applies to the industry around Australia-is asking for us to do three things. It wants the Federal Government to fund half the buy-back scheme. Secondly, it wants a national accreditation scheme to overcome lot testing. The scheme would issue certificates to clean farms and be funded nationally. At present we seem to be concentrating on unclean farms and this has led to the fiasco which we have had at Manjimup, where clean farms have been quarantined by association. Thirdly, the beef industry wants a national system run by State government departments to clean up farms and to institute a management plan on individual farms. I would now like briefly to give an outline, as probably has already been done, of the proposed Senate inquiry that we would like to see in place-and it must be put in place. A select committee, which could probably be known as the Senate Select Committee on Agricultural Chemicals, should inquire into and report fairly soon on regulation by government of the sale and use of agricultural chemicals pertaining to the beef industry, the use of such chemicals by government instrumentalities and questions of compensation and assistance for growers. I certainly hope that we have help from the Australian Democrats in this situation. I listened to the very interesting speech by Senator Jenkins from her side of politics and to her support for the beef industry. But the best support Senator Jenkins can give it is to convince the rest of her party to support us in setting up this inquiry along these lines. With respect to the rest of the Bill, I had certainly hoped that a sunset clause would be put into the legislation, as was demanded by the Western Australian side of the industry, in relation to the beef levy so that we could come back to the negotiating table somewhere down the track, in 12 or 18 months time, to ensure that this levy was being spent in the right way and whether all of it was still needed. I close by giving support to all of the amendments that have been moved this morning by Senator Knowles on behalf of Senator Archer. I assure honourable senators that the beef industry, certainly that on the western side of the continent, has a great future for many years down the track after this scandal has been cleaned up. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(11.37) —The Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1987, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1987, the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill 1987 and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 1987 deal with a number of matters. But it is quite clear from the debate so far that the element of pesticide residues in human food, particularly beef, is the one concerning most honourable senators. A number of things have been said by Opposition senators with which I agree in terms of their factual content; but, unfortunately, they are not drawing the correct conclusions from those facts. The reason I have chosen to speak this morning relates to a statement made yesterday by Senator MacGibbon when he said, `We need to know how this has come about'. I could not agree more with that. The intention of my remarks is to explain some of the background of how the situation has developed. Senator Knowles and Senator Panizza have also said that Australia has been slow in acting on this problem compared with other countries; that certainly is true. Senator Knowles gave the example of DDT in the United States of America. Senator Panizza mentioned several other organochlorine pesticides, the time when restrictive action has been taken in the United States with respect to those compounds, and the slowness with which Australia has dealt with those problems. But I point out that the situation is much broader than merely the beef industry and much broader than just the problem of the so-called organochlorine pesticides. Senator McGauran yesterday slighted greenies. I would like to stress the part which has been played over the years by those in the conservation movement. I make no apology for the fact that I have been in the conservation movement for over 30 years and have played an active part over many years in attempting to bring tighter controls over the use of agricultural chemicals and other pesticides. I would like to place on record the fact that, like Senator MacGibbon and Senator Panizza, I have been a beef producer since 1974. I have owned and operated two cattle properties on a day to day basis and have been in a situation, when cattle prices have fallen, of having to go out and kill cattle because it cost more to send cattle to market than they were worth. So I know the problems which are being faced by those in the cattle industry. However, I was fortunate to be engaged as a research scientist during all that time. One of the pieces of work which I did in the early 1970s related directly to the matter of organochlorine pesticides in human tissues. I ask the Senate to note that at the time I began this work the largest series of assays which had been done in Australia on DDT in human tissues comprised 12 samples. It was stated earlier that DDT came into widespread use during the Second World War. It come into widespread use throughout Australia immediately after the war. I find it remarkable-this is the first point that I would like to make-that by 1973 the largest sample of assays of human tissues in Australia comprised only 12 samples. The piece of research work which I became engaged in was to create a much larger database recording the level of organochlorine pesticide in human tissues. We did assays on some hundreds of autopsy specimens from the Royal Adelaide Hospital. In passing, I make the remark that, had those humans been cattle, some certainly would not have found themselves on the meat market because the levels in many of them were far too high. One conclusion I would like to draw from that observation, and one defect in the Australian system, is that there has been very little interest by the research funding bodies such as the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) to establish databases with respect to a number of contaminants which turn up in the human environment and which are potentially damaging to our health. Funds have not been available and even scientific journals have been rather loth to publish. I would like to outline to the Senate the story of two pesticides because I think they indicate quite clearly where the problem lies. The first pesticide I would like to mention is called dibromochloropropane (DBCP). It was used in the vine industry as an anti-helminthic agent on grape vines for a number of years. It is an organochlorine pesticide. It was developed in the early 1960s by the Dow Chemical Co. in the United States of America. By the early 1960s the Dow Chemical Co. had done work which established that DBCP caused sterility in male rats. The Dow Chemical Co. provided DBCP to another company in California called Occidental Chemical Corporation which formulated DBCP into material for use by the vignerons in California, but Dow did not pass on to the Occidental Chemical Corporation the fact that it had evidence that DBCP caused sterility in male rats. In about 1973 a group of workers working for Occidental were sitting in their lunchroom one morning having morning tea and comparing notes when they came to the realisation that none of them had had any children for a number of years. Tests showed that all the male workers were indeed sterile. Investigations were then carried out and it was found that Dow had had this information more than 10 years earlier and had not passed it on. DBCP is an extremely potent mutagenic agent capable of causing sterility simply by destroying the ability of the sperm stem cells in the testes to produce sperm. We move on to 1976 when the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took up this matter of DBCP. By 1976 DBCP was banned in the United States. But it was still in widespread use in Australia and it was not until 1979 that the National Health and Medical Research Council in this country took up the matter. As honourable senators know, this Federal body makes recommendations only. The actual banning of the use of pesticides comes under State jurisdiction. It was not until 1980 that DBCP was effectively removed from use in Australia. In other words, this was 20 years after Dow had positive evidence that DBCP caused sterility in animals. I make the point in passing in relation to this compound that low levels of exposure are the ones of greatest significance. Senator MacGibbon made the point yesterday that we may not need to be concerned about low levels, the assumption being that low levels may be safe. In relation to mutagenic or genotoxic substances, it is the low levels which are the levels of significance. The men who became sterile were clearly not capable of passing on genetic damage to their offspring simply because they did not produce any offspring. It was those men who were exposed to quite low levels of the pesticide, and who were still fertile, who were in danger of passing on that damage to their offspring. So the low levels of exposure are the levels of significance. The second example that I would like to give concerns another organochlorine substance called dichlorvos. This is the active ingredient in Shell pest strips which are used in many homes. It was the principal active ingredient in Baygon, which is used widely in households; it is still the active ingredient in one of the Baygon formulations which is widely available. In 1973 dichlorvos was shown to be a mutagen, and the implication is that mutagenicity implies a strong possibility that such substances will be shown eventually to be carcinogens. In 1979 I repeated in my laboratory tests on dichlorvos and established that both dichlorvos and Baygon were mutagenic. In 1979 I helped to put together a Four Corners program with Andrew Olle. I showed on camera a container of Baygon and made the statement that this substance had been shown to be mutagenic and eventually, I believed, would be shown to be cancer causing. The result of that was that three days later the Bayer company, the manufacturer of Baygon, placed a $10m writ against the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The Four Corners program could not be reshown and the matter became sub judice. The action taken was recognised as a stop writ. Bayer kept it in place for almost exactly 12 months, then quietly dropped it and the matter never got into court. During that 12 months Baygon was extremely widely advertised. During the investigations leading to a possible court case, it became established that the National Cancer Institute in the US had carried out tests on dichlorvos. In a group of experimental mice three cancers of the oesophagus had appeared while none had appeared in control animals. That was not quite a statistically significant result. I wrote to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) following that study to establish how many cancers of the oesophagus had been found in mice of exactly the same genetic strain. The NCI had used almost 6,000 mice of the same strain and only one cancer of the oesophagus had appeared in these control mice. This was a very highly significant result. The next series of tests done on this substance was carried out by a company in the US which I hope many honourable senators will have heard about-namely, Industrial Biotest. It is a supposedly independent company which carried out tests on behalf of chemical companies. That company gave dichlorvos a clean bill of health. Investigations were made into Industrial Biotest and it was found that that company was distorting its experimental results, specifically in relation to the ability of dichlorvos to cause damage to the unborn foetus. The company reported that some of the animals in the experimental series were born with `visual difficulties'. Closer inquiry established that the animals were born without any eyes. Senator Crichton-Browne —That is what I call a visual difficulty. Senator COULTER —That was a real visual difficulty. The latest National Cancer Institute study establishes that dichlorvos is a cancer-causing agent. This substance is still in widespread use, and remains in widespread use, in Australia. The Opposition has quite rightly drawn attention to the failure of Federal and State departments of agriculture to inform adequately both the public and farmers as to the danger of agricultural chemicals and pesticides in general. Senator Crichton-Browne —It is worse than that. They actually recommended it. Senator COULTER —I thank the honourable senator; I want to dwell on that point for a moment. For many years we had as the chairman of the relevant committee in the Federal area a Mr Jack Snelson, who had himself come from the agricultural chemical industry. Not surprisingly, the advice that was coming from that committee, both to farmers and to State departments of agriculture, was heavily weighted toward the view that agricultural chemicals were good. Up until 1980, five out of the six people who were responsible in the States for the registration and regulation of chemicals had extensive backgrounds in the commercial agricultural chemical industry. Yesterday Senator McGauran criticised as greenies those who started in the 1960s and 1970s raising queries about these substances. We were criticised by farmers who, of course, had the information given to them by chemical companies and government departments without any countervailing information. We were also strongly criticised directly by the chemical industry, by State departments of agriculture, by the NHMRC and another Federal agricultural committee. So it has been extremely difficult to get information to farmers on the hazards associated with these substances. The hazards were quite widely recognised by research workers; they were quite widely recognised by the environmental movement but unfortunately there was no mechanism by which we could get that message across to farmers. The consequence is that we are in the situation that we are in today, not only in respect of the narrowly defined organochlorine pesticides, but with a wide range of pesticides. I think someone this morning mentioned the Australian Veterinary Chemicals Association of Australia (AVCA). Most of the companies which belong to this organisation are multinational companies and most have a strong vested interest in promoting the chemical control of pests on and off farms. The point I want to draw from this is that Australia has been very poorly served over a long time by the chemical industry and by the advice of State and Federal departments on the use of these chemicals. We desperately need an inquiry. We need a wide-ranging inquiry which will go a long way beyond simply inquiring into the beef industry. As I think Senator Knowles pointed out, a farmer in Kempsey is now attempting to produce beef on a farm which formerly had grown lucerne on which heptachlor had been used. I point out in passing that the six most senior executives in the Velsicol Chemical Company in the US, which was responsible for a range of chemicals running from dieldrin to heptachlor, were indicted before a Federal grand jury in the US as long ago as 1976. But they got off that charge on a technicality because the FDA messed up the way in which the charge was prosecuted. But, again, the Australian authorities took very little notice of that. As several of the Opposition speakers have pointed out, we have continued to use those substances right up until this year. I believe that the Opposition and the Government have gone wrong in that both have failed to recognise that the alternatives to chemical control will not be developed by private enterprise. There is no profit in developing biological methods of control. Once biological control is released, there is no further ability to sell that method. So the moves by the Opposition and the Government to privatise research in this area and remove funding from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation-and that has gone on just in the last few months-will put Australia in an even worse position. I give an example in relation to plant variety rights. There is a move to privatise control of genetic material in plants. We must recognise that the profit motive is not the appropriate one to settle questions of pesticides or alternative control of pests in agriculture. The Australian Democrats have been attempting, against considerable opposition from the Government and the Opposition, to establish a Senate select committee with wide terms of reference that can look at the whole of this problem. It can look at the information available on pesticides and herbicides, where that information comes from, the control, registration, regulation and use of these substances and the alternatives which lie in the area of biological control. Unless such a wide-ranging inquiry is set up, we will not solve this problem. We will simply lurch from this problem to yet another one further down the track involving another pesticide. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State)(11.56) —I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate. The issues have been very well rehearsed in the House of Representatives and here, so I will not reply at length to the points that have been made. But some comments from the Opposition require a comment from the Government. Senator Archer and other speakers canvassed the question of voting rights at annual general meetings (AGMs) of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (AMLC) and the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation. The amendments before the Senate move to a more realistic position and can be seen as more democratic than the Opposition's alternatives. Senator Archer should be aware that at the AGM of the AMLC, held on 3 December, a motion to further relax the voting requirements was rejected. It was suggested that the AMLC should be required to consult peak industry bodies before recommending levy increases to the Minister. By requiring the AMLC to consult such bodies in the preparation of its corporate and annual plans, this aim is achieved. The matter is then to be put to an annual meeting open to all producers of meat, processors and exporters, whether or not they are members of industry organisations. Senator Powell stressed the role played by women in rural production. I acknowledge the points she made. I am pleased to have them on the record. We acknowledge the contribution women make to the rural sector. For this reason, the AMLC will be required to develop and implement an equal employment opportunity program although employment matters in this organisation, as in all government statutory bodies and agencies, will be a matter of merit, as the Acting Deputy President is very well aware. Senator Brownhill and other speakers suggested that the Government should make a financial contribution to the cost of resolving the pesticide residue problem. The Government has already announced that it will be outlaying $10m over the next three years to support specific residue-related issues. These include the contribution to costs of retesting in transit products; the production of an education campaign; dollar for dollar assistance to the States for disposal of organochlorines; and net outlays over the next three years on the national residue survey. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) has indicated that he will consider any proposals for further assistance on their merits. However, regard must be paid in these matters, as in all matters, to budgetary restraints. Any assistance would have to be targeted at specific problem areas and used in the most cost-effective manner. The fifty-fifty cost sharing arrangements proposed by Senator McGauran would disperse benefits in a broad untargeted pattern across the industry, irrespective of need. So, in concluding the debate, I am giving notice that the amendments to be moved to take up these points that I have just commented on will not be acceptable to the Government. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Peter Baume) —Order! The question before the Chair is that these Bills be now read a second time, to which Senator Knowles has moved, by leave, two amendments in respect of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill and the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill. The first question, therefore, is that the amendment moved by Senator Knowles with respect to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 be agreed to. Question resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question now is that the amendment moved by Senator Knowles with respect to the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1987 be agreed to. Question resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question now is that the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1987, the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill 1987 and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 1987 be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. Senator Crichton-Browne —Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask under standing order 168 that my vote be recorded in the Journals as in the negative. AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVE-STOCK INDUSTRY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1987 The Bill. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(12.01) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 4, paragraph 5 (e), line 19, definition of ``equal employment opportunity program'', at end of definition, add ``, but not so as to permit or require any positive discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status, race, religion, or on any other grounds''. (2) Page 10, clause 25, after proposed section 33, insert the following new section: Object of equal employment opportunity program `` `33aa. The object of the equal employment opportunity program developed under section 33 is to eliminate discrimination and promote equal opportunity and nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting or requiring any positive discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status, race, religion, or on any other grounds.''. The Opposition has always been committed to the principles of equal opportunity, as dealt with in these amendments. The Special Minister of State, Senator Ryan, the Minister responsible in this chamber for the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Statutory Authorities) Bill, and Senator Haines, kept repeating, after the Bill had been dealt with that the coalition refused to support that Bill. The coalition says that our position has been misunderstood and misrepresented. The Minister, by insisting on repeating that we refused to support that Bill, was misleading the community by omission rather than commission because what she should have gone on and said-and that would have outlined the coalition's view, which we are seeking to have clarified in these amendments-at each opportunity she had, was that with certain amendments we would have supported that Bill. Those amendments would have left that Bill as a good equal employment opportunity (EEO) Bill. The Government, in our view, did not offer sound reasons for refusing those amendments. It is therefore the coalition's view that the Government refused to accept our amendments because it simply wanted the opportunity to mislead the public about the coalition's position with respect to equal employment opportunities. Refusing to accept those amendments and misleading the public by saying that we refused to support an EEO Bill, without saying that we would have supported it with some very sensible amendments which would have left it as a good EEO Bill, makes a mockery of Senator Ryan's expressed desire to have this matter dealt with in a bipartisan fashion. If the Government and Senator Ryan had wanted bipartisan support for that Bill they could have had it. They simply had to accept some very sensible amendments. I repeat that the coalition offered to support that Bill with amendments that would have left it as a good EEO Bill. Without going on at length, because of the time situation, I will just point out that the Government's commitment to EEO has been questioned. One has only to look at what happened to the Equal Employment Opportunity Bureau within the Public Service Board, which is now in the Public Service Commission under another name, I understand. It once had a staff in the high forties and now has a staff of approximately nine. It once had staff in different States to assist in getting genuine equal opportunity programs in departments in the States, not just in head offices. But, of course, the Government has had a rethink and those people have got the chop. I think that it is instructive to mention that at this time. These amendments seek to address particular concerns. Irrespective of the Government's professed intentions, which the coalition accepts are genuine, to have EEO, there is concern that, in certain areas-we could call them pockets of misunderstanding-this legislation is creating, in practice, positive discrimination. It is not a question of the Government's intention as a consequence of the legislation and the wording that it has used. It is a question of interpretation, or rather misinterpretation, by some people involved in putting this legislation into practice. Perhaps it is also a question of unintended consequences developing from the legislation which may not have been seen at the time, although they are recognised now by people involved in putting certain elements of this legislation into practice. For example, there is concern that the merit clauses in the relevant Bills are permissive rather than restrictive, and that worries some people. They say that the Government is saying that nothing requires appointments to be made other than on merit-that is a slight paraphrase, but it is the gist of it-and those clauses should say that appointments other than on merit are prohibited. The first clause says that nothing requires it, and could therefore almost go on and say, `If you do, well so what?'. I understand that not everyone has that concern, and not everyone wants a restrictive clause. But if it is the Government's intention to have genuine equal opportunity and not positive discrimination, what is the matter with spelling out the view to allay the concerns of those who are worried about how it is operating in practice? That is all that we are asking for. I understand the views of my colleague Kathy Sullivan in the House of Representatives, who, when speaking about these Bills, said that if this is to happen in practice, and if people are being unfairly treated because someone is getting a job on top of them in the form of positive discrimination-in other words, if merit is being overridden-those who are so disadvantaged can and should appeal to expose what she agrees would be an inequity. I agree that that course of action is open to people, but a number of things need to be said about that. Firstly, I think that it is beneficial to say that one does not want to put the disadvantaged person in the position of having to appeal. Why should we be creating disadvantaged people who can get out of that disadvantage by appealing? It is not good enough. If we can prevent them from becoming disadvantaged people by spelling out our intentions, that is what we should do. Furthermore, while that comment is true, the acceptance of these amendments may encourage some people to take the course of action suggested by Mrs Sullivan. As I am sure that the Minister and many people know, it is not always in the long term interest of any employee to pursue his or her rights to the nth degree because he or she does not want to be labelled as a stirrer or someone who causes trouble. People do not want such things on their record. They want to be handled fairly in the normal course of events, and to treat their employers fairly. They do not want to be the disadvantaged people who have to use the courts to put themselves back in the normal situation. I know of cases where this has happened, and I have had letters telling me of others where people who admittedly have the right to pursue their rights through the courts and put themselves in the position that the Minister would say that this legislation provides for do not want to do that. In the first place, they do not want to spend the money and take the chance, because, as we know, law is a chancy business. Secondly, they do not want the name of being a stirrer, which would prejudice further promotional opportunities. These amendments would, perhaps, provide a signal that this is the Government's intention, and that may encourage some people to take the course of action that Mrs Sullivan recommends and which I think I have heard the Minister recommending. They say that it is open to people who feel disadvantaged. At the very least, these amendments clarify the coalition's position. They provide the opportunity for the Government and the Australian Democrats to display, by supporting the amendments, that they, like the coalition, firstly support genuine EEO and, secondly, reject positive discrimination that may override merit. Support of these amendments would achieve that. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.10) —I rise to speak briefly on the amendments moved by my colleague Senator Vanstone. Let me say something first about my attitude to the general question of equal employment opportunity and I think in doing so that I speak for all members of the National Party of Australia in the Senate. My attitude is simple and straightforward. It is that any employer, whether he or she be in the private sector or the public sector, who does not adopt an equal employment opportunity approach to appointments to his or her enterprise or department of state is a fool. He or she may also be a knave, but certainly a fool because to do otherwise is to deprive himself or herself of the opportunity to tap, in the case of women, half the work force whose abilities are equally as great as those of the other half of the work force, namely men. In the private sector there are some built-in sanctions against people who take a different attitude from that because, in the longer run, the employer who does not adopt such policies will find his work force inferior to the work forces of employers who do. In that sense, the market works in entirely the right direction. The work force of the discriminatory employer will turn out to be an inferior work force, and that employer's business will suffer as a consequence. The same is true, although in a less direct bottom line profit degree, of the public sector. Any departmental secretary who does not adopt this attitude to equal employment opportunity will find, for that and other reasons such as the image of the department concerned over the longer run, that he or she is presiding over an inferior department, and before long, that will brush off on the performance of the official concerned. I would like to make plain my views on the basic objective under discussion as a result of Senator Vanstone's amendments. I do not want there to be any mistake about this and-I say this with the greatest of courtesy to the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan)-I do not want any misrepresentations about it either. As Senator Vanstone said, there have been such misrepresentations on other, past occasions when I was not myself a member of this place-- Senator Ryan —They didn't have the benefit of your understanding of the issue. Senator STONE —We do not wish to have a repetition of that. I congratulate Senator Ryan on her newly putative capacity as a business entrepreneur and I trust that she will understand the force of what I have said about employment policies and will carry that into the organisation that she will shortly have the honour to serve. I understand that there are those who, notwithstanding what I have said, feel it necessary to legislate in this area and to make laws to govern the behaviour of employers, whether private or public. I have some doubts about the long term efficacy of that approach to such matters; nevertheless, I accept that that is the approach that the Government has taken and, if people wish to reinforce common sense with, in this case, law, I have no objection to that so long as the law is clear and does not contain, either by omission or commission, any elements which might lend themselves to a different practice from the equal employment opportunity practice. Senator Vanstone has moved amendments to clauses 5 and 25 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 which are designed to do one simple thing: to remove ambiguity from these clauses in what is meant by the term `equal employment opportunity programs'. As Senator Vanstone said, there is potential ambiguity in the clauses as drafted in the Bill. In support of what my colleague said, I put it to the Minister that that ambiguity is undesirable if there is to be a genuinely bipartisan attitude to this matter in this place. The Minister is grimacing at me from across the chamber as though she does not accept-- Senator Ryan —At Senator Archer, actually. He was the object of my glances. Senator STONE —I am sorry; I do not want to interpose myself between interchanges between the Minister and Senator Archer. However, I want to say, at the risk of repetition, that Senator Vanstone is quite correct when she says that there is a possibility in this place of having a totally bipartisan attitude to this matter. It is one which I would have thought the Special Minister of State, Senator Susan Ryan, in particular would have greatly welcomed since it will be one of the last occasions on which, I am sorry to say, she will be officiating in this place in that capacity. I think it would be a nice note on which to leave this place for her to achieve a situation in which all parties in this place agree on what they mean by the words, which get loosely thrown around from time to time, `equal employment opportunity programs'. Every senator on this side of the chamber, I am sure, and certainly every senator in my own Party, agrees that those words should mean what they say-equal employment opportunity. That is for people of equal ability to be promoted, appointed or transferred on the basis of their abilities and their capacity to do the job in question. There should be no discrimination involved in such employment promotion or transfer policies on the grounds of sex, race, religion or, perhaps, some physical handicap or disadvantage. People should be treated equally. That is the thrust and purpose of the amendments which Senator Vanstone has moved. I have noticed in the course of preparing for another discussion which we will have later today that the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill contains a clause concerning the application of the merit principle and the prohibition of patronage, et cetera. Clause 27 of that Bill proposes as an amendment to the principal Act a new clause 87a, which reads: The appointment, promotion and transfer of officers shall be in accordance with procedures that preclude patronage and favouritism and ensure that: (a) all persons have, so far as practicable, a reasonable opportunity to apply for appointment or be considered for, promotion or transfer, as the case may be; and (b) appointments, promotions and transfers are made on the basis of an assessment of the relevant suitability of the persons considered for appointment, promotion or transfer, as the case may be, having regard to: (i) the nature of the duties to be performed by the person appointed, promoted or transferred; and (ii) the abilities, qualifications, experience and other attributes of each person so considered that are relevant to the performance of those duties. If I may say so, the draftsman of the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill seems to me to have taken a much more straightforward, much more appropriate and, I would have thought, entirely acceptable attitude to this question than did the draftsman of the less than wholly clear particular provisions of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill, to which we are now addressing our remarks. I do not wish to prolong my remarks further on this matter other than to say that I do hope that both the Government and the Australian Democrats will be able to join with senators of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia in agreeing to the amendments moved by Senator Vanstone on behalf of the Opposition to clarify the loose and ambiguous drafting of clauses 5 and 25 of the Bill now before us. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State)(12.20) —I must say that it gives me a great deal of satisfaction in the dying days of my parliamentary career to hear that not only the Liberal Party of Australia but also the new spokesperson for the National Party of Australia in this place are totally in support of equal employment opportunity principles. Indeed, Senator Stone has just treated us to a very clear statement of what equal employment opportunity is and why it is in the interests of employers, not to mention why it is in the interests of those who will be the beneficiaries of enlightened employment programs. Those matters are cause for satisfaction to me because I have to say that it was not always the case that the National Party had such a clear grasp of the rationale and the processes by which equal employment opportunity could be achieved. Senator Stone particularly made a most persuasive case for why the Australian Democrats and the Government should accept amendments moved by Senator Vanstone. But tempted as I was in the very calm mood that I am in at the moment with liberation at hand, I must be quite clear and say that the amendments are not acceptable. They are not acceptable because, far from removing an ambiguity, they would actually suggest that the whole package of equal employment opportunity legislation which has gone through this place in my time, and to which I have been very committed, somehow contains in it the suggestion that appointments would be on something other than merit. If we have to go to the trouble of spelling out, in the terms moved by Senator Vanstone, that equal employment opportunity does not involve positive discrimination, then there is a suggestion that all along the other legislation which does not contain this would somehow imply that positive discrimination was part of what is intended. I think that the electorate is very clear about the Government's legislation and how it is being administered. I certainly think that employees in the Commonwealth Public Service for whose benefit the Public Service legislation has been enacted understand very well that employment promotion is on the basis of merit. I do not think that there has ever been any misunderstanding of that. The trade unions in the public sector that represent employees in the Commonwealth Public Service and its agencies are very clear about that. I do not think that the suggestion Senator Vanstone made that people might feel that they are being discriminated against because positive discrimination was being exercised in the case of another employee is a situation against which employees need extra protection. The well-tried mechanisms of appeals are widely known throughout the public sector. In the public sector I do not think it is a case that an employee who takes advantage of an appeals mechanism is disadvantaging himself or herself in terms of a future career. In fact, appealing has been a very standard procedure in respect of not only people who believe that they have been discriminated against on the basis of gender but also people who have felt that they had better claim to a job than somebody else. Indeed, we have had to streamline appeals procedures because there was such an extensive use of this mechanism. However, I am pleased that both Senator Vanstone, on behalf of the Liberal Party, and Senator Stone, on behalf of the National Party, say that they support the principles of equal employment opportunity and that they are willing to enter into a bipartisan approach with us. I hope that that is the case. On the other hand, I cannot accept that the amendments suggested by Senator Vanstone and supported by Senator Short would clarify anything. I think they would, in fact, confuse the whole thrust of legislative reform that the Government has been able to achieve. Consequently, while welcoming the remarks in support of equal employment opportunity, I cannot accept the amendments. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(12.25) —The Australian Democrats also are unable to accept the amendments moved by Senator Vanstone, for the very reason which the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan) has outlined-the objection being not so much to the amendments as to the assumption behind them that the principle of equal employment opportunity in the legislation before us now, and that previously passed, is in some way not dependent upon merit and is in fact positive discrimination. I would, however, point out that over the years there has been negative discrimination against women, with a legislative base, and that, if government were to introduce positive discrimination, it might very well be seen as in some way balancing the scales. We have to remember that over time there have been enormous restrictions on women through legislation, going back to the Harvester family wage decision and the requirements of married women to forfeit promotion, superannuation and other advantages, and even employment itself in many areas. So it would not be too difficult to argue for positive discrimination. However, it is equality of opportunity that we are all after. We do not believe that positive discrimination is necessary. The grounds upon which people have been discriminated against have never taken into consideration any of the merits of those people, whether their disadvantage was simply that they were women or whether it was their race, their colour or some physical disadvantage. So we must not make the assumption that the legislative base of equal opportunity thus far does go beyond the issue of merit. Senator Vanstone mentioned the questioning of the Government's own commitment to equal employment opportunity which arose out of the Public Service legislation at the beginning of this session. I am happy to hear Senator Vanstone state on the record that she is disturbed about the downgrading of the Equal Employment Opportunity Unit. I am bemused, because at that time the Australian Democrats moved amendments which we believed would go at least some way to holding the Government to its commitment to equal employment opportunity within the Public Service, but which were not supported by the Opposition. I was somewhat amazed because it was not even a Budget Bill. However, I am pleased that Senator Vanstone has raised that point again, and I think we should continue to raise it and to make sure that the assurances that have been given are carried out. We have to recognise that there still is a kind of organic discrimination within our community. I wish to quote an example of that from within the primary industry sector itself. I referred in the second reading debate to an article in the Times on Sunday of 17 May which mentions the participation of women in the various primary industry corporations. At the end of that article it notes that all of the Australian Wool Corporation's wool appraisers are men. It quotes one of those wool appraisers, Mr Ern Roley. The article states: . . . although the job, which included valuing lots of wool on the sale floor, was very interesting, women had never ventured into it. But perhaps they had never been encouraged. `I don't think women would appreciate the work involved or the hours (which could amount to 12 hours a day plus travelling time),' he said. It was not a tidy job and nor was standing on concrete floors all day an easy experience. `It is an arduous task for a female,' I am not having a go at Mr Roley, but I think that is a perfect example of the organic discrimination which is still out there and in here. We often do not recognise that we are being discriminatory when we address this issue. For goodness sake, can a woman not work for more than 12 hours a day? As one who has gone through her superwoman years, that seems like an easy day to me. As for standing on concrete floors all day, there are all kinds of jobs which women now carry out in much worse working conditions than being a wool appraiser. I have to say that there is one thing about being a wool appraiser that would appeal to women, and that is that they would have soft hands when they finished doing the job. I think it is a perfectly good job for women. I am pleased that more girls are getting into the general area of wool classing. I would urge people in building programs in schools not to look just at whether boys want to participate in wool classing programs but to consider the girls as well. As I said, I am not having a go at Mr Roley. I think that comment represents the sort of feeling that is in our society. We all suffer from that kind of organic discrimination. Stereo-typed attitudes affect men as well as women. Men can be the losers too. We have not allowed them the nurturing roles, which has meant that macho images have been the thing, and men have lost out as a result. I think we are moving towards a much better balance, and this kind of legislation takes us significantly down that track. The Australian Democrats certainly support the legislation. As the Minister has said, it it good to hear that people are at least articulating a view in support of equal employment opportunity. I think it is up to all of us to see that the views we articulate are actually carried out in practice and that we are conscious and aware and have our antennae up for the sort of organic discrimination that I have given one example of today. We welcome this aspect of the legislation. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(12.32) —In response to the comments made by the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan) and Senator Powell, I simply say one thing and ask another. The coalition is not saying anything today which differs from what it has said on other days. We are simply seeking to clarify a view and to clarify whether our view of what should be the case is in fact the Government's intention. For Senator Powell and the Minister, intentionally or otherwise, to present the coalition's expression of support for equal opportunity as some new deal is unfortunate to say the least. The Minister responded to my comments and to Senator Stone's comments by saying that Senator Stone, more so than I-she did not actually use those words but that is the obvious corollary of what she said-made some persuasive arguments in favour of these amendments but that she was not inclined, in the more relaxed atmosphere in which she now finds herself, to accept them. The reason she offered was that to accept them would create an ambiguity in the other Bills. I personally find that a somewhat surprising response. I do not profess to be an expert in these matters, but I would be surprised if a court were to interpret some clauses in one Bill differently because of some in another. I do not see that they create that ambiguity. As I understand it, that is the only reason the Minister offered for not supporting these amendments. Is that the only reason? If we were now looking at equal employment opportunity programs ab initio, as though this were the first piece of legislation, would she accept them? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State)(12.33) —I would not accept the amendments because they are gratuitous. They do not add anything. The Bill makes it perfectly clear, and indeed our whole package of legislation has made it perfectly clear, that equal employment opportunity is based on the merit principle. There has never been any possibility, other than in the minds of Senator Vanstone and some people in the National Party of Australia, of any other interpretation. We will not accept amendments to legislation which are unnecessary and which could create confusion, and we will not accept amendments which are being moved by the Opposition parties really to overcome the embarrassment that they rightly suffered when they refused to support our earlier legislation. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.34) —I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but I do not think that the Minister's response to my colleague Senator Vanstone can be allowed to go without challenge. Before I come to that, I want very briefly to say something about the remarks made by Senator Powell on behalf of the Australian Democrats. At least the Minister has been good enough to offer a response which, however illogical I, and I know Senator Vanstone, believe it to be, was at least an attempt at a reasoned response. Senator Powell simply said that there had been a lot of discrimination against women. I think she concentrated only on women. She said that there had been a lot of discrimination against women in the past and, therefore, even if we wanted to have positive discrimination in favour of them today, that would be okay. That was the kind of argument that we got from Senator Powell. I say no more in relation to the Democrats, but I have to say again that those kinds of remarks from people such as Senator Powell give rise to the perfectly justified concern on the part of many people in the community-I am not talking about a few senators in this place, whether they are Liberal Party senators or National Party senators-that what we have under the guise of equal employment opportunity programs in this legislation and in many other Bills is a hidden agenda for positive discrimination against people. That is what many people feel and that is a great concern. If it is unjustified, let the Government, and I suggest the Australian Democrats also, move to remove that concern by clarifying the drafting of the Bills in many cases, not merely the present case, but this is the one we happen to be dealing with at the moment. Let me come to the Minister's response. I think Senator Vanstone has already made the main comment upon the response. The Minister's response contained only the view that, while she thought that the amendments put forward by Senator Vanstone were very reasonable amendments-I do not want to put words into her mouth but I think she said that they were not objectionable if we are dealing with isolated pieces of legislation-if the amendments were to be accepted, that acceptance would cast doubt upon similar words in many other pieces of government legislation. I am sure that the Minister is capable of a much better position in logic than that would suggest. The fact is that if these other Bills are as defective as this legislation, clearly, in the fullness of time, it would be desirable to do something about those Bills also. They do not happen to be before the chamber today and we are not dealing with them, but we on this side of the chamber would be very happy, and I would suggest that Government senators on the other side of the chamber ought to be equally happy, to put forward appropriate amendments to those other pieces of legislation. But that is not the matter which is before us. Senator Vanstone has argued-I am supporting her argument-that we have a piece of legislation before us which we have an opportunity to repair by an amendment which she has moved and which the Minister has considered is a perfectly reasonable amendment. Senator Ryan —I didn't say it was reasonable. Senator STONE —I would like to go back and consult the Hansard to see what the Minister said but I do not believe that I am misrepresenting her position; I certainly would not want to. The Minister finally took refuge in the simple statement that the Government is content to rest upon what she called the merit principle. By resting upon that principle the Minister has failed to concede that there is a great deal of doubt in the minds of many in the community, including many in the Commonwealth Public Service, for which the Minister is still partly responsible, as to what is meant by that phrase. That is partly what this regrettable misunderstanding has been about. If honourable senators want any evidence of that I will quote some passages of the Estimates Committee D Hansard of 29 October this year. When that Committee was examining the estimates of the Department of Veterans' Affairs a number of responses were given by a senior officer of that Department involved in the personnel administration of that Department which make it very clear that that Department at least has undoubtedly set up quotas. I am referring to page 172 of the Senate Hansard of 29 October for Estimates Committee D. I do not wish to embarrass the officer by naming him, but he simply said: We have set some indicators and some targets through our consultative process with the unions. We do not call them quotas, we call them targets. Senator Zakharov —But they are targets. Senator STONE —If honourable senators opposite can restrain their impatience for a moment, I will finish. I leave it to honourable senators to form their own views, on the basis of the record that is available to them and has been available to them from late October, as to what the administration of that Department means by the word `targets'. It means quotas. I know from my own past experience that under the guidance, to use a kindly word, of the Public Service Board-and I congratulate the Government on abolishing it-and under the influence particularly of its last Chairman, Dr Peter Wilenski, the Public Service Board was notorious for pushing positive discrimination down the throats of departments that wished to observe what I would call an appropriate interpretation of the true merit principle, in other words, a non-discrimination principle, in making appointments for transfers and promotions purely on merit. That Public Service Board under that Chairman of the Board was responsible for pushing departments time and time again in a direction of positive discrimination. It is no good the Minister telling us that the Government is satisfied with the way in which the matter has been administered in the Public Service because every public servant in this town and outside this town knows that that is not so. I would be the first to agree that it would have differed from case to case and from department to department depending, no doubt, on the strength of resolution of the departmental head and his officers to resist the pressures from the Public Service Board towards positive discrimination. So the outcomes were different from case to case. But it is quite false and quite misleading for the Minister to suggest to this chamber that there has been nothing wrong in that regard. There has been a great deal wrong and that has engendered considerable suspicion and concern in this city alone about the interpretation to be placed on the words `merit principle'. If the Minister would be good enough to pay attention I am about to put a final point to her. I again appeal to the Minister to take at its face value the perfectly valid proposal put forward by Senator Vanstone, which is supported by every honourable senator on this side of the chamber, with the exception of the Australian Democrats, to spell out and make clear beyond dispute what is meant by those vexed words `merit principle' in order to avoid discriminatory actions in appointments under this legislation. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(12.43) —Senator Stone asked for clarification from the Australian Democrats of the comment that I made about positive discrimination. I believe that I said that, if we were to be addressing some legislation that had an element of positive discrimination in it, a case could very well be argued on the basis that in the past there has obviously been negative discrimination by way of legislation. I understand that that is what I said. I wish to make a couple of points that may be made in such an argument. Some research work was done-research work is always being done-with regard to the aspects of learning for young people in schools. I do not have the material before me, but I believe that there has been a study in South Australia which has clearly indicated that girls learn to read more quickly and, in fact, better than boys do and that girls have more difficulty with numeracy than boys do. Literacy is easier for girls and numeracy is easier for boys. What we have had for at least two decades in most school systems has been remedial reading courses. Remedial mathematics came very much later and it is still difficult to give remedial mathematics as much priority in schools as we have always given to remedial reading. It can be argued that that is positive discrimination in favour of boys. I am not saying that I am arguing this, but I have heard a very senior official in the equal opportunity section of the South Australian Department of Education make that argument and I am simply putting that on the record. Senator Stone said that we should not do what we do by way of positive discrimination for the disabled-that is, legislate and regulate for ramps for parking areas and toilet facilities for disabled people. Surely that is positive discrimination. I think there are cases that can be argued for positive discrimination and that is what I was saying. Of course, I could go on all day about this, but I will not. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State)(12.45) —Senator Stone and Senator Vanstone have been very persistent in their argument that the adding of the words in Senator Vanstone's amendments would clarify the legislation. I must be equally persistent in my rejection of that view. There is no reason to add to the legislation that something that is not in it is not there. It is not in the legislation and the amendments are not acceptable. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., pursuant to order of the Senate, I will now report progress. The Chairman having reported accordingly- Debate resumed from 17 November, on motion by Senator Reynolds: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(12.46) —The Senate is debating legislative amendments to the Management and Investment Companies Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. The management and investment companies (MICs) program arose as a result of a Fraser Government initiative which was picked up by the Labor Government in 1983. This program has bipartisan support, as have the amendments outlined in this Bill. There is general agreement that the MIC program has been successful in promoting the establishment and development of a venture capital market. The thrust of the major amendments covered by this Bill is to allow MICs to raise non-tax concessional capital and to allow MICs to leave the MIC program without prejudicing the interests of shareholders. It is clear that these major amendments were aimed to capitalise on the success of the MICs at a time when there was a buoyant share market. The ability of the MICs to raise extra capital at that time is shown by their bids this year for $114.5m in tax concessional capital whereas only $41m was available. However, there is now a very different venture capital market following the stock market crash. I refer to a statement made by Mr Ward-Ambler, Chairman of the MIC Licensing Board, who on 16 November stated: We are now entering a new phase in the business cycle where venture capital raising is going to be difficult even for the MICs, which have the aid of the tax concession. We believe it will be impossible for young non-MIC venture capital companies. I repeat: `it will be impossible for young non-MIC venture capital companies'. He continued: MICs will find it very difficult to profitably realise their investments. Rather, existing investees will place growing demands on them to meet the needs of growth as other sources of capital diminish. There will also be expanding opportunities for new investments. The result is that MICs' capital will be in great demand and their overall capital shortage highlighted. There are now reports that some MICs will have difficulty in even raising tax concessional capital from the share market. Whilst the Bill is supported by the Opposition, I now come to the kernel of the matter. The truth is that the Government is to be very strongly criticised for bringing in the changes too late. It is now over 12 months since the MICs suggested the changes incorporated in this Bill. No extra costs to the Government arise from the changes, and they would have resulted in extra investment in this important area if they had been made when they were requested, over 12 months ago, and when the share market was buoyant. Because of the Government's tardiness the opportunity has now been lost for the foreseeable future and the exit provisions contained in this Bill may now be used by some MICs in order to ensure their survival. Many small companies which would have expected funding from MICs or similar bodies are now likely to fail following the stock market crash. However, the Government does not seem to be getting this message. On 20 October 1986-just over 12 months ago-the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) announced an agreement to provide venture capital using the offsets program. As usual, the Minister maximised publicity for this so-called initiative. He stated: I welcome the announcement of the fund and its contribution to venture capital available here. In particular, I am pleased that fund managers will be assessing the potential for international sales of products made by its Australian investments. This will link small high growth companies here with large US and European based technology based corporations . . . Rah, rah; hear, hear! We all supported it. Since that time similar agreements have been announced. The Minister's scheme has attracted a lot of publicity, many great raves, and has promised much. But the reality is that these offset venture capital funds have not raised any capital since they have been established. They have made no contribution to the venture capital in Australia, there has been no investment and no potential sales have been assessed. As I said in a debate earlier this week, once again we are able to demonstrate that this Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, is excellent at getting himself much publicity, excellent at saying things which sound good and excellent at getting the bipartisan support of the Opposition for proposals which sound as though they will be great but the truth of the matter is that the rhetoric is not matched by performance. There is no delivery. Repeatedly this Government fails to deliver the rhetoric issued by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. The difficulties facing small Australian companies have been reported again this week in relation to the cash crisis currently being faced by the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC). That cash crisis reinforces repeated Opposition calls to privatise the AIDC so that it can make an increased contribution to the development of Australian industry. However, I note from this morning's Australian Financial Review that the Australian Labor Party (ALP) ideology is again interfering with what is necessary for Australian industry. The article states: The Caucus is opposing a proposal by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, that there should be a public float of 30 per cent of the AIDC to expand its capital base because it sees this as the thin edge of the wedge on privatisation. As I have said, the Minister came out with great rhetoric and said, `This will be a great idea. Let us float publicly 30 per cent of the AIDC to raise its capital', but the Minister and the Government cannot deliver. The ALP cannot deliver because of the way the Caucus controls the ideas the Minister comes up with. This is at a time when investment levels are at a 25-year low. An article in the Australian Financial Review points out that more than half of Australia's export receipts are now needed to service our economy's foreign debt, according to estimates recently released-in other words, 53.5 per cent of our exports are required to finance our foreign debt. Australia is bleeding to death and increased business investment is required to stem this flow. The importance of MICs is that the funds are used to encourage management and to provide financial support for the start-up and early growth of Australian-based enterprises which have the potential to grow rapidly in substantial businesses, are export oriented and use innovative technology. For that reason, the Opposition came up with this idea when it was in government. For that reason, when the Labor Party picked up our initiative we supported it wholeheartedly. That is why we support these amendments. But we simply say to the Government that it is too late; it has brought in these measures 12 months after it should have done. We are desperately concerned about funds for some of the small Australian industries which could have looked to support from the MIC program, had it been brought in 12 months ago. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(12.55) —The Australian Democrats support the Management and Investment Companies Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. The Bill will amend the Management and Investment Companies Act 1983 to the extent that it permits a management and investment company to raise non-tax concessional capital and enable it to leave the MIC program by surrendering its licence without its investors risking the loss or reduction of their initial tax deduction. The program has been running for several years and the MIC scheme has cost roughly $20m per year. It has been instrumental in the progress of a number of our most important new firms with more than $120m having been raised by the MICs and invested in 67 businesses. However, the Australian Democrats would like to express a few words of caution in relation to the direction being taken by Australia's research and development program. Australia has a very good record on fundamental research. Australia spends a disproportionate amount on basic scientific research compared with other countries, contributing about 2 per cent of the world's scientific publications. This is roughly double what might be expected of a nation of its size. I comment on that point first and say that there has been a tendency in recent years for the Government to look for the quick application type of research and development which will produce a profit within a very short period. The Democrats believe that that is wrong. Evidence indicates that research in the fundamental area is the research which, over the longer term, has led to the most far-reaching consequences and which, if properly managed, might also prove to be profitable. One need only think of the identification of the structure of DNA in 1953 by Watson and Crick-a piece of pure research based essentially in crystallography and some rather abstract mathematics-to realise that without that discovery none of the developments which have since come to light in the area of genetic engineering would have been possible. One could also instance the development of the transistor, which essentially came out of research into the surface and other properties of crystals. Initially this was researched and examined with no view to the development of the vast computer and microchip industry which has developed from those essentially basic research efforts. The Democrats believe that, rather than spending less money on fundamental research, we need to maintain and spend a lot more money on fundamental research because that is where the real breakthroughs will come. Having said that, it is also true that Australia has failed in the past to capitalise financially on that research. Presumably, the MICs are part of the program to help us do better in that respect. In terms of domestic expenditure on research and development of the total kind, Australia does not rank very well in the world. A report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development says that Australia comes sixth from the bottom of 22 Western countries. Of course, these figures are presented as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). As we have heard repeatedly in recent days, gross domestic product is a very poor indicator of the real wealth of a country. Senator Walsh has pointed out that GDP could be increased by the simple mechanism of the population having meals in restaurants rather than eating at home. So, presumably, research as a proportion of GDP could be decreased simply by increasing GDP by everybody going out and eating in restaurants. GDP is not a very good measure. Nonetheless, Australia does not perform well in relation to other countries when its total research and development expenditure is compared. The present Bill seeks to extend the opportunities for the MICs for a further period and questions have been raised as to whether that extension is adequate. The literature and the lobbying on this matter are confused, with some arguing that the extension is adequate and others arguing that an extension for a longer period for the operation of these companies would be desirable. When one looks at the length of time between the fundamental discoveries and the application of those discoveries to practical income earning inventions, one realises that the length of time during which MICs have been in operation appears to be rather short. A further incentive to extension of that time would seem to be desirable. But, having said that, I stress that the Democrats will support this Bill. Senator HILL(South Australia)(1.03) —The Senate is debating the Management and Investment Companies Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. I supported the management and investment companies (MIC) concept when it was first introduced by the former coalition Government, and I was pleased that it was taken up by this Government finally to be implemented and introduced in practice in early 1984. The scheme provides a tax incentive to investors to invest in venture capital for new technology commercial development. At times this is a somewhat risky development. The MICs-there are now 11 of them in which the investment must be made-are required to be licensed. To be licensed they must establish not only their financial capacity but also their capacity to assess the potential viability of the recipients. Furthermore, and most importantly, they must be able to provide management and commercial input because a lot of the new technology ideas are very sound but those who develop the ideas do not have that management or commercial input to put the ventures into practical operation. The recipients of funds-referred to in the literature as `investees'-must also be approved by the MIC Licensing Board to see that they meet the criteria of small, innovative and technology based companies as set out in the terms of the scheme. Therefore, in this legislation we have a highly targeted industrial development scheme. The cost to government in terms of revenue forgone has been about $20m a year. That has enabled the MICs this year, for example, to raise a total amount of $41m from the public for which this tax benefit is given. The scheme originally arose from the report of the Espie High Technology Financing Committee which was sought, as I said, by the former coalition Government. The report is entitled Developing High Technology Enterprises for Australia. Sir Frank Espie found that the lack of risk capital and a widespread lack of management and commercial skills within high technology industries were obstacles to the development of those industries. In response to that report the former coalition Government sought to act. The Bill we are debating today has two purposes. The first is to allow the MICs to raise non-tax concessional capital. It is a matter of regret that after the share market crash it will be very difficult for these companies to implement this legislation because raising funds will be much more difficult. They clearly seek more funds; in fact, they sought a total of $114m from the MIC Licensing Board this year, but it was the Government's decision that they should get a tax incentive for only $41m. So more money is being sought, but it will be very difficult to obtain on the open market now. It is particularly regrettable, as Senator Lewis mentioned, that this proposal was sought by the MICs a year ago but that the Government was tardy in reacting and now industrial development will suffer the consequences of that neglect. The second purpose is to allow greater flexibility for MICs to leave the scheme, presuming that, having reached such a stage, they are able to obtain funding through other avenues and no longer require the tax advantages offered by this legislation. For the same reasons that is too late: it will be difficult to obtain outside capital and, again, the tardiness of the Government is costing the Australian economy. Nevertheless, as a matter of principle, if one accepts the scheme, one should accept the refinements that are provided by the terms of these amendments. We only hope that the economic situation will improve so that they might, in the future, be put into practical implementation. Whether one supports this type of intervention or community support for particular industry development is, of course, partly one of political philosophy. If one opposes the principle of positive assistance measures for industry, such as research and development expenditure deductions, export market development grants, offsets policies, procurement strategies and industry plans, et cetera, and if one is arguing for a level playing field, then one might well argue that the MIC support is equally illegitimate. In that context the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) has argued against the MIC tax advantages. I presume that is what Senator Coulter was speaking of when he mentioned that some arguments were put against it. The IAC in its annual report stated: All special environments created for particular industries constitute a potential liability to the health of the rest of Australian industry and to national economic welfare. However, if honourable senators accept, as I do, a responsibility of government to kick-start the economy in a new direction away from its traditional overreliance on a Third World type resource based economy towards a high value added manufacturing and tertiary based economy, then such schemes are, in my opinion, a legitimate tool of government. I remind the Senate that some 65 per cent of our exports are still rural and mineral based, manufacturing making up only 18 per cent-a large proportion of that is very basic manufacturing-and services only 16 per cent. We have the lowest per capita exports of technology based products in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), with the exception of Iceland. It therefore seems obvious to me that we will not reverse the almost perpetual decline in our terms of trade without a change in our export mix. This requires a range of policy options. We still need to spend more on research and development. Australia needs virtually to double its research and development spending to achieve a 2 per cent target of gross domestic product, which would equal compar- able Western nations. So we are still spending only half that which is spent by our competitors. Therefore, I support as one avenue for assisting industry the 150 per cent tax concessions that are being granted for genuine research and development expenditure. I agree with the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) that it is the single most important research initiative. But even so, despite the low research and development figures-I think this was also said by Senator Coulter-our record in basic research has for our size been quite good but our record in conversion to industrial application has been deplorable. Therefore, we need to do more than just simply spend on research and development. One reason for our failure to apply that research and development, as identified by Sir Frank Espie, as I said a moment ago, was a lack of venture capital. The only remedy for that is an MIC scheme such as this. I quote very briefly from the ASTEC report Improving Australia's Competitiveness through Industrial Research and Development: The level of venture capital funding in Australia has risen from virtually zero in the 1980s to about $300 million in 1987. The Management and Investment Companies (MIC) Program, established by the Government in 1984, has been a prime factor in this increase, both directly (about $190 million has been raised by the eleven licensed MICs) and by raising the awareness of the potential demand for venture capital in industry. MICs have been noticeable for patient investments in the high risk area of start-up companies, as well as bringing management expertise to companies in which they invest. That is quite a resounding endorsement from ASTEC. By investing and channelling that sum of money into new high technology companies, the MIC program had supported as of September this year 129 different companies in such sophisticated high technology high value added areas as medical equipment, electronic security and monitoring equipment, computer hardware and software and scientific and technical services. I suggest that these are areas with great market growth potential. The figures are now slightly out of date but for the year 1985-86 investee companies-those companies which received funds under this scheme-had a collective turnover of $150m, an export income of $50m, employed 2,000 people and would, all up, have produced for the Government some $20m in revenue. So only one year after the scheme had started it was already, financially, breaking even, with the graph showing a strong upward trend. It is disappointing that in the circumstances which I have outlined the Government has been prepared to support the scheme for only one further year to 1989. The Government was a year too late in implementing these amendments and, furthermore, it has indicated that it is prepared to endorse the scheme for only one further year. I suggest that this somewhat nervous nelly approach will not provide the sort of confidence and encouragement that this Government should be giving to innovative, high technology industry. Obviously, if venture capital can be raised without recourse to special tax incentives, that is well and good. There has been some evidence that new companies outside the scheme have been encouraged to join. If one reads the latest report of the MIC Licensing Board, apart from other government agencies it has identified 12 private venture capital companies-it was in a better economic environment-which were supporting this type of industrial development, and that is highly commendable. The Bureau of Industry Economics claimed that by March 1987 the total capital venture market in Australia had reached about $310m. But now, as I said a moment ago, in this post-crash environment, it will be very difficult to raise risk capital without giving some added incentive to those who are prepared to invest. Already companies which planned to raise capital through second boards on the stock exchanges are now going back to MICs for support, which is a trend that I suspect will continue. ASTEC is certainly sceptical as to the availability of adequate capital outside the MIC scheme. It has pointed out that a lot of the so-called venture capital referred to by opponents to this type of support is funding for expansion rather than funding for start-up investment. Additionally, virtually all the non-MICs are well below the $20m mark which is believed to be essential for long term viability. The traditional lending institutions remain wary about this type of investment. As I said earlier, they do not offer the additional benefits of management and other commercial expertise. I am confident that in today's climate, where there is not adequate venture capital outside the MIC scheme, the longer term development of these high technology companies will be vitally important to Australia's economic well-being. It is, therefore, a very important and worthwhile investment for the community to make to use the avenue that is offered by the MIC Act to gain public contributions in this way. There are some good signs about. I do not want to sound too pessimistic. I mention, in particular, the announcement by Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) last month that it would join MICs and the Victorian and New South Wales governments to build a new, fully integrated design and manufacturing system. That is the way for Australia to go. But BHP would not be doing that if the MICs did not exist. Therefore, at the very least the Government should have extended this scheme for a further three years instead of one year. There is still time for it to do that. If it changed its mind and made a decision along those lines it would be doing this country a service. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(1.17) —The Management and Investment Companies Amendment Bill makes provision for the development of the venture capital market in Australia in two ways. Companies currently operating under the management and investment companies scheme will be permitted to withdraw from this scheme without triggering the tax claw-back arrangements. The tax claw-back provision allows the Australian Taxation Office to disallow deductions claimed in the year shares in the management and investment company (MIC) were purchased, up to four years later if the shares are sold. Secondly, it allows management and investment companies to raise non-tax concessional capital in addition to the tax concessional capital that they may already raise under the existing licensing provisions. That is, the 11 companies that operate under the management and investment scheme will have permission to raise amounts beyond the $40m that is approved by the Management and Industrial Companies Licensing Board, and attracts tax concessions. The MIC program, initiated under the Fraser Government, has played an important role in providing the necessary funding to encourage the development of innovative businesses engaged in high technology projects. The need to develop Australia's manufactured export capability has long been recognised as being a vital step toward economic security. Providing the right environment for the growth of modern technological industries is an important part of this wider aim. Since the establishment of the MIC program early in 1984 the Australian venture capital market, which funds such high technology, or `blue sky', projects, has been estimated to have increased from around $5m to $230m in 1985-86-quite a significant increase. About half of this increase can be attributed to MIC investments in new technology-based industries. As of April 1987 more than $100m has been invested in over 100 hundred businesses in the early stages of their development. Clearly, the management and investment company scheme is filling an important role in the Australian economy. The role of the MIC scheme has become even more significant since the downturn in the stock market in October of this year. Investors are now much more reluctant to take the risk of investing in anything other than gilt-edged shares. Consultants are advising caution and there is a feeling in some quarters that the slump will take a firmer hold early next year. Highly speculative shares have become singularly unattractive in this bear market. The bull market, which has contributed significantly to the rapid growth of the venture capital market in this country, has gone. The strength of this market, and its ability to stand alone without government support through the MIC scheme, must now be very much in doubt. It was pleasing to see that the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), in his second reading speech, recognised this fact and outlined the Government's willingness to continue the MIC program until at least 30 June 1989. As most honourable senators will be aware, the future of the MIC scheme is currently under review as part of the corporate tax inquiry. I trust that the changed circumstances in the stock market will be given due consideration in this review and that the long term future of the program will be announced as soon as possible. Speculation about the possibility of the termination of the scheme, fuelled by the recent report produced by the Bureau of Industry Economics, can only further undermine what confidence there is left in the venture capital market. Management and investment companies will be finding it increasingly difficult to raise funds as interest in highly speculative shares contracts. While the changes in this Bill that allow the MICs to raise non-tax concessional capital are welcome, they will have less impact in the current bear market where interest in high technology or `blue sky' investment is constrained. At the same time, there is likely to be an increased demand for funds from businesses that management investment companies are already committed to. That is, those companies who were ready to float before the stock market crash are less likely to be able to so so in the current conditions. It will be necessary for them to fall back on the MICs for more funding. In short, the availability of funds for new businesses based on the use of modern technology will be considerably less in coming months than they have been throughout this year. Continuation of the management and investment companies scheme will therefore be vital to the progress of such industries. One other point that I would like to touch on in relation to management and investment companies is the impact of capital gains tax on their viability. In the annual report of the Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board for 1986, the Chairman, Mr C. R. Ward-Ambler, commented: The development of a large and vital venture capital industry in Australia will be seriously jeopardised while such a high capital gains tax exists. Venture capitalists rely on capital gains as a reward for investment in high risk activities. A tax on these gains has the impact of discouraging investment in these areas. The Opposition drew this matter to the attention of the responsible Minister when the Government decided to introduce the capital gains tax. The report points out the anomalies of the situation with regard to the management and investment company programs. On the one hand, the Government is providing a tax incentive to encourage investment in management and investment companies, which in turn will provide funds for the development of high technology industries in this country. On the other hand, those management and investment companies, on whose performance the future investment and success of these industries will be based, are being handicapped by the imposition of a capital gains tax. We should also note that the relative treatment of venture capitalists in other countries will make investing in Australian business enterprises of this nature far less attractive a proposition for most international investors. While the initiatives introduced in this Bill are welcome, it may be some time before management and investment companies are actually able to benefit fully from the proposals. Because of the stock market slump in October, the young venture capital market in Australia is now on very much shakier ground that it was in the earlier part of this year. Therefore, I believe that those recommendations that were made to the Government prior to the change in circumstances regarding the future of the management and investment company program need to be reconsidered. I refer in particular to the report of the Bureau of Industry Economics that suggested the termination of the program in the relatively short term. I believe that, to ensure that confidence is maintained in this venture capital market, it would be appropriate for the Government to announce as soon as possible plans for the long term future of the management and investment company scheme. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to this point when he closes the debate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(1.27) —I thank honourable senators for their support for this measure and I wish it a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(1.28) —Could the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) respond to the last issue I raised? To ensure that confidence can be maintained in this venture capital market, could the Government give some indication of whether it has any plans for the long term future of this industry and what it proposes to do after 1989? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(1.28) —I am advised that the Government will consider that matter in light of the business tax review process which will occur next year. Against the background of the outcome of that review, the Government will be in a much better position to see what other sorts of incentives may or may not be necessary to maintain the flow of venture capital which Senator Watson and the Government are interested in ensuring. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(1.29) —Does the Government recognise that the position of the venture capital market is now on far shakier ground as a result of the stock market crash and, therefore, the earlier reports need to be reviewed in light of what has happened since October? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(1.29) —I am sure the Government is conscious of the point that Senator Watson made. I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). If it is thought appropriate that some other form of action or accelerated action be taken, apart from that which I indicated, we will let Senator Watson know. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 3 November, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(1.30) —The Commonwealth Legal Aid Amendment Bill 1987 is designed to replace the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council with two advisory bodies: the National Legal Aid Representative Council and the National Legal Aid Advisory Committee. It also deals with the establishment of an Office of Legal Aid Administration in the Attorney-General's Department. According to the second reading speech of the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate), the Office, which has already been established administratively, has brought together, in a single externally identifiable unit, all aspects of the management of legal aid policy and funding within the Department, thereby substantially improving the managerial control of national legal aid policy and the expenditure of Commonwealth legal aid funds. I am not precisely clear on the amount that is currently expended by the Commonwealth in this area. The second reading speech of the Minister states: In 1986-87 total input to legal aid services from Commonwealth and State sources, other than Aboriginal Legal Services and State funded community legal centres, was $129.6m of which the Commonwealth provided $77.8m-60 per cent. This figure does not quite tally with what the Minister said in a media release on 18 November last. In that release he said: The current Commonwealth Budget provides a total of $101.1 million for legal aid this financial year. Whatever the sum, it is quite clear that more and more money is being expended on legal aid with less and less satisfaction. Indeed, the amount that was expended by the Legal Aid Commission when it was first established in 1973-74 was about $2.5m; so there has been an almost exponential increase since that time. Over the last 10 years, the amount that has been allocated by the Commonwealth for legal aid has increased in real terms by about 60 per cent. The community is entitled to ask what value for money there is in these very large outlays of funds. It is quite clear that the two major, big ticket items are family law and criminal law. One can justifiably ask whether there is not a better means of resolving family law disputes than in an adversarial forum. Without denigrating those members of the legal profession who practise in that jurisdiction, I think it can be fairly said that the large outlay relates to a combination of the lower fees that apply and the relative inexperience of some of those who specialise in the area. Perhaps there is an incentive, which affects us all from time to time, to ensure that the best possible result is achieved. A zero sum situation can only be achieved in an adversarial contest at the expense of one's opponent. For all those sorts of reasons, what often happens in this highly emotional area is that long and costly litigation is embarked upon, with results that cannot be measured in money terms and which, ultimately, might have been much better and more cheaply achieved without the subsidies that are available by means of legal aid. It is a very thorny question. There is no obvious solution. Suffice it to say that I have doubts about the efficacy of simply providing more and more funds in that area. I think it can also be said that, in the other major area, namely, criminal law, because of the very large expenses that apply to the running of a criminal trial, there are very few citizens in this country who could afford to represent themselves in trials of any substance. Perhaps the best current example of the cost of criminal litigation is the upcoming Russell Street bombing trial which will take place in about May of next year. The Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission has allocated something of the order of $1m toward the cost of defending those charged with the offences. Of course, one would not want to reflect on the strength of the defences that might be available to those persons accused of serious charges, including murder, but the fact remains that even that figure was achieved as a result of some heavy lobbying on the part of the Legal Aid Commission and at one point by a refusal by counsel at the Victorian Bar to undertake briefs in the matter for what was effectively a 50 per cent discount on the normal fees applying in criminal trials. It has always been accepted by the legal profession that there is a social obligation to assist those who are not able to afford their own legal defences and I am sure that the profession in all States willingly accepts the responsibility to undertake legal aid work at the current discount rate which, I think, is 80 per cent of the normal rate. The rate was set at 90 per cent, as I recall, in respect of Commonwealth matters funded through the ALAO when it was first established. The fact remains that funds of that order require a very great degree of scrutiny. Increasing pressure will be brought to bear by all sections-indeed, I can say from members of the judiciary-to ensure that trials are not embarked upon simply to enable a defendant to have a run. There is nothing more frustrating than sitting in court for days on end and watching someone going through the motions, putting the Crown to its proof as it is euphemistically called, but in reality simply providing a relatively easy way of earning a living for some lawyers. That deplorable situation cannot be allowed to continue and I think the pressures to date are inexorably moving towards a point where legal aid will be denied to those persons who have no discernible or viable defence. There is often a lot of high-flown rhetoric in this area. I noted Senator Tate recently saying that he shared the views of the late Mr Justice Lionel Murphy, who had dissented from the views of two of his brothers who had ruled that legal aid was a privilege, not a right. That sort of phraseology is easily thrown around but it does not get away from the proposition that hard decisions have to be made. Whether or not one calls legal aid a privilege or a right, it should not be simply available on call. It should be made available only where there is a very real necessity for it; in other words, where there may be a miscarriage of justice without the provision of legal aid. One trend that is becoming increasingly apparent is that the vast majority of the population in the middle ground is increasingly unable to afford legal representation. It is relatively easily for those at the higher and lower income ends to obtain the funds, be they private or government, but for the vast majority of people it is becoming increasingly difficult to fund litigation if they are unfortunate enough to be in a situation requiring it. Therefore, the problem that is highlighted by this Bill is that it does absolutely nothing towards redressing those fundamental problems, the real squeeze that is being applied in all sorts of ways. It simply does not tackle that. It seeks to pretend that somehow by shuffling the pack one can be seen to be doing something about legal aid. As a result, we find that old Commonwealth Legal Aid Council being replaced by a representative council and an advisory committee. This is all very well. They may have very worthy members. No doubt they will do what they have been required to do. But advice and assistance to the responsible Minister are nothing new. That was the function of the original Legal Aid Council. It is clearly something that the Minister has a large capacity to influence. If he is an activist Minister, as no doubt the Minister for Justice would be in this area, one could readily expect that he would be able to get all the advice and assistance that he would require. That is why I think it is regrettable that this Bill simply replaces one body with two, which is a fairly substantial inflationary increase, and then says this in the financial impact statements: The Bill has minimal impact on Government expenditure. The only impact arises from the costs associated with meetings of the Council and the Committee which are estimated not to exceed $80,000 in a full year. That might be minimal to the Government but I would have thought $80,000 was a significant amount of money that needed to be justified. Simply to replace one advisory group with two others does not strike me as great value for money. Given the sort of money that has already been expended in this area, what we need is a lot more action and a lot less advice. There is a growth industry in this area. There are people around who have spent their professional lifetimes advising on legal aid questions. No doubt there is an enormous amount of expertise available that should already have been made available to the Government. Therefore, I think one is entitled to ask why it is that we need to replace one body with two. Two matters concern the Opposition, despite the fact that we do not oppose the passage of the Bill. I must say that the Minister was ready to respond to those matters. We believe that it is desirable that the Council and the Committee report annually as did the original Legal Aid Council and the Minister has undertaken to propose such an amendment. We were also concerned that there might have been a bit of double dipping by State and Commonwealth public servants invited to serve on these bodies who might then be given a per diem remuneration by the Commonwealth. The Minister very readily acceded to that concern by this day writing to his counterparts in the States suggesting to them that in future State officers who are members of the Representative Council or Advisory Committee from time to time should decline to accept any sitting fee in relation to attendance at meetings of the relevant bodies. I welcome that request by the Minister. I accept without question that he has responded with alacrity and I think that if the States respond in the same spirit the suggestion will be accepted. If they do not all take the same view the Commonwealth may well be up for funds under the Remuneration Tribunals Act and as a result moneys will be expended to entice people to come to Canberra, presumably to attend an annual meeting of the Council and more frequent meetings of the Committee. That is in a sense a form of patronage that governments no doubt have always undertaken but it seems to me that at the end of the day it is not tackling the root causes of the problems that are faced by litigants and the profession and that this Bill really is not much more than comestic for those reasons. We do not oppose the Bill. We acknowledge that the proposed members of both the Council and the Committee are persons of the highest calibre. I note in passing that the members of the Committee are all private practitioners, three from New South Wales, one from Queensland and one from South Australia. Unfortunately, there is not one from Victoria due to the tragic and untimely death of Tim McCoy, with whom I had the privilege to work in the defeat of the Australia Card legislation. I was pleased to note that the Government did not hold that against him in appointing him to the Committee. It is regrettable in the extreme that he will not be able to serve on the Committee. I hope in due course there will be a replacement Victorian representative. I note also that there are no women on the Committee. The Council comprises a wide range of people who have a great deal of expertise in the legal aid area. Some could be regarded as State employees, as directors of legal aid commissions, and it is principally those persons that we have been concerned about. However, I do not think anyone could question their expertise in the field. I only hope that expertise will be brought to bear on a very tricky issue and that in due course something more than reshuffling the advisory committees will result. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(1.45) —I agree with much of what Senator Alston said. I particularly want to join with him in expressing my sorrow at the untimely death of Tim McCoy. As Senator Alston knows, Tim McCoy was very prominent indeed in the community legal services, which began with the Fitzroy Legal Service and spread to a wider area. It is a matter of sorrow and great regret that his expertise will not be available to the National Legal Aid Advisory Committee and I join with Senator Alston in hoping that a Victorian will be placed on that Committee. Senator Alston was less generous with the legislation than perhaps he should have been, and less generous with respect to the granting of legal aid than perhaps he should have been. It is true that there are problems in the family law and criminal law areas. But they are the areas dealing with the quality of life and the factors of life which most people hold most dear-reputation, the freedom which may be denied to somebody in prison, the livelihood available to a deserted spouse and the question of the custody and maintenance of children. They are great issues and it is proper that people who contest such matters be able to defend their case, or prosecute if necessary. The ability to defend or to bring an action should be available to all. Senator Alston taxes the Government for not doing more about those things. But the matters dealt with by family law are really matters that cannot in the end be dealt with by the law; they are moral questions that the community as a whole should face. The questions of how money is spent and how trials are conducted are very much questions for the judges and, more particularly, as Senator Alston suggested, for the profession itself. So, the matters on which he takes the Government to task are really matters that should be faced up to by the profession. The old ideal of the honourable profession must be reasserted, not only in the area of law but, with respect to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, also in the area of medicine and the wider field. That is where the solution lies, rather than in legislation. By taxing the Government for not saving more money, Senator Alston is perhaps missing the point. The solutions to overspending and what he suggested was the waste of valuable and spare resources should be faced up to by the profession and by the courts. That is where the solutions lie. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(1.48) —I thank senators for their thoughtful contributions to this debate, and wish the Bill a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(1.49) —As Senator Alston mentioned during his speech, the Government has agreed to move an amendment relating to reporting annual reports of the National Legal Aid Representative Council. I move: Page 7, clause 5, after proposed section 17 insert the following section: Annual reports `` `18. (1) The Council shall, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, prepare and give to the Minister a report on the activities of the Council during that year. `(2) The Committee shall, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, prepare and give to the Minister a report on the activities of the Committee during the year. `(3) The Minister shall cause a copy of a report given under subsection (1) or (2) to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister receives the report.'.''. Amendment agreed to. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(1.50) —I take the opportunity in the committee stage of the Bill to place on record-I do so in relation to the clauses in the Bill which relate to the establishment of the National Legal Aid Advisory Committee-the Australian Democrats' regret at the loss of the Tim McCoy, who has been mentioned by both Senator Alston and Senator Cooney. I also had the opportunity, for which I am very grateful, to work with Tim on a number of issues, most particularly on the Australian Card legislation. He was a valued member of the community legal services movement. I know that the welfare rights movement in Victoria will also want me to mention its loss and sense of loss on both a personal and professional basis. I thank the Committee for this opportunity to speak. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 3 November, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(1.51) —I want to speak very briefly on the Dried Fruits Export Charges Amendment Bill 1987. In doing so, let me say that I am in the position that I do not have one dried fruit producer in my electorate. But, as a major consumer of long standing, I have a well developed interest in their well-being, as they have in mine. I guess it must be 10 years since I found it necessary in this place to look after the interests of these dried fruit growers in the Murray area. I have got to know them fairly well and got quite attached to them. I say that because they are a well organised and highly skilled group which produces an excellent product. I have got to know some of them very well over the period and have great regard for them, particularly Henry Tankard, who seems to have devoted unending time to the industry whenever necessary. The growers have advantages in being a tightly-knit, closely geographically bound group, and they all understand one another and work together pretty well. They have their own authority, which works very economically. I can see very few benefits, if any at this stage, in their wishing to or being compelled to give up their own authority to go into a new horticultural corporation and take their chances with all the hurly-burly that will be involved. The legislation provides for the capacity to raise the maximum charge from $15 per tonne to $30 per tonne but at the same time increasing the present charge by $5 to $20 a tonne. Although the price that the growers have been obtaining overseas has improved with the downfall of the Australian dollar, so has the cost of promotion. The amount spent on promotion overseas is fairly small compared with either the European Economic Community or the American producers. This last season they finished up with no carry-over, so hopefully the growers will have a fairly good year and get a good price for their product. To give an idea of the size of the industry, the figures I have seen cited recently show that the growers are producing an average over five years of 5,700 tonnes of currants, about 75,000 tonnes of sultanas and relatively small quantities of raisins, varying from 1,000 to 8,000 tonnes depending on how many grapes are used in the wine industry and how many are left over for drying. The dried fruits industry is very important in its area. It is a good employer of labour. Technology is good for the type of industry it is. I give them great credit for the work they do. I support the growers and the legislation, particularly as the legislation is in accord with the industry's request. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(1.55) —Before I address the Dried Fruits Export Charges Amendment Bill 1987 specifically, I would like to place on record the fact that the brevity of my remarks on the one occasion during this session that we have had to speak on the dried fruits industry does not reflect the attitude of the Australian Democrats to this industry. This will be the case with a number of other pieces of legislation relating to other primary industry areas which will be rushed through at the end of this session because of the enormous amount of legislation that is before us. The other parties in this place have had the opportunity to express their views and address the concerns of these industries when the relevant legislation was dealt with in the House of Representatives. That is not something which the Australian Democrats can do since we are not yet represented in that House. As I said, I want to simply place on record the fact that the brevity of my remarks does not reflect the attitude of the Australian Democrats to the dried fruits industry or any of the other industries which are the subject of legislation to be dealt with in the last days of the session. The Dried Fruits Export Charges Amendment Bill 1987 seeks to raise the maximum permissible export charge liable on exports of dried fruits from $15 a tonne to $30 a tonne. The new operative rate, which is to be decided by industry through the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation, will then be set by regulation. The operative rate sought by industry is in fact $20 a tonne. The charges collected will be used to finance the operations of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation, which is at the moment the marketing organisation for the dried vine fruits industry. As Senator Archer has said, that is something that is likely to change in the very near future. The industry sought this increase for activities relating to the promotion of dried vine fruit on overseas markets-for which costs are increasing markedly-and also for funding for research into the industry. I would just briefly point to the Australian Democrats' concern about cuts to research funding, particularly in respect of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, and how this impacts on the industry. We are aware of the problems. Certainly, in the case of an irrigation industry such as the dried vine fruits industry, such cuts are extremely false economy on the part of any government. However, this legislation has the support of the industry and of the Australian Democrats. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(1.57) —in reply-Once again, I thank honourable senators for their support for the Dried Fruits Export Charges Amendment Bill 1987. I wish the Bill a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate. Debate resumed from 26 November, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(1.58) —The Senate is very quickly considering the Dairy Produce Amendment Bill 1987. The Dairy Produce Act 1986 prescribes criminal penalties for the export of dairy produce in breach of the International Dairy Arrangement. Australian exporters are the only traders who are subject to such strict penal actions for breaches of the pricing provisions of the international Dairy Arrangement. The purpose of this Bill is to substitute economic penalties for such breaches and the Opposition supports that proposal. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(1.59) —I simply wish to express the Australian Democrats' support for the Dairy Produce Amendment Bill 1987 and again stress that the brevity of my remarks does not reflect my attitude to the dairy industry. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(1.59) —in reply-I thank honourable senators and wish the Dairy Produce Amendment Bill 1987 a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Senator BISHOP —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. In a Press release dated 11 December 1987, the Attorney-General announced that Mr Allan James Asher had been appointed as a full time member of the Trade Practices Commission. Is the Minister aware that while Mr Asher was employed at the Australian Consumers Association a report prepared by him stated that `compulsory consumption which advertisers were apparently forcing on consumers reflected a modern imperialism that guises itself as progressive, but simultaneously neglects the health and welfare of society's members'? Does the Minister consider this type of attitude as suitable for a member of the Trade Practices Commission to hold? Does the Minister consider the Australian Consumers Association, with only 206 voting members, as representative of the community, and was this a consideration in Mr Asher's appointment? Further, is the Minister aware that very large sections of the business community have absolutely no confidence in the ability of Mr Asher to act impartially? Senator TATE —I do not have the Press release from which Senator Bishop apparently derived her information that one Mr Asher has been appointed as a full time member of the Trade Practices Commission. I do not know whether the remarks attributed to Mr Asher were in fact before the Attorney-General when he made his decision to appoint him. But whether they were or not, I am sure that the decision was taken on a wide variety of grounds, both personal to Mr Asher's undoubted integrity and competence and because of his background within the consumer affairs area. But I do not know whether he was appointed, as the honourable senator's question seems to suggest, in a representative capacity for the consumer affairs organisation to which he used to belong. I am unable to say whether the appointment was made in a representative capacity or whether he was appointed because of his background in that movement. I would not for one moment wish to suggest that the Attorney, in making this appointment, wished to associate either himself or the Government with every phrase that might have dropped from the lips of this gentleman prior to his appointment. Senator BISHOP —I ask a supplementary question. When the Minister is inquiring of the Attorney-General, will he specifically ask whether or not Mr Asher's well-known anti-business statements and well-held beliefs make him a suitable person for appointment to the Trade Practices Commission? Senator TATE —I will refer the supplementary question to the Attorney. Senator MAGUIRE —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer had the opportunity to analyse the regional trends in the latest unemployment figures up to November 1987? If so, what are his conclusions about the relative performances of the labour markets in the six Australian States up to that month? Senator WALSH —We now have monthly unemployment figures by States for 11 months of this financial year. They show that Queensland had the highest rate of unemployment in eight of those 11 months and Tasmania had the highest rate in three. To put it another way, in every month of this calendar year, either Queensland or Tasmania has had the highest rate of unemployment. I have been asked what is responsible for the poor economic performance of those States. It used to be said that the high unemployment rate in Queensland was a consequence of the declining level of investment in mining, Queensland being one of the two major mining States. That argument does not stand up against the fact that Western Australia, which has had the second lowest unemployment rate in all those 11 months, is, if anything, more of a mining State than Queensland. Therefore, if the decline in the growth rate of mining activity was responsible for the high unemployment, Western Australia would have been affected at least as badly as Queensland. Sir Roderick Proctor put forward a much more valid reason about 12 months ago when he said that the National Party in Queensland did not run a free enterprise government but a government of patronage and cronyism, which had driven investment away from the State. In the case of Tasmania, it could be attributed to the fact that the Premier in Tasmania spends most of his time whining about the Commonwealth allegedly not giving him enough money and not doing anything for him or for the State of which he is Premier. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister-and it is perhaps coincidental that Senator Walsh has been talking about patronage and cronyism. I refer the Minister to the fact that in today's Sydney Morning Herald the lead sentence in a report by Mike Steketee states: The Minister for Tourism, Mr Brown, has misled Federal Parliament over a controversial contract for next year's Expo in Brisbane. Is it a fact, as reported by Mr Steketee and supported by an excerpt from a document published in the Sydney Morning Herald, that a clear majority of a Government tender committee voted against Mr Bob Rogers getting the World Expo 88 contract? Is it further a fact that the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Mr John Brown, told the House of Representatives a week ago that the committee was tied two-all, a statement that is now revealed to be completely untrue? If this is correct, will the Prime Minister dismiss Mr Brown for having committed the gravest breach known to the Westminster system-having misled the Parliament? Senator BUTTON —I am not fully familiar with the facts of this matter. There are several parts to Senator Chaney's question. In those circumstances, I ask him to put it on notice. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I join my back bench in saying that that is a disgraceful answer. I ask the Minister: Is he aware that one of Australia's major newspapers this morning led its story with the statement that a Minister in his Government has misled the Parliament? I further ask the Minister: Does he accept that misleading the Parliament is regarded as a very severe breach of ministerial responsibility, which would normally lead to resignation or dismissal? I ask the Minister why he has neglected his duty to obtain the facts on this matter and will he obtain those facts immediately and report to the Senate? Senator BUTTON —The supplementary question is in two parts. First, I am asked whether I was aware of the Sydney Morning Herald article. The answer is no. The second part of the question is whether I recognise that misleading the Parliament is regarded as a severe offence in terms of the administration of the Parliament. My answer is yes. Senator COLLINS —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts. Does the Government intend to nominate areas in Arnhem Land to the east of Kakadu National Park for inscription on the World Heritage List? Senator RICHARDSON —I thank Senator Collins for his question. He has continued his representation of the area. It must be remembered that he represented it for some time in the Northern Territory Assembly and he has maintained his concern for the area and its people. As were many others, I was surprised to hear of a proposal to extend the area of Kakadu on the World Heritage List eastwards into Arnhem Land. That proposal, contrary to some reports from the Northern Territory, did not originate in Australia. It is my understanding that the suggestion came from an expert witness during discussions in Paris concerning the listing of stage 2 of Kakadu National Park. That witness, a representative of the International Council of Monuments and Sites, suggested that Australia should consider the possibility of extending world heritage property to embrace some of the extensive art and archaeological sites to the east of Kakadu National Park which, of course, are of great cultural significance. Senator Tambling —Who initiated it? Senator RICHARDSON —It was a witness to the World Heritage Committee who obviously believes the area is of great significance. That witness, who had been here, had formed his view. The proposal did not originate in Australia. Whilst the proposal was made at a meeting of the World Heritage Committee it was made by a technical representative and not by Committee members. Nor was it made on the initiative of Australia. We have not yet received the official report. I hope that will be here within a matter of days. However, as far as the general question is concerned, the Government has no intention of proceeding with any nomination of areas east of Kakadu to the World Heritage List. Senator POWELL —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. In light of the strike today by Australian Capital Territory social workers, can the Minister tell the Senate on what basis the Department of Industrial Relations refused to agree to the social workers' anomaly claim, despite Commissioner Griffin's report to the President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 10 December saying that different pay rates between psychologists and social workers were no longer justified? If one of the stated reasons was the Professional Officers Association's supposed inability to contain a flow-on to the States, why did the Department delay it and thus force it to a Full Bench hearing, knowing that, if the Full Bench supports the Commissioner's finding, there will be an automatic flow-on to the States, which would not have been the case had the Department agreed to the claim in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Senator BUTTON —Senator Powell gave this question to my office shortly before Question Time. We are seeking to obtain an answer and will give it as soon as possible. Senator BOLKUS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Justice. Has he seen an article in the Adelaide Advertiser of 8 December where it was claimed that the Minister has rejected an Opposition request for the National Crime Authority to investigate waterfront crime in South Australia? Can the Minister indicate whether the report is accurate and whether such a request has been rejected? Senator TATE —I have seen some material in, I think, the Daily Sun and the Adelaide Advertiser where Federal Opposition member of parliament Alexander Downer claimed that I or the Federal Government had rejected the notion of a reference being given to the National Crime Authority to enable it to exercise coercive powers and its extraordinary plenary powers to investigate organised crime on the waterfront in Adelaide. That is completely and utterly wrong. Honourable senators will be aware that at a meeting of the intergovernmental committee of the National Crime Authority, held in Hobart a couple of weeks ago, the National Crime Authority was very readily granted a reference by the Commonwealth Government in relation to a range of organised criminal activities on the eastern seaboard of Australia. These included not only the average crimes of violence, murder, conspiracy to murder and so on but also the illegal importation, possession of and conspiracy to import, narcotics; the illegal importing and exporting of armaments; the use of fraud to obtain benefits; and widespread financial and other corruption, including, by the way, the forging of passports. I made all this well known because, without going into any great detail and certainly without going into operational matters, I believe it is important that the Australian community is told by its elected representatives, in general terms, what the National Crime Authority is doing when it exercises the powers which are available to it under a statute of this Parliament, but which go far beyond those available to the ordinary law enforcement agencies and police forces. It would be quite wrong to require me, as Mr Downer apparently does in the terms of his letter to me-which, by the way, arrived on my desk well after he had given publicity to this matter in the Adelaide media-to direct immediately a major probe into the South Australian waterfront by the National Crime Authority. This shows a lack of understanding of how the National Crime Authority works. In fact, the National Crime Authority has available to it all the ordinary powers of investigation for the compiling of intelligence and the collection and assessment of evidence and so on, and has been doing so in relation to waterfronts around Australia, drawing on the material of both the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and, over the last several years, using its ordinary powers. It can do this without government intervention or direction or imprimatur and that has been occurring. Insofar as Mr Downer asks that the National Crime Authority be specifically directed to gather evidence necessary to support successful prosecutions and not simply for another inquiry, this again shows that Mr Downer has a complete lack of understanding of the National Crime Authority's role. It is important in that the Senate Committee that established this Authority-and this is provided for in the legislation-did so in a way that makes it completely different from a royal commission, and its task is to assemble evidence and pass briefs to the Director of Public Prosecutions in the jurisdiction concerned. I am sure that that will be done in this instance. In his letter and Press release, Mr Downer also said that before people `will come forward with any evidence to support prosecutions they will need to be convinced that you are seriously interested in eliminating corruption, extortion and crime in their industry'-on the waterfront. I believe that the general Australian public, and those who wish to give evidence to the National Crime Authority, can have great confidence in it. It has acted with great integrity and in a way that has led to some very successful chargings and prosecutions of some very notorious crime figures throughout Australia. I believe that it has earned the confidence that has been placed in it by all governments. All States, along with the Commonwealth, as agreed at our meeting in Hobart a fortnight ago, are now preparing complementary legislation to enable the sunset clause, which is not only in our legislation but, obviously, in the complementary legislation passed by the States, to be repealed, in order that the National Crime Authority may continue its excellent work in the fight against organised crime. Senator PUPLICK —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts, as representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport the Environment, Tourism and Territories, but also as the junior Minister in that Department. When, how and by whom was Mr A. Hillier, the Chairman of the Tender Assessment Panel evaluating the award of the theatre component of the Australian Pavilion for World Expo 88 advised that, while he was to chair the panel, he was not to have a vote in its deliberations? When, how and by whom was similar advice conveyed to Mr R. Rubie, of the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services, that he, similarly, was to be a member of the panel but not to have a vote in its deliberations? Do departmental officers on tender assessment panels normally have the right to vote on the final recommendations? What proof has the Government that any such directions were ever issued? Senator RICHARDSON —I am unable at this stage to answer Senator Puplick's question. I read the Sydney Morning Herald this morning and I am aware of the contents of the article and the allegations therein. I am in the process of having all the documentation gathered together. Once that process is completed, I will be discussing it, this evening, with Minister Brown. As is always the case, he is doing his job and is in Mildura looking at tourist facilities there, so it is difficult to talk to him. I shall be doing so this evening or tomorrow morning and I shall provide the Senate with an answer tomorrow. Senator PUPLICK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Am I to assume from Senator Richardson's answer that the first time that he became aware of the question of whether Mr Hillier was to be a voting member or non-voting member of the panel was when he read the article in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald, despite the fact that, on 10 December, the senior Minister in his Department made a statement to the House of Representatives? In it, he said: It was pointed out to Mr Hillier before he started that he was to chair the committee, and that he was not to have a vote. Is the Minister unaware of that statement made by the senior Minister in his Department? Can he now indicate the extent to which he is able to verify that statement, or does he simply retreat behind the fact that the first that he ever heard of this, despite his ministerial responsibilities, was as a result of the article in this morning's Press? Senator RICHARDSON —I am aware of where my ministerial responsibilities begin and end, and I will repeat, for those who apparently could not hear, that I am aware of the contents of the article in the Sydney Morning Herald. That does not mean that that is the first that I had heard of Mr Brown's statement in Parliament last week. Like most Australians, I am aware of it; it got publicity. Having said that, it is not possible for me, as a very junior Minister in this portfolio, to answer those questions without having had the benefit of access to all of the documentation. That is what I am seeking to do. I am also seeking to discuss it with Mr Brown. After all, as has been said, the most serious allegation that can be made against a Minister has been made against him, and I intend to discuss that situation with him after I have read the documentation. That will happen this evening, or tomorrow morning, and I will reply tomorrow. Senator FOREMAN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer the Minister to an article in the Adelaide Advertiser entitled `Government should consider gap insurance, AMA'. In that article, the Federal President of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Pickering, called for the introduction of gap insurance to cover the cost difference between medical services and the Medicare rebate. Previously, the Government has always seen the introduction of gap insurance as unnecessary and undesirable. Is this still the Government's view? Senator RYAN —The Government's decision to prohibit general gap insurance was based on the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals, the Jamison Commission, in 1980, and the more recent Penington Committee of Inquiry into the Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals. Both clearly opposed a general form of gap insurance because of its effect on the utilisation of medical services and doctors' billing practices. As part of the New South Wales doctors settlement package, provision was made within the basic tables operated by health funds on 1 September 1985 for the payment of gap benefits for medical services rendered in hospitals or approved day hospital facilities, such as free standing surgical centres. This decision recognised the high costs that can be generated in meeting cumulative gaps for a wide range of services, particularly for complex surgery involving diagnostic services. Services rendered outside of hospitals do not generally involve the same degree of cost. In making this provision, regard was had to the medical profession's undertaking that there would be a high observance of charges for services rendered in hospitals at the schedule fee level. The Government remains opposed to gap insurance for out of hospital services. However, Medicare enables doctors to bulk bill such services for all patients. For doctors who do not bulk bill, Medicare pays benefits equal to 100 per cent of the schedule fee after an individual has met $150 in gaps in a year. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. It follows the question that he just-I nearly said `answered'-received from Senator Puplick. The Minister will doubtless be aware that on 19 November a freedom of information (FOI) request was lodged by the Hon. Neil Brown, the member for Menzies, with the senior Minister, Mr John Brown, requesting certain documents relevant to the award of the contract for the theatre component of the Australian Pavilion at World Expo 88, and that, at the Minister's direction, this request was transferred to his Department and the necessary fee paid. In other words, Mr John Brown said, `If you want the documents, go to my Department and pay the fee'. The Hon. Neil Brown has now done that. Can the Minister advise why, just as the Department was about to make a decision on the matter, all of the files have been removed from the Department and transferred to the Minister's office in the custody of one of the Minister's personal staff? Why has this occurred? What assurances can be given that the files will not be tampered with? Is the Minister's inability and his leader's inability to answer questions on a major matter related to the fact that the files have been taken from the Department and put into the hands of a member of the Minister's staff? Senator RICHARDSON —Any proper request under freedom of information provisions would be answered properly by the Department. As I understand it, this request comes within that category. The documents are in the process of being forwarded to Mr Brown. I am not certain-I will check for the honourable senator-whether that has happened or is about to happen. However, my understanding is that there is no problem with that being done. As to the files being transferred to the Minister's office, one would imagine that if a query were being raised about a matter affecting the Minister he would ask to see such files. That may have happened. I will check that for the honourable senator. As to whose custody the files are in, I am not certain who is holding them. I will find that out as well. I hope to get a look at any documents in those files concerning this matter in the course of the afternoon. I hope to be in custody of a substantial part of that file myself. As to whether the files would be tampered with, the answer is obviously no. This is a government of propriety, and that will remain the case. So no file will be tampered with. I am not sure of the last question but, if it referred to our inability to answer, I have already explained that those questions that have been asked will be answered tomorrow, after I have had time to go through the documentation and, furthermore, to discuss that with Minister Brown, which I hope to do either this evening or tomorrow morning. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister denying that the processing of the freedom of information application has been delayed and impeded by the removal of the files from the Department to the Minister's office? Senator RICHARDSON —I am not aware of any impediment to an FOI request. Senator Chaney —Do you deny it? Senator RICHARDSON —I said that I am not aware of any impediment. As far as I have been told, the Department is in the business of complying with it. That has either been done or is about to be done. Senator GILES —My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health. What measures has the Hawke Government taken to enhance the health of Australian women? Senator RYAN —I am very pleased to be able to answer Senator Giles's question by saying that the health of Australian women has had a very high priority with our Government. A number of initiatives that we will put in place will certainly enhance women's health. Examples of those initiatives are the commitment by the Government of over $1m this year and $2m in each of the next two years to evaluate the feasibility of establishing a national breast and cervical cancer screening program; special provision under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme to ensure no increase in the costs of oral contraceptives; the women's health development project to improve the delivery of health care to women in isolated areas and other situations of disadvantage; a national campaign against drug abuse, which has identified women as a target group and which has funded a number of projects of special relevance to women; the introduction of a new comprehensive Medicare benefit for childbirth to remove incentives for surgical intervention in childbirth; the extension of free medical and hospital treatment to all returned service women of the Second World War, which will benefit about 940 women-this is a matter which I know Senator Giles has been anxious to see achieved for a very long time; the establishment of a sub-committee on women and health by the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council to provide advice directly to the heads of health departments and health Ministers; and the appointment of a special adviser on women's health. I believe that all these initiatives and more will be brought into an even more effective approach to women's health when the national women's health strategy, currently being prepared in the Department of Community Services and Health, in consultation with the medical profession, health workers and women throughout Australia, is put into place. So it looks as if 1988 will be a very good year for women's health. Senator MacGIBBON —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence what action the Government intends to take in regard to the severe criticisms contained in the 1986-87 reports of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Defence Force Ombudsman, tabled in the Senate, which found, amongst other things, that it takes an endemically long time to resolve some of the complaints of serving members of the Australian Defence Force, that the Department of Defence and the defence forces are unable to respond to inquiries within a reasonable time and that the Minister for Finance has failed to take up the recommendations of the Defence Forces Ombudsman, supported in many cases by the Chief of the Defence Force and/or the Department of Defence. Does the Minister acknowledge the correctness of the position of the Prime Minister, who stated that the recommendations of the Ombudsman should be followed save in exceptional circumstances? If he acknowledges the correctness of this position, is it not a fact that the Minister for Finance is both effectively blocking the work of the Defence Force Ombudsman and blocking the only real avenue available to Defence Force personnel who have a grievance which needs to be addressed in relation to their welfare? Senator ROBERT RAY —Whilst I have seen a copy of the 1986-87 annual report of the Ombudsman, I have not yet had a chance to read the report. I think it is sitting in my in-tray with some other material yet to be read. However, I understand that it contains criticisms of the Department and the Defence Force for being slow in dealing with the Ombudsman's inquiries. The Ombudsman's concern about what he sees as tardiness in responding to inquiries has been raised with Defence on several occasions. Of course, one of the factors in this is that the complexity, size and geographical spread of the defence organisation can contribute to the time taken to respond. Delays and possible ways of minimising delays have been the subject of discussions between the staff of the Ombudsman, the Department of Defence and the Defence Force itself. A review of the procedures for handling this area of inquiries is currently under way in Defence with the aim of further streamlining those procedures. Staff engaged in contributing to replies to the Ombudsman's inquiries have been made aware of the need to respond as promptly as possible. The honourable senator raised one or two other points. One point related to whether I can confirm that it is the Prime Minister's view that we should never interfere in any of these processes. I am sure that Senator MacGibbon would not quote inaccurately so, whilst I have not seen the statement recently, I am sure it is true. He then asked me to comment as to whether the Minister for Finance is doing the right thing. I do not propose to enter that area. Senator WOOD —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. No doubt the Government is aware that on 7 October the island of Rotuma declared independence from Fiji. I ask whether the Minister is aware that the reason for the declaration of independence as stated by King Gagaj Lagfatmaro in his letter to Her Majesty the Queen was that: The present disruption of the legally elected Government of Fiji, leading to racial harassment has given my people and I no other alternative but to strongly protest our disapproval by declaring independence from Fiji. Does the Government support the declaration of independence by Rotuma, and will it offer any support to the Rotumans? Does the Government condone the recent dispatch of security forces from the Republic of Fiji to Rotoma? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government is aware of reports that the Council of Chiefs of the Molmahad clan on Rotuma, led by Gagaj Sau Lagfatmaro, purported to declare independence from Fiji on 9 December with effect from the declaration of a republic in Fiji on 7 October 1987. Our understanding of the historical relationship between Fiji and Rotuma is that in 1879, to settle a protracted civil war, the British were asked by the Council of Chiefs on Rotuma to annex the group to the Protectorate of Fiji. This was done in 1881. The laws in Rotuma are the laws of Fiji. Prior to the 14 May coup in Fiji, Rotuma was represented by a senator in the Fiji Parliament nominated by the Rotuma Chiefs. It is expected that they will have representation under the new Constitution. The bottom line of all this and the answer to Senator Wood's specific question is that the Australian Government believes that the matter is an internal affair to be resolved by the current Administration in Fiji. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. I note that the Minister, unlike his Leader, has seen the extraordinary report about Minister Brown misleading the Parliament, and I ask him: Is it a fact, as reported by Mr Steketee, and supported by an excerpt from a document published in the Sydney Morning Herald, that a clear majority of the Government tender committee voted against Mr Bob Rogers getting the World Expo 88 contract? Is it further a fact that the Minister, Mr Brown, told the House of Representatives a week ago, in response to a censure motion on him, that the committee was tied two-all, a statement that is now revealed to be completely untrue? In the course of this question, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of the two reports of the Tender Assessment Panel. Leave granted. The reports read as follows- Report by Tender Assessment Panel Introduction On 24 February 1987, Cabinet decided that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism should arrange for new submissions to be invited from five selected Australian companies and one nominated American company for the Theatre component of the Australian Pavilion planned for EXPO `88 in Brisbane. Cabinet also decided that a tender assessment panel should be established consisting of representatives of DOLGAS (Chair) and Film Australia, Ms G. Paton, and others to be nominated by the Minister. In accordance with the Cabinet Decision invitations to lodge submissions were issued on 25 February 1987 to the following companies: AAV Australia Pty Ltd Audience Motivation Pty Ltd Bob Rogers Ellis D Fogg Greg Taylor Productions (Aust) Pty Ltd Laser Concepts Management Pty Ltd Submissions were required to be lodged by 4 pm on 9 March 1987. A copy of the invitation to tender and the accompanying brief is at Attachment A. Submissions received Five of the six companies invited to tender had lodged submissions by the specified date. No submission was received from Ellis D Fogg. Copies of each submission received are at Attachment B. Prices quoted by each tenderer, in ascending order, were as follows: AAV Australia...$4.05m Audience Motivation...$4.35m Greg Taylor...$4.94m Bob Rogers...$5.15m Laser Concepts...$7.11m The Tender Assessment Panel The Minister finalised his nominations for the tender assessment panel on 11 March 1987 The approved panel was Mr A. Hillier DOLGAS...(Chairman) Mr R. Rubie DOLGAS Mr R. McCauley Film Australia Ms G. Paton Publisher Ms C. Norris Elizabethan Theatre Trust Mr M. Edgley Entrepreneur Mr P. Faimon Film Producer The panel held its first meeting in Sydney on 12 March 1987. At that meeting presentations were made to the panel by Audience Motivation, Bob Rogers and Laser Concepts. The second meeting of the panel was held in Melbourne on 19 March, when a presentation was made by AAV Australia. Mr Faimon and Mr Edgley were unable to attend either of these meetings. A third and final meeting of the panel was held in Sydney on 20 March when a presentation was made by Greg Taylor Productions. Mr Edgley joined the panel at this third meeting, at the conclusion of the presentation by Greg Taylor, and participated in panel discussion on the various submissions received. Mr Faiman was unable to attend this meeting. All members of the panel received copies of the submissions received and Mr Faiman, as the only member unable to attend any meetings, was asked to provide the Chairman with written comment on the submissions. (In the event, no comments were provided by Mr Faiman). The panel agreed at the meeting of 20 March that any further delay in obtaining a decision on a preferred tenderer would seriously jeopardise the timely completion of the project. For that reason it was accepted that a report would immediately be prepared and forwarded to the Minister by the Chairman of the panel, without following the normal process of clearing a draft report with and obtaining signatures from all panel members. Consequently, whilst the findings and recommendations outlined in this report reflect the views of panel members there may be some points of detail which individual panel members might have wished to express differently. It is emphasised, however, that the findings contained in the report are intended to be an accurate reflection of the conclusions reached by the panel. Copies of the report are being made available simultaneously to the Minister and all panel members. Summary of submissions and presentations 1. AAV Australia The is the lowest priced submission with a bid of $4.05m. After discussion with the company representatives the panel formed the view that although some minor alterations to structural steelwork were required, to provide additional height for the stage set, this could be accomplished without any adverse impact on time or cost schedules. The panel therefore adopted the bid of $4.05m for comparative purposes. The panel also noted that apart from some costs for overseas film processing (of the order of $100,000) all expenditure would be incurred within Australia. For comparative purposes the Australian content of the proposal was assessed at 98%. The proposal centres on the use of a production technique known as Fourth Dimension. The panel viewed a model of a stage set using this technique. Basically, the technique is identical to that used by Bob Rogers in his ``Spirit Lodge'' show in Vancouver (and proposed by him in his submission for EXPO '88, see (4) below). The panel was favourably impressed with AAV's oral presentation. The company supplemented its written submission with art-work and other materials which indicated a well-developed concept. The panel had no doubts about the technical capacity of the company to perform, nor about its management or financial backing. Two members of the panel expressed reservations about the creativity of the proposal, pointing out that it was based heavily on the ``magic show'' concept pioneered by Bob Rogers. The panel noted, however, that tenderers had been encouraged to put forward this type of show and had been advised that the Minister was favourably impressed with the Spirit Lodge show in Vancouver. Most panel members therefore did not believe that AAV should be penalised for lack of creativity simply because they were proposing to stage a show using similar techniques to those being proposed by Bob Rogers. There were some other aspects of the AAV proposal which concerned some members of the panel. In particular, it was felt by some that it might prove difficult to cast eight Aborigines, as proposed, for the live role of narrator. It was agreed that should the contract be awarded to AAV this aspect would require further discussion with the company, as would the general approach to be taken by the company toward a sensitive and acceptable treatment of Aboriginal culture. 2. Audience Motivation At $4.35m this was the second lowest bid received. The panel accepted the bid as covering the required scope of work and concluded that no adjustments were necessary. During discussion with the company's representatives it was suggested to the panel that some savings might be possible in the estimated cost of the ``revolve'' proposed as seating for the audience. The component for this feature was priced in the bid at $1.2m. It was suggested that costs might be as low as $0.6m and that the bid might therefore be reduced accordingly. The panel decided, however, to adopt the price as originally quoted for purposes of comparison with other bidders. The proposal centres on the use of a revolving platform which seats about 600 people. With a show time of some 9 minutes and a loading/unloading time of 3 minutes the estimated throughput is 3000 per hour, the highest of all the proposals received. The use of a revolving platform would require a theatre with a circular plan. This would have some adverse impact on the shape of the general exhibition area and would also require some redesign of foundations and structural steelwork. Whilst this presents no technical difficulties it adds marginally to the time schedule and poses added risk to completion of the building by opening day. The panel also had some concerns with safety aspects of the revolving platform and was not entirely convinced that the company had worked out satisfactorily fire safety procedures. There was also a question in the panel's mind about suitable access for disabled persons, children and the elderly. The company was unable to claim any previous experience with the construction or operation of a revolving audience platform. As to techniques of production the panel was not impressed with the lack of clarity in the written submission or in the oral presentation. A number of techniques were put to the panel as possible for inclusion in the show, including reflex imaging, ``talking heads'' etc. The company representatives stressed that many details had yet to be finalised. The panel saw the proposal as essentially an audio-visual show which lacked the ``big idea'' approach called for in the brief. 3. Greg Taylor Productions At $4.94m this proposal is significantly more expensive than either AVV or AM. The technique proposed is an IMAX type production using a curved screen. In addition, the company proposes a large number of special effects utilising robotics, animatronics, projected holograms, computerised 3D sound system and computer generated graphics. The show would last for 10 minutes and would consist of about 7 minutes of live action on 70 mm film interspersed with about 3 minutes of special effects using computer generated imagery and projected holograms. The company proposes to use two USA-based contractors. Bob Abel for animatronics and robotics, and Mark Vargo for computer generated graphics. The company advised that about 30% of expenditure would be overseas. No live actors are proposed. The narrator will be a robotic figure using a real Aborigine's voice. Various mechanical birds and animals would appear throughout the show. The inside of the theatre would be treated to resemble the inside of a cave, with the audience seated on rock ledges. Some reshaping of the theatre roof line would be required. Whilst this could be achieved without significant additional cost it causes some slight additional delay in briefing for a redesign of steelwork. Overall, the panel had a number of concerns with the proposal. Essentially these centred on the use of technology that was unproven, with high risks of mechanical breakdowns. As well, the panel did not think the company had given sufficient thought to the treatment of Aboriginal culture and the sensitivities involved. It was felt that acceptance of the proposal would pose a high degree of risk. 4. Bob Rogers Mr Rogers proposal centres on using the same technique as was used by him in the very successful show ``Spirit Lodge'' at the recent Expo' in Vancouver. His technique is known as ``Holovision'' and it produces a ``magic show''. The proposal centres on utilising an Aboriginal setting for a mystical presentation involving both live actors and projected three-dimensional images. Mr Rogers impressed the panel with his presentation. He had thought through all the details and was able to answer all questions put to him. His proposal requires no adjustments to the Pavilion design and has no adverse impact on the time schedule. The panel was confident that Bob Rogers would deliver a good show. On the other hand, at $5.15m, the proposal is significantly more expensive than either AAV or AM, and marginally more expensive than Greg Taylor. The issue facing the panel was whether the creativity and overall impact of the show on the audience warranted the higher level of expenditure. The panel noted that Mr Rogers had formed an association with an Australian company (Wheatley Van Egmond) for purposes of his submission. Whilst the panel had some difficulty in defining the Australian content of the bid it noted Mr Rogers' advice that some production work would be done in Australia and that overall, about 50% of the estimated cost of $5.15m might be spent in Australia. 5. Laser Concepts The bid from Laser Concepts was the highest received at $7.11m. However, during discussions with the company's representatives it became clear that some items of work had been included in the cost estimate which were already provided for elsewhere in the overall budget. In particular, an amount of $1.2m was set against building work which all other bidders had not covered and which was adequately covered elsewhere. The panel agreed to adjust the bid downward by an amount of $1.2m, giving a revised bid of $5.91m. The company suggested to the panel that further reductions could be made to its bid and that the figure of $5.91m could be reduced to ``about $5.0m''. The reduction was based on sale of copyright and other commercial arrangements including sponsorships, not yet settled. The panel concluded that it would not be appropriate to make these further reductions and therefore adopted for comparative purposes a cost estimate of $5.91m. The proposal centres on the use of 3D-IMAX, a proven technique which amongst other things requires the audience to wear special glasses and the theatre to accommodate a very high screen (equal to a five storey building). The effects produced are claimed to be spectacular, and advice available to the panel confirmed that this was so. Production would largely be undertaken overseas. The company estimated that some $3.6m would be spent overseas, giving an Australian content of about 40% based on the bid of $5.91m. The panel had some initial concern about the impact of the proposal on the design of the theatre and surrounding pavilion space. Technical advice provided to the panel from the Department of Housing and Construction indicated however that it would be feasible to make the necessary changes. There would be some adverse impact on both time and cost schedules, but not sufficient to rule out the proposal on these grounds alone. It was concluded by the panel that additional costs of the order of $200,000 would be incurred and should be added to the bid for comparative purposes. Comparative assessment The panel determined evaluation criteria against the background of a critical time schedule and a fixed budget which required emphasis to be placed on proven technology and which demanded firm and reliable cost estimates. In addition, the panel looked for creativity and a show that would provide spectacular and memorable entertainment. As a first step, the panel decided that the proposal by Laser Concepts should be eliminated because of its relatively high cost. The panel did not believe this proposal was sufficiently superior in creativity or spectacle to warrant the additional expenditure involved ($1.9m above the lowest bid). The panel also noted that application of the Australian preference policy (which effectively discounts Australian content by 20% for purposes of comparison) would not alter the price comparisons. Secondly, the panel decided that there were too many uncertainties associated with the proposal by AM to permit it to be selected with any degree of confidence that a safe and practicable layout could be provided within the time available. The panel was also unable to conclude that the AM proposal met the essential tests of creativity and spectacle. Of the three remaining bids the panel concluded that the proposal from Greg Taylor could not be preferred to that of either AAV or Bob Rogers, despite its marginal cost advantage over the latter. The panel felt that there were too many risks associated with the proposal and that adoption of the technology proposed could lead to embarrassing breakdown and system failures during performances. There were also concerns about the company's proposed treatment of the Aboriginal content of the show. In any case, the proposal was significantly more expensive than the AAV proposal. With a relatively high overseas content, application of Australian preference did not bring the proposal any closer in price to AAV. The choice therefore lay between AAV and Bob Rogers, with the central issue being whether the Rogers proposal was sufficiently superior to warrant incurring the additional expenditure involved-some $1.1 million. The panel was unanimous in the view that the choice lay between AAV and Bob Rogers. It could not reach a unanimous view, however, on which of these was preferred. Two members of the panel (Ms Paton and Ms Norris) took the view that that the additional expenditure was warranted because of the greater probability of a first class performance from Bob Rogers. They believed emphasis needed to be placed on proven performance and creativity. They were not satisfied that AAV could be relied upon to deliver a first class product and were not confident about the ability of Government to establish suitable mechanisms to monitor and control further development of the AAV concept. All other panel members (excluding Mr Faiman who effectively took no part in the proceedings) took the view that whilst AAV had not produced this type of show before, did not have a similar reputation to that of Bob Rogers and would require some aspects of their ideas to be modified in discussion with the client, the difference in price was too great to warrant selection of Bob Rogers. The majority of panel members believed that AAV's proposal constituted an acceptable bid and that there were no proper grounds for passing it over in favour of a more expensive bid. There was clearly no likelihood of these differences of view being reconciled through further panel discussion. It was therefore agreed that the Minister should be advised that a unanimous panel view could not be obtained, but that the majority view favoured the selection of AAV. The panel also noted that application of Australian preference policy did nothing to reduce the price differential. The Rogers proposal at 50% (claimed) Australian content adjusts to $4.64m. The AAV proposal at 98% Australian content adjusts to $3.27m. The margin in favour of AAV thus increases from $1.1m to $1.37m when Australian preference is taken into account. Recommendations As Chairman of the panel I recommend you accept the view of the majority of panel members and award to contract to AAV Australia. In making this recommendation I draw your attention to the minority view held by Ms Paton and Ms Norris that the contract should be awarded to Bob Rogers. I also draw your attention to the fact that on tendered price the Bob Rogers proposal is $1.1m more expensive than the AAV proposal, and after application of Australian preference this margin increases to $1.37m. (A. A. Hillier) Chairman of tender assessment panel 21 March 1987 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT BY TENDER ASSESSMENT PANEL Background Following receipt of a report, dated 21 March 1987, from the Chairman of the Tender Assessment Panel, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism asked that a further meeting of the panel be arranged. The Minister expressed a wish for all members of the approved panel to be present at the meeting so that a final recommendation could be made having regard to the views of all members. The Minister's request was made in the light of the reported difficulties that had been experienced in arranging for all members to be present at earlier meetings of the panel. (Mr Faiman had been unable to attend any meetings and had effectively taken no part in the proceedings, and Mr Edgley, whilst present for the final panel discussions, had not been able to attend any of the oral presentations made by tenderers.) Following receipt of the Minister's request, on 24 March 1987, all members of the panel were contacted to determine their availability for a further meeting. All panel members except Mr Edgley indicated they would be available for a meeting in Sydney on 3 April 1987. An earlier meeting was not feasible. Mr Edgley indicated that because of other pressing commitments, including overseas travel, he would not be available for any further meetings within the near future. The Chairman of the panel contacted the Minister on 31 March and advised him that his request for a meeting of the full panel could not be met due to the unavailability of Mr Edgley. The Minister indicated that the meeting should proceed on 3 April as planned, notwithstanding the absence of Mr Edgley. Summary of proceedings at meeting of 3 April 1987 A meeting of the panel was held in Sydney on 3 April 1987. All panel members except Mr Edgley attended. Presentations were made to the panel by Bob Rogers and AAV Australia. No new material was admitted and no variations to their written submissions, in terms of budget or concept, were proposed by either tenderer. Essentially the presentations were a repeat of the earlier presentations, and were made for the benefit of Mr Faiman who had not been present on the earlier occasions. In making his presentation Bob Rogers placed emphasis on the joint venture aspect of his proposal. He advised that following the earlier meeting with the panel, and in response to the request made at that time for further advice on the Australian content of his proposal, he was now able to indicate more clearly what would be undertaken in Australia and what in the USA. In summary, about 80 per cent of the budget of $5.15m was likely to be spent in Australia. The contribution to be made by his Australian partners in this venture, Wheatley Van Egmond, would be a significant one. In the AAV presentation, emphasis was placed on the recognition by the company of the sensitivities of the Aboriginal aspects of the concept and story line. Details were provided of the Consultants engaged by AAV to assist in this area. Emphasis was also placed on the benefits to be gained by having a single contractor responsible for both the exhibition area and the theatre. (AAV already has the contract for the exhibition area.) Following the two presentations the panel convened to consider the relative merits of the two proposals. Comparative assessment The issue for decision by the panel remained the same as at the previous meeting held on 20 March, namely, whether sufficient grounds existed to warrant passing over the lower bid from AAV Australia ($4.05m) in favour of the bid from Bob Rogers ($5.15m). Panel members involved in the earlier discussion of this issue remained of the same mind as reported earlier. (Mr Edgley spoke with the Chairman by telephone on 3 April, prior to the meeting, and said he remained of the view that the difference in tendered prices was too large to ignore and he consequently favoured the contract being awarded to AAV Australia.) Thus, of those involved in earlier consideration of the matter, four continued to favour AAV (the Chairman, Mr Rubie, Mr McCauley and Mr Edgley) and two continued to favour Bob Rogers (Ms Paton and Ms Norris). The new voice in discussion was that of Mr Faiman. He took the view that selection of Bob Rogers would virtually guarantee a first-class show. He thought Bob Rogers had come up with a singular, exciting idea which was well thought out and more clearly developed than the AAV concept. He regarded the Rogers proposal as the better one in terms of creativity and originality. On the other hand, AAV had, in Mr Faiman's view, assembled a top class team of Australian talent and whilst there were more risks involved in accepting their proposal-principally because they had not developed their concept to the same degree as Bob Rogers-there was a reasonably good chance that they would come up with a good show that met all the established criteria. Mr Faiman said he had worked with many of the Australians involved in both the Rogers and AAV teams. He found it very difficult to make a judgement on whether the risks involved in accepting AAV were of sufficient magnitude to justify additional expenditure of just over $1 million on the Rogers bid. If cost was not the over-riding issue he would come down in favour of Bob Rogers. If cost was an important consideration he would regard the risks involved in selecting AAV as worth taking in order to save $1 million. There was no doubt in his mind that AAV had the skills and ability to put on an excellent show, which would also provide a showcase for Australian technical and production skills. In relation to the issue of cost the Chairman advised the meeting that he had received advice from the Minister that QANTAS were contemplating providing a contribution of $1 million to the Australian exhibit on the proviso that Bob Rogers was selected. This contribution was to be considered by the QANTAS Board sometime next week. The Chairman also advised the meeting that whilst this arrangement with QANTAS was something that the Minister might wish to take into account in coming to decision, it was not a matter that could properly be considered by the panel. It did not form part of the submission lodged by Bob Rogers and consequently was inadmissable as material needing to be taken into account by the panel. In any case, it was arguable that QANTAS funds were public funds anyway, and monies diverted to EXPO'88 might reasonably be regarded as funds that would otherwise flow to Commonwealth revenue. The panel concluded that for the purpose of its consideration of the tenders received any agreement by QANTAS to subsidise the Bob Rogers production should be disregarded. Summary of conclusions reached by the panel The panel's conclusions may be summarised as follows: 1. In terms of creativity and concept the Bob Rogers proposal is preferred. 2. There is minimal risk involved in the Bob Rogers proposal. It is highly likely to result in a top-class production that would meet all the required criteria. 3. The AAV proposal also has the potential to result in a successful production but there are more risks involved, particularly in relation to the Aboriginal connection and the further development required of the concept and story line. 4. The AAV proposal is acceptable on technical grounds and there are minimal risks of breakdown or system failures during performances. 5. In regard to the difference in cost, the panel was divided as to whether or not the additional expenditure required for the Bob Rogers show was warranted. Two members considered it was; five members were of the opposite view. 6. The total production of the AAV show in Australia, by Australians, was also, in the view of some panel members, a major consideration quite apart from and as well as the budget difference. Recommendation Leaving aside the question of possible subsidies from QANTAS that might have the effect of offsetting the cost difference between the two bids, as Chairman of the panel I recommend the award of the contract to AAV Australia. I do this because: there is a good chance that AAV will produce a show that meets all the established criteria; AAV is strong technically and there are minimal risks of breakdown or system failure during performances; the AAV production would be, and would be seen to be, an ``all-Australian'' show; the majority of panel members believe the additional costs involved in selecting Bob Rogers are not warranted when weighed against the risks involved in selecting AAV. (A. A. Hillier) Chairman, Tender Assessment Panel 4 April 1987 Senator CHANEY —I further ask the Minister: Is it usual for tender evaluation or assessment committees to meet in the offices of Federal Ministers and with the Minister actually present at such meetings, which was not the case with this assessment panel but with the previous one? Is it usual for the Minister to return a tender evaluation, as was the case in this one, and to seek a reconsideration of the tender? Senator RICHARDSON —As I said earlier, I am in the process of asking for the documentation to be put together, so all of the documents that are relevant to the committee and to its procedures I will be looking at this afternoon. No doubt at that stage of the game I will be in a position to answer Senator Chaney's questions. In relation to questions about freedom of information, I inform the honourable senator that I have received a note that the documents will be posted this afternoon, because I accelerated the process and the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories is still well within time. As to whether it is usual for committees to meet in Ministers' offices, I assume that I will be getting a full briefing on that this afternoon and will be able to answer Senator Chaney's questions tomorrow. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to you, Mr President. In yesterday's Age there was an article headed `Roly polis and PS tubby cats rule NSW with a fist of flab'. That heading refers to the lack of health and fitness of some politicians, amongst others. Senator Michael Baume —State politicians. Senator CROWLEY —That is given, thank you, yes. With that in mind, and further to the inquiry last year into occupational health and safety in this Parliament House, can you say what has happened since the Committee made its report and recommendations and, in particular, are the plans for occupational health and safety in the new Parliament House being developed? The PRESIDENT —In response to Senator Crowley's question, I have been advised that those recommendations made by the Presiding Officers advisory group on occupational health and safety, which could be implemented within the resources of the Parliament, have been implemented. A letter outlining the measures taken was sent to all senators and members early in December 1986. The report by Worksafe Australia on occupational health and safety in the Parliament has not been received. On 4 November 1987 the Secretary to the Joint House Department wrote to the Chairman of Worksafe Australia seeking expedition of the report to allow operational plans for occupational health and safety in the new House to be developed. I have instructed the Secretary to the Joint House Department to further pursue the production of the report to the Presiding Officers as a matter of urgency. I also mention that a study is being undertaken on health and fitness programs which might be instituted for members of parliament and other occupants of the new House. Senators will be approached to provide information and I seek your assistance. If there are any senators who particularly wish to be interviewed as part of the study, I would ask them to advise the Secretary to the Joint House Department. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Given recent criticism by prominent Aboriginal spokespeople and other Aboriginal groups about the bicentennial celebrations, and their refusal to participate in any bicentennial related activities, I ask the Minister: How many Aboriginal based or related projects are receiving funding under Australian Bicentennial Authority grants, or Department of Aboriginal Affairs special bicentennial grants, next year? What is the value of these projects? Does the Minister not agree that it is a trifle cynical for some Aboriginal groups on the one hand to accept bicentennial funding while on the other hand to criticise the celebrations? Senator TATE —I do not have a complete brief on the matters raised by Senator Brownhill, but it certainly would not be true to say that all Aboriginal residents of Australia, who are after all fellow Australians, nor all their groups and organisations, are in any sense boycotting or not participating in several of the events that will take place during our bicentennial year. It is true that certain individuals and groups and representative organisations have made the judgment that they will take advantage of the year to press their claims and their sense of grievance, and that is their free choice. I do not see any great difficulty in their making that decision, in the same way as other Australians might make a very similar decision. The Government does believe it is important to recognise the injustices done to Aboriginal people in the last 200 years. In accepting that fact, it is necessary for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people to work together constructively to develop some expression of mutual understanding and obligation. This is being discussed widely during this preamble to the bicentennial year and, of course, during the year with Aboriginal communities and others. However, the most important element in the bicentenary may very well be the recognition that 200 years of European settlement follow on 40,000 years of Aboriginal settlement. Celebration of the Bicentenary cannot proceed without a full and fair recognition of the vast contribution which Aboriginal Australians have made to this land both before and after European settlement. This contribution will be highlighted-and I will get more to the essence of Senator Brownhill's question-in the Australian Bicentennial Authority's $7.5m National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander program. The program's objective is to celebrate and develop aspects of Aboriginal life, customs and society and promote greater harmony and understanding between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginals. Over 60 projects have been approved for funding, covering all States and the Northern Territory. All projects were required to have support from the Aboriginal community. The Commonwealth-State bicentennial commemorative program is also providing joint funding for several Aboriginal projects, for example, the Aboriginal pharmacopoeia project in the Northern Territory and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural centre in Rockhampton. Senator SANDERS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement of last week, in which he claimed that the bases of the United States of America would play a key role in verifying the intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) treaty by monitoring the launch of missiles to be destroyed in mid-flight. I ask the Minister: First, is it not a fact that the naval communications base at North West Cape has no role whatsoever in verifying the INF treaty or any other treaty? Secondly, was not the Prime Minister's statement applicable only to Pine Gap and Nurrungar? Thirdly, is the Minister aware that an Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) fact sheet, issued by the United States Information Service on 14 December, says that missile launches used to destroy intermediate-range missiles are subject to on-site inspection? Fourthly, given that on-site inspections are sufficient to identify the missile to be destroyed, and to verify that it is carrying no warheads or telemetry equipment for test and development purposes, does this not mean that Pine Gap and Nurrungar will play no meaningful role in verifying the INF treaty, and that the Prime Minister was mistaken when he claimed that the US bases would play a key role? Finally, does the ACDA fact sheet not contradict yesterday's statement by ACDA counsellor Dr Michael Guhin that the bases would play an increasingly important role in verification? Senator BUTTON —Senator Sanders was kind enough to give me some notice of the first four parts of his question, but I suspect not the fifth part. I will obtain an answer to the fifth part as quickly as possible. It may be only a matter of logic, if the honourable senator listens to the first four answers. I am first of all asked: Is it not a fact that the naval communications base at North West Cape has no role whatsoever in verifying the INF treaty or any other treaty? The answer to that question is yes. I am secondly asked: Was not the Prime Minister's statement applicable only to Pine Gap and Nurrungar? The answer is that the Prime Minister's statement of 6 June 1984 deals with the functions of joint facilities in Australia, and his statement of 9 December 1987 indicates how they can contribute to verification of the INF agreement and any subsequent strategic arms reduction talks agreement. The answer to the third part of the question, about the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency fact sheet, is yes. The answer to the fourth part of the question, which really goes to whether the facilities referred to at Pine Gap and Nurrungar will play any meaningful role in verifying the INF treaty is as follows: Both the United Nations and the Soviet Union have agreed that on-site inspections are not sufficient to verify missile destruction. Apparently, that is a subject of their agreement. Further in this regard, the Prime Minister said in his Press release on 9 December: As the INF agreement allows the USSR to destroy some of the missiles covered by the agreement by launching them, and also prohibits the USSR from using those launches for developmental or testing purposes, the ability of the US to monitor this activity including through the joint defence facilities in Australia will be fundamental to the successful implementation and continuing operation of the agreement. As the Prime Minister has said, the Government feels deep satisfaction at the role Australia will play in helping to verify Soviet compliance with the terms of the agreement through the operations of the joint defence facilities in Australia. Senator SANDERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I do not think I got an answer to my second question: Was not the Prime Minister's statement applicable only to Pine Gap and Nurrungar? The honourable senator gave an answer involving joint facilities but he did not specifically answer the question: Was not the Prime Minister's statement applicable only to Pine Gap and Nurrungar in terms of the verification of the INF treaty. Senator BUTTON —The answer which I gave related to the joint facilities and, as I understand it, Pine Gap and Nurrungar are joint facilities. Senator PUPLICK —My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts. Now that he is in possession of a copy of the first report of the Tender Assessment Panel dated 21 March, which has been provided to him by Senator Chaney, can he confirm whether the opening paragraph of that report by the Tender Assessment Panel states: Cabinet also decided that a tender assessment panel should be established consisting of representatives of DOLGAS (Chair) and Film Australia, Ms G. Paton and others to be nominated by the Minister. Can Senator Richardson also confirm that the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Mr Brown, said in the House of Representatives on 10 December that there were only four people on the committee concerned and that it was pointed out to Mr Hillier-that is to say, the representative of the former Department of Local Government and Administrative Services who was the Chairman-before he started that he was to chair the committee and that he was not to have a vote? I ask the Minister: Which of those two statements is correct seeing that they are incompatible? Finally, given the Minister's answers about calling for information, will he give an undertaking that he will provide to the Opposition this evening a full briefing on this question together with provision of those relevant documents which would otherwise be available under freedom of information legislation? Senator RICHARDSON —I have been provided with a document by Senator Chaney but I have not yet read it. I have been asked what was in the first paragraph. It would appear that the statement read out by Senator Puplick matches that which is in the first paragraph. This is one of the documents which I will be no doubt reviewing this afternoon. Insofar as whether there is a conflict, I think there is a conflict. In terms of how that is resolved-one would imagine that I would look at the Cabinet decision as well as verify this document and see whether there are any other relevant documents-that will all be done this afternoon. This evening or tomorrow morning I will talk to Mr Brown and, therefore, be in a position to provide the Senate with a full answer tomorrow. I will certainly not be providing the Opposition with a full briefing tonight as I am not even certain whether I will have spoken to Mr Brown by then. Senator GIETZELT —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to the call by the Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI) for a reduction in company tax and the introduction of a consumption tax? It is not a fact that company tax, as a proportion of national income, has fallen in the 1970s and 1980s by about 6 per cent, while pay as you earn taxation has risen accordingly? In view of the obvious differences that exist in the Opposition parties about the consumption tax, can the Minister assure the Senate that the Government will not be persuaded by the CAI's views? Senator WALSH —I do not remember seeing the CIA report to which Senator Gietzelt has referred. However, it does not surprise me that the CIA would take the view that some sort of consumption tax, or higher levels of consumption tax, should replace revenue presently raised by corporate taxes and possibly even income taxes. But it is a point of view. In response to the last part of the honourable senator's question, that is, whether I give an assurance, I do not think I can give absolute assurances on anything. But I can tell Senator Gietzelt that, since the National Taxation Summit period of 1985, to my knowledge, the Government has not considered any major changes to the taxation system in that direction-that is, a broad based consumption tax or other changes to the taxation system, which raise a great deal more revenue from consumption taxes or indirect taxes as against other taxes. Senator PARER —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Is it a fact that the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) urgently requires in the order of $40m to finance investment by Australian companies and that about 25 such companies, whose expected sources of funds have dried up following the share market collapse, may have to abandon their investment plans? Does the Minister stand by his answer of 24 November when he said that the injection of capital required for the AIDC to continue its growth rate was unlikely to come from the Government? Does this mean that the Minister is still looking at the possibility of getting approval for partial privatisation of the Corporation, or has he accepted his drubbing at the Caucus industry committee last week? Is it a fact that, as reported today, Cabinet has again rejected the Minister's request for additional funding? As Caucus has rejected any sort of privatisation and as Cabinet has refused funds, what will the Minister do about this urgent funding requirement of the AIDC? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the first six questions is yes and the answer to the seventh and eighth questions is that the matter is still under consideration. Senator CHILDS —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications, follows his answer given to Senator Schacht yesterday when he gave information on the average duration of calls. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the average time taken by business users of computer information systems who are currently being billed at a local call rate? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not have that information to hand. I will seek it and give the honourable senator an answer. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and I hope that he is the right Minister to answer this question. Can the Minister tell the Parliament of the position of timber that has been logged from the area now coming under World Heritage listing and contracted to the Parliament House Construction Authority? Can the Minister inform the Senate of the legal and constitutional standing on the ban of the logging of timber from the World Heritage area, given that no effort has yet been made by the Government to observe the proper procedures and have the Governor-General proclaim the area to come under the Act? As a former barrister, as Leader of the Government in the Senate and as a senator of considerable standing on both sides of the House, can he inform the Parliament whether Senator Richardson has any power to tell loggers that they cannot work, or processors that they cannot sell timber for use in the new Parliament House? Senator BUTTON —If I might say so, aspects of Senator Bjelke-Petersen's question were very kindly couched, and I am very grateful that those comments should be recorded in Hansard. Senator Bjelke-Petersen asked me a number of questions and, because she has couched them in the way she has, I will see that she has an answer by tomorrow. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, both in that capacity and as Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. I refer the Minister to the decision today of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in deferring consideration of an across the board wage rise and, in particular, to that section of the decision which reads: . . . it is of critical importance that no step be taken now that may handicap Australia's ability to cope with the rapid adjustments in the world economy now taking place. Additional time is needed to allow an assessment to be made of possible adverse effects on the economy. Does the Minister agree with that quite sensible and realistic assessment of the current situation? Why did the Government press ahead with its support for another first-tier wage rise when everybody but it and the Australian Council of Trade Unions could see the folly of so doing? Senator BUTTON —I have a copy of the national wage decision which has just been handed to me but I have not read it. I understand that it suggests that the parties come back before the Commission in the early part of next year to pursue this claim and that in the meantime consideration should be given to the various issues raised by the Commission. Senator Lewis —Do you deny that it contains what I read out? Senator BUTTON —Not at all. If the honourable senator reads anything to me, I totally accept it as the discourse of a literate man. I am very happy for him to read documents to me. A number of issues are involved in the adjustment process which will be affected by events in the world economy of which wages is one. I thought it was the honourable senator's Party's position-- Senator Lewis —Come on, don't waffle. Answer the question. Senator BUTTON —I will not waffle; I will tip a bucket over you in a moment. It has been Senator Lewis's Party's position ever since the stock market crash that the Government should immediately embark on some knee-jerk reaction and, as has been suggested in the Senate, rush into a mini-Budget and a whole range of other measures. That has been the position adopted by the Opposition since the stock market crash on 19 October. The Government declined to do that. Senator Stone —Including deferring the wage case. Senator BUTTON —Including a number of things. Do not be too sage about that, if I may use the language which is familiar to the honourable senator. In terms of the wage adjustment, the Government, in the context of the second-tier negotiations which preceded this decision, made a commitment in respect of this national wage case. The Government is very mindful that the wage sector has borne the principal burden of adjustment in the last two years. In that context that commitment was made and kept. Having said that, all the Government undertook to do was to put a position to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which it did, and that position has apparently been rejected by the Commission. It has suggested that the proceedings should be adjourned. I do not weep any tears of blood over that decision and I do not think any Ministers would. Senator Lewis —No. They have taken the hard decisions that you should have taken. That is why. Senator BUTTON —Not at all. The Commission is there to determine these matters. If it rejects a submission from the Government, the Government is in exactly the same position as anybody else who has a submission rejected. Certainly, in terms of what takes place next year, the Government will reconsider its position in the light of the Commission's view, as all of the other parties would be expected to do. Senator BURNS —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, the Minister responsible for housing. I refer the Minister to the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry's Short-term Prospects Report of December 1987 which forecasts dwelling commencements of around 133,000 in 1987-88. Is the Minister aware of this latest forecast of housing industry activity? How do these figures compare with those of 1986-87? What is the Government doing to ensure that Australians are adequately housed? Senator RYAN —Clearly the range of policies that the Government has in place to assist Australians to become adequately housed is proving very successful because housing statistics from whichever aspect of the industry one looks at them are very encouraging indeed. The Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry's Short-term Prospects Report of December 1987 forecasts dwelling commencements of around 133,000 in 1987-88, a strong recovery from the 116,200 commencements in 1986-87. As I have said, these improved prospects for the housing industry are a clear indication of the success of our policies. As honourable senators will be aware, since July savings bank home loan interest rates have fallen by 1.5 per cent to 14 per cent and the rates charged by building societies have also fallen. A 1.5 per cent fall in interest rates reduces monthly repayments on a 20-year $50,000 home mortgage by around $55. Housing finance remains readily available. In the September quarter, $1,455m was lent for housing, the highest level since September 1985, and this is all good news for home buyers. The affordability of home ownership has also been enhanced by our Government's decision in March to lift the income limits on the first home owners scheme. Families with children will benefit particularly from the revised income limits. We have provided a further boost to housing through the restoration of negative gearing and the provision of a 2.5 per cent depreciation allowance which will stimulate investment in rental housing and ease pressure on rents particularly at the lower end of the market. The outlook for housing, both from the point of view of the industry and those who are seeking to make home purchase arrangements, is very encouraging indeed. Senator BUTTON —At Question Time today Senator Powell asked me a question about the Australian Public Service (APS) social workers' anomaly pay claim. My understanding of the matter, as I am advised by the office of the Minister for Industrial Relations, is that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission decided on Monday, 14 December, that a Full Bench is to examine in detail all aspects of a claim by APS social workers for pay alignment with APS counsellors. This decision was taken following two hearings of the matter before the anomalies conference and a detailed investigation by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission of the work of social workers, counsellors and psychologists. The Department of Industrial Relations and the Professional Officers Association (POA) will further discuss particular key issues on which agreement has not been reached to date. It is quite irresponsible for the POA to be recommending industrial action in the face of the President's decision and before further discussions have been held. In the anomalies conference on Tuesday, 15 December, the President expressed concern about industrial action when there was a process for continuing to hear the claim. Industrial action can only delay, rather than expedite, the matter. Senator GARETH EVANS —Two days ago Senator Knowles asked me a question to which I have a lengthy answer which, with her consent, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. The answer read as follows- On 15 December Senator Knowles asked me what was the degree of shareholding of Josa Investments in Continental Venture Capital and whether it was suggested that Josa Investments exercised a degree of control over Continental Venture Capital. The answer to the first question is that Josa Investments held two hundred and fifty thousand shares in Continental Venture Capital. In absolute terms that is a major investment of about $50,000. However, it is not, and never has been, suggested that Josa Investments exercised any degree of control over Continental Venture Capital. I have already tabled the bulk of the elements of Mr Beale's report of 1 September relevant to this issue. For the sake of completeness I do so again here, with once again, appropriate deletions to protect the rights of individuals. ``Amann's Suitability for Contract. There are also issues concerned with the acceptability of Amann to operate a contract which has some law enforcement dimensions. The Australian Federal Police (AFP) have checked Amann Aviation's connections on two occasions in the past: during the initial assessment of the tender; on the occasion of Mr Amann receiving financial backing from Continental Venture Capital (CVC). The AFP confirmed, on the first occasion, that no adverse comment on Mr Amann or his then Board was known. His financial backers at that time were Westpac and AGC. Subsequently, for reasons which are unclear, Westpac and AGC withdrew their support and Amann approached a number of financial intermediaries, one of which CVC undertook to underwrite the financing of the venture. CVC is a Management & Investment Company (MIC). CVC, as a company, is not adversely recorded and is well regarded including by the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. Its directors include , and . and joined the Amann Board. In June 1987, a Bureau of Criminal Intelligence report commented unfavourably on some of the associates of and . The Department was shown that report today. The responsible AFP Officer (Chief Superintendent Dixon) concluded, however, that: ``(5) The matter in issue is the possible embarrassment to the Government if the CVC Directors or corporate associates are disclosed to be of ill repute or with organised crime connotations. This has not been established, nor do I believe that information available to me that an initial suspicion of such connections can be substantiated (6) Accordingly, I am of the view that unless some significant matter can be identified by the BCI as a concern to them or with implications for the Government and/or the civil coastal surveillance system I see no reason to (a) pursue this probe further or (b) initiate actions to alert any other persons/Department of the initial BCI report''. The recommendations were accepted by the BCI and the Deputy Commissioner of the AFP. has subsequently (31 August) made allegations concerning his suspicions and those of concerning the possibility that; Amann's plane imports are a vehicle for importation of drugs; Mr Amann himself is a drug user. These allegations do not appear to be based on any hard evidence but the AFP, in consultation with the Australian Customs Service, has initiated appropriate action. We will pursue these issues further with the AFP and if any adverse matters come to light, advise you accordingly. Quite apart from any ``hard'' criminal issues there are the questions of: contractual implications if the Commonwealth were to take action; the handling of any media concerns that may be raised by publicising his allegations (including publicising the fact that was associated in the ``Loans Affair'' of 1975). I will advise you further on these issues.'' These are the only elements of the report which deal in any way with Mr Apokis, the remainder of the report being concerned with contractual matters. The remainder of the document is irrelevant to the Senator's apparent concerns. It discusses matters which are sub judice as they go to the substance of the contractual dispute between the Commonwealth and Amann Aviation which is before the Federal Court. The Federal Court is the appropriate forum for these issues to be determined. The Senator appears to be concerned that the mis-description of Mr Apokis' directorship was in some sense relevant to the subsequent course of events leading to the termination of Amann Aviation's contract. It was not. Even from the extract of Mr Beale's report which I have retabled today, it is clear that the Australian Federal Police had reached the conclusion that neither ill repute nor organised crime connections had been established with respect to CVC directors or their corporate associates (which included Mr Apokis). Further the report recorded Chief Superintendent Dixon's belief, on the information available to him, that an initial suspicion of such connections could not be substantiated. These conclusions were underlined when Mr Beale reported to me his conversation on 4 September 1987 with Deputy Commissioner Farmer, which confirmed the AFP view that there was no basis in the intelligence reports or the other allegations to justify either further detailed investigation or any action to terminate the contract on these grounds. When Mr Beale and I discussed the overall Coastwatch situation on 7 September we agreed that these matters need not be pursued further. Accordingly, these matters were not further investigated by the department and the error in the description of Mr Apokis' directorships was not detected. It was not detected because it was not further investigated. It was not further investigated because it was not regarded as relevant to the contractual dispute. Having said that I am quite clear in my mind that the AFP was correct in drawing our attention to the BCI report and the subsequent allegations even though they had formed the view that they did not require further investigation. I would note that in any material released to the public arena Mr Apokis' name (along with others) had not been mentioned prior to its being raised by the Senator. I have been punctilious in refusing to table the BCI report because of the damage that could be done to the reputation and privacy of individuals mentioned in it. That is a position which I will continue to maintain. As I have already indicated, the report has been read by Senator Durack, who was nominated by the Opposition when I indicated my willingness to arrange an appropriate confidential briefing. Senator Chaney has tabled a document which is a copy of Mr Beale's report of 1 September. An inspection of the document tabled by Senator Chaney and a copy of the document produced on discovery by the Commonwealth to the solicitors acting for Amann Aviation in the Federal Court proceedings reveals that they are identical in form. Copies of documents produced on discovery in the Federal Court proceedings may be used only for the purposes of the contract litigation. If Amann Aviation has used documents provided by the Commonwealth on discovery then it may have committed a contempt of the Federal Court. I have asked the Attorney-General's Department to investigate this matter with a view to initiating appropriate proceedings in the Federal Court. I do not intend to be drawn further on these matters while they remain sub judice, and I have no wish to continue the public discussion of issues which would only serve to further traduce the reputations of individuals who were not associated with the Government's decisions on whether Amann had failed to meet its contractual obligations. Motion (by Senator Vanstone) agreed to: That the Standing Committee on Community Affairs not further consider the provisions of subclauses of the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 referred to the Committee on 9 December 1987. Referral to Committee Motion (by Senator Lewis) put: That the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill 1987 be referred to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report by the first day of sitting in March 1988. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Alston, R. K. R. Lewis, A. W. R.Archer, B. R. McGauran, J. J.Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bishop, B. K. 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. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Harradine, B. Vanstone, A. E.Hill, R. M. Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. G. Haines, J.Beahan, M. E. Jenkins, J. A.Black, J. R. Jones, G. N.Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P.Burns, B. R. McLean, P. A.Button, J. N. Macklin, M. J.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Coates, J. Morris, J. J.Collins, R. L. Powell, J. F.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Richardson, G. F.Cooney, B. C. Ryan, S. M.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Crowley, R. A. Schacht, C. C.Devereux, J. R. Sibraa, K. W.Devlin, A. R. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A.Foreman, D. J. Wood, W. R.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M. E. Question so resolved in the negative. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 17 December, from Senator Chaney: Dear Mr President Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- ``That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to reject the proposals of the Constitutional Commission which would remove the democratic safe-guard the Senate provides against abuse of government power.'' Yours sincerely (Fred Chaney) Senator for the State of Western Australia. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.12) —On behalf of the Opposition, I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to reject the proposals of the Constitutional Commission which would remove the democratic safe-guard the Senate provides against abuse of government power. On this second last day of the sittings for 1987 we are on the eve of the nation's 1988 bicentennial birthday celebrations, and this is a relevant reason for bringing this motion forward because we have seen over the last couple of years an attempt by the Government to dress up constitutional reform in more popular clothes. It may well be that the Government believes that under the guise of its birthday celebrations it might be able to achieve constitutional changes which would not otherwise be possible. In those circumstances it is important that the Senate affirm its own defence, for a start, and affirm the arguments which will be advanced if the Government seeks to destroy the role of the Senate in the constitutional framework of Australia. The chamber's attitude to this motion will very likely depend upon the attitude individual senators take to the Senate itself. If one takes the view that the Senate, because of its proportional representation, more evenly and accurately reflects the will of the electorate than does the House of Representatives, one will say that the Senate has a value in that regard. Senator Button —Bunkum. It is disproportionate representation. Senator CHANEY —We hear, `Bunkum' from the Leader of the Government in the Senate. That is not surprising. It reflects his attitude. I will be referring a little later to the attitude of Government senators to the Senate, but I am pleased to have at this early stage of the debate confirmation from Senator John Button, the leading Australian Labor Party senator in this place, that he regards any defence of the Senate as bunkum. With respect to one's attitude to the Senate, I think, if one believes that the capacity to prevent governments from ramming legislation through the Parliament without consideration is an important plus for the operation of the democratic system, one will be in favour of supporting the Senate and defending it against attack. We know that executive governments do have the tendency to push legislation through without proper consideration. I would not claim that that is a peculiar characteristic of the Labor Government, although I would claim that the present Government is worse than most. The fact of the matter is that, whether we have been in government or opposition, the Senate has acted as a fetter to that sort of behaviour. Indeed, it is fair to say that Government senators in the last Government-Liberal and National Party senators generally-were jealous of the rights of the Senate and the importance of having a proper consideration of legislation. I recall that Liberal and National Party senators got together to push through, against the wishes of the Fraser Government, the establishment of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills because they saw that as a proper Senate restriction on the untrammelled legislative powers of government. At the time I was a member of the Executive Government and I watched my colleagues behaving in this very independent way. The reality is that that reflects an attitude to the legislative process which is quite different from the attitude which is adopted by executive government and it is important that in this country there should be at least one chamber which pays some regard to the legislative process. Again, if one takes the view that the Senate should take the sorts of actions that it was able to take on important legislation such as the Bill of Rights and the identity card and on the prevention of retrospective tax legislation, one will favour a defence of the Senate. I believe that the great mass of the Australian people see the capacity of the Senate to slow down the legislative process, to give the people an opportunity to see and understand what the Government is doing, as something they would wish to be retained. If time permits, I will return to some consideration of the identity card and the Senate's role in that respect. In a sense, the Bill of Rights presents an even more subtle example of the importance of a second chamber because the Bill of Rights was not defeated by an act of this chamber, except to the extent that the Senate, having seen that contentious and novel legislation for Australia being rushed through the House of Representatives after about one day of debate, was able to hold it in this place for some months, thus giving the Australian community time to learn what was contained in the legislation. Indeed, the Government eventually bowed to the popular will. It did not bow to the vote of the Senate because at that stage the official Opposition did not have the support of the Australian Democrats in opposing the Bill of Rights. It was a triumph for the people of Australia. That triumph was achieved only because the legislative process contains a capacity for the Senate to slow down the debate and give the people of Australia a chance to know what is going on. If one believes that the Federal compact requires a balancing of the political system around Australia-a greater balance between the great mass of the population in the south-east corner and the rest of the country-if one believes that the States remain important in their own right, and I believe they do, if one sees as massive the differences in the populations of those States and if one believes that it is a continuing and important part of the Federal compact that this Senate has a role in evening up the representation of the less populous and outlying States of Australia, then one must support this motion. The reality is that the people of Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania are peculiarly sensitive about that last argument. They understand that the great mass of the people of Australia live in the south-east corner and therefore, quite properly, the majority of seats in the House of Representatives come from that area. But just as in the United States, where there are great disparities of population size and resources among the States, it was seen and continues to be seen as being necessary to have a balance in the Federal legislature through the Senate with equal State representation, we on this side of the House see that as a continuing need for Australia. It is fascinating to note that those who attack the Senate because of its undemocratic nature-the fact that it does not represent one vote one value-ignore the fact that in the United States where the United States Supreme Court, perhaps more than any other body in the world, has laid down a requirement of one vote one value in respect of the lower House, there has never been an argument which I have heard that the United States Senate should be attacked in any way because of the imbalance. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of our democracy and the representation provided under our Constitution to accuse the Australian Senate of being an undemocratic body. On behalf of the Opposition, I embrace this motion on the basis that, indeed, the continued functioning of the Senate and the operation of its powers are essential to the successful operation of our Federal compact. That is the sort of thinking which lies behind the Opposition's view that we should support the current role of the Senate. As against that, we have the sort of view which has been expressed very often by Labor members, including some who are now very senior in the Hawke Government. When Senator Gareth Evans first came here he was very well known as someone who had come to the Senate to be a fifth column. He came here as a form of trojan horse. Now that I come to think of it, I suppose he has the appearance of a trojan horse. I wish to quote Senator Evans's remarks about this chamber. He said: It has always been a rather silly and pompous institution, but now it is obvious to most people that it has become a dangerous one as well. If one believes, as I do, along with all good Labor men and women true, that the Senate ought to be abolished or at the very least deprived of its capacity to destroy properly elected governments, there is surely no better forum in which to promote its insidious heresies than the institution itself. So Senator Evans came here not to praise the Senate but to bury it. I want Senator Evans and his colleagues to know that we will have no part of that, nor will the people of Australia. We are not prepared to see the argument go by default. Senator Evans's equally forthright colleague, Senator Walsh, had a few things to say about the Senate recently. Senator Walsh categorises the Senate as a place which obstructs good government in Australia. In a speech made on 4 December 1987 he adopted, with approval, what was said by his equally well known Labor colleague, the Treasurer, Mr Keating. He said that the Senate was `the repository of the swill of Australian politics'. He went on: Some people see the quasi-anarchy of the Senate as a function of double dissolution elections and the consequential smaller quotas. The quasi-anarchy of the Senate-that is Senator Walsh's view. I wish to put on record in this debate that nobody has done more to try to make this Senate appear to be a place where the swill of Australian politics lives than Senator Walsh himself. One used to be able to say that this Senate operated on a plane that was somewhat different from that of the House of Representatives. There were times when the prospect of our having the sort of language which is used currently by the Treasurer, Mr Keating, as a matter of course in political debate would have been thought to be out of place. Senator Walsh, more than anyone else, has reduced this chamber to the level of the House of Representatives. I hope that Senator Walsh's recent prediction that he does not intend to be here in a few years time is his concession to the need for an improvement in the quality of the senators. What is the Constitutional Commission actually proposing? What it is saying is important because it represents a fundamental reappraisal of the Senate's power within the legislative process. At the moment the Senate is one of the most powerful upper Houses in the world. It shares that distinction with the United States Senate, which has minor additional powers in relation to the appointment of ambassadors and certain other bodies that are appointed by the Executive. The reality is that the Senate is virtually a co-equal House with the House of Representatives, with some limitations on its capacity to deal with money Bills, which must be introduced in the House of Representatives, and to amend money Bills once they are sent from the House of Representatives. With those minor exceptions, the Senate, the States House, the House in which all the States are equally represented, has a co-equal power in dealing with legislation in this Parliament. The Constitutional Commission proposes that the elected Senate, this Senate which gives equal representation to the States, should be put on a par with the House of Lords. Basically, the Commission puts forward the argument that the Senate's powers should be reduced to the powers which are held by a non-elected House of Lords, the numbers in which are fundamentally controlled by the Government because of the Government's capacity to appoint such number of life peers as it needs in order to gain a majority. In the United Kingdom, since the early part of this century, the House of Lords has had no more than a power of delay. Equal legislative power was stripped away. What democrat would argue with that? I think it would be almost universally accepted in this chamber, if not universally accepted, that to suggest that a House which, in terms of its numbers, is fundamentally at the whim of the Executive Government and which is made up in its basic composition of hereditary peers should have the same rights as the democratically elected House is absurd. But this is not an appointed House, this is not a House of hereditary aristocracy, this is not a House where the Government can appoint its own majority; this is a House which, as I said, is elected by the people of Australia with an equal representation for all the States. The Constitutional Commission would propose that this House could do no more than delay legislation for six months. Quite a complex procedure is set out but, fundamentally, it comes down to that. The effect would be that if the Senate wished to change or reject legislation it could do so, but for no longer than six months, because after 60 days the Bill would be deemed to have been defeated. After three months it could be resubmitted. If it was then not passed it could be subject, after another month, to a joint sitting. The simple reality is that, on every composition of the Senate and House of Representatives since 1949, the government of the day would have been able to pass any legislation it liked after six months. So to put it in the context of the recent controversial ID card, the Australia Card legislation, if the proposals of the Constitutional Commission had been put forward and adopted by the people of Australia in a constitutional amendment, then the ID card would have been passed after six months. If we had seen the legislation passed in the defective form in which it was passed, subject to disallowance by this chamber and our ability to destroy it in that way, then the Government could fix it within a six-month period. In other words, we would have ID card legislation on the books today if the Government's proposals had been put in. Senator Walters —And we probably will next year. Senator CHANEY —Senator Walters says, `And we probably will next year'. I think that is a very fair and correct interjection. If the Government achieved these constitutional amendments next year it would have the capacity to implement the ID card without any regard to the wishes and concerns of the Senate and, indeed, the wishes and concerns of the people of Australia. That is the crux of the concerns of the Opposition. We see what is being proposed being put forward in a particularly insidious way. We see that the Commission is allying proposals for a longer parliamentary term with proposals to reduce the power, the influence and the role of the Senate. We on the Opposition benches have supported a longer parliamentary term, but we will not be seduced into supporting some sort of composite proposals which bring with them not merely a four year Parliament but essentially a removal of the powers of the Senate. That is the point which we will be emphasising over the coming six months, 12 months or whatever period lies before us before the Government puts forward its constitutional changes, because we do not believe that the people of Australia want to be seduced by the combination of those two propositions and we intend to ensure that they are not. A further point which is of concern to us is the clear preparedness of this Government to approach constitutional change in a thoroughly dishonest way. It is not just the dressing up of proposals and the allying of disparate proposals, popular with unpopular, to achieve the unpopular. I ask honourable senators to cast their minds back to the rather shabby performance of the previous Attorney-General-I believe it was Senator Evans. When he was seeking to put forward constitutional changes he tried to achieve the expenditure of substantial sums of Commonwealth money on the Yes case. Since 1904 it has been an accepted principle that when a government is putting forward a constitutional amendment there is an equal provision of public funds for the Yes case and the No case. It has been legislatively provided that both cases will be given airing at taxpayers' expense. Every voter in Australia is given a copy of the Yes and the No case. The principle is that, whatever the Government might be asserting, the No case, however small-quite often the No case has come from a very small part of the Parliament-gets equal access to the public resources which are used to put forward the constitutional amendment. Remember what Senator Evans tried to do. He tried to get $1.5m worth of taxpayers' funds to put up an advertising campaign for the case that he wished to advance. It is to the credit of the Senate that we prevented that. It is to the credit of the Liberal and National parties and the fact that we were joined by the Australian Democrats-it is to their credit also-that we were able to prevent the Government from perverting the usual process of constitutional amendment in this country. Quite clearly, the Constitutional Commission is being used as a trojan horse to achieve the same effect, the same advantage. What we have found-I pay tribute to Senator Walters for digging in the Estimates committee on this point-is that there is a public relations budget of something over a quarter of a million dollars for the Constitutional Commission in the coming 12 months. Those honourable senators who have seen the Constitutional Commission documents will know that they are meant to popularise constitutional change. They are not neutral documents; they are documents to popularise constitutional change, including changes which we believe are against our national interest. The sad fact is that by use of the Budget process the Government has managed to get under the net to the tune of $250,000 and to steal an advantage for those who are the proponents of these changes to the Constitution. I think that is an indication that we in the Senate will have to be extremely vigilant to ensure that a proper and fair procedure is followed with respect to constitutional amendment. I put the Government on notice that we will be vigilant. Senator Walters would very much have wished to participate in this debate but agreed, because of the shortage of time, to forgo that privilege. I am sure that she and others will be vigilant to see that that does not occur in the future. I commend this motion to the Senate. I believe that very few Australians want to see untrammelled executive power in the Parliament. I believe that there are no objective observers who would say that at any stage these Opposition parties have regarded their responsibilities in the Senate as being no more than to be the toadies and the lackeys of Executive Government. I believe that, notwithstanding the presence of the party system in this place, it has continued to provide an enormous balancing factor for the disparate States of our great country, Australia, and I believe that we need to continue to support the role of the Senate and to prevent those who would destroy the Senate from succeeding. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(3.33) —One charge often laid against the extreme wing of the conservation movement is that it fails to distinguish between conservation and preservation. What is laid at its feet is the charge that, in preserving a major eucalyptus forest without allowing for its regeneration, either by fire or by some artificial culling and replanting program, that forest dies. I think in this debate we have an example of those who would preserve the Constitution rather than conserve the values underlying it. I think it is a very important distinction because they may end up with the achievement that over the next 10 or 20 years, as we move into the next millennium, the same words will appear in the same red bound document on our desks in the Senate chamber. I do not think they realise that in setting their faces so completely against a change in the powers of this chamber they may indeed put the very existence of this chamber in jeopardy and, may I also say-I will come to this later-put the office of Governor-General in jeopardy. Senator Maguire —What about what Senator Chaney did in here in 1975? Senator TATE —I believe that if there is a repetition of the events of 1975 then the Australian people will move in a way which will see the destruction of this chamber and of the office of Governor-General. Senator Stone —Rubbish! Senator TATE —Despite Senator Stone's outburst, my view in that is shared by none other than the great conservative and former Premier of Western Australia, Sir Charles Court. Sir Charles Court, at the Constitutional Convention, put forward this very notion, trying to create a situation-Senator Stone would not have known about it; he was somewhere in the Treasury at the time-of preserving, as what I would call a true conservative would, the office of Governor-General and the role of the Senate, but in a way which did not create and preserve-- Senator Walters —The people of Australia would welcome it. Senator TATE —Madam Acting Deputy President, could you let me make my speech? I listened to Senator Chaney in silence. How about a bit of courtesy from Senator Walters for a change? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Zakharov) —Order, Senator Walters! Senator TATE —As I said in my opening remarks, there is a distinction between a true conservative and a preservationist of this Constitution. I believe, as I say, that none other than Sir Charles Court would share my view. The suggestion has been made, obliquely, by Senator Chaney that somehow the Australian Labor Party wants to see the Senate destroyed. Senator Chaney would be very pleased to know that in arguments in the national platform committees of the Australian Labor Party in the late 1970s I won the argument against Senator Evans. The plank which referred to the abolition of the Senate was deleted from our platform. We are committed to the Senate chamber as a second chamber within the Australian Parliament. So let us put to one side the notion that the Australian Labor Party is engaged in moving, by subterfuge, towards a situation where the Senate is destroyed and cast aside. The Senate has an important role in our democracy and certainly in our Parliament. After due consideration the Government will decide what to do about the Constitutional Commission's report and recommendations. This is a completely artificial debate because the Constitutional Commission, whilst some of its advisory committees have put out some reports, has not come to a conclusion as to the recommendations it will make to the Australian people and to the Government. The Government, when it gets the final report of the Commission, will make its decision. We are a long way short of any move to a referendum. As I say, at the moment we have some advisory committee reports. There will then be a report to the Commission, and some consideration and response by the Government. There will then be an opportunity for the Government, if it is so minded, to put the matter to the Parliament. The Parliament will then put the matter to the people under the provisions of the Constitution. Thank goodness the alteration of the Australian Constitution is in the hands of a majority of people in a majority of States. It is that final protection of the electorate, the people assembled in that special way, by those special majorities, which will decide the future course of our democracy. What I am trying to point to is that we will not make any advances in democracy, we will not conserve the best values of our parliamentary system, if the Opposition brings in a motion which does not even try to list, say, the five or six major objections which it has to those advisory committee reports but, holus bolus, says, `Let us, as a chamber, reject this set of proposals because'-in the words of the motion-`the Senate provides a safeguard against the abuse of government power'. If one is going to engage in rhetorical characterisation of the role of the Senate in that way, one could well just reverse it and ask, as Senator Maguire did by way of interjection: what about the abuse of democracy that was carried out by the Senate in 1975 in its stand which, whilst falling short of a vote to reject Supply, made it very clear that the Government would be denied the funds which were necessary to carry out the programs for which it was democratically elected and which it was attempting to deliver? The great tension in our democracy, which the Opposition will not address, is the fact that the Governor-General, when determining whom he might summon to Yarralumla to give the commission as Prime Minister and to ask that person to form a government, does so by looking to the person whom he thinks will be able to command a majority in the House of Representatives. As we know, if a government loses the confidence of the majority in the House of Representatives that can trigger an election or, at the very least, the formation of a new government which does have the confidence of the House of Representatives. A motion of no confidence passed by a majority in this chamber would have no impact whatsoever on the Governor-General. It is not as though he would summon the Prime Minister and say, `I am going to strip you of your commission', but, by this roundabout way of threatening to reject Supply, to withdraw the funding necessary for the Government's programs, the Opposition uses its majority, as it commonly has, perhaps with a combination of Australian Democrats, Independent senators or whatever-I do not know the exact figures; certainly in my experience as a member of this chamber I do not think the Government has ever had a majority in this chamber. The elected Government, enjoying the confidence of the House of Representatives, obviously is in a minority in this chamber. This can lead to a situation of peril where the Government is in jeopardy of a hostile Opposition threatening to withdraw funds or even voting against Supply and bringing about a situation where the Governor-General is put in a position of making a decision such as he made in 1975. As I pointed out, this puts the Governor-General in a situation which I would have thought those who were on the conservative side of politics would find very difficult to allow to continue because it means that his office is in jeopardy. If there were a repeat of 1975 the calls for the abolition of that office and of the role and function which it has in our society would be very loud and effective. That is the issue-the relationship between the two chambers. The Opposition, rather than coming up with some constructive proposal, merely contents itself with a very rhetorical urgency motion which advances the Australian democracy not one jot or tittle in its coming to grips with that problem. The urgency motion, nevertheless, gives me the opportunity to say that some of these recommendations of the advisory committees I would give greater weight to than others. Obviously, the lengthening of the term of the House of Representatives has many attractions. It has been frequently said that the number of elections we have, occurring as they do about every two or 2 1/2 years, certainly disrupt the general life of the community and the business of government generally. Elections are expensive. We know that the poll in July 1987 cost taxpayers approximately $50m. Short electoral cycles tend to place undue pressure on governments. Governments can be tempted-I do not say that we ever succumbed-to make expedient short term decisions and avoid making hard decisions, however necessary or desirable those hard decisions may be for the long term benefit of the country. It is very interesting to note that the private sector-the Australian Business Council, I think-has signalled that it favours the idea of four-year terms because of the adverse effect on the private sector of the possible lack of responsibility and long term economic planning that can accompany the short electoral cycle we have had in Australia over the last few decades. The period of speculation and rumour, as we know, that can be a preamble to the announcement of an election, is very destabilising. So the four-year term seems to me to be one suggestion which has merit. This raises the question: if we have a four-year term for the House of Representatives, what do we do about the Senate term? Do we have eight-year terms for senators? Do we automatically merely double the terms of senators and, in a fixed way, which we do at present? Senator Stone nods yes but I say to Senator Stone that I felt that I, and the people of Tasmania, were dealt with very undemocratically. When I was elected in December 1977 I could not take up my seat until July 1978, which meant that for seven months under the present constitutional arrangements, although I was elected to the Senate, I could not vote to pass laws for the peace, order and good government of this great nation, whereas persons who had been rejected by the electorate in the December 1977 election were in this chamber voting. I felt very hard done by, and I know that many Tasmanian citizens felt that I certainly should have been here as soon as possible. These are the sorts of things that need to be discussed in a more rational way than is permitted by this urgency motion. If we consider that a four-year term for the House of Representatives is desirable, we must question the terms of senators. If Senator Stone and others are rejecting the possibility of any change, suggest a doubling of the number of years of a House of Representatives term and, in addition, using a fixed statutory constitutional formula such as we have now, I do not think they will find that the proposition for the four-year term for the House of Representatives will be accepted. I do not think the Australian people will accept the proposition for an eight-year term for senators when it is fixed from point A to point B over eight calender years; nor should it be acceptable. At the very least, I would have thought, senators' terms should run concurrently with those of members of the House of Representatives. Senator Stone —What nonsense! Senator TATE —I believe that that will be essential, Senator, if four-year terms are to be agreed to by the Australian people. I was saying that I had been voted in and had to sit on the sidelines because of this constitutional birthday of 1 July that senators have. Certainly, horses have to wait until 1 August to celebrate their birthdays. I know that Caligula put certain horses in the Senate, but I do not believe that I should be treated like a horse in that way and appointed to the Senate on a particular date simply because my statutory birthday falls on a particular day. Senator Puplick —Tell us how you felt about being a parliamentary secretary until you became a Minister. Senator TATE —Senator Puplick is a show pony in this chamber, so in my opinion he is very close to being one of Caligula's horses, as far as this chamber is concerned. Senator Harradine —We will have an Augean stable soon. Senator TATE —That is right. If we were to look at this motion in a more leisurely fashion, without the need to vote on it as a matter of urgency, which I think is utterly absurd and not justified in any of Senator Chaney's remarks, we as a Senate chamber would be able, much more readily, to bring about a situation in which the Australian people could understand what was at stake, so that, as we move into the twenty-first century, the Constitution more strongly safeguards our democratic processes and procedures. At the moment, I believe that those processes are in some sort of jeopardy. They are more fragile than is acknowledged by those on the other side of the chamber. I believe we need to look more closely at the final report of the Constitutional Commission, at which time the Government will make up its mind on what proposals to bring before the Parliament in order to put them to the people for the people's final decision as to what might be done by way of altering the Constitution to preserve our democratic values. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.48) —On behalf of the Australian Democrats I indicate that we will support the urgency motion although, like a petition that many of us were interested in yesterday, while not being incurably defective, it is certainly defective. The problems that we have with the Government's-- Senator Puplick —Is that the petition or the petitioner? Senator MACKLIN —I was referring to this urgency motion, Senator. The problems we see with this matter are that there have not been any final proposals of the Constitutional Commission. We have been presented with a number of items. Some are recommendations of advisory committees-particularly of the Advisory Committee on Executive Government-which were made to the Constitutional Commission. The other item we have is a Press release. I am not quite sure what its status was. So there has not even been a report on the item to which Senator Chaney devoted most of his attention. My other concern is that it is a very negative type of urgency motion. Senator Chaney ought also look at the proposals, possible propositions or recommendations that are likely to come forward from the Constitutional Commission which will enhance the Senate in providing the democratic safeguard against abuses of government power. He could at least have paid some attention in his address to the Senate to those items that have been floated that would be very useful in bolstering the role of the Senate and its ability in its tasks. I wish to draw attention to some of those items in the short time I have available to me. Essentially, the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Executive Government recommended that: (a) The Senate should not have power to block Supply for more than 30 days; and (b) in the event of no change being made to the Senate's power to reject supply, the Government which is refused supply should be able to obtain a double dissolution of the Senate as well as of the House of Representatives. I am not at all sure that Senator Chaney would disagree with the second part of that recommendation, because it is very close to the so-called Hamer proposals that, as I understand it, the Opposition parties supported at the Adelaide Convention. The first part of the recommendation, of course, is slightly odd, because in the celebrated 1975 case the Senate did not have 30 days in which to block Supply. The Appropriation Bills were introduced on 14 October 1975 and the Governor-General made his declaration, as we well know, on 11 November. During those 27 calendar days there were about 14 sitting days. I am not sure that that recommendation would be of much use in those types of circumstance. Those types of items, unfortunately, do not seem to have been raised by the Advisory Committee. Hopefully, the Commission's final report will be a bit more thorough with regard to those propositions. I mentioned that the Opposition ought to be expressing, at least publicly, some support for a number of propositions that the Constitutional Commission has floated in its various preliminary reports. One of those concerned the funding of Parliament. I would have thought that Senator Chaney, who made an impassioned speech only a couple of days ago with regard to committee funding, would have supported this proposition in a flash. Unfortunately, he did not. I assume from that that the Opposition is merely taking a negative view to all constitutional change and is merely setting up the Constitutional Commission to be attacked, regardless of anything useful that it might offer. For example, on the funding of Parliament, the Commission stated: We strongly urge the Government and the Parliament to give consideration to the means by which adequate funding of Parliament might be secured. To further this objective, the majority, with two members dissenting, recommends that section 56 which requires all appropriation of money to be recommended by the Governor-General (and hence the Government), be repealed. I would have thought that the Opposition would support that proposition and would urge the Government to put a recommendation along those lines to the people by way of a constitutional referendum. While not wanting to endorse everything that the American Senate does or undertakes, it must be accepted that the American Senate's investigatory powers, as exhibited by Watergate and Irangate-powers to protect the American people from the abuses of government-are far more powerful than any of the powers of this Senate. Indeed, this Senate would have been incapable of dealing with both of those issues in a thorough and decisive manner. I would have hoped that in a debate such as this we could float ideas on how the Senate's role in the next century might be made more effective. I raise that point because it seems to me that it is connected intimately with the whole notion of funding. One of the reasons that the American Senate is able to undertake its investigatory role with such alacrity and independence is that it has total and complete control over its own funding. It is not at the behest of the Executive Government and hand-me-downs, or whatever else the Executive Government happens to want. It is a pity that the Opposition, which aspires to government in this country, cannot put forward a proposal which is far-sighted enough to look at fundamental reforms to our Constitution which may benefit this country and this chamber. The Opposition should also look at the recommendation to have the basic right for compensation which is contained in the Constitution of the Commonwealth applied to States and Territories. Every honourable senator knows that while the Commonwealth is constitutionally bound with regard to the payment of adequate compensation for any land that it wishes to acquire, State and Territory governments do not have to bother. In my State, Senator Stone, on a number of occasions citizens have been very badly treated upon the acquisition of private property. The right to private property should be enshrined in our Constitution. Again, it is a recommendation of the Commission that the Opposition parties should be in favour of and about which they should be publicly campaigning. My suggestion is that on constitutional change we have enough knockers. It is a pity that when people are knocking they cannot also be constructive. I have nothing against people expressing opposition to those things which they oppose. At the same time, I believe they should express support from the things they support. If silence is an indication of opposition, presumably the Opposition is opposed to the right to private property being enshrined in the Constitution and the funding of this chamber being independent of the Executive. I do not believe that is the case, hence I urge the Opposition to take a less destructive and a more constructive role in this area. I also hope that if a package of propositions is put to the people, as I assume will be the case, the Opposition will pick and choose its way through that package and will not denigrate the intelligence of the electorate as it has done so often in the past by saying, `We have to oppose all or they might support some that we do not want them to support'. I believe the electorate is intelligent enough to pick its way through the propositions. I hope that if propositions such as the right to private property, the right to freedom of religion or some other item which the Opposition parties support are put up, they will publicly express support for those items and opposition to those ones which they oppose as a matter of policy. Then we might be moving to a more intelligent debate about constitutional reform rather than this idiotic, patronising way of treating the electorate on this important matter. I also hope, though unfortunately I know it not to be the case, that the Opposition will support something like the citizens initiative proposal. The Liberal and National parties, and the Australian Labor Party, have opposed that proposition when the Australian Democrats have put it up in the past, and I presume they will go on opposing it well into the future. The Constitution is totally the prerogative of the people, not of the Parliament or of politicians. The Constitution belongs to the people and the right to change it belongs to the people, so I cannot for the life of me understand why the Opposition parties and the Government party continue to refuse to allow the people to propose questions that they wish to ask with regard to the Constitution. Senator Stone —For example, on immigration policy, perhaps. Senator MACKLIN —I do not mind what policy is put to the people because I am happy that it is the people's Constitution, unlike the position in so many other countries. The Australian Constitution is not owned by politicians; it is not owned by parliaments; it is owned entirely by the people. They are the only ones who have the right to change it. I cannot for the life of me understand why politicians are the only ones who are allowed to ask questions about it. I hope that the Opposition parties, which have twice in this place expressed their opposition by voting against our private members Bills, next time I bring such a Bill on for a vote will change their mind on that issue. I also hope that they will look to other items that I believe would be very useful in making the Senate a genuine House of review, such as, for example, banning the appointment of Ministers from the Senate and rotating Ministers through this chamber for Question Time so that we may have a parliamentary Question Time. Of course, none of these things require constitutional change; they are all possible under the Constitution as we currently have it. But, unfortunately, none of these items is coming forward from the Opposition, which would-- Senator Puplick —You would be banning Ministers from this chamber. Senator MACKLIN —I think we should rotate the Ministers through this chamber for Question Time. I remind Senator Puplick that the effectiveness of the Senate is the subject of the urgency motion we are addressing. We are trying to ensure that the Senate is able to provide against the abuses of Government power. One effective way is to have all Ministers come through this chamber on a rotating basis. There are many other propositions. In the moments that I have left to me I wish to refer to the proposition that Senator Chaney raised; that is, the notion of having a four-year parliament, in the first three years of which the Senate would not be able to reject Supply. In the last year it would be able to reject supply, and in the event of a deadlock there could be a joint sitting. I do not think I have ever heard anything quite as absurd as that proposal. Senator Tate —Which one? Senator MACKLIN —The last one, the 3 October Press release on the Constitution. It proposes a number of things. Ironically, the first proposal is to make Supply into a political plaything by urging the Opposition, at a time suitable to it in the fourth year, to deny Supply. That is absolutely absurd. Of course, the Democrats here, with the Fraser Government and the Hawke Government, have said that there will not be, and there has not been, any concern about Supply being passed while we have the balance of power in this place. And there will not be, regardless of the government in power. We believe that the party which has a majority in the House of Representatives, provided it maintains the confidence of that chamber, is entitled to Supply. There may be a whole host of other things that we object to-I hope the Opposition will revise its policy with regard to money Bills-but I believe that Appropriation Bills Nos 1 and 2 should be provided to the Government, as my private member's Bill introduced a little while ago stated, at the level at which they were passed in the previous year. I think new appropriations should be able to be reviewed by the Senate and rejected if necessary. Prima facie, regardless of anything else the Government is doing, I believe it should be provided with Supply at the level of the previous year. Otherwise, Supply is merely being used as a plaything for some other purpose. If we are looking at the Supply Bills as Supply Bills, surely we can support them at the level of the previous year. Another proposal that I think is absolutely absurd is the notion that the Senate should become a talking shop. If the Government wishes to put up a proposal to have a joint sitting any time there is a deadlock between the House of Representatives and the Senate, let us go the whole hog and put up a proposition to destroy the Senate. I do not believe Australia needs a House of Lords. We can ill afford one and such a proposal would be counter-productive to the governing of the Federation. This chamber would be purely a useless talking shop upon which a great deal of money would be spent, no doubt for the delectation of the senators elected to the place but certainly not to the delectation of the citizens of this country, who would have to put up with people in this chamber talking endlessly about Bills and having the power to do absolutely nothing. We can accept one of two propositions: either this chamber has the ability to scrutinise legislation or we get rid of it. The midway proposition I think is neither-- Senator Tate —I did not find that very persuasive. Senator MACKLIN —No, I do not think it is a persuasive proposition. The last reason that I would hope this proposition would be rejected is that it would be included in a package of Bills. There are far more important propositions that could be destroyed as a result of this idiotic proposition coming forward. For example, I mentioned the one vote, one value proposition merely by way of aside. That is something I have had a great deal of concern about. I hope that if the Government gets around to putting that up it will not be destroyed simply by being pinned to an idiotic proposition of reducing this chamber to a talking shop. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.03) —I rise to support the motion that has been put forward by Senator Chaney. Reviewing the actions of a number of prominent persons, including some members of the Executive Government, I am of the view that the Senate is under major attack at this time. This attack has taken the form of four major skirmishes. Let me also deal with the question that Senator Michael Macklin dealt with. There are some recommendations of the Constitutional Commission which are worthy of support. He mentioned the funding of Parliament. Mr Acting Deputy President, you are recorded in the Commission's report as raising this matter with it. Conflict could arise because the formal requirement of the message from the Governor-General ensures that the Executive Government has responsibility for the initiation of spending proposals which are considered by the Parliament, including the requirements of Parliament itself. I agree with what Senator Macklin has said, that it is a matter of fundamental importance to democracy itself. Indeed, there have been proposals kicked around for some time that would ensure effective control by the Government over what is spent by the Parliament. I well recall that in 1985-the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate), will also recall this-when the Senate was debating a motion to establish a Senate select committee to consider the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill, Senator Walsh trenchantly said, `Well, the Senate can do what it likes but it may not receive the amount of money for the establishment of that committee'. Fortunately, wiser heads in the Government prevailed. I have no doubt that there are members of the Government who are concerned about the attack that has been launched against functions of the Senate by economic blackmail by persons such as Senator Walsh. The second of the dangerous proposals is the resurrection of the same referendum proposals that were clearly defeated in 1967, that is, the removal of the nexus contained in section 24 of the Constitution whereby the House of Representatives `shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators'. This proposal was put to the people. It had the support of both major parties, but it was defeated because, I believe, the Australian electorate understood that the nexus has acted as a brake on the size of the House of Representatives. For example, at present from my State there are only five members of the House of Representatives in a 148-member House, but there is an equal number of senators from each State in the 76-member Senate. The equal representation in the Senate within the constitutional context of a two to one nexus prevents Tasmanian parliamentary representatives at a Federal level from being completely swamped by the more populous States. This is a matter to which Senator Chaney referred. I hope that, on the next occasion when the nexus proposal is put forward, there will be strong support from the Opposition against such a proposal. With the removal of the nexus, it would be extremely difficult for the voice of a smaller State to be heard in Canberra. In effect the Federal Parliament would be dominated by Sydney and Melbourne interests. The third dangerous proposal is the removal of the rotational principle contained in sections 13 and 14 of the Constitution whereby half the Senate retires at each election. The suggestion is that the House of Representatives and the entire Senate be elected for a common term, probably four years, at the same election. I think this matter was touched upon by Senator Tate in his contribution. I was listening carefully but I am not clear whether the Government is in support of this proposition. My electoral experience is that I have been elected for four six-year terms in a period of 11 years. Senator Collins —It is not transferable. Senator HARRADINE —No, it is not transferable. I look forward to the time when there are fewer double dissolutions and the rotational principle, adopted by the framers of our Constitution, is allowed to work. This rotational principle is important; it also exists in the United States Senate. Surely, it was meant to provide for the injection into the parliamentary process of an element of continuity and experience. The Americans have retained the principle in the relationship between their Senate and House of Representatives, and I think Australia should also retain this principle. I now come to the fourth dangerous principle, which has been given the runaround here, particularly by Senator Chaney. I refer to the suggestion to tamper with section 57 of the Constitution so as to do away with the requirement for a double dissolution prior to a joint sitting of both Houses when they are in disagreement over legislation. This recommendation has been around for a while and has got currency, mostly from the Advisory Committee on Executive Government of the Constitutional Commission. Professor Donald Horne was a member of that Advisory Committee and he let the cat out of the bag when he revealed, in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 20 August 1987: the three-day meeting in which he argued out our principal recommendations showed that all but one of us wanted the Senate's power reduced . . . So this is all about reducing the Senate's powers. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Advisory Committee, and indeed the Constitutional Commission, have come up with proposals which will handicap the Senate in the exercise of its rightful function as a House of review and will diminish the constitutional position of the Senate in comparison with the House of Representatives. Not so long ago I was up in Brisbane with the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform, inquiring into Senator Macklin's Bill. Certainly, we had evidence from witnesses about the malapportionment question. But, coming through much of their evidence, I detected concern about the way Parliament is run in Queensland. I seemed to detect a yearning for a House of review in Queensland. That message seemed to come from across the board. With regard to the proposition of doing away with the requirements under section 57, I very rarely quote from editorials but on 6 October there was an editorial in the Canberra Times which had some things to say which I think are worth hearing. It said that the Commission's proposals would `turn the Senate into an almost powerless talkshop'. It also stated: First, enabling the Senate to block Supply only in the fourth year is meaningless. The Government could simply introduce a Supply Bill 31 days before the end of the fourth year to cover all of the next 15 months and a bit to spare. If one thinks about it, that is a possibility. It continued: Second, the commission's joint sitting procedure means that, in practice, any Government with a majority of about 12 or more in the House would be able to get all its legislation through, suffering only the minor inconvenience of a 90-day delay. Joint sittings could become a regular method of curbing the Senate's power . . . The Canberra Times editorial also goes on to claim that without double dissolutions every six years or so the minor parties and independents would be wiped out. That is not my experience. However, I just make the point that one needs to think about the proposal for only a short time to realise that, if such a mechanism existed, the Senate would become redundant and before long there would be cries for its abolition. With the removal of the Senate, Sydney and Melbourne would have a field day in the House of Representatives and the principle of equal State representation in a Federal parliamentary House of review would be abolished. For example, Tasmania's five, six or seven lone members in an enlarged House of Representatives of 200 or 250 members would rarely get the call to ask a question let alone be able to exert any collective State input into Parliament, the Ministry or party caucus. I therefore support the motion that has been moved by Senator Chaney. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.16) —in reply- I will not detain the Senate for long, but I wish to make some very brief comment on the contributions that have been made to the debate on the motion which I have moved on behalf of the Opposition. That motion states: ``That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to reject the proposals of the Constitutional Commission which would remove the democratic safe-guard the Senate provides against abuse of government power.''. I noted with approval Senator Tate's confession that he had been behind taking out of the Australian Labor Party platform the proposal that the Senate should be abolished. I simply say in response to him that I think, whilst he may have had a victory in that regard, he did not succeed in converting some of his colleagues to an affectionate regard for the Senate or, indeed, to a state of mind in which they would defend a continuation of its powers. I believe that Senator Harradine correctly summarised what the matter is about when he said that it is about the reduction of Senate power. The other thing that I am really duty bound to do is to dissociate Sir Charles Court from the arguments of Senator Tate. I think Senator Tate's endeavour to enlist him as an ally in this debate would not be something that Sir Charles Court would really approve. Whilst it may be that there are matters relating to the Senate which are open or which might require change-and this brings me to the point that Senator Macklin made in his contribution to the debate-the important point we are seeking to emphasise in this motion today is that we are opposing those proposals which would remove the democratic safeguard which the Senate provides. Where there are matters which can be dealt with on their merits, which do not reduce the capacity of the Senate to provide a democratic safeguard, those matters are open for consideration. Senator Macklin is quite right in saying that some adjustment of the Senate arrangements have been put forward by Liberal and National party spokesman at constitutional conventions. I am not talking about those. What this motion is talking about is a matter which Senator Macklin himself touched on right at the end of his speech-the proposal that would in fact reduce this chamber to what I think Senator Harradine referred to as a talking shop. Apart from Senator Tate, I thank the honourable senators who have spoken-Senator Tate did not support my motion but the other senators did. Again, I put the Government on notice that the Opposition will be very careful to distinguish between what are genuine proposals for constitutional reform and what are simply ways of meeting Labor's agenda to diminish the role of this chamber until it becomes negligible in the Australian Constitution. I commend the motion to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Peter Baume) —On behalf of Mr President, I table a summary of questions on notice for the period 15 September 1987 to 16 December 1987. Consideration resumed. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Vanstone's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael 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.Calvert, P. H. Sheil, G.Chaney, F. M. Stone, J. O.Chapman, H. G. P. Tambling, G. E. J.Durack, P. D. Vanstone, A. E.Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S.Hill, R. M. Watson, J. O. W.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Aulich, T. G. Gietzelt, A. T.Beahan, M. E. Giles, P. J.Black, J. R. Haines, J.Bolkus, N. Jenkins, J. A.Burns, B. R. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Button, J. N. McLean, P. A.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Richardson, G. F.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Crowley, R. A. Schacht, C. C.Devereux, J. R. Tate, M. C.Devlin, A. R. Walsh, P. A.Evans, Gareth Zakharov, A. O.Foreman, D. J. Messner, A. J. Reynolds, M. E.Lewis, A. W. R. Ryan, S. M.Short, J. R. Sibraa, K. W.Teague, B. C. Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. LIVE-STOCK EXPORT CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 1987 LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1987 EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGES COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1987 EXPORT INSPECTION (ESTABLISHMENT REGISTRATION CHARGES) AMENDMENT BILL 1987 Bills-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bills reported without amendment or requests; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Tate) read a third time. Debate resumed from 17 November, on motion by Senator Reynolds: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.27) —The Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill and allied Bills are a very important bunch of Bills because they cover the largest and broadest rural industry in Australia. We are now about to deal with legislation that will produce a statutory authority and various other bodies to do with that industry. This industry contains the true free enterprise people of the whole of the rural sector of Australia. They are in every State and clime. They are concerned with hundreds of different crops-the fully manual to the highly mechanised, the totally domestic to the substantially export industries, the very small and the very large. That is a very wide range of primary industries. The Bills come forward, as is usual at this time of year, when we are trying to conclude the business of the Parliament. In this case, as I mentioned yesterday, the Government has brought upon us on the last day of practical debate, legislation on fisheries, wheat, meat and livestock, dried fruits, horticulture and dairying. We are left to deal with all these matters in a condensed way. These Bills should have come forward much earlier. It is now towards 10 years since the citrus industry started talking about requiring a statutory authority to get it out of its problems. It is four years since this Government started talking about this statutory authority. It is many months since the legislation was first discussed. We are now trying to deal with it in a rush when everybody around Australia has been pleading with us not to bring it on in a hurry and to give an opportunity for proper discussions about the details of it. For instance, the Western Australia Fruit Growers (Inc.) wrote to us and said: We wish to seek your support in postponing the debate on the above legislation. The Western Australia Fruit Shippers Committee said: The purpose of this letter is to urge you to seek a postponement of the Bill to allow industries to which it relates sufficient time to closely study it and put forward what they consider to be vital and necessary amendments. The Australian Flower Growers Council, in part, said: . . . members need to be told more of the finer details of the Legislation before it becomes law. It also said: . . . efforts should be made to have the passage of the legislation delayed to enable all industries concerned to study the content of the legislation. The Australian Nurserymen's Association Ltd said: . . . further time is needed to evaluate the situation . . . The Western Australian Vegetable Growers Association said: There is insufficient time for the industry to properly assess and debate the legislation. And so it goes on. But the legislation has been brought on and we have been asked to pass it in its existing form. This legislation clearly has been brought on at this time so that debate will be curtailed or truncated in any way possible. But we have to look at the real purposes of the legislation. We are looking for something to assist exporters. That seems to be the main theme. We have only to look back at a statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) when he said, `These are Australia's true heroes'. What does he do to these true heroes at a time when we have this huge gap in our trade balance? The Government is just making it more and more difficult for exporters to carry out their trade. All exporters and shippers, without exception, oppose this legislation. It makes them tax collectors for the Government. There is constant talk by this Government about reducing regulation. While talking about that, we are introducing three new bodies, several new Bills, masses of regulations and ministerial approvals-all, in every case, designed to impose more constraints, for various reasons. This is a free enterprise system, free-wheeling, free of regulations, free of everything-but that is the way it works out. It is worth repeating what the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) said about bodies such as these. The Australian Financial Review of 30 November reports him as having said: . . . once you put an authority or bureaucrat in charge of marketing you then successfully negate the investment decision. That is what he said. It was said not in reference to the horticultural industry but in reference to government authorities. How can we really work out the difference? But that is what the Minister believes about these sorts of organisations. Talking about exports is no counter to weak industry management and overproduction. So many of these industries we are talking about now have problems. The industries believe that an authority will fix the problems. If any people think that a government authority will fix their problems, they have another thing coming. It will require a lot more management by industries to do that. The legislation is far too loose in some important aspects. This is what people out in the community, those involved with the industry, also believe. There are real problems with the legislation. We must fully recognise them. There is a reason for us to fully investigate the matter in the way we have. We have a responsibility-this is what I wish to point out to one or two of the industries that support the legislation, and I recognise the fact that they do-to ensure that we provide the best legislation possible, and it is less than adequate if we do not make the necessary suggestions. There is not one unconditional acceptance of this legislation by any single industry and this goes even as far as the top citrus growers, who surely are in favour of it. Even Mr Boroughs, who is now the President of the Citrus Growers Federation, in a letter to me said: We would prefer our own Statutory body-but this was the best we can get. This is the body which, most of all, claimed to be a supporter of the legislation. It has reservations, and I do not blame it for that. And so it goes on. The apple and pear people say the same. Many of the divisions of these industries do not support the legislation. We have had many discussions and many letters from different sections of the industries involved. I have been in touch personally with over 80 of the industries and the amendments that Senator Durack will be proposing shortly would take away some of the things that some sections of the industry do not like and which, at this stage, are impairing their entry into the organisation. At the same time, what we propose would in no way impair the aims of the Bills or their operation. I accept and respect the apple and pear growers and their submissions, and the citrus growers, but we believe that many other industries need to be taken into account also. If we can remove some of the obstacles that there are without preventing those who have a desire to be in the Corporation from getting into it quickly, that is what we are here to do. Among the reservations about the Bills, we have undertakings from the Minister who, in the other place, made various statements at the conclusion of the passage of the legislation there. But why are those undertakings not in the legislation? Everybody would prefer that to be the case. We trust the Minister, but I cannot say that the trust that we have in him would pass on to his successor, whoever that may be and whenever he may come. His undertakings do not bind any successor. Information for many of the people who are still trying to make up their minds as to whether this is a good or a bad thing for the industry is inadequate. There has been less than adequate discussion among the industries generally, and that is partly the fault of the Government and partly the fault of the industries themselves. We have to remember that, in this group of industries, we are dealing with States, districts and different markets, local and export, and so on. Of course, the exporters are very concerned. They have done a magnificent job in the last two or three years to build up a greatly increased trade in horticultural products. They have done this without the impediments of government and without any of the sort of regulations that they will automatically undertake if they get into an organisation of this size. The industries are unsure about the operation and the size of the levy and the representation of the producers and exporters on the various boards and committees. They want to know what the boards will be doing. They want to know whether they can get out of the process if they wish to. They want to know what will happen if they want to come in in two or three years time, whether they will have to pay to come in and, if so, to what extent. None of these things has been discussed. We want to know how the say will be distributed and whether it is to be on a State, regional or production basis. We want to know who will be represented and who will not. The biggest of all the vegetable industries has been told that it will not be individually represented. I do not blame it for starting to ask a lot of questions and, if it is not to be represented, who will be? We know that some of the prime positions have already been promised, but some industries have been promised nothing. We want to know about assistance to, or competition with, the exporters. Are these bodies to be involved in the market-place? What are the arrangements with Austrade? What are the arrangements with the Australian Horticultural Production Export Council, the State chambers of industry and commerce that are involved in export promotion, or State development authorities? What is the position of the existing exporters-people who have spent lifetimes in building up export businesses, and those who have spent a lot of money in the last few years trying to get toeholds in Europe, the Middle East, the Far East and North America? What about the Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing in Queensland? That is a special case. What about air or sea transport arrangements? What about the recognition of the present vast increase in the horticultural product export? We do not seem to be recognising this remarkable increase. What is the purpose of the package? Those in the industry see the package as solving their problems, aiding their exports, bolstering their research and development, securing a national presence, providing them with a lot of extra market research, promoting their products and assisting them in the control of pests and diseases, or that is what they hope. For the Government, it is a way to get an expenditure offset against administration, export and research costs. Can achievement be expected? What obstacles to achievement are there? There are a few downsiders with this as well. The existing exporters-the new breed of tax collectors for the Government-do not like it very much and are unlikely to co-operate at this stage, and I do not see why they should. They have not had adequate discussions on the matter, and it has not been explained to them how they will benefit. After all, it is not what one produces but what one sells that is important and these are the people who have it in their hands to do the marketing. There are the former panel groups, which did a great job until some departmental officer decided that they were redundant and wiped them out. There are various industries which would like to have representation and believe that they should have it. They cannot co-operate at this stage because nobody is talking to them on those lines. There are the state export bodies, and so on. The questions are still about what is not known rather than what is known, and even though we have seen the various industries pleading for time, as I have already mentioned that has not been granted. As I said before, I trust what the Minister has said, but I do not necessarily trust his successor. Nearly everyone in the industry wants undertakings in the legislation, not just the Minister's say-so as to what he will do once the legislation is passed. The Policy Council is accepted, and the industry supports that, as it does the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation. The power to achieve total producer contribution to research and development is certainly accepted. But beyond that, the general acceptance is very thin because there are these many highly questionable factors, particularly in the marketing area. As I have said already, private exporters have achieved a really large increase in the last year or two. They believe that there is no reason why this should not continue at the same rate this year. Our investigation of this legislation has been based on the fact that, firstly, we want to get those industries which want the Corporation to have it. If they want it, we should let them have it and put no obstacles in their way. Secondly, we want to keep the door open for those which have not decided and, thirdly, we want to ensure that we do nothing against those with real objections to specific items until they are sorted out. That is all we have asked for. That is the approach we have taken to what we have done so far. We do not approve of the matter of ministerial approval. We believe that the matter should be dealt with by regulation. I have already mentioned the clauses in regard to export powers. Our proposed amendments will cover this lack of information and will seek greater producer representation on the Horticultural Policy Council as well. However, we will not oppose the passage of the Bills in the long run. We only have to look at the change that has occurred in this industry in the last few years. I wish to make a couple of comments in this regard because they will demonstrate what I am talking about. I will refer in particular to my own home State. In 1975 Tasmania exported potatoes-largely interstate; peas and beans-largely interstate; apples and pears-partly interstate and partly overseas; and some small fruits-interstate. By 1987-88 Tasmania was exporting to Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Germany, the United States, Japan, France, Holland, Hong Kong, Spain, Malaysia, Canada and various other countries. Included in the products sold locally and overseas were potatoes, onions, peas and beans, broccoli, carrots, raspberries, strawberries, apples, essential oils, poppies, vegetable seeds, flowers and so on. That is the way the market has increased and the people concerned managed to do that without an authority. The exporters have done a wonderful job, and they are still doing a wonderful job. We need to consider this expansion phase we are presently in. This has been brought about substantially by the change in the value of our dollar relative to the currencies of other countries. Also, it has happened as part of the change that occurred in about 1975-76, particularly as a result of the Australia-wide breakdown of the dairying industry. We have seen all these new industries established and have seen a new breed of exporters. They are niche fillers because they find out what people want and then go about seeing that they get it. The expansion phase is well and truly with us. I would not want to see us take the sort of action that might mean that the people who normally run the risks and who are prepared to put up their own money have to contract their businesses because they have not been able to get the necessary undertakings from the Government in legislation on the things they understand least or fear most. I need to say a little about the citrus industry separately because that industry has been the strongest supporter of the legislation. We have had many pleas from people in the industry that we should not prevent them getting whatever benefits they see the legislation providing. I do not think there will be any argument from them if I say that they have long since reached the desperate stage; they believe that anything may help them. I believe that, if they feel that by joining a corporation of the nature proposed they will overcome their continued overproduction and other problems of a worldwide nature, they may be disappointed. I do not believe that it is a matter only of independent exporters down-selling on the price. One member of the industry told me at one stage that that was the industry's only problem. I think that is far from the case. I think the same situation applies in regard to apples and pears. The apple and pear growers support the legislation. They support it because their own authority is to be disbanded and they have been threatened that they will not be represented at all if they do not support the proposed new corporation. They have had an authority which has worked reasonably well. With the problems that industry has got, I do not see that moving those to the control of another authority will change the situation. However, I wish them luck. I regret that the Government did not take more trouble to see that the purposes of the Bill were more adequately promoted. The Government has done a less than adequate job. This is why there seems to be so much reluctance in the community at large in regard to the overall acceptance of the legislation. We want to see that those horticultural industries which wish to join the Corporation and which can see the advantages of doing so are not impeded in any way. We want to see that those people who have reservations for any reason should have those reservations dealt with. At present, the form of the legislation does not take away those reservations. There is no need to explain to the departmental officers present what those reservations are. We have been through that phase. I gather that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy also is not prepared to try to take away the obstacles that several other industries which are showing some interest have identified already on their own behalf. We are looking at trying to get the horticultural industry to expand and develop. That industry wants to do it itself. The industry needs to be totally market oriented, not production oriented. That is still the problem in many cases. We want to see members of that industry concentrate on niche filling in various countries, just as we want to see them using the newest and best technology in packing, transport and handling that has been introduced into this industry in other places. We want to see more development in the area of chilling or freezing or irradiating; whatever will assist in extending the markets we now have. We want to see that the other potential entrants to the industry, such as the banana industry, the nursery industry, the avocado and table grape industries and others, come in provided that they can see that the obstacles are not too great. We have to consider our position in regard to the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand, which is very important. We want to ensure that our arrangements with New Zealand are co-operative in every way and that our marketing is done jointly. We also want to see the value adding process in regard to horticultural industries pursued as far as we possibly can. The legislation is typical of other legislation in various other rural industries. There are a lot of pluses and minuses with it. No industry that has this system has unanimous support for it; none of those industries which do not have the system have unanimous non-support for it. I think it will take a long time to get a lot of the horticultural industries to want to participate. I trust the Government will give special consideration to locational difficulties. We cannot change the fact that we operate as six separate States. We never will. Just to work on locations or volumes of product, or whatever the interstate arrangements are, I am afraid will not be good enough. We will need to make special considerations in a lot of cases if this proposal is going to be of benefit through the Policy Council and the Research and Development Corporation. I trust that those areas will get a lot of support from the industry. Later in the debate, Senator Durack will be moving the amendments that we have circulated. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.54) —I rise to speak in the debate on the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill and allied Bills. The purpose of the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill is, of course, to provide for the establishment of an Australian Horticultural Corporation. This Bill is the first of a package of eight Bills which have been introduced primarily to enhance the capacity of the horticultural industries to achieve their full potential in overseas markets. The Bill relating to the establishment of the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation is to help the horticultural industries to develop their research efforts. There are four Bills relating to product levies and export charges which provide for funds to be raised from participating industries to help finance the ongoing activities of the two corporations. The Horticultural Policy Council Bill provides the means to develop more consistent and comprehensive policies at the national level for horticultural industries, and a review of funding of this Policy Council will take place in five years. The Australian Horticultural Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill provides for the transfer to the Australian Horticultural Corporation of staff, assets and liabilities from the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation upon its abolition. It is important to state at the outset that membership of these bodies being created by this legislation is voluntary. I think it is also important to state at the outset that the process which has led to this legislation could perhaps be said to have begun with a Government Green Paper, which came out in September 1986, which outlined the proposals and which was presented to the industry and the community as a discussion paper on this whole issue. It was not until September of this year that this legislation came before the House of Representatives-in fact, on Friday, 18 September, in the first week of this session. Since then, all interested parties have had almost three months to hold discussions, which many of them complained have not been able to take place-a whole year of fairly formal process and certainly three months since the actual legislation was on the public record through the House of Representatives. As far as the Australian Democrats are concerned, it has been a process of consultation and discussion with the many industries involved. It is anticipated that the Australian Horticultural Council will encourage, facilitate and co-ordinate export activities and provide a link from exporting and marketing back to the growers to encourage production in line with market needs. It has been a common criticism of Australian horticulture that we have not tailored production to market needs but have, for far too long, simply tried to sell off surpluses in an ad hoc way, when they have occurred, to anyone willing to buy them. I certainly hope that this legislation will overcome this major shortcoming within this very diverse industry. The Hon. Barry Jones, in introducing these Bills on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) in September, referred to the extensive consultation process undertaken between government and industry organisations. As I said, there has been a lot of contact with the Australian Democrats. I am also aware of consultation between the Government and the larger industries over a considerable period but I think it has been more difficult for some of the smaller industries to feel that they have had the sort of consultation that they wanted. The Democrats have received letters from a number of organisations, including the Western Australian Fruit Growers Association, the Western Australian Fruit Shippers Committee, the Queensland Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing, the Floricultural Industry Council and the Australian Horticultural Growers Council, among others, expressing concern over some aspects of the legislation. The latter two councils, however, withdrew their complaints after further consultation with the Minister. The most common complaint from such industry organisations was that there would be overlap and duplication with existing bodies such as statutory marketing boards. It is our belief, however, that the Australian Horticultural Council will in fact play a complementary and facilitating role, not a duplicating one, with existing organisations. Another concern was that the Horticultural Council would not be an adequate mechanism for promotion and for development of export horticultural markets. It must be pointed out, however, that some industries have been crying out for a co-ordinated approach on the export scene for many years. The structure of the Australian Horticultural Council incorporates public relations and promotions in its operations. The members of the board of the Council, most of whom are appointed by industry, and only one by the Government, will include people who are the best in their relevant field, whether it is promotion, exports or whatever. The Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation, which currently functions in line with Government proposals, has a two-tiered structure which meets with both industry and various export committees, and is currently achieving great success in marketing Australian wine overseas. There was an additional concern that the Horticultural Council would be costly and a top heavy bureaucracy with inadequate industry representation. It must be reiterated that the industry itself selects most members of the board and that there are mechanisms for accountability and checks and balances against excessive bureaucracy and cost. Whilst the Government will provide an initial $5.8m over five years, the costs thereafter will be borne by the industry through levies or fees from those organisations co-operating on a fee for service basis. There were a number of other concerns, which I will not take time today to list in detail, but which we believe could have been addressed earlier by proper ministerial or departmental consultation. I am reasonably confident, on reading the legislation, that many of the fears of these industry organisations are groundless. While only a few industries, such as the apple and pear growers and the citrus growers, expressed a desire to join the Horticultural Council immediately, a number of others, such as the nurseries and the cherry and nut growers, are now anxious to see the Council established so that they can observe its operations for a while before making a decision whether to belong. As I have already said, membership will be voluntary, and an industry may choose not to join but to use the services on a fee for service basis, which, of course, provides considerable flexibility. In an article entitled `Horticulture Kept in Dark' in the National Farmer of 18 February this year, it was pointed out that: . . . without reliable information on what their producers are growing, many of Australia's horticultural industries are stumbling blindly in their efforts to plan ahead and market their produce . . . Industry simply did not know how many horticultural growers there were or how much land there was under each crop . . . Stone-fruit growers in NSW `didn't have a clue' what was happening with potentially competitive mango plantations in the north . . . and in the Northern Territory, horticultural entrepreneurs were rarely aware of what was happening across the border in WA. The Australian Nurserymen's Association Associate Chief Executive, Bruce French, was quoted as saying, `Forecasts are based partly on figures that have simply been dredged up'. That sort of scepticism was echoed by other growers. For vegetables and newer fruit industries, obtaining any sort of estimate of national plantings is a real headache. It is evident that, whilst there is growth and great potential in the horticultural industry, there are also grave problems with the co-ordination of the industry in Australia. I divert slightly for a moment and mention that I came across what I thought was a particularly interesting example of the potential for growth in horticulture in the 4 December edition of the National Farmer. I think we can all think of examples of growth areas in horticulture, but this one relates to the possibility of the farming of native plants, which would provide a diverse range of native medicines deriving from the herbal medicines traditionally used by the Aborigines. It is suggested that native medicine plants could be farmed `for research and teaching, and for use as a vital gene pool' for inspired plant breeding. The article said: Such farms could become `medicine farms' of international consequence, to help develop important new pharmaceutical products. I think that is an interesting example of the sort of innovation which might very well, one hopes, be assisted by the processes set in train by this legislation. There is an urgent need for better statistics as a first step towards better co-ordination and planning if horticultural industries are to survive in an increasingly competitive domestic and international market. I certainly take issue with Senator Archer's comments-they appeared to me to be encouragement-on irradiation. We must surely be aware by now that one of the greatest growth areas for marketing, and particularly in Europe, is the area of clean food. Certainly post-Chernobyl, one of the areas of cleanliness that is very much required is with regard to radiation. We have to be very careful in Australia that we do not, once again, let our friends, neighbours and aggressive competitors across the Tasman outreach us, both in this area and also in the area of organically grown and chemical-free horticultural products, which, as I have said, is a particularly promising looking growth area, not just in Europe but also in other markets and even in our domestic market. I hope that the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation will go some way towards addressing these issues. It should be noted that there has been no opposition from the industry to the establishment of the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation. I would like to quote from a sample of letters received by us with regard to this legislation. The first letter, from the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association, dated October 1987, states: At our national conference in July of this year a motion to support and join the Australian Horticultural Council was carried . . . Whilst the present Apple and Pear Corporation is handling the immediate day to day affairs of the apple and pear industry, we find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of being unable to implement projects of a long-term nature . . . Any unnecessary delay in the legislation will have a detrimental effect on apple and pear growers. A letter received very recently, on 11 December, from the Australian Citrus Growers Federation, states: The Australian Citrus Growers Federation represents 4,500 citrus producers in five States. Our members in Queensland, who represent 7 per cent of total citrus production, have expressed opposition to the proposed legislation but, based on the overwhelming support of the remainder of the industry . . . the Federation has decided it wants the legislation passed at the earliest possible date so the industry can get on with the job of meeting the serious challenges which it now faces. Many of the problems which have inhibited the successful development of Australia's horticultural industries to date have been associated with the traditional State versus State parochial attitudes which have existed. If these industries are to successfully develop their export marketing potential to the fullest, it will be necessary to adopt a national approach to the matter and these Bills offer the best possible mechanism for achieving this objective. A letter from the President of the Australian Nurserymen's Association, dated 10 December 1987, which was sent to its members concerning these Bills, states: We have an excellent product, lots of know-how but very little effort has been made to introduce our product to the world. This may well be our opportunity to do so. I believe that this last letter sums up the sentiments of the horticultural industry. There is recognition that if the industry is to progress and to expand, a national co-ordinating role is required. We believe that these Bills go a long way towards meeting that need and we will be supporting them. At this point I would like to make a couple of comments about the Opposition's amendments. The Democrats do not support these amendments. In fact, we have had representations from various horticultural bodies, including the Australian Nurserymen's Association, the Citrus Growers Federation and others, all opposed to the Opposition's amendments, which would mean that industries producing anything other than apples, pears and citrus fruits would have unnecessary difficulty in joining and participating in the new bodies established by the legislation. Senator Boswell —Rubbish! Senator POWELL —Members of the Opposition are saying that that is rubbish, because they believe that I am expressing my own view, so I wish to quote from a letter written by the Australian Citrus Growers Federation on 11 December 1987 which refers directly to the Opposition's amendments, which have been circulated. It states: A copy of the amendments and requests to be moved by the Opposition has come before the Senate and has been made available to the Federation by Senator Durack's office. We consider the amendments and requests to be unnecessary in the operation of the proposed legislation and reflect a negative approach to these most important bills. The letter goes on to state: The Federation considers that the Government has gone as far as could be expected in the amendments and points of clarification that have been given. The Federation went on to state: We consider that the Opposition's pursuing of these unnecessary amendments is likely to lead to the withdrawal of the complete legislation at a time when our industry is in a difficult economic situation and sees the establishment of the Corporations and the policy council as playing a major role in assisting the industry in its export arrangements and in urgently needed promotion and research programs. The letter makes the point which I have just made: that the necessary time required, in reference to the potential joining of other groups, makes the amendment unnecessarily negative. In the opinion of the Australian Citrus Growers Federation, the proposed amendment that `authorisation for the use of the trading powers be only by way of regulations' is not necessary. The letter concludes: The Federation makes a humble but sincere appeal to you to support the Bills in their present form without amendment. So I am not just using my own words in this assessment of those amendments. It is very interesting that there has been an attempt by various groups in the industry to meet the problems that they have seen. Since this legislation first came into the House of Representatives there has been a great deal of movement in the industry. As I have said, there has been increasing consultation, and I think the only group of people that appears to have remained set on the path on which it was last September is the Opposition. The Democrats will not be supporting the Opposition's amendments. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.11) —The Senate is debating cognately the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill, the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation Bill, the Horticultural Policy Council Bill, the Horticultural Levy Bill, the Horticultural Levy Collection Bill, the Horticultural Export Charge Bill, the Horticultural Export Charge Collection Bill and the Australian Horticultural Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill. All of these Bills are concerned with Australian horticultural industries and will, if passed, establish three bodies-the Australian Horticultural Corporation, the Horticultural Policy Council and the Australian Horticultural Research and Development Corporation. I want to say at the outset that I, together with my colleagues, have many reservations about these Bills, which unfortunately received very scant treatment in the House of Representatives. In fact, they were spoken to only by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) and the Opposition shadow Minister, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). I believe that such a far-reaching overhaul of government involvement in the horticultural field merits more widespread and much closer examination. The horticultural industry in Australia is a major employer and is probably the most diverse in any country due to our wide range of climate and our natural resources. In my small State of Tasmania there is, of course, the apple industry, for which Tasmania is well known throughout the world. However, the diversity is much greater. Vegetables and hops are very significant in the Tasmanian agricultural base and the production of berry fruit, including grapes, blackcurrants, strawberries, apricots and blueberries, is developing as a thriving and successful option to the more widely known crops. The cut flower industry and the propagation of essential oils and poppies also add to the diversification of Tasmanian horticulture and, of course, there are a lot more. Tasmania is only a small State. I remind the Senate of the major citrus industries of Victoria and South Australia and the exotic fruit centres in northern Queensland, together with the impressive recent record of the horticultural specialisation and marketing that has taken place in Senator Panizza's State of Western Australia. This package of Bills seeks to establish an Australian Horticultural Corporation. This would be a statutory marketing authority and would replace the current Australian Apple and Pear Corporation-replace it under threat. The Minister has claimed that the purpose of such a body would be to assist horticultural industries to achieve their full potential in overseas markets. The Horticultural Research and Development Corporation is designed to seek investment by the sector in the examination and development of this field of agriculture. The Government also seeks to establish a Horticultural Policy Council which it claims will bring together representatives of the sector into a single body with the capacity to present to the Government a broad view on policy issues. We all recognise that there has been a significant amount of correspondence in this respect; I have received some of this correspondence in my office and I am sure that other honourable senators would have received similar correspondence. Taking exception to many aspects of these Bills, some of these letters have requested the Senate to delay their passage. Some of these reservations have a great deal of validity. I have a concern that this legislation will merely increase and perpetuate an already burgeoning agricultural bureaucracy in an area where, in many respects, the existing private enterprise marketing avenues have been not only adequate but also, in many cases, highly successful. I now turn to the specific provisions of the Bills. When speaking to the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill, the Minister stated: The Government's policy for primary industry statutory marketing authorities provides that it is not appropriate for boards of such authorities to have as members persons representing various sectors of industry but rather that the members should have the skills appropriate to their corporate responsibilities. I would be very interested to know why the Government feels that it would be inappropriate for producer bodies to put forward people with expertise to sit on the Board of the Corporation. Can the Government answer that question? Part III of the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill provides for the establishment of a selection committee to: Identify and nominate persons with expertise in one or more specified fields for appointment by the Minister . . . I remind the Senate that the Government is acting in the realms of a script from Yes, Minister. Instead of the Minister logically inviting several eminent and long established producer bodies to put forward people in their field who they know, in whom they have confidence and who can best serve their sector, a selection committee is set up which puts up names from which the Minister chooses. Why not remove this extra piece of bureaucracy and merely permit the relevant horticultural producer organisation to put forward its nominations directly to the Minister? This would be the best approach. This procedure, which I call sanitising the appointees, is also to be adopted in the proposed Horticultural Research and Development Corporation. However, in the Horticultural Policy Council Bill, which provides a total sectoral perspective on policy issues, for some reason the Government is quite happy for the marketers, processors and growers to nominate their representatives directly. If this is good enough for one of the bodies, why is it not good enough for the other two? I now turn to some of the financial aspects of these Bills. The Government says that it will commit a total of $9m over five years to assist in the establishment and early operation of these bodies. In other words, the initial bodies have succumbed to the financial carrot. The Horticultural Corporation will be given $5.85m to assist it to get programs of activity under way quickly and the proposed Horticultural Research and Development Corporation will be given $1.25m for the same purpose. Bills in this package also transfer the present levy paid to the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation to the new bodies and authorise the new corporations to impose levies on producers who use their services. The Minister emphasised in his second reading speech that participation in the Australian Horticultural Corporation is to be voluntary, yet he has also announced that the statutory marketing powers of the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation will be extended only until December 1988. Is that voluntary? Further, the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation may be merged with the Horticultural Corporation in 1988 and the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation is to be abolished. There is not much voluntary participation there. In other words, the Government is saying to the industries that they are under no obligation to participate in these new bodies but that the existing marketing authorities will be abolished, effectively press-ganging all sectors of the industry which rely on government marketing assistance into joining these organisations. It is significant that similar legislation was introduced into the New Zealand House of Representatives in 1973, and has only just been passed by the New Zealand Parliament. It is also worth reminding the Senate that plant variety rights legislation, specifically requested by the industry more than 20 years ago, has only recently passed the Senate. The Government failed to consult many sectors of the wide-ranging horticultural industry. I have had representations from people as diverse as flower growers and fruit shippers, who have said that they did not seek this legislation and that they do not wish to have it foisted upon them without adequate consultation or any guarantees that the proposed bodies will not become expensive millstones around their necks requiring more than just the levy to be sustained. The Government appears not to recognise that public sector marketing authorities have had success with homogeneous commodities such as wheat and wool, but it is far from certain that this can be translated to the smaller and more diversified products where specified aspects of climate and irrigation make propagation methods in, say, South Australia totally different from those utilised in New South Wales. Also, for similar geographic reasons, research has meant widely different results in different parts of the country. For example, research into tomatoes in Queensland and Tasmania has led to quite different, but no less valid, conclusions. The only positive response to this legislation of which I am aware has been from the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association. This being the case, and with many other aspects of these Bills still unclear, perhaps the legislation should be limited to just apples and pears and the citrus industry until proper consultation has taken place with other groups and a clearer statement from the Government of the objectives of these Bills can be provided. I have major concerns with these eight Bills. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.22) —As the previous speakers have said, the Opposition has been caught in a cleft stick. Two marketing organisations want this legislation, a number of others are vehemently opposed to it and others want to sit on the fence and see how it will work before they agree to be involved. The National and Liberal parties are trying to accommodate all sections of the horticultural industry, which covers over 40 sectors and up to 120 organisations. As my colleague Senator Brownhill said yesterday on, I think, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill, one would need the wisdom of Solomon to be able to get all of the organisations to agree and to get agreement between all of the sectors of the industry. However, we try to accommodate all positions in the amendments that will be moved by either Senator Durack or Senator Archer, both of whom are very competent and will know what to do in the best interests of the industry. This package of legislation establishes three horticultural organisations geared towards assisting the development and export of Australian horticultural products. The primary organisation in this package of Bills is the Australian Horticultural Corporation, to be known as the AHC. It is to be a statutory marketing authority and will be backed up by the Horticultural Policy Council and the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation. The industry in Australia is made up of a number of separate bodies-40 industries and, I believe, 120 organisations-all operating at State and Federal levels. At the present time the horticultural industry in Australia is on the verge of unleashing its potential on world markets. In 1981-82 the value of horticultural products exported was $69.7m and by 1986-87 that figure had risen to $200m. In October 1986 Austrade said it believed that a 20 per cent per year increase in the value of horticultural exports was a realistic expectation. It said it believed that the then value of horticultural exports had the potential to double to $300m a year by 1989-90. The prospect of generating an export trade in horticultural products worth $300m is an exciting one. The industry would then rank No. 4 or No. 5 of all our primary industries, based on export sales. There are clearly exciting possibilities on a number of marketing fronts, not only in apples and pears but also in all forms of citrus, deciduous canned fruits and a whole range of tropical fruits from my State of Queensland. We have also the export of vegetables from Queensland and Western Australia. I believe there is a big industry in that State. Senator Panizza —Yes, Senator, you are right. Senator BOSWELL —Western Australia exports to Singapore and the Middle East countries. I know that Senator Panizza is here to make his contribution on behalf of Western Australia. The problem is that while there is potential, there is also a great need for more co-ordination, promotion and quality control. In 1984 the Australian Horticultural Growers Council approached the Federal Government seeking the establishment of a horticultural policy advisory council and horticultural research council. It was not until April 1986 that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) announced his intention to implement those initiatives, and they are now contained in the package before us. The Government is now committed to this legislation, which introduces an organisation designed to promote horticultural products in both domestic and overseas markets. On the Government's ledger so far, this concept has the support of the apple and pear industry and the citrus industry, although I believe the citrus industry in my State has reservations about the Bills. They are two very significant horticultural industries. The formation of the Australian Horticultural Corporation is clearly not welcomed by many industry groups. One such group is the Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing (COD), in Queensland, which does an excellent job looking after the interests of the 6,000 fruit and vegetable growers in Queensland. As a matter of interest, my father-in-law used to be the president of that organisation. That is some time ago now. That is one of the bodies that opposes the Australian Horticultural Corporation. It has expressed grave problems with the AHC in its present form, and it considers its formation to be an inequitable and inefficient response to the horticultural industry's co-ordination and export development problems, which it is intended to remedy. The COD has argued that the industry itself has a strong willingness to address its own problems in a constructive and positive manner, and to find solutions that are in keeping with the needs of the industry. The Government and Ministers have followed their own strong desires to establish the AHC, irrespective of the wishes of a large number of industry organisations throughout Australia. Headlines in the COD journal over the last couple of months include: `COD stands firm against HC proposal'; `Australian Horticultural Growers Council joins in HC opposition'; `Overwhelming opposition-but Government goes ahead'; and `Australian Vegetable Growers Federation rejects Government's ``unwieldy'' plan'. They are hardly promising headlines for a concept that will need major industry support. I do not believe the major sections of the industry do want this package of Bills, but the Government seems intent, in the dying stages of this parliamentary year, on whacking these Bills through on the second last day of sitting. As I said before, we have to go along with that, although with a great deal of scepticism. The Government has an unenviable record of riding roughshod over the concerns of rural producers. I put it to the Senate that this package of Bills is no exception. Problems have been pointed out by organisations such as the COD, which has assisted in the formulation of amendments which I have just learned, to my sorrow, will not be carried. Those amendments were geared towards improving the legislation. The Bills will not have the support of the industry without the amendments and I am sorry to learn from Senator Powell, the Australian Democrats spokesman, that once again she has ignored the wishes of the rural community. I do not know what motivates Senator Powell. She has one letter from some industry that supports the Bills but, as I have said, there are 120 other horticultural organisations that do not support them. She has listened to one organisation rather than the majority. If she listened to the people who represent the farmers and the graziers, who represent rural industry, she would probably be able to help rural Australia rather than hinder it. I always hope, rather than expect, that the Democrats will give some consideration to rural Australia. I have seen no evidence of that in my five years in the Parliament so far. The fact is that this package is riddled with problems, and amendments need to be drafted. Clearly the Bills will not be the effective mechanism for the industry that Senator Tate and his Government believe they will. Senator Tate should know a little bit about the horticultural industry because he comes from a prominent horticultural State. Senator Archer —He is a pea grower of some note. Senator BOSWELL —If he conversed with Senator Archer while flying between Canberra and Tasmania, I am sure Senator Archer would be only too happy to impart some of his great knowledge of the industry to him. Maybe Senator Tate would learn a little about the horticultural industry. The Government clearly recognises that it has had to provide special incentives to encourage horticultural industries to join the Corporation and, as an expression of its total commitment, it is providing in this package $9m over five years, $5.85m of which will be injected into the AHC, with total industry funding after that period. Unless the developing horticultural industries decide to join the Corporation, this funding will not be available to those who need it most. This brings us to yet another problem, in that the AHC will focus on those few horticultural industries that choose to participate. Unfortunately there is the very real risk that the funding provided by the Government for administrative expenses will be taken by those industries which join the AHC from its inception and there will be none left for those who wish to join later. Labor should provide some guarantee that a percentage of the funds will be reserved for late entrants into the AHC. If this Government is so concerned about the total industry, surely it should direct some of the funding towards providing assistance for some of those parts of the industry outside the Corporation which wish to employ a consultancy or fee for service arrangement. I do not know how, if people cannot afford to join the AHC, they can possibly afford a fee for service arrangement. Anyhow, I suppose that is for the Government to work out. The Government has already acknowledged that there will be some horticultural industries that will be unlikely to develop levy arrangements and therefore will not be able to join the AHC. That brings me to another problem with the overall direction of the arrangements for small horticultural industries. The COD has indicated that it considers the fee for service option proposed by the Government for industries which do not take full time membership to be unrealistic for the reason that I just enunciated-that if the small industries cannot afford to join the AHC, then how will they be able to pay a fee for service? Senator Tate, in his response, will obviously answer that question and we will look forward to it. The small, unorganised industries which are not in a position to establish a levy system necessary to join the AHC somehow must have the capability to raise the funds necessary to pay the AHC. In developing the legislation along this line of approach, the Government has clearly sacrificed the needs of the smaller industries to have low cost access to marketing services. Surely a more cost effective method of providing this service to smaller industries would be the development of a support structure based on the State Export Development Councils. This suggestion was put forward by the COD and yet appears to have been totally ignored by the Labor Government. In this case it is clearly wrong for the Government to claim that the AHC will provide a solution to the problems of all horticultural industries. The fact is that the horticultural industry is already serviced by a number of Commonwealth and State bodies. The areas of market intelligence, negotiation of transport contracts, the publication of statistics in relation to horticultural products, promotion, export controls, encouragement of production, handling, efficiency and the co-ordination and co-operation in overseas market development are currently covered by a number of bodies at a local, State and Federal level. By introducing these Bills, Labor has put another bureaucratic maze in front of all these bodies. I said earlier that this industry believes that it can, under its present circumstances, increase its sales to $300m and it was doing very nicely on its own initiatives. I hope that this package of Bills and the Australian Horticultural Corporation will not impede in any way the growth of our horticultural industries. I know that everyone on this side of the House has some fears that in introducing legislation we are making a rod for our own back. I know that these fears are held all over Australia. However, we can only point out to the Government and to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button-who has now joined Senator Tate-that when something is going well it should be left alone. It is only when an industry is going in reverse that some type of government help may be needed. Senator Button —Hear, hear! I agree with you, Senator. Senator BOSWELL —Senator Button acknowledges my point and says that he agrees with me. But, as he is a man who enjoys his No. 3 position in Cabinet, he should have suggested to his Cabinet colleagues that this Bill was unnecessary. He should also offer his colleagues and the Australian Democrats some advice by saying, `If we do go ahead with it, let's try and make everyone as happy as we can under the circumstances'. Anyway, we are faced with these Bills and we can only plough ahead, I suppose. The Government has stated that admission to the AHC will be voluntary. There is considerable concern among smaller segments of the industry that they could be forced into it against their will. Under this legislation the Minister determines whether an industry that wishes to join is eligible for the particular variety of horticultural product. Agreement is then reached on a levy, the levy is then gazetted, it is introduced by regulation and the industry is then included in the Corporation. Small segments of an overall industry section are in danger of being included in part of what the Minister may consider to be the eligible industry body. The Minister has already indicated to the potato growers that he would not recognise them as a separate entity from other vegetable industry organisations. So, if the potato industry does not want to go into this AHC, then it will be forced in. We have addressed that problem in one of the amendments we have circulated to honourable senators. The concept of an eligible industry body is vague and imprecise. Under the legislation the decision as to which industry bodies are to be consulted is left to the Minister and his Department. That is not good enough. The COD believes that guidelines should be set down outlining the criteria to be used by the Minister to determine which industry bodies should be consulted for particular purposes and which should not. The Government has also ignored the need for including provisions to allow a dispute with an industry to be taken up with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Because of this lack of appeal an amendment will be moved in committee to restrict the membership of the AHC to those industries which have indicated that they wish to join-the apple, pear and citrus industries. Other industries wishing to join the Corporation can then be included through legislative amendment rather than through regulation. We have been forced into adopting this stance in order to safeguard the interests of smaller industries which, under the present legislation, could be included in the AHC with no right of appeal and no consultation with either the Minister or the Department. However, I am afraid to say that those people will be doomed to their fate because they will have no right of appeal as the Australian Democrats will join with the Government to deny them the right of appeal. A further question that must be urgently addressed is the problem surrounding the duplication of levies in Queensland. In Queensland, where there exists a number of traditional levy collection procedures, the imposition of the additional levy has the potential to undermine and disrupt the whole very effective system of the COD. According to the COD, Federal Department of Primary Industries and Energy officials appear to take the view that individual State rights and concerns are not of a high priority for this Government. I could have told the COD that a long time ago. This Government has never worried particularly about State rights; that is not one of the concerns it shares. We will now be faced with a situation where both an Australian horticultural levy and a COD levy will be introduced. In my opinion, and from what I know of the industry, the Queensland fruit and vegetable growers are particularly happy with the very effective and efficient service that is given to them by the major marketing body of fruit and vegetables in Queensland-the COD. The Labor Party must realise that the existing industry bodies will not put up with this ill-treatment by the Government. They will move to protect their positions and the positions of their growers. They have constitutional rights and this Government should observe them. As part of my speech, I had intended to mention the amendments that we will be moving. However, I believe that it would be quite futile to talk about them now because of the Democrats' intentions. I had thought that they would support our amendments. Senator Panizza —They have changed their minds. Senator BOSWELL —I know that Senator Panizza from Western Australia is distraught because he indicated to me today that we could probably make bad legislation better if the Democrats would support our amendments. He told me earlier today that he thought the Democrats were on side, but I pointed out to him, as he is a new member of the Senate, that one never knows where the Democrats are until the vote is taken. I said earlier that the industry has great potential to expand into the export market. The approach adopted by the Labor Party will not help to achieve this result. Quite apart from the legislation before the Parliament today, this Government needs to take up an additional responsibility toward industry in order to help develop our export market for horticultural produce. Australian growers are amongst the best in the world. As a primary producing nation we have no peer. We have progressed through enterprise, initiative and plain hard work. As I have pointed out, this Government should be directing its efforts towards obtaining greater access for our horticultural products in other countries instead of creating a bureaucratic maze. I believe that there are problems facing our growers that this Government should address. There are potential markets throughout the world and we could tap into those markets if we had the Government's support. The industry also suffers in the area of transportation. Producers can supply the market with a high quality, well presented product, but they are having grave difficulties in getting their product to the market by air transport. There are special needs for transporting this primary product. The Government would be well served to put pressure on some of our airlines to take into account the needs of industry for a consistent, uniform standard of air transportation and sea transportation to assist Australian growers to export this product. A grower in my State named Gordon Wilson has developed a very successful export in Chinese cabbage to Hong Kong, Japan and other areas. In fact, he is doing an excellent job, but his main problem is getting the product out of Australia to the market. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, and the Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Gareth Evans, should take on board the comments regarding the potential of the horticultural industry to gain valuable export dollars for the Australian economy. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(5.48) —Today we are debating eight horticultural Bills. I will not go through them again because they have already been enumerated. This is the first time in this chamber that I have risen to speak without claiming that I have got first hand knowledge of the industry, but I do at least claim to have knowledge by association. I mentioned this morning that my own family's cattle industry in south west Australia is surrounded by the horticultural industry. I was moved to speak in this debate because of a number of approaches I have had from the horticultural growers of Western Australia expressing their concern about this legislation, and so I have decided to research the matter. When the Government announced plans to introduce some legislation into the Parliament aimed at the Australian horticultural industries, members of that industry were very pleased that someone, somewhere, was thinking of them. Parts of the industry have been struggling for some time and it seemed that, at last, help was on the way. The Government was approached in 1984 and asked to consider setting up a Horticultural Policy Council and a Horticultural Research and Development Corporation (HRDC). The idea behind the Council was to address problems of industry co-ordination and export development. The Horticultural Research and Development Corporation is necessary to improve both technology and product quality. What the horticultural industry did not ask for and what it did not particularly want-but it looks like getting it this evening-is a huge financially draining bureaucratic structure. This burden is to be known as the Australian Horticultural Corporation (AHC). It will cost the taxpayer millions of dollars and it will eventually be passed on to the horticultural grower and will cost him, or her, a substantial amount of money. The new Corporation will overlap and duplicate functional areas of responsibilities of other structures such as Austrade, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and all State government departments of agriculture. There will be costly and unnecessary duplication in the areas of marketing, export development, promotion, transportation contracts, handling efficiency, publication of statistics and other similar areas efficiently catered for by existing instrumentalities. The Australian Horticultural Corporation will attempt to administer to and cater for the entire Australian horticultural industry. We must consider the vastness of this country, the immense and diverse range of horticultural products, the vastly different seasons, which no one has mentioned, and areas in which these products are grown, and also the fact that there is a great deal of opposition to the Corporation. When all that is weighed up it is not hard to imagine that this proposed Corporation will be a waste of money and an administrative disaster. In the House of Representatives on 3 November, the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) said that he was sure that, in time, the Australian Horticultural Corporation would receive a similar response to that received by the Australian Wool Corporation and other successful corporations. What a load of rubbish! I was involved early in the formation of the Australian Wool Corporation. I saw the problems it had with just one commodity, and we lead the world in this commodity and continue to lead the world. Senator Powell —Yes, the Corporation has played a big role in that. Senator PANIZZA —Yes, it has played a big role, but on only one commodity. The difference between the Horticultural Corporation and the Wool Corporation is that the wool body markets wool and the horticultural body will market upwards of 150 horticultural products. Add to this the complexity of growers and there is an immediate communication problem with people talking about different products. As a wheat grower, wool grower and cattle producer I find it hard to keep my mind on all three sectors. Fortunately, the three members of my family corporation are fairly strong and are able to handle the different industries. Throughout Australia most horticultural associations and federations have rejected and opposed the legislation. The reasons for their opposition include concern over future funding of the administration, possible reduction of free enterprise within the industry and the loss of autonomy by the industry's administrators which is a very real threat when we consider that all appointments to the Corporation have to be approved by the responsible Minister. We were told tonight that everyone could appoint their own members, but what the Australian Democrats-Senator Powell in particular-did not tell us is that they have to be okayed by the Minister. That is a vast difference. There is also concern about the interests of the smaller industries, most of which will have no representations at either the Policy Council or Corporation level. Another area of concern relates to the collection of levies. There is little safeguard to protect the producer from ever increasing charges and levies. Many industries are marginal and could not sustain increasing charges. Once again, we are going to have free collectors. In the short time I have been in this House I have spoken in different debates along these lines. This Government is handing over the collection of levies, taxes and fees. There is provision in the proposed legislation, which no one has mentioned, for the issuing of warrants to search premises, and even to search premises without a warrant, but nowhere does there appear to be provision to reimburse the collector of these fees and charges that I have mentioned. One of the eight Bills provides for the repeal of the principal and amending Apple and Pear Corporation Act. This is the most humbuggery I have ever seen-sorry, I thought I had used the wrong word, but I have not been pulled up-- Senator Messner —We know what you mean. Senator PANIZZA —Right. Let no one fool us, as we have been fooled to date. The Apple and Pear Corporation is not going to disappear unless this Bill goes through. No sunset clause applies to the Apple and Pear Corporation. It will disappear only if this Bill goes through and if the Apple and Pear Corporation wants to join the Australian Horticultural Corporation. As I said, the Bill effectively dissolves the Apple and Pear Corporation. There has been some discussion about the Apple and Pear Corporation being able to withdraw from the Horticultural Corporation and possibly even getting a few assets back. But if it does decide to withdraw, will it have an Act to support its industry later? If it withdraws it will need another Act. However, it is one of the bodies that wants to join the Horticultural Corporation. I mentioned earlier that there is opposition to the proposed Horticultural Corporation. I have a few quotations of various industry bodies to read to the Senate. At the meeting of the National Vegetable and Potato Panel on 21 May it was resolved: This meeting rejects the Government's proposal for an Australian Horticultural Corporation. The Australian Vegetable Growers Federation `vigorously opposes' the creation of the Australian Horticultural Corporation. The fresh and processed vegetable industries in all States have resolved `to oppose totally' the Federal Minister's proposal. The potato industry in all States-which has not been mentioned by anyone yet except honourable senators on my side of the chamber-has resolved to oppose totally the current proposal. The Western Australian Vegetable Growers Association and the Western Australian Vegetable Council have rejected the proposal. My source is the Western Australian Grower, volume 26, No. 5, August 1987. The South Australia United Farmers and Stockowners have said: This organisation supports the contention that there is little perceived support for the Australian Horticultural Corporation by growers in South Australia. United Farmers and Stockowners believes that better export results may be achieved through private entrepreneurial skill. . . It could learn a lot from Western Australia in regard to private enterprise and the vegetable industry, which I will mention later. The organisation has stated: Export market opportunities would be better served by those organisations with specific marketing skills and which are market driven. My source is the `Response to Industries Assistance Commission draft report on Fresh Fruit and Fruit Products' of 4 November 1987-very recently. The Horticultural Export Development Council is concerned about a variety of aspects of the legislation. One concern relates to the minimal time allowed for the discussion of the Bills. Not only do we have all these Bills to discuss this evening but also Bills on the meat industry we belted through yesterday evening and today-an industry worth $3.6 billion. We will probably discuss the wheat industry Bills this evening as well, an industry worth $2.6 billion this year, although it has been worth more. I do not have a figure for the industry we are discussing now but I would say it would be worth from $1 billion to $2 billion. A quick addition brings the total to $6 billion, which we are discussing in one day. I am disappointed that the Government, as I have been told by my colleagues, generally leaves agricultural Bills to the last few days. Perhaps the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), hidden behind his newspaper, will take note of that. Another area of concern centres on the export trading powers and the export control powers. Clauses 10, 120 and 123 of the Bill give the Australian Horticultural Corporation very wide powers to engage in export and in all things necessary and/or convenient for export; to control and even to prohibit the export of horticultural products; to grant licences, permission, consent or approval for the export of products and to issue certificates for exported horticultural products. These clauses have the potential to restrict severely the system of free enterprise and competition. This possibility is in sharp contrast to the Industries Assistance Commission report on fresh fruit and fruit products, which recommends that, to ensure lower marketing costs, competition amongst exporters should be maintained. Other problems are associated with the proposed Corporation, such as the fact that the membership of the committees makes up the administration. All horticultural groups cannot be represented, so what voice do the unrepresented growers have? What provisions are there for the disposal of the residual money from any industry group that prefers to resign from the Corporation? Will it go back to that industry? Then there is the future funding of the Corporation. Will the horticultural industries be able to support such a large Corporation? What say will the horticultural industries have in the expansion of the Corporation? If they have to fund it, will they be able to prevent the Corporation from becoming financially draining on the horticultural industry? In this Bill is a provision-it is a carrot to sell the Bill to the industry-for $5m to $6m to go to the Corporation. What will happen at the end of the five-year period? Will the Government then withdraw quietly, steal away and let everyone else carry the cost? However, by then I am sure that there will be a different government. Let us consider the Horticultural Policy Council. Provision has been made to continue the existence of the Corporation, but what assurances are there that the Council, the body that the industry wants, will continue after the initial five years? Continuation and subsequent funding of the Council will be reviewed in the fifth year of operation. So the industry could well be left without the Horticultural Policy Council. The membership of the Corporation is voluntary, so any industry groups that do not wish to take part in the organisation do not need to do so. The concern of my side of politics about this matter has been put to the chamber this evening. I have been in industry organisations all of my working life. Many of them get to be controlled from the top and the members end up having very little say. Those at the top become self-perpetuating. As is the case with a few of the other industries we have discussed this week, those organisations get away from what growers want and end up doing what members of the hierarchy-who are the ones that deal with government, make their own arrangements and talk for the people they no longer represent-want to do. Unfortunately, voting for the top positions is not as well patronised as it should be. Vegetable and potato panels have been dismantled. Does this mean that they will have to join the Corporation to get Federal representation? There are many good points in the legislation, points that will improve many areas of the horticultural industry. However, there are also many points that are not acceptable to the industry, and that must be addressed before the legislation can be passed through this chamber. Amendments will be moved by Senator Durack. Their main thrust will be to limit the definition of the Horticultural Corporation so that, if this Bill goes through, in the beginning only the bodies that definitely want to join the Corporation will be admitted. Irrespective of what has been said by Senator Powell, the only industries that want to join the Horticultural Corporation are the apple and pear industry and the citrus fruit industry. If our amendment is supported by the Australian Democrats and goes through other industries could be admitted by regulation. That would not take very long once they have seen what is going on and have had time to consider it. Another purpose of the amendments is to cut the powers of the total control of exports. The export powers under the Bill are very wide reaching. Would they take over the present free enterprise exporters? Senator Boswell, I think, pointed out that Western Australia has a very strong private enterprise system exporting fruit and vegetables-vegetables, in particular. As he said, there is one family corporation, of five brothers, that exports to Singapore and the Persian Gulf countries. It is the single biggest exporter of vegetables in the Southern Hemisphere. Incidentally, one of the brothers is a Rhodes scholar, which shows that not all Rhodes scholars finish up in the Federal Parliament or as academics. I would like to know what will happen to this sort of export industry and the others that I am sure can be found in the rest of Australia. I do not have much more to add to the debate. I call on the Democrats again, as I did during the debate on the meat and livestock legislation this morning, not to turn their backs on the rural industries of Australia, as they did in regard to the meat legislation. They claim to represent agricultural industries also. I know that, in the semi-agricultural electorate of Brand in Western Australia, the Democrat candidate received a reasonable share of the vote. That was one of the reasons why Senator Jenkins was elected to the Senate. I am sorry that Senator Jenkins is not present at the moment. To hear the full story, the Democrat candidate even beat the National Party candidate past the post in that electorate. Senator Powell —That is right. We beat the Nationals. Senator PANIZZA —I admit that the Democrats beat the Nationals past the post in the electorate, and also in the Senate vote, because of the Party's failure to put up a top-class candidate. The horticultural industries are mainly found in the electorate of Brand. It will be a great letdown for many Democrat voters if the Democrats do not back us once again on that point. It will lead to Senator Jenkins's being defeated at the next election. I appeal to the Democrats' good sense to back the horticultural industry and to support our amendments, which will turn a tough piece of legislation into good legislation. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(6.08) —I express some severe reservations held by various branches of the horticultural industry in Western Australia about this package of Bills-the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill 1987, the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation Bill 1987, the Horticultural Policy Council Bill 1987, the Horticultural Levy Bill 1987, the Horticultural Levy Collection Bill 1987, the Horticultural Export Charge Bill 1987, the Horticultural Export Charge Collection Bill 1987 and the Australian Horticultural Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1987. The brevity of my remarks this evening should not be taken as an indication of my lack of concern about this package of Bills. Because of the sheer volume of legislation that we are trying to deal with this evening, I will try to be as concise as possible. I believe it is all too easy for governments to try to push through legislation of a specialised nature without allowing proper debate or providing sufficient time for those affected at the grass roots level to be able to evaluate the legislation through the publicity due but not able to be given to it. I am rather sad that, as a result, these Bills are being rammed through at the end of a session. I am saddened also by the light treatment that they received in the House of Representatives. The horticultural industries are of too great an importance and have too great a potential for the Senate to deal with these Bills in a cursory manner, most particularly in relation to the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill which is the chief object of contention. We are talking about an industry whose gross value to Australia was $1.7 billion in 1985-86. It has 35,000 producers and a further 61,000 direct employees. We are talking about a quite substantial industry. It is not just some little fly in the ointment that is causing a few problems. In the last financial year, Australian horticultural exports earned $550m in foreign exchange. Supplies to the domestic market would have drastically saved our national import bill. The Opposition agrees with the Government that greater support should be given to the export potential of horticultural industries. We disagree with the assumption that this is best achieved through legislating for a large bureaucratic organisation. The fragmented nature of horticulture makes it all the more important that we proceed with caution. The apple, pear and citrus growers, whose organisations would currently form the core of the proposed Australian Horticultural Corporation, comprise about 25 per cent of Australian horticulture. Moreover, producers in Western Australia have their own special requirements that need a direct input into national corporations. Their overriding anxiety is that they will find themselves unwilling members of corporations on which they are not represented, and which will tax them via levies while interfering with successful free enterprise initiatives. That is something which we must continue to fight all along the line. Even if this concern proves unfounded, the Senate should proceed with caution when legislating for a corporation that will not be directly controlled by the producers. Of course, the proposal is for only one producer to be on this Corporation. There is certainly room for doubt that a policy council with 15 members could adequately represent the full range of horticultural industries, with their State variations, and whether the six ordinary members of the nine member Corporation will be representative of producers when appointed by the Minister after nomination by a selection committee whose members, if nominated by industries, must again be subject to ministerial appointment. There is real concern whether the Corporation will be representative of industry. We should not treat that concern lightly. Those horticultural industries which fear loss of autonomy would point to the growth in the size of levies in the Australian Pork Corporation, from 10c a carcass in 1975 to the current figure of $1.30 a carcass. Of course, it is not so much a complaint about the cost and the amount that is levied, as against the principle of levies being determined by a seven-man board, with only one producer representative. I, therefore, appreciate the concern of the Australian Horticultural Growers Council, as expressed at its annual general meeting last month, that maximum rates of levy be determined for each industry that joins the proposed Corporation. It has been suggested that the average unit value of each product be determined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics when an industry negotiates entry to the Corporation. Not only have representatives of Western Australian horticultural industries expressed grave doubt whether our producers could be adequately represented on the new Corporation and its associated bodies; they are also fearful as to the assurances given by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) and his Department that membership of the Corporation will be voluntary. Such membership will not be truly voluntary when disincentives are given to those who wish to remain outside, so that they find themselves deprived of financial assistance and of the type of national representation that they have previously enjoyed. There is also the fear that, with 40 distinct industries represented by 120 different industry bodies, members of one separate section of an industry could find themselves effectively conscripted as levy paying members of the Corporation through the adherence of another section of the same industry that might then be deemed to represent them. This concern is particularly relevant in the floricultural industry which supplies a small but, nonetheless, growing proportion of horticultural exports. Of the $6m this industry earns in exports, the greater proportion is generated by entrepreneurs in Western Australia. This industry has no established national body, although the Floricultural Industry Council in Western Australia effectively represents growers and exporters in our State. There would be a danger that any State organisation could claim to be the national body. It is certain that an industry of this kind, comparatively small but with major export potential and unique character, will be far too small to secure direct representation on the new Corporation. It is to be hoped that the Minister will stand by the assurance he is reported to have given in Perth on 4 December that the industry should remain outside the Corporation but would be able to make use of its research and other facilities. The Opposition believes that the entry of other horticultural industries into the Corporation should require legislative amendment so that Parliament can ensure that no major sections of any such industry are forced against their will into membership of a body on which they will not be properly represented. To this end, we will move an amendment to the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill that initially restricts it to the apple, pear and citrus industries. If the Government is sincere in its claim that participation in the Corporation is voluntary, it will re-establish the national vegetable and potato panels should the vegetable and potato industries choose to remain outside the Corporation. Certainly, neither industry in Western Australia is anxious to be involved in a bureaucratic structure that will not confer any advantages upon it. The vegetable industry in our State, of its own resources, has made substantial progress, with Southern Processors Ltd marketing a record 3,000 tonnes of peas this year. This is a unique operation that had its own representation on the national vegetable panel but under the proposed arrangements it would have no input above that of purely a policy sub-committee. Whilst I have mentioned smaller and specialised horticultural industries whose interest could so easily be swamped within the Corporation, it should be remembered that the potato industry, not even represented on the present Australian Horticultural Growers Council, accounts for perhaps 40 per cent of the value of horticultural production. Potato growers in Western Australia see little value in this new structure. Whilst the industry has not been export oriented, this perspective is changing and progress is being made at a State level by a horticultural export council. We might therefore question the desirability of a major new national structure when initiatives at State level are already working effectively. National organisations should best evolve through the co-operation of State based councils and of industry bodies rather than being imposed from above. The question should also be asked as to what role the Corporation will take when such bodies as Austrade already have responsibility in the area of market intelligence. We need to ensure that we are not establishing a bureaucracy that will duplicate the functions of other agencies and private enterprise. One cannot help thinking that the problems associated with this legislation have distinct similarities with those of the legislation we debated earlier today in the meat and livestock Bills. The most general concern expressed as to this legislation in fact relates to the marketing powers that would be conferred on the Australian Horticultural Corporation. Powers that would include the possibility of the Corporation acquiring a crop and acting as sole seller can be only detrimental to individual initiative. This factor is very relevant to Western Australia, where local exporters have developed the entrepreneurial skills to penetrate the South East Asian market. The last thing that any such successful businessman needs is interference from a government corporation, jeopardising business confidentiality. For those reasons I most strongly support the amendments that the Opposition will propose to the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill that will restrict the marketing powers of the Corporation and its potential to interfere with private initiatives. I do not believe it is good enough for claims to be made that powers will be exercised with discretion; Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that the potential for abuse is not created in the first place. It would be irresponsible to pass this legislation unamended in the dying days of this session of Parliament. A great range of horticultural growers in Western Australia remain deeply concerned at the prospect of an imposed, expensive structure that they may be pressured to join but that may involve the age old iniquity of taxation without representation. There is no other way to describe rural marketing structures that impose levies when the key players, the producers, do not control them. The Minister should appreciate that the amendments to be moved by the Opposition are the minimal safeguards needed to prevent the Corporation from stifling private enterprise and to ensure that small, specialised industries are not conscripted to join it. By this stage I should have ceased being amazed that the Australian Democrats do not support such amendments and at their flippant attitude to this type of legislation. I would have hoped they would support the amendments because of their vital nature. The Government should lay aside the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill until a real consensus exists among producers, which we have not yet seen throughout this country. (Quorum formed) Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(6.22) —I thank all honourable senators for their contribution. There are some remarks that need to be made on the generality of the comments that have been made here today. I wish to make the following statement to the Senate on the proposed amendments to the Horticultural Bills being proposed by the Opposition. I will also refer to the issues raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in connection with this legislation. The apparent rationale for most of the amendments proposed by the Opposition is to safeguard Australia's horticultural industries against the Australian Horticultural Corporation (AHC) acting in a way that is inconsistent with the interests of those industries. The purposes of some other amendments are, quite frankly, not clear to the Government. There are strong safeguards in place for those horticultural industries that wish to join in the operations of the AHC. However, honourable senators should note that the proposed amendments, if accepted, would introduce serious constraints on the Corporation that would work against the best interests of those industries that wish to participate. It is worth reiterating at this juncture that participation in either or both of the corporations is fully voluntary. One group of amendments seeks to change the definition of horticultural products in three of the five Bills that contain this definition. The implications of these changes would be quite varied. In the case of the AHC Bill, the proposed amendments would mean that regulations would have to be made before any industry, or group within an industry, could participate in the AHC on a fee for service basis. This would mean that each time a group from within a non-levy paying industry wishes the Corporation to undertake an activity on its behalf it has to approach the Government concerning the drafting of subordinate legislation and then await finalisation of the regulation process. Within the Bills as they stand, industries or groups can benefit from participation on an ad hoc funding basis without having to go through this process. Such participants would be safeguarded by the application of standard contractual arrangements between them and the Corporation. On the other hand, the Bills currently require that regulations be made before an industry can participate in either corporation by way of levy or export charge. For example, regulations are required in order to set an operative rate of levy or export charge and for administration and accountability purposes. The Government therefore can see no benefit to industry deriving from the proposal and, indeed, the converse would be the case. As regulations are required in order to allow industries to participate in the AHC and the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation (HRDC) by way of levy or export charge, the proposed change to the definition of horticultural products in the Horticultural Levy Collection Bill and the Horticultural Export Charge Collection Bill would have no operational impact other than to introduce an inconsistency with the definitions contained in the HRDC and Horticultural Policy Council Bills. Another group of proposed amendments addresses the provisions in the AHC Bill relating to powers. First, the Opposition proposes to remove all powers from the AHC as currently intended to be vested with it by the enabling legislation. Instead, it proposes that regulations be made for each power which might be exercised by the AHC, including covering such routine matters as the authority to obtain and disseminate market intelligence and to collect and publish statistics. The Government believes that it is impractical and totally unreasonable to place such a constraint on the Corporation and the resultant burden on the parliamentary process. The proposal illustrates the mistrust of the Corporation held by some who appear not to understand the very real safeguards provided by, for example, the board selection, corporate planning and accountability requirements embodied in the legislation. The same comment applies to the amendments proposed in connection with the Corporation's trading and export control powers. These issues have been fully discussed by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) with many industry groups, including the Australian Horticultural Growers Council. As a consequence of these detailed discussions, the Minister made changes to the legislation and gave a number of undertakings during the debate on the Bills in the House of Representatives and these are documented in Hansard. The Council has expressed satisfaction with the outcome and the Australian Horticultural Exporters Association has expressly written to the Minister advising that it accepts the assurances on the use of trading powers. These undertakings given by the Minister, the existing safeguards in the legislation and the normal parliamentary disallowance provisions in regard to the regulation-making process, provide adequate safeguards for the industry. The proposed amendments, however, are not only unnecessary from the industry safeguard standpoint; they are highly undesirable in an operational context. For example, the proposal to remove general export control powers would make it necessary to implement an export licensing regime even for the most straightforward controls to be applied. This, of course, could entail greater industry costs. The Corporation would also be unreasonably constrained both over the controls that could be applied and in terms of enforcement of the controls it did apply. It would, for example, have no control over packaging and labelling. Also, with the higher penalties for any contravention of licence conditions being removed, the effectiveness of any export controls applied would be jeopardised. The proposed amendments to clauses 8 and 9 of the levy and export charge Bills would seem to aim at making it clear that the levies and export charges described are only for the purposes of the AHC and the HRDC. Whilst the Government takes no issue with this intention, it cannot agree that these amendments are necessary. How and why the levies and export charges are to be raised are clearly defined in the Bills. The provision for levies and export charges for `other purposes', which the amendments propose to delete, is to provide industries with a means of generating funds for specific purposes should they decide that this is desirable. The Government believes that it is important to retain this provision and points out that a regulation would need to be made in order to implement such a levy or export charge. Finally, the amendments propose that producer representation on the Horticultural Policy Council be increased from five out of 15 to seven out of 17. There is clearly a need for the Policy Council to be kept to a size that will enable it to be effective. A council that is too big will become unwieldy and this would not be in anyone's interest. On the other hand, it is important that the Council reflect an appropriate balance of interests. The Government believes that the balance of the Council as currently proposed in the legislation is appropriate. However, I can assure honourable senators that the Minister is prepared to carefully consider any well reasoned proposal for change and, if appropriate, make change. The legislation as it stands provides the flexibility to vary the size and composition of the Policy Council should this be needed. Therefore, an amendment to the legislation to accommodate increased grower representation is not necessary. I could make some comments about the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I have some very informed comments here, but I will desist from that to enable the Bills to pass before the suspension of the sitting for dinner. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. The Bills. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —Order! Is it the wish of the Committee that these Bills be taken as a whole? There being-- Senator Chapman-I wish to speak to clause 1, Mr Temporary Chairman. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —You wish to speak to clause 1 of the first Bill? Senator Chapman-Yes. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —You could speak to clause 1 if they are taken as a whole. I will ask again. Is it the wish of the Committee that these Bills be taken as a whole? There being no objection, it is so ordered. The question therefore is: That these Bills stand as printed. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(8.01) —We have been debating the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill, the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation Bill, the Horticultural Policy Council Bill, the Horticultural Levy Bill, the Horticultural Levy Collection Bill, the Horticultural Export Charge Bill, the Horticultural Export Charge Collection Bill and the Australian Horticultural Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill. I am speaking to clause 1 of the first of these Bills which are of particular interest to me, firstly because I spent some of my formative years living on a family property right in the centre of an area of the Adelaide Hills which was renowned for its apple and pear production. More importantly, my interest is based on the significance of horticulture to South Australia as a whole. Horticulture is the fourth largest primary production segment of total agricultural production in Australia. But in South Australia, together with wine production, it ranks second only to cereal crops. Australia wide, the gross value of fruit and vegetables in 1985-86 was $1.7 billion. There are about 35,000 producers of fruit and vegetables in Australia, with total employment in this sector being 61,000, according to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAE). Given the BAE estimate of 3 : 1 off-farm to on-farm employment ratio, some 200,000 Australians earn their income through fruit and vegetable industries. But with our current balance of payments difficulties, the export earnings and future export potential of this sector is perhaps its greatest present significance. Mr Kenneth Blashki, Executive Director of Jet-Pak International Pty Ltd, which is one of the most successful fresh vegetable exporters in Australia- Senator Walsh —Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. Senator Chapman had the quorum bells rung when he was supposed to deliver his second reading stage speech and he was not here. He did not turn up by the time the quorum was formed and he missed the opportunity to deliver his speech for the second reading stage. He is quite clearly trying to deliver that speech now at the committee stage, quite clearly abusing the Standing Orders, and I believe he should be asked to identify the clause of the Bill to which he is addressing his remarks. Senator Stone —He is speaking to clause 1. He said so at the beginning. Senator Walsh —So Senator Stone approves of some yobbo, who does not come in here to answer the quorum bell, being allowed to deliver a second reading stage speech at the committee stage. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Walsh, you will withdraw that unparliamentary remark. Senator Walsh —Some senator, then, who does not answer the quorum bell and misses the opportunity to deliver his second reading stage speech and then comes in here and abuses the Standing Orders to deliver it during the committee stage. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —My ruling is as follows: Senator Chapman indicated earlier that he was speaking to clause 1 of the Bill. He is being relevant to the Bill at the moment and therefore he is in order. Senator CHAPMAN —Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman. As you ruled, I am being relevant to clause 1 of the Bill, and the Minister ought to be aware of that. As I was saying before he sought to interrupt my remarks, if we accept the BAE estimate of a 3 : 1 off-farm to on-farm employment ratio, some 200,000 Australians earn their income through fruit and vegetable production. But the most important aspect of these industries currently is their present and potential contribution to ameliorating our balance of payments difficulties. I was referring to the remarks of Mr Kenneth Blashki, who is the executive director of one of the most successful fresh vegetable exporters in Australia, having won many export awards. He told the National Agricultural Outlook Conference at the beginning of this year that: The potential for Australian horticultural exports is indescribably large. General export earnings from horticulture were some $550m in 1986-87. But the real export potential is demonstrated by the growth in export income of fruit and vegetables in real terms-that is, after allowing for the effects of inflation-between 1981-82 and 1985-86. For, while in real terms the value of fruit and vegetable production across Australia for that period remained virtually unchanged, the real value of exports increased by more than 31 per cent. Exports have been of great significance to my own State of South Australia. In 1981-82 some 13.4 per cent of the value of South Australia's fruit and vegetable production was exported. By 1985-86 that had grown to more than 23 per cent of the State's production, which was the same proportion as for Australia as a whole. In turn, the proportion of total Australian production which was being exported had grown from 18 per cent in 1981-82 to 23 per cent. Given the importance of fast freight to the successful export of these products, undoubtedly the initiative of the former Fraser coalition Government and the Tonkin Liberal State Government in South Australia in establishing an international airport in Adelaide in 1982 has been a major factor contributing to the much more rapid growth in exports from South Australia in recent years compared with Australia as a whole. It should be noted that South Australia now has about 13 per cent of Australia's total fruit and vegetable production and 13 per cent of Australian exports for this sector, which is significantly above my State's share of both gross national product and population. This serves to re-inforce the importance of this sector to South Australia. South Australia is renowned for the quality of its horticultural products. This is due to a combination of climatic factors, good soils and excellent farm practices. Of course, horticultural products, along with South Australian wines, are now recognised as among the world's best. South Australia is therefore in a good position to lead the way in further developing the export potential of these products because quality is the key to Australia's ability to expand exports. One factor inhibiting export potential is the wide diversity of segments of which the industry consists. There are some 170 different horticultural, viticultural and nursery products in Australia, split between about 40 different segments and represented by about 120 organisations at regional, State and national levels. So wide diversity is evident in both products and personalities which make up this industry. To maximise production, and particularly export potential, there is need for greater co-ordination of these diverse elements. It is the Government's claim that the legislation before us will provide that co-ordination. The Government's goal is to rationalise industry organisations and optimise research and development expenditure for the industry through the three operative parts of this legislation-the creation of the Australian Horticultural Corporation, the Horticultural Policy Council and the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation. The Australian Horticultural Corporation will replace the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation and operate as a statutory marketing authority seeking to extend its role across the whole of the horticultural sector. A number of other industry panels, such as the national potato panel and the national vegetable panel, will be disbanded. The Horticultural Policy Council will bring together representatives of the sector into a single body with the capacity to present to the Government a total sectoral perspective on policy issues. The aim of establishing the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation is to increase investment by the horticultural sector in research and development. To assist in the establishment of these organisations, the Government has committed $9m over five years to supplement the main source of funds, which will be levies on producers. Allocation of those funds will be-- Senator McKiernan —Mr Temporary Chairman, I take a point of order. Senator Knowles —Oh, come on! Do you want a rough night? Senator McKiernan —I think we are all having a rough night, Senator. We really are at this time of night, at 10 past eight-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —If you want to make a point of order, please make it. Senator McKiernan —I apologise, Mr Temporary Chairman. I think Senator Chapman is now addressing not only clause 1 of the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill 1987, but all of the Bills that are being debated cognately. Clearly, in line with the point of order that Senator Walsh took earlier, Senator Chapman is now attempting to make the prepared speech that he failed to deliver during the second reading debate because he was not in the chamber at the appropriate time after a quorum was formed. He is talking to a number of other Bills that are being debated cognately, not clause 1 of the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I understand the point that the honourable senator is raising. I think he has made his point. But Senator Chapman is in order in the way he is speaking at the moment. Senator CHAPMAN —Thank you for your positive ruling, Mr Temporary Chairman. As I was saying before that interruption, clause 1 of this Bill relates to the Australian Horticultural Corporation and the Government has allocated some $5.85m over five years for the establishment and operation of that body. It has similarly provided funds for the other two organisations to start their operations. This legislation will not provide a panacea for the industry. There are many other initiatives required. Better quality control of produce destined for export markets is essential. Most produce leaves Australia in good condition but incorrect post-harvest treatment, inadequate packaging, transport delays or faulty transit refrigeration cause substantial deterioration before the products reach overseas consumers. This affects returns and reputation which in turn affect the prices which our produce can command. Several reports have highlighted the poor state in which Australian horticultural produce reaches overseas markets. Rough wharf handling is another factor contributing to this problem, quite apart from the delaying effects of waterfront industrial disputation. There is a great need for investment in new, controlled atmospheric containers to replace those which are old and unreliable. Speedy transport is a major requirement and our sea and air shipment facilities must be upgraded to achieve this. Innovation and new product development is required to meet the competition in the international market place. Even greater effort is required of this Government to develop freer agricultural trade throughout the world. Senator Watson —Hear, hear! Senator CHAPMAN —I appreciate the support of Senator Watson in regard to that comment. These industries are important to Tasmania, as well as to South Australia. Resources must be devoted to ensuring that consumers in countries which are either subsidising produce or maintaining barriers to importation are aware of the costs to them, thereby generating domestic political pressure for reform towards much freer trade. This sort of initiative would be much more effective than the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, crying foul as he has done in Japan in recent days. Marketing expertise must also be applied to tap new markets, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. Our performance in this sphere is disappointing compared with some other Southern Hemisphere countries. No longer can we afford to miss out. One measure of the effectiveness of this legislation will be our future penetration of new markets. The long absence of plant varietal rights (PVR) legislation has been a major hindrance to the development of the export potential of our horticultural industry. At last we have legislation for PVR, but its practical implementation is still proceeding much too slowly. This requires government attention. Similarly, the more widespread acceptance of waxing of apples has been achieved with agreement between the Australian Agricultural Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council for legislation to be introduced. Again, this initiative which is much needed by exporters has been excessively delayed. Market tests have proven that lustre red apples far outsell their unwaxed counterparts. Existing waxes are derived from natural sources and are considered harmless. A balanced view is also required on the application of irradiation in the horticultural industry to enhance the shelf life of produce. Today, more than 25 countries accept food irradiation as a safe process and use it for treating everything from apples to shrimp. A pallet carrying two and a half thousand pounds of apples can be irradiated in about half a minute, disinfesting it of any insects or larvae. There is still work to be done in convincing the public about the benefits of the process. With the public tending to lump all radiation together, there is need for solid education. It is absolutely impossible for irradiated food to become radioactive. The possibility that gamma rays will cause harmful undetectable chemical changes within food is also raised in opposition. But heat treatments used in canning vegetables and frying everyday foods create far more changes than the irradiation process. Similarly, the third concern-that irradiation will change the nutritional quality of the food-is also unfounded. Irradiation has been found to destroy less of the nutrient value of fruits and vegetables than traditional preservation techniques. In summary, while this legislation offers some capacity to enhance the export potential of our horticultural produce, many other initiatives that are not dependent on this legislation are required to realise that potential. Furthermore, the legislation has shortcomings which will be the subject of amendments to be moved shortly. Along with my Opposition colleagues I will be monitoring closely the performance of the organisations being established by this legislation. We shall adopt an appropriate approach to the legislation as the committee stage proceeds. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HILL(South Australia)(8.16) —I also wish to address clause 1 of the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill and the spirit of the amendments that the opposition intends to move to these Bills, because they underline real concerns on this side of the chamber as to the effectiveness and, in some ways, the purpose of this particular piece of legislation. My credentials have been established by my sponsorship, a couple of years ago, of the Horticultural Plant Variety Rights Bill and its effect in finally spurring the Government into action in that regard, because that legislation was a constructive and positive way in which the Opposition-- Senator Watson —Took some years to get it through. Senator HILL —It took several years to get it through because this is a tardy Government. That was a positive way in which this Parliament, through its actions, could contribute to a more prosperous horticultural industry and to the enormous export potential that the industry holds. I am pleased that the processes are now taking place to put the plant variety rights scheme into place. I am pleased to have noted that the Act was promulgated in May, that the membership of the advisory committee was announced on 21 September and that it is now setting up its functions. I have noted also that the committee has been seeking public comments on a broad range of five plant genera for inclusion under the Act. It is under way, and I am confident that the legislation and the scheme which it operates will be a positive way to contribute to the future health of this particular industry. There is a positive contribution. We must look at this Bill to see whether, in a like way, it will contribute to the strength and potential of this industry. There is no doubt, as my colleague Senator Chapman has said, that horticulture is a vitally important industry to Australia, and it does have enormous potential. One need only reflect on the number of people who are employed within the industry. It is believed by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics that some 61,000 people are directly employed within the industry in this country, and the indirect employment figure comes out at something like 200,000. It is not surprising that there are so many senators on this side of the chamber concerned about the Bill, because it vitally affects so many within our community. Let us look briefly at the improvement in export performance over the last few years. In 1985-86, production in the horticultural sector was valued at some $2 billion, with exports of $410m. In the previous year, exports were only $288m, so we saw a substantive improvement. In the year 1986-87, exports again increased, up to $601m. Here is one industry in which exports are increasing rapidly and an industry which can clearly play a constructive role in overcoming our balance of trade problems. To that background of the important place that the industry has within our community, let me, for a few moments, look at the Bills. Three separate bodies are to be set up by the Bills before us. The first is the Australian Horticultural Corporation, which will principally have a marketing function. Secondly, the legislation proposes to establish the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation which, as its name implies, will principally have a research and development responsibility. Thirdly, the legislation proposes to establish the Horticultural Policy Council which is concerned with the formulation of industry policy. Anyone who knows anything about the horticultural industry will wonder what value can be achieved from the establishment of a policy formulation body covering the whole of such an enormously diverse industry. When one looks at all the industries involved, from industries producing fruits through to those producing vegetables, nuts, nursery products and cut flowers, one sees that obviously a great number of very different industries are involved. Therefore, is it possible to develop a horticultural-wide policy treating the area as one industry? I would have thought that that would be very doubtful. If it is doubtful, what is the purpose of setting up that industry-wide policy group? What is the purpose of this Government committing $1.9m to that policy group over the next five years? Would it not have been better if that nearly $2m had been put into the very many industry groups that already exist within this field? I remind the Senate that already there are some 120 organisations at the regional, State and Federal levels concerned with the diverse parts of the horticultural industry. Would it not have been better to put the money into those already established groups rather than attempt to set up a corporate body whose function will be almost impossible to achieve? In many ways the same sort of argument applies to the second body proposed to be set up, the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation. The Government is to put in $1.25m over five years. However, which part of the industry will benefit from that money? One would expect that it will be the already strong part of the industry-the citrus, apple and pear sections; in fact, that part of the industry which welcomes the legislation. What of the other vitally important, small parts of the industry that will probably need research assistance more than the stronger parts because they have not got the established wealth to fund their own research? One can only suspect that if the Government is to fund horticulture as a whole the money will not go to the small but vitally important new expanding areas such as the cut flower industry, with quite considerable export potential, but will go back into the already strong and well funded areas. Whilst I am always very reluctant to knock any contribution to research, again I would have thought it would better if this money were put into existing industry bodies. That brings us to the third function-the really basic function of the structure proposed to be set up by the Bills. I refer to the marketing function of the Australian Horticultural Corporation. Again if we look at the industry as it exists at the moment we see a myriad of individual exporters. As I said, we see many industry groups and State marketing bodies. We look at the function of Austrade. In other words, if we look at both the private level and the government level we see many bodies that are already concerned and have a responsibility in relation to marketing and export of horticultural products. Again, one has to ask: what will this body achieve that cannot be achieved already by the export and marketing bodies in existence? We have been told in the second reading speech of the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) and by those who support the legislation that, in some ways, it will complement those already existing bodies and that it will offer economies of scale that will enable costs to be reduced. However, when one examines that in depth, one is forced to ask how a body such as the Australian Horticultural Corporation can produce economies of scale with an industry that is concerned on the one hand with the export of things such as nuts, and, on the other hand, the export of things such as citrus. Surely the economies of scale for each industry are entirely different. How will the small parts, the new and the rapidly developing parts, benefit from these economies of scale? When one examines that one finds that the claim simply does not stand up to critical examination. In this instance we have $5.85m of public money going into the new Corporation for such a purpose. I say again, would it not have been better if that inducement money, seed money or whatever honourable senators would like to call it, had been put into the existing marketing organisations? I am sure they would have welcomed that extra funding. What if they had simply put it into Austrade, which is the principal body the Government is funding with this responsibility? We hear on the one hand the Government talking of putting $5.8m of public money into this new corporation, and yet on the other hand, if we look at Austrade, we find that it is not receiving the support that it should from this Government. I remind honourable senators that in relation to this particular industry Austrade has already dealt with product specific marketing authorities. It recognises the competition for our exporters and the strength of that competition, and whereas the market opportunities are exciting, the competition is also vigorous. Austrade has recognised the potential for horticultural exports, as it has shown in its October 1986 report titled Export Development Strategy for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables. So there we have an established marketing body and with the correct function and it is already working on the particular challenge, yet when we look at how this Government has treated Austrade we find that the increase in the financial allocation for that body in the last Budget did not even keep pace with inflation. In fact, the increase was only some 4.3 per cent or, in other words, in real terms a cut of 2.7 per cent. In these Bills we find the Government putting almost $6m into a new body to suit its corporatist image, yet at the same time it is not properly funding the existing body, Austrade. If we look at Austrade in greater detail we find that the area which is being cut down by this shortage in funding is its marketing operations. In fact its staffing level in that area in 1987-88 is dropping from 1,276 to 849. I suggest that it simply does not make sense to put public money into a new body with a doubtful function while a perfectly good body exists which is not being properly used. That does not indicate the good faith of this Government in any way. Having said that, I further submit that apart from putting adequate funds into existing marketing bodies, if this Government concentrated more on getting its microeconomic factors in place, the grower would in fact gain a real benefit. Rather than setting up this new edifice, if the Government would put more resources into getting the basic economy right, by getting growers' interest rates down, by getting inflation down and correcting other conditions under which they have to operate, such as the cost of their fuel and fertilisers, if it could get the wage rates that they have to pay in some sort of competitive order with those overseas, if it concentrated its efforts on resolving the industrial disputes that have had a devastating effect on perishable goods exports and if it concentrated on the problems and expenses of Australian shipping and matters of that nature, it would be making a very real and worthwhile contribution to the growers, to the horticultural industry as a whole and to the export capacity of that industry. If it did all that, that would be in the best interests not only of the industry but of Australia as a whole. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(8.29) —I would like to speak to clause 7 (1) of the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill, and to refer particularly to the principal object of the Australian Horticultural Corporation (AHC), which is: . . . to assist Australian horticultural industries to achieve their full potential in overseas markets. Sub-clause (3) goes further and adds: It is the intention of the Parliament that the principal object of the . . . Corporation should be achieved through the Corporation acting, to the greatest extent practicable: In co-operation with all segments of Australian horticultural industries . . . It is fortuitous that the draftsman inserted the words `to the greatest extent practicable'. It is quite clear that the majority of horticultural industries do not support the establishment of the Australian Horticultural Corporation, or have grave concerns concerning its intended operations. It is certainly the case in Western Australia that most, if not all, producers and exporters are opposed to the setting up of the Corporation. They simply do not believe that the setting up of the AHC will be an effective and cost efficient response to the problems of export co-ordination and development within the industry. The horticultural industry is not a homogeneous industry. It comprises about 65 quite diverse and individual crops. The term `horticultural products' is defined in the legislation to mean fruits, vegetables, nuts, nursery products and flowers. This gives an indication of the extent of the diversity of the commodities under the umbrella of horticulture. Of all the organisations which represent these diverse crops only two, to my knowledge, have expressed their intention to participate in the AHC-that is, the apple and pear growers and the citrus growers organisations. Apart from these two industry organisations, and, even within those two participating bodies, there is no doubt that there exists an overwhelming opposition to the establishment of the Australian Horticultural Corporation. This is the conclusion that was reached by the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) in its draft report on fresh fruit and fruit products, wherein it stated: In general . . . the Commission found that during its industry discussions and through submissions to this inquiry that support for the AHC concept from the fruit products sector of the horticultural industry was either non-existent or highly qualified. Many could see only a limited role for the Corporation and few benefits. The lack of support seemed to be based on a concern that it was unclear what the AHC would do, or in the belief that the proposed roles of the AHC are adequately catered for by private arrangements, existing organisations (such as DPIE, Austrade and the State HEDC's), and by specialist exporters. Put simply, the Australian horticultural groups do not believe that the proposed AHC will be able to achieve its objectives or fulfil its functions of export development and promotion any better or any cheaper than the State horticultural export development councils and the voluntary organisations currently servicing the industries. That is not to say that some policy co-ordination for the future growth and direction of Australia's horticultural industries is quite unnecessary. For the last eight years the horticultural industries, through the Australian Horticultural Growers Council (AHGC), the growers' national representative body, have lobbied successive governments to establish a policy council to spell out realistic policies and objectives for the future growth of the sector. Indeed, it is high time that we recognised the importance of Australia's horticultural industries, which collectively are worth $2 billion. It is clear that our horticultural industries must be assisted to develop and expand further. However, the responsibility for the development of the plans and guidelines which will assist the future growth and expansion of the horticultural sector lies with the proposed Horticultural Policy Council. As far as I am aware, all horticultural groups support the setting up of such a council. As I have just mentioned, the Australian Horticultural Growers Council played an important part in the discussions and negotiations which took place to determine the role that the Council was subsequently to play. In a letter to the Department of Primary Industry, as it then was, dated November 1984, the AHGC stressed: Only general policy areas would need to be considered with a view to the overall development and expansion of the horticultural industry and the provision of advice to government of industry issues. On the other hand, the AHGC and the growers it represents know that what is being proposed by the AHC can already be done by State horticultural export development councils and Austrade and under the private voluntary export arrangements set up by individual commodity groups which seek to develop and expand new export markets. These existing organisations and schemes already offer marketing services and will assist in promotion and export development. The setting up of the AHC will amount to an unnecessary duplication of these functions. Of particular concern to Western Australian producers and exporters are the powers to be given to the Corporation to engage in export trading, as a result of clause 10, and to impose export controls, as a result of clauses 120 and 123. It is to these clauses that I turn. The Industries Assistance Commission echoes the industry's concern in relation to these clauses, and in its draft report it states. The Commission can see a number of practical reasons as well as good economic reasons which suggest that there are likely to be few benefits from having an organisation to cover the heterogeneous horticultural industries. Nevertheless, if the AHC is to be established then, in the Commission's view, its role should be limited to a few clearly defined areas. For example, the Commission agrees with the views that the AHC should not be involved in trading . . . Of course, that is quite contrary to the purpose of the clauses contained in the legislation. From a Western Australian perspective, it is clear that its horticultural industries are export oriented. The reason for this is Western Australia's geographic proximity to the lucrative, but highly competitive, South East Asian market. Western Australia is Australia's major fresh vegetable exporter. For example, the West provides over 93 per cent of all carrots and 60 per cent of all cauliflowers imported by Singapore from Australia. Vegetable exports from Western Australia have increased in a quite spectacular way over the past 10 years, from just over 12,000 tonnes in 1977 to almost 43,000 tonnes in 1986-87-a yearly increase of 15 per cent. The best performance has been in carrots, exports of which have risen by 25 per cent per annum over the last 10 years to almost 16,000 tonnes, and cauliflower exports have increased by 18 per cent per annum over the same period. The reason for this strong export growth is simply the hard work of private exporters such as Jack Sumich, for one, and more recently the successful co-ordinating activities of the State Horticultural Export Development Council. Much has been said by the Government, and Mr Kerin in particular, about how the AHC will contribute to the exploitation by the horticultural industries of their huge export potential. For my part, this is absolute rot. Western Australian exporters know what it takes to crack the South East Asian market. They have worked long and tirelessly to establish and maintain their contacts in Singapore, Hong Kong and other South East Asian centres. They have done it without recourse to, or the assistance of, the Federal Government, and without its intervention. Certainly Austrade has been available when needed to provide its export facilitation services. However, the growth in horticultural exports from Western Australia has come off the backs of hardworking exporters. For example, in 1980 the Sumich export group developed a market for Chinese cabbages. Since that time exports to Hong Kong and other regional markets have increased from just over nothing to over 4,000 tonnes in the last financial year. Fruit exports from Western Australia have not achieved growth to the same extent as vegetables and have increased by over 2,000 tonnes over the last 10 years-I might add, not an insignificant contribution. A notable exception to the depressed fruit export market is stone fruits, which have been particularly targeted by Western Australian exporters. For example, peach exports have increased from less than four tonnes in 1977 to over 450 tonnes in 1986-87, while plum exports have risen from 850 tonnes to over 2,300 tonnes in the same period. The biggest disappointment, however, has been in apple exports and there is a very good reason for that. The Australian Apple and Pear Corporation places the blame for the deterioration of the export market on the United Kingdom's entry into the European Economic Community. Yet over the same period that Australia's total exports of apples and pears declined-from a peak of over 53,000 tonnes in 1981 to 29,000 tonnes in 1985, with a record low of slightly less than 16,000 tonnes in 1984-New Zealand's exports increased. The reason for the dichotomy can be quite simply explained by the fact that the New Zealand apple and pear marketing boards do not simply sit on their hands. They become much more aggressive and competitive. They have developed a number of new varieties of red apple, such as the gala and the raw gala, which have been extensively promoted and marketed in European countries and, in particular, in the USA. Furthermore, each grower in New Zealand is provided with information which indicates the potential and the return for each fruit variety, therefore ensuring the promotion of the correct fruit and the varieties in most demand. The Western Australian apple industry has simply had enough. Growers and exporters, with the assistance of the State Export Development Council, have chosen to take matters into their own hands. They are trying to win back that traditional market which has been lost to them. That is being done by way of arrangements which involve marketing a larger and greener granny smith apple through Sainsburys food chain in England. They are packaging to their customers' standards to ensure that this higher quality apple reaches the market in pristine condition. This is what private enterprise and initiative are all about-identifying what customers want and ensuring that they get it. Certainly, this is done not through the use of export trading powers or by unwieldy government bureaucrats, but simply by hard work. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin, also suggested in clause 9 that the AHC, through the use of its powers under that clause, should take a role in negotiating contracts. These contracts will include matters such as shipping of horticultural products. It is argued by the Government that in the absence of the Corporation's joint action in the negotiation of freight rates, exporters will be bargaining from a decidedly weaker position. Consequently-so the logic goes-they will not achieve the best results. I find it difficult to understand how the Corporation will be any stronger in its position to force lower freight rates than the voluntary organisations already servicing the horticultural industries. In Western Australia, for example, industry is served by Western Australian Fruit Shippers, a committee of growers, and the Western Australian Vegetable Exporters Association. These organisations collectively represent all exporters of apples and pears, stoned fruit and vegetables from Western Australia. Of course, it will surprise nobody-except perhaps the Government-that these export associations, in full consultation with the growers, have successfully negotiated rates of freight to Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong for many years. The State Export Council has also provided successful information in assisting industries in these areas. The Council was set up over a year ago with two main objectives. These were to identify both export impediments and export opportunities. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.45) —by leave-I move: AUSTRALIAN HORTICULTURAL CORPORATION BILL 1987 (1) Page 3, subclause 3 (1), leave out the definition of ``horticultural products'', insert the following definition: `` `horticultural products' means: (a) apples and pears; (b) citrus fruits; and (c) products in a class of products (whether or not similar in nature to the products referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b)) prescribed for the purposes of this Act; but does not include products in a class of products that are declared by the regulations not to be horticultural products for the purposes of this Act;''. (2) Pages 2 to 4, subclause 3 (1), leave out the definitions of ``cut flowers and foliage'', ``nursery products'', ``nuts'' and ``vegetables''. (3) Page 7, clause 9, leave out all words before paragraph (a), insert: ``The regulations may make provision for empowering the Corporation to do things necessary or convenient to be done for, or in connection with, the performance of its functions, and to''. (4) Page 7, leave out clause 10, insert the following clause: ``10. Without limiting the generality of subsection 9 (1), the regulations may empower the Corporation, subject to conditions and restrictions specified in the regulations: (a) to engage in the export of Australian horticultural products; (b) to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for, or in connection with, the export of Australian horticultural products; (c) to buy and sell horticultural products for export; (d) to enter into contracts for the carriage of horticultural products to be exported from Australia (including the carriage of such products within Australia); (e) to enter into insurance contracts in relation to the export of horticultural products; and (f) to enter into and deal with currency futures contracts, interest rate futures contracts, and horticultural products futures contracts, at futures markets for hedging purposes in relation to the export of horticultural products.''. (5) Pages 44 to 46, leave out Part V, insert the following Part: ``PART V-EXPORT LICENCES ``Licensing of exporters ``116. (1) The regulations may make provision for or in relation to empowering the Corporation: (a) to prohibit the export of horticultural products except by licensed exporters; (b) to issue and revoke licences to export horticultural products; and (c) to have regard to criteria relating to the following matters in issuing and revoking licences: (i) the fitness of persons to be exporters of horticultural products; (ii) the quality of horticultural products for export; (iii) the maintenance of effective competition between exporters in acquiring output from producers; (iv) the coordination of export strategies; and (v) the ability of exporters to deal on favourable terms with large overseas buyers. ``(2) Any powers conferred on the Corporation under subsection (1) to issue and revoke export licences shall not be used for the purposes of restricting effective competition between exporters or preventing new exporters from entering the export market.''. HORTICULTURAL POLICY COUNCIL BILL 1987 Page 4, paragraph 9 (1) (b), leave out ``5'', insert ``7''. HORTICULTURAL LEVY BILL 1987 That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments: (1) Page 2, clause 8, at the end of the clause, add the following subclause: ``(2) A rate of levy shall be fixed for the purposes of this section only in relation to a class of products that are horticultural products for the purposes of the Australian Horticultural Corporation Act 1987.''. (2) Page 2, clause 9, at the end of the clause, add the following subclause: ``(2) A rate of levy shall be fixed for the purposes of this section only in relation to a class of products that are horticultural products for the purposes of the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation Act 1987.''. (3) Page 2, clause 10, leave out the clause. HORTICULTURAL LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1987 (1) Page 2, subclause 3 (1), leave out the definition of ``horticultural products'', insert the following definition: `` `horticultural products' means: (a) apples and pears; (b) citrus fruits; and (c) products in a class of products (whether or not similar in nature to the products referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b)) prescribed for the purposes of this Act; but does not include products in a class of products that are declared by the regulations not to be horticultural products for the purposes of this Act;''. (2) Pages 2 to 3, subclause 3 (1), leave out the definitions of ``cut flowers and foliage'', ``nursery products'', ``nuts'' and ``vegetables''. HORTICULTURAL EXPORT CHARGE BILL 1987 That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments: (1) Page 2, clause 8, at the end of the clause, add the following subclause: ``(2) A rate of charge shall be fixed for the purposes of this section only in relation to a class of products that are horticultural products for the purposes of the Australian Horticultural Corporation Act 1987.''. (2) Page 2, clause 9, at the end of the clause, add the following subclause: ``(2) A rate of charge shall be fixed for the purposes of this section only in relation to a class of products that are horticultural products for the purposes of the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation Act 1987.''. (3) Page 2, clause 10, leave out the clause. HORTICULTURAL EXPORT CHARGE COLLECTION BILL 1987 (1) Page 2, subclause 3 (1), leave out the definition of ``horticultural products'', insert the following definition: `` `horticultural products' means: (a) apples and pears; (b) citrus fruits; and (c) products in a class of products (whether or not similar in nature to the products referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b)) prescribed for the purposes of this Act; but does not include products in a class of products that are declared by the regulations not to be horticultural products for the purposes of this Act;''. (2) Pages 2 to 3, subclause 3 (1), leave out the definitions of ``cut flowers and foliage'', ``nursery products'', ``nuts'' and ``vegetables''. Senator DURACK —The debate which took place on the second reading and has continued in the committee stage of this package of Bills has revealed a number of problems perceived by the Opposition. In particular, Senator Archer was the first to make clear that the horticultural industries in Australia are very diverse and are represented by numerous bodies. A great variety of products are involved, with varying degrees of industry organisation representing them. On the one hand there are the very well established and traditional horticultural industries such as the apple and pear industry and the citrus industry; whereas on the other hand most of the rest of the horticultural industries of Australia are characterised by new techniques, new products and new marketing developments and, as a result of private enterprise and initiative, are building up their export performance very rapidly. The object of these amendments is threefold: firstly, to give flexibility to people in the horticultural industries to join this scheme and also to keep parliamentary control over the joining of the scheme by industries other than by the traditional industries such as apples, pears and citrus fruits. The reason is that although there are indirect methods by which Parliament can keep some control over the application of this package, nevertheless it is not really effective. The only effective way of doing it is to restrict the definition of horticultural products in the key Bills, such as the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill and the levy and collection Bills. Some people in the industry are perhaps interested in the research and development aspects of it and, no doubt, would accept the burden of the levy if they wanted to do that but they are very chary and suspicious of what the Australian Horticultural Corporation (AHC) entails, particularly of the wide export trading powers and export control powers contained in that particular Bill. The second object of the Opposition's amendments is to try to restrict their application considerably without removing these marketing powers. If that were the case more people in the industry would be interested in participating in the Corporation as well as in the research and development side. The third purpose of these amendments is to make an amendment to the Horticultural Policy Council Bill. I think it is fair to say that this is supported by most people in this industry. They are concerned about the abolition of some existing panels. The Horticultural Policy Council is a way of replacing that access to government, which is important. The Policy Council Bill can stand on its own. The Government is funding it, in the first instance, for a trial period. As it is very much a trial period for so many people, they are happy about that. However, the industry feels that it should have a better representation than five out of fifteen members on the Council. The Opposition agrees with that and we are moving these amendments to increase the growers representation on the Council from five to seven members. When one bears in mind this diversity of horticultural industries and the people engaged in it, it would be very difficult to fit in an adequate representation from so many groups and people. The increase from five to seven members seems to be a very modest increase in order to do that job properly. Two out of the fifteen members will be nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. This is out of proportion to the significance of the representation of only five members to represent the growers and producers. Therefore, it will also correct that imbalance. I want to address my remarks principally to the amendments which seek to modify and restrict the very wide export trading powers. Under the Bill, with the approval of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin), the Australian Horticultural Corporation can engage in the export trade and do all the things that are necessary for that purpose, such as entering into contract of carriage, insurance contracts and so forth. That will involve a major new factor in the export of the new range of horticultural products. We have had an Apple and Pear Corporation, and the citrus industry believes that it could be assisted by having a corporation, but for the rest of the horticultural industry the introduction of a statutory marketing authority with trading powers of this magnitude is a major innovation. As has been pointed out time and again by speakers in this debate, the industry is now characterised by very vigorous private enterprise marketers who have been very successful in building up overseas trade. In the Opposition's view, to introduce a statutory body now as a trader would be a most retrograde step. This has been clearly identified in a report of the Industries Assistance Commission as retrograde. The Opposition is proposing that those powers should not be used without a regulation and not just with the Minister's approval. As Senator Archer said, we are not doubting the Minister's word that these powers would be used only sparingly and with full consultation. Nevertheless, this legislation will last a long time and parliamentary control should be exercised over such a new power. Our amendment deals with the need for parliamentary control so that the export powers can be exercised only by regulation and not simply by ministerial approval. The other section of the Bill creating powers for this Corporation which is of great concern is Part V of the Bill, `Export Controls'. Those export controls are very extensive indeed. Industry needs to improve its export performance and to encourage people by competition, initiative and enterprise to develop our export industry and our export performance as a nation. Yet it is proposed to spend nearly $6m of taxpayers' money to set up a bureaucratic corporation which will impose a whole welter of new and unnecessary regulations. These regulations will enable the Corporation to issue licences to export, subject to a whole range of conditions and restrictions. It may prevent the export of horticultural products absolutely or to any specified place. Licences may be subject to a range of conditions imposed relating to price, quality, the packaging and labelling of products, their form of consignment and the commission and fees charged by exporters for their carriage. The Bill even provides that restrictions may be required in relation to matters not related to the horticultural products to which they apply. For this Parliament to pass powers of this kind, even though they may be subject to regulation, to signal that it approves these sorts of powers being included, is the most retrograde step possible. It flies in the face of the Government's guidelines for the reform of statutory marketing authorities which the present Minister put down as recently as January 1986. The guidelines provided that, in the granting of export licences, it would be necessary for criteria to be clearly set out for the allocating of such licences. They also provide that a licensing system should not be used to restrict people from entering the business of exporting horticultural products. That would be done only as a last resort and, in my view, it should never be done. To start restricting entry into an industry which is already showing very vigorous competition and enterprise, even by people who may not be very effective performers, would be a most inhibiting factor. When all is said and done, people have succeeded in this industry because they have been achievers. Those who cannot achieve will soon be culled out of the industry because they simply cannot meet the demands of very sophisticated markets. That has certainly been the history of the development of the export of the cut flower and flower buds industry in Western Australia which, in a few years, has become the producer of 50 per cent of Australian exports of such horticultural products. The Opposition believes that, if there are to be any export controls, they should be under a licensing scheme following the guidelines that the Minister has laid down. Clear criteria should be set out, and that is what our amendments provide. Our amendments provide that any powers conferred under the licensing provisions shall not be used for the purposes of restricting effective competition between exporters or preventing new exporters from entering the export market. It is interesting to note that various reports of the IAC in relation to horticultural products in recent years have expressed exactly the same views that the Opposition's amendments would implement. The IAC has indicated that if there is to be an Australian Horticultural Corporation, its powers and operations should certainly be restricted. The amendments moved by the Opposition are in accordance with the views expressed by the IAC in relation to the powers of the Corporation. It is for those reasons that I have moved the amendments. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(8.58) —Despite the apparent good intentions of the government, this legislation does have a number of shortcomings which give rise to concern on the part of the Opposition. That is the basis of the amendments which have been moved on our behalf by Senator Durack and which I strongly support. That concern is emphasised by the lack of support for these legislative proposals by some segments of the horticultural industry. The amendments have been moved to give effect to that concern of those segments. Even the apple, pear and citrus industries, which generally support the concepts which have been expressed in the legislation, have indicated some concerns about aspects of it. But they have subsumed those concerns for what they perceive as the advantages to their segments. However, by way of submission and conversation, I have received a number of requests either to delay or to oppose this legislation outright. The Opposition has taken the view that we should not do that. Instead, we have moved the amendments which will give vent to the concerns that have been expressed. For example, representatives of Queensland apple and pear growers have expressed strong opposition to these proposals. The Australian Onion Co-ordinating Committee, in expressing its opposition, has claimed that the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation was blackmailed into joining the Corporation by having its funding cut. The Western Australian Fruit Growers Association did not support the formation of the Corporation, but suggested, along with the Australian Flower Growers Council and the Western Australian Fruit Shippers Committee, that the Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill be delayed for further evaluation. Many organisations have said that they would never join under any circumstances as they can see no benefit for them and mistrust the Government's intentions. One can understand the elements of opposition to the legislation, and it is to deal with those elements that these amendments are being moved. Of course, that opposition illustrates that this Government is generally viewed with suspicion by rural producers. The Government has proven incapable at this stage of selling the virtues of this legislation to a wide range of horticulturalists. There is some sense of the Government imposing its will on the industry. One of the specific amendments which has been moved by Senator Durack deals directly with that. My own reservations about the legislation can perhaps be best summed up by quoting from the recent Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) draft report on fresh fruit and fruit products, which said: The Commission can see a number of practical reasons as well as good economic reasons which suggest that there are likely to be few benefits from having an organisation to cover the heterogeneous horticultural industries. Nonetheless, if the AHC is to be established then, in the Commission's view its role should be limited to a few, clearly defined areas. In contrast to this recommendation by the IAC both the concept and the legislation remain vague, particularly with regard to the Australian Horticultural Corporation (AHC). Senator Durack's amendments will, in fact, tighten up that concept and tighten up the legislation to make it more directly effective for the benefit of the industry. Under the legislation as it now stands, there has been little indication as to how the claimed benefits for the horticultural industry will be achieved. This is the case notwithstanding the quite complex nature of the legislation. So at this stage the Corporation must be regarded as something of an intangible benefit, with its costs and benefits difficult to assess. Of course, this fact was reinforced by some drafting amendments that had to be introduced by the Government in another place before the legislation passed there. We must, therefore, seriously question the capacity of the legislation to achieve its objectives if it passes this chamber unamended. As well as moving these amendments and seeking the support of the Committee, my Opposition colleagues and I will be watching very closely the developing operation of these three new organisations to be established by the legislation to ensure that they are providing the claimed benefits to growers. The Corporation must avoid duplicating the services provided by existing organisations, to avoid both confusion and the waste of resources. There is danger of the Corporation becoming a bureaucratic millstone on the industry and, therefore, a costly waste of taxpayers' money. Trading must remain in the hands of private traders. It is essential that the trading power and export licence power of the Corporation should not be used to establish a monopoly position for the Corporation or, for that matter, anyone else. Senator Walsh —This is the second half of your second reading speech. Senator CHAPMAN —I am speaking directly to the amendments. If Senator Walsh cares to listen, he will see the relevance of my remarks. Another concern which I share with my Opposition colleagues is that the financial assistance to be provided is likely to be spread unevenly among the sectors of the horticultural industry given the current level of acceptance of participation in and the otherwise known opposition to the Corporation. The funds allocated by the Government are meant to assist the development of many smaller segments of the industry. While the importance of the apple, pear and citrus industries must be recognised, they should not monopolise the use of funds. There is a real danger that none of the $5.85m allocated to the Horticultural Corporation will be available to the developing horticultural industries which are most in need of assistance unless they quickly join. This, of course, reinforces the fear of compulsion, at least in practical effects if not in law, on the part of some segments of the industry. It is to deal with that, of course, that Senator Durack had moved the amendments relating to the membership of the Corporation. This fear is reinforced by the very vagueness of the legislation as to an eligible industry and its means of joining the Corporation. Despite the Government's protestations, there is nothing in the legislation at this stage, if it is passed unamended, to prevent coercion being applied to a segment to join. It would be quite possible for a significant segment of the industry, which may consider itself to be quite a different segment, to be forced into the Corporation against its will and to be forced to pay the levy. Hence, the decision by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) as to Corporation membership is unacceptable. I strongly support Senator Durack's amendment which will require regulations to be gazetted to allow new members of the Corporation. This will ensure parliamentary scrutiny of the Government's handling of membership procedures. It will also reduce the possibility of coercion to join the Corporation and provide a safeguard for segments which feel they may not be properly or adequately represented if they are part of it. A further concern is the method of fixing the maximum rate of levy for products not covered by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. I support the initiative of the Opposition to clarify this, again by way of amendment to the legislation. The adequacy of industry representation on the Horticultural Policy Council is another matter of major concern. The diversity of the industry requires wider representation than the Government is allowing. To ensure that more balanced representations across the broad range of segments making up this industry is achieved, I support the Opposition amendment to increase the number of industry representatives on the Horticultural Policy Council from five to seven. But it should be noted in discussing these amendments that this concern about these aspects of the legislation is not limited to the Opposition. The bipartisan Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills also indicated similar areas of concern. The Committee has indicated reservations about clauses 8, 9 and 10 of the Horticultural Levy Bill and the Horticultural Export Charge Bill because they provide inappropriate delegation of legislative power. These clauses make no provision for a maximum rate of levy in the absence of Bureau of Statistics figures and instead give unrestricted discretion to the Minister. It appears that, despite these concerns and despite the amendments moved by Senator Durack, the Government remains unmoved. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee has also expressed concern about sub-clause 13 (1), which provides powers of entry and search in the charge and levy collection Bills. It considers this clause enables undue trespass on personal rights and liberties. The capacity for warrants to be issued by justices of the peace rather than the safer requirement that they be issued only by magistrates is also unacceptable to that Committee. Furthermore, the Committee has voiced its concern that sub-clauses 9 (2) and 15 (4) of the Horticultural Policy Council Bill provide inappropriate delegation of legislative power. These clauses allow the Minister to increase or decrease the size of the Horticultural Policy Council at his discretion, even without reference to the Executive Council, let alone the Parliament, and similarly to increase substantially the remuneration to new members of the Policy Council. So the Opposition's concern about this legislation is evident across a wider spectrum in this House. This is the reason why the Opposition is pursuing its amendments to the legislation; they address not only its own objections but also those of the Standing Committee. I urge the Government to adopt a more conciliatory approach to these amendments than did the Minister in another place, so that we can be more assured that the legislation will operate to benefit the widest possible range of producers in this great industry. The legislation does offer potential benefits to the industry, especially if it is improved through the removal, by the Opposition's amendments, of some of its flaws. Therefore, we have indicated our general support for the Bills but we urge the Government to support the amendments moved by Senator Durack. We as an opposition will be closely monitoring the performance of the Corporation and the other organisations to determine their effectiveness-indeed, to see how quickly they bear fruit. Of course, the next coalition government will, in consultation with the industries involved, review the effectiveness of the Corporation and on that basis determine its longer term future. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(9.10) —I rise to speak very briefly in opposition to the Opposition's amendment No. 1. There is a real danger in the Opposition's defining `horticultural products' in the way that it does here. The danger is that it will set up barriers to other products which are not nominated in the Opposition's definition. In this way there will be parliamentary control over new products which may come into the horticultural market in the near future. I am sure that Western Australian senators know that in the south-west of Western Australia there are small growers who are attempting to get into this area who need an umbrella such as the Australian Horticultural Corporation to come under, because they do not come under any of the other organisations already set up. Like all other Western Australian senators, I have been lobbied by a number of groups, and for the most part these groups have said that they want a delay in this particular legislation because they felt that they had not been consulted. Senator Durack —They have reservations about the legislation. Senator JENKINS —Exactly. Consultation is, of course, very important. I feel that in this particular area the Government has been lacking in its public relations. Perhaps it did bring this legislation on too fast without proper consultation. I will give the Senate just one example. The Floricultural Industry Council of Western Australia, in a letter it wrote to me on 11 November, stated: . . . we do have some misgivings about the proposed legislation. However, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) met with representatives of the Floricultural Industry Council on 4 December and, as a result of that meeting, the Council became enthusiastic for the Corporation when it understood that the Government intended using the Corporation trading powers only when this was inevitable; for example, if it wanted to set up trade with Eastern bloc countries. Senator Powell —Is that the Floricultural Council? Senator JENKINS —Yes, that is the Floricultural Industry Council of Western Australia. These horticultural groups are diverse, as everybody knows. This legislation attempts to bring these diverse groups into the Corporation if they wish to join. The whole point of this legislation, as I understand it, is that organisations do not have to join the Australian Horticultural Corporation. They can choose to join or not to join. Other organisations have indicated that, although they have some reservations, they are willing to see how the Corporation behaves and they will make up their minds at that point whether they will join or not join. So I have spoken in the main to the Opposition's amendment No. 1, and I have explained one of the reasons why the Australian Democrats will oppose it. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.12) —I wish to speak just briefly in support of the amendments. The very diverse nature of the industry makes it quite impossible for there to be adequate representation of the different commodities on either the Australian Horticultural Corporation (AHC) or the Australian Horticultural Corporation selection committee, which nominates its members. By the very nature of the limited membership of the AHC, it is plain that the growers of more than 50 minor horticultural crops will have little or no input into the future direction of the industry and into the decision making process. Only six members of the AHC are capable of being elected from grower or exporter groups. The selection committee itself comprises only seven members nominated by eligible industry bodies. What, then, is the point of the smaller horticultural groups participating in the AHC when clearly they will have little or no say in the development of their commodities or the industry as a whole? From a Western Australian perspective, it is unlikely that a representative from any one of the numerous Western Australian horticultural grower groups will have access to a position on the AHC or even the product committees set up to provide product specific advice to the AHC. Given the likely representation on the AHC, it is apparent that Western Australian interests are very likely to be ignored, notwithstanding that, from an export point of view, Western Australia is in a better position than any other State to expand and to exploit the South East Asian market. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) seeks to overcome these problems by recognising the need for product specific advice through these product group committees. Each of the three to five ordinary members of these committees is to be nominated by product group selection committees set up by the AHC. The legislation empowers the AHC to establish these specialist committees as it considers necessary. The Minister asserts in his second reading speech: The number of product group committees and the range of products a particular committee may cover will be decided by the Corporation after consultation with the industries participating in the AHC. Given its size and importance, the apple and pear industry can confidently expect that there would be a separate committee for its products; and so can the citrus industry . . . By necessary implication, does this mean that if a particular horticultural industry is not particularly sizeable, or if its importance is relatively great, no relevant product committee will be established? It certainly seems so. In a discussion paper entitled New Commercial Structure for the Horticultural Industries put out by the then Department of Primary Industry in September 1986, it is stated: It will be important for the Corporation to keep the number of committees to a manageable level. This is not just a matter of saving on costs and administration complexity but to avoid as far as possible the committees being pre-occupied with problems relating to a particular product and not examining them from a sufficiently wide perspective. This statement simply reinforces industry suspicion and scepticism in relation to the legislation; that is, that many horticultural industries will not be able to gain any sort of access to the Corporation in order to put forward their views in the decision making process. How will it be possible for the Corporation to fulfil its stated objects of export co-ordination and development of our horticultural industries if it does not become `pre-occupied with problems relating to a particular product'? If the AHC intends to gloss over the problems of particular horticultural industries, I for one can see no point in these industries participating in the Corporation. Clearly, there would be no benefit and no gain to them. In my opinion, it is quite clear that the development and exploitation of export markets is not the province of a bureaucratic or centralised body. It is for the horticultural industries themselves, with the aid of perhaps the export councils and their own voluntary organisations, to take up the challenge of forging and exploiting new markets. Put simply, the Australian Horticultural Corporation cannot achieve what private enterprise and initiative can do better. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(9.18) —As I foreshadowed in my speech at the second reading stage, the Australian Democrats do not support the amendments which are before us. If one looks at the thread of some of the comments that have been made in support of this range of amendments, one will see that they ring with words such as `control', `restriction' and `coercion'. It seems that there is a total lack of understanding about the voluntary nature of the provisions of the legislation. Senator Crichton-Browne has just said that he can see no point in an industry joining the Australian Horticultural Corporation if that Corporation is not going to do the right thing by that industry. But it is not up to Senator Crichton-Browne; it is up to the industry, as he went on to say, and this is allowed for in the legislation. No industry need join unless it wants to. The industries themselves have told us at least that they are happy with that situation. I was accused after I had spoken in the second reading debate of quoting just one organisation. I did read from a letter from the Australian Citrus Growers Federation, which has member organisations all around Australia, including the Central Citrus Council of Western Australia and the citrus sectional group committee of the Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing in Queensland, which represent two States from which we have had a lot of complaint about this legislation. I also place on the record the fact that we received a response to these amendments from the Australian Horticultural Growers Council. It reminded us that it represents 15 member groups. It said that it had received amendments from the office of the shadow Minister, Mr Lloyd. It does not like the amendments which leave out all groups other than apples and pears. It was slightly misguided there-the Opposition is prepared to allow a couple of others. The Association has asked us not to support the amendments. In addition, the Australian Nurserymen's Association, again not an insignificant group, has said that it does not like the look of the Liberals' amendments. Senator Boswell, in his speech, said that I had named one organisation but he claimed that 120 industries were opposed. I have not heard any members of the Opposition list the 120 industries which they say are opposed. I would be very interested-but I hope to goodness that they do not try to do that, because we will be here until 3 o'clock in the morning. We had more than one letter. I have put before the Senate those representations, so our opposition to these amendments is based on consultation. I will just comment on the question of representation, which is addressed in one of these amendments. The selection committee process has become the tried and true process for representative committees within agricultural industries and it has simply been repeated here, as it exists in other areas. There is extraordinary flexibility in this legislation. Even groups which choose not to join can use the services of the bodies established by this legislation, on a fee for service basis. They can stay outside, look and decide whether the scheme works. If it does not work it will not attract custom-and that is the way it should be. I conclude by making the point that a couple of speakers for the Opposition in the committee stage said that they will watch the progress of these new horticultural bodies very closely. I hope they mean that because that is the role of the Parliament. I certainly hope they watch it more closely than they watched the progress of the second reading debate on these Bills. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.22) —The amendments moved by the Opposition effectively were replied to by Senator Ray some time before the dinner suspension. I do not intend to repeat the points he made other than to say that principally there were two. One would not have thought so from listening to the comments I heard from the Opposition. They were that participation in the scheme is voluntary and the amendments, in the Government's view, would impose an unacceptable level of constraint on the activities of the Australian Horticultural Corporation. The only other matter I want to deal with is the response to comments made by the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. It is six or seven pages long. I table it and seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- I will now turn to comments made by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The Committee has pointed out that the Bills make no provision for a maximum rate of charge or levy in the event that figures have not yet been published or that publication is discontinued by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Horticulture covers well over a hundred types of fruit, vegetables, nuts and nursery products and there is no practical way to provide for a sensible maximum rate in the Bills to cover all of these. The products for which ABS does publish average product values on a regular basis provide a substantial coverage of the total value of Australian production. Fruit and vegetables are the dominant product groups. In 1985-86 the ABS accounted for more than 90% of the value of total fruit and nut production and for 76% of the total value of vegetable production. The ABS has no plans to discontinue any of its current horticultural series. Products not covered by the ABS would include rare and luxury high priced products and thus there is a wide range of average product values. Variations of the order of from 200 dollars per ton to 3,000 dollars per tonne are feasible. This makes it impossible to set a sensible maximum rate. The use of a high maximum rate for a broad category in order to cover a few very high priced products in that category would result in an absurdly high maximum value for the other products. It is most desirable, nevertheless, to facilitate and encourage the participation of small industries in the activities of the AHC and HRDC by way of export charges and levies so that they can develop and exploit their full potential. Many of these industries may not pursue charges or levies for some years, if at all. It seems more likely that a group within an industry may contribute funds, collected voluntarily, for specific purposes such as research through the HRDC and thereby gain the advantage of matching monies from the Commonwealth. There are also safeguards in situations where charges or levies are sought and where a maximum rate is not set by the legislation. The views of an eligible industry body must be sought and these have to be taken into consideration by the Governor-General for the purpose of making regulations. Also these regulations are subject to disallowance in the normal way. The Committee has also pointed out that subclause 13 (1) and clause 4 of both the Horticultural Export Charge Collection Bill and the Horticultural Levy Collection Bill empower Justices of the Peace to issue warrants authorising an authorised person to enter and search premises on the grounds set out in clause 4 of the Bills. The Committee stated that search warrants should ideally and properly be issued by judicial officers such as magistrates. Empowering Justices of the Peace to issue such warrants is an established practice based on practical grounds. The major part of the horticultural industries are located in country or remote areas where there is unlikely to be ready access to a magistrate. And an investigation officer can clearly be placed in a situation where a warrant is required urgently in order to forestall either removal of goods or falsification of records. Section 10 of the Crimes Act, which is the major source of power for the issue of search warrants, allows the issue of search warrants by a Justice of the Peace. This provision is contained in a number of Acts; for example, the Quarantine Act 1908; the Export Inspection Act 1982; the Meat Inspection Act 1983; and the Biological Control Act 1984. Subclauses 9 (2) and 15 (4) of the Horticultural Policy Council Bill respectively provide the Minister with the power to vary the constitution and membership of the HPC and to vary the allowances of HPC members, other than the Chairperson, by Ministerial order. The Committee stated that the only control which would exist over Ministerial discretion is that regulations and orders made under the proposed provisions are subject to Parliamentary scrutiny by virtue of subclause 30 (3). The Committee commented that when the Parliament establishes a legislative structure, it should not be left to the Executive to make basic and substantial alterations to that structure by regulation. It also commented that the Minister may make an order that would substantially increase the remuneration of members of the HPC. Dealing with the remuneration issue first, it should be noted that subclause 15 (4) relates to the prescription of allowances, not remuneration, which are to be paid to Council members other than the Chairperson. Members would receive allowances only to recompense them for costs of attending Council meetings. Also, as the Committee noted, subclause 30 (3) of the Bill ensures that the orders are subject to the tabling and disallowance provisions, thus providing adequate safeguards. On the composition issue, the HPC is an advisory body empowered to present to the Government cohesive and comprehensive industry advice on policies relevant to the Australian horticultural industries. The Council is intended to be broadly representative of existing horticultural industries. These industries are characterised by being diverse, geographically dispersed and fragmented and this is reflected in the structure of their organisations. Following the establishment of the three horticultural institutions the organisational structure of the horticultural sector may change significantly. There will be a need to reflect such changes speedily in the composition of the HPC to ensure an appropriate balance of representation, such that its advice reflects a comprehensive horticultural sector view to the greatest extent possible. The efficient administration of the legislation is facilitated through providing the Minister with the power to vary membership. Subclause 9 (2) permits the Minister to make orders, which do not require the Governor-General's approval, for this purpose rather than regulations. However, again, subclause 30 (3) ensure that in every other respect the orders are subject to the same disallowance and tabling provisions. Adequate safeguards are thus provided. In summary the Government is satisfied that the legislation provides full and proper safeguards for all of those who would be involved. Senator WALSH —The only other thing I want to say is implicit in what I have already said, that the Government will not accept the Opposition's amendments. Question put: That the amendments and requests (Senator Durack's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator M. A. Colston) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Michael 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. Reid, M. E.Brownhill, D. G. C. Sheil, G.Calvert, P. H. Short, J. R.Chapman, H. G. P. Stone, J. O.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Vanstone, A. E.Hill, R. M. Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W.McGauran, J. J. Aulich, T. G. Haines, J.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. C. Sanders, N. K.Coulter, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Crowley, R. A. Sibraa, K. W.Devereux, J. R. Tate, M. C.Devlin, A. R. Walsh, P. A.Foreman, D. J. Wood, W. R.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Hamer, D. J. Reynolds, M. E.Lewis, A. W. R. Ryan, S. M.Chaney, F. M. Button, J. N.Puplick, C. J. G. Evans, G. JTeague, B. C. Richardson, G. F. Question so resolved in the negative. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment or requests; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Debate resumed from 23 November, on motion by Senator Richardson: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice) —I suggest that the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Wheat Tax Regulations (Validation) Bill be debated cognately. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Peter Baume) —Is there any objection to the two Bills being debated cognately? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(9.31) —Tonight we are debating two Bills affecting the wheat industry-the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 and the Wheat Tax Regulations (Validation) Bill 1987. The Wheat Tax Regulations (Validation) Bill is merely a machinery Bill correcting some technical anomalies called into question because of the change of name of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation to its current title of the Grains Council of Australia. Without this legislation there is a possibility of a disallowance of regulations. I do not propose to say anything further on this Bill, although I believe my colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Lewis, will be addressing some remarks to this at a later stage tonight. The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill (No. 2) is one of a number of Bills dealing with changes to statutory marketing authorities made as a result of the Government's review. It is one of a series of Bills we have been debating in this place and the other place in the last two sessions of Parliament. The purpose of the Bill is to amend several sections of the Wheat Marketing Act 1984 and, of course, to incorporate in the Act provisions consistent with the Government's policy on equal employment opportunity. Most of the Government's proposals outlined in the White Paper were incorporated in an amendment to the wheat marketing legislation last year. One area of policy that was not fully addressed at that time was the funding of industry organisations by the Australian Wheat Board. This legislation allows the responsible Minister to issue guidelines to the Australian Wheat Board which will in turn allow the provision of 50 per cent of the cost of the operational expenses of the Grains Council of Australia from the Wheat Board funds. This is to compensate the Council for the cost of preparations for consultations between the Council and the Board. This has the support of the Opposition. The second purpose of the Bill concerns the composition of the selection panel for membership of the Board. That will be altered to replace the Chairman of the Wheat Board and two representatives from the National Farmers Federation with two wheat growers selected by the Grains Council. The Grains Council supports the change but I note that there is some displeasure in the industry about the removal of the Chairman of the Wheat Board from the selection panel. The important aspect of the legislation concerns the equal employment opportunity provisions which also have been included in other statutory marketing authority legislation. The Opposition does not support the positive discrimination aspects of the Bill and in the committee stage of the debate I shall be moving an amendment similar to that which my colleague in the other place moved. In the House of Representatives the shadow Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Bruce Lloyd, more correctly called this section the `positive discrimination clauses'. Prior to the election this issue was raised in relation to other rural marketing authorities. I recall that I said at the time that I regard the inclusion of such clauses that compel people to employ a certain number of women as an insult. Women's groups are the first to insist that they want to be treated fairly, on their merits. I feel, therefore, that legislation that compels organisations to appoint people merely on their sex is offensive and quite contrary to the spirit of equality of employment opportunity. As a wheat grower I do have a vested interest in the legislation and parliamentary activity that affects the wheat industry. People in the metropolitan areas of Australia too often regard farmers as whingers. They claim that farmers are always moaning about something not going right, and when things are going right, they say that we moan that it cannot last. With that in mind, I do not wish to belabour the situation of wheat growers. It is a truism in agriculture that every dog has his day, and at the moment it is the wool growers who are the top dogs with wool prices reaching record levels. Wool growers are feeling fairly comfortable about the prices they are receiving at the moment. It seems only a few years ago that it was the wheat growers' turn, when prices were good and costs were being contained. Regrettably, that is not presently the case, with prospects not brilliant and costs soaring-in many cases making the growing of wheat an unviable prospect. A number of issues have confronted the wheat industry in recent months, and I would like to canvass some of them now. The most significant recent issues have been the Industries Assistance Commission's (IAC) draft report on the industry and the Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport. Both reports touch on sensitive issues that go to the heart of the grain industry philosophy, issues such as the abolition of cost averaging, price pooling and price underwriting. These have been a part of the industry for a very long time. Understandably, growers feel a certain uneasiness about such massive de- regulation of an industry such as the wheat industry. How the wheat industry is restructured is of vital concern not only to wheat growers but also to all Australians. It is a significant export crop for Australia, generating between $2 billion and $3 billion a year. This year the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has predicted that we will produce some 12.2 million tonnes. This is somewhat lower than the bumper years of 17 million tonnes plus, but it is still a big money spinner, a big money earner for Australia. The IAC was initially asked to inquire into whether Federal Government assistance should be given to the wheat industry beyond the 1988-89 season, when the current marketing scheme ends. Its draft report recommended major deregulation of the wheat industry, including the axing of the Wheat Board's export monopoly. It has also suggested termination of the guaranteed minimum price, which underwrites growers' returns, and the removal of the Wheat Board's pricing controls on the domestic market. The IAC also claims that much of the wheat industry's board controlled marketing system should be scrapped in favour of a deregulated scheme where private traders can compete on most export markets against the Wheat Board. This has met, as honourable senators would imagine, with quite a mixed reaction. The President of the Grains Council of Australia, Mick Charles, has said that the IAC wanted to tip: the industry on its head, yet it failed miserably to provide any convincing evidence to support key recommendations or quantify the benefits which would flow to producers if they were adopted by the Federal Government. He went on to say: The wheat industry is being told to fit itself into a pattern set by an academic textbook but with no clearly identifiable benefits. He believes, as do many others, that the overall effect of the IAC package will be to drive down returns to growers while producing world-wide price fluctuations. Of course, we all know that since the Second World War the Australian Wheat Board has monopolised the procurement and the trading of wheat. Instead of having a lot of small sellers selling to a big single market we have a board pooling the resources of the growers and having much more power in that area. Of course, the initial intention after the Second World War was to secure adequate wheat supplies during war time, and then the focus was shifted to stabilising wheat prices. Today the Wheat Board claims that its major role is to maximise the returns of growers from the marketing of wheat, and I commend it for that. To this end the Commonwealth has given the Australian Wheat Board full control over the export and domestic marketing of wheat, with the limited and very recent exception of wheat that is used for stock feed and seed. Of course this also has resulted in a number of criticisms of the Australian Wheat Board and its operations. International wheat traders have argued against the Australian Wheat Board's policy of providing wheat to traders only for sale to specific destinations, which has limited the grain traders' ability to take long or short positions. Another criticism has been the domestic marketing arrangements, which have set domestic prices above international market levels. A further criticism has been the pooling of growers' returns-a system that has been in operation since 1948. Under the pooling system, all receipts from sales and related expenditures on handling, transport, marketing, et cetera for a particular season are pooled and the pool then forms the basis for the Australian Wheat Board's payments to the growers. The argument has always been that pooling protects the inefficient growers and is a disincentive to producers of high quality grain. In recent years a number of changes have occurred in the wheat industry, and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) claims that he has tried to revamp the Wheat Board and make it more commercially operative and appropriate. In achieving that revamping Mr Kerin sought to reduce the input of farmers to the Australian Wheat Board but fortunately this chamber-we must give the Senate a plug because it is where a lot of very astute parliamentarians reside-had the good sense to point up the error of this thinking and the Government relented on its original plans and allowed an additional farmer representative. Despite this, the Minister and others concede that the Wheat Board is effective and that it is operating in a most professional and aggressively market orientated way. As I have said already, I congratulate the Wheat Board on its operations. Going back to the IAC draft recommendations, if they were ever adopted they would throw open the entire industry. If the deregulated system worked and the industry thrived, everyone would say, `What a great idea it was'. But if it failed, of course, everyone would criticise it. That is very much what has happened with the Wheat Board. When seasons are good and the sales are made, everyone is happy. When things are a little rough, everyone looks around for someone to blame. Certainly, if a recent article in the Land newspaper is any indication, farmers are not at all happy with the IAC. One man who lives up in the north-west of New South Wales, where I live, and who has been a critic of the Wheat Board for some years has said: The present Board controlled marketing system is about as good as growers could hope for and the IAC report should be ignored. I do not believe that a free export market would be in the best interests of growers. Many supporters who are freeing the export market still appeared to have university lectures ringing in their ears. The world wheat market was anything but free with the US and the EC massively subsidising their farmers. The present system gave the Australian Government the opportunity, if necessary, to help local producers. I also agree with that statement. However, the Federal Government must really start to evaluate its priorities. We have already been told this year that wheat tonnages will be down. The original forecast of 12.2 million tonnes nationally is some four million tonnes down on last year's figure. That means that less wheat will be available to sell on international markets, creating a further shortfall in export income. With an overseas debt of $110 billion or $120 billion we need all the export income we can get. Senator McGauran —Too right. Senator BROWNHILL —That is right. We need every little bit we can get. Therefore, I find it ironic that in late November the Federal Government announced an assistance package of around $20m for the coal industry, and yet it has not seen fit to provide anything for the wheat industry. The anomaly goes even further when Minister Kerin supports the Australian Wheat Board's monopoly powers but argues against a statutory marketing authority for the coal industry. As a rural writer, Sarah Sargeant, put it, apparently the Federal Government has one rule for the wheat industry and another for the coal industry. I am not for one minute suggesting that the coal industry is not also an important export income earner. It is one of the biggest and most formidable export earners we have. But this Government persists in downgrading agriculture, telling farmers that they must stand on their own feet and allow market forces to determine the survivors while sheltering other groups outside agriculture. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the Opposition opposes the positive discrimination aspects of the equal employment opportunity clauses and I foreshadow that I will move amendments at the committee stage. The Opposition supports the general thrust of the legislation. It does not wish to hold up the Senate or the legislation unduly, nor does it wish to hold up too much the progress of the Senate tonight. However, we believe that these amendments are important. I conclude my remarks with a plea to the Government to recognise how essential this industry is to Australia and a request to treat it fairly and sympathetically. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(9.47) —Once again we are debating two Bills cognately-the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 and the Wheat Tax Regulations (Validation) Bill 1987. The amendments contained in the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 provide for the Minister to issue guidelines to the Australian Wheat Board governing the provision of funds to the Grains Council of Australia regarding consultation between it and the Board. This brings the Australian Wheat Board Selection Committee into line with committees of other major statutory marketing authorities and provides for the Australian Wheat Board to develop and to implement an equal employment opportunity program consistent with the Government's policy which is being progressively introduced for other Commonwealth authorities and is getting a real boost in the Senate today. All of these amendments are part of the Govern- ment's program of implementing the reform of statutory marketing authorities, as outlined in the Government's White Paper of January 1986 entitled Reform of Commonwealth Primary Industry Statutory Marketing Authorities. The Australian Democrats believe that this legislation is, in the main, uncontroversial, although I again note with some distress that the Opposition is persisting with its intolerant and antiquated position on equal employment opportunity. Rather than rehearse the debate earlier today with regard to the other statutory body which we addressed earlier, I simply say that the Democrats do not support the Opposition's foreshadowed amendments because we do not accept that any positive discrimination is inherent in this legislation, as we do not believe there was any discrimination in the foregoing equal employment opportunity legislation. A further change that is made in this legislation is that a representative from the National Farmers Federation and the Chairman of the Grains Council will no longer have representation on the Australian Wheat Board Selection Committee. Both the National Farmers Federation and the Grains Council agree with this change. I would like to make the comment that at least so far in the debate I find a touch of inconsistency in the position of the Opposition. We have just had a debate about the establishment of a corporation in the horticultural industry, which the Opposition criticised, yet an Opposition spokesperson in this debate, Senator Brownhill, has waxed lyrical about the well deserved value of the Australian Wheat Board and the sorts of advantages that it can give to the industry. It appears that there is one rule for the wheat industry and another for the horticultural industry, to paraphrase some of the latter remarks of the previous speaker. However, I will not dwell on that since the previous debate has concluded. I would like briefly to make some general remarks about the wheat industry at large. I recognise that it is an industry fraught with enormous difficulties at the moment. To summarise, I shall quote from a very good article in the Australian on Monday, 23 February of this year which, amongst other things, pointed out that Australia's wheat industry is highly efficient. It stated: Last year Australian farmers grew wheat for $1.48 a bushel, US farmers enjoyed a return of $4.48 and Europeans $6.65 a bushel. They carried interest and inflation rates several orders of magnitude greater than those in the US and the EC. Alongside that was a comment by the Australian Wheat Board's General Manager, Ron Paice, who reminded us that: in the last five years production of prime hard wheat has fallen from a peak of 10 per cent to 4.5 per cent of total production and hard wheat from 20 to 13 per cent. This has had an impact on our overseas markets. But perhaps we need to look at the significance of this. The article continued: Farmers in trouble are caught in a two-way jam: even if they wished to sell out they cannot because nobody is buying farm land and while interest rates remain high it seems unlikely they will. Banks and finance houses have even given up, for the most part, on mortgagee sales because there are no bidders. Increasingly there are reports of banks simply cutting off all further credit, denying these farmers the capacity to plant a crop and try to trade out and, literally, starving them out. The article included some comments of a sociologist, Thea White. It said: . . . the real tragedy lies in the disintegration of the social fabric in country areas under the hammer blows of prolonged stress. Many farming areas, she warns, are now in the same situation as American farmers in Iowa where a financial crisis coincided with a huge upsurge in suicide and divorce rates. That point is worth emphasising. It is one which I have made in this chamber before and, regrettably, one which I find necessary to make again. Just this week I met two farming wives who are trying to address some of these problems. I spoke today with a woman on a farm in the Nimbin area who has a tragic story. There have been three years of drought since her family purchased their property and they have a staggering debt. This year they borrowed $100,000 on top of a debt which was already over $1m, got a crop in, got half the necessary rainfall and have about four bags to the acre in prospect. Last year they made just enough to put this year's crop in-about four bags in prospect-and along came the locusts. This is the sort of thing that people are faced with on almost a daily basis. These are issues which we need to address, particularly in regard to income support for those people. The purpose of the woman's phone call to me today was that she had been told by the Department of Social Security that she now no longer qualified for the unemployment benefit despite the farm debt of over $1.5m and the value of the property being reduced to $900,000. There is something wrong somewhere. The Industries Assistance Commission, as Senator Brownhill said, has made a significant report which is causing a different set of concerns in the grains industry. I think we have to be very careful with proposals such as this that we do not throw out the baby with the bath water. One article which I noted on this by Sarah Sargeant in the Australian Financial Review drew a conclusion that it might be very difficult for the industry to retain the authority the way it is now against the general political trend at the moment. I hope that that is not the case. I hope that we will not go gung ho towards deregulation and privatisation at the expense of an authority and an industry which is extremely valuable to Australia. Certainly there are areas which have been of concern in the past and they do need to be addressed, but it would be a disaster if we do, indeed, take rash decisions in this area. I will quote Don McGauchie, who is the Grains Council of Australia wheat committee Chairman: . . . one of the fallacies of the IAC's draft report is that it is based on free market concept. `Once you step outside this nation, there is no such thing as a free market. The grain market is one of the most corrupt and politically manipulated anyone could possibly imagine' . . . Senator Brownhill made that point and I agree with it. It is something we do have to bear in mind. We are not in a free market and yet it did seem again in the previous debate that somehow that other industry had to operate as though it were. I noticed in the House of Representatives debate on this legislation the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) raised the issue of chemical residues in grain. He stated: I believe that we will come under increasing pressure in the world in respect of chemical residues in grain. The world will start demanding very stringent conditions far beyond what is reasonable. However, this is a fact of life that will occur, and I believe that the day will come when we shall have to consider irradiating our wheat for sale on the world market. That irradiation will have to be with cobalt 60 and it is essential for Australia to keep abreast of that technology. For the honourable member for Kalgoorlie to raise concern about chemical residues on the one hand and to suggest on the other that irradiation of our grain is madness. This is an issue which I have addressed in an earlier debate tonight. He should know the concerns expressed by our trading partners, particularly those in Europe, include concern about chemically contaminated, polluted and nuclear contaminated foodstuffs. People want clean, unpolluted food that has not been gassed or injected with chemical or other substances. They want clean, healthy, wholesome food. New Zealand is realising this. We must realise that too or, again, as I said earlier this evening, we will be outpaced by our very aggressive trans-Tasman competitors. While I am on the subject of chemicals, I would like to mention an initiative in the grains area by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Division of Entomology Stored Grain Research Laboratory which I visited a couple of weeks ago. A CSIRO publication on research and development support for the grain export industry states: Extensive trials have demonstrated the feasibility of controlled atmosphere (CA) storage, a residue-free method of treatment, for around 35 cents per tonne, as compared with up to 85 cents per tonne for protectants. This has given the industry an alternative to fumigation for providing grain that is free from both pests and chemical residues should the need arise. The CSIRO is a much threatened organisation at the moment, particularly in rural research which has again been mentioned this evening. The CSIRO has made possible for us the technology which the Australian Democrats believe that we should note and use. I will also quote from some correspondence between the Senior Manager of Marketing Support in the Australian Wheat Board and the National Association for Sustainable Agriculture. They entered into some correspondence upon an announcement by the Australian Wheat Board on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio that it is changing its pricing structure to one which is quality oriented. The National Association for Sustainable Agriculture took up the issue, calling for a definition of quality, expressing some views about that. The letter states: . . . research overseas and in Australia . . . indicates that wheat yields on farms on which no chemicals have been used for some time are often quite comparable to yields produced on farms where these materials are used. This reflects my own experience in talking with wheat growers in my own State of Victoria who are increasingly moving in this direction. Preliminary results from research conducted in Australia regarding chemical-free farms indicate that these farms are not nearly as dependent on a premium price for their produce and for their survival as has been suggested by the Wheat Board. The issue of the storage of chemical-free wheat has concerned the Association. It is a welcome development on behalf of CSIRO which I am sure will make it more likely that we get into this new and rather exciting market area. The Wheat Tax Regulations (Validation) Bill validates regulations recently made under the Wheat Tax Act of 1957 and is, as Senator Brownhill said, of a technical nature. The Australian Democrats support these Bills. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.01) —I wish to confine my remarks to the Wheat Tax Regulations (Validation) Bill, which will validate regulations which the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances said were almost certainly invalid because of a legal technicality. Whilst the Opposition will not oppose this Bill, we are concerned about the circumstances which gave rise to it. There are disturbing implications that this Government has less respect for the lawfulness of its administration than we would expect in a country where there is a commitment to the rule of law. The Wheat Tax Act allows the Government to make regulations to fix the level of tax on wheat growers. However, the Act categorically stipulated that the tax shall not be set until the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation had been consulted. On 9 October 1986, the Federation passed a resolution to increase its membership to include other primary producers. As a consequence, its functions were extended and its name was changed to the Grains Council of Australia. This was inconvenient for the Department of Primary Industry since it then had to take steps to amend the Wheat Tax Act to change the name of the body to be consulted before regulations could be made. An amendment was put into the autumn statute law Bill to delete reference to the Wheatgrowers Federation and replace it with reference to the Grains Council. That Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 30 April 1987, seven months after the Federation had changed its name. The Bill came to the Senate on 26 May 1987 and, of course, since the Houses of Parliament were dissolved on 5 June, with the aid of the great piece of extravagant nonsense the Australia Card, the Bill lapsed. On 13 September 1987, the day before the new Parliament sat, and almost 11 months after the name change, the regulations were made which the Government now has to validate with this Bill. The preamble to the regulations that gave rise to the Bill stated that the Governor-General had taken into consideration a report made to the Minister `by the organisation known as the Grains Council of Australia, formerly the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation'. It should have come as no surprise to anyone who knows anything at all about the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee that the Committee would automatically query the legitimacy of regulations made in that form. That is exactly what the Committee exists for. That is the kind of role it has been playing in this place for the past 55 years. It was to prevent manoeuvres like this that the Committee was first set up in 1932. With something approaching 1,000 pieces of delegated legislation being tabled in this chamber annually, senators from all sides rely on that one Committee more than they rely on any other committee in this Parliament. It is a watchdog examining the legality and propriety of ministerial law-making. It performs a bipartisan scrutiny function that has traditionally made it a leader in the parliamentary world. Naturally enough, when the Committee saw these regulations it asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) what he was playing at, though being a Senate committee, it used more diplomatic language than that. The Committee told the Minister that it `knows of no rule of law that permits reference'-to the Wheatgrowers Federation-`to be read as if it were a reference to another body'. It is ironic that the Committee's letter was sent exactly one year to the day after the Federation changed its name. The Committee was told by the Minister that there were strong practical reasons for making the regulations. From October onwards, the wheat harvest was coming in, the latest tax quarter of the year had opened, and it was too hard to change the usual tax collection system. Basically, the explanation for the Government breaking the law was that, for practical reasons, it was better to break the law than try to comply with the law. Seven months of lassitude between October 1986 and June 1987 could not be undone. It was realised, of course, that this was not a very palatable reason for breaking the law, so a gloss had to be put on it with a legal opinion which was obtained from the Attorney-General's Department. The Minister was told by that Department that there was `a tenable argument' that regulations could relate to the Grains Council, on the basis that it was the successor to the Wheatgrowers Federation, having closely parallel functions. Yet, as I have said, the Wheat Tax Act expressly referred only to the old Wheatgrowers Federation and the functions of the new Grains Council had been significantly expanded. The law could hardly regard the Federation and the Council as identical and interchangeable bodies. The pressure that the Attorney-General's Department was under to say yes to the regulations must have been intense for it to have agreed that there was even a tenable argument. For the sake of that Department's reputation, it is fortunate that some legal officer advising the Department emphasised that this interpretation was doubtful, that the validity of the regulations could not be guaranteed, and that the Governor-General in Council should be told all of this before he signed the regulations. Needless to say, the Regulations and Ordinances Committee of the Senate quite rightly refused to accept any of this special pleading. The Committee, still trying to coax the Minister back into the fold of those who respect the rule of law, said: The Regulations might be seen by some to exemplify a worrying approach to the legality of administrative action. This approach might be seen to rely, not on the reasonable certainty of law made under Parliament's delegated authority, but rather on the absence of any litigant with the resources to challenge what is acknowledged to be eminently challengeable. The Committee went on to say: The Committee takes the view, on principle, that the imposition of a tax, even one agreed to by industry representatives, should rest on a firmer legal foundation than that relied upon in this case. The Committee suggests that the proper course of action now may be for the Wheat Tax Act to be urgently amended either expressly to validate the regulations or expressly to authorise the collection of tax. The Committee considers that a significant principle of delegated legislative propriety is involved here, which touches issues concerning the legality of administration. Therein lies the kernel of our concern, because in this case the failure to respond more quickly to the name change in 1986 reflected poor management in the Department, poor leadership by the Minister politically responsible for the Department, and poor planning in the Cabinet area responsible for programming legislation. That combined inefficiency led in the first instance to a delay of seven months in introducing the relevant amendment. Political opportunism and the trickery of the Australia Card then took over for a few months, with the calling of the election. Yet all of this delay did not produce a sense of urgency, or a desire to maintain the rule of law by passing an urgent Bill through a Parliament that would not have objected to such a measure. All it produced was a proposal to break the law, and a bodgie legal opinion that said, `Good luck if you can get away with it'. This Bill will pass, as it must and should. But on this side of the chamber, and in the community, we are left wondering whether this Government pays more attention to its own convenience than it pays to the rule of law. I hope this Government does not regard itself as being above the law, as Senator Walsh seems to regard himself as being above the precepts of justice when it comes to the Ombudsman and remedies for maladministration. The saga of this validation Bill is a saga of gross maladministration, which leaves this Parliament having to rectify the Government's incompetence. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(10.10) —As a senator for Western Australia living in the eastern wheat belt of Western Australia I am certainly in a position to talk on this matter at first hand. I have followed the fortunes of wheat growing for many years. The wheat areas of Western Australia produce on average 4.7 million tonnes annually. Western Australia is one of Australia's premier wheat growing states. Its production is approximately 30 per cent of Australia's production of 16 million tonnes, worth about $2.8 billion in present day prices. This year's production Australia-wide is down slightly but at present the future is looking a little brighter with world prices showing a rise of about 11 per cent. Of course, there is much room for improvement. This evening we are debating the wheat marketing legislation concerning the funding of industry organisations by the Australian Wheat Board, the composition of the Wheat Board selection committee and the implementation of the equal opportunity program. I will return to those points later. Many big issues are facing the wheat industry today-low prices and high input costs, the McColl Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport, the renewal of the Wheat Marketing Act due in 1989 and transport and wharf costs. I will discuss these points in order. Low prices have been with us now for about two years while input costs have been rising. One of the main factors, of course, is the distortion caused to world markets by the activities of the European Common Market and the United States of America with their subsidisation policies. While this is continuing, the wheat industry has a protection rate running from a negative figure to about 5 per cent, while the manufacturing industries of Australia have an effective protection rate of approximately 20 per cent. This shows that the wheat industry is the most efficient industry in Australia. Input costs are continuing to increase. The cost of machinery, fuel, superphosphate, chemicals and servicing has risen above the rate of inflation while the price of wheat has been falling. This is the area in which the Government has to do most to cut costs so that we can continue to compete on those distorted world markets. The time will come when world markets will improve and then we will be in a good position to re-establish the wheat industry in Australia. The Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport is drawing to a close. There has been mention that there could be an approximate saving of $8 per tonne through the improvement in handling and transport. While $8 does not seem to be a great sum, it is nevertheless a start in the right direction and it could amount to $200m being available to the industry. There will no doubt be other recommendations from this inquiry. Probably the biggest turnabout looks like being the recommendation to remove the sole rights of the bulk handling authorities (BHAs) to store and handle the crop. This will result in savings in the long run by exposing BHAs to open competition. In the case of Western Australia, its co-operative bulk handling authority is very jealous of the monopoly that it has on the handling of grain and it has been shooting from the hip ever since its establishment. Its chairman went off on a tangent when this inquiry was announced. Incidentally, I was his opponent in the upper House seat of Central Province. Only another 442.5 votes would have been needed and he would not have had to worry about his parliamentary job: he could have concentrated on his co-operative bulk handling, although his future there may be a little short too. The renewal of the Wheat Market Act in 1989 will be an event waited for anxiously by the industry. I say this in view of the recent Industries Assistance Commission recommendations for the Wheat Board. It is the wish of all wheatgrowers throughout Australia that the Wheat Board continue even if it needs a little refinement. The return of the wheat selling methods of the 1930s and 1940s would be a total disaster, especially in the present world trade mood. Transport of grain has been the biggest single contention in the industry in the past 10 years, at least in Western Australia. The continual rise in freight charges since 1979-1980 has been disastrous. Of course, it is different in each State. Western Australia has a ridiculous method of determining grain freight rates, together with a regulation to rail outside a radius of 100 kilometres from the ports. The only way grain can be transported by road beyond that limit is in the growers' own trucks. This system also includes a radial-type freight system-if people here have not heard about it, I do not blame them-by which the freight rate is calculated according to a radius distance from the port, no matter how many rail kilometres are travelled by wheat trains. Of course this is so the railways can compete with those using road transport, that is, the ones using their own vehicles, who can use a shorter route. The result is that the inner areas had big freight reductions while the long haul areas copped the big increases-the very areas that are restricted, by geography, to rail. I will give a typical example. In the 1985-86 season the growers in Southern Cross, where I live, paid a freight rate of $25.45 per tonne for a rail distance of some 438 kilometres, while the very favoured Corrigin growers paid approximately $15.50 for a rail distance of 430 kilometres. Since then there has been some improvement, but Westrail has been very hard to move. On reading the Hansard from the other chamber, I noticed that Mr Campbell gave all the credit for the improvement to Mr Grill, the then State Minister for Transport. Let me assure honourable senators right now that I consider Mr Grill a friend, even though we put different political angles, but I also assure honourable senators that the body which hammered Westrail and the Minister was the Yilgarn Shire Council, of which I happened to be the President at the time. That Council will not let up until all of Western Australia has a fully competitive system, along with a fully competitive system in its bulk handling authority. It would be remiss of me if I let the Western Australian waterfront off the hook. I understand that world shipping put a premium of $6 per tonne on loading out of the west coast just to ensure that it will be able to cope with the unreliability of the unions there. Western Australia is treated like a war zone, as Mr Tuckey, the honourable member for O'Connor, has often told us. When ships come to Fremantle or Kwinana, the owners do not know when they will get them back. This is not the only place where the waterfront unions interfere with the free flow of wheat. Certainly the east coast has its problems. These unions are more interested in what is going on in Fiji than in the people who produce 85 per cent of Australia's export income. If this $6 were abolished, plus the handling charge of $8, there would be a total saving of $14 a tonne, which would have a real effect on whether a grower makes a profit or a loss. As I have said before, the price of wheat is falling and costs are rising. In 1979-80, the average price of wheat was $126 and the average off-farm charges amounted to $19, giving a net return of $107. The percentage of deductions over income was about 15 per cent. In 1986-87, with the average price of wheat around the $144 mark, the percentage of deduction is 37.9 per cent. I have a table of grain payments and deductions which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- GROWER PAYMENTS Average price Average charges (deductions) Off-farm charges as a percentage of the price of wheat Average net return to growers $/t $/t % $/t 1986-87 ... 144.70 (-17.8%)...54.83 37.9 94.00 (-22%) 1985-86 ... 175.17 54.27 31.0 120.90 1984-85 ... 183.06 49.79 27.2 133.25 1983-84 ... 163.77 41.96 25.6 121.81 1982-83 ... 176.45 25.00 14.2 151.45 1981-82 ... 156.44 34.25 21.9 122.19 1980-81 ... 155.13 30.45 19.6 124.68 1979-80 ... 153.08 20.36 13.3 132.72 1978-79 ... 126.91 19.56 15.4 107.35 Source: ACIL Australia. Senator PANIZZA —As I said earlier, this piece of legislation is about minor items when compared with the problems of an industry worth $2.5 billion to Australia each year. The first point in the legislation is to restrict the Board to paying 50 per cent of the operational costs of the Grain Council of Australia. This is a reasonable request and I cannot see any reason to dispute it. The second point relates to the change in the composition of the selection panel of the Australian Wheat Board. Though the removal of the two representatives of the National Farmers Federation does not seem unreasonable, I question the removal of the Chairman of the Wheat Board from the panel. I consider it unwise and liken it to a corporation having no say in the selection of its top executives. The third point in question is the installation of a clause for equal opportunity. While the Liberal Party of Australia favours such a policy, we do not favour a system of positive discrimination. Many women have been employed in the wheat industry over the years, both at Wheat Board level and at bulk handling authority level. There has been a steady increase in the number of women employed at the grain receival points. They were first employed in the positions of weighbridge officers. They are now employed as samplers, probably because women are not so open to verbal abuse when the grain does not come up to the mark. Women also work on the silo installations. I have found women to be far more efficient than men as weighbridge officers because they retain their interest far longer when the heat of the summer comes along and the young fellows, such as Senator McGauran, tend to toss it in. In this respect I would like to commend the co-operative bulk handling authority of Western Australia. I do not commend it very often. In fact, I gave it a good bucketing tonight. It gives casual employment to many university students during the summer vacation and has been doing so for many years. I know many of these people personally and many of them are now at the top of their professions, and I hope they remember their time spent in the country. I would like to give a brief mention to some aspects of the future needs of the industry. There has been a trial period of about two or three years since the removal by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, of the income equalisation deposits (IED) scheme. By now this Government should have seen the foolish mistake it made in removing it, and it should certainly consider its reintroduction, particularly in light of the downturn in the wheat industry in the last two or three years. If money had been stored up under the old IED scheme-if this scheme were still working-these funds would have been drawn upon rather than the Government's coffers, as is the case at the moment. Another matter that could be looked at in the future is that of all risk insurance policies in agriculture such as those used widely in America and Canada. Under such policies producers can insure their crops against all risks; that is, failure of rain, frosting and everything that may go with it. I know the premiums are very high but I have done a study of the Canadian system and it has been made to work there. The Government helps towards premiums; but then, it does not help with natural disasters, whether they be lack of rain, fire or flood. So any money that the Canadian Government would have put into that area is put into this all risk insurance scheme-and it is certainly working. I know that our industry is working on proposals for such a scheme and hopefully in time the Government will look at this matter. I have enjoyed addressing this chamber about the industry that I know and love the best. I assure all honourable senators that the growers of Australia will have a future if the government of the day takes the decisions that are needed for keeping the wheat industry in the position it has enjoyed as one of Australia's major exporters. Of course, we need the blessing of the Almighty Himself for the rains we need. There is no better sight than a combine harvester ripping into a heavy crop. Hopefully, I will be able to see such a sight next week. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria)(10.23) —Tonight the Senate is discussing cognately Bills that directly affect the wheat industry-the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Wheat Tax Regulations (Validation) Bill. In Victoria the Mallee district is the major wheat belt. It is an electorate currently held by a National Party of Australia member, Mr Peter Fisher. He is a colleague of mine and a long serving member of the Parliament and of the Mallee itself. He is a tireless and very strong voice for the wheat farmers. Now that Victoria has chosen a National Party senator to represent it, I also intend to be a very strong and very loud voice for the wheat farmers, particularly those in my State of Victoria-for it is quite clear that this Government and the Australian Democrats are deaf to any voice that any sector of primary industry may direct towards them. The one thing that this Government must recognise is the contribution that the wheat industry makes towards Australia's balance of payments. It contributes 23 per cent of our rural exports and 8 per cent of Australia's total exports. The most significant statistic attributed to this industry is that there are 45,000 independent growers-decentralised wheat farmers who operate small businesses. With this in mind, it would be in the interests of the Government to give greater support to these very hard-working Australians. Family farms must be given a greater priority than they are getting at the moment. It has been suggested that supporters of family farms are simply defending a sacred cow. I reject this suggestion. It is economic lunacy to say that we are protecting a sacred cow when we seek to protect family farms. Family farms provide a community benefit that far outweighs any costs. As I said in an earlier debate in this House, family farms not only represent Australian ownership of our natural resources but also enable individuals and families to have an access to ownership of a very private and productive property. The National Party of Australia and I not only reject attack on the concept of the family farm by this corporate-minded Government, but also commit as much support as we can possibly muster. Another issue that has arisen of late in the wheat industry is the report of the Industries Assistance Commission, which basically recommends that the Australian Wheat Board lose its wheat marketing powers along with the guaranteed minimum price. I think this suggestion is most inopportune at a time when farmers are barely able to keep themselves afloat and many have had to walk off their farms. The Wheat Board has been one of the few successes in this industry over the years. It has achieved a remarkable success in increasing Australia's world market share. Only last year Australia was one of the only major exporting nations to sell all of its wheat in a very bloated market. In 1983-84 the market share was 11.8 per cent. In 1985-86 that was increased to 19.1 per cent. During 1985-86 Australia was the only one of the five major wheat exporting nations to increase its world share. Yet, through all this, the Government has further burdened the competitiveness of this industry. It has done this by increasing the insurance premiums on wheat exports and reducing the cover to 80 per cent. This was condemned by the Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board when he said that it would clearly affect the export competitiveness and that it was a very unnecessary decision at this time-indeed, he intimated, at any time. It is clear that the abolition of the Wheat Board is an inopportune suggestion. Rather, this Government should be tackling the internal costs of this industry. One such problem is the transport costs, such as the freight cost of shipping the grain, that this industry must face. These costs have recently skyrocketed in my State of Victoria. The now removed Minister for Transport, Mr Roper, has been very much to blame for that. Quite frankly, he left that portfolio in chaos. Not only the grain handling section of the transport portfolio but also the City of Melbourne has been left in chaos. As most people know, a strike is taking place in the city of Melbourne, at a most inopportune time. This strike over the Christmas period, which has not been resolved, has probably killed the brightest spot in the retailers' calendar. The wheat industry must endure other internal costs. These include years of high interest rates, years of high inflation rates and years of high fuel costs. The industry cannot go on fighting these costs. For the sake of the 45,000 wheat farms, I ask this Government to return to the fundamentals-to attack the fundamentals of this industry. The introduction of an affirmative action clause in this Bill is hardly a fundamental; it is hardly a priority of the 45,000 wheat farmers. This Government seems to be preoccupied with forcing its departments and instrumentalities such as the Australian Wheat Board to pursue affirmative action programs. It is achieving this under the guise of Forward Estimates programs. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Peter Baume) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Under sessional order I propose the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Coulter, J. R. McLean, P. A.Haines, J. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Harradine, B. Powell, J. F.Jenkins, J. A. Wood, W. R. Alston, R. K. R. Hill, R. M.Archer, B. R. Jones, G. N.Aulich, T. G. Knowles, S. C.Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Peter McGauran, J. J.Beahan, M. E. MacGibbon, D. J.Bishop, B. K. McKiernan, J. P.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Maguire, G. R.Black, J. R. Messner, A. J.Bolkus, N. Morris, J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M.Brownhill, D. G. C. Panizza, J. H.Burns, B. R. Parer, W. R.Calvert, P. H. Patterson, K. C. L.Chaney, F. M. Puplick, C. J. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Ray, RobertChilds, B. K. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Coates, J. Schacht, C. C.Collins, R. L. Sheil, G.Colston, M. A. Short, J. R.Cook, P. F. S. Sibraa, K. W.Cooney, B. C. Stone, J. O.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Tambling, G. E. J.Crowley, R. A. Teague, B. C.Devereux, J. R. Vanstone, A. E.Devlin, A. R. Walsh, P. A.Durack, P. D Walters, M. S.Foreman, D. J. Watson, J. O. WGietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria) —Prior to that division, I was calling upon the Government, for the sake of the 45,000 wheat farmers, to come back to, and attack, the fundamentals. The affirmative action clause that we have in this legislation is hardly a priority for those 45,000 wheat farmers. Senator Boswell —How many farmers want it? Senator McGAURAN —I would like to know how many want it. I think that it is probably very few when there are so many other problems in the wheat industry, as I have shown in the debate. The Government has been preoccupied with forcing its departments' instrumentalities to pursue affirmative action plans under the guise of forward estimates. A forward estimate is defined in the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act as: a quantitative measure or aim, which may be expressed in numerical terms, designed to achieve equality of opportunity for women in employment matters, being a measure or aim that can reasonably be implemented by the relevant employer within a specified time. Forward estimates or quotes are not about equal opportunity; they are not about promotion on merit: they are simply a means to achieve equality of results. The spread of affirmative action legislation is a result of a push by a very extreme element, mainly made up of what we know in everyday society as extreme feminists who have gone around attempting to redefine the word `merit'. Basically these feminists do not want women to have a true choice. As indicated by one of the early pioneers of this legislation, Elizabeth Reid, who was once the women's adviser to Gough Whitlam: Too many women would make the choice to stay home and care for their children. I suspect she would hardly be a supporter of the policies of the traditional family or would be in favour of any of the policies that the National Party of Australia so clearly puts forward when it discusses and debates the traditional family. The most just form of equal opportunity is to give women a choice whether they stay at home or work. That requires the economic support of the family structure, not only in general monetary terms by way of lowering interest rates and inflation rates, but also directly to household incomes by way of budgetary support giving women incentive to stay at home and care for the family, if that is their choice. I am saddened by the way that the feminists have taken over the Australian Labor Party and pushed this point and redefined `merit'. Above all, they are turning their backs on the traditional family and on the traditional structures of that family. A great number of women in Australian society who are working today are doing so mainly due to economic circumstances. That is the main reason. They are not interested in the feminist notions of affirmative action. Rather, as we enter our bicentennial year, these women would be far prouder to be associated with the pioneering women and those women so properly described in the poem known as The Women of the West. I will read just one paragraph of that poem to clearly illustrate what I am saying: They left the vine-wreathed cottage and the mansion on the hill, The houses in the busy streets where life is never still, The pleasures of the city, and the friends they cherished best: For love they faced the wilderness-the Women of the West. To relate that poem to this Bill is ever so appropriate. No women work harder than the farming women to support not only the farm and the business but also the family. We in the National Party know that we have the support of those women. We know that we have their support for our very strong stance in relation to affirmative action and the redefinition of the word `merit'. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.44) —I was not going to speak on the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 but I have been tempted by the contribution of Senator McGauran who has chosen to offer some words about equal employment opportunity, to refer to the provisions of this Bill as affirmative action provisions and to make an unfortunate personal attack on Elizabeth Reid who is a very fine Australian. I want to respond to some of these things. First of all, the Opposition is not opposing the equal employment opportunity clauses. Our spokesmen have made that clear. We are seeking an amendment to make quite clear that we do not favour positive discrimination. In the committee stage of previous Bills when this matter has been discussed it has been put to us by the Government side and by the Australian Democrats that they were not disposed to support our amendment because they thought it was unnecessary; not because it had no merit, but because they felt that there was no positive discrimination in the Bills being proposed and, therefore, they argued there was no need for our amendment. I do not agree. I think that the amendment is harmless. I intend to vote for it. I am glad the Opposition is moving it. But the legislation is not affirmative action legislation. It does not provide quotas and it does not provide preference, and it is shameful to have the provisions expressed in this way. After all, the Opposition has supported every equal employment opportunity measure that the Government has put up, except one. With this Bill our support is in the tradition of the majority of our voting actions over the last few years. Lest there be any doubt, I say that the Opposition parties do not oppose equal employment opportunity. The Opposition is not opposed to the equal employment opportunity provisions even though we want an amendment, and we want it for good and proper reasons, which my colleagues have set out. The voting record, which people may care to examine in the Journals of the Senate, on this and previous Bills will make quite clear to anyone what our position is. I cannot sit down without making some reference to Elizabeth Reid. Senator McGauran is a new senator, he is learning his way in this place. He may not understand that playing the man instead of the ball is not good politics and it is not fair. What he may not know is that Elizabeth Reid was tragically widowed within the last year. That may not matter to him, and I do not intend to go through the details of what happened to her husband. Elizabeth Reid is bringing up a five-year-old son. She has chosen to take the role of homemaker and parent and, in addition, she is working to enable her to fulfil that role. If Senator McGauran had known that, I think to have mentioned her and to have made the assertion that she does not favour the homemaking role, is something he would not have said. It is incorrect, it is unfair and it is inappropriate in the circumstances. I think Senator McGauran has chosen to say how he thinks Elizabeth Reid may behave or what she may think. He is wrong, he is absolutely wrong, and I invite him to apologise to her. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.48) —I do not intend to throw any combustible material on the brush fires that are breaking out on the Opposition benches, and indeed I do not intend to delay the passage of the Bills any longer. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Amendments (by Senator Brownhill)-by leave-negatived: (1) Page 3, clause 3, paragraph (a), at the end of the definition of ``equal employment opportunity program'' add ``, but not so far as to permit or require any positive discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status, race, religion, or on any other grounds''. (2) Page 6, clause 11, after proposed section 45aa insert the following section: Object of equal employment opportunity program ``45aaa. The object of the equal employment opportunity program developed under section 45aa is to eliminate discrimination and promote equal opportunity, and nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting or requiring any positive discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status, race, religion, or on any other grounds.''. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 14 December, on motion by Senator Richardson: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 17 November, on motion by Senator Reynolds: That the Bills be now read a second time. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That the debate on the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill 1987 be adjourned. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.53) —I thank the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and the Government for adjourning the debate on the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill. This Bill makes some very significant changes to the structure of the Family Court of Australia and its place in the legal system and it is certainly not a subject that I would care to be debating at this stage of the sittings or at this hour of the night. I think we will be able to debate that more fully and effectively when we return for the autumn sittings. The Family Law Amendment Bill 1987, which we are about to debate, is also a very important piece of legislation and one which the Opposition fully supports. Although it deals with some very important matters, as far as I am aware there is not any real controversy in relation to its proposals. The purpose of the Bill is twofold. Firstly, it requires the Commonwealth Parliament to accept a reference of powers which has recently been given to it by four States-New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania-to legislate with respect to ex-nuptial children. This has been a grave difficulty in the administration of family law since the establishment of the Family Court in 1976. With restrictions on the Commonwealth's constitutional powers, that court had only limited jurisdiction in relation to children-namely, the children of the marriage which was the subject of proceedings in that court. Although there have been attempts to extend the definition of children of the marriage they have largely failed. The problem could never be fully overcome by legislation in this Parliament because the Constitution does not give it the power to legislate with respect to the status and rights of ex-nuptial children as a class. For the last 10 or 11 years the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General has been negotiating to achieve a solution to this problem. Fortunately, the Western Australian Parliament and Government went a very great way towards solving that problem. In that State, within the powers that are granted under the Family Law Act, the Western Australian Parliament and Government set up a State family court and the Commonwealth Government vested it with jurisdiction under the Family Law Act. So over the full period of the operation of the Family Law Act that court has had the power to administer the law relating to families generally. The problem with many of the cases that come before family courts is that there are children who are part, as a fact, of the family but for one reason or another may not be the children of both of the parties to the marriage. Certainly the history and record of the Family Court of Western Australia have proved very clearly the value of that solution. In the rest of Australia, because the State governments at the time were not prepared to take the sort of initiative that the Western Australian Government took-they all declined to set up a State family court to receive jurisdiction under the new Family Law Act 1975-there has been a constant jurisdictional problem of conflict. Hopefully, this legislation will be effective in four States and will overcome that problem. Ironically, this rather extensive increase in jurisdiction of the Family Court comes at a time when its whole future and structure is under question and is being debated. The Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill, which was to have been debated tonight, gives clear expression to those concerns. It makes some proposals which will make quite a big change to the Family Court's structure. As I have said, after 10 or 11 years of negotiations about this problem, it has been solved to a large extent by the inclusion of these powers in the Family Law Amendment Bill. Other problems of the Family Court, which is to receive this extended jurisdiction, are certainly far from solved. Nevertheless, although I personally would have preferred to see the administration of family law proceed along the lines of the Western Australian model, that is clearly not going to happen. This reference of powers from the States to enable this legislation to be passed is a second best solution, but still better than the situation that has, unfortunately, pertained for so long. The other purpose of this Bill is to change quite extensively the provisions of the Family Law Act regarding the obligation of maintenance of children. This is a subject about which the Opposition has been concerned for a long time. On two occasions I have introduced into the Senate a Bill to address this problem-namely, the situation which has developed under the existing Act and the administration of it in the Family Court whereby parents of children for whom they are responsible and should be responsible, who should be made to bear their responsibilities, have been sloughing them off to the taxpayer by arranging the maintenance payments so that the custodial parent can attract the full benefits of the supporting parent's benefit, thereby relieving the non-custodial parent of part of his, or sometimes her, obligations. This was apparent to the Opposition when we were in government. In fact, it was first identified by the Joint Select Committee on the Operation of the Family Law Act, which reported in 1980. The problem was being tackled by the Fraser Government before it lost office but it did not finalise its proposals. These proposals centred very much on a provision in the Family Law Act which says that a court, in determining a level of maintenance for a child, is required to take into account the eligibility of the parties to the marriage, or the parents of the child, to a Commonwealth pension or benefit. Of course, that has been the way in which the responsibility of parents has been able to be sloughed off, at least partially, to the taxpayers. The proposals in the Bill which I introduced into the Senate and which, indeed, was passed by the Senate last May but not taken up by the Government, sought to reverse that situation. It is somewhat strange that in May of this year all the Government senators opposed that proposal, yet this legislation is now giving effect to exactly the same proposal. Other provisions of that Bill were to give some better directions to the Family Court as to the priorities that it should observe when assessing the financial capacity of parents to maintain their children-in other words, to insist that the first priority be given to their obligation to maintain their children over other commitments such as high levels of debt and other conspicuous types of expenditure. At present they come along and tell the Court that because of their mortgage and hire purchase repayments they cannot afford the level of maintenance that would be only fair and proper for their children. That was also a proposal in the Opposition's Bill. It is taken up and very effectively addressed in this legislation. I am very pleased with the way in which this legislation has been drafted. Finally, the Opposition's proposals also addressed the problem where people enter into maintenance agreements taking advantage of a section of the Family Law Act which enables them to settle, once and for all, their liabilities to either their spouse or their children in a settlement which can be re-opened only in very rare circumstances. The Family Law Amendment Bill 1986 which I introduced on behalf of the Opposition provided that despite the fact that people may enter into such agreements, that could not discharge their liability forever to their children. In other words, the agreement could be re-opened in regard to those liabilities at some future date. I find this legislation adopting exactly that same principle. It is very interesting to note what Senator Gareth Evans said. He spoke on behalf of the Government in the debate on the Opposition's Bill in February 1986 in respect of the removal of the requirement that courts should take into account the entitlement or eligibility of either parent to a government pension or benefit. Senator Evans rejected that proposal very firmly in the debate. He stated: The Government is firmly of the view . . . that primary responsibility for the support of children should rest with the parents of the children. Nevertheless, it believes that the approach taken by the proposed-- that was the provision in our Bill- is too simplistic and may create great hardships where there are not the financial resources to allow total support of two family units. Senator Tate spoke on the Bill much along the same lines. Although Senator Richardson did not speak on the Bill, he would have voted along the lines laid down. This Bill takes almost word for word the provisions in relation to which Senator Evans only 18 months ago said was the wrong approach. In regard to the provision about maintenance agreements, Senator Evans said: . . . by excluding arrangements for child maintenance from court-approved maintenance agreements. It would, in the Government's view, be a very drastic step to remove these arrangements from the scope of . . . agreements. These agreements are a useful means for parties to finalise their affairs on marital breakdown without the trauma of continuing court proceedings. Despite the view that Senator Evans, the Government and all the Labor senators apparently held in February 1986, this Bill again does exactly the same thing. We are pleased that the Government has had some sudden conversion to the views that the Opposition has been expressing and seeking implementation of for some time now. As a result, the Opposition welcomes this Bill and will support it. We do not propose any amendments to it. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(11.08) —The Family Law Amendment Bill before us tonight amends the Family Law Act in a number of welcome, significant and, I suggest, overdue ways. The first significant aspect relates to constitutional powers and ex-nuptial children. For far too long-for over a decade, in fact-the Commonwealth and the States have been debating but not acting on a possible reference of powers from the States. This Bill implements references of powers from New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania concerning the maintenance and payment of expenses in relation to children or childbearing to include a wider range of children than can presently be dealt with under the Family Law Act and, in particular, it encompasses ex-nuptial children. This is but the latest in a series of legislative steps designed to emancipate these children. Until relatively recently, ex-nuptial children were legally discriminated against in that they did not have the same rights and privileges as children born within marriage. To their credit, most State legislatures have moved to give these children equality before State law. Remedying the anomaly with respect to the ambit of the Family Law Act is long overdue. It has long been recognised that concern for the needs of children should be a principal aim of family law, whatever the legal relationship of their parents. We hear from time to time a lot in this chamber about the need to recognise the value of the family, but all too often those who argue that a family should stay together willy-nilly and under all circumstances ignore the needs of the children in those relationships and, in particular, ignore the fact that those children may well be better off if the parents in the relationship separate. Whatever the continuing relationship is then between the children and each of the parents they are generally better off-in violent relationships, in particular-if there is an acknowledgment that the marriage has broken down. To that extent, the changes made with regard to the ease of and access to divorce in the 1970s were very welcome because they introduced an element, not only of compassion but of good, old-fashioned common sense into the system. But, unfortunately, we did not go the next step and ensure that the well-being of the children following the breakdown of the marriage and the divorce was always regarded as paramount and always catered for. As I said, this legislation is long overdue and goes some way towards correcting that. The desirability of including ex-nuptial children under the Family Law Act is made even clearer when we look at the growing proportion of children who are born outside marriage. We do not need to debate the reasons for that trend here. We need only look at the fact that the trend is there and attempt to accommodate it. What is important is that there is a large and growing proportion of ex-nuptial children and it is time these children were put on an equal footing with other children in all aspects of their lives. One would hope that even narrow-minded conservatives would not object to this long overdue and welcome step which gives equality to children who cannot be held responsible for the position that they find themselves in. It is, however, extremely disappointing although somewhat typical, that Queensland is not prepared to hand over its powers to the Commonwealth. We can only hope that the new, and supposedly more human, version of the National Party Government in Queensland will rethink the position of its predecessor. Otherwise in Queensland it will still be necessary to bring proceedings in the State courts in respect of children who are not children of the marriage and in a Family Court in respect of children who are children of a marriage. That is a rather unnecessary absurdity. It is quite outrageous to think that an ex-nuptial child born in Queensland can be or will continue to be discriminated against in this way. Although Western Australia will also be outside this uniform scheme, the circumstances there are, as you would well know, Madam Acting Deputy President, somewhat different. In Western Australia the State Family Court has jurisdiction to deal with all of the children in a family unit. It applies, as appropriate, the Family Law Act and the State Law. Whilst I remain hopeful that both of these States will refer the relevant powers to the Commonwealth, at the very least they should avail themselves of this Bill which enables them to adopt its provisions in respect of their ex-nuptial children so that these children are not disadvantaged in comparison with children in the referring States. This Bill will also have the effect of bringing greater fairness into the system as far as maintenance is concerned. It is now well documented that many non-custodial parents have defaulted in their responsibilities to their children. A minority of maintenance orders are carried out in full from the time that maintenance order is made. So these defaulters have effectively left the support of their children to the general body of taxpayers and abrogated their responsibilities for the upbringing of those children. I think that very few people would argue that the present system of child support is therefore satisfactory. There are conflicts in the relevant Acts and there are serious difficulties in collection and enforcement, and as a result, there are appalling inequities. We all know, because the statistics are plentiful, that sole parenting is becoming recognised as one of the major causes of poverty in Australian society. Nearly 800,000 children are living in families below the poverty line. The majority of those of course, are living in families where there there is a sole supporting parent. The majority of those are sole supporting parents because their marriages have broken down, not because they are a bunch of nymphomaniac teenagers who think they can become millionaires on the supporting parent's benefit. So there is a very real problem that needs to be corrected in this area. The proportion of sole parent families in receipt of social security benefits has risen, with a quarter of a million people now receiving pensions or benefits in this category. That pensioner benefit is, for many households, their only source of income, largely because of the defaulting of the non-custodial parent. The unfortunate effect of the present system has been to lessen the pressure on non-custodial parents to make a financial contribution to the maintenance of their children. Currently, the Family Court, in setting the amount of maintenance, takes into account the custodial parent's ability to obtain social security benefits. This was an anomaly that Senator Durack pointed out when he introduced his private member's Bill. It is certainly something that needed to be attended to, since far too many judges seem to be taking into account the fact that access to a pension or benefit means that there is an income available, independent of the non-custodial parent's contribution, and this contribution was diminished as a result. That sort of situation cannot be allowed to continue. The burden on the taxpayer was becoming excessive and there were far too many non-custodial parents who believed that, once the marriage broke down, they no longer owed any responsibility either to their erstwhile spouse or to the children of the union. The Bill makes it clear that children should have their needs met from the resources of both parents. Proposed new section 66b states: The parents of a child have . . . the primary duty to maintain the child. I do not think that too many people in this chamber would disagree with that. While we do not believe that this legislation goes as far as it could, it is welcome, it is overdue, it is appropriate and it places the responsibility for maintaining a child where that responsibility properly lies, that is, on the shoulders of both parents-the custodial and the non-custodial parents-and removes an excessive cost to the taxpayer. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria)(11.18) —Tonight we are debating the Family Law Amendment Bill 1987 and the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill 1987. The Family Law Amendment Bill implements most of the major provisions that Senator Durack introduced in his private member's Bill. We now see the wisdom of Senator Durack's private member's Bill reappear in the guise of the Family Law Amendment Bill. This Bill introduces a uniform scheme in four States-New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania-for maintenance, custody and guardianship of all children. It restructures the Family Law Act so as to bring together most of the provisions relating to children. It seeks to ensure that children receive adequate financial support. I commend the thrust of this Bill because, as this chamber would be aware, the greatest sufferers from a marriage breakup are undoubtedly the children. According to recent studies by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, one of the major problems children from broken homes face is poverty. The rapidly growing problem of homeless youth is perhaps the saddest aspect of poverty. The incidence of homeless youth occurs in children as young as those of primary school age. The fact that the youth involved are so young is perhaps the greatest tragedy of all. The growing crisis of homeless youth is literally as it is defined: they simply have no homes and are out in the streets. Of course, the homeless youth crisis is closely related to the crime and drug problem. That should be of concern to all of this chamber. Having pointed out what I believe to be the main part of this debate-that is, the growing problems of homeless youth and the fact that it represents a danger for future generations of Australians-I commend the coalition's stance on this legislation. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.22) —The introduction of the original family law legislation was so controversial in 1975 that it was passed by only one vote in the Senate, senators having been given a conscience vote, something the Australian Labor Party does not do these days. On that occasion every senator had a choice. Each State had to decide what it would do. Most of the States handed their powers over to the Commonwealth. However, Western Australia and Queensland did not hand their powers over to the Commonwealth. Western Australia in particular ever since has maintained a very good family court. Until last year the Family Court of Australia did not have the power to make decisions regarding maintenance, custody and guardianship and access in relation to children born out of wedlock. This proved a very great disadvantage and discriminated against those children. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that the Hon. John Brown, Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, has tonight tendered his resignation as Minister of the Crown to His Excellency the Governor-General. A copy of Mr Brown's resignation has been submitted to the Acting Prime Minister, Mr Bowen, who has advised me that he will advise the Governor- General to accept Mr Brown's resignation. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been informed and has spoken with Mr Brown. Mr Brown has issued a brief statement relating to his resignation, a copy of which I table and seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- MINISTER FOR THE ARTS, SPORT, THE ENVIRONMENT, TOURISM AND TERRITORIES I have tonight tendered my resignation from the Government to the Governor-General, and the Acting Prime Minister is recommending that it be accepted. After examining the documents on file relating to the composition and decisions of the Expo tender assessment panel, it has become apparent to me that I misled the Parliament on 10 December when I stated that there had been a tied vote on the relevant decision on 21 March this year. My statement to the Parliament was made in complete good faith, in the honest but mistaken belief that the two public servant members of the panel were not entitled to vote, but were simply present to ensure that proper tender procedures were followed. I had always genuinely believed this to be the case, and I had no intention whatever to deceive the Parliament when I said as much again last week. I have been shown to be wrong on the facts, but my conscience is, and will remain, completely clear. Because of my respect for the institution of Parliament, I feel that I have no alternative in all the circumstances but to resign as a Minister. 17 December 1987 Senator BUTTON —In recommending the acceptance of the resignation, the Acting Prime Minister has indicated that he accepts the contents of Mr Brown's statement of resignation in that although he was in error, he acted in good faith and did not wilfully mislead the House. Mr Brown was appointed as Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Administrative Services from 11 March 1983. He was Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce from 21 April 1983 to 13 December 1984 and he was Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence from 13 December 1984. Following the last election he was appointed to his position as Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Mr Brown was a dedicated and hard-working Minister who approached his ministerial duties with drive and imagination. As Minister for Tourism he was instrumental in raising the profile of the tourist industry in Australia and in enhancing the rapid growth of that industry. He initiated the highly successful Paul Hogan advertisements in the United States. As Minister for Sport he was equally energetic and forceful, and was well regarded by the sporting community. He will be remembered for these and other considerable contributions to government in Australia. The Government profoundly regrets the circumstances which have led to Mr Brown's resignation. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I indicate at the outset that I do not think this is the time to make a lengthy speech. However, there are a couple of things that need to be said in light of the points that have been made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). The first thing is that, in the view of the Opposition, the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) has followed the only possible course open to him. Had he not followed that course, we certainly were going to pursue the matter tomorrow. I find it puzzling that the seriousness of the mistake that was made-if a mistake it was-was not apparent until so late in the day. A statement was made in the House of Representatives on 10 December and, on the face of the few documents that I have seen, it was apparently wrong. I find it extraordinary that the matter was not dealt with in a prompt and sensible way, just as I find it extraordinary that the Government was so totally unable to deal with the matter at Question Time today after the very extensive and detailed report that was contained in the Sydney Morning Herald. It is also fair to the Senate and to the Government to say that the Opposition has a continuing interest in this matter and is determined to get to the whole truth of the handling of this contract. On the documents that I have seen, the handling of the contract rivals the Amann Aviation Pty Ltd contract in its administration. The difference is that in the case of the Amann contract the whole blame has been laid at the feet of the Public Service. In this case, quite clearly, the blame will lie at the feet of the politicians involved and I think the Australian public will be reasonably impressed by the standards that have been shown by the public servants who were involved in an extremely badly and incompetently administered and, I think, on the nose set of transactions. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.28) —As I was saying before I sought leave to continue my remarks, until last year the Family Court of Australia did not have the power to make decisions regarding maintenance, custody, guardianship and access in relation to those children born out of wedlock. This had proved a great disadvantage and discriminated considerably against the welfare of those youngsters. Last year, to overcome the problem, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania enacted legislation handing over those rights to the Federal Family Court of Australia, leaving Western Australia and Queensland to conduct their family courts as they had in the past. The Family Law Amendment Bill 1987 deals with these new powers given to the Federal Family Court and creates the position whereby ex-nuptial children will be dealt with in exactly the same way as children of a marriage, thus giving children in the States handing over their powers the Federal rights and Federal status. In the original Family Law Act the judges, when considering maintenance for children, were forced to take into consideration the availability of the supporting parents benefit to those spouses with custody of the children. That is under section 75. As a result, the taxpayers ended up footing the bill, paying a benefit for the majority of broken marriages-in many cases with the father ignoring his responsibility for his children. Senator Durack, several years ago, introduced a private member's Bill which would have abolished the requirement under section 75. But Government members, in their stupidity, voted against Senator Durack's private member's Bill. However, now it seems the Government has come to its senses and has included in this legislation amendments to overcome the problem. I quote from the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen): . . . the Bill seeks to ensure that children will receive a proper level of financial support from the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of both their parents and that both parents share equitably in the support of their children. The Bill provides that the duty of parents to maintain a child takes priority over all other commitments of the parent, other than commitments enabling the parent to support himself or herself or any other persons or child that the parent has a duty to maintain. So the Government is abolishing section 75. That is very important, because that is just what Senator Durack attempted to do so long ago. The second reading speech continues: This Bill provides that in any future proceedings for spousal or child maintenance, the court must disregard the eligibility for an income-tested pension of an applicant for maintenance. Why did it take the Government so long to correct the abuses? One might well ask why, particularly when in the second reading speech the Minister says: In developing its proposals for child maintenance, the Government has been concerned at the very high level of social security payments being made to divorced parties who have not made adequate provision for spousal maintenance in the course of conclusion of their financial arrangements. I do not understand at all why the Government voted against Senator Durack's private member's Bill and now sees fit to put in place exactly what Senator Durack had suggested. Maybe it was just the pigheadedness of the Government that made it decide not to support a measure which would have corrected a problem which the Opposition had been telling it had been so costly for so long. I was very pleased to see that a financial impact statement is provided for this Bill. I do not know what the cost to the Government of the delay has been, but the financial impact statement tells us that the taking over of these State powers will involve an additional $3.5m at least. I was delighted to see a financial impact statement provided for the Bill because I believe that this initiative, which has been creeping into legislation of late, is most important and to be commended. Finally, I suppose one can say of this legislation that it is better late than never. It is for this reason that we on this side of the chamber support it. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.34) —I rise to discuss the Family Law Amendment Bill 1987, which was previously introduced in conjunction with the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill 1987. I have to say that I regret that we find ourselves dealing with issues of this nature at this hour under the sort of pressure that I find pervading both Houses-pressure which discourages people from the necessary task of putting their views in the frankest and fullest way. One aspect of the latter Bill to which I referred at the beginning of my comments seeks to allow applications for decrees of dissolution to be heard and determined by courts of summary jurisdiction. I shall have more to say on this piece of legislation when it is reintroduced into the Senate next year. In general terms, however, the Family Law Amendment Bill 1987 legislates for ex-nuptial children and makes substantial amendments for the maintenance of children, incorporating as it does the principles enunciated in the recent case of Mee v. Ferguson. One aspect of the new part VII concerning children incorporates in substance existing provisions under the Family Law Act in relation to counselling, extending them to matters involving the welfare of children. In my opinion, however, there has been a neglect of reconciliation counselling, as well as the marriage guidance counselling services provided to couples who are already married and who are trying to avoid the ultimate tragedy of divorce. I am, of course, aware that section 15 of the Family Law Act 1975 provides a mechanism whereby parties to a marriage are able to seek the assistance of the counselling facilities of the Family Court of Australia with a view to the reconciliation or the improvement of their relationship. The value of this section is that proceedings in the Family Court are not required to be instituted before access can be had to the counselling services of the court. However, it is quite plain that simply not enough married couples are aware that these facilities even exist for their benefit. The problem is further accentuated by the fact that couples will usually only ever seek out any sort of counselling assistance when it is much too late. This situation prevails notwithstanding the powers given to the Principal Director of Court Counselling by section 16 of the Act to advertise the existence and availability of the counselling and welfare facilities of the Family Court. According to Don Edgar, the Director of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, in his submission paper, Marriage, the Family and Family Law in Australia, the evidence of experienced marriage guidance counsellors shows that reconciliation is virtually impossible after a separation of six months or more. It is therefore crucial that couples are provided with marriage advice and counselling within this time in order at least to give them a chance to resolve their differences with a view to reconciliation. It is even less likely that couples separated for the statutory 12 months before divorce can be successfully reconciled through counselling. That this is the situation which occurs presently in the Family Court cannot be doubted. On most occasions within the present family law system, the counselling given to the parties will usually be directed towards conciliation pursuant to section 16 of the Act. Yet, the use of proper and timely reconciliation and marriage guidance counselling not only may save the couple and their children from the trauma of divorce but also makes good financial sense to the Commonwealth. Perhaps I should deal with that matter later in my speech. The issues which I have so far raised do not, of course, mean that I am against the insertion by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) of the counselling provisions contained in the new part VII of the Family Law Amendment Bill-far from it. Proposed new section 61B, for example, restates in respect of proceedings involving children under part VII the substance of the existing section 16A in relation to conciliation counselling. Further, proposed new section 61 repeats the substance of present section 15 of the Act in relation to conciliation counselling, to which I have previously referred. This clause merely extends this provision so that a party to a proceeding under part VII, or the separate representative of a child, may seek the assistance of counselling facilities to discuss matters concerning the welfare of the child. Similarly, proposed new section 61A repeats the substance of section 16 (2) of the principal Act so that the child, or a parent of a child, may obtain access to counselling facilities notwithstanding that proceedings are not at foot. The problem as I see it is that these new provisions for the extension of counselling under VII will add little, if anything, to the efficacy of the counselling services of the Family Court. A far greater emphasis must be placed on providing the parties to a marriage with counselling and guidance services before the possibility of reconciliation is lost. This can be achieved not only by promoting a greater awareness of the reconciliation facilities of the Family Court but also by increasing the number of counsellors available. One of the major criticisms of the system, identified by practitioners and the court, is the excessive pressure placed on court and counsellors owing to the deficiency of their numbers. A further method open to the Government in this area is to also upgrade the funding presently provided to marriage guidance services. To illustrate the potential benefits to be gained from upgrading of both reconciliation and marriage guidance counselling services, I refer the Senate to the rate of divorce this country is experiencing and, as a result, the costs, to government and society. It is common knowledge that the rate of divorce has increased. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table which shows the number of divorces in the 12 years to 1985. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 2.5 NUMBER OF DIVORCES, 1974-1985 With children Without children Total Proportion of divorces involving children (%) 1974 ... 12 073 5 615 17 688 68.3 1975 ... 16 387 7 870 24 257 67.6 1976(a) ... 39 624 23 606 63 230 62.7 1977 ... 28 769 16 381 45 150 63.7 1978 ... 25 643 14 965 40 608 63.1 1979 ... 23 213 14 641 37 854 61.3 1980 ... 23 787 15 471 39 258 60.6 1981 ... 25 285 16 127 41 412 61.1 1982 ... 27 157 16 931 44 088 61.6 1983 ... 26 828 16 697 43 525 61.6 1984 ... 26 276 16 848 43 124 60.9 1985 ... 24 130 15 700 39 830 60.6 (a) The Family Law Act came into operation on 5 January 1976, repealing the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1959. 1976 data cover divorces granted under both of these Acts. Source: ABS, Divorces, Australia, 1975 to 1985 (Cat. No. 3307.0) Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The proportion of divorces to marriages on 1982 figures is that 35 per cent of people were divorced after 25 years of marriage, with a further 5 per cent divorcing after more years of marriage. Altogether, 40 per cent of marriages ended in divorce at that time. The risk of children being affected by the divorce of their parents has risen significantly since that time. In the 1960s, 2 per cent of children had their parents divorced before they were 10 years of age and 3 per cent ran the risk of their parents being divorced before they were 16 years of age. Today, between 11 and 12 per cent of children face the prospect of their parents divorcing before they are 10 years, while between 18 and 19 per cent of children face the prospect of parental divorce before they are 16 years of age. Turning to the direct costs imposed on the Commonwealth by this level of divorce, it is estimated that Family Court legal aid for divorces and the payment of the supporting parent's benefit will cost the Commonwealth almost $1,100m, or nearly $67 for every man, woman and child in this country. Of the expenditure incurred, about 70 per cent went to paying the supporting parent's benefit. In September this year, 111,403 men and women who were separated were claiming the supporting parent's benefit. A further 32,251 men and women, divorced from their marriages, were claiming a supporting parent's benefit or a widow class A pension. Apart from the direct costs to the Commonwealth, there is also the cost of divorce for the parties concerned. If it is not possible to obtain legal aid, the parties pay their own costs. These begin at zero. If a matter is not contested the Family Court usually waives the $240 filing fee. Many of these matters are conducted by the parties themselves. If a practitioner is to be used, there is a filing fee and a cost of $345 for dissolution if there are no children or $450 if there are children. If there are other matters to be resolved by the court, a trial might cost between $5,000 and $7,000. If the matters go to appeal, the costs, of course, are greater again. Happily, cases involving trials and appeals are very much the exception these days rather than the rule. For example, only 5 per cent of cases for property and custody had to be settled before a judge. There are also indirect costs associated with divorce. After a marriage has been dissolved and property and custody matters settled, many divorcees suffer a dramatic fall in their standard of living, especially if they have custody of the children. Living standards for mothers with the custody of children decline dramatically-at least typically. A person with two children, who is wholly dependent upon pensions as a source of income, receives $413.30 a fortnight and an additional $30.00 per fortnight being paid where rent exceeds $45 per fortnight. The Henderson Committee of Inquiry into Poverty which reported in 1975 concluded that 34 per cent of sole parent families were living below the poverty line. The incidence among fatherless family was as high as 50 per cent. As we all know, that figure has been borne out by later studies. If the Government can keep families harmoniously together it would not only save money, but also improve the quality of care that could be given to children by adults, particularly the children of marriage, would invariably be better than that we could otherwise hope to provide. I can compare the costs. In 1986-87, the Marriage Guidance Council of Western Australia, for instance, served 2,459 cases and received a modest Commonwealth grant of $444,000. The supporting parent's benefit costs the Commonwealth about $8,944 per year for an adult and two children. Some 70 per cent of couples who separate seek the supporting parent's benefit and the average time that a parent spends on supporting benefits is about 2 1/2 years. Thus, of the 2,459 cases that the Western Australian office assisted, it needs to prevent only 20 couples, or less than one per cent of its work load, from separating and it will have saved the Federal Government the amount that it costs to run the service. The prevention of only 20 breakups in Western Australia, and the total cost of the Marriage Guidance Council of Western Australia, is reimbursed. In addition, we cannot possibly ignore costs such as legal aid, the cost to the Family Court itself, social costs and costs to the State welfare organisations, all of which will be reduced if the rate of divorces and separations could be lowered. Marriage guidance and reconciliation counselling are, as I said, a sensible investment from the Government's point of view. It is amazing that the Commonwealth is estimated to spend $67 per capita on divorce and subsequent benefits, but spends only 32c per head on marriage counselling. In the current Budget, there was an increase in funding of 9 per cent, which represents a real increase of perhaps 1.25 to 2.5 per cent at best. For the Western Australian Marriage Guidance Council it comes out at a 1.3 per cent increase in 1986-87, or a fall in real terms of 7.1 per cent. The Attorney-General has acknowledged the work done by the Marriage Guidance Council service and expressed his regret that he could not have obtained more funding for the service from the Budget. In 1982-83, the Western Australian Marriage Guidance Council received a grant of $324,000 representing a subsidy of $194.83 per case. In 1986-87, the Commonwealth grant was $444,000, which represented a subsidy of $218 in each case. To provide the same real level of subsidy per case as that provided in 1982-83, the subsidy should have been $260.11, modest as that is. The Marriage Guidance Council of Western Australia presently has a bank overdraft of $125,000. In 1986-87, counselling centres closed in Bunbury, Esperance and Kalgoorlie. It should be noted that, in that period, 15 centres closed across the entire nation. I do not believe that the Government is going about solving the problem in a meaningful way. I understand the Attorney-General's desire to reduce the costs and delays associated with divorce and the need to reduce the burden on the courts, but I do not believe that the problem has been approached in the best possible way. The Commonwealth would be far better served, both socially and financially, by directing its efforts towards trying to prevent marriage breakdown in the first place rather than simply trying to make it easier to step out of marriage after it has broken down. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.50) —I am pleased that Senator Crichton-Browne got the call before me because he has said what I would have liked to have said, and now I do not have to say it. I congratulate him on his speech because he said it much better than I would have been able to, I am sure. I congratulate Senator Crichton-Browne for raising these very serious issues right here and now, even at this late hour of the night. I am disappointed, as other senators have said, that these very important amendments proposed to the Family Law Act are being brought on at this late hour and at a time when the House of Representatives is in recess. Obviously, there are some measures in this legislation which the Government requires and to hold them up would not be appropriate in those circumstances. However, I am inclined to the view that there should have been an opportunity to amend the Family Law Act, since it is now before us, in order to overcome some of the problems that have been identified by honourable senators such as Senator Walters, Senator Durack, Senator Crichton-Browne and Senator McGauran tonight. As Senate Crichton-Browne said, the Australian Parliament should address these issues not only to overcome some of the tragic circumstances that arise because of breakdown in marriage but also because of the burden that is imposed on the taxpayers of Australia. The annual cost to the Australian community of marriage breakdowns now is in excess of $1.5 billion a year. This is made more disconcerting by the fact that this Parliament has not properly reconsidered what occurred in 1974-75 when the family law legislation was enacted making divorce much easier. We have not been fair to the people who have entered marriage with a commitment. The Parliament and the family law structure have not been fair to those people and have not supported them in their commitment lovingly made on that day of their marriage. They have been thrown to the wolves. Three years ago I proposed certain amendments to the Family Law Act so that the parties to marriages that were in trouble would be able to sit down and consider the social, economic and other effects of the proposed dissolution of their marriage. It was an attempt to have those people focus on those considerations early after separation. Those proposed amendments attracted fairly broad support in this chamber. I recall that they almost got through, but did not quite get through because the Government took the attitude that it was a matter of government policy that they were not passed. I think it is high time now for the whole of this Parliament to have another look at the Family Law Act and its ramifications. I do not want to go on to repeat what Senator Crichton-Browne has so admirably stated tonight. I think that the picture he has painted is a devastating one. I feel that perhaps next year when the other part of this legislation comes up for debate it would be more appropriate for us to have another look at it at that time. I simply mention-and I know the Minister at the table, the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate), is concerned about this-that marriage guidance and reconciliation counselling services in my own State of Tasmania are suffering because of the lack of available finance-a similar situation to that described by Senator Crichton-Browne in respect of his State of Western Australia. Figures have been supplied to me which indicate that only a very small number of marriages are required to be saved to offset the cost to the taxpayer of the reconciliation counselling services. From my own experience I know the savings to the taxpayer of an intact family. I was a widower with six children who married a widow with seven children. That marriage saves the taxpayer something like $26,000 a year-there are 13 children involved-when they are all living at home. There are different circumstances now, of course, but that is just an indication. We are talking about big money. If we can help the parties to renew the spirit in which they entered marriage we will be helping the taxpayer and lifting the burden from the taxpayer. I am sure those things are known to the Minister at the table, and there is no need for me to carry on at this point of time. I do hope that when we come back next year we might be able to think about having another committee to look at the whole matter again, or at least have some amendments which might be able to be addressed there and then. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(11.57) —I thank those honourable senators who have contributed to this debate on this important Bill, the Family Law Amendment Bill 1987, which brings to a culmination some 11 years of negotiations between the Commonwealth and the States. It has been a long time coming. Opportunities have been missed, I acknowledge that, to allow for this reference of powers from the States to provide for the one jurisdiction to deal with the maintenance, custody, guardianship and access to children and so on. I thank those honourable senators, particularly Senator Crichton-Browne, who I know had a half hour dissertation but very kindly, at this late stage in the session, reduced his remarks to the pithy substance that he did. But to all honourable senators who contributed, I give my thanks and wish the legislation a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 27 October, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(11.59) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I suggest that order of the day No. 11, the Fisheries Amendment Bill 1987, also be dealt with cognately. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Peter Baume) —Is it the wish of the Senate to deal with the Bills cognately? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Senator ARCHER —I will be very brief. I had hoped to make a contribution worthy of the industry but, in view of the circumstances, I will cover only the bare essentials. The Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill 1987, the Fishing Industry Research Amendment Bill 1987, the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill and the Fisheries Amendment Bill 1987 cover totally unrelated issues but they all come under the heading of fishing. This is all part of the Government's cramming of 21 primary industry Bills through the last days of sitting, which is most unworthy of the Government. It is interesting to note that of the 21 Bills we have debated today not one Government speaker has said a word about any of the primary industries in Australia. It appears that there is no interest by them in this matter and that probably will not go unnoticed. The Fisheries Amendment Bill 1987 deals with the United States of America purse-seining deal with 16 nations in the South Pacific. Australia will get a small slice out of this, and the Opposition approves of that measure. The other three Bills are designed to strengthen the fisheries inspectors' powers, to formalise fishing industry research and to replace the vessel Soela. I wish the industry well. As I said, I had hoped to make a speech worthy of the industry but I will not hold up the legislation. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Friday, 18 December 1987 Senator POWELL(Victoria)(12.01 a.m.) —I want to make some comments in relation to the Fisheries Amendment Bill 1987 because this Bill gives effect to Australia's rights and obligations under the Treaty on Fisheries between the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States of America which was signed by Australia on 2 April 1987. The treaty will authorise United States purse-seine tuna fishing vessels to fish in a licensing area which includes a part of the Australian fishing zone around the Coral Sea islands territory. As a result of this treaty, the United States will provide $60m over five years to the 16 countries, divided on the basis of 15 per cent for access rights and 85 per cent for actual fish caught. Australia stands to gain revenue of $150,000 up front. If 5 per cent of the fish are from our waters we will end up with a total of $700,000. This will be ongoing, but part of that will go towards paying for additional surveillance of the area. The United States will be restricted to a maximum of 35 vessels, the catch can be subject to annual limits and the whole treaty will be renegotiated after five years. The treaty provides for Australia to have observers when United States boats come into the Australian fishing zone. This is particularly relevant in regard to monitoring dolphins which are common casualties of purse-seine fishing methods. In the eastern Pacific region, tuna and dolphins travel together and tuna fishermen set their nets on the dolphin sightings. This has forced the United States Government to set an annual limit of 20,000 acceptable dolphin kills in the Pacific. While it is not known whether there is the same close association between tuna fish and dolphins in the western Pacific, there is a strong argument for adequate studies to be done prior to United States tuna fishermen being allowed to set their nets in Australian waters. Senator Button, in answer to a question of mine on 20 October last year, said that no research had been done in the Australian fishing zone because little purse-seining had been done on skipjack and yellowfin tuna in the area. While Australia has made it clear to the United States that the dolphin population will be the subject of stringent monitoring, the Australian Democrats would prefer that studies be done prior to fishing occurring. However, we appreciate that the most feasible form of research will be to put Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service observers on to the United States fishing vessels. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE I remind the Senate that this Government, after pressure from the Democrats and other groups, stopped Taiwanese gill-netting in our northern waters precisely because of the killing of dolphins and the Thais and Japanese have also moved from gill-netting to long-line fishing. It would be ironic if we stopped the Taiwanese gill-netters only to allow the United States purse-seiners if they turned out to be as damaging to dolphins. Australia's reputation on the world scene has been greatly enhanced by the move which we made on the gill-netting issue. The treaty to which I am relating my remarks is in many respects a progressive step. For too long the United States tuna fishing boats have taken the extraordinarily arrogant attitude that, wherever United States fishing boats go, it is United States territory. This treaty sees the Americans recognising the territorial rights of small nation states in the Pacific that have every right to regulate their own fishing and their own territories. On 23 November Mr Tim Fischer, in the House of Representatives, welcomed the treaty with the rationale that it keeps the Russians at bay. I point out to the Senate that the Russians have not been the problem as far as these nation states have been concerned. Russia has been willing to enter into fishing agreements which recognised territorial waters and which adequately compensated the nation states. Until now it has been the Americans who have been the problem. However, with this treaty they are belatedly dropping their imperialist attitude and, quite properly, entering into agreements with our small Pacific neighbours as well as us. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE In commending these Bills to the Senate, I would argue that we allocate a sizable proportion of revenue flowing to us from the United States through the agreement for the funding of adequate scientific research by way of National Parks and Wildlife Service observers on the United States fishing vessels for the purpose of determining the effects of purse-seining on dolphins and tuna populations. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(12.05 a.m.) —Tonight I had planned to make a rather long speech which described many of the problems faced by the fishing industry of my State. I have been asked to cut down my speech. I know Senator Tate will be disappointed about that. I point out to the Senate that today I spent considerable time preparing a speech on the dairy industry. Senator Macklin —Yesterday. Senator BOSWELL —Yesterday; the honourable senator is quite right. Senator Tate —A very good speech, too. Senator BOSWELL —It was a good speech. It looks as though I will not be able to make that speech in the Senate. Senator Macklin —Incorporate the speech. Senator BOSWELL —I do not think I would be permitted to incorporate it. Senator Powell —Give it a go. Senator BOSWELL —I seek leave to incorporate my speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Bills we are debating cognately in the House tonight, namely, the Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill, the Fishing Industry Research Amendment Bill, the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill and the Fisheries Amendment Bill-are designed to assist the administrative structure of the fishing industry and to provide for research and development along similar lines to the Government's policy on rural industry research. These Bills have met with a general, if rather indifferent, acceptance by the fishing industry. I say ``indifferent'' because this legislation is nothing but another band-aid effort by the Government to fix minor ailments while skirting the major problems of the fishing industry. There are many issues of grave concern to the industry which have consistently been ignored by this Government for years! 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE These include: poor consultation with the industry about future plans a totally unsuitable taxation structure foreign exploitation of Australia's fishing resources at the expense of local fishermen. And, most importantly, the Government's lack of initiative in developing our substantial deep water fishing resources. The Government has absolutely no excuse for its lack of action on these issues. The Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce prepared an extensive report on the Australian fishing industry which was debated in this place in May 1983. To quote Senator Coleman from that debate on what became known as the Archer report, it was ``the culmination of a detailed and lengthy inquiry and provides a comprehensive and critical examination of all aspects of the industry with particular reference to the implications for Australia and for the Australian fishing industry of the declaration of the 200 mile zone in 1979''. The Labor senator related that the Committee was unanimous in reaching the conclusions and recommendations made in the report and went on to say that the Australian fishing industry is today an important primary industry making a significant contribution to the national economy, particularly in terms of export earnings. Yet, despite this Government's wholehearted support of the Archer report and its recommendations some 4 1/2 years ago, all that has resulted is a lot of motherhood about the fishing industry's important contribution, but pitifully little action on areas vital to the sustained contribution and growth of the fishing industry. The same areas found by the Committee to need improvement are still waiting for government action. Let's look at those areas I mentioned earlier, in more detail. For a government whose endless catchcry has been ``consensus'', for a government that gives totally new meaning to the words ``summit'' and ``accord'', their lack of effective consultation with the fishing industry since the Archer report, is scandalous. Considering that similar complaints are being voiced in a number of other areas at present-such as the Defence Department, the medical profession, horticultural industries and from those thousands likely to lose their livelihood under World Heritage listing, this Government's insensitive and dictatorial attitude to the fishing industry should come as no surprise. And Senator Walsh who worked on the very same committee seems happy to sit back and continue to ignore his Government's lack of performance in serving the Australian fishing industry. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Commonwealth management programmes have not been successful in the past due to poor management and a lack of adequate consultation with industry, whose advice and input is surely influential towards the success or otherwise of the project. The recently announced East Coast Deepwater Finfish Trawl Development Plan is a case in point. The Queensland Commercial Fishermen's Organisation has had to telex the Resource Minister, Peter Morris, to request that the implementation of the plan be put on hold until the industry had been fully consulted on its ramifications. Prior to media reports on the announcement of the management arrangements, the QCFO had received no official statement concerning these arrangements. It is hardly surprising that the industry is put off-side at learning in this manner of the finalisation of a management plan. Apart from a meeting on the first of September in Sydney where a number of objections were raised, there were no subsequent discussions or meetings. Fishermen had to read about it in the papers! There is a great need to prevent confusion over future management and operations, by having more detailed consultation, well in advance of the implementation of these plans. This is especially imperative with the industry expected to pay 60% of management costs in 1988, increasing to 90% by 1990. There is a proposal to set up a National Fishing Authority. Again, clear and precise indications are needed on its objectives, plans, management, operations and authority. The industry must have sufficient time and information to assess the programs involved in order to plan accordingly and be given the opportunity to be involved in decision-making. If these cries for more information are not listened to, the fear and suspicion felt towards the Australian Fisheries Service will only increase. This lack of consultation is in marked contrast to the Archer report's recommendations that the ``National Fisheries Body make publicly available more comprehensive reports on its decisions, the rationale behind them, and inform industy promptly of management proposals, their objectives and their consequences for industry.'' The second area of major concern to the industry involves the method of collecting tax. A taxation department task force is bent on imposing the P.A.Y.E. system-which is totally incompatible with the structure of the Australian Fishing Industry. The industry is mounting a case to the Treasurer to direct the task force to recognise and cater to the special needs of the share fishing business structure. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Under the P.A.Y.E. system, all manner of union and compensation regulations would be introduced which do not suit a seasonal industry subject to wide income fluctuations, varied working hours, subcontract labour and joint venture financing. The P.A.Y.E. system would be unworkable and an administrative nightmare. Due, I think, to my representations to Senator Button, South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland have had some recognition by the Taxation Department of their share fishing agreements, but a definitive ruling is sought by the whole industry which recognises the nature of share fishing. In trying to make the fishing industry pay income tax instalments on a pay as you earn basis, the taxation task force has not considered that the relationship between the owner and skipper and members of the crew is generally that of owner and independent contractors or joint ventures and not of an employer/employee relationship. The skipper and crew are engaged to perform a specific task, not on a continuing basis, but on a voyage. They perform specified tasks, but not at the direction of the `employer', who could be a city doctor who has invested in a licence and vessel but knows nothing about fishing. So he puts up the capital and goes into a joint venture/share fishing agreement. He does not engage employees. Unlike other industry using the P.A.Y.E. system, the fishing operation does not have a place of business. The work is performed where and when the resource-fish-is found. There is no controlled time frame, such as 9 to 5, as in the normal employer/employee relationship. Work in the fishing industry is undertaken where, when and for so long as the fish are available. There is no entitlement to payment for annual leave or holidays. The basis for calculating payment or income is on a share of the catch. Such payments are not made regularly or for specific amounts as are wages. If there is no catch, the skipper and crew are not paid. Despite the taxation department's wish to impose the P.A.Y.E. system on fishermen, workers compensation cannot be obtained by fishermen as insurance companies regard the relationship of owners and crew as that of an independent contractor and not of an employer/employee relationship. Note also that the skipper and the crew have the opportunity to benefit and profit from sound work practices to increase their catch and therefore, their profit. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE All these points show clearly that the contract between the owner of the vessel and skipper and crew, is not wholly or principally for their labour, but wholly or principally for the conduct of a joint venture business. Hence, the relationship between the owner and skipper and crew is not that of an employer and employee as covered by the P.A.Y.E System. The fishing industry considers that if the Taxation Office requires tax to be collected at source, then the prescribed payment system is more applicable than the P.A.Y.E system. When the prescribed payments system was introduced, it was envisaged that the specified industries might be amended from time to time. It is suggested that the fishing industry could be included as a specified industry so as to come within the provisions of the prescribed payments system. The fishing industry is not adverse to entering into an arrangement facilitating the collection of tax by the income department. This co-operation has been evidenced by the discussions and arrangements made with the various state fishing industry organisations to provide monthly information to the taxation department with respect to share fishermen. The industry seeks only consideration of the unique nature of the fishing industry and the special characteristics of its business structure. As another example, a fuel excise ruling in Townsville shows a further lack of understanding of the fishing industry. While fuel used in the physical act of catching is not subject to excise, the fuel used in the net and gear trials for transport to and from fishing grounds is subject to excise. Where is the logic of that? Searching for fish and net and gear trials are part and parcel of the day to day operations of a fishing business and should therefore be exempt from fuel excise. There is also great concern in the industry that new fisheries will be developed and usurped by the Commonwealth primarily as a revenue-raising exercise. If new fisheries were left under State control, the industry feels they would be better managed. As it is, the Commonwealth is left with the majority of the 200 mile zone. Having done little to encourage Australian deepwater operations, the fear is that the Federal Government is anxious to raise more revenue and will offer these waters to overseas fishermen, at the expense of local industry. Every effort should be made by the Australian Government to retain the first right of access by Australian fishermen, to these areas. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE At the present time our fishing industry is lacking in sufficient deepwater expertise and boats to take immediate advantage of such fishing rights. But all that is needed is some time and encouragement for joint venture programs to develop the required expertise and vessels. A booming national export industry could be `nipped in the bud' if 200 mile zone licences are issued prematurely to overseas interests. During 1985/86, over 400 vessels from Japan, Korea and Taiwan were permitted access to restricted areas and fisheries in the Australian fishing zone. Access fees totalled $4 million. Some 5,888 Commonwealth licences were issued to Australian concerns. One joint venture agreement was signed between Australian and Thai interests, which provides for the ``Australianisation'' of the operation. Several other proposals from Japan were approved in principle. In 1987, Commonwealth fishing licences were issued to 215 Japanese interests, 82 Taiwanese, and 8 Thai operations. Three `Independent' interests also gained licences, that is, Australian based fishing operations using foreign owned vessels. The Archer report was very clear on the need to ``Australianise'' deepwater fishing operations and recommended that the Minister for Primary Industry appoint a task force to ``report on the possibility of increasing Australian participation in north and north-west shelf fisheries: (a) by providing financial and other incentives to Australian fisherman undertaking developmental fishing in the region, and (b) by limiting foreign access to fishing to joint venture operations whereby Australian equity in projects and the Australianisation of operations over a designated period, are conditions of foreign participation in the zone. All references to foreign fishing in the Archer report stress that foreign fishing interests be granted access to the Australian fishing zones only under joint venture arrangements which will maximise Australian participation in the development of fishing resources and promote the future development of an Australian based export industry. Approval for joint ventures would be granted subject to the conditions that (a) Australian participation and equity in the operations be increased progressively and foreign capital, vessels and crews phased out over a designated period. The figures which I previously quoted show that these conditions are not being met. While the Government fusses around changing the membership and terms of reference of the Australian fishing zone committee (which is supposed to advise on these matters) foreign licences are being granted left, right and centre. There is also a need for appropriate legislation to prevent entrepreneurial companies from manipulating licensing procedures and ultimately selling or disposing of licences overseas. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE The Archer report also recommended a national adjustment scheme for the fishing industry which would make special provision for financing the modification of existing hulls or equipment to assist the transfer of vessels into new or under-developed fisheries. In addition, there was to be a national developmental fisheries finance plan to provide incentives for the diversification of fishing effort and the development of the new fisheries within the Australian fishing zone. Yet, despite all these sound recommendations, for the development of a thriving export based industry, this Government has only paid them lip service. Australia is struggling to support a massive foreign debt, currently some $110 billion. Since 1983, our foreign debt has trebled. We spend more on interest payments-$8 billion-to service this debt than we spend on education or defence. Every day we become poorer and owe more money overseas. The key to our economic recovery and growth is to stimulate and provide incentives for competitive export industries, and reduce the burden of direct and indirect taxes and charges. We see millions going to support the steel and automotive industries with little success, while a tremendous renewable resource in our own territorial waters, is left untouched-at least by Australians. Just the other day, the Resources Minister announced funding of $708,000 towards the construction and trial of a machine for tunnelling roadways in underground coalmines. He pointed to the coal industry being a large export earner and how it is vital that governments assist in projects aimed at improving its efficiency and viability. Why doesn't the Resources Minister have the same attitude towards improving our offshore fishing industry which has the potential to earn hundreds of millions of export dollars? The humbug attitude of this Government and its totally moribund approach to offshore fishing is deplorable. As well as cutting off a vital source of export income, it is depriving thousands of Australians jobs in fishing, processing and marketing and in related industries such as ship building and equipment manufacturing. In the Minister's second reading speech on this legislation, he commended the export performance of the current industry. He neglected to add, however, that more than 70 per cent of domestic consumption is imported. Very few people realise that when they go to their local fish and chip shop it is seldom Australian fish that they buy. Imports dominate Australia's domestic seafood markets. It was only recently that I became aware of the extent of Australia's fish import requirements. I was shown a warehouse freezer full of fish from all over the world: Hawaii, Taiwan, Alaska, Scandinavia, Russia, Britain, Iceland. And yet Australia has thousands of miles of coastline and huge untapped fishing resources (dying off every two years). A tremendous hoax has been perpetrated on the Australian people. The average fish diet has, for years, been imported and not homegrown. It is to this Government's eternal shame, especially in light of current economic difficulties, that it has done so little to change this state of affairs. The potential is out there, waiting, yet ignored because of the Government's commitments to its corporate buddies in other sectors. Where is the Archer report's national finance plan and incentives for vessel modification? Where is the access to finance? And don't tell me that's what banks like the Commonwealth Development Bank are there for. As at June 1987, primary production and business loans of $1.4 billion were outstanding. Out of this, a mere $35 million had been allocated to the fishing industry. A miserable effort by this Government to facilitate the development of a strong export industry. Let me make this quite clear-I am not advocating an increase in government spending-I am just calling for some common sense to be used in deciding the most advantageous areas to receive assistance. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Changing the names of your project grant won't hide their basic inability to contribute anything worthwhile to our standard of living. And as far as fisheries research goes-which isn't very far at all-we have one Federal research vessel. How are we to determine the relative sizes and locations of the abundant resource out there. Surely, this should be a government initiative as the first step to encouraging Australian investment in offshore fishing. The Commonwealth continues to back away from its obligations. It has been coming to agreements with the States for years. Meanwhile, fishermen are told there will be no licences issued while negotiations continue. Overseas countries such as Scandinavia and Spain have terrific incentive programs in place to encourage their fishing industries. Their governments recognise the returns forthcoming from such investments. Low interest long term finance, tax rebates, shipbuilding bounties, government guarantees, are all measures that could be utilised far more than they are at present in Australia to reap excellent rewards from a thriving export industry. Our entrepreneurs should be encouraged to utilise this at present unquantified but enormous national resource. Such moves to promote the offshore fishing industry would also relieve the pressure from the crowded, limited entry inshore fisheries. There is also a big future for industry based on aquaculture and mariculture, which would be a further economic boost, involving prawn hatcheries, farmers and food suppliers, marketers and so on. Again, the Government has responsibility to identify the potential economic advantages and assist through the CSIRO with hatchery and hi-tech research. Northern Australia is ideally placed to develop a thriving mariculture industry, due to its tropical environment and its sparsely populated and unpolluted 15,000 km coastline. But, although the prospects are great, Australia is still years behind other countries in developing this industry. When you remember that Australia is responsible for 8.6 million square kilometres of sea, and 7.6 million square kilometres of land mass, it is incredible that we should know and utilise so little of our marine resource. It is up to the Government and industry to expand on present research and to ensure the wise development of Australian mariculture industries. Senator BOSWELL —I thank the Senate. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(12.07 a.m.) —In view of the lateness of the hour, it might similarly be appropriate for me to seek leave to incorporate my speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- I welcome these Bills as they reflect a developing changing fishing industry which is going through radical change but still one of the really bright prospects for the sustained export recovery Australian needs. Regret Minister did not take opportunity when introducing legislation to make a major statement on Fisheries; after all it follows the important Ministerial meeting on October 23; more important, it comes in the midst of some fundamental developments in Australian fisheries: Commonwealth management plans are about to be introduced for the first time for shark, for the South Trawl fishery and for the East Coast tuna longline fishery; Experimental fisheries are being opened up in Western Australia and the Great Australian Bight; New fisheries are expected to result from the discovery of concentrations of orange roughy and mackerel in southern waters; Aquaculture is going through major birth pangs before becoming a big export contributor; Pearl culture is about to become a very large export earner. Lastly, I note that it follows the decisions in the September Budget: To hold a comprehensive enquiry into self management of the industry; To increase the levies on the industry to cost recovery levels of 60% in 1987/88, 75% in 1988/89 and 90% in 1988/89. These changes are accelerating already rapid adjustments in the industry: The industry is now at a watershed; It must therefore be regarded as unsatisfactory that the government has still not judged it worthwhile to make a direction setting statement; One can query the Government's failure to take such an opportunity to restore some credibility after its debacle earlier this year on the legislation to adjust the Northern Prawn Fishery. The legislation itself reflects some of the changes developing in the industry The industry has necessarily become much more professional; Exports of marine products are now up to $591 million, almost matching the sugar industry and, in the primary sector, behind only wool, cereals and meat. This export level is more than double that of $230 million in 1980/81. Many sectors of the industry have gone from almost cottage industries to significant business operations. However, government attitudes and structures have not always kept pace with the change. The Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill 1987 is at least an attempt to come to terms with the problem. It replaces a 1969 Act which coped with the past but certainly was not adequate for the future of a dynamic industry. The new Bill's provisions establish a much more professional structure with a Fishery Industry Research and Development Council to prepare five year plans, as well as annual programs. The Council, and the Committee which will select the Council's members, has a substantial membership from the industry I welcome that. It will be interesting to see whether this leads to any significant changes in the type of projects approved: Many of the industry feel strongly that a significant number of the programs favoured by the old Fishing Industry Trust Account were too oriented towards pure research and did not address the real problems and opportunities facing the fisheries. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE In a sense, the introduction of the Innovative Marketing Schemes are an admission of that; These Schemes reflect the much greater importance of marketing in maximising the benefits from our fisheries. Turning to the Fishing Industry Research Amendment Bill, it is largely to allocate the remaining funds from the old Trust Account. The Government's preferred direction is for a new CSIRO research vessel. CSIRO has played a leading role in improving fisheries research in Australia. However, these two Bills raise an issue which the new Research Council must deal with: That is the tremendous potential for duplication of research between different States, and between the States and a Commonwealth body such as the CSIRO. Currently, there seems to be no mechanism to avoid duplication, particularly between States. The Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, As the Government says, makes amendments of an essentially administrative and procedural nature to the Fisheries Act 1952, and two other related Acts. However, there are fundamental issues which are raised First, is the fact that a Fisheries Act designed in the early 1950's is still being used to administer an industry which has totally changed. The Government must develop a new Fisheries Act to avoid basic problems such as the licence applying to the boat rather than the person. Second, the Bill strengthens the powers of fisheries officers. It recognises the difficulties of operating far out to sea-away from legal support facilities. I know in my own State that the officers, already short-handed, are put under tremendous pressure by law-breakers. Poaching is now big business-and unfortunately the media too often treat poachers as folk heroes. This must stop. Third, The Bill implements some of the provisions of the Offshore Constitutional Settlement; Which has allowed rationalisation of enforcement and administration through giving responsibility to either the State or Commonwealth, so ending the previous duplication. This momentum must be continued into eliminating other duplication between the Commonwealth and States I mention the continuing wasteful requirement for dual licensing of boats. These issues are very important to my State: Fishery products have become the fastest growing significant export industry in recent years; This has been partly due to the benefits of devaluation of the Australian dollar; But mostly due to the investment in the industry by licence holders totally committed to the industry; These people have focused on building an industry from nothing. They often continued fishing when no one else wanted any part of it. I must say that the industry in South Australia is generally very impressed with the qualities of the Commonwealth bureaucratic aim-the Australian Fisheries Service. The former Director-now head of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics-had a deep understanding of the industry. The new Director, in their view, has a strong commitment to industry growth and to facing the future realities of what governments can contribute. For example, the way the development of the experimental Great Australian Bight trawl fishery has been handled has been seen by the South Australian industry as first class. The management of the fishery has been measured and cautious-and the industry given a significant degree of self management from the start. It is up to the Government to maintain the momentum created by the generally good quality work of the Australian Fisheries Service. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE It would be a sad day if the Commonwealth decided to pursue the negative and unrealistic approach being increasingly pursued by the South Australian Labor Government. It is almost as if they are trying to turn the State's fisheries back to the Stone Age. Let me give you some examples: 1. The South Australian Labor Government, up until now, has refused permission for fishing licences to be used as collateral for loans for expansion. In fisheries run by the Commonwealth this use as collateral is actually encouraged and has resulted in major investment in value added product, to Australia's great advantage. 2. The S. A. Labor Government has refused to grant licence transferability rights to a group of West Coast prawn fisherman, who have built the fishery up from nothing, and apparently now, for nothing. 3. The South Australian Labor Government has refused to agree to licence transferability within the new Commonwealth Shark Plan. Yet the industry is being asked to rationalise internally. This means a fisherman going to a financial institution to borrow money to buy out another operator-yet without a transferrable asset to use as collateral. The decision shows the State Labor Government's total lack of commercial judgment. When you look at these examples, it is no wonder that there is increasing uncertainty within the South Australian fishing industry about the future. There is a strong commitment by the industry to investment in value added product-the very thing Australia and the industry needs. There is also a strong industry commitment to remaining lean and efficient. For example, the Southern Rock Lobster Zone fishermen have agreed to invest $6 million in their own buyback scheme to ensure an export-competitive industry. Yet all this, and the ambition of the industry to lift its game and improve Australia's prospects, is being threatened by a negative attitude by the State Labor Government to development of fisheries. This attitude is central. For example, it is all too obvious that the industry's growth will be based on: First, adding value to the current inshore fisheries such as prawns, abalone and rock lobster; Second, finding new offshore fisheries and adding value to them. This all requires substantial risk investment in a product which is subject to currency fluctuations. The uncertainty being created by the South Australian Government's policies is prejudicing that investment. Both South Australia and Australia will be the loser. In conclusion, it appears too much to hope that the State Labor Government will adopt the more sensible approach, revealed in this legislation, of its Federal counterpart. Despite some shortcomings on the part of the Federal Government concerning fisheries administration it can at least claim not to be inhibiting the industry's development in the way in which it is occurring at the State level in South Australia. Senator CHAPMAN —I thank the Senate. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(12.08 a.m.) —I express great satisfaction with the course of this debate. I thank those honourable senators who have contributed. We may have bent some of the normal rules of practice but I think it is in the best spirit of the chamber at the moment. I thank those honourable senators who have contributed to the speedy passage of this legislation, which I commend to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Consideration resumed from 24 November, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 24 November, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.12 a.m.) —The Bill before the chamber at this very late hour is the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill 1987, which seeks to expand the functions of the Commonwealth Bank and the Commonwealth Savings Bank generally. In particular, it seeks to enable those banks to provide a much wider range of insurance and other such services, including banking and investment services. The Bill also seeks to introduce new procedures to impose upon the Board of the Commonwealth Bank and the management of the banks a requirement to prepare and submit to the Treasurer a corporate plan, including a set of financial objectives covering such questions as financial profitability and the rate of return on resources. The Bill also introduces a new requirement for the Commonwealth Development Bank to pay an annual dividend to the Government and, as a consequence, removes the question of Development Bank borrowings from the control of the Treasurer. Most importantly, the Bill repeals those sections of the principal Act dealing with appointments, promotions, tenure of office and discipline of staff of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. In other words, it gives the management of the constituent banks the capacity to run them like a business rather than as though they were, as the present Act broadly provides, part of the Public Service. The importance of this particular provision in the amending Bill cannot be overstated. As I said, it will give the management of the banks the capacity to run them like a business. The Bill also repeals part VI of the principal Act, which sets out rather detailed, and nowadays very restrictive, arrangements under which the Commonwealth Bank and the Commonwealth Savings Bank may make housing loans available. The Opposition will not oppose this Bill, but we shall move a general amendment to the second reading motion, the terms of which have been circulated to the Senate. I move: 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate notes the undercapitalisation of the Commonwealth Bank and the consequent constraints this imposes on its efficient administration, and calls upon the Government to undertake a review to assess whether the sale of the Commonwealth Bank would be in the best interests of the Australian people''. I also take this opportunity of foreshadowing that at the committee stage I shall move some particular amendments which have also been circulated to honourable senators earlier today and which relate to the very wide powers to provide insurance services which the Bill could confer upon the banks. In an earlier capacity I played some part in a major review of the structure of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation-the Commonwealth Trading Bank, as it was then called, the Commonwealth Savings Bank and the Commonwealth Development Bank-in 1984. That restructuring arose principally out of the increasingly desperate state in which the Commonwealth Trading Bank in particular found itself at that time in regard to its capitalisation. The need to deal with that problem was led by a process-at this late hour I certainly will not bore the chamber-of restructuring the whole group of banks. As a result the capital asset ratio of the Commonwealth Trading Bank, or the Commonwealth Bank as it is called today, was reduced very significantly from its previous very high level of around 1 : 50 to around 1 : 20; in other words, it was brought broadly into line with that of the commercial banking system. But the bank is again facing problems in that respect. That is one reason why the bank, in common with most other banks, has sought to push assets and liabilities off its balance sheet through a bill finance and other devices of that kind. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE With the increasing concern about the stability of the international banking system that is now being displayed I think on a worldwide basis, central banks all over the world are now reassessing the adequacy of bank capitalisation of trading and savings banks. They are beginning to require bank capital to service not only assets on the balance sheet but assets off the balance sheet. Our own central bank, the Reserve Bank of Australia, is doing likewise. It has recently apprised our own trading banks with a warning that it will begin to move in that direction if they should begin to move accordingly so far as their own capitalisation is concerned. For that and other reasons, which I will not take time to go into, the Commonwealth Bank is going to need a capital infusion very soon and it will be a capital infusion of no mean magnitude. That raises the whole question of privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank group. As has been made known a week or two ago, the Opposition has already embarked upon a review of its policies towards the sale of the Commonwealth Bank. We urge the Government, and I take this opportunity to urge the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) to do the same thing. After all, there is nothing particularly special about having a bank in the public sector. I take this opportunity of declaring a past personal interest in that I was, I think for 35 years, a customer of the Commonwealth Bank, but I am no longer a customer. Senator Macklin —Ideologically oriented. Senator STONE —That is quite correct. Either the Government tries to run a government bank and interferes in its affairs which will inevitably have the consequence of turning it into a poor performer, or it does not try to run it, in which case, what is the point of having it in the public sector? I am aware that the shades of King O'Malley are not very large in some party attitudes and some individual attitudes to this matter. I respect a sense of tradition in this as in other areas and those who refer to those shades or perhaps the shades of Andrew Fisher who I think under his distinguished Prime Ministership the Commonwealth Savings Bank, as it originally was, was inaugurated. I respect that feeling on the part of those people who cling to a view that for those reasons, if for no other, this institution should be preserved within the public sector. I do not want to be unduly contentious at this time of the morning. Although the Labor Party has a great tendency to go on living in the past, particularly in its more neanderthal wing in the trade union movement, it simply cannot go on living in the past forever. I am glad to see Senator Gareth Evans is in the chamber. Senator Gareth Evans —I don't share your sentiments. Senator STONE —Senator Evans has indicated that he does not share my sentiments. I can understand his interjection and, indeed, to some degree share it. Senator Evans introduced in the Senate yesterday, by leave, a Bill to transform Australian Airlines into a public company. I do not expect the Senate to agree with this comment but I mean it is clearly preparatory to selling it. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Senator Macklin —That is very true. That is what it is about. Senator STONE —Of course it is. I am happy to agree with Senator Macklin. The Opposition applauds that action on the Minister's part. We will continue to support him when he takes the next step, of actually selling it. But without in any way pre-empting the review which is taking part in the Opposition of our policy towards the Commonwealth Bank in that matter, I suggest that the Government might at least consider embarking on a similar policy course in relation to the Commonwealth Bank, that is, to turn it also into a public company which, in itself,-as I am sure Senator Evans would be the first to agree-contains no necessary presumption as to what one does with it afterwards. The honourable senator more or less indicated by his interjection a moment or two ago that that was his position in relation to Australian Airlines. In conclusion, we urge the Government, through this amendment, to undertake the review which the amendment requires. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(12.21 a.m.) —As Senator Stone indicated, the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill 1987 does a number of things, including expanding the charter of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth Savings Bank, to enable them to provide insurance services where, in the opinion of the Board, this is necessary for the Commonwealth Bank and the Savings Bank to remain competitive with other banks. The Bill also expands the powers of the Commonwealth Bank and the Savings Bank to include a wider range of banking and investment services, including trusts, stockbroking, and futures and commodities dealings, although why it would want to do that after the last display of brilliance by various people dealing in these things I am not quite sure. But in any event, the Bill allows them to do that if they are so simple-minded as to want to take it on. The Bill also requires the Board of the Corporation to prepare and submit to the Treasurer a corporate plan stating the objectives of the Commonwealth Banks and outlining the policies and strategies to be pursued in achieving those objectives, provide the Board of the Corporation with a formal role in the determination of dividend payments by the Commonwealth Banks, introduce a dividend requirement for the Commonwealth Development Bank and give the Corporation greater flexibility in staff management. In other words, as Senator Stone has already pointed out, it may employ officers on terms and conditions determined by the Corporation. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE To a very large extent this legislation puts into effect the deregulatory mode we have seen become the flavour of the month on the side of the Labor Government as much as it is on the side of the Opposition parties. The aim is to deregulate and, therefore, to increase the competitive value of the Commonwealth Banks in the banking scene generally. It is with some surprise, therefore, that I have noted that the Opposition parties are getting somewhat twitchy about this new deregulatory theme that the Government has picked up and is applying, in this case, to the Commonwealth Banks. Less surprisingly, the National Insurance Brokers Association of Australia has objected to what it refers to as `a further government enterprise entering the insurance market which is amply catered for by both private and State government insurance offices'. The coalition's amendments to restrict the insurance business of the Commonwealth Bank would not enable the Bank to offer the same insurance services that are currently offered by the three big private banks. The Commonwealth Bank, for instance, would be able to offer only housing insurance, and then only to customers with housing mortgages. Yet it is being expected to compete against the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, which, in December 1985, acquired a fully established life company, namely, Greater Pacific Life Assurance Co. Ltd, which offers a full range of life insurance products, insurance bonds and disability insurance. In 1987, its after-tax profits from insurance activities amounted to $18.93m. The National Australia Bank and Westpac Banking Corporation also offer general insurance services. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE The Opposition parties' amendments, if carried, would defeat one of the aims of this legislation, which is to put the Commonwealth Bank on an equal, competitive basis with the big three private banks. To that end, we will certainly not support the Opposition amendments. As I said, since this legislation is largely deregulatory in its effect, I am surprised that the Opposition parties should try to enhance the maintenance of regulations in this way. The Australian Democrats, however, do have some other concerns with regard to the Commonwealth Banks that I want to raise during this debate. The first relates to the question of whether banks should charge customers who make a large number of transactions on savings bank accounts-that is, those customers who use the services of the bank or banks as they were, I presume, originally set up to do. In particular, it raises the question of whether the Commonwealth Banks should follow the lead of charging customers who make a large number of transactions on savings bank accounts. In September the ANZ Bank announced that it would charge 25c for each transaction on access deposit accounts with balances below $5,000. While that does not sound too bad-namely, that the first 20 transactions in any 13-week period will be free-it failed to point out that transactions include things such as deducting financial institutions duty, bank account debits tax, and so on. So it is not simply customers transactions that are being taken into account. A number of other banks are planning on following that lead. Senator Crichton-Browne —Do you think the shareholders should subsidise depositors? Senator HAINES —Senator Crichton-Browne is bleating that the shareholders should subsidise the customers, or words to that effect. It is a bit difficult to understand him at this time of night. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Senator Crichton-Browne —I don't know what you have been doing. Senator HAINES —No, but I know what Senator Crichton-Browne has been doing. I point out to Senator Crichton-Browne that if it were not for the customers, the banks would not be in existence; therefore, the shareholders would not be getting any benefit from anywhere. The Senate ought to acknowledge what these banks are doing. As I was about to say, a number of other banks have indicated that they may follow the lead of the ANZ Bank. These banks are penalising the small depositors rather than the large ones. There are large numbers of people in this country who believe that the banking sector is a better place to put their money than under the bed, but if the banks continue to charge people for their services, I suspect that most of these small depositors will find that they actually save more money by putting it under the bed. If this is to be the general trend in the private sector, I suppose we will see David Jones (Australia) Pty Ltd charging people for walking through its doors, on the grounds that this, too, will benefit the shareholders. I will not argue with that. Of course it will benefit the shareholders if David Jones-I am quite sure that this thought has crossed John Spalvin's mind-actually charged people for purchasing items or for inquiring about them apart from simply paying the cost of the goods. It is appalling that the Commonwealth Bank is considering a similar move by limiting transaction fees to accounts below $5,000. Essentially, the bank is hitting those Australians who do not have large amounts of money to keep in an account. I accept the fact that the coalition parties do not have a great deal of sympathy, or indeed, time, for people who can put into a bank account only less than $5,000. But that is no excuse for them to try to support a system which hits hardest those little people who use their accounts a lot. Of course, we need to remember that this affects welfare recipients in particular, who are now required to have their cheques paid into the bank and then access that money through transactions. The Victorian Treasurer, for example, has already foreshadowed his intention to prevent the State Savings Bank of Victoria from charging such a fee. The Commonwealth Government should ensure that the Commonwealth Bank does not introduce the same type of fee. That, of course, is the import of the amendment that I have circulated. We certainly do not believe that it is the role of the Commonwealth Bank to hit out at its depositors in the same way that the three private banks seem to believe that they are entitled to do. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE The other thing I want to mention is privatisation. In the House of Representatives the Opposition shadow Treasurer chose to use the debate on this legislation to indicate that the Opposition no longer exempts the Commonwealth Bank from its plans to privatise public enterprises. The Hawke Labor Government has already started to include the Commonwealth Bank as a possible privatisation target. We have come to accept that sooner or later, and generally sooner rather than later, the Hawke Labor Government adopts the suggestions that stem from the New Right and which are first put forward in this place by members of the Opposition parties. So it comes as no surprise to anybody that the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank is in the sights of the Hawke Government given its already extensive deregulation of the financial system and the admission of foreign banks. The privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank is now added to the list. This has been an interesting turnaround by Mr Hawke in particular. In an article in the Herald in August 1985 the Prime Minister eloquently argued the case against privatisation. Among other things he made some very valid points, including: Privatisation will see profitable areas of Government activity transferred to wealthy private shareholders. Taxpayers will be left subsidising the loss-making activities of the government. Privatisation will not lead to lower taxation. In the main, government corporations are financed by selling their services. Privatisation, by contrast, would probably see a lift in taxes as the government would be forced into subsidising uneconomic services. It is especially shortsighted to give up future dividends and interest flows in return for a one-off realisation of capital sums now. The fact of the matter is that privatisation is an entirely inappropriate approach to the social, economic and community needs of a country such as Australia. It is an approach promoted by vested interests, sustained by blinkered ideological obsessions and entirely lacking in logic and common sense. I heartily endorse those comments and suggest that the Prime Minister have another look at the comments he made two years ago and rethink the issue. Apparently, he now plans to change the Australian Labor Party's platform so that the Government can introduce the privatisation program that the New Right and the Opposition have been clamouring for. Of course, we need to remember that the whole issue of privatisation is simply another plank in the changing economic fashions of the day. The Menzies coalition Government, for example, and the Labor Party before 1983, when it was in Opposition and had an entirely different set of spectacles on, being on this side of the House, would not have supported the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank. We need to ask ourselves, therefore, what changes have occurred in the Liberal Party of Australia, in the Labor Party and in economic fashions to have produced this sudden rush of blood to the head that has led everybody to be talking about privatisation as if it is the answer to the problems of the Western world? The answer to the question, of course, is that fashionable economic theories are now being determined by businessmen, bankers and foreign investors. It is they who have deemed that Budget deficits and government borrowings are of themselves bad. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE If one accepts these propositions, governments cannot provide the capital resources by public enterprises; therefore it follows that such enterprises ought to be sold. The Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, who is in the chamber, if not actually awake-yes, he is awake-told us quite recently that somebody must borrow to make up for our persistent current account deficits. In that he sounds surprisingly like Senator Stone, who expounds the same sort of argument. We have a current account deficit of considerable proportions. Somebody has to borrow in order to make up for that. In answer to a question that I asked the Minister for Finance on 7 December, he concluded by saying: I suppose the bottom line is that if nobody else does it, governments must. I think we need to remember that that is an option; if nobody else does it, governments must. In many instances it is probably better for the Australian community that governments do it rather than the private sector, particularly given the non-productive way in which some elements in the private sector are enthusiastically borrowing from overseas. Of course governments can generally get better rates on their foreign borrowings than private companies. Governments are not in a position to negatively gear, which private companies do. Governments do not use their borrowings to take over existing companies which make profits and pay tax in order to offset their interest payments against the company's profits to wipe out any tax liability, as private companies do. In fact, if the Commonwealth Government borrowed to inject capital into the Commonwealth Bank, or alternatively if the Commonwealth Bank were allowed to borrow overseas, we would not have to sell it; we would not even need to contemplate selling it. However, the Government will not allow itself to borrow or allow the Commonwealth Bank to borrow, because it accepts the now fashionable New Right shibboleth that the public sector borrowing requirement must be reduced. As I have said, on that both Senator Stone and Senator Walsh agree. That is the problem, and that is why the Government is apparently prepared to sacrifice the Commonwealth Bank through privatisation. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE It seems to me that there are good arguments for retaining public ownership of the Commonwealth Bank. The most important concerns those depositors and investors who put safety and security first. Currently, the Commonwealth Bank must answer to the government of the day. Unless it is privatised, there is no danger that entrepreneurs eager to buy a bank as a permanent source of loans for their speculative activities will buy the Commonwealth Bank, or enough of it to get directorships on the Bank's board. This is what is happening already with the big three private banks, and in particular, of course, with National Australia Bank Ltd. Some concern was expressed in this chamber some time ago about the activities of a well-known South Australian entrepreneur who is buying large chunks of shares in the National Australia Bank. Senator Hill —He still is. Senator HAINES —Somebody over here says he still is. It is very likely that he still is. The aim of that was to get at least one, preferably more, seats on the board. That raised the question, quite properly addressed in this place at the time, of whether there was or could be a conflict of interest. So, unless the Commonwealth Bank is privatised, it is likely to end up as the only big bank whose lending policies are not determined by speculative profit chasing at the expense of ensuring security for depositors. Australians with bank savings ought to have the most secure option. Similarly, those Australians who put safety first ought to be able to invest their lump sum superannuation payments or their savings with a financial institution that has extra government backing even beyond the lender of last resort facility enjoyed by the trading and savings banks. Those who want that extra insurance when they buy insurance products also ought to have the option of a non-privatised Commonwealth Bank backed by the Government. In the light of the stock market crash in October I think more Australians will be seeking that extra security in their savings, investment and insurance strategies. At the moment the Commonwealth Bank stands alone in providing that sort of security. So the Democrats will not be supporting the amendment moved by Senator Stone. In return for that, I would not be at all surprised to hear that the Opposition will not support our committee stage amendments, which I have circulated on behalf of the Democrats. They concern the Commonwealth Bank's capacity to charge transaction fees for people who use their accounts regularly and make large numbers of transactions on savings bank accounts that are quite small. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.41 a.m.) —I do not intend to speak for very long. Senator Stone has moved a second reading amendment regarding the capitalisation of the Commonwealth Bank. The Government, of course, will not accept the amendment. But I think I should point out that the Government has reduced the dividend payment requirement from, if I can remember correctly, 45 per cent of profits to 40 per cent of profits, which obviously gives the Bank the capacity to increase its capitalisation relative to what it could have done before. The second part of the amendment calls upon the Government: . . . to undertake a review to assess whether the sale of the Commonwealth Bank would be in the best interests of the Australian people. The Government is not willing to accept that part of the amendment either. Several amendments for the committee stage have been foreshadowed by both the Australian Democrats and the Opposition. Although they come from quite different perspectives, their effect would be the same, in that if any of the Democrat or Opposition amendments were carried it would restrict the Commonwealth Bank's ability to compete with privately owned trading banks on an even playing field. For those reasons the Government will not accept those amendments either. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.44 a.m.) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 6, subclause 14 (a), proposed subsection 28 (1a), lines 5 and 6, leave out all words after ``if'', insert ``those services are directly related to the general banking business of the Commonwealth Bank''. (2) Page 6, clause 15, proposed paragraph 29 (2) (g), lines 26 and 27, leave out all words after ``otherwise)'', insert ``those kinds of insurance, re-insurance, assurance, annuity guarantee and indemnity business that are related to the general banking business of the Commonwealth Bank''. (3) Page 9, clause 19, proposed subsection 41 (1a), lines 12 to 14, leave out all words after ``if'', insert `'those services are directly related to the general banking business of the Savings Bank''. (4) Page 9, clause 20, proposed paragraph 42 (2) (g), lines 32 and 33, leave out all words after ``otherwise)'', insert ``those kinds of insurance, re-insurance, assurance, annuity guarantee and indemnity business that are related to the general banking business of the Savings Bank''. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE I circulated these amendments to honourable senators earlier this day. Each of them relates to the question of the insurance powers to be given to the Commonwealth Bank group by the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill. The first amendment refers to page 6 of the Bill where proposed sub-section 28 (1a) of what would be the principle Act appears. That proposed sub-section reads: ``(1a) The Commonwealth Bank may provide insurance services if, in the opinion of the Board, it is necessary to do so to enable the Commonwealth Bank to remain competitive with other banks.'' . . . The Opposition proposes to leave out all words after `if' and to insert: those services- that is, insurance services- are directly related to the general banking business of the Commonwealth Bank. We have moved a comparable amendment to clause 19 on page 9 of the Bill and I will not dwell further upon that second amendment. The Opposition has also moved an amendment to proposed new section 29 (2) (g) in clause 15 on page 6. Clause 15 states: Section 29 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting subsections (2) and (3) and substituting the following subsection: (2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the Commonwealth Bank has power, in addition to any other powers conferred on it by this Act: . . . . 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE (g) to carry on (whether as principal, agent, manager, broker or otherwise) all kinds of insurance, re-insurance, assurance, annuity guarantee and indemnity business; The Opposition's proposal is to leave out all words after `otherwise' and to insert: those kinds of insurance, re-insurance, assurance, annuity guarantee and indemnity business that are related to the general banking business of the Commonwealth Bank. Again, an identical amendment has been proposed to clause 20 on page 9 of the Bill. The purpose of those four amendments is simply to restrict the generality and the width of the proposed new insurance powers which this amending Bill would provide to the Commonwealth Banking Corporation in regard to those activities in insurance and related areas which are related to the general banking business of the Commonwealth Bank. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) said in his response to the second reading debate that if these amendments were carried-indeed, I think he implied this in relation to the Australian Democrats amendment, which we will no doubt come to-they would have a restrictive effect upon the competitive ability of the Commonwealth Bank and its affiliate banks. I think that is a fair comment from the Minister. If the Minister could assure us that the Government was going to sell the Commonwealth Bank, I am sure that we would be happy to agree to these provisions in the amending Bill as a preparatory exercise in that process-in other words, with a view to giving the Commonwealth Bank the necessarily wide insurance powers to allow it to move into the wider insurance market which this amending Bill will allow it to do. Having become a privatised institution, it would then be on all fours with other private banking institutions operating in that and other areas. However, this Government has indicated no such intention. Indeed, on the contrary, Senator Evans, in an earlier interjection, indicated that that is not even the Government's intention with respect to Australian Airlines, although everybody knows that it is an open secret that it is. In the absence of any such indication from the Government, the position of the Opposition is that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to provide yet another set of general insurers in an already overcrowded market, namely, one provided through the agency of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. That is the purpose of all four of our amendments. Amendments negatived. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(12.50 a.m.) —The amendments to be moved by the Australian Democrats relate to pages 9 and 10 of the legislation, specifically to clause 20. The first amendment is consequential on the second which adds a sub-section: The Savings Bank shall not charge any fees in respect of transactions in savings accounts. I indicated during the second reading debate that I wanted to move some amendments. I seek leave to move two amendments together. Leave granted. Senator HAINES —I move: (1) Page 9, clause 20, leave out, ``subsection'' (second occurring), insert ``subsections''. (2) Page 10, clause 20, after proposed new subsection 42 (2), add the following subsection: ``(3) The Savings Bank shall not charge any fees in respect of transactions in savings accounts.''. I certainly agree with the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) that passage of the Opposition amendments, in removing the capacity of the Commonwealth Bank to provide general insurance services other than the simple housing insurance it currently offers to customers with housing mortgages, would have cut back the competitiveness of the Commonwealth Banks. I do not believe that the same argument can be advanced for the amendments that I have just moved. Taking away the Commonwealth Bank's capacity to offer the same sorts of insurance options to customers as the other private banking sectors would have would tie the Commonwealth Bank's hands vis-a-vis the private banking sector. If the Commonwealth Bank is precluded from charging fees in respect of transactions on savings accounts, I can almost guarantee that the bank will be seen as extremely competitive compared with the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd and other banks that are moving to charge fees for people who make large numbers of transactions, particularly on small savings accounts. I ask the Minister to reconsider not supporting our amendment, if the only argument he can come up with for not doing so is that it will make the Commonwealth Bank not competitive, because the reverse is true. The amendment that would preclude the Savings Bank from charging fees for transactions on savings accounts has considerable merit. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.53 a.m.) —I wish to speak to the amendments moved by the Australian Democrats. The Opposition will not support them because they are totally irrational from any economic viewpoint. I know it is late and language of that kind is difficult to handle at this hour of the morning but, nevertheless, the truth must be told, particularly to the Democrats. One has to say that the amendments, as is usual with the Democrats, are based on a garbled newspaper report of some action purported to have been taken some time ago by the ANZ Bank. The report is totally incorrect, as I understand the matter. That is not unusual in newspaper reports; there are lots of incorrect newspaper reports. The Democrats have picked up this matter as a typically populist notion to run with, without considering for one moment the consequences for the Commonwealth Savings Bank if it were to be accepted. If the Commonwealth Savings Bank were to be precluded from charging any fees for transactions on savings accounts, bearing in mind that the Commonwealth Savings Bank has something like one-third of the total savings bank business in this country, it would simply mean that the Commonwealth Savings Bank would have to charge its borrowers higher interest rates. I do not imagine that that is what the Democrats want but the fact that they do not want that, but at the same time are moving those amendments, is a fairly clear indication that they do not have the least idea of what they are talking about in matters of this kind which, of course, does not come as any surprise to people on this side or on the other side of the chamber. I do not propose to spend longer on the analysis of the nonsense amendments. I repeat that the Opposition will not support them. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.55 a.m.) —Senator Haines has asked me to respond. I do not think that that is necessary because I covered most of the points in the second reading speech reply, but since I have been asked to, I will, as I am an easy going chap. Irrespective of the merit or otherwise of the proposal there can be, I submit, no legitimate doubt that acceptance of these amendments would restrict the capacity of the Commonwealth Bank to compete, freely and openly, with private banks, because private banks would be able to impose such charges as they wished, and the Commonwealth Bank would not be able to do so if the amendments were accepted. That is the reason why the Government will not accept the Australian Democrats' amendments for, although the amendments are different, and probably the underlying reasons for moving them are different, the effect of both the Opposition's amendments and the Democrats, amendments, is to, at best, restrict the options in the Commonwealth Bank and, at worst, place it at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis the private savings banks. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Debate resumed from 26 November, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bills be now read a second time. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(12.58 a.m.) —The Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia support this package of Bills which will authorise Australia's continued contribution to the International Development Association, the International Fund for Agricultural Development and the Asian Development Bank. Over the years, Australia's involvement in these very worthwhile schemes has drawn bipartisan support, and I hope that this bipartisan support will continue in the future. The Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program, headed by Sir Gordon Jackson, gave its support to Australia's involvement. He said: The International Development Association and the Asian Development Fund, deserve special support because they contribute to the development of the poorest countries of the world in a significant way. Australia's ongoing commitment to these international institutions is therefore important and should continue, and it has our full support. However, in the light of some questions that have arisen over the year regarding the effectiveness of projects conducted by the Asian Development Bank and the International Fund for Agricultural Development, I think that it is important that Australia monitor the effectiveness of these aid programs. It is recognised in the distribution of Australia's bilateral aid that our neighbouring regions of Asia and the Pacific should be given special treatment. With this in mind, the multilateral aid that is given to countries in this area through the Asian Development Fund is an important adjunct to our existing bilateral aid program. The Asian Development Fund is the concessional loan arm of the Asian Development Bank and provides assistance to the poorer countries in these regions. The Bank provides funds for transport, communication, agriculture and educational projects and other departmental schemes. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Assistance does not stop with the provision of finance. Economic advice and guidance is available to the developing nations through the Asian Development Bank. For Australia, stability in Asia and the Pacific is of special importance. The aid that is extended through the Asian Development Bank is able to provide a measure of economic security to underpin this stability. Many of the smaller states such as Tuvalu and Kiribati are remote and lacking in resources. There are many such countries. The southern Asian countries of Kampuchea, Bhutan and Laos have amongst the lowest per capita incomes in the world. Multilateral aid programs assist them in their economic development while allowing them to maintain a measure of political independence. Whilst participating in such schemes Australia is demonstrating to the world a commitment to the region. It is now freely acknowledged that Australia is no longer a European outpost but has a place of its own amongst our Asian neighbours. The development of co-operative and productive relations with the sovereign states within our region clearly is in Australia's best interests. Having said this, it must be recognised that the volume of aid that Australia is able to provide to Asia and the Pacific is relatively small in relation to their tremendous needs. Therefore, it is necessary that Australia is particular in its choice of instruments for the distribution of aid. The Asian Development Bank has come under some criticism this year concerning the effectiveness of a number of the projects that it is conducting. It is essential that the inefficiences are revealed where they exist and that steps are taken to remedy them. It is encouraging to see that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) recognises this fact and that the Government is taking steps to improve the situation from Australia's point of view. While there may have been some problems in particular areas of loan distribution by the Asian Development Bank this is not a sufficient reason for Australia to withdraw support for this important program; rather close involvement and monitoring of the scheme is necessary. Participation in multilateral aid programs seldom results in substantial economic returns for the donor country. By international agreement, contributions are untied. While there may be some returns in the form of contracts to Australian contractors and consultants, these will be minimal. The motivation to be involved in multilateral aid projects is primarily humanitarian and strategic. Beyond the fact that Australia has the capacity to assist less fortunate nations and has a distinguished history of doing so, multilateral aid programs offer the opportunity to develop closer links with our neighbours and reinforce our standing in the world community. Therefore, the Liberal-National Party Opposition supports this package of legislation and wishes it a speedy passage. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(1.03 a.m.) —Tonight we are debating cognately three Bills-the Asian Development Fund Bill 1987, the International Development Association Bill 1987 and the International Fund for Agriculture Development Bill 1987. I wish to address some remarks to each of these three Bills. The Asian Development Fund is a concessionary lending fund of the Asian Development Bank. The Asian Development Fund Bill we are debating tonight provides for Australian funds for the fourth replenishment of the Fund for the calendar years 1987 to 1989-the three-year operation. Basically, Australia contributes 7.9 per cent of the total replenishment funds for that particular operation. On 19 March this year Senator Haines raised a number of allegations regarding the Asian Development Bank, namely with regard to loans for inappropriate development projects; falsification of loan studies by bank bureaucrats in order to ensure that projects are approved by the Bank board and the loan volume maintained; inadequate personnel practices, for example, no disinterested system of dealing with staff grievances; and unfair tendering of projects. In particular, allegations were made about the dominance of Japanese bureaucrats in the Banks' bureaucracy resulting in cases where Japanese companies get advance notice of tender specifications. The Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans), in his second reading speech, responded to a number of these allegations. However, I believe that a more detailed response is warranted than that which the Minister has given. I seek at this stage to incorporate in Hansard a statutory declaration-which I had shown to the previous Minister who was at the table-from a Mr Peter Nelson, who I think is probably well known to a number of senators with regard to previous allegations which he has made concerning this particular area. I think it would be simplest to incorporate that three-page statutory declaration in Hansard, and I seek leave to do so. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE STATUTORY DECLARATION I, Peter John Nelson of 27 Eurong Street, Wahroonga in the State of New South Wales do solemnly and sincerely declare that during 1986 I advised the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that I had had my contract breached by the Asian Development Bank of which the Australian Government is a substantial shareholder, because I had refused to lend my name to a deliberately misrepresented Appraisal Report for a loan of US$35 million which was passed through the Executive Board of that Bank. The Prime Ministers Office replied to me that the matter had been referred to the Treasurer, who in turn indicated that his department would continue to seek improvement within ADB but could do nothing on the matter I had represented. Despite similar facts being tabled in the Australian Senate by Senator Haines on 19 March 1987, in a ``matters of Public Interest'' speech, no further response has been received from the Government. Specifically I contend that under the ``agreement Establishing the Asian Development bank, the bank is operating contrary to Article 36 of its Charter which prohibits political influences from the evaluation of development projects. Contrary to the requirements of Article 36, I charge that the senior staff of The Asian Development Bank deliberately and knowingly misrepresented facts and figures in the Appraisal Report of the Pakistan Grain storage Project and that this was done despite my-written objection. This misrepresented Appraisal report was represented to, and passed before the Board of Executive Directors of Member Governments. Similarly, the Appraisal report on the Burma Edible Oil Project was passed through the Board containing deliberate misrepresentation. Such misrepresentation was to a large part as already outlined by Senator Janine Haines in the Australian Senate. My draft Post Evaluation Report on the Second Korea Fisheries Project was altered to remove serious criticism and reservations over the manner in which the project had been formulated and executed. As a result of my objections over presentation of fictitious information to the Executive Board of Directors, I was, and still am being victimised and threatened by ADB and have been defamed in the international press by officers of the Bank. The first of these instances was in the Wall Street Journal as a result of comments which the Bank later denied but the journalist involved has since backed in writing. The second instance was in a ``letters to the Editor'' column in the far Eastern economic Review. Written instructions were also issued in the Bank requesting my contract not to be renewed. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE In addition to operating outside its Charter, I charge that the Asian Development Bank violated its employment contract with me by requiring me to support, and by attaching my name to false facts and figures in documents, an action which could not be considered legal nor in the best interest of the Bank. In violating my contract, I charge that the Bank extended my contract indefinitely at the time of my first filing of my allegations. The Bank subsequently requested my not to say any more about the fabrication of the Burma Edible Oil project but when I refused to let the matter rest unresolved, the Bank fabricated a further fixed term contract which was undated but made to look as though it had been signed at an earlier time. I further charge that the Bank issued false and malicious statements to the press and to the Australian Government officials in order to attempt to intimidate me and to silence my objection to their actions. As part of this intimidation process, the Bank has advised me that I had been tried in my absence and found guilty of preparing the story which appeared in the Far Eastern Economic Review aimed at the ADB and titled, ``Tarnished Image'', while I was still employed. With this pronouncement they threatened that the matter ``will be entered in my record''. Prior to leaving the Bank I had been warned not to say anything as if I did, it could be ensured ``That I might never work again.'' If I said nothing, I was told that a job could be organised with the World Bank. Since then the Bank has been in contact with employers and others in efforts which must be seen as attempting to make good that threat. The Bank also instructed me in writing to make an insurance claim for damages on personal effects when they knew no such insurance cover existed. It has also withheld settlement of a travel advance and refused to negotiate on any of these claims. And I make this solemn declaration in the Public Interest, since the matters have still not been addressed by the Government, conscientiously believing the same to be true and by the provisions of Oaths Act, 1900. Subscribed and declared at Sydney this first day of December one thousand nine hundred and eighty seven before me 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Senator MACKLIN —I thank the Senate. I believe there is a need to respond to the various allegations that have been made. It might be appropriate in the autumn session next year, when more time is available, to look in some more detail at these particular aspects. I hope that the Minister at the table will look at the statutory declaration and that he will be able to make some response prior to the Senate resuming next year. When we look at the other two Bills, it is important that we recognise that a nation's attitude and concern for the people of other countries is probably best reflected in an analysis of our foreign aid program. I refer here, of course, to the humanitarian, agricultural, economic, educational and food aid, and not to military aid. Australia's official development assistance (ODA) disbursements have fluctuated relatively dramatically in recent years. In fiscal year 1986-87 the appropriations were reduced in real terms by 12.4 per cent, and in fiscal year 1987-88 by an estimated 3.4 per cent over a three-year period, to come up with a reduction of 20.2 per cent. This unprecedented cut will, I believe, have a significant impact on many of the recipients of Australia's aid and it certainly runs counter to the desirability of reasonable predictability of aid receipts. It will result in a substantial drop in the ODA gross national product ratio. On a fiscal year basis, the ratio will decline from 0.46 per cent in 1985-86 to an estimated 0.36 per cent in 1987-88. The Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development met on 4 December to review the development assistance efforts and policies of Australia. In a Press release the Committee noted that it: regretted that the aid budget had suffered a disproportionately high share of the cuts in total public expenditure, and that as a consequence aid as a proportion of the total central government Budget had declined from 1.5% in the fiscal year 1985-86 to an estimated 1.3% in 1987-88. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Further, it said: In view of the urgent aid needs of many developing countries and the desirability of sustaining an adequate joint aid effort, the Committee urged the Australian authorities to resume real increases in aid. Clearly, there is a need for reconsidering Australia's position as a nation, as a giver of aid, and particularly with regard to those countries far less fortunate than ourselves. The second Bill we are debating, the International Fund for Agricultural Development Bill, authorises a contribution by Australia of $8.48m towards a second replenishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). Australia has been a member since this Fund was established in 1977, and participated in its first replenishment. The International Fund for Agricultural Development Amendment Bill 1982 authorised the first replenishment. So the Fraser Government has a record of strong support for the International Fund for Agricultural Development. The second replenishment, which totals $46m, is intended to cover the Fund's lending operations over the period 1985 to 1987. Australia's contributions amount to a little over 2 per cent of the total funds replenishment. The Australian Democrats welcome the Australian Government's contribution to the second replenishment. However, we do so with major reservations and with grave fears for the level of overseas aid which will be given in the future. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE The Minister, in his second reading speech, made reference to the current climate of expenditure restraint. It seems to us that the current climate is being used by the Government as a euphemism to cop out of a whole range of its commitments. The Minister outlined reasons for the decision to make no further contributions to the Fund after honouring the second replenishment. The Government will not participate in the negotiations for round three, due to start next year. The Minister referred to difficulties in terms of the commitment of some donor countries, particularly the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) group, to provide a viable level of funding. I am not at all sure what that viable level of funding is supposed to be. The fact that the OPEC countries are not jumping over themselves to make their 40 per cent of contributions that they traditionally make I hardly see as any legitimate reason for what Australia is or is not doing. As a concept of a viable level of funding, I imagine that if one does not have anything any assistance would constitute a viable level of funding. We are talking about a system aimed at food production for the poorest sectors of the world's poorest countries. That is what the Fund is about. I think it is rather extraordinary that Australia of all countries, should be making that type of pronouncement at this stage. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE I would have liked to be able to make some further comments in this area, particularly about Professor Hughes's statement, but due to the time constraints that we have on us I now pass to the International Development Association Bill. It may be that other speakers in this debate will take up some of those points. I would hope so. The International Development Association Bill authorises a contribution from Australia of $335m towards the eighth replenishment of the International Development Association (IDA), the concessional lending arm of the World Bank. Its resources are directed, as the previous Fund is directed, to the world's poorest countries. Australia has been a member of the Association since 1960 and I am pleased to say that the Government, unlike its attitude to the funding to the International Fund for Agricultural Development, seemingly accepts the work of IDA and the World Bank and has not indicated that it will be denying it future moneys. I am not at all sure whether the Government, having made one such announcement with regard to the International Fund, felt that that was enough for this year and that it will be making some such announcement later. We would hope that that would not be the case. Senator Hill —A mini-Budget. Senator MACKLIN —As Senator Hill has reminded me, we will have a mini-Budget next year and that might be an appropriate stage for the Government to say that it is cutting out the funding in this area. Quite frankly, our major concern is that we are moving progressively towards denying our responsibilities in the area of international aid. I think we are using the excuse of the economic difficulties that Australia is in. Many countries are in similar economic difficulties but they have recognised the fundamental importance of foreign aid, not as charity but as part of the world's obligations and as part of our contributions to a safer and more secure world for everybody. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE In conclusion, I would like to quote some very meaningful words from Mahatma Gandhi, who said, `There is enough in the world for everyone's needs but not for everyone's greed'. If people who are determining Australia's overseas aid budget keep this fact in mind when deciding who should get how much and when, we would be making a better contribution to the world and assisting it to move towards less poverty by helping other nations assist in their own development. That is the best aid we can offer, not the aid which has sometimes been given in the past-I think Australia has moved away from giving this type of aid although some countries still are-that is, aid of the paternalistic kind, the handout and `Won't you be thankful for our doing something for you' aid; but rather a ready acknowledgment of our obligations to other countries, including their development for a safer, secure and more prosperous world, from which we also benefit. Some of the very facile arguments that one hears in the community with regard to aid should be put to rest-that is, the notion that charity begins at home. Some of the other ideas floated around, particularly in my State, really do not hold up under any reasonable scrutiny of the place of foreign aid in terms of our foreign affairs, our defence and our international obligations to the wider community. The Australian Democrats will be supporting the passage of these Bills on the basis that getting something is better than getting absolutely nothing, but as I have said before, with considerable reservations-notably, with regard to the Government's decision not to engage in any further negotiations on the funding of the International Fund for Agricultural Development. We would hope that in looking at these three Bills overall, the Department of Foreign Affairs will have a greater input, particularly on the Asian Development Fund. The Foreign Affairs Department has probably had very little input and that area, as it is a World Bank exercise, is carried mainly by the Treasury. Hopefully, in the negotiations around the mini-Budget next year, the Government will again look at whether we might be able to increase our aid. We believe that the Government should be contributing 0.7 per cent of gross national product, which is the recommended level advocated by the United Nations. Individual Australians have always been incredibly generous when it comes to supporting those less fortunate than ourselves. Time and again funds are donated by individual Australians to assist needy people around the world. The Australian Government should seek at least to reflect that level of generosity that is in the Australian people. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Senator HILL(South Australia)(1.18 a.m.) —The Senate is debating three aid Bills-the Asian Development Fund Bill 1987, the International Development Association Fund Bill 1987 and the International Fund for Agricultural Development Bill 1987. Because of the hour, tonight I intend to deal with only the third Bill-the International Fund for Agricultural Development Bill. I want to deal particularly with this Bill because of the appalling decision of this Government that after the current replenishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) it will not be making any further contributions to that fund. I am not really surprised, looking at the very disappointing record of this Government in relation to foreign aid generally. We all remember the boasts of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) when it came to government about what it was going to achieve in this area, how it was going to reach the figure of 0.7 per cent of gross national product (GNP) target the United Nations (UN) set. Even at the 1986 national conference of the Australian Labor Party the more modest target was set at 0.55 per cent of GNP. That was to be achieved by this Government. But in actual practice we have seen a continual slippage so that in the last year there has been a reduction in real terms of some 20 per cent in aid given by Australia. This is so much so that our support now has fallen to the very low figure of 0.36 per cent of gross national product. We have yet another example of this tonight when we look at the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) that after the current replenishment of this fund no further contribution would be made. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE When one looks at the International Fund for Agricultural Development, its achievements in its short life and its objectives, one finds it most difficult to understand why the Government should be so negative and short-sighted. IFAD is the youngest of the United Nations specialised agencies and in many ways has learnt from the experience of others. It was formed out of the United Nations World Food Conference in 1974 as a result of a recognition that, although billions of dollars had been spent on aid, more of the world's people than in any previous period remained hungry. Therefore, it was believed that the strategy that had been adopted in the past was wrong. Those who set up this fund realised that starvation and malnutrition resulted not just from a lack of food but essentially from poverty-poverty so dire that food could neither be purchased nor produced. The strategy that IFAD adopted is referred to colloquially as the `percolate up' strategy, rather than the more traditional `trickle down' strategy. The trickle down strategy was that if money and food were channelled in, one hoped that the benefits would trickle down to the poorest people. The percolate up strategy was that, if one assisted the most poor to help themselves, the benefits would percolate up. It was a new strategy, designed to combat poverty and despair, working from the bottom up. The policy adopted was one of self-help, not charity. The vast proportion of the funds of this body were to be loaned; they were not to be donated even though they were to be provided at concessional rates. I would have thought that that was commendable. IFAD sought to make the means available for the very poor to help themselves. It did that through low cost grass roots projects which were designed to reach the maximum number of recipients. Certainly on this side of the chamber it is pleasing to see that individual free enterprise and entrepreneurship were recognised and by this means fostered and stimulated. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE IFAD's tightly defined mandate focuses sharply on small holders and landless labourers with the objective of increasing food production in developing countries. It is unique in other ways. The previous speaker, Senator Macklin, mentioned the involvement of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in relation to it. This is the only specialised agency that brings in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, the developed Western countries, the OPEC countries and the developing nations, which together form a joint form of administration and direction for this fund. Thus, the developing countries share in the decision making and tackling of the problems. I would have thought that was a commendable new step, a step in a different direction. IFAD did not seek to become another of the sprawling international bureaucracies. You will be impressed, Madam Acting Deputy President, to learn that IFAD actually employs fewer than 85 professionals. It supplies the ideas and the money and harnesses the skills and resources of other organisations, particularly within the United Nations system. Rather than set up a new bureaucracy, it used the bureaucracies already in existence, and that has enabled it to keep its administration costs down. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE In the eight years IFAD has financed 188 projects-I think it is now up around 200 projects-in some 88 of the poorest countries of the developing world. When fully implemented these projects will boost food production by more than 22 million tons a year in terms of wheat equivalent. That is the type of fund that this Government, in its short-sighted approach, is abandoning by the decision that we are reviewing tonight. It is estimated that projects approved in 1985 will benefit 1.9 million small holders and landless people in some 17 countries. Let me simply refer to one example of IFAD's work-I know this might be boring to the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans); he, no doubt, reflects his Government's attitude to these matters-in relation to Bangladesh. IFAD has helped nearly 215,000 of Bangladesh rural corps, of whom 72 per cent are women. It has helped them by allowing them to set up small businesses in order to better themselves-small businesses such as the purchases of one cow that they can milk and sell the product of or the purchase of one loom on which they can make saris. I would have thought, on any objective assessment, that the sponsoring of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh is quite an exceptional achievement and should be commended even by this Government. What is most outstanding is that in the roughly $2 billion that has been lent in concessional loans-I stress to the poorest of the world's people-the loan repayment rate is around 98 per cent which strikes me as absolutely astonishing. It shows what can be achieved if people are given the opportunity. That is the methodology that has been adopted by this particular fund that the Government is no longer prepared to assist. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE What is the Government's argument in this regard? The Government uses the same rhetoric as we have heard on other occasions. In the Foreign Minister's Press release it is stated: In the light of budgetary constraints and the need to rationalise Australia's contributions . . . would be making no further contributions . . . Then Mr Hayden somewhat surprisingly stated that on the basis of his own careful assessment of IFAD it left him quite unimpressed with its performance compared with alternative aid outlets. What was he referring to? It seems that he was referring to an investigation that had taken place by our own Australian Development Assistance Bureau (ADAB) but, regrettably, that investigation has remained secret and so none of us is being given the opportunity to test the validity of the Minister's assessment in that regard. I think that is important. I cannot see why such a report should not be made public so that we can see why ADAB has reached its conclusions which I am about to indicate are very inconsistent with the conclusions of so many other bodies throughout the world. He also seems, rather surprisingly, to rely on a letter to the editor of the Canberra Times by his former economics lecturer, Professor Helen Hughes, who, I might remind the Senate, worked for many years in a competitive body, the World Bank. She is unimpressed with IFAD. She makes such allegations as `IFAD projects are highly risky'. Of course they are highly risky when they are being lent to the world's most poor but, as I have said, with a 98 per cent repayment rate I would have thought that that was more than effectively answered. As I said, Professor Helen Hughes and the Minister's assessments are not consistent with the views that one reads from so many other bodies and specialists within this field. Let me just refer briefly to a couple. One was the editorial in the New York Times of 30 July this year. The article states: IFAD's own record for helping the truly poor with `bottom up' aid so impresses the Reagan Administration that it requested $26.6m for the agency next year, along with $20m for its Sub-Sahara African program. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE `IFAD's record fully warrants the Administration's request.', was the assessment of the New York Times. It was stated on behalf of the West German Government's aid bureau: It is the task of IFAD to focus attention on the real issues of poverty and to find strategies of overcoming poverty for the rural poor. I think it is to IFAD's credit to have implemented this task, combining sound financial management with new delivery systems and innovative operational methods reaching the poor. In this way, IFAD can be regarded as a pioneer institution. The United States Agency for International Development said: IFAD's concentrated attention on and growing experience with programs for the poorer small farmers and landless people is a significant and urgent dimension of today's international development efforts. One can go on looking at the assessment of experts throughout the world who come to an entirely opposite conclusion to that which is put to us by this Minister. One can only sceptically look at his assessment that he carefully considered the matter. It may be that the Minister and Professor Hughes were relying on an outdated review of IFAD that took place back in 1984. That review has now been re-examined and found to be outdated. It was re-examined by a US Congressional Appropriations Committee. Very recently the report of that Committee-it came through John Whitehead, the relevant Deputy Secretary of the State Department-said: The committee has in the past been critical of IFAD. However, the operation of the organisation over the last four years has been commendable and deserving support. Its programs are noted for their ability to get to the grass roots level provide cost-effective and appropriate assistance at that level. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE That is the most up to date assessment by a highly skilled body, highly skilled at making judgments such as this-obviously totally disregarded by our own Foreign Minister, which is most disappointing. So the Government's assessment is as we find in so many other aid areas. Beyond being selfish it is also short-sighted. As I have indicated in previous speeches on other areas of this Government's aid reductions, Australian foreign aid can benefit Australia materially in so many ways, such as co-financing projects. The fund has been co-financing projects with our own ADAB projects in the South Pacific. What will happen to those projects? I note that there is $17m in the form of co-financing in the South Pacific, in particular Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tonga and Western Samoa. Will it be prepared to co-finance further projects when Australia is not prepared to make a contribution? The answer is probably no. The fact that IFAD uses Australian consultants in many of these projects is something that the Government also seems to have overlooked. We are not prepared to contribute to the IFAD special program for sub-Saharan Africa. We do not have the opportunity to participate in procurements arising from that special program which amount to some $300m. As I indicated, not only is this Government selfish in its attitude to aid, but also it is short-sighted because it is not providing opportunities for Australian consultants that it could be providing. Let me bring to your attention, Mr Acting Deputy President, recent attitudes expressed by the United Nations Association of the United States of America on its annual United Nations day this year in which it singled out IFAD for special recognition as a model institution of the UN system. I also draw your attention to the views of President Reagan. In a letter to that body, he said: Through far-reaching programs stressing individual initiative and private sector development, IFAD offers a brighter future around the globe. That is a true blessing for humanity. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE John Whitehead, as I mentioned earlier, said: IFAD is a shining example of what the United Nations and its specialised and technical agencies are all about. He specifically referred to the IFAD President as exercising his expertise by keeping IFAD cost effective in a time of world wide economic constraints. So our Foreign Minister's assessment that it is an unsuitable vehicle for delivering aid does not add up, when one looks at all of these other assessments from around the world. I conclude my remarks by referring to the views expressed on the seventh of this month by the assessment of the OECD of Australia's aid contribution in which it stated its regret at the way in which the Australian aid budget is being cut at a disproportionately high level. In relation to IFAD it said: The Committee expressed concern about Australia's intention not to participate in the third replenishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, (IFAD) and appealed to Australia to reconsider its decision. It is not too late for Australia to reconsider its decision. I appeal to the Government in the same terms as the appeal it has received from the OECD. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(1.36 a.m.) —I thank all honourable senators who have spoken in this debate for their support for the Asian Development Fund Bill 1987, the International Development Association Bill 1987 and the International Fund for Agricultural Development Bill 1987. I wish the Bills a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(1.38 a.m.) —I apologise for keeping the Senate at this hour. I especially apologise to the attendants, who must stay with us until we finish, but there is a matter which I believe needs attention, and I will dispose of it as quickly as I possibly can. On 23 November during the second reading debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Senator Stone made a number of allegations about particular Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) programs, in the course of a wide-ranging condemnation of that organisation. The majority of his complaints clearly stemmed from an abysmal lack of knowledge of the programs which he lambasted. Much confusion on the part of Senator Stone has been addressed in various ways in this chamber, mostly by answers to questions, but it still remains for the reputation of The Coming Out Show to be rescued from the wildly inaccurate version on record, as a result of Senator Stone's diatribe. Very briefly, I will quote some of the things he said: For the last decade The Coming Out Show has been working and re-working topics that delight radical feminists, such as Greenham Common-Greenham Common, for God's sake!-and nuclear disarmament, which is another matter on which Australia has not the slightest impact. That is Senator Stone's view, and there are many people who believe entirely differently. I quote again: Affirmative action is another topic which has been done to death-reiterated and reiterated-on that program. Incest is another. Our ears have been assailed month in and month out by programs about incest. I quote again: Another favourite topic of The Coming Out Show is child abuse. Incidentally, there was some gratuitous abuse of me. I quote again: 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Women's shelters is another favourite topic of that program. He said that abortion is another favourite topic. He made some more gratuitous remarks about my position on abortion. I point out that I do not think I am particularly idiosyncratic in believing that women have the right to control their own fertility. It is a view that was supported by the 160 nations which attended the End of the Decade for Women Conference in Nairobi in 1975 in a statement which went on to say that women were entitled to the right to control their own fertility, without which they could not enjoy other rights. I have obtained from the Australian Women's Broadcasting Co-operative a list of all programs put to air in 1986 and 1987. I assure the Senate that Senator Stone's information is so inaccurate as to be ludicrous. Specifically, I could find no programs on Greenham Common. There may certainly have been reference to Greenham Common in any of three short segments that referred to Pine Gap, women's peace activities in Chile, and the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty. These programs took up less than one per cent of The Coming Out Show over those two years. Affirmative action, which was certainly in the news as we dealt with that legislation, was mentioned in four short segments, each one of which was of about five minutes duration, once again taking up less than one per cent of the total time. Incest was the subject of one 40-minute program. Child abuse was referred to in three short segments. So, taken together, those incest and child abuse references would have taken up something like one and a quarter per cent of the total time in two years. Women's shelters were not specifically mentioned in the program but housing for women was the subject of two complete programs and there were two short programs on domestic violence in Papua New Guinea, plus the women's housing conference. Abortion was the subject of six short segments. Out of 150 short segments over those two years. Reference was made to abortion in Nicaragua, an obituary for Bertrand Wainer, abortion laws in Ireland, counselling in Queensland, the Ian McGoldrick case and United Kingdom abortion laws. So there we have the total of the programs which raised Senator Stone's ire taking up considerably less than 6 per cent of the whole of those two years programs. Any serious view of The Coming Out Show, which is now in its thirteenth year, shows the coverage of a rich variety of issues. So that further debate on this program can be conducted on a better informed basis, I seek leave to have the list of programs provided to me by the ABC incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE COMING OUT SHOW 1986 RUNDOWNS 4.1.87 Jails, Junkies & Organised Crime (Pt 1, Jails) 11.1.86 Jails, Junkies & Organised Crime (Pt 2, Junkies) 18.1.86 Jails, Junkies & Organised Crime (Pt 3, Org. Crime) 25.1.86 Black Crime/White Law 1.2.86 Aboriginal Women & Navahoe Indians 8.2.86 Outback & Outspoken 15.2.86 Childcare 22.2.86 `Edie' (Impressions of Edi Sedgwick) 1.3.86 Pandora's Box: Cory Aquino; `The Color Purple' Review; `Other Women' Book Review; Therapy 8.3.86 Eleanor Dark & Lesbia Harford 15.3.86 Bad Fat (Anorexia Nervosa) 22.3.86 Outworkers 29.3.86 `On the Fringe'-Adelaide Fringe Festival 5.4.86 P.N.G. Nurses 12.4.86 Laurie Anderson 19.4.86 Simone De Beauvoir Special 26.4.86 The Protection Racket (Girls in care of NSW Courts) 3.5.86 National Agenda for Women Conference Report 10.5.86 International Roundup 17.5.86 Tanzanian Women 24.5.86 Tanzanian Women Pt 2 31.5.86 `The Doctor Gives Me Pills' (Minor tranquilisers) 7.6.86 Behind the News: Cory Aquino's first 100 days; Australia's place in US bases; Yassar Arafat on Israel; Thatcher's support plummets; Fiji Govt tries to bring in minimum wage; Women & combat-related jobs; Report on Aboriginal Women's Task Force; First damages claim for drug dependence; Prostitution Inquiry; 14.6.86 Reproductive Technology 21.6.86 Women in South Africa 28.6.86 Incest 5.7.86 Behind the News: Melinda Levis Anti-Discrim case; Aboriginal land handover in NT; Superannuation; Neville Wran's resignation; Overdoses at Mulawa Women's Detention Centre; July 4 US celebrations; Homeless Youth Allowance. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE 12.7.86 Breaking the Silence (women from Australia Council of Churches) 19.7.86 Aged Women 26.7.86 Zimbabwe Women 2.8.86 Behind the News: CAAMA; Nurses wage rise; Demonstration at ALP Conf.; Sri Lankan's entrance into foreign labor market; Fiji Govt & minimum wage; WILP in Chile; Economic sanctions on South Africa; Anti-Discrimination Act; Would Anti-Discrim process change under Labor. 9.8.86 Paradise Past, Paradise Present, Pt 1 (Pacific Women) 16.8.86 Paradise Past, Paradise Present, Pt 2 (Pacific Women) 23.8.86 Paradise Past, Paradise Present, Pt 3 (Pacific Women) 30.8.86 Women in Sport 6.9.86 Behind the News: 12 mth wait for satellite IMPARGE TV: Human Rights legislation; Nicaragua-abortion; Argentina-disappearance of children; UK-press criticism of advocator for natural childbirth methods; Janine Haines elected Democrats leader; Author of `Homicide the Social Reality'. 13.9.86 Lindy Chamberlain 20.9.86 The Chelmsford Inquiry (Deep Sleep Therapy) 27.9.86 Pepita Noble 4.10.86 Behind the News: The `Pill'; Takako Doi elected Japan's Opposition Ldr; Emily's List; cost of running for US President; Report Womens Section Pan Africanist Congress US S.A. sanctions; Family maintenance; Affirmative Action legislation into force; Mexico garment factories after earthquake. 11.10.86 Women of the Push 18.10.86 Comparable Worth 25.10.86 Ronnie Gilbert 1.11.86 Behind the News: Pat Giles on Women's Space; (Pine Gap); ACTU two-tier wages system; Swedish women; i/v Rebecca Albury ``Who Owns the Embryo''; Drugs during pregnancy; Queensland elections: Anti-Dicrim. Brd largest damages award; Sue Brooks on Manual Handling; UK-Special Minister of State of Women; Ordination of Women 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE 8.11.86 Rape 15.11.86 Kids-Who Pays? (The Government's Maintenance Proposals) 22.11.86 Elizabeth Jolley 29.11.86 The Pope and Women 6.12.86 Behind the News: Chief Justice Rose Bird rejected; Tampons; `Settling Up' report ex Institute of Family Studies; Aquino's style of Presidency; Outworkers; Womens Movement in UK; Wild Women Surfboards. 13.12.86 Victorian Nurses Dispute 20.12.86 Allucra (Aboriginal Womens Birthing Centre) -1987- 31.1.87 Repeat: Pacific Past, Pacific Present, Part 3. 7.2.87 Behind the News: Mary Gaudron-first woman in High Court; USA-Maternity leave item; UK-Maternity leave rights; Disabled people protest at Miss Australia; Philippines constitution-women's affect; Nicaraguan constitution-women's affect; Comedy piece on US tourists here for America's Cup; Proposed changes to maintenance proposals; Government discussion paper on Social Security Review; Bertram Wainer obituary-Abortion Clinics; Abortion laws in Ireland; Victorian Nurses dispute. 14.2.87 Women and Film in Australia 21.2.87 Men as Fathers: Care or Control? 28.2.87 Lily and May (Drama) 7.3.87 Behind the News Julian Disney (ACOSS) explains fam. allowance Police Surgeon i/v on alleged female baby circumcision; US Consumer Advocacy Group on damages of some beauty products; Chris Ronalds & Senator Ryan on Affirmative Action and launch of new book; Josepha Kanawee from PNG Law Reform C'ssion on domestic violence; Light rape penalties ex London; Renate Kline on new form of sex selection; Launch of Network-new rural womens mag. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE 14.3.87 Sawdust and Spangles (women in the circus) 21.3.87 Checked out (Young women as Checkout operators) 28.3.87 An Indecent Monopoly (Murdoch's news-paper takeover) 4.4.87 Behind the News: SURROGACY SPECIAL: Report from Washington -i/v P. Chessler on Baby M. case; Prof. Louis Waller: could Baby M happen here? British Barrister Margaret Russell-how do UK Courts handle surrogacy? PM Hawke opens Affirmative Action Agency; Chris Ronalds on US Supreme Court AA decision; Liberals about-face on Affirmative Action; Different attitudes to condoms of men & women; W.A. Pubs ban stripping; Domica Whelan from ACTU on implications of decision by Vic. Supreme Court RSI doesn't exist; Women's issues in Fiji's Election Campaign; abortion counselling in Qld may close. 11.4.87 Three Writers (Janine Burke; Kate Grenville; D. Johnston) 18.4.87 Daughters of Radicals 25.4.87 Warts & All (A.I.D.S & Cervical Cancer) 2.5.87 Behind the News: 7 Male Liberal Senators cross floor on EEO Bill; Victorian School Teacher sacked from Catholic School for living in defacto relationship; US women receives $250,000 for sexual harassment case; Trish Caswell's fight for top ACTU job; Anna Stewart Memorial Project (AA in Trade Unions for women); Cardinal Sin calls for people not to vote for 8 out of 9 women candidates; Eva Cox predicts outcome of May Mini Budget. 9.5.87 ``Mother Never Told Me'' Part 1 (MUM'S THE WORD) (Myths) 16.5.87 ``It's Only Natural'' Part 2 (Changing feminist attitude?) 23.4.87 ``Unnatural Women'' Part 3 (women who don't want: leave kids) 30.5.87 Public Goods or Private Indulgence? Part 4 (who should pay?) 6.6.87 Behind the News: Debate between Senator Ryan & John Spender, on `which party deserves women's vote?'; Beatrix Campbell author of ``The Iron Ladies'' on why women vote Tory; Jenny George on decision to increase number of women on ACTU Executive; Report on pardon of Lindy Chamberlain; Visiting Nicaraguan women talk of achievements of women under Sandinista Government. Report on 2nd National Women's Housing Conf. NSW Government's child sexual assault campaign; Dalkon Shield manufacturers announce $15m emergency fund. 13.6.87 Gloria Steinem on Sex and Power 20.6.87 Elizabeth Jolley (Rpt) 27.6.87 ``The Edjudina Ladies' (Women in mining towns) 4.7.87 Behind the News 4.7.87 Behind the News: Summary of all Party's election policies for women; Daphne Gollan, Greens candidate on their policies; Jo Wainer on Dr Ian McGoldrick's case and ramifications of ID Card; Dianne Abbott, Britain's first black woman MP; Jill Calvert on NSW Government's child sexual assault campaign; rehab. for offenders; Women against Teargas from Korea; World Congress of Women Report ex Russia Key Mundine on Aboriginals. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE 11.7.87 ``Le Vedove Biance'' (Italian women immigrants) 18.7.87 ``All My Trials'' (Angela Davis/Sally Morgan) 25.7.87 World Congress of Women from Moscow 1.8.87 Behind the News: i/v Margaret Reynolds;i/v Ross Kelly; Comment from Janine Haines; Phone-in on whether appointment of women to Hawke Ministry is considered Tokenism; Gru Bruntlandt, Norway's PM on number of women in her Cabinet; Cervical Cancer scandal in NZ; UK- accusation that child abuse awareness has become child abuse hysteria. 8.8.87 Women in Antarctica Part 1 15.8.87 Women in Antarctica Part 2 22.8.87 ``Sex for Sale'' (Prostitution; Feminist Pornography) 29.8.87 Margaret Attwood (Canadian author) 5.9.87 Behind the News: Anna Reynold's report on Fitzgerald Inquiry: Aboriginal Researcher alleges use of Depo Provera on young Aboriginal girls; Dewe Gorodey on Kanak women's struggle for change and independence; Fiji women issue protest at military occupation of Fiji and harassment of women; Sole Parents' Action Group secure reprieve from Government till end of 1987; Visit to Sydney by first all-female crew to fly wide bodied plane around world. 12.9.87 ``Culcha Shock'' (Magazine Program: Bolshoi Ballerinas, women rappers, film review, book review) 19.9.87 Women in Caravans/Young girls Homelessness 26.9.87 Single Women and Housing/Aboriginal women in Townsville 3.10.87 Behind the News: INF Treaty report from London; Ann Summers appointed head of ``MS'' Magazine; Commonwealth National Policy for Education of Girls; Internal examinations on anaesthetised women; Deb Brennan on Senator Walsh's childcare comments; Women and small business program launch; Maggie Thatcher on her choice in clothes. 10.10.87 Angela Carter 17.10.87 Repeat (Le Vedove Biance) 24.10.87 ``Intercourse'' 31.10.87 Women on the Track (Women Jockeys) 7.11.87 Behind the News: Outworkers gain award for leave, overtime, etc.; Dr Alan Moran on childcare; NZ Inquiry into cervical cancer scandal; Sexual exploitation of aboriginal women; First International Home Birth Conference, UK; World Health Organisation supports IUD; UK-right to legal abortion under threat. 14.11.87 The Joke's On Us (British women comediennes) 21.11.87 Women Rowers/Women Lifeguards 28.11.87 Pacific Women (Making radio in Australia) 5.12.87 Behind the News 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(1.43 a.m.) —I will not hold the chamber up for long this evening but before I depart from this chamber for the last time this year I would like to bring a matter to the attention of the Government. I ask it to use the good graces it has with the Western Australian Government regarding the proposed polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) incinerator at Koolyanobbing. Despite the opposition to the siting of such an incinerator in this area in the last 12 months the Western Australian Government seems hell-bent on carrying on with the project. I ask the Commonwealth Government to use its influence to prevent the project because it would damage the wheat trade from the entire area. Even if PCBs did not escape into the wheat areas the value of the wheat could be reduced on the world market because of its association with the area. As I said earlier today on the legislation dealing with pesticide residues, this happened in the Manjimup area where 10,000 cattle cannot go to market although only one-third of the farms in the area are quarantined. Last week there was a mass meeting of farmers in the area and they have now started gathering funds to commence a High Court of Australia challenge. There is talk about blockades if this challenge does not succeed. The site is out on a road that does not go beyond Koolyanobbing, so I am sure that the blockade could easily work. I also put on record my great disappointment at the cowardly attack made on me last evening at a public meeting in Kalgoorlie by my own local representative, Graeme Campbell, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. We had come to a corridor arrangement here a few weeks ago that, if an incinerator had to go in Western Australia, we would push for it to go half-way between Koolyanobbing and Kalgoorlie, at a suitable site in the middle of the scrub. Having come to this arrangement, he went to the public meeting and attacked me and said that I had sold out the area. He said that he was not worried about farmers in that area because they were so far down the drain that they would go broke at any time. I assure Mr Campbell that they will still be there when he is no longer the member for Kalgoorlie. That is all I have to say. I ask the Government to take this matter on board and, as I have said, to use its graces with the Western Australian Government to see whether it can move this incinerator out toneutral country. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(1.46 a.m.) —Although the hour is late, this is the penultimate adjournment debate. As this calendar year draws to a close, so does the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. I pose the question at this stage: What is the Government's record for the International Year? I have to answer that it is paltry and indeed shameful. Without overstating the case, what homeless people need most is a home. How many homes did this Government provide for the homeless during this special year? The answer is: outside normal programs, none. Christmas is a harsh time to be homeless, and the existence of an International Year of Shelter for the Homeless secretariat or a treatise entitled `A study into Homelessness and Inadequate Housing' gives little shelter from the rain. Mr Cliff Picton, a member of the National Committee and Chief Executive of the Council for the Ageing, said on 29 July this year: The International Year of Shelter for the Homeless in Australia has not put a single roof over a single head. He is right. In the first five months of this year, 8,918 young people sought a bed in a refuge in Sydney. But there are only 1,382 beds available. Thus 7,636 young people slept without shelter-and that is just in Sydney. The $1.3m of glossy self-promotion by the Government did not give one more person in need shelter or a bed. Today my colleague in the Legislative Council in New South Wales, the Hon. Virginia Chadwick, the shadow Minister for Community Services, called on this Government to make available the surplus accommodation at the Federal Government's Endeavour hostel in South Coogee, Sydney, for homeless people so that at this time of Christmas they may have some succour. Mrs Chadwick pointed out that there is accommodation in this hostel for at least 200 people-and it is vacant. I return to Mr Picton's quote of 29 July 1987, when he said: What we fear is that the year will pass without the plight of the homeless having been significantly highlighted in this country and that IYSH projects will be consigned to the dusty shelves as so many of the other `years of' projects have been. There is the need for a major rethink on the part of the Government. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE The Government has an opportunity to address its shameful and desultory record in this special year. It has the opportunity to take a positive decision to release the vacant hostel accommodation now so that people may have that accommodation through Christmas. In other words I call on this Government to answer Mrs Chadwick's call to give hope to some people at a time when many of us go forward to a festive spirit-because these people have been left out in the cold. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(1.50 a.m.) —Because it is very late the speakers list on the Asian Development Fund Bill seems to have absolutely vanished. I just want to say a couple of words about that matter before I get on to my main theme. Although I supported the Asian Development Fund Bill and wished that more was actually given to our Asian neighbours-because I think that is appropriate for a country as relatively rich as I believe Australia is-I would like to stress my strong disapproval of the Government's decision to make no further contributions to the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) after 1992. Although the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) said that concerns about the effectiveness of IFAD and that cutbacks in Australia's foreign aid program had led to the decision, I must take this opportunity to point out that such an opinion has virtually no backing in the aid community here or overseas, where the decision has been greeted with sadness and criticism. IFAD is a small United Nations agency operating in many countries. It has been getting $2m to $3m a year from Australia's overall aid budget. It focuses specifically on the poorest of the rural poor and specialises in projects which help people to help themselves, emphasising the key aspects of small scale credit, irrigation, traditional food crops and forestry. IFAD has also given special priority to women and providing small scale credit for programs in which they are involved. According to reported assessments by several Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and the Reagan Administration's United States aid program, the economic effectiveness of IFAD has been favourable, and in these terms it may well be as good as either the World Bank or the Asian Development Bank, to which Australia is providing $335m for the soft loan fund of the former and $410m for the soft loan fund of the latter. As there has been a recognition of the priorities of these types of projects funded by IFAD in terms of providing aid, I urge the Government to change its decision and to continue to fund IFAD after 1992. The Government ought to be well warned that there will be a strong campaign by aid agencies in Australia to persuade the Government to change its mind over the next three years. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Briefly, I wish to draw the Senate's attention to an excellent book called Life after Debt, which some honourable senators may have seen, since it was launched last week. It is about Australia and the global debt crisis. The authors of the book are the six members of the development issues study group set up by the Australian Council for Overseas Aid (ACFOA) following its annual meeting in 1986. Two of the members of that group are parliamentarians, Senator Richard Alston and John Langmore, the honourable member for Fraser-a fact worth noting, as they come from different sides of the political spectrum yet share this common concern. While the book resulting from their deliberations through 1987 mostly concentrates on the effects of the debt crisis on Third World counties, it also deals with the situation in Australia and considers the similarities and differences between Australia's situation and that of the heavily indebted developing countries. The real difference is, of course, that, although Australia's foreign debt has risen considerably during the 1980s, we are in a much better position to cope with it than most Third World countries. Furthermore, Australia is also involved, through its representatives, in the international debates and negotiations on the debt crisis. I want to refer briefly to some of the causes of the global debt crisis, but principally I want to outline some of the proposals in the book which the authors hope the Australian Government will act upon. In essence, rising interest rates and falling commodity prices have prevented developing countries from meeting their debt service obligations. Indeed, since 1984 the net flow of global capital has been from the poor of the south to the rich countries of the north. Debt repayments by developing countries now outstrip all capital flows-that is, loans, aid grants and investment-from the industrial countries to the developing countries. I want just briefly to refer to the recommendations which this country has suggested. The remaining recommendations in the booklet Life After Debt are as follows: 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE We urge the Government to instruct its executive directors at the World Bank and IMF to support moves for increased lending by these institutions The current trends toward lower interest rates and longer maturity, grace and consolidation periods should be encouraged We propose the Reserve Bank of Australia investigate the potential for converting developing country debts held by Australian Banks and remove any unnecessary restrictions on debt conversion We call on the Australian Government to investigate the proposals for a debt management authority currently under consideration by the US congress We propose Australia support the proposals of the Paris club on rescheduling the official debts of creditor governments We urge the Australian Government to instruct the Executive Director of the International Development Association to work with other representatives in support of the largest attainable increase in capital for the World Bank Group Australia should support the proposal by the IMF's Managing Director to triple the resources of the Structural Adjustment Fund We call on the Australian Government to respond to the UNICEF report ``Adjustment with a Human Face'' and to ensure that active consideration of these issues be at the top of the agenda for the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau Australia should take steps to ensure that the IMF and World Bank adjustment programs have a `human face' and the poor are assisted rather than further disadvantaged by adjustment programs. I wish to conclude by congratulating bothACFOA on setting up this study group and the six members with their advisers on producing this excellent report. It is only 109 pages long, and I recommend it to senators concerned about the debt crisis both in Australia and at the international level to take home for their holiday reading. Having done so, I hope they will come back to push for the adoption of the recommendations in 1988. 17-18 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 17-18 December 1987 17-18 December 1987 SENATE Senator McGAURAN(Victoria)(1.56 a.m.) —This evening I made comments regarding Ms Elizabeth Reid, former women's adviser to the once Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam. It was never my intention to make a personal attack upon Ms Elizabeth Reid in the context of my speech. I believe that I did not do so. However, subsequently, her personal circumstances were brought to my attention. Naturally, if, given Ms Reid's personal circumstances, of which I was unaware, I have offended her feelings, I regret that and would wish to withdraw any such imputations. I thank the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(1.56 a.m.) —in reply- thank honourable senators for their various contributions to the adjournment. Having not listened to any of them in any detail at this hour of the night, I do not think it would be appropriate if I sought to give any substantive response. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 1.58 a.m. (Friday) The following paper was tabled: Australian National Railways Commission Act-General By-Laws 1987-Amendment No. 1. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 93) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 26 October 1987: (1) Is the Attorney-General aware that as a result of the 1987 Budget allocation, the Queensland Marriage Guidance Council's grant increased by only 1 per cent in real terms, following an 8 per cent decrease in real terms in 1986; if so, does he realize that these financial restraints are threatening the future work of the Council. (2) Is the Attorney-General aware that this 1 per cent increase in real terms is not consistent with the statement of the Prime Minister in the Age of 6 July 1987, where he said: `I will be seeking a significant increase for 1987-88 in the level of support to enable these organisations to operate with more stability and effectiveness.' (3) Is the Attorney-General aware that as a result of the 1 per cent increase in the Council's grant: (a) there are severe limitations on professional support for counsellors; (b) staff are being retrenched; (c) an $80,000 overdraft has accumulated; and (d) there are lengthening waiting lists for people seeking counselling. (4) What action, if any, is the Attorney-General taking to ensure that immediate financial assistance be given to the Queensland Marriage Guidance Council so that it may continue the invaluable work it has done to date. (5) Will the Attorney-General give an assurance that funding to the Queensland Marriage Guidance Council will not be cut in future, but rather that funding be increased to enable the Council to carry out its operations efficiently and effectively. Senator Tate —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) A grant of $546,000 representing an increase of 8.98% over its 1986/87 funding level has been approved for the Queensland Marriage Guidance Council for the current year. I appreciate that this level will affect the agency's ability to maintain its services. However, the Minister for Finance has recently announced that funding for marriage counselling organisations, including national bodies, in the current year would be increased by $323,000 to $5.582 million, representing a 15.7% increase over the 1986/87 funding level. The difficulties the Queensland Marriage Guidance Council is in will be borne in mind when the additional funds are allocated shortly. (2) With the additional allocation mentioned above, the funding increased by 15.7% over the 1986/87 level, a reasonable increase given the overall budgetary constraints. (3) Yes. (4) The additional funds mentioned above will be allocated shortly and this should ease the situation for the Queensland Marriage Guidance Council. (5) Future funding to the Queensland Marriage Guidance Council will have to be determined in the context of the 1988/89 budget allocations. (Question No. 106) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 2 November 1987: (1) Is the Attorney-General aware of the enormous cost of divorce to families, to the social security system and to Australian society. (2) Is he also aware of the importance of marriage guidance counselling in reducing the number of broken marriages; if so, how does the Government justify total cessation of funding for the Marriage Guidance Council in Northern Tasmania. Senator Tate —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The Tasmanian Marriage Guidance Council received a grant of $203,000 in the current year, a 9.14% increase over its 1986/87 funding level. While its funds situation is an important consideration, the agency itself makes the decisions as to which services it will operate. Since the approval of the $203,000 grant, the Minister for Finance has announced that funding for marriage counselling organizations, including national bodies, for the current year would be increased by $323,000, bringing the total allocation for the year to $5,582 million. This represents a 15.7% increase over the 1986/87 funding level. The difficulties being experienced by the Tasmanian Marriage Guidance Council will be borne in mind when the additional funds are allocated shortly. (Question No. 146) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 8 December 1987: (1) What is the purpose of the National Computer Centre in Deakin. (2) Of the 18 government departments, how many are already linked to the National Computer Centre. (3) Are there any non-government institutions linked to the National Computer Centre; if so, which ones are they. (4) Under what Act of Parliament was the construction of the National Computer Centre authorised and why were the people of Australia not informed about it. Senator Richardson —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) My department has a computer centre in the Deakin Offices at Deakin in the A.C.T. It is one of a number of tenants of that building. The name `national computer centre' distinguishes it from DSS State computer centres in the capital cities. I understand that the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Transport and Communications, the Department of Defence and Telecom Australia are other tenants of the Deakin Offices. The DSS national computer centre is used for the following purposes: (i) to develop, maintain and distribute the computer software used to support the Government's income security programs including the payment of pensions, benefits and allowances; (ii) to perform technical work to ensure the stability of the Department's computer systems; (iii) to undertake fraud detection; (iv) to aid policy development and to compile statistics; (v) to operate a facilities management information system which allows my department to manage its computer network; (iv) to provide computing facilities to the Australian Taxation Office to develop and operate the Child Support System (these facilities are not connected to the Tax Office's computer network); and (vii) to provide computing facilities to the Department of Community Services and Health. The computer centre also provides back-up in case of failure in any of the department's State computer centres where the programs that actuallyproduce payments to clients are run. The Department of Community Services and Health and the Australian Taxation Office functions operate in independent technical environments and are not connected to my department's systems. The systems operated by the Department of Community Services and Health are expected to move to a facility operated by that department in 1988. (2) See (1). There is no direct link between my department's computer systems and those of any other department or agency. (3) No. (4) I understand that the building comprising the Deakin Offices was built by Telecom Australia in the 1970s. The Deakin Offices are managed by the Department of Administrative Services. My department's national computer centre was established as a part of the Government's decision in 1983 to proceed with the Stratplan re-equipment programme. The intention to establish the centre was announced by the then Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, in his press release on 2 June 1983. (Question No. 151) Senator Bishop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, upon notice, on 15 December 1987: (1) What has been the location since 12 August 1987 to date of answering this Question of 4 lounge chairs (stock number 7110-66-108-3187) which were consigned to that date from the Australian Defence Force Academy Support Squadron to the Department of Defence at the request of the Office of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. (2) Who requested the consignment of the 4 lounge chairs from the Australian Defence Force Academy Support Squadron. (3) (a) What is the total inventory of this type of lounge chair at the Australian Defence Force Academy; (b) where at the Australian Defence Force Academy are the majority of these chairs located; and (c) what is their unit price. (4) What were the reasons for using the Australian Defence Force Academy Support Squadron as the source of supply for the 4 lounge chairs. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The four lounge chairs referred to have since last August been located in the Parliamentary Office of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. (2) The chairs were made available to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel at the invitation of the Commandant of the Australian Defence Force Academy when Mrs Kelly visited there. The Commandant arranged the consignment of the chairs. (3) (a) There are four types of chairs at the Academy under stock number 7110-66-108-3187. I presume the honourable Senator is referring to black lounge chairs that are similar to those in the Minister's Office. The Academy holds a total of 418 black lounge chairs, some single and some double seats. (b) In the Officer Cadet's Mess there are 377 black chairs, of both single and double seats. At present 37 single and 4 double black chairs are in the store because they are not required at the moment. (c) The four chairs provided for Mrs in the Minister's Office. The Academy holds a total of 418 black lounge chairs, some single and some double seats. (b) In the Officer Cadet's Mess there are 377 black chairs, of both single and double seats. At present 37 single and 4 double black chairs are in the store because they are not required at the moment. (c) The four chairs provided for Mrs Kelly's Office are single seaters. Their price in mid 1985 was $465 each. (4) The lounge chairs in question were drawn from the Australian Defence Force Academy because they were offered by the Commandant and were surplus to the Academy's immediate needs. The arrangement has saved the Department of Defence, and the Government, the considerable cost of fitting out the Minister's Office with new furnishings.