Friday, 18 December 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 9 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 citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the Port Pirie Education Centre Inc. has for twelve years fulfilled a wide range of educational needs among underprivileged and isolated rural people in the upper north of South Australia: that the Federal Government's withdrawal of base grant funding will in effect cause the Centre to close at the end of 1987: that Federal Government managerial incompetence is evident in deciding to cause the closure of the Centre at the same time as approving a Community Employment Program grant of approximately $50,000 to upgrade the Centre's grounds. Your petitioners therefore pray: that the Federal Government will restore base grant funding for 1988 and beyond to ensure that the Port Pirie Education Centre Inc. can continue to provide its wide range of educational services to the people of the upper north South Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chapman (from 252 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 Jones (from 126 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth:- 1. We reject in principle the need for a national I.D. card on the basis that it will be a gross violation of individual liberty. 2. We reject the notion that the government can claim a mandate for the proposed legislation and state categorically it does not reflect our will. 3. We believe that, as with the proposed Bill of Rights legislation, the government's methods and arguments in promoting this legislation have been under-handed and undemocratic. 4. We believe as a matter of faith and judgment that the proposed legislation is anti-God and that its implementation will result in further attacks on individual freedom and responsibility, the family and the Church and that the real intent is the promotion of a powerful secular humanist ``big brother'' government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should together with the House of Representatives take action to reject this proposed legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chapman (from 686 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 requests 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 Senator Michael Baume (from 139 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 Labor 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 are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life; that we call upon the Labor 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 Michael Baume (from 82 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned that a CES Job Centre/Social Security office be situated in the Ulverstone Municipality on Tasmania's North West Coast; for the convenience of the unemployed and pensioners etc, in Ulverstone and outlying districts. by Senator Tate (from 972 citizens). Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-I present to the Senate two petitions similar in wording, from 12 and 15 petitioners respectively, which are not in conformity with Standing Orders as they are not in the correct form, praying that the Australia Card Bill be rejected: We the undersigned are opposed to the Australia card, because we feel it is unnecessary and another restriction on our liberties, which seems to be the course of the present Government in Canberra. We feel that the necessary laws are already in existence to track down the so called Tax evaders and social security cheats, as proved by the amount of people caught since the said departments have began doing their jobs properly. We also feel that the Hawk Government did not get a mandate for this Legislation in the last election as they only received 45% of the vote, so from that 55% of the people are opposed to the card. We hope you take this into consideration and not go ahead with the Australia Card, remember we are supposed to be living in a free society, not a Communist state as you are trying to make it. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice) —by leave-I present to the Senate a petition from 657 petitioners, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form, praying that the closure of the Medicare agency operated by the Medical Union in Queenstown, Tasmania, be prevented: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the West Coast of Tasmania respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposed closure of the Medicare Agency operated on behalf of the Health Insurance Commission by the Queenstown Medical Union. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of the Medicare Agency, a service that would seriously inconvenience the public if lost as there is no other facility or Medicare Office in the area. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Petitions received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Government response to report of Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on AD (JR) Amendment Bill 1987. 2. Government response to the report of the Joint Committee on Publications-review of the cost and distribution of the parliamentary papers series. 3. Government response to the report of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes-Private Hospitals in Australia: their conduct, administration and ownership. 4. Government response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs-Income Taxation Rulings. 5. Government response to the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985-human embryo experimentation in Australia and the report of the Family Law Council-creating children: A uniform approach to the law and practice of reproductive technology in Australia. 6. Special Broadcasting Service-annual report 1986-87-together with the Auditor-General's report-pursuant to section 79zh of the Broadcasting Act 1942. 7. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal annual report 1986-87-pursuant to section 28 of the Broadcasting Act 1942. 8. Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council-annual report 1986-87-pursuant to section 22 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council Act 1984. 9. Australian Trade Commission-annual report 1986-87-together with the Auditor-General's report-pursuant to section 92 of the Australian Trade Commission Act 1985 and section 63h of the Audit Act 1901. 10. Australian Institute of Criminology-annual report 1986-87-pursuant to section 33 of the Criminology Research Act 1971. 11. Criminology Research Council-annual report 1986-87. 12. Department of Territories-annual report 1986-87-pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 13. National Crime Authority-annual report 1986-87-together with comments by the inter-governmental committee on the NCA report-pursuant to sub-section 61 (6) of the National Crime Authority Act 1984. 14. Operation Silo-National Crime Authority report of the investigation-pursuant to sub-section 59 (6) of the National Crime Authority Act 1984. 15. Department of Transport-annual report 1986-87-pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 16. Department of Communications-annual report 1986-87-pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 17. Department of Aviation-annual report 1986-87-pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 18. Pork Promotion Committee-annual report 1986-87-together with the Auditor-General's report-pursuant to section 63m of the Audit Act 1901. 19. Education and National Needs-Australian Science and Technology Council report-pursuant to section 6 of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978. 20. Wealth From Skills-measures to raise the skills of the workforce-Australian Science and Technology Council report-pursuant to section 6 of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978. 21. Returns of Senate Ministers' private interests-submitted to the Prime Minister in 1987. 22. Attorney-General's Department-Office of Parliamentary Counsel-annual reports 1986-87-supplement: Portfolio FOI Statements 1987-pursuant to section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. 23. Defence Service Homes Corporation-annual report 1986-87-pursuant to section 50b of the Defence Service Homes Act 1918. 24. Computerised Assistants: New tools for society-Australian Science and Technology Council report- pursuant to section 6 of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978. 25. Legal Aid Commission (ACT)-annual report 1986-87-together with the Auditor-General's report-pursuant to section 97 of the Legal Aid Ordinance 1977 and The Seat of Government (Administration) Act. 26. Australian National Airlines Commission-annual report 1986-87-together with the Auditor-General's report-pursuant to sub-section 40 (3) of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945. 27. Duty free concessions at Kingsford Smith Airport, Sydney-report. Senator GARETH EVANS —I seek leave to have Papers Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4 incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The papers read as follows- Government Response to Report of Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on AD(JR) Amendment Bill 1987 The Government has considered the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on the AD(JR) Amendment Bill. It does not accept the recommendation of the Committee ``that the reverse onus provisions contained in Clause 2, proposed paragraphs 10 (2) (c) and 10 (2) (d) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill 1987 not be enacted''. In summary, the effect of those provisions would be to ensure that an AD(JR) application not proceed where an alternative administrative remedy is available, or a right of review or appeal would be available at the end of administrative proceedings, unless the applicant satisfied the Court that ``interests of justice'' require that the application proceed. A number of issues were canvassed in submissions and in the Committee's Report. There is no need to rehearse those arguments again. It will suffice for present purposes to refer to the particular matters that appear to have formed the basis for the Committee's recommendation. In summary, the Committee's reasons are stated at paragraph 4.49: ``The Committee's objections to proposed paragraphs 10 (2) (c) and (d) are less to the general object of the amendment than they are to the means by which the object will be achieved. In the Committee's view, enactment of restrictions of the type proposed is unlikely to reduce the `abusive' use of the AD(JR) Act and, in day-to-day operation, is likely to discriminate against financially disadvantaged applicants.'' It is clear from the Committee's report, and also from Report No. 26 of the Administrative Review Council, which is endorsed by the Committee, that it is common ground between the Committee, the Council and the Government that there is a need for legislative action to reduce the incidence of, and potential for, resort to the Federal Court under the AD(JR) Act in the circumstances described in paragraphs (c) and (d) of proposed sub-section 10 (2). Where the Committee (and the Council) part company with the Government is on the nature and extent of action necessary to achieve the desired result. The Government shares the concern evident from the Committee's report that the effect of the legislation should not be to limit or qualify, any more than is necessary, the access that persons aggrieved by decisions of Commonwealth agencies may have to the Federal Court for judicial review. The Government is similarly concerned that such access should, to the fullest extent practicable, be available without distinction as to the financial circumstances of the applicant. But the Government cannot consider those factors in isolation from the fact that Parliament has, in a number of important enactments, established a scheme of administrative review intended to provide for the comprehensive review of administrative action without the need to have recourse to the more expensive and complex processes of judicial review. It is of central importance to an understanding of the amendments that no applicant would be prevented from pursuing his or her application where the court was satisfied that the interests of justice so required. At the same time, the amendments will ensure that the proper use of administrative review machinery, and, in particular, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, will be guaranteed by requiring applicants to satisfy the Court that access to judicial review is appropriate notwithstanding that administrative review is still available or has not been exhausted. Returning to the particular objections raised by the Committee, the Government reaffirms its belief that the level of abuse, and the potential for abuse, are such as to cause concern or, at very least, to alert the Government to the need for corrective action. The Government's concerns are not confined to the much publicised rash of AD(JR) applications that were associated with the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's inquiry into a third commercial television licence for Perth, but relate also to committal proceedings and the potential for abuse in connection with the relatively new jurisdiction of the AAT in taxation matters. The need for such legislative intention is well illustrated by the recent decision of the Federal Court in Hempel and Etheredge v Attorney-General (not yet reported). There the presiding judge, French J, commented, in relation to proceedings that arose in connection with a three stage extradition process, on the desirability of legislative attention being given to reducing the judicial review facility to a ``one stop shop'' process available only at the conclusion of the final stage of administrative proceedings. The Committee refers to the possibility that the reversal of the onus might operate in practice against less pecunious applicants. Such an applicant would, in any event, be better advised to use other available mechanisms of review than face the expense of proceedings in the Federal Court. The argument assumes that there should be a right to judicial review, irrespective of the existence of other review mechanisms. That is not the view the Government takes of the way in which the review system should operate. The Committee further suggests that a wealthy applicant will be better placed to invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal Court under s.39B of the Judiciary Act to seek review by a common law remedy. While that is true, the Committee does not advert to the fact that the common law remedies are discretionary remedies. It may not be a proper exercise of that discretion if the Parliament has provided other remedies and there are no special reasons why the Court should exercise its powers of review. In the Government's view proposed paragraphs 10 (2) (c) and (d) strike an appropriate balance between the need to ensure efficient and economic use of administrative review processes, and the right of the citizen to have access to judicial review of administrative action where, in the opinion of the Court, the interests of justice so require. Response to Joint Committee on Publications-Review of the Cost and Distribution of the Parliamentary Papers Series The committee's recommendations resulting from this review appear to be an effective way of bringing cost efficiency to the parliamentary papers series. It seems sensible for items duplicated elsewhere (such as the Treaty Series) and items of limited or short term interest to be no longer recommended for printing. The recommendations concerning production standards of pamphlet copies should help steer organisations away from unnecessarily elaborate report productions. Existing guidelines have apparently not been able to achieve this. In this review the AGPS indicates (p10) that the tendency for departments and non-commercial authorities to go for a costly physical appearance for annual reports has probably been influenced by the RAIPA awards scheme. RAIPA's guidelines do recommend `publication at a modest standard' however previous top award winners have used more elaborate styles of production than this review recommends. The suggested new guidelines on production standards would reduce costs not only in the parliamentary papers series but also lessen the cost and time involved in the stages of preparation of reports within the originating organisations. The committee's recommendation that the Government consider the introduction of an Annual Reports Act raises a concern that this may lead to production of rather stereotype reports. A standard format may not be the most effective method of conveying information on the individual work of particular bodies. The Act would therefore need to be flexible enough not to exclude genuine innovation in the presentation of Reports. The further recommendations of the report concerning the distribution of the series and production of the bound volumes all seem reasonable and will remove some duplication of services. Provided that implementation of these guidelines does not in practice limit community access to the parliamentary papers, the committee's recommendations should bring genuine improvement to the cost efficiency of the series. Government Response to the Report by the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes entitled ``Private Hospitals in Australia: Their Conduct, Administration and Ownership'' tabled in the Senate on 29 April 1987 This is the second of two Reports by the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes. The Committee tabled its first Report on Nursing Homes on 21 February 1985. The Committee's investigations into private hospitals commenced with the calling of submissions from the public in December 1981 and concluded on 29 April 1987 with the tabling of its Report. Towards the latter part of this period, on 1 October 1986, Commonwealth controls over the approval and categorisation of private hospitals were repealed as part of the settlement package agreed to resolve the 1985 N.S.W. doctors' dispute. The payment of private hospital bed day subsidies was also discontinued from the same date as part of the Government's economic strategy announced in the 1986 Budget. The effect of these significant changes are that all aspects concerning the regulation of private hospitals, including the approval of hospitals, numbers of beds and the control of standards of care are with the States and Territories. In this context, the Commonwealth's role has been reduced to that of declaring those private hospitals licensed to provide acute care to inpatients, for the purposes of permitting the payment of basic table health insurance benefits. The majority of recommendations made in this Report are therefore matters for State/Territory consideration. The Government however, welcomes the Report. While the public hospital sector must continue as the dominant provider of hospital services the Government remains concerned to ensure that the private hospital sector is generally able to satisfy the requirements of those Australians who choose private hospital treatment and who are prepared to pay for the costs of that treatment. It was with this concern in mind that the Government facilitated the introduction, on 1 March 1987, of an industry proposal to change the basis of health benefit payments from hospital categorisation to patient classification. This new system more appropriately relates health benefits payments to the nature and cost of hospital care and treatment, irrespective of which hospital the patient is admitted to. It was this same concern that prompted the Government to intervene on behalf of psychiatric and rehabilitation patients, as well as to apply a 12 per cent across the board increase in basic table insurance cover from 1 October 1987, in an attempt to reduce the prospect for private hospital patients to be confronted with significant out of pocket expenses. In coming to its formal response to this Report, the Government has sought and noted comments from State and Territory Governments and a wide range of bodies representing the health care industry. There is a variance of views on the 27 recommendations. State and Territory Governments are now considering these in the context of their recently assumed responsibilities. The Australian Medical Association, the Australian Private Hospitals' Association and the Australian Catholic Health Care Association all expressed concern that the Report advocated an unwarranted expansion of regulatory controls over private hospitals without any real evidence to justify such action. The Australian Council on Hospital Standards supported recommendations that hospitals be accredited and that its guidelines on medical records be adopted. Recommendations 14 and 19 call for a specific Commonwealth response. With respect to Recommendation 14 concerning local equity in foreign owned corporations, the matters raised are still under consideration by the Treasurer. Recommendation 19 calls for a detailed study to be undertaken of corporate owned hospital chains. However, given that States/Territories are now responsible for the provision and regulation of hospital services as well as the regulation of corporate entities, this exercise is a matter for State/Territory consideration in the first instance. Attached is a detailed response to the Committee's recommendations. Comments on the Committee's Recommendations RECOMMENDATION 1 That the Australian Institute of Health collect and publish private hospital statistics on a national basis either through the States or the health insurance funds or both (paragraph 1.80). The Commonwealth Department of Community Services and Health, in conjunction with the private hospital industry has recently commenced the first of six regular monthly surveys on the activities of private hospitals. These surveys are being undertaken pending introduction of a national hospital statistics collection proposed to be undertaken by the Australian Institute of Health. RECOMMENDATION 2 That each State health authority require all public hospitals to adopt the ICD-9-CM coding system and that consideration be given to requesting its adoption in the private hospital sector (paragraph 2.46). The Government supports in principle the adoption of the ICD-9-CM coding system by all hospitals. The adoption of ICD-9-CM would facilitate any move towards diagnosis related groups. RECOMMENDATION 3 (i) That each State health authority explore the potential of diagnosis related groups (DRGs) for the use in the planning and management of its hospitals, both public and private and consider adopting DRGs as the official method of describing and measuring hospital case-mix for statistical purposes. (ii) That the Commonwealth provide seeding finance to State Governments for research into DRGs. (iii) That the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Ministers co-ordinate the expenditure of research funds relating to the use of DRGs (paragraph 2.51). Implementation of disease classification systems and collection of patient diagnosis data is a matter for States/Territories in respect of the hospitals under their control. Universal use of ICD-9-CM would increase the potential to produce consistent national statistics and to make comparisons between States/Territories, and would enable such data to be used for health policy and planning purposes. Victoria and South Australia have done considerable research work on classifying public hospital admissions into DRG categories. The Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council agreed that the Commonwealth convene a meeting to facilitate the exchange of information on DRGs. A meeting was held on 18 September 1987. RECOMMENDATION 4 (i) That all private hospitals establish advisory committees, which include representatives from the medical, nursing and allied health and other professional staff, to advise private hospital boards of management about all decisions affecting standards of patient care. (ii) That Directors of Nursing be appointed to private hospital boards of management (paragraph 3.15). The Government supports the concept of private hospitals establishing committees as proposed in Recommendation 4(i) to advise on decisions affecting standards of patient care. In regard to Recommendation 4(ii), it is a matter for private hospitals to consider who they appoint to boards of management. RECOMMENDATION 5 That a Staffing Level Appeals Tribunal be established in each State, to which nurses may bring complaints about inadequate staffing for the Tribunal's investigation without fear of reprisal. Access to the Staffing Appeals Tribunal should not be restricted to the private sector (paragraph 3.28). The Government has reservations that establishing a Staffing Level Appeals Tribunal to resolve complaints about inadequate staffing would be the most cost effective and cost efficient option, or the most industrially and professionally acceptable. However, this is a matter for State/Territory consideration. RECOMMENDATION 6 (a) That the Standing Committee of the Commonwealth and State Health Ministers examine the patient dependency model with a view to establishing realistic nurse staffing guidelines in each State for the public and private hospital sectors. (b) That staffing guidelines which evolve from the patient dependency model become the criteria by which the current regulations concerning staffing arrangements in each State are assessed (paragraph 3.35) The Government sees difficulties with States/Territories reaching consensus on a universal staffing methodology. Some of the problems are those addressed in the report of the Sax independent inquiry to deal with issues arising out of the industrial dispute in November/December 1985 involving members of the Royal Australian Nursing Federation, A.C.T. RECOMMENDATION 7 That each State health authority require all public hospitals and request each private hospital to provide adequate medical records consistent with the guidelines of the Australian Council on Hospital Standards on medical records and, that consideration be given to making such guidelines mandatory (subject to heavy penalties) by the year 1990 within both the public and private hospital sectors (paragraph 3.43). The Government supports moves to have improved medical record systems and diagnosed classification of patients in private hospitals. It would be a matter for States/Territories to consider whether such matters should be a part of the criteria for licensing and/or approval of private hospitals. It is a matter for the States/Territories to consider whether all public hospitals be required to provide medical records consistent with ACHS guidelines. RECOMMENDATION 8 That the recommendation dealing with corporate controls contained in Interim Report No. 5 of the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union be implemented as a matter of urgency (paragraph 4.40). As the States/Territories administer legislation concerning corporate entities, any additional requirements concerning corporate ownership is a responsibility of State/Territory Governments. RECOMMENDATION 9 That each State pass legislation requiring all private hospitals as a condition of registration to: (a) provide the relevant State health authority with full details of all owners of the private hospital and, if the owners are companies, full details including the names, occupations and addresses of all directors, shareholders and trustees and that this information be available to the public; (b) inform the relevant State health authority of all changes of ownership within 14 days of such change; and (c) prominently display in the foyer of the private hospital, the names of owners of the private hospital and, if the owners are companies, names of the principal directors and shareholders and, if the owners are trustees, the names of the principal beneficiaries under the trust; and (d) prominently display in the foyer of the private hospital the name of any medical practitioner who has any financial interest directly or via his family in a private hospital. The term financial interest is to include any interest as a proprietor or titleholder, any share held in a corporation which has an interest in a private hospital as either proprietor or titleholder, any interest (whether vested or contingent) under a trust where the trustee of the trust, or a corporation in a share of which the trustee has any entitlement is a proprietor or titleholder or a private hospital (paragraph 4.42). Matter for State/Territory consideration. RECOMMENDATION 10 (a) that the relevant State authorities review the financial operations of charities, particularly in relation to how moneys received by charities are invested; and (b) that if required, legislation similar to section 14 of the Trustee Act, 1925 (N.S.W.) be introduced to limit a charity's ability to invest moneys received (paragraph 4.79). Matter for State/Territory consideration. RECOMMENDATION 11 That a charity's annual financial audited accounts be available to the public upon request (paragraph 4.83). Matter for State/Territory consideration. RECOMMENDATION 12 (a) That each State pass legislation prohibiting medical practitioners, or their families from having any financial interest in a private hospital. (b) That the term financial interest include any interest as proprietor or titleholder, any share held in a corporation which has an interest in a private hospital as either a proprietor, or titleholder, any interest (whether vested or contingent) under a trust where the trustee of the trust, or a corporation in a share of which the trustee has any entitlement is proprietor or titleholder of a private hospital (paragraph 5.46). Matter for State/Territory consideration. RECOMMENDATION 13 That, the Australian Industry Development Corporation divest the majority of its 35% equity in Hospital Corporation Australia Pty Ltd by the end of 1987, and the remainder by 1990 or earlier if HCA decides to go public (paragraph 6.28). Under the AIDC Act the Corporation is not subject to directions by or on behalf of the Government except in respect of its annual statement of general policy. The Act requires the Corporation to act in accordance with sound business principles. This autonomy has been given to the Corporation so that it may be seen, in its investment decisions in particular, to be free of short-term political pressure. In regard to foreign investment policy there is nothing unusual in AIDC helping companies meet Australianisation requirements. The Government's review of foreign investment policy in 1983 placed particular emphasis upon the role of AIDC in assisting foreign investors in this way. AIDC in effect operates as investor of last resort, fostering future participation by Australian investors by demonstrating the viability of a particular project and divesting itself of the shares as soon as practicable. It would therefore, be inappropriate to impose any time limit on the sale of AIDC's share in HCA. Not only would in contravene the AIDC Act but could also jeopardise the price AIDC would receive for the shares. RECOMMENDATION 14 (a) That, under the powers available to the Commonwealth under the Foreign Takeovers Act 1975, the Treasury prohibit the entry of further foreign-owned corporations into the health care industry. (b) That, the Treasury in consultation with the Foreign Investment Review Board, the Commonwealth Department of Health and the State health authorities: (i) review the level of local equity requirement; and (ii) place a ceiling on the number of private hospital beds under foreign ownership at a level which prevents foreign-owned corporations obtaining any further equity in the private hospital industry (paragraph 6.38) This matter is still under consideration by the Treasurer. RECOMMENDATION 15 That medical schools' curricula be re-assessed to provide: (a) greater emphasis on the teaching of the professional code of ethics; and (b) tuition of cost-containment in relation to possible patient benefits in health care, particularly in relation to the ordering of tests and the use of ancillary services (paragraph 7.66). (a) The Terms of Reference of the current Inquiry into Medical Education and the Medical Workforce include ``the effectiveness of the curricula and the structure of current Australian medical undergraduate education and the interpartnership year, in producing medical graduates with appropriate skills and competencies to meet national health care needs''. The teaching of professional ethics is one of the matters which has been raised with the inquiry. (b) This matter was raised by the former Department of Health with the Deans of Medical Schools in 1985. The Department of Community Services and Health is presently preparing a booklet containing information on this topic (amongst others) for use by undergraduates and graduates of medical schools. It may also be addressed by The Inquiry into Medical Education and the Medical Workforce. RECOMMENDATION 16 That professional medical bodies thoroughly review and redraft their ethical codes: (a) in relation to regulating undesirable entrepreneurial activities by its members; (b) to provide clear directions on the standards of practice required by its members; and (c) providing a greater and more effective range of sanctions against those members who breach the code (paragraph 7.70). The Government notes developments in entrepreneurial medicine and regards it as appropriate that relevant professional bodies review their ethical codes to ensure maintenance of acceptable standards of practice. RECOMMENDATION 17 (i) That each of the States pass legislation strengthening the Medical Boards by increasing their investigative powers and disciplinary powers and by providing sufficient resources to efficiently undertake these increased functions; and (ii) That the various colleges which accredit medical specialists be given greater power to regulate their own members (paragraph 7.71). These are matters for State/Territory consideration. The Government understands that some States are reviewing the current role of Medical Registration Boards. RECOMMENDATION 18 (a) That a freeze be placed on a public corporation's share of the private hospital market until a study can be undertaken to assess their impact on the private hospital sector. (b) That medical practitioners be required to fully disclose their financial interests in diagnostic and health care facilities (pathology, radiology, etc.) before they can refer patients to those facilities (paragraph 7.84). Whilst these recommendations are primarily matters for State/Territory consideration, the Commonwealth would support and cooperate with any initiatives by relevant authorities. RECOMMENDATION 19 That the Minister for Health make appropriate arrangements for a detailed study to be undertaken of the corporate owned hospital chains both foreign and local to assess the impact of those hospitals on the private hospital sector and the delivery of health care as a whole taking into account the types of issues raised in this report concerning these hospital chains (paragraph 7.86). From a constitutional and historical perspective, State Governments have the responsibility for regulating the activities of private hospitals. The Commonwealth has no legislative power to regulate private hospitals or constitutional power over the charges they raise on patients, or on the treatment regimes or fees determined by attending doctors. In these circumstances the Government does not consider it appropriate that the Commonwealth should conduct an inquiry into what is primarily an area of State/Territory responsibility. RECOMMENDATION 20 (a) That each State health authority encourage all hospitals to participate in the program of accreditation. (b) That, in the long term, each State consider the introduction of legislation requiring that as a condition of licence private hospitals be accredited with the Australian Council on Hospital Standards within a specified period. (c) That, on the basis that the Committee's recommendation to freeze the growth of private hospital beds is not adopted, each State consider the introduction of legislation requiring that new private hospitals be accredited (paragraph 8.49). Matter for State/Territory consideration. RECOMMENDATION 21 That each State establish an independent body to receive and investigate complaints concerning all aspects of patient care in private hospitals (paragraph 8.72). Matter for State/Territory consideration. RECOMMENDATION 22 That each State health authority review the conduct of and the legislation relating to private and public psychiatric hospitals (paragraph 8.84). Matter for State/Territory consideration. RECOMMENDATION 23 That each State health authority give priority to including private hospitals within the overall planning of the health care sector and in particular to ensure that private hospitals are included within the scope of role and function studies, programme planning and area wide planning (paragraph 8.90). Matter for State/Territory consideration. RECOMMENDATION 24 That superspecialty services (as defined in paragraph 8.92) be confined to the major teaching hospitals and subject to the national guidelines of the Standing Committee of State Health Ministers' conference (paragraph 8.94). Decisions regarding the provision of super specialty services are taken by States/Territories in the context of overall planning for the provision of hospital services and in accordance with the guidelines referred to in the response to recommendation 27 and any recommendations accepted from the Super Specialty Services Sub Committee of the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council. RECOMMENDATION 25 That each State health authority draw up guidelines restricting the provision of specialty services in both the public and private sectors in order to prevent an oversupply of specialty services and technology intensive equipment and facilities and to ensure a rational distribution of these services within each State (paragraph 8.97). Matter for State/Territory consideration. RECOMMENDATION 26 (a) That each State set planning targets or guidelines using both short term and long term goals for acute public and private hospital facilities. (b) That each State consider adopting ratios of 4.5 beds per 1000 by 1991 and 4.0 beds per 1000 in 1996 as overall State targets (paragraph 8.107). Matter for State/Territory consideration. RECOMMENDATION 27 That the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Health Ministers draw up national guidelines to assist the State Health Departments regulate the future growth of hospital beds within each State, with these aims:- (a) to reduce the oversupply of hospital beds throughout Australia; (b) to regulate the supply of beds in any geographic region of a State; (c) to regulate the supply of private hospital beds within States and regions of States; (d) to monitor and regulate the supply of superspecialty services, expensive equipment and facilities throughout Australia (paragraph 8.109). It is open to States/Territories to adhere to the guidelines previously followed by the Commonwealth and agreed to by the States and Territories in regulating the future growth of both public and private hospital beds. Government Response to Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Report on Income Taxation Rulings The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs earlier this month tabled its report on the income taxation ruling system. The Government welcomes the report as giving an objective overview of the operation and impact of the system on the community. It is pleasing to note that the Committee sees great benefits accruing from the presence of the taxation ruling system in the taxation regime of this country and that it agrees, by and large, with the scope and effect of the system as it has developed. The Committee made three specific recommendations. They are: 1. That each ruling issued by the Commissioner of Taxation contains a caveat to the effect that: (i) The ruling does not have the force of law; and (ii) each decision made within the Australian Taxation Office will be considered upon its individual merits as well as pursuant to any relevant ruling. (para. 2.48) 2. That the commissioner makes a practice of including within rulings appropriate cross-references to related rulings. (para. 3.60) 3. That the commissioner devises and makes available an improved index to the rulings. (para 3.64) The commissioner of taxation is responsible for the administration of the rulings system and it follows that he is responsible for implementing the recommendations. The commissioner has indicated that the recommendations will be fully and promptly adopted. In respect of the conclusion that each ruling issued should not have the force of law, the Commissioner has said that it is important to note that it is the clear policy of the Australian Taxation Office to stand by what it says in rulings. To put it another way, there will be a departure from a ruling only where there is good reason, for example, where the legislation has been changed, where an appellate court overturns the interpretation on which a ruling is predicated or where the ruling is otherwise shown to be wrong. So far as the question of the index referred to in the third recommendation is concerned the Commissioner has advised that the existing format of the statement provided by the Australian Tax Office in accordance with sub-section 9 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act actually consists of both a numerical listing and an alphabetical cross reference to rulings under subject heading, i.e. A Keyboard Reference. Quite independently the Commissioner maintains consolidated internal indexes under references to subject headings, court decisions and income tax legislation. These have been made available on request to enquirers. Notwithstanding the above the Commissioner concedes there is room for improvement particularly in regard to increasing awareness of the existence of the indexes and to improving layout and format in order to assist comprehension. The Commissioner has noted that his staff are currently working on ways to achieve these aims. In concluding the Commissioner indicates that he too welcomes the report of the Committee. The Committee has recognized the worth of the rulings system and the recommendations made will undoubtedly improve the efficacy of that system. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 16 February 1988 at 2 p.m., or such other time as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy-President, and that the time of meeting so determined shall be notified to each Senator. Provided that the President, at the request of an absolute majority of the whole number of Senators that the Senate meet at a certain time, shall fix a time of meeting in accordance with such request, and such time of meeting shall be notified to each Senator. For these purposes a request by the Leader or Deputy-Leader of the Opposition in the Senate shall be deemed to be a request by every Opposition Senator and a request by the Leader or Deputy-Leader of the Australian Democrats shall be deemed to be a request by every Australian Democrat Senator: Provided further that a request may be made to the President by delivery to the Clerk of the Senate, who shall immediately notify the President. In the event of the President being unavailable, the Clerk shall notify the Deputy-President, or, should the Deputy-President be unavailable, any one of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees, who shall be required by the Senate to summon the Senate on behalf of the President, in accordance with this Resolution. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice) —On behalf of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) I seek leave to make a statement entitled Foundations for the Future, to move that the Senate take note of it and to incorporate the statement and five attachments in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- It is with immense pride on behalf of this Labor Government that I am able to present to the Parliament today proposals of great and historic importance for all Australians. The proposals fulfil the commitment by the Prime Minister that an Aboriginal Affairs commission be established; the Commission will be known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). These proposals address issues of considerable magnitude. It is time that these important issues be dealt with in a constructive manner. For more than 40 000 years Aboriginal and Islander people have considered themselves the custodians of this land. Aboriginal and Islander people have maintained their pride, their dignity and their integrity despite the impact of European settlement just 200 years ago. The impact of this settlement is still being felt by Aboriginal and Islander people today. It is only 20 years ago that the Australian people voted overwhelmingly in a Referendum to give the Commonwealth the power to make laws affecting the lives of these Aboriginal and Islander people. In the light of this history, it is proposed by this Government to acknowledge that `the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were the prior occupiers and original owners of this land'. It is envisaged that such an acknowledgment would be included in the preamble to legislation introduced to achieve the aims outlined in this statement. Whilst achievements have been made in recent years, there is a need to understand properly and to address seriously the vital issue of self-determination for Aboriginal and Islander people. In the past there has been a misunderstanding of what Aboriginal and Islander people have meant when talking of self-determination. What has always existed is a willingness and desire by Aboriginal and Islander people to be involved in the decision-making process of government. It is the right of Aboriginal and Islander people as citizens of this country to be involved in this process, as ultimately these decisions will affect their daily lives. We must ensure that Aboriginal and Islander people are properly involved at all levels of the decision-making process in order that the right decisions are taken about their lives. Aboriginal people need to decide for themselves what should be done-not just take whatever governments think or say is best for them. I believe this package of proposals addresses these needs. It is not simply a symbolic move but one of substance that provides a real foundation for the future. Until all Australians recognise this need for self-determination, recognise the Aboriginal and Islanders' pride and dignity as a people and until Aboriginal and Islander people can take their rightful place as full and equal participants in the richness and diversity of this nation, our claims to being a civilised, mature and humane society sound hollow. ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER COMMISSION The central part of this package I am presenting today is the establishment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. The proposals which I will now describe will be circulated widely amongst the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for discussion and consideration. I must stress that the effective implementation of these proposals ultimately rests on receiving a positive endorsement from the Aboriginal and Islander community of Australia. The Government must be satisfied that the proposals have been endorsed by the people it will directly affect. In the early part of next year I intend to consult personally with Aboriginal and Islander people. I am developing an itinerary for consultations in each of the regions outlined in the new Commission proposal. Every incorporated Aboriginal body or organisation will be invited to attend these meetings. After these discussions, our proposal will be reviewed in the light of all comments received. It is proposed that the new Commission would commence operations on 1 July 1988. The Commission would be made up of, and work for, Aboriginal and Islander people. Only a minority of the commissioners would be appointed by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The Commission will be responsible to the Minister. The linchpin of the new Commission structure would be the proposed system of some 28 Regional Councils, comprised of representatives of Aboriginal and Islander communities and organisations. I will say more about these Councils shortly. The Commission will consist of a full-time appointed chairman and 11 part-time Commissioners. Six of the part-time Commissioners would be selected by Zone Councils. These Zone Councils would comprise two representatives chosen by each Regional Council in their State or Territory. (Victoria and Tasmania would comprise one Zone.) One Commissioner would be selected by the Torres Strait Islander community. The remaining four Commissioners would be appointed. Terms of appointments for all Commissioners would be for up to five years. Two Deputy Chairpersons are to be elected by the Commissioners. The administrative operations of the Commission would be the responsibility of an appointed Chief Executive Officer. It is proposed that the Act establishing the Commission would include a description of all Commonwealth functions in Aboriginal Affairs, including those undertaken outside the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. The Commission structure would encompass all Aboriginal Affairs portfolio functions, so replacing the four existing bodies-the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA), the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC), Aboriginal Hostels Limited (AHL), and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies (AIAS). I mentioned earlier the system of Regional Councils. I see it as a most important and innovative part of our proposal because it will provide the opportunity for Aboriginal and Islander people to have a real say in the running of their affairs and the determination of priorities for action. To match this system of Regional Councils, it is proposed that the organisational structure of the Commission will be based on some 28 regions. This decentralisation of administration will be closely modelled on the existing Regional Office structure of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. A Regional Council would be established in each of these Regions, and will comprise representatives of each incorporated Aboriginal community and organisation in that Region. Each Council will determine, within functional budgets, relative priorities for the Region, make recommendations to the Commission, and act as a general focus and sounding board for Aboriginal Affairs programs and policies. Further details are contained in Attachment D, `Interrelationships between the Commission, the Minister and Regional and Zone Councils'. As I have already mentioned, each Regional Council will select two representatives (one female, one male) to a Zone Council. These Zone Councils will consider policy proposals brought forward by Regional Councils, provide policy advice to the Commission and the Minister, and each will nominate one Commissioner. The structure I have described-Regional Councils, Zone Councils and, at the national level, the Commission-will ensure that the views of Aboriginal and Islander people can flow from the grassroots to the centre of government and be reflected in action, in each of its programs and activities. I believe this will be a much more effective way of providing for Aboriginal and Islander input than has ever existed. In many ways it can be seen as combining the administrative functions of my portfolio with the consultative role that was formerly carried out by the National Aboriginal Conference (NAC). I shall seek the views of Aboriginal and Islander people as to whether they would see the new structure as providing an appropriate replacement mechanism for the NAC. PREAMBLE TO THE ACT The proposals I have outlined break new ground in terms of reflecting the progressive commitment by Government and all Australians to recognise the rights of Aboriginal and Islander people. It is therefore fitting that the proposed legislation to establish the new Commission should contain a declaration in the form of a substantial Preamble of the Australian people's commitment to the recognition and protection of the rights of Aboriginal and Islander people and to measures to overcome their disadvantage. A proposed Preamble is attached to this statement (Attachment A). I repeat; the Preamble is both significant and historic as it would officially recognise for the first time that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of Australia were `the prior occupiers and original owners of this land'. A COMPACT OR AGREEMENT There is a widely held belief that we cannot come to terms with our history unless we reach some form of compact, agreement, treaty or Makarrata-the name is not significant-between the Aboriginal and Islander and non-Aboriginal people. It is a recognised fact that the settlers of Australia totally ignored the legitimate rights of Aboriginal and Islander people. Indeed, as the proposed Preamble sets out, the indigenous people were `dispossessed of their land by subsequent European occupation and have no recognised rights over it other than those granted by the Crown'. Reaching an agreement is a difficult, and, for some, a contentious issue. The Government makes no claim to special wisdom in this matter. Nor would it be appropriate to seek to impose a particular set of propositions on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, for an imposed solution is unlikely to gain sufficient acceptance. But, as the Prime Minister's recent comments have made clear, the issue must be addressed. It is much too important a task to be rushed. No artificial deadlines will be set, no hasty drafting will be done. This time we must get it right. The first step is to consult with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We need to know what is thought of the concept, how Aboriginal and Islander people would see it being developed and what, from the perspective of Aboriginal and Islander people, might reasonably be included in an agreement. Accordingly I shall initiate a series of discussions with Aboriginal and Islander people in the New Year to be organised on a regional basis that will, in effect, take the form of meetings of the Regional Councils I have already mentioned. In these discussions the central issues will be: do you wish the concept of a compact to proceed and, if so, how should we proceed to develop it? At the same time I would expect to receive comments on the proposals for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, and obtain views on appropriate consultative arrangements to replace the former National Aboriginal Conference. When the time is right, mechanisms will be set up for the further development of ideas put forward by Aboriginal and Islander and non-Aboriginal people. When the discussions reach this point, I believe it would be appropriate to set up a group of people with high standing in the community and with the appropriate background and skills to undertake the vital and sensitive task of refining options put forward by the Australian community for consideration by the Government. ABORIGINAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Another exciting innovation will be to establish, within the overall framework of the new Commission, an Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation. This Corporation would undertake commercial activities in its own right, provide loans and equity capital for Aboriginal economic development, and be the mechanism for the accumulation of a substantial capital asset for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Its purposes and functions will include: to facilitate and encourage Aboriginal participation in commerce and enterprise, particularly in relation to regional and national economic development; to provide and to facilitate finance for significant Aboriginal enterprises with sound prospects of commercial viability; to secure, to the greatest extent practicable, Aboriginal participation in the ownership and control of companies engaged in activities on Aboriginal land, or in areas which will have a significant impact on Aboriginal communities; to assist the development of industries and areas of economic activity which are clearly aligned with Aboriginal concerns; and to assist Aboriginal commercial and economic development through provision of specialist commercial expertise. Initial funding for the Corporation will comprise the existing $20 million of the Capital Fund of the Aboriginal Development Commission and a capital subvention of $20 million. An additional $10 million in capital funds will be provided in 1989-90 and 1990-91. The Corporation would be run by a board of nine persons. Of these, at least three would be members of the Commission, and the rest would be selected for the expertise and experience that they can bring to the task. It would be independent in its operations, subject to the powers of the Minister to approve, on the advice of the Commission, corporate plans, general operating guidelines, and similar policy matters. For the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the Corporation will provide a vehicle to assist them to take up the challenges of commercial development, and to participate as equals in the national economy. The existing enterprise funding functions of the ADC, many of which are oriented towards community development and employment, will be undertaken by the new Commission. The housing functions of the ADC will be undertaken by a Housing Trust, or similar body, to be established under the Commission. Detailed proposals for the Trust are being developed. ABORIGINAL LAND BASE For Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, land lies at the very core of their identity. We cannot hope to restore their pride, their self-esteem, their culture, unless we are prepared to recognise that simple fact. Much has already been accomplished. The Commonwealth blazed the trail with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, and the Parliament earlier this year enacted some important changes to that Act. In all States except Tasmania, action has been taken to provide some land for Aboriginals under various forms of title. On another front, we are making good progress in the Northern Territory in negotiations which will lead to the grant of living areas for Aborigines on excisions from pastoral properties. I have also had amicable personal discussions with Tasmanian State Ministers about the situation in that State. The Commonwealth has made a formal proposal to the Tasmanian government. I am awaiting with confidence a response from Tasmania. The ADC's funding activities have resulted in Aborigines obtaining title to pastoral properties and to land for housing and other purposes. There are many, however, who remain dispossessed in their own land, and we shall continue to pursue policies, wherever possible to pursue policies, wherever possible in co-operation with State and Territory Governments, aimed at overcoming this problem. We make it clear once again that the Commonwealth will not allow situations to develop where a State or Territory can continue to evade its responsibilities. In this regard delay and deferral, or mere tokenism, are little different from outright refusal to act. There is also the issue of the adequacy of the arrangements that are already in place, and in particular the nature of tenure. In the Northern Territory, Aboriginal land is held under inalienable freehold title. It is the Commonwealth's view that this is the most appropriate form of title. It can hardly be lasting restoration and reparation that something that is granted today may be lost tomorrow. Elsewhere in Australia, however, much land that is designated as Aboriginal land is not held with the same security of tenure. Legislation could be changed, or leases terminated or not renewed. These are important concerns, and we shall be taking up with State and Territory Governments possible ways by which security of tenure for Aboriginal land can be safeguarded. OTHER FEATURES OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION The Aboriginal Development Commission Act 1980 and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964 will be replaced by the new Act. A separate Part of the new Act would provide for retention of the activities now carried out by the Institute, with appropriate safeguards to ensure that existing high standards of objectivity and scholarship are maintained. It is proposed, however, to rename the Institute as the Australian Council for Aboriginal Studies. Aboriginal Hostels Limited is presently a company limited by guarantee. It is envisaged that its management functions will become integrated with other related housing type functions within the new Commission, with it continuing the actual operation of the hostels. Staffing of the Commission will be under the Public Service Act, except for hostels staff under industrial awards and the staff of the Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation. There will be provision for persons to be engaged under other arrangements where appropriate-for example, a term contract arrangement may be a more suitable arrangement for some professional persons undertaking work with the Australian Council for Aboriginal Studies. RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS IN ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS Madam Speaker, I have so far informed the Parliament of the new directions we are setting for Aboriginal affairs. There are several other important initiatives and achievements I now want to mention, to set them in the context of the changes already referred to. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Early in my term as Minister, the Government accepted a recommendation from me and the Acting Attorney-General to establish a Royal Commission to investigate the shocking and increasing toll of Aboriginal deaths in prison or elsewhere in custody. At that time-just a couple of months ago-we thought there had been about 45 such tragedies since 1980. But, since then, more information has come forward. The Commissioner, Mr Justice Muirhead, tells us that the total number of cases may be double that, or more. We recognised that the Royal Commission could not give us immediate answers to this sad chronicle of death and despair. We recognised that action was needed now. On 10 September, the Minister for Justice and I met relevant State Ministers to draw up a code of practice designed to prevent or deter Aboriginal detainees from dying in jail. Police Ministers met again on 27 November and agreed to implement a code on a trial basis, pending discussions with Aboriginal and Islander people, particularly Aboriginal legal services. Here again, it is vital that all authorities should consult fully with Aboriginal people. We are committed to ensuring that this happens. The Commonwealth will push ahead, with the States, to do all we can in this area. We shall encourage the States to adopt the code of practice. We shall foster programs to prevent or at least to diminish substantially the level of Aboriginal imprisonment. We look forward, in the longer term, to considering and giving appropriate effect to the Royal Commission's recommendations. Outstation Movement There has been no more significant movement in Aboriginal Affairs over recent years than that of Aboriginal people returning to their traditional land. It is a dramatic demonstration of Aboriginal initiative and drive which reflects the strength of Aboriginal people and of their ties to their traditional lands. And it reveals their dissatisfaction with the artificial life and environments of the large settlements created under the banner of `assimilation'. The Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, `Return to Country: the Aboriginal Homelands Movement in Australia', was presented to the House on 14 May 1987. Madam Speaker, while I shall soon be responding in detail to this Report, I am able to say here that the Government accepts the general thrust of the report and its recommendations, noting that some recommendations relate to matters which are the responsibility of State and Territory Governments. But a fresh approach and additional effort is necessary to provide adequate and appropriate shelter and infrastructure for the outstation movement. In the run-up to the establishment of the new Commission, my Department will be evaluating existing community infrastructure programs with a view to redirecting existing funding to target the areas of greatest need, particularly the outstations. Aboriginal Employment Development Policy The Prime Minister launched, on 18 November, the Aboriginal Employment Development Policy. That policy represents a major commitment by the Commonwealth to enhance the economic, educational and employment opportunities of Australia's Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders. While we will not be able to redress all inequalities overnight, I expect that we will make significant advances each year to achieve the target for all Aboriginal and Islander people to have full equity with other Australians in employment opportunities by the year 2000. The Aboriginal Employment Development Policy represents a significant landmark in the interaction between the Aboriginal community and government. It has been developed in response to repeated requests from the Aboriginal community for the opportunity to participate equally in the areas of education, employment and enterprise development. In establishing this policy the Government has set up a National Task Force to oversight the implementation and development of the Policy. This entails further consultation with the Aboriginal community allowing Aborigines to decide on what suits them best, in order to achieve their goals and objectives. The Aboriginal Employment Development Policy aims at enhancing Aboriginal economic independence. This policy will form a major focus for the new Commission. In fact, the policy co-ordination role of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs will be retained by the new Commission to ensure its effective implementation and development. The Commission's functions will also include enterprise development programs and it will assume responsibility for the enterprise and small business schemes of the ADC. Employment and training schemes currently administered by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs will also be transferred to the Commission. These programs include the Aboriginal Organisation Training and the Community Development Employment Projects schemes. Aboriginal Health The living conditions and thus the health of Aborigines must continue to concern us all. The problems can only be successfully addressed if all responsible agencies are prepared to work together to deal with the complex issues involved. The Government has therefore started work on a national Aboriginal health policy which has the support of State and Territory Governments and Aboriginal and Islander people. Representatives of the Aboriginal and Islander community as well as the State and Northern Territory Health and Aboriginal Affairs Ministers will join with officers of my Department and the Department of Community Services and Health in forming a national working party to prepare a comprehensive policy on Aboriginal health. The working party will consult extensively with all groups involved in Aboriginal health. It will report to the Commonwealth and State Governments in early 1989. Aboriginal people must play a leading role in the development of any policy affecting their future. This is especially true where Aboriginal health is concerned. The working party will therefore make sure that Aboriginal people participate in all aspects of its work, so that the views and wishes of Aboriginal and Islander people throughout Australia are taken into account. Commonwealth-State Relations Ever since the 1967 Referendum, Aboriginal Affairs has been a concurrent responsibility of the Commonwealth and the States. That is, the States are not exempt from responsibility for their Aboriginal citizens. They have an important role to play, in co-operation with the Commonwealth. After discussions with State and Territory Ministers responsible for Aboriginal Affairs programs and policies, I have therefore initiated a series of assessments of all Commonwealth-funded, State and Territory delivered programs. These assessments are being undertaken jointly with the States and the Northern Territory and are scheduled for completion by 31 March 1988. I record my considerable satisfaction with the level of co-operation I have received from all States and the Northern Territory on these assessments. The needs of Aboriginal people are so pressing, and the solutions demand such effort, that neither the Commonwealth nor the States can afford to work in isolation. CONCLUSION The achievements and new proposals I have presented today represent the most far-reaching and innovative reform in Aboriginal affairs since the Commonwealth became involved at the national level two decades ago. We believe that these proposals lay the foundation upon which real progress and achievement for Australia's indigenous peoples can be built. Aboriginal and Islander people will have the means, as never before, to determine their own future as part of this nation. The Government welcomes comment from all Australians on the proposals I have outlined. The challenge is to build a new and lasting era of mutual understanding and co-operation with our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander fellow-citizens. Meeting this challenge will be no easy task. We can, we must meet the challenge. Madam Speaker, I present the statement together with attachments. I ask leave for the attachments to be incorporated in Hansard. Canberra 10 December 1987 ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED PREAMBLE TO ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER COMMISSION BILL WHEREAS the Australian people voted overwhelmingly to amend the Australian Constitution to provide the Parliament of the Commonwealth with power to make laws for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; AND WHEREAS the people whose descendants are now known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia were the prior occupiers and original owners of this land; AND WHEREAS they were dispossessed of their land by subsequent European occupation and have no recognised rights over it other than those granted by the Crown; AND WHEREAS that dispossession occurred without compensation and no serious attempt was made to reach a lasting and equitable agreement with them on the use of their land; AND WHEREAS, as a consequence of these and subsequent deprivations, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have become, as a group, the most disadvantaged in Australian society; AND WHEREAS it is the intention of the people of Australia to make provision for rectification, by the measures referred to in this Act and such measures as are agreed by Parliament from time to time, of the consequences of past injustices and to ensure for all time that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples receive that full recognition and status within the Australian nation, to which history, their prior ownership and occupation of the land, and their rich and diverse culture, fully entitle them to aspire; AND WHEREAS it is also the wish of the people of Australia that there be reached with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples a real and lasting reconciliation of these matters; AND WHEREAS it is the firm objective of the people of Australia that policies and programs be maintained and developed by the Governments of the Commonwealth, the State and Territories, that will overcome the economic and social disadvantages of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, entitle them to the enjoyment of their culture and recognition of their traditional laws wherever practicable, and enable them, with pride and dignity, to achieve full recognition and status within the Australian nation; AND WHEREAS it is appropriate to establish measures for the furtherance of the aforementioned objective that are consistent with the aims of self-determination and self-management for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within the Australian nation; AND WHEREAS the Australian Government has given effect to its long-standing commitment to protect the rights of all of its citizens, and in particular its indigenous peoples, by recognising international standards for the protection of universal human rights and fundamental freedom through the ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and other standard-setting instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights; NOW THEREFORE be it enacted- ATTACHMENT B PROPOSED COMMONWEALTH POWERS AND FUNCTIONS 1. The Commonwealth, in committing itself to the exercise of its powers and functions under this Act, will ensure that this is done in such a way as would not diminish the responsibility of State and Territory Governments for their Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. 2. Consistent with this responsibility of the State and Territories, the Commonwealth may enter into arrangements with them for the formulation and joint funding of programs, and the making of special laws, for the economic and social development of those peoples, the enhancement of their cultural life and the protection of their interests. 3. The powers and functions of the Commonwealth under the Act, whether sole or in co-operation with the States and Territories, will be enumerated separately in the Act. Among the powers to be so enumerated will be: (a) compensation for dispossession, where other measures of a compensatory nature, including the provision of land or special programs of assistance, are impracticable or inadequate; (b) the establishment of an Aboriginal economic development corporation incorporating a significant capital base, under the control, and for the benefit, of Aboriginal people; 4. Among the functions of the Commonwealth to be enumerated in the Act would be: (a) protection of the rights of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to the enjoyment of their culture, including languages and religion, and the promotion of understanding and appreciation throughout the Australian community of the culture, history and aspirations of these peoples; (b) protection of cultural heritage, including sacred sites and objects; (c) the provision, in conjunction with the States and Territories or separately, of land for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people under secure long term tenure arrangements including, wherever practicable, inalienable communal freehold title for the purposes of: (i) maintaining or re-establishing their links with traditional lands; and (ii) assisting them meet their economic and social needs; (d) recognition, and incorporation within the Australian legal system to the extent practicable, of customary laws; (e) special programs, including, but not so as to limit the generality of this section, programs for the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people relating to: (i) the development of business enterprises; (ii) housing and accommodation, including loans and grants; (iii) employment; (iv) education and training; (v) health; (vi) art and craft; (vii) sport and recreation; (viii) community infrastructure; (ix) social support; (x) justice, including legal aid and human rights; (xi) cultural maintenance; (xii) land management; (xiii) participation in political life at local, State and national levels; (xiv) involvement in regional development; and (xv) such other matters as may be desirable in order to further the economic and social development of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. ATTACHMENT C PROPOSED STRUCTURE OF ATSIC Subject to proposed consultations, it is envisaged that the Commission will consist of a full-time Chairperson, appointed by the Minister, and 11 part-time members, of whom: six will be selected by Zone Councils; one will be selected to represent Torres Strait Islanders; and four will be appointed by the Minister. The Commissioners will elect two of their number as part-time Deputy Chairpersons. There will be a full-time Chief Executive, a statutory position appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Cabinet. All appointments will be for up to five years (although, initially, some Commissioners would serve for shorter periods, to ensure continuity for the Commission later). The Commission would be responsible for formulation and implementation of general policy, including budgets, subject to the powers of the Minister. It would have a statutory responsibility to advise the Minister on all matters relevant to Aboriginal Affairs, and to act on the views of Regional and Zone Councils established under the legislation. There would be provision for the delegation of Commission powers to sub-committees of not less than four Commissioners, to the Chief Executive or to Commission staff. The Chief Executive would have responsibility for day-to-day management. The Commission will have a Central Office, State Offices in other capitals (including Darwin, but not Hobart; Tasmanian and Victorian matters will be the responsibility of the Victorian State Office) and some 28 Regional Offices. State Offices would have a considerably reduced involvement in programs, with a major emphasis on policy liaison and coordination with State and Territory Governments and with other Commonwealth agencies. Regional Offices would have a considerably enhanced role. They would be responsible for administering all Commission activities in the region, and would assist in the establishment of, and the provision of secretariat support for Regional Councils. Regional Managers will have greater decision-making responsibilities and delegations than at present. A number of distinct activities will operate under the umbrella of the Commission. The proposed Australian Council for Aboriginal Studies (ACAS), the proposed Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation (AEDC) and Aboriginal Hostels Limited (AHL) will each have a Board of nine part-time members, appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the Commission. Each Board will include at least three Commissioners. The present housing functions of the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) will be performed by a Housing Trust, or similar body. Commission staff will be employed under the Public Service Act, in accordance with established Government policy in relation to statutory authority staffing. A provision to enable the Commission to engage, with the Minister's consent, staff outside the Public Service Act will also be included. Staff employed under industrial awards by AHL and the staff of the proposed AEDC will be employed on terms and conditions approved by the Minister. This will ensure the necessary skills are available to these organisations that have responsibilities for the operation of accommodation facilities and commercial development financing. ATTACHMENT D PROPOSED INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE COMMISSION, THE MINISTER AND REGIONAL AND ZONE COUNCILS Powers and functions of Commission 1. Subject to this section, and to the succeeding sections dealing with the powers and functions of the Minister and the Regional and Zone Councils, it shall be the function of the Commission to undertake all those functions of the Commonwealth, referred to in the preceding section, as are referred to in the following sub-sections, or referred to it by Ministerial instrument. 2. The Commission's powers and functions are to: (a) co-ordinate, and provide assistance to, Regional and Zone Councils, and consult with Councils on any changes that may be desirable to priorities determined by Councils (b) in the light of regional priorities, develop budgetary proposals for the Minister's approval (c) develop and administer programs for the benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, communities and individuals, subject to the powers and functions of Regional and Zone Councils (see paragraphs 6 and 9 in the section below dealing with these matters) (d) develop and administer programs of Commonwealth grants to the States (e) monitor the effectiveness of programs, develop policy proposals to meet emerging national, regional and local needs and priorities, and undertake research for these purposes (f) require other Commonwealth agencies to co-ordinate through it their activities affecting Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders (g) assist, advise and co-operate with Aboriginal communities, organisations and individuals at the local, regional, State and national level (h) establish, where desirable, other special consultative arrangements with the Aboriginal people (i) advise the Minister on all matters relevant to Aboriginal Affairs including the administration of legislation (j) negotiate and co-operate with other Commonwealth, State, Territory and local government agencies (k) exercise delegated powers as required (l) other matters necessary or convenient to the effective and efficient discharge of its functions and responsibilities. 3. Without limiting the generality of its powers and functions, the Commission shall have specific powers, not subject to Ministerial direction (but subject to general directions in writing): (a) to make enterprise loans and grants; (b) to make housing loans and grants; (c) to recommend to the Minister appointments to the Board, and oversight the operations, of the Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation; (d) to recommend to the Minister appointments to the Board, and oversight the operations, of Aboriginal Hostels Limited; (e) to recommend to the Minister appointments to the Board, and oversight the operations, of the Australian Council for Aboriginal Studies; (f) recommend to the Minister appointments to, and oversight the operations of, the Aboriginal Housing Trust (or similar organisations); (g) to provide for the protection of Aboriginal cultural material and sacred/secret information; (h) to engage staff, under the terms of the Public Service Act or under special terms and conditions (to be specified elsewhere in the Act), and engage consultants; (i) to collect and publish statistical information relating to Aboriginal Affairs; (j) where desirable and deemed necessary, to make changes to the boundaries of Regional Councils; (k) to delegate its powers to Sub-Committees of not less than four Commissioners, the Chief Executive, or Commission staff; (l) to prepare an annual report, to include details of variations to Regional Council priorities. Powers of Minister 1. The legislation will provide that the Minister shall have specific powers of direction over the Commission, except in relation to specified functions/powers of the Commission. This will establish a general relationship between the Minister and the Commission akin to that between a Minister and a Department. 2. In respect of those specified functions/powers which the Commission has in its own right, the Minister will retain a general power to provide guidance and direction. Such general directions will be required to be in writing, and to be tabled in Parliament. Powers and functions of Regional and Zone Councils 1. There shall be established, in each region of the Commission, a Regional Council. These Councils shall operate under rules and guidelines developed by each Council and approved by the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations. 2. Membership of a Council shall comprise all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and organisations in the region that are incorporated under Commonwealth, State or Territory laws. 3. Each community and organisation shall be entitled to have 1 person represent them at meetings of the Council, and to have 1 vote in proceedings. Other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons may attend but shall not be entitled to vote. 4. Regional Councils may elect office-bearers, to manage the organisation between meetings, in accordance with procedures to be prescribed. Regional Councils will have the power to engage staff. 5. The Regional Council shall meet at least twice a year. 6. Regional Councils shall: (a) develop and advise the Commission on policy priorities for the region, on an annual basis within broad financial guidelines approved by the Minister; (b) determine, within functional budgets, relative priorities for Commission programs within the region; (c) consider and respond to any requests from the Commission for a reconsideration of those priorities; (d) act as a focus for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander input into the activities of the Commission, and of other Commonwealth, State/Territory and local government agencies in the region, and as a sounding-board on issues of national significance (such as the proposed agreement or compact); (e) appoint 2 representatives (1 male, 1 female) to the Zone Council; (f) submit views, advice and draft policy papers to the Zone Council for consideration and forwarding to the Commission; (g) prepare an annual report for consideration by member organisations, the Zone Council, and the Commission. 7. Zone Councils will be established in respect of each State and Territory, with the exceptions that: (a) Tasmania shall form a Zone with Victoria; (b) the ACT will be included in the New South Wales Zone. 8. Zone Councils will comprise two representatives (male and female) from each Regional Council in the Zone; will meet at least 4 times a year; and will not engage staff or undertake any financial activities. 9. Zone Councils shall: (a) nominate a person to the Board of the Commission as required for a set term not exceeding 5 years; (b) consider policy proposals brought forward by Regional Councils; (c) provide policy advice to the Commission and the Government, and as appropriate to the relevant State or Territory Government. ATTACHMENT E ABORIGINAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION The establishment of the Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation (AEDC) is an important and innovative element of the total proposal for the new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (the Commission), though with a substantial measure of independence of its operation. It will undertake commercial activities in its own right, provide equity capital and loans, and undertake other activities directed toward Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander economic development. The Commission will be responsible for the enterprise and housing loans programs currently undertaken by the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC), particularly those with employment and community development objectives. Purpose and functions In its enterprise functions, the AEDC could be described as an Aboriginal development corporation similar to the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC). Its purposes and functions will include: (a) to facilitate and encourage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation in commerce and enterprise, particularly in relation to regional and national economic development; (b) to provide, assist in providing, and facilitate finance for significant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander enterprises with sound prospects of commercial viability; (c) to secure, to the greatest extent practicable, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation in the ownership and control of companies engaged in activity on Aboriginal land, or in areas which will have a significant impact on Aboriginal communities; (d) to assist the development of industries and areas of economic activity which are clearly aligned with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander concerns; and (e) to assist Aboriginal and Islander commercial and economic development through provision of specialist commercial expertise. Funding The Act will provide that the AEDC's capital base shall be $60 million, of which $40 million (including the $20 million in assets of the ADC's Capital Fund) would be paid on commencement, with the remainder in equal instalments in 1989-90 and 1990-91. Structure and relationship with the Commission There would be a Board, comprising nine persons, with responsibility for the operations of the AEDC. All would be part-time, and appointed by the Minister for periods up to five years. At least three would be members of the Commission; other members of the Board would be selected on the basis of appropriate expertise. The presence of at least three Commission members on the AEDC Board would help to ensure consistency of approach within the total Commission structure. In addition, the AEDC would be required to obtain ministerial approval, through the Commission, for its general policies, corporate plans, and the like. Any ministerial disagreement with AEDC proposals would have to be tabled in Parliament. In operational terms, the AEDC would be independent. Its General Manager and staff would not be engaged under the Public Service Act, though staff interchange between the Commission and the AEDC, with appropriate protection of rights, would be encouraged. Senator TATE —There are certain maps and charts accompanying the statement which cannot, for technical reasons, be incorporated. I table them in the interest of providing honourable senators with detailed information. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.07) —The statement which has been put down by the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) is an important one in that it provides a focus for discussion on a subject which will, I suspect, get a lot of discussion in Australia over the next 12 months, namely, the situation of Aboriginal Australians and the role of the Commonwealth Government in improving the lot and situation of Aboriginal Australians. In making some comments on behalf of the Opposition, I would like to start on a positive note and say that I certainly agree with the Minister's concluding words in that statement where he says: The challenge is to build a new and lasting era of mutual understanding and co-operation with our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander fellow-citizens. Meeting this challenge will be no easy task. We can, we must meet the challenge. The Opposition would wish to meet that challenge and we would certainly agree that it is not an easy task. I suggest that, in examining this statement, it is important to remember that the history of Australia since white settlement is ample testimony to the fact that it is not an easy task, and that many of the efforts made by government and private agencies have been counter-productive. Having said that, I must say that the first words of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) in the statement are difficult to justify. They are: It is with immense pride on behalf of this Labor Government that I am able to present to the Parliament today proposals of great and historic importance for all Australians. The reality is that this statement is a confession of failure on the part of the Government. It represents a confession that the first 4 1/2 years of the Labor Government have achieved nothing, in terms of what the Government has set out to achieve, and that it is now proposing a fresh start. The first 4 1/2 years of this Government, like its previous four, five or six years in opposition, were years in which a totally different policy was pursued by the Australian Labor Party. It was an agenda which focused on the issue of land rights and in particular on national land rights. I again remind the Senate that when Senator Ryan was the Opposition spokesman on Aboriginal Affairs, she came to the chamber and said that the first legislative act of a Labor Government would be to take land matters out of the hands of the Queensland Government and put them in the hands of the Commonwealth. We have had five, six, seven, eight years of the Labor Party chasing illusions, and building up illusions in the minds of Aboriginal Australians, and seeing those illusions come to nothing. Of course the Government chose-I emphasise the word `chose'-not to deliver on its platform on Aboriginal affairs. It chose not to do so because, although it had the legislative capacity to do so because it had the full support of the Australian Democrats for quite radical programs, the programs were not feasible in the ultimate in light of public opinion and the constitutional, legal and other realities of Australia. I do not think that the Minister is entitled at this stage of his career to be expressing immense pride. This document is a confession of failure and I believe that it is important that that be noted because there have been too many false starts in Aboriginal affairs. I would simply wish to express my sympathy with the Aboriginal people of Australia who, every time a new Minister or government appears on the scene, find they are faced with yet another wonderful new solution. What has been done before is suddenly superseded and they are expected to respond to the latest theory as to what will provide them with a decent and honourable place in Australian society. I also remind the Senate that although the ministerial statement purports to be doing something radical and new, there is already in Australia something called the Aboriginal Development Commission which was established in 1980. Senator Peter Baume —Who was the Minister? Senator CHANEY —That was during my own Ministry. I thank Senator Baume. However, the point I want to make-I hope I will be able to do so at length later in my speech-is that a fully independent Aboriginal commission was established in 1980 after a most extensive process of consultation with the Aboriginal people. That process of consultation involved not only a representative of national organisations but also a team of public servants going out and talking in great detail with communities right round Australia. Again, I hope to go into that in a little more detail later but, as I said, we already have an Aboriginal Development Commission with a fully Aboriginal board. I make the point that the members of that board have been totally appointed by the present Government; all the appointees have been put on the board since the present Government came to office-except the present chairperson of that body who was appointed as chairperson by the present Government subsequent to her appointment to the board by the previous Liberal-National Party Government. This statement represents a development in Aboriginal affairs with some limited good aspects. I will touch on those. However, the statement does have some very real negatives. It is important that the Opposition mark what those negatives are at the start of what is quite an important debate. Again, I draw attention to the `starting-again' syndrome-the fact that we have a new Minister who, seeing that the problem has not been solved in the past, is determined to make a fresh start. I simply remind the Government and the Senate that a continuous process of fresh starts is not really a formula for achieving progress. I also think that the document-this is probably the most significant criticism which is to be made of the document-opens up issues which are more likely to cause problems and uncertainties than to create progress. I am sure that in the minds of Australian Labor Party people and, certainly, Labor Party members of parliament, there is some doubt when a Liberal or National Party member of parliament gets up and expresses concern in regard to the Labor Party's talking in terms of prior ownership, treaties, and all the rest of it. After all, is this not a wonderful, progressive, honest and just thing to be doing? I therefore want to take some words from an article in a newspaper which I do not think could be regarded as a right wing paper or a paper which automatically picks up the views of the Liberal Party of Australia. On this occasion I think it expresses in very moderate terms the concern which I certainly feel about the Government's approach. The leading article in the Canberra Times of last Monday referred to the fact that the Government has talked about the dispossession of land and its prior ownership. That article stated: The words give comfort to the lobby which believes in a focus on compensation policies-but they convey no entitlement. In truth, many Aboriginal-Affairs policies are founded on an assumption of a duty of compensation, and there is nothing constitutional inhibiting the Commonwealth from directly embarking on formal compensation programs. But the very word, like `land rights' in the minds of some, attracts a political reaction, and a wise government is better focused on programs explicitly directed at improving the lot of Aboriginal Australians without setting out to use mere symbols which appease some consciences and salve some wounds without actually doing anything at all and which in fact attract opposition to Aboriginal advancement. The words thus, are perhaps a useful phrase-certainly they are no more than a statement of the obvious-but are no more than tokenism; it is the action which counts. I think that is a very fair summary of what I might say in a more heated debate in a sharper fashion. Tokenism and the use of words which produce the warm inner glow are unlikely to produce progress for Aboriginal people in 1988 or at any other time. I believe that the Government should sit back and look very soberly at the impact of its embracing of fairly radical proposals in the past and the impact which that has had on Aboriginal people and on community attitudes to Aboriginal people. I believe that any honest assessment of that will demonstrate to the Government that what it has done has in fact worsened the lot of those it was seeking to help. I do believe that it is incumbent on the Government to examine its conscience on the way it has tackled Aboriginal affairs. I remind it very briefly that what it did over the whole of its period in opposition was to make promises which it has subsequently found are impossible to keep. But the promises which it made, particularly the promises of overriding the States with respect to land, gave rise to Aboriginal expectations and demands, and those Aboriginal expectations and demands in turn caused a loss of sympathy for Aboriginal people and, of course, in the end the Government did not deliver. It has been a cycle which I think is extremely damning of the Australian Labor Party and it is a cycle which I think the Government should be very reluctant to see commence again. In those circumstances I believe that the Government should be extremely cautious in talking about the immense pride that it feels in making this announcement and it certainly should be very cautious in assessing where it goes from here. The fact is that the ALP has destroyed support for Aboriginal advancement programs. I have spoken to many people, including many Labor sympathisers and supporters, and indeed people who are active in the Labor Party, who agree that the position of Aboriginal Australians has gone backwards over the last 10 years, and I think the Labor Party has been a substantial contributor to that and not least in the vital area of community attitudes. There is in fact an extraordinary disillusion in the community about the apparent lack of success of many Aboriginal advancement programs. I think that in part is because the community has had too much exposure to the Michael Mansells of Aboriginal affairs and not nearly enough exposure to people such as Lois O'Donoghue, Ossie Cruse and the present chairperson of the Aboriginal Development Commission, Shirley McPherson. The Michael Mansells simply succeed in making ordinary, decent Australians, who would wish to help their fellow Aboriginal Australians, regard the Aboriginal movement as something which is repugnant to Australia. I believe that Michael Mansell and his friends carry a very heavy burden of responsibility for the negative attitudes towards Aboriginals which are evident in much of the community. It is tragic that the hard working, wholly admirable people of the sort that I have mentioned receive so much less coverage and publicity for what they are doing. There is some progress, there is some good being achieved and it is being achieved by people of that stamp. Because I think there is that disillusion let me very quickly touch on some of the things that have been achieved. They have not been achieved by advocating radical solutions, they have been achieved by very hard work. Over recent years we have seen a decline in infant mortality. Over the 10 years to 1982 it has gone from 142.7 deaths per 1,000 live births to 38.3. In other words, over one decade in Australia, a decade of considerable effort, we reduced the number of infant deaths per thousand births from 142 to 38.3. That is still a very poor figure. Aboriginal infant deaths were once eight times as bad as for the rest of Australia and they are still three times as bad, but to have achieved a drop from eight times as bad to three times as bad over a decade is at least some progress. Over five years the percentage of Aboriginals with trachoma reduced from a range of between 17 to 32 per cent over four differing zones to 6 to 13 per cent. So the number of Aboriginal people with trachoma was reduced to about one-third of what it was. Hospitalisation rates for Aboriginal people remain significantly higher than for the rest of the population, but the gap has been significantly reduced. The unemployment rate has risen, and I will return to that in a moment, but white collar employment of Aboriginals has risen from about 8 per cent of Aboriginals employed to just under 20 per cent. Since the institution of Aboriginal secondary grants, secondary school retention rates have increased although participation rates are still well below those of the rest of the community. In 1981, while 24 per cent of all Australians had post-school qualifications and the figure for Aboriginals was only 4.1 per cent, it had gone up from 2.3 per cent 10 years before. According to a survey conducted by the late Charles Rowley into rural Aboriginal housing in New South Wales in 1965, only 53 per cent of Aboriginal people were satisfactorily housed. In 1980 the figure was 93 per cent. I mention those things because in these debates one almost never hears any reference to the fact that the work of successive governments and many hard working individuals in the communities and, most importantly, the hard work of many Aboriginal people, has achieved some very significant steps forward which I think most Australians would applaud. If those improvements were better understood and people felt that they were being built upon there would be massive support for Aboriginal advancement programs. On the other hand, there is a very negative side to it and again I think it is important that the Government bear this in mind in making its plans for Aboriginal affairs, as the Opposition has had to do. The same survey by Dr Charles Rowley, to which I referred, showed declines in some very vital areas, and I pick out just one. In 1965-a drought year-Dr Rowley found that, among rural Aboriginals in New South Wales, the unemployment rate for men was 21 per cent. In 1980, after many years of government effort-both Labor and Liberal-and the vast expenditure of Commonwealth funds, we find an unemployment rate of 53 per cent. That is the sort of statistic that requires governments and oppositions to stop and examine the impact of some of those programs because, as I think those figures show, sometimes the impact is not all benign. The other point I would like to raise, which is totally omitted from this statement, is something which I think is fundamentally important to future success. There is no real mention in this statement of the fact that the success or failure of most programs will depend upon Aboriginal people exercising responsibility. There is talk about the need for Aboriginal self-management and so on but the reality is that, until there is a personal sense of responsibility among Aboriginal people, many of the things which are done by politicians and administrators will fail. The important role of Aboriginal parents is in looking after their children, seeing to their nutrition and encouraging them in their education. The importance of individual discipline in maintaining health and so on is something which I believe is inadequately emphasised by those of us who take an interest in Aboriginal affairs. I well remember Henry Schapper, a teacher at the University of Western Australia, who wrote a book on the subject. Years ago, after a weekend conference on Aboriginal affairs, he said that he was saddened that no one, white or black, had talked about the direct Aboriginal individual role in exercising responsibility and achieving success, whether it was success in having a healthy life, obtaining a job or whatever. I believe that we do a great disservice to the Aboriginal community in failing to acknowledge to Aboriginals that it is their individual acts that will be critical in the end. I think we would say to most other Australians that, in the end, their own personal efforts will be critical; I think it is wrong always to be looking to the institutional and other difficulties which Aboriginal people face, ignoring the reality that, in the end, their personal efforts will be the difference between success and failure. I am one who believes that effort in this area is worthwhile, very important, and can achieve very positive things, but I am also one who believes that we must be very cautious to ensure that Aboriginal people have an incentive to help themselves and do understand the importance of their own actions. I turn now to the statement to look at it in a little more detail. I am glad that other Opposition speakers will be taking part in this debate, and Senator Tambling in particular who I think has a much closer knowledge than most of us of the practical on-the-ground difficulties that many policies have. Also my friend and colleague Senator Peter Baume who, like me, has been a Minister in this area, will be speaking. I only have time to touch lightly on some of the matters that have been put forward. I am glad that what I have to say will be supplemented and added to in quite different ways, no doubt, by my colleagues. The first thing that needs to be said is that there is a real confusion of ideas in the appendices which have been attached to this statement. This is important because the appendices represent the Government's suggestions as to matters which might be contained in future legislation. The particular confusion to which I wish to point is the fact that after the acknowledgment that Aboriginal people are the original owners of this land-a point which I think warrants a separate comment-we find that in the proposed preamble the Government is saying: . . . it is the intention of the people of Australia to make provision for rectification . . . of the consequences of past injustices. One can read those words in different ways, but I would suggest very seriously to the Government that the constructive way to read those words-and, perhaps rephrase them-is to make sure that we are saying that it is the intention of the people of Australia to make provision to meet the present difficulties and needs of Aboriginal Australians. The words bear that grammatical meaning but it is possible, in light of what appears in the second attachment, that what the Government means is that it will promote payments of a compensatory nature. In paragraph 3 of attachment B we find the words: The powers and functions of the Commonwealth under the Act . . . will be enumerated separately. Among the powers so to be enumerated will be: (a) compensation for dispossession . . . I am not sure whether there is a conflict between schedule A and schedule B or whether the Government means to say that in this legislation it intends to promote the idea that we should act on the basis of compensation for dispossession. If that is what the Government intends-and that appears to be the clear meaning of the words in attachment B-I simply record the view at this stage that that is likely to be counterproductive. My own extensive experience of talking to Australians around the country on this issue is that they will strongly support programs which are based on meeting the present needs of Aboriginal people, but it produces resentment in almost every case if one tries to put it in terms of compensation. Whatever the personal views of senators, it is my very clear impression that among the people of Australia there is a quite strong resistance to the idea that we as individuals are in some way responsible for compensation. However, there is a very great readiness to support the view that we should embrace programs which will meet the present needs of extremely disadvantaged Australians. The other matter to which I wish to refer in the attachment is the reference to the original owners of this land. I simply say in passing that the Opposition has already recorded its concern at the apparently careless use of these words in the attachment. In response to questions in the other place, the Government has indicated that it has not even considered the possible legal implication of what it has put down. Senator Gareth Evans —Come on. Senator CHANEY —I am sorry, but if we go back to what was said in Question Time, I think we will find that no advice was taken on that aspect. Senator Gareth Evans —I have given some advice. Senator CHANEY —That almost proves my point, Senator Evans. If you have been offering advice, then I am extremely nervous for the Government's position. Senator Gareth Evans —The spirit of Christmas, Fred! Senator CHANEY —My difficulty about achieving the spirit of Christmas in this debate is, as I said earlier, that the Government has made so many mistakes in this area and has put so many Aboriginal people into a situation where they are despised and put upon in the community that I find it very hard to be lighthearted about it. However, the opening up of the issue of ownership and the suggestion that the Government should create a situation where Aboriginal people may make claims, as of rights, based on historical dispossession 200 years ago is likely-whatever arguments may be put in favour of it as a matter of justice-to produce an extremely unhappy result. I ask the Government to take that into account. My point is that I believe that that sort of upsetting and overturning of the present legal framework in Australia is something which is likely to add to the difficulties of Aboriginal people by creating even greater community difficulties and resentment than exists at present. I therefore say that the Government should not approach this as a matter of theory and as a matter of producing a warm inner glow, but should carefully consider the practical operation of what it is talking about and whether it will advance the position of Aboriginal people if it follows that course. The other matter that is very worrying about this statement-again it is in the same context-is the comment by the Minister under the heading `A Compact or Agreement'. He stated: There is a widely held belief that we cannot come to terms with our history unless we reach some form of compact, agreement, treaty or Makarrata-the name is not significant-between the Aboriginal and Islander and non-Aboriginal people. I think that the Minister is grossly out of touch with reality in making that statement. He is totally out of touch with the feelings of the Australian people. It does matter. When I was Minister in 1979 and 1980 I had long and earnest conversations with the Aboriginal people around Australia about the unwisdom of using the terms `treaty' with the implication that we were claiming separate nations within Australia. I was grateful that the National Aboriginal Conference at that time accepted and adopted that viewpoint and produced its own concept of a makarrata which it explained to me and to others was based on a word which fundamentally involved the process of reconciliation. I say to the Government that talk of a treaty is foolish because it will create more of the difficulties that we have seen far too much of in this community. I will not embarass the Senate. I am pleased to see at least one Government senator who I think has more knowledge of Aboriginal affairs than most nodding vigorously. Senator Collins —The name is important. Senator CHANEY —I thank Senator Collins. I appreciate support from his quarter. One of the most serious issues that people who are allegedly friendly to Aboriginals have to come to grips with is the fact that this sort of wonderful theatre can, in fact, be ultimately highly detrimental to Aboriginal people and is likely to produce an extremely adverse reaction in the Australian people. My very deep concern-I express this concern not just to the Government but to those Aboriginal people who are pushing these matters-is that we should avoid as far as possible those things that are likely to be destructive and counterproductive. The Senate will, no doubt, be pleased to hear that I do not have very much time left, but I had wished to make some comment on the basic proposals for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission which I think are extremely confused and confusing. I ask Government senators to look at the present Aboriginal Development Commission and to take the time and trouble to read the second reading speech which former Senator Neville Bonner, the only Aboriginal member of this Parliament that we have had so far, put down in the Senate on 17 April 1980. I ask them to do that because that sets out the extensive process of consultation which led to the formation of the ADC. The ADC represents a body which was shaped by the Aboriginal community of Australia. It is a body which is controlled by the Aboriginal Board and which is substantially free of government control. I ask why it is that this body is not being improved, updated and built upon and why we are seeking to start again. I believe that if the Government thinks that, by going through exactly the same process in 1987 and coming out with a slightly different framework, it will be doing anything more than inviting the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in 1992 to do the same thing, it is ignoring the lessons of history. I enter the plea that there be a sensible assessment of what the ADC is now. By all means, let us vary it, add to it, or whatever, but why start again? It is absolute insanity to think that that will produce progress for the Aboriginal community. The last thing I want to say is that I think that the Minister must be careful not to add to the confusion which is on the ground. I hope that Senator Tambling will have a chance to talk about this. The conflicting roles of community councils and land councils, for example, is a legacy of different layers having been added to the system by different governments and different Ministers at different times. This proposal has the capacity to add considerably to the confusion of jurisdictions which will make life so very much more difficult in the Aboriginal communities. Again I see Senator Collins nodding. I defer to his more detailed knowledge of communities, as I do to Senator Tambling's more detailed knowledge of the problems in Aboriginal communities. I hope that this proposal will receive highly critical scrutiny. It is a confession of past failures. When one confesses past failures a bit of humility about where one is going from here is not lost. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(9.35) —It is 20 years since the 1967 referendum extended far more extensive powers to the Commonwealth Government to work for the benefit of the Aboriginal community in Australia. In that 20 years many challenges have been thrown to government that have not been properly met or picked up. It has been a confusing time of very rapid social change for the whole Australian nation, but particularly for the Aboriginal community. I invite honourable senators to think seriously about the changes in society in that 20-year period, the impact of constitutional change in that time, and, in particular, the impact that television has had across the whole of Australia. The impact of television has had a compounding effect in the Aboriginal educative process, which has produced many continuing problems. Successive governments have sought, far too patronisingly, to be involved in and to seek to solve problems for Aboriginals. They have sought to impose rules, controls and mechanisms that have not adequately or properly been met. The document that has come before us on the last day of the sittings of the Senate and which came before the House of Representatives on the last day of its sittings last week-Foundations for the Future by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Gerry Hand-has been presented in a way which insults members of parliament. They are unable to give it the appropriate, proper and full consideration that they ought to have been able to give it. Senator Messner —Typical of this Government. Senator TAMBLING —It is very typical of the style of this Government. We need to consider very carefully whether this issue is just a Bicentennial front to avoid problems in the Aboriginal radical area prior to Australia Day. We need to look very carefully at the motivations behind the way in which the document has been tabled. The Hawke Labor Government should stop fiddling with words and get on with helping Aboriginals. In regard to the preamble to the document, does one ever see a highlighting of the preamble to other legislation? But this document has been put forward in the media in the last week or so as something rather major. It is rather like a legal document, a series of statements of whereas, whereas and whereas. To me it sounds like something out of a used car sales contract. We are talking about prior ownership. We are talking about the original occupiers. To make it sound like a used car sales contract is insulting to the Aboriginal community. Aboriginals are crying out for dignity, for better health and for education and all the Federal Government has been able to come up with, after four years, a recent change in Minister and a very deliberate change in direction between Minister Holding and Minister Hand, is a set of fancy words. One can be sure that these words will not change the shocking child mortality rates or the low life expectancy in Aboriginal communities. I believe the Australian Labor Party is preoccupied with guilt. The proposals presented are designed only to ease its conscience and avoid demonstrations prior to the Bicentenary. I am concerned-and I will make some comments shortly-that some of the proposals that have been put forward, as Senator Chaney said, have not been given sufficient depth of thought, debate and consideration. There is a threat in many quarters-and people will read it this way-that a de facto black parliament could be included in the proposals to set up an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). I believe this Commission is doomed to fail. It is doomed to fail in the same way in which the two previous organisations-the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee and the National Aboriginal Conference-failed. I will develop that point shortly. The Labor Party, in these proposals, shows a great deal of hypocrisy. This is the Party that, in talking about new structures, particularly in parliamentary involvement, electorates and voting, refers to the one vote one value principle. What do we see in these proposals? There is a potpourri type of organisation which creates six councils and 28 regional councils throughout Australia. We need to look at the variation in population of those zones and regions. The Aboriginal population within the zones will vary in size from 14,000 in South Australia to 35,000 in the Northern Territory and 61,000 in Queensland. Yet each zone is expected to elect only one member of the Commission. So much for one vote one value! The Labor Party stands on its dig about a gerrymander in Queensland and in other places. Talk about a gerrymander that is unfair to the Aboriginal constituency! The individual regions will vary in size from 5,000 to about 19,000. Each of those regions will elect a certain number of members. So much for one vote one value! How can Aborigines in Tasmania or Victoria expect to be treated with the same degree of equity as Aborigines in other parts of Australia when the Government is creating electorates, regions and zones with this sort of disparity? It paves the way for pressure groups and, in particular, for the part Aboriginal people who have a radical orientation, because of the problems in other parts of Australia, to exercise undue influence and control, particularly in Aboriginal issues. In that community, there is a natural inbuilt conflict between those Aboriginals who still live a tribally, culturally, ceremonially oriented environment, and those Aborigines who are of part Aboriginal descent, living in a fully urbanised community. The power, influence and effort being put into this sort of proposal builds in a mechanism that means that the organisational structure that is proposed is doomed to failure. I am also concerned about a number of features that will override the role of State government. The Commonwealth-State relations area is always fraught with difficulty. Again, one needs to go back to basics with the Labor Party to find out what it thinks about the relationship with States and its motivations. In fact, if one refers to the famous Bob Hawke Boyer Lectures, one will find one of the very early statements of current Labor Party philosophy. I quote from Hawke's Boyer Lectures: Australians would be better served by the elimination of the second tier of government-that is the States-which no longer serve their original purpose and act as a positive impediment to achieving good government in our current community. That is part of the motivation that is behind the Labor party's philosophy in looking at this particular area in such detail. There are proposals that I will come to in a minute in areas of land administration and finance that are crucial and that are being put into this proposed new set of legislation that needs to be looked at. We also need to be reminded that the functions that are being proposed for the new Commission are very widespread-right through a number of social areas, land areas, and education areas. It will mean that the new Commission will, in its first full financial year of operation, have a budget in excess of $600m to administer. That is using current Budget figures which are being used in this Parliament for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Aboriginal Development Commission, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd and the Department of Employment, Education and Training. That money is involved in the straight transfer of functions. We need to look very carefully at the accountability to the Australian taxpayers for the expenditure of that money. I accept the points that Senator Chaney made earlier that there have been problems in that area; there have been sins. But we need to be sure that we do not compound the problem by transferring it out of a parliamentary or governmental area into a commission function area and building in automatic issues. The other area that I think needs to be addressed most seriously as a point of principle, which this statement does not do, goes right back to the essence of who is an Aboriginal. I am not raising this as a point of controversy just to get involved in redneck-type debate, but until a clear distinction is drawn between the special interests of tribal, culturally and ceremonially involved Aboriginals, basically living in communities and environments that are unique and special and those interests of other Australian citizens who are of part Aboriginal descent and who live in an urbanised community and an urbanised society with different priorities, different disabilities and special needs to be addressed-until we come back to a definition problem-we will compound the issue. In the Northern Territory, the 35,000 Aborigines comprise some 25 per cent of the population. I would predict that 10 or 15 years into the future just about every Territory family will be related by intermarriage to an Aboriginal. I have two nephews and a niece who are part Aboriginal and they qualify for many additional and special benefits for which my children do not. The odds of my children marrying Aboriginals or part Aboriginals are quite high because of the community in which I live. I accept that but if we look to the future, all of us in the Northern Territory can just about be guaranteed that we will have, under the present definitions, Aboriginal grandchildren at least. Therefore, we need to address that. We need to ask: How do we decide whether a person is tribally and culturally linked to an environment or is a person of part Aboriginal descent with, we accept, special needs and problems in the community? I turn now to more particular detail with regard to this. I would like to draw attention to other legislation that is already on the books. Some 533 Aboriginal associations are already incorporated and are already administered by Aboriginal people under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act. They involve basically the areas of housing, medical services, legal services, alcohol rehabilitation and sporting and community services to local communities. One needs to look at how these are based on Aboriginal custom. This proposed Commission is somehow going to have to integrate those 533 associations, plus, of course, many more that will be incorporated in the future. I am aware that the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Clyde Holding, initiated a review of the role of the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations. I have now been informed that these proposals for reform have been put on hold-put aside. Why can it not be done consistently and tied in with these new types of proposals? The formation of the new ATSIC is basically only a regurgitation, if one looks at the detail, of the former National Aboriginal Conference (NAC) and the disbanded National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (NACC). The first of these was established by the Labor Government 14 years ago in 1973. It certainly was a very highly controversial organisation. In 1976 it became apparent that there were many problems and a special report was commissioned from Dr Hiatt to review the functions of that body. That report found that, whilst many initiatives had been undertaken, there was a real failure to establish a working relationship between the NACC and government, and in particular the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. There was a lack of consultation, and an antagonism which was built up with Aboriginal leaders right throughout Australia. We also saw in that body many very articulate urban Aboriginals dominating the European style of formal meetings at the expense of tribal representation; that brought out the conflicts to which I alluded earlier. The NAC was the replacement organisation established by the Fraser Government. It went down a similar track; it consisted of 36 members elected on a regional basis when it was formed. But it was not long before this body also got into problems. Honourable senators will recall that Dr Coombs was brought in to inquire into the role of the Conference. His report is a sad saga of why it failed. I will list some of the reasons in a precis form. It was out of touch with Aboriginal communities. It failed to represent effectively the needs and aspirations of communities. It failed to provide a feedback of information. It was unwilling to co-operate with Aboriginal controlled service and political organisations such as land councils, which I will come to shortly. It lacked the professional expertise to carry out the work. It failed to formulate policy. It failed to negotiate funding. It was inefficient in staffing; in particular we saw the spectre of nepotism creeping in. It was extravagant and wasteful of expenditure. It did not maintain any forms of Aboriginal independence. Its power was physically restricted to a very tight executive. It failed to look at the needs in particular of Aboriginal women. It failed; it was doomed. Of course, it was dumped when the Auditor-General got into it and uncovered many fraudulent financial transactions, unauthorised expenditure and inadequate security of documents. That brings me to the point of the structure of the proposed organisation. It is basically not very different, and this is what worries me about many of those forms of representation. The only difference is that the Conference was an advisory council; the proposed Commission is also to be given the disbursement function, and therefore the problem is that it can be seen by many in the community as bringing about a black parliament. What are the implications for State, Territory and local governments? We must remember that Aboriginal members of the community must participate fully in those administrations because they are very much a part of them. The Northern Territory is moving rapidly towards statehood. That means that a new constitution will be devised for the Northern Territory. That constitution will have to address and pick up the special needs and concerns of Aboriginal people, particularly when they represent 25 per cent of the electorate and the population. What about the involvement of the Commonwealth Grants Commission and the Premiers Conference? Does this new Commission, with an administration of $600m at least-about two thirds of the Northern Territory Government's vote-fully expect to be pushed and promoted, with a seat on the Premiers Conference, or will the Grants Commission have to address some very special roles? The Liberal and National parties have always emphasised the concurrent nature of Federal and State powers. If we look at these proposals, we see that there are some major problems in that these things are not necessarily concurrent. The powers and functions proposed for the new Commission include the power to compensate: . . . for dispossession, where the measures are of a compensatory nature, including the provision of land or special programs of assistance, are impracticable or inadequate; Moreover, it will have the function of: recognition, and the incorporation within the Australian legal system to the extent practicable, of customary laws. Again that bears on the essence of this relationship between State, Territory and local government areas. This matter has not been addressed in this particular proposal. I am pleased that Senator Collins is in the chamber. I note that he held a consultancy to the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, in the area of local government for Aboriginals. I am sure that he is familiar, just as I am, with the very special developments in the Northern Territory in community government, whereby Aboriginal communities are electing to go with a special-but, in a way, normal-local government system. In fact, some 26 communities have either gone into, registered to go into or expressed serious interest in participating in, community local government within the Northern Territory framework. I am fearful that some of the proposals and the heavy-handedness of this Commission will tend to override that involvement and compound problems for the Aboriginal leadership, if these people have to participate in the regional and zone politics of a new national Commission and in the local government and Territory government-as they should fully do-within the electorate of the Northern Territory. The proposals also take up the matter of overriding the State governments' land rights policies. Amongst the functions the Commonwealth enumerated, as I just said earlier, is: the provision, in conjunction with the States and Territories or separately- I stress `or separately'- of land for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people under secure long term arrangements including, wherever practicable, inalienable communal freehold title . . . This in turn will pose a conflict in the Northern Territory with the existing structures of the land councils. There are already three land councils in the Northern Territory-the Tiwi Land Council, the Northern Land Council and the Central Land Council. They have an intricate system of Aboriginal leadership and participation. Suddenly the spectre of this proposal coming across the top will mean there will be involvements. The new proposals for regions would provide for five new regions. They will not pick up the present three. So I am suspicious as to whether there will be a change in the land council functions-or are they to be subsumed by this particular organisation? I have also mentioned the need for accountability and scrutiny by Parliament. There are a quarter of a million Aboriginal people throughout Australia who are full participants in the Australian system. The Government has recognised its special role with respect to them. As I said earlier, the Commonwealth Government's programs-under the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the present Aboriginal Development Commission, and there are also the education programs under the Department of Employment, Education and Training-will mean that some $600m will be transferred automatically across to this Commission. In addition, the Commonwealth Government spends many millions in social security and in other appropriate areas. The State parliaments have a compact in their annual Budgets. The annual Budgets of this Parliament and the State governments also provide millions of dollars to Aboriginals. My estimate is that in total the Australian taxpayer contributes, quite rightly, through all of the Aboriginal programs between $1,000m and $1,200m. I want to emphasise the aspect of consultation and the process of government that needs to be very carefully brought out in respect of this matter. There is no mention in the document of consultation with State governments or with the non-Aboriginal community. There are comments in it that I find very consistent with the recommendations that are flowing from the Constitutional Commission. That worries me because that is a new direction of government. There are some proposals to alter the Public Service arrangements. I wonder whether the head of this new organisation is to be Charlie Perkins. Everyone seems to be presuming that he will be appointed the new chief commissioner. If he is appointed, I believe his role will be rather like that of the character from Mozart's comic opera, the Abduction from the Seraglio. I believe Charlie will probably end up with the role of Osmin, the black eunuch who oversaw the harem. I stress the point that the zones and regions proposed in this document are not consistent with good administration. They will not meet the very desperate and legitimate needs of Aboriginal people in the community. We need to look very carefully at the constitutional implications. In particular, we need to look very carefully at the inherent conflict between the tribal, ceremonial, cultural Aboriginal communities and the part-Aboriginal political interest groups that have different social and integration problems elsewhere in Australia. The Foundations for the Future is a pious document that does not adequately address the problems. As I said earlier, it regurgitates and revamps a lot of past work. It does not go anywhere near meeting the needs of Aboriginal people in Australia. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(10.02) —The Foundations for the Future statement made on 10 December by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) deserves some congratulation. It is a long overdue acknow-ledgment of Aboriginal people's prior occupation of this country. I do not want to get bogged down in party politicking on this issue, but there are some very important philosophical underpinnings to this statement which need to be given priority. In dealing with Aboriginal issues there are many complicating factors. Some of them have been outlined by Senator Tambling and Senator Chaney this morning. I do not think it is appropriate at this stage to blame particular political parties for past misdeeds. It should be a shared community responsibility, on the part of all Australians, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. For a long time, I have been saying that we would neither have nor deserve peace and justice in this country unless and until we publicly, as a nation, made the acknowledgment of prior occupation of Australia by Aboriginal people. While I congratulate the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on having finally pronounced the words, it is also important to look at the actions or inactions which lie behind those words and the timing of this gesture. On the subject of timing, it is incredible that it has taken 200 years for the invading Europeans to have the grace to say to Aboriginal people, `You were here first'. The reluctance has obviously been tied to a realisation of the implications of such a public statement: raising questions of both rights and sovereignty which must be addressed. Senator Peter Baume —You are wrong, Senator. It was done ten years ago. Senator VALLENTINE —No. Ten years ago, there was an acknowledgment of Aboriginal people's existence, but there has never been a public acknowledgment of Aboriginal people's prior claim to this land. This is where this statement is significantly different in a legal sense. For 200 years, non-Aboriginal Australians have managed to ignore the basic premise on which our Australian society is founded: the invasion by the British to establish a convict settlement. That part, of course, has been acknowledged, but the consequence of that invasion, the dispossession of the indigenous people, has never been acknowledged up to now. Everywhere else the British went they made a treaty with the indigenous people, but not here. This official recognition is 200 years overdue. However, as far as it goes, it is very welcome, I hope, to Aboriginal Australians and to many non-Aboriginals who have long been uncomfortable with the dispossession of Australia's original inhabitants. There have always been many non-Aboriginal Australians who have felt deeply moved by the plight of Aboriginal people. Many have felt outraged by the gross injustices which have sometimes systematically and sometimes thoughtlessly been dealt out to Aboriginal people. But, against all odds, Aboriginal people have survived. Against all plans and schemes to dispossess, even to exterminate them, they have survived-a remarkable achievement considering the massacres, the diseases introduced by Europeans, the poisoning of their waterholes and the takeover of their living spaces and food supplies. The most important loss for Aboriginal people has been access to their land. The cultural and spiritual ties to the land are the lifeblood of the Aboriginal people. Removed from the earth, their mother, to which they belong, rather than the other way round as we non-Aboriginal people would generally have it, they have been robbed of the very essence of their collective being. This alienation from traditional roots could almost have decimated Aboriginal culture. But, thankfully, that did not quite happen. So having survived against all odds is probably the one thing that Aboriginal people can celebrate in this otherwise embarrassing Bicentenary. Aboriginal people are still here in the land of their dreaming and they are strong in their efforts to maintain their culture, their dignity and their ageless connection with this land. We, the non-Aboriginal inhabitants, ought to listen to the many voices of Aboriginal people and learn from the richness of their traditional culture, which was based on sharing, renewal and harmony with the environment. After 200 years, maybe we are finally ready to listen not only to Aboriginal calls for land rights, which I think we should heed, but also to the wisdom of traditional Aboriginal culture, which, unlike ours, was not based on exploitation and rampant consumerism. While I generally want to commend Gerry Hand for putting together this public acknowledgment, for having the guts to do it in the certain knowledge that there will be some conservative racist backlash, I must also point out that the timing of this statement is significant for its opportunism. How embarrassing for Australia trying to `celebrate'-and I use that word in inverted commas because I think we should be commemorating rather than celebrating-200 years of European settlement and not to have made peace with the original inhabitants of this land. How embarrassing it is when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) chastises the Soviet Union's human rights record but is in turn rebuked for the appalling conditions in which most of our indigenous people live. It is absolutely fair that he was publicly shown up for being hypocritical. Of course, it is not only the Prime Minister who should be taken to task in this regard, but all Australians of all political persuasions. It should be a shared and collective responsibility. This exposure of Australia's hypocrisy is happening increasingly in international fora and it will continue throughout the Bicentenary and World Expo 88 in Brisbane, statement or no statement. When the eyes of the world are on Australia it will be embarrassing in the extreme for the truth to emerge about the history of the appalling treatment of Aboriginal people and their continuing suffering. It is a national disgrace that we have so many people living in Third World conditions in this very affluent country. Why has it taken the death of about 80 Aboriginal people in custody finally to focus the attention of the nation on the plight of Aboriginal people in our community? For years we have known that Aboriginal people, who constitute around 2 per cent of our population, constitute abut 30 per cent of our prison populations. Figures were not enough to stir us into action, to get us to ask the necessary questions to explain why these figures are so high. We have not wanted to admit that there have been massive problems for Aboriginal people dispossessed of their land, their spirituality, trying to cope with an alien society imposed upon them by a foreign invading force. We just expected them to adapt to the ways of the invading culture. We have heard here this morning in the chamber that, whatever Aboriginal people do, they seem to be in a no-win situation as non-Aboriginal people make judgments about their behaviour. If they are traditional, that seems to be okay to a degree, but, if they are non-traditional urban Aboriginal people who try to work within the framework of European culture and have some input into the decision-making processes about their own futures, they are criticised for being manipulative and too radical. It seems that they cannot win either way. They must take responsibility and yet, as soon as they try to take some responsibility, they are criticised as being too radical. Tragically, our imposing of our European standards on the Aboriginal people has not worked. Neither will this new package outlined by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) work unless there is better understanding in our community of the fundamental truths of Aboriginal culture. We must stop highlighting the negative stereotypes which, unfortunately, are only too easy to find and teach our children-and I am here referring to non-Aboriginal children-a genuine appreciation of Aboriginal culture. We must respect and cherish Aboriginal people's collective being in this country for almost 40,000 years. We need also to provide essential services to back up the rhetoric of this historic acknowledgment. Aboriginal people need to see some immediate effects of this statement, such as the provision of adequate water supplies to all communities. The basic and fundamental needs have not been met by any number of bureaucracies trying to provide services but, in fact, not really listening to the voices of Aboriginal people and providing for their basic needs. If there is no immediate effect, we will find Aboriginal people dismayed at words and more words but lack of action, feeling fobbed off by yet another government inquiry and feeling that decision making on Aboriginal issues still is not in Aboriginal hands. This dismay reflects a deeply-felt desire for self-determination. For example, why will the Chairperson and four of the seven counsellors of the new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission be appointed by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs? Why will not all the counsellors be elected by the people they will represent? It does not sound like a recipe for Aboriginal self-determination. The establishment of this new layer of bureaucracy is confusing. I agree with Senator Chaney that there is no need to re-invent the wheel. A bureaucratic smokescreen is not going to satisfy Aboriginal Australians. However, to return to the most significant and positive aspect of the Minister's statement, the long overdue recognition of Aboriginal people's prior claim to this land, it is my hope that such a national acknowledgment will find widespread acceptance in the community. Affirmation by the community at large is essential if we are to move forward constructively, firstly to stop the abuses of human rights still being heaped on Aboriginal people and, secondly, to encourage self-determination for Aboriginal people so that their rightful and proud place as the indigenous people of Australia can be fully reclaimed. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.12) —There is no more difficult area of government activity than the area of Aboriginal affairs, whether it relates to policy, consultation processes or administration. Senator Chaney spoke today with all the experience of a former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and laid out for us some of the difficulties. To hold the post of a Minister for Aboriginal Affairs leaves a deep and lasting impression on any person who is so fortunate. Holders of that office are changed permanently. If one cares for Aboriginal Australia, about some of the things to which Senator Vallentine referred, about some of the past treachery and murder, some of the deprivation and brutality, some of the dispossession and the present disadvantage which is enormous and continuing and if one cares about the racism which continues in this country, one sees that appointment within the government as an opportunity to do something, an opportunity to try to bring about change. Anyone, such as Mr Gerry Hand, who is given the opportunity to take over as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, will try to grasp that opportunity to bring about some change and to achieve some different outcomes. To change the structures and the bodies within the portfolio, and perhaps to change the people, is not to change outcomes. What the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) has proposed is that he is going to change the structures and create, perhaps, some new winners and losers. He is going to alter the processes. But none of those things matter, none can be justified or are worth anything unless, at the same time, the Minister can tell us that he will change outcomes for Aboriginal people. It is not just a question of money, rhetoric or structures. I would like to examine what has been proposed in this document, Foundations for the Future. I would like to look at the context and what this document does to alter the context in which we operate, to look at the structures and the activities which are proposed, and to think a little bit about outcomes. Some parts of the document deserve praise. Whatever the drawbacks-and Senator Chaney drew attention to some of those-it is worth looking at the context which the Minister is trying to establish. Senator Vallentine does not know her history. It is a pity because she is committed and passionate. She says there has never been any statement of prior ownership. I am delighted that Mr Hand has decided to build upon the motion moved in this place in the 1970s by Liberal senator, Neville Bonner, a motion which was moved here on 19 September 1974. At that time, Senator Bonner moved a motion in the following terms: That the Senate accepts the fact that the indigenous people of Australia, now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, were in possession of this entire nation prior to the 1788 First Fleet landing at Botany Bay, urges the Australian Government to admit prior ownership by the said indigenous people, and introduce legislation to compensate the people now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders for dispossession of their land. That motion, proposed by Senator Bonner on 19 September 1974, was adopted unanimously by the Senate in this chamber on 20 February 1975. The Australian Senate at that time, by adopting that motion, admitted prior ownership, called for the Government to introduce legislation and called for compensation for dispossession. It is simply not correct to say that what Mr Hand has done is entirely new. But it is nonetheless welcome. The fact that Mr Hand wants to build upon the motion which Senator Bonner, as the only Aboriginal ever to serve as a parliamentarian in this Parliament, proposed some 13 years ago-a motion which this Senate was happy to endorse-seems to us to be a very important historical matter. I am just sorry that Mr Hand's statement made no reference to Senator Bonner, to his proposal, or to the endorsement by the Senate some 13 years ago of that motion. Mr Hand's statement acknowledges some of the measures of present disadvantage and unmet need. For that we are grateful. That is important. It accepts the need for self-determination on the part of Aboriginal people. It says: Aboriginal people need to decide for themselves what should be done-not just whatever governments think or say is best for them. That is fine, but it has to be qualified. Having been the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, I have to say that some of the things which Aboriginal people decide or feel should be done are often absolutely impractical and impossible to achieve. I remind the Senate that one of the Aboriginal activists, at the time the makarrata was being discussed, laid down as one of the prior conditions that there should be made available to Aboriginal people, a set percentage of the gross domestic product, free of tax, for 190 years. Senator Crichton-Browne —One per cent. Senator PETER BAUME —Was it? That was an ambit claim by an Aboriginal activist but we are not going to say that self-determination goes to that extent. There has to be some negotiation and brokerage. I accept and endorse self-determination but it, like anything else, has to be looked at within the realms of what is possible. Let us leave the question of context because what this document, Foundations for the Future, is really about is altering the structures which serve the Aboriginal community and through which programs are given to them. The changes which have been proposed are enormous. It is proposed that an Aboriginal affairs commission be established-that was the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Indeed, that has been done through the establishment of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. It will incorporate four existing bodies: the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Aboriginal Development Commission, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies and Aboriginal Hostels Ltd. So if this proposal is pushed through, the new body will be established and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is to go-to disappear. Its functions will cease. It will cease to operate as one of the departments of state. Why is that being done? This is the Department which, after a torrid time in the mid-1970s, went through the most searching departmental examination and analysis that I have ever known, came through that fire tempered and efficient and was the best department of state with which I was ever associated as a Minister. There is no doubt about that. It was a tough, lean, effective department. Why is the Department to go? It has an established record of achievement, it has established processes, established structures and established networks, it has existing expertise and it has long experience. Is what is in the mind of the Minister, Mr Hand, that he wants to Aboriginalise all activities to do with Aboriginal affairs? That may be a romantic idea, but he has got to understand that there is not an Aboriginal administrative cadre big enough to undertake that purpose and, if there is, it can only be done by bleeding all other Aboriginal organisations and other parts of the Aboriginal community of the expertise which they would otherwise have available to them. The whole idea that only Aboriginal people can administer the efforts of the Australian Government in relation to Aboriginal affairs is crazy. Do we argue that only veterans should be able to administer programs to do with veterans' affairs? Of course we do not. We understand that there are administrative purposes, administrative processes and administrative priorities which have to be done by trained and expert administrators. I ask why the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is to be abolished. If we are told that the same officers would go across to the new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, then we have to ask what is going to be achieved. We have not been told that, but if we were we would have to ask what the change will achieve. It will bring my friend and colleague Mr Charles Perkins into a position of greater power and influence and I have no objection to that, but that is not sufficient purpose in itself. The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies (AIAS) is to be disestablished. Senator Crichton-Browne —I will lose my job. Senator PETER BAUME —Senator Crichton- Browne will know, as those who served before him on the AIAS will know, that this is a body which is both distinguished and a specialised agency. It is an interface between the three groups-Aboriginal Australians, government and the academic community. It undertakes specialised jobs-for example, the recording of Aboriginal culture, the taking of oral history and the preservation of languages. It is a cultural body, again with a record of achievement, with networks, established procedures and quite expert staff. Are the staff to go across? Are they to be dismissed? It already has a very large Aboriginal component, as Senator Crichton-Browne will know from the meetings and, as time has gone on, the members of it have learnt to assert their wishes and have them put into action. I saw Mr Ken Colbung, whom I have known for many years, the other week. Senator Crichton-Browne —He is a friend of mine. Senator PETER BAUME —He is a friend of Senator Crichton-Browne's and he is the Chairman of the Institute of Aboriginal Studies. He was up here, very concerned about what these changes would mean, not just for his organisation but for the functions that it undertakes on behalf of Aboriginal people and the community. If it is to go, why is it to go? I invite honourable senators to look at the statement that has been made by the Minister, Mr Hand. Among some of the desirable objectives that he has set, he has offered no justification or explanation for why these organisations are to be brought together under this single umbrella. Let us look at the Aboriginal Development Commission. Senator Chaney was unduly modest. That was something that he steered through parliamentary processes and the Cabinet, and former Senator Neville Bonner delivered the second reading speech for the Bill that established it. It is a body that has come through a fairly turbulent few years to a position where it is now a successful, strong and much more effective body. Is it to go? What does the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) think about all this? I have today's Sydney Morning Herald in which Mrs Shirley McPherson, the Chairman of the ADC, had some things to say. She described the new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission as: nothing more than an upstart crow dressed in parrot's plumes. She went on to explain what she meant by saying that the decision: To replace the four main Federal Aboriginal affairs bodies, would be nothing more than the old department under a new name. Is she right or is she wrong? If she is right, will the Minister please explain what it is that he is setting out to do? If he intends to disestablish the ADC and pass all its assets, all the capacity that it has, to the new Commission, why is that being done? It is all very well the Minister telling us that he wants to create winners, but nothing in this world is cost free. There are costs and benefits and a prudent Minister would set out the costs as well as the benefits as he goes along. Finally, and most importantly, why is the Aboriginal Hostels Ltd going to be disestablished? This would be the most effective Aboriginal organisation that has existed in this country in the last 15 or 20 years. Its record is one of achievement. It produces outcomes. It houses Aboriginal people. If one wants to see what Aboriginal Hostels Ltd does, it will tell you what it does in terms of the number of houses built, the number of beds provided, the number of people in shelter. It is not a question of rhetoric; it is a question of performance; so why is it to be disestablished and brought under this new umbrella. What will happen in the outcome? Who will be taken across? When one looks at the question of structures, the Minister's statement raises as many, or more, questions-- Senator Tambling —Many more. Senator PETER BAUME —It raises many more questions than it attempts to answer. A structural analysis would lead us to say that the Minister proposes to disestablish a number of bodies which I think are good bodies, which have been effective bodies and which are ongoing bodies with expertise and good staff, which have been developing and training as they go. The Minister has done so without establishing sound reasons, without identifying the advantages to be gained and without identifying for us the cost to be paid, without setting out the arrangements to be made for the transfers and with no word of praise in his statement for the work, the history, the efforts, the achievements, the record or the commitment of any one of those four organisations. There is not a word of praise for the care, or for the achievements to which they can look back, nor a word of praise for distinguished Australians such as Lois O'Donoghue of Aboriginal Hostels, for example. They are distinguished Australians who have contributed so much. That is a pity, because the Minister is trying to help and to improve the situation and to leave his mark. Let us look at the processes of what the Minister wants to do. We see that he wants to set up this new Commission and, as Senator Tambling has said, a Federal structure in which Aboriginal people will have some input into the representation on the new Commission. Again, he has given only the briefest of outlines. The map enclosed in the statement worries me. I look at my own State of New South Wales and I see that, from just west of the Blue Mountains right up to the border of Queensland and South Australia is to be one region. I cannot remember how many National Aboriginal Conference (NAC) electorates that used to cover, but this will give anyone who is called on to represent that area an impossible task. Honourable senators who know Aboriginal Australia will know just how difficult it is for a single representative to represent such a large area. Senator Collins is in the chamber. With the old NAC electorates around Alice Springs, as they used to exist-Senator Tambling will confirm this-where several tribal areas were concerned in one electorate and the NAC member came from one or other of those communities, he would be accepted by one, but find it almost impossible to be an effective representative to others. There are very real worries about the activities and processes which the Minister has identified. Secondly, as other senators have said, the large number of people appointed to the Commission must give rise to some concern. Obviously, it is an attempt to maintain a maximum of ministerial control. There is no outline in the statement of the proposed accountability of the new Commission-accountability either to Aboriginal people or to the Parliament. Whether we like it or not, the new Commission will be giving effect to Government programs and Government policies. It will be using money provided from the general body of taxpayers. Questions of accountability are proper. They are proper for two reasons: firstly, because they apply to all of us and, secondly, and especially so, because in Aboriginal affairs in this country things just do not have to be clean; they have to be more than squeaky clean if we are to maintain the community consensus on which the funding of these programs exists. There is simply no mention of the accountability requirements. I will refer now to one of the problems in the Aboriginal affairs area; and I have to say this as someone who has been involved in the area. I am not talking about the fairytale picture that some people present of how we must do this and do that, et cetera. The reality of what happens is that Aboriginal people and Aboriginal organisations are as good, as bad, as dishonest, as honest, as the rest of the Australian community. They are no better and no worse. Anyone dealing in the area of Aboriginal affairs will discover that they are dealing with a number of saints and a number of criminals. Questions of accountability and responsibility are as applicable and important here as they are anywhere else. They are not covered in the statement, which is a pity. A rousseauean concept of Aboriginal Australia as a series of noble savages is not only wrong but also dangerous and demeaning. I think the statement of the Minister illustrates some tendency to take a rousseauean view. I think that is likely to be almost as flawed a view as that of the people of an opposite persuasion who tend to denigrate Aboriginal people because of their race and who tend to take a very destructively racist view of Aboriginal Australia. From my experience as Minister, the facts are that many Aboriginal individuals and organisations play the game impeccably. They use money responsibly. But many Aboriginal people and many Aboriginal organisations cheat outrageously. They cheat their fellows. The allocation of resources within Aboriginal communities is sometimes done by the most brutal means. They are often quite arbitrary. If a housing association is given money to build three houses when 20 houses are needed, who will get the three houses? Sometimes the decision making in that regard is entirely arbitrary; sometimes it owes more to kinship obligations than it does to questions of equity, as we would understand them. That is okay. However, we have to understand that these are the things that happen. I must say that there are management successes and management failures in Aboriginal affairs which have to be part of any analysis of changes which are proposed to be made. Finally, I refer to the question of outcomes. These are all that matter. Senator Chaney drew our attention to some figures, I think, on infant mortality. These are outcome measures. If we want to know whether we are doing well, it is not on the basis of what our intentions are, it is not what our rhetoric is; it is what we produce at the end of the day. There are few outcomes in this statement. I hope that there is a commitment not just to processes and structures to do with education, health, housing and employment but also to producing better outcomes. Certainly, that was what drove me. I said, `Give me the figures!'. For example, we could say that Aboriginal health figures were disgraceful. These were three times the sickness rates of non-Aboriginal communities. However, if they were looked at as a function of time we could see that they were improving rapidly. Outcome measures like that are what we have to seek. I invite honourable senators to look at the ministerial statement. There is very little in it about the outcomes which are being pursued-the outcomes which will be required by the Minister and which will be necessary to judge the success or otherwise of what he is doing. I think that it is highly desirable that Mr Hand, in taking the next step, should lay down those outcome measures by which he will judge his initiative, by which he will judge the success of what he is proposing in this statement and by which he will evaluate what he is hoping to undertake now. We will need to evaluate in the next few years the better outcomes which might be produced as a result of the Minister's initiatives. Nothing else will do in the end. It is only whether there are fewer Aborigines in gaol, more people in jobs, more people satisfied with the kind of lives they are living, more people whose children do not have trachoma, and so on. This is the greatest defect of the ministerial statement. It says nothing about outcomes. It indicates no performance outcomes which the Minister will require. If this paper by the Minister entitled Foundations for the Future brought down last week is but a precursor of other documents and other initiatives, then those of us who care about Aboriginal Australia will wait. We will wait to see what the Minister produces. I do not intend to prejudge. I do not intend to take a negative view. We will wait for more detail and we will wait for answers that are lacking at present. We will keep an open mind and we will continue to do what we can do to assist this Government or any government to help those Australians who are Aboriginal. That means keeping an open mind on these proposals and on the details as they emerge. However, all that we have at the present is a very broad statement of intent and an intimation of very severe structural change within the area of Aboriginal affairs with, as yet, no guarantee that any particular outcomes will flow. To be active and to change things is simply not enough. To be effective is necessary too. It is effectiveness that we will be seeking from the Government when it puts changes into place. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(10.37) -We are discussing a statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) entitled Foundations for the Future. The Government's proposals announced last week by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs are a milestone in the advancement of Aboriginal affairs. For the first time Aboriginals will be in charge of all matters in the Aboriginal affairs portfolio through an all Aboriginal commission. For the first time Aboriginal people throughout Australia will themselves have a say in selecting the people who will make the decisions on their behalf. For the first time Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in each region of Australia, however remote from Canberra, will have a voice in determining the priorities of their region. For the first time the Parliament will be acknowledging in legislation the plain and undeniable truth that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were the prior occupiers and original owners of Australia. I think it is significant, as Senator Peter Baume has pointed out, that these changes have been proposed 12 years after the first decision on this matter was made in this chamber. I would just like to emphasise that point because the draft preamble seeks to do no more than acknowledge the facts: Australia was inhabited before 1788; the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders did own the land according to their laws; they were dispossessed of the land-a fact that Parliament has previously acknowledged in section 3 of the Aboriginal Development Commission Act 1980; and they now have no recognised rights over that land other than those granted by the Crown. Those are plain unvarnished statements of truth. We are not rewriting history but surely we are mature enough as a nation to admit that European settlement in this country was based on a legal doctrine that can now be described only as an insult to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and to their rich, ancient and complex cultures. Recognition of prior ownership should do much to repair the understandable sense of grievance of Australia's indigenous peoples at the events of history. All non-Aboriginal Australians can surely welcome this as a just and necessary part of the processes of reconciliation. No Australian's back yard is threatened by this proposal. Some concern has also been expressed that the Government's proposals may create a system of claims for compensation. The proposed preamble acknowledges the fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were dispossessed without compensation. Surely that, too, is undeniable. Surely this fact was recognised 20 years ago when the Australian people voted overwhelmingly for the Commonwealth to have the power to do something for the Aboriginal people. To take action to overcome our national shame in this matter-it is a national shame-is most important. In attachment B to the Minister's statement, paragraph 3 states: (a) compensation for dispossession, where other measures of a compensatory nature, including the provision of land or special programs of assistance, are impracticable or inadequate . . . That is the simple fact of the matter, and that expresses the concern which I believe Australian people 20 years ago charged us with. I acknowledge in this debate the contribution of former Ministers, Senator Chaney and Senator Peter Baume, and I respect the views they have indicated. Senator Baume referred to outcomes. I am very confident that my colleague Mr Hand is just as sincere as they were, and I am also confident that this is the beginning of a new era. I will not continue; I will defer to my colleague Senator Collins who, I acknowledge, is an expert on this matter. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(10.43) —This morning we are discussing-I use the word advisedly-rather than debating the document titled Foundations for the Future, which is described as a policy statement. It is not legislation, but it sets out a number of matters in relation to the directions in which the Government is presumably intending to move. I particularly welcomed the remarks of Senator Vallentine and Senator Peter Baume this morning, with respect to the identification of a necessity for an attitudinal change as being far more important than a structural change. I was a little concerned, however, to note that Senator Baume pointed out that the Senate had moved a motion as long ago as 13 years, which called on the Government to legislate in this area. I simply draw attention to the fact that this legislation is still not on the books and that the policy document before us does not set out an intention to legislate, but rather to introduce a piece of legislation establishing a commission, the preamble to which would say certain things. I hope I will not be accused later on by Senator Peter Baume of having a rousseauean idea of a noble savage, but I do want to deal at some length with the contrast between Aboriginal attitudes to environment and the prevailing white cultural attitude to environment, because I think there are important differences that need to be picked up. I was a little concerned to hear Senator Chaney imply-I thought-that if only Aborigines were more like us, that is Europeans, somehow or other the problem would disappear. If I interpreted his remarks correctly, it seems to me that that may well be identified as the basis of much our problem, not the Aboriginal problem. The Australian Democrats welcome this policy statement, and again I draw attention to the fact that it is a policy statement, by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand). The statement is important for two reasons. Firstly, it is a statement of the Government's and the Minister's thinking at the present time, and it clarifies where we stand on this most important subject at the end of 1987, that is, on the eve of the so-called Bicentenary. Secondly, by setting out where we are, it defines how far we still have to go before we achieve a truly wholesome integrated and caring Australian society. On the one hand, the statement marks a considerable advance and, on the other, the very process of identifying the needs and the proposals for improvement underscores just how far we are as a society from the goal of reconciliation. It is perhaps significant that the statement is titled Foundations for the Future. Is it a foundation on which we can build the house which all Australians will want to call home after the next 200 years? It is impossible to consider this statement of Government intent with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples without also considering the meaning and purpose of the Bicentenary and what is meant by the word `Future' in the title. It is coincidental, but nonetheless moving, to note that 40,000 is 200 squared. We are about to celebrate 200 years of European occupation while Aboriginal people have been in Australia 200 times 200 years. Forty thousand years is an impossibly long time to imagine. By analogy, if a journey from Fremantle to Sydney represents the period of Aboriginal occupation of Australia, the period of European occupation is represented by a journey from Fremantle to Perth. Or, if the period of Aboriginal occupation is represented by one whole year, Europeans have been in this land for less than a quarter of an hour. We know that Aborigines inhabited this land for a very, very long time before Europeans came and expropriated that land. It is therefore a lie to pretend for a moment longer the legal fiction of terra nullius. Of course, Australia was not the only country in which land was forcibly acquired from its indigenous people and in which a continuous cultural clash has persisted for hundreds of years since that acquisition. The same occurred in North and South America and also in Africa. Europeans possessed two qualities in greater measure than indigenous people. They were more aggressive and they possessed superior arms. In 1987, as the super-powers point 50,000 nuclear warheads at each other, some of us at least have begun to wonder whether these qualities define those of European origin as superior or merely stupid. For in biological terms it is survival which is the ultimate value. Indigenous people learnt and incorporated into their culture a range of attitudes, behaviour patterns and social customs which allowed them to live within the ability of their environment to sustain itself for very long periods of time. In contrast, homo sapiens europeanensis has developed a relationship of exploitation and pillage to the environment, which is clearly not sustainable for any reasonable length of time. It is Europeans who must relearn that which lies at the core of indigenous cultures, indeed which was at the heart of our culture until just a few thousand years ago. Thus it is the Europeans who must change and re-adopt that reverence for the environment which was, and still is in part, the mainspring of Aboriginal culture. There are broadly two things wrong with this statement Foundations for the Future. Firstly, it fails to address adequately the matter of prior occupancy and so-called Aboriginal land claims; and secondly, it still treats Aboriginal culture as having no relevance to mainstream Australia, with no contribution to make to a new, viable and embracing Australian culture. It creates mechanisms to incorporate Aboriginal people into the existing mainstream Aboriginal culture of Australia which necessarily involves a rejection of that part of their culture which both they and we need for our very survival. Earlier this year the Government passed legislation which specifically rejected Victoria's acknowledgment of prior Aboriginal occupancy. In the document now before us it is proposed to establish a commission, by legislation the preamble to which officially recognises for the first time that `Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia were the prior occupiers and original owners of this land'. I accept what Senator Baume has said with respect to that claim. As part of a preamble it is doubtful what force, if any, such words would have in law. The Australian Democrats have always held the view that prior occupation by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples must be established in law. That is the true and just position and we must not shirk the responsibility which such legal recognition would place upon us by cleverness with the use and the placing of words. The Opposition claimed quite recently that even including such words in a preamble `could be used to undermine the constitutional framework of Australia'. I remind members of the Opposition that as recently as 1981, when they were in government, they said: The Government is prepared to acknowledge prior occupation of Australia by Aboriginals. I hope that what they meant by that was that they were prepared to acknowledge that by way of legislation. So the Democrats make a plea that both the present Government and the Opposition support writing into legislation recognition of the prior occupation of Australia by Aboriginal people. But it is not legislation which is now before us so I also make the plea that both the Government and the Opposition make a commitment to support in principle this legal recognition. Of course, the legality of land rights will flow from such recognition, and so it should. The European attitude to land-as something to be exploited, its resources turned to profit and the land left denuded and derelict-must be changed and where better to learn this new attitude than from that part of the Australian population which managed this land for 40,000 years? I would like to quote Patrick Dodson on the Aboriginal attitude to land, and contrast that with the exploitative attitude of European settlers. He said: For the Aboriginal people, land is a dynamic notion, something creative. Land is not bound by geographical limitations placed on it by a surveyor, who marks out an area and says, `This is your plot'. Land is the generation point of existence, the maintenance of existence, the spirit from which Aboriginal existence comes. Land is a living place made up of sky, clouds, rivers, trees, the wind, the sand and the spirit has created all these things, the spirit that planted my own spirit here, my own country. It is something-and yet it is not a thing-it is a living entity. It belongs to me, I belong to the land. I rest in it. I come from there. Land is a notion that is most difficult to categorise in English law, but it is something that is very clear in Aboriginal law. The limitations of my land are clear to me and to those people who belong in my group. Land provides for my physical needs and provides for my spiritual needs. It is a regeneration of stories. New stories are sung from contemplation of the land, stories are handed down from spirit men of the past who have deposited the riches at various places. The sacred places are not just simply geographically beautiful. They are holy places, even more holy than shrines, but not commercialised. They are sacred. The greatest respect is shown to them and they are used for the regeneration of history-the regeneration of Aboriginal people, the continuation of their life. That is where they begin and that is where they return. And that is precisely where we, the Europeans who have occupied this land, must also return. What we call Australian culture was brought into Australia from the United Kingdom and Ireland. Our culture was brought from somewhere else. It totally excluded the Aborigines and made them marginal in their own land so that they neither received from the culture nor contributed to it; we simply pushed them aside. The categorisation of land according to whether or not it is used commercially is a reflection of an emphasis upon meeting the needs of consumers. It is one example of the error of materialism whereby directly or indirectly the spiritual and personal-human dignity, community and moral values-is subordinated to material reality. The cultural meaning of land is limited to its physical or material usefulness and that marks the contrast between the European and the Aboriginal attitude to land. There are a number of ways in which we might address this problem, and I would just like to mention a couple. Several years ago the issue of Aboriginal land claims in Western Australia was very prominent. During the time when this issue was being strongly and publicly debated in Western Australia the Australian Mining Industry Council (AMIC) launched a massive campaign to defeat those Aboriginal land claims. I have made the point before in this chamber, and I make it again, that we have created structures which place far greater emphasis on commercial considerations that on considerations of elements of sacredness towards land, to which I referred a moment ago, to the extent that AMIC was able to claim all its advertising expenses incurred in defeating those Aboriginal land claims as tax deductions, whereas those who had the public interest at heart, those who had the Aboriginal interest at heart, to the extent that they wished to advertise their points of view, could do so only out of income on which income tax had already been paid. Again I stress that the use of tax deductibility in this way is a pernicious mechanism by which the emphasis on commercial exploitation is able to express dominance over a caring attitude. Secondly I refer to the Governor-General's Speech-I did so in my maiden speech-which indicates that the Government is placing emphasis on greater competitiveness in Australian society. The Governor-General, in his Speech, said that we need to become more competitive. That is precisely the direction which takes us further away from the indigenous culture of the Aborigine-a culture which placed great emphasis on co-operation and caring, an emphasis which we need to rediscover if we are to survive in this land for a further 200 years. Thirdly, one could point to a migration program in which we seek to bring in people who have already learnt the art of exploitation in their own countries-I refer to those who have more than half a million dollars-yet we place no requirements on our migrant intakes in relation to their care and knowledge of the land. Indeed, several weeks ago I spoke to Aborigines who said to me that, if they were outside this country seeking admission, they would probably not be admitted to Australia as migrants. Fourthly, one can point to the way in which some aspects of Aboriginal culture have been superficially incorporated into white culture; for example the buying and selling of Aboriginal art and the use of Aboriginal dance as a means of entertainment for which money is paid. It seems to me that those things represent a prostitution of the function of those forms of expression and I believe that we need to move further towards the attitude of Aboriginal culture to such expressions, rather than embrace the exploitative attitude that is present in white society. I conclude by saying that we need to change our attitudes. We need to adopt the attitudes which are present within the Aboriginal culture. One of the advantages which we might gain from the so-called Bicentenary is to use it as a time for stocktaking, a time in which rather than telling the Aborigines that we are prepared to incorporate them into the mainstream of white society, and how we will do that, we tell them that we recognise their prior ownership of the land and the elements within their indigenous culture which are not only necessary to Aboriginal survival but are also vital to the survival of every civilisation on the face of this planet. If we go down that road, we will eventually come to the point where we have a new and different culture-one which cares for the environment, takes a longer term view and attempts to live in conformity with the ability of the environment to maintain itself and survive. Eventually, when we reach that goal we will no longer need a Department of Aboriginal Affairs, an Aboriginal Commission or anything else because we will, indeed, be one people. That is what we should be working towards. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(11.03) —We are speaking about the policy statement Foundations for the Future, concerning the reorganisation of our administrative organs for Aboriginal affairs. It represents a massive reorganisation, but I do not see any encouraging signs that this reorganisation will be any more beneficial than those we have had in the past. However, it comes at a time when there have been some very encouraging signs about an approaching comity between the traditional Aboriginal people and our own Australian society. One of those encouraging signs was mentioned in the debate this morning-that is, the ability of the tribal Aboriginals to establish themselves in a working relationship at local government level. The other sign, which is happening at this very minute, is the traditional Aborigines' ability to adapt themselves to the adversary type of legal system that we have in Australia. I will expound on these later, but I think it is encouraging that the tribal people are advancing in both these areas and it is only in the last few years that they have been able to do so. Ownership of land has been mentioned today, as has the definition of an Aboriginal. I am pleased that the representatives of areas which are particularly associated with Aborigines have brought up those matters because I think they are fundamental. Our tribal Aborigines are precious to us and they do not particularly recognise people who are non-traditional Aborigines. In fact, they say that they are the white man's problem, that they represent the results of colonisation. I suppose that we could say they represent the results of many private treaties that have been reached over the years. The issue of the treaty has been brought up lately. I know that the tribal Aboriginals do not want a treaty because they do not regard themselves as being members of a different nation from the rest of Australia. In fact, they regard themselves as Australians. When I have spoken to them, over many years, I have found that by and large the traditional Aborigines do not even want the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. They say it is interfering with their family and tribal discipline. They say that they are Australians and that there is already an education department, a health department and all the other departments. They just want to fit in with those and they feel that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs interferes with their discipline. At the time of the construction of the land councils-the three major ones in the Northern Territory were the Central, Northern and Tiwi land councils-I talked to the tribal elders when the Government was trying to arrange an election for the people to administer the councils. The tribal elders said, `Well, we cannot stand for election; we are already in charge of our areas and if you want us to stand for election to administer some other fellow's land then we cannot do it'. We wound up appointing a whole lot of unrepresentative councils that had no real authority over the tribal areas. In fact, I found that tribal areas were well demarcated. The Aborigines knew them very well and had a very sound administration of them. If anybody wanted to come on to their land he had to stand on the border. They could tell from the way he was standing and carrying his equipment whether he wanted to hunt on the land, just pass through or possibly court a girl. The penalties for trespass on the land were very severe. As I have said, ownership has been mentioned this morning. The Aborigines' idea of ownership is entirely different from the European idea. It is a kind of spiritual ownership. The Aborigines count themselves as part of the land, wind, trees and streams. When we come along and want to buy land or have any control over its administration, they say, `Well, how do we sell you the wind and the rain? How do we sell you the smell of the flowers in springtime?'. These are all part of the Aborigines' idea of land ownership. Their dreaming over the land is important to them and is part of their ownership. In fact, the dreaming can go over hill and dale and over the next area of land administration. It can go over pastoral leases, drilling rigs and towns, and still the Aborigine feels that that establishes part of his ownership and control. The talk of prior ownership and compensation is not part of what the tribal Aborigines are on about at all. It was mentioned here that there are saints and sinners among the Aborigines as there are amongst the rest of us. I have been reading bits and pieces about the land council hearings taking place in the Northern Territory at the moment. It seems that the land councils have not taken particular trouble to identify the local traditional owners of areas that are liable to attract royalty benefits from mining and drilling companies. Payments could have been made to the wrong people. Consideration has not been given to the traditional owners as it should have been, but traditional owners are appearing out of the woodwork and approaching the Northern Territory Government and the courts to assert their rights. I think that this is as it should be. I am sorry that they have had the trouble; they should have been able to go through their own land administration. But it is one of the most fruitful developments that we have seen lately-the traditional people are now becoming adapted to our adversary system of law and are using it for their own benefit. If they are capable of doing that and establishing their own areas of land administration where they have authority, this will give us a chance to get rid of those unrepresentative land councils that have no real authority over the traditional Aborigines. Sacred sites have been referred to as big areas. The ones that I found were not big; in fact, they were quite small. They were about as big as the table in the chamber. A man by the name of Tjuringa is in charge of the sacred sites. Abori-gines have elders. Some are in charge of singing, some are in charge of sacred sites, some are in charge of education and some are in charge of discipline. The man named Tjuringa is in charge of the sacred sites. That is where they have all their carved stones, wood, relics and paraphernalia that is precious to them. They are not gigantic areas, or spheres of influence or any of the other things they have been described as over the years, but these areas are precious to the Aborigines and should be kept. I notice that a new restructuring of all the departments that have been administering Aboriginal affairs will be put into the one bucket and stirred. One can only hope that the results will be satisfactory. We have had a big debate on this matter in this chamber. I just hope that the encouraging signs that I have mentioned this morning-namely, the ability of our tribal Aborigines to participate in local government and to have successful contact with our legal court system-will not be hurt in any way by this re-organisation and that we can develop and build on those things and not lose the progress that has already been made. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(11.12) —I wish to make a short statement on this matter. I think the debate this morning has indicated the success of this policy statement. People with different points of view have all contributed, I think constructively, to this question. It therefore follows that this statement has been successful in that respect. Perhaps it is worth while analysing just what this statement is. It is a policy statement. It is not a detailed blueprint for action in the future; it is not a text book on Aboriginal affairs; it is not a biography of people deserving praise; it is not a history book; it is not a confession of past wrongs; nor is it a constitutional treatise. It has been approached by different speakers as if it were one or other of those things. Whereas those contributions have been useful, I think they also indicate a misunderstanding of what the policy statement is all about. It is a statement for the future. It is a very hopeful statement. It is a statement which is optimistic, and so it should be, because I think-the debate this morning has indicated this-that there is a determination that the past, which has until recently been a horrible past, shall be redressed in the future and that positive things will flow from it. I will quickly go through the statement. It is a 20-page document. On the first page it states: Aboriginal people need to decide for themselves what should be done-not just take whatever governments think or say is the best for them. Of course, it is in the context that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission is to be set up. The Commission will be staffed and run by people who are elected by the Aboriginal community throughout Australia. On page 3 there is the question of the preamble to the enabling Act in which it is stated that the Aboriginals had prior right to the land, having been the occupants of it before non-Aboriginals came to Australia. The preamble itself is set out on page 10, attachment A. It is really a statement of fact. It is important that the facts be stated as to the constitutional impact of statements such as who has owned land in the past. I would have thought that the Act would need to contain something more solemn than simply the preamble to give it constitutional validity. But perhaps that is a matter to discuss later on. In any event, it is very important, as people have conceded here this morning-they have welcomed the statement-that such a statement be made. On page 4 of the document the Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation is discussed. Again, that is something that is long overdue. It flows out of the report of the Miller Committee of Review of Aboriginal Employment and Training Programs. It attempts-I have every confidence that the attempt will be successful-to give the Aboriginal people an opportunity to develop an economic basis for their future. Page 5 deals with the Aboriginal land base. That, again, has been discussed quite considerably over the years. On pages 6 and 7 the recent achievements in Aboriginal affairs are discussed. This document is comprehensive, but necessarily short because it is a policy statement. As I say, it is not a text book on Aboriginal affairs. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), who has prepared it, on the advice of many, particularly in the Aboriginal community, deserves congratulations and praise. He has been a Minister for only a short time. Although there have been good Ministers in the past, including Senator Peter Baume, who is in the chamber, I can say this about the present Minister: There has not been better. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.17) —It was not my intention to speak today, but I am moved to do so not by emotion but by the fact that there seems to be some lack of balance in what has been said. I believe that the contributions have been made in a very genuine and sincere way. I would agree with most of what has been said, with some notable exceptions, but it seems to me that a fundamental part of this statement has not been addressed fully. I refer to the dispossession of Aboriginal land by European occupation and the fact that there has been no previous recognition or acknowledgment of their prior ownership. As Senator Cooney said, we seem to spend a lot of our time confessing past wrongs: unless one has the eastern seaboard, middle class social conscience of guilt, one has no compassion, care, empathy or understanding of the Aboriginal community. It seems that the criterion for having some understanding and care for the Aboriginal community is to believe that all their problems can be solved by throwing buckets of money at them and making altruistic statements. We talk about self-determination and then spend the rest of our time telling the Aboriginal community what is good for it. I want to labour for a moment the question of prior ownership and its legal implications. This statement has been put down by the Labor Government. It seeks to sheet down the question of the legality of prior ownership. The premise is that the contemporary Aboriginal race in Australia has a legal claim to all land in Australia. The debate as put by Mr Hand and by his predecessor, Mr Holding, is not about small pieces of land; it is all about who legally owns Australia. As Mr Hand's statement says, it is the Government's proposal `to acknowledge that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people were the prior occupiers and original owners of this land'. Is that an emotional, altruistic statement, meaning nothing, or is it intended to have consequences? My guess is that it is intended to have consequences-legal consequences. I am reminded of the submission of the Western Australian branch of the National Aboriginal Conference to the Seaman Aboriginal Land Inquiry set up by the Burke Labor Government in Western Australia to inquire into Aboriginal land rights. It is not without significance that, ultimately, notwithstanding the fact that Seaman brought down recommendations for the granting of very extensive parts of Western Australia to the Aboriginal community, the Government shelved the recommendations. The Western Australian branch of the National Aboriginal Conference had this to say to that inquiry: The Aboriginal people of Western Australia have sovereign rights to the land through prior ownership and occupation. These rights have never and never will be ceded by them. Accordingly, the aspirations of Aboriginal people with regard to land will not be satisfied until these sovereign rights are addressed and dealt with by legislation. The submission of the Aboriginal Development Commission to the same inquiry, under the heading `Land Rights-the Philosophy and Purpose', had this to say: The policies of the Aboriginal Development Commission are based upon the clear recognition of the prior occupation and ownership of the Australian continent by Aboriginal Australians. The National Aboriginal Conference discussion paper tells us: It may be argued that the Aboriginal people as a sovereign nation were deprived of the continent of Australia in 1788, and have continued as a sovereign nation who seek the restoration of their lands. This argument is supported by reference to violence perpetrated upon Aboriginal peoples over this period of nearly 200 years, and with the absence of any treaty or agreement concluding the state of war which has continued to exist. Mr Clyde Holding, the then Minister for Abori-ginal Affairs, told the House of Representatives on 8 December 1983, inter alia: The prior ownership of Australia by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people must be acknowledged by this Parliament and understood by all Australians. His motion in the House of Representatives on the same day stated: The peoples whose descendants are now known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of Australia were the prior occupiers and original owners of Australia . . . From the time of arrival of representatives of King George III of England and the subsequent conquest of the land and the subjugation of the Aboriginal people, no settlement was concluded between those representatives and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people. In an address to the Conference on Aboriginal and International Law, Mr Holding said, in part: That is not to say that Parliament of this country, on behalf of the citizens of this country, cannot recognise the prior ownership by the Aboriginal people of the continent. Nor do I suggest that the conquest of this continent by non-Aboriginal forces should be ignored or disguised as peaceful settlement. Quite the contrary, I hold the strong personal view that unless and until those matters are recognised both on a community basis and by way of formal recognition in the Parliament of Australia, this nation will lack integrity and credibility in the field of human rights in the eyes of its own citizens as well as of the international community. All the policies which my Government are currently pursuing are based firmly on the recognition and acknowledgment of Aboriginal prior ownership and their dispersal and dispossession. That position is restated in this document. It is understood by most people that these arguments of prior occupation and ownership are not irrelevant to the case for land rights. They are not altruistic, academic statements. The words `occupation' and `ownership' are vital to the legal arguments involved in land rights. They are the basis upon which the land rights activists and, presumably, the draftsmen of this document base their justification for granting land rights to the Aboriginal community. If it is held that the Aboriginal people had prior ownership of Australia in the legal sense, that in itself has very significant ramifications. Ownership in the legal sense means that there was an Aboriginal nation which had a complete social, economic and political structure. If that proposition is to be accepted, it follows automatically that Australia was not settled or occupied by white people but was invaded. The distinction between occupation or settlement and conquest, as I say, is not purely academic. The difference is particularly significant for land rights. In the case of conquest, it is generally recognised that privately owned property in a territory which has been acquired by conquest remains unaffected by the transfer of sovereignty, unless or until the new sovereign brings about some alteration in its condition by means of his own domestic law. In the case of occupation or settlement, on the other hand, the basic assumption is that no rights existed at the time of occupation. The question of how sovereignty was acquired is, therefore, directly relevant to the validity of land rights and to compensation for unlawful dispossession or acquisition of private land. It goes without saying that if Australia was terra nullius at the time-in other words, if it was territory belonging to no one or a piece of territory not under the sovereignty of any state-then occupation was by settlement and, if not, by invasion. The issue of terra nullius does not rest on whether Australia was inhabited but on whether there was an Aboriginal nation with recognisable legislative, executive and judicial organs-in other words, a nation in the proper sense. That is the legal definition of whether a country or territory is terra nullius or is occupied. That is the argument we are confronted with when we look at the legal position in respect of the Aboriginal community. Hence the significance of the comments made by Clyde Holding and the present Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Their argument is that, prior to white settlement, Australia was occupied by a sovereign nation in the proper sense of the word with a social, political and economic structure and recognisable legislative, executive and judicial organs. Mr Holding said, in a moment of weakness, that the question of sovereignty is not politically acceptable yet he supports it and goes on to say that Labor policies are based on the premise of prior ownership and of British invasion. He talks about British invasion-that is accepted-which changes the argument about land rights. If one accepts the idea of invasion one accepts, ipso facto, that land rights follow by right and not by need. Notwithstanding that view, that claim has been tested in court on at least two occasions of which I am aware. It was defeated in the Nabalco Pty Ltd case, where the Yolunga people sought to claim prior title at Gove. In the case of Coe v. the Commonwealth, Coe sought the annexation of the eastern coast of Australia, claiming that Captain Cook had not annexed it properly in 1788. Sovereignty means an exclusive and indivisible power and capacity for self-government, together with international recognition of that power. The Australian Labor Party seems to argue, as do others, that prior to white settlement Aborigines had a sovereign nation. Of course, we have to remember that a sovereign nation refers to people and not to land. We all appreciate that once one puts aside the legal question, the argument for land rights becomes very much subjective, and the wider issues of equity, justice, need and fairness become consequential. The argument becomes a political one and not a legal one. It is important that that be spelt out and put on the record so that we understand the implications, ramifications and, presumably, the reasons that this document tells us that there has been dispossession, that there was prior ownership and prior occupation. If one accepts that in a legal sense, one approaches the question of land rights from a different direction. One ignores and dismisses the question of equity and fairness and, as Senator Chaney said, the granting of land rights on the basis of need and not of right. There are a couple of other matters that I wish to refer to. Mr Hand, in relation to the compact or understanding, stated: There is a widely held belief that we cannot come to terms with our history unless we reach some form of compact, agreement, treaty or Makarrata-the name is not significant-between the Aboriginal and Islander and non-Aboriginal people. I assume that that is Mr Hand's view. His argument is that we must have a compact, a treaty or a makarrata. I am always fascinated when I hear this term `makarrata'. It is not used lightly or by accident. The word `makarrata' is an east Arnhem Land word which means the coming together after a dispute involving the letting of blood or physical violence. When there is a disagreement amongst Aborigines, they have what they call a makarrata; they come together and there is retribution by the letting of blood. So a makarrata is the coming together after the letting of blood and retribution. On the question of land rights I say this: it ought not be forgotten that those who originally suffered-and there were many-deprivation, cruelty and improper treatment, are no longer alive. That goes back to the time of the Napoleonic wars. I do not mind those in the community who have a social conscience about what their forefathers did. I, for my part, seek to make my judgments about what is good for the Aboriginal community based on their needs now, not on guilt as to what people did at the time of the Battle of Waterloo. I conclude that point by saying that, in respect of compensation for past losses, the concept remains in modern law, except that it is now called reparation. I thought we learnt something from the Treaty of Versailles, from the First World War, when we had reparation. The Treaty of Versailles instilled a spirit of vengeance and hate. It was put aside in the Second World War because of what happened in the First World War. It is regrettable that when we have debates of this nature there is inhibition and a lack of frankness. I am sad that people do not have the courage-presumably they do not have the conviction-to debate the real problems that confront the Aboriginal community. Recognition of prior ownership might give a warm inner glow to some in the community, but I do not know what problems it solves. I do not know how it overcomes the problems of alcohol, disease, lack of housing, a general lack of health and a lack of proper education. I do not know how it solves those problems. The clever thing, to show some concern about Aboriginal communities and Aborigines as a whole, is to talk about land rights. There is a great deal to be said about confronting the enormous, debilitating problem that alcoholism is causing the Aboriginal community and the devastation it wreaks not only on children but also on adults. It is a tragedy that we do not have the courage to debate the question of education. In many white communities in Australia, Aboriginal children are starting school in grade one-working on the premise that their English is as good as that of the white children. We ignore the fact that they start at grade one and end in grade seven, still not being able to speak proper English. We ask ourselves why they leave school illiterate, unqualified, without the capacity for a meaningful job. We put that aside by saying, `They are there; they are equal; they are in the same class'. Rather than having the courage to deal with the problem of their education, we seek to brush it under the carpet and to dismiss it. We seek to ignore the fact that alcohol, as I said earlier, is causing so much grievous harm and so many problems in the Aboriginal community. Because we feel it would be discriminatory to seek to deal with it in a meaningful way, we ignore it. Anybody who has had anything to do with Aboriginal communities knows that it is the single biggest problem that leads to so many illnesses and problems for the parents and subsequently for the children. I am sorry that the statement does not give meaningful substance to the intentions of this Government, other than stating that it intends to bring all parts of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs under one roof-presumably, as Senator Peter Baume said, with the intention of Aboriginalising the Department. To damage and destroy organs, such as the Institute of Aboriginal Studies, is, in my view, a major step backwards, having regard to just one contribution that could be made. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(11.40) —I thank Senator Crichton-Browne for one thing at least: he identified the crucial issue in the whole debate on Aboriginal affairs, and that is the issue of sovereignty. Australia was not occupied, Australia was not settled, Australia was invaded. Of that there is no doubt. The name of whatever treaty is entered into is significant because what we name the treaty goes to the heart of how we consider the parties involved in the treaty. I would like to quote from another document which addresses the Foundations for the Future. It is entitled `Aboriginal Sovereign Position and Legal Entitlement for Negotiating a Treaty Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties with the Australian ``Government'' in Order to Enshrine Aboriginal Sovereign Rights and Create the Foundations for Black/White Relations in this Land Based on Land, Life, Law, Justice and Peace'. This document was produced by Aboriginal people. I would like to let it speak for itself, if I may. The summary of the document in the preamble is that: Sovereignty has always inhered in the Aboriginal People of this land now known as `Australia'. From the Beginning, the practice of customary and traditional ownership and possessory right has been held inviolate with the Aboriginal Nations and from these sovereign Rights, all legal and social rights flow. The preamble goes on to say: Aboriginal sovereignty still inheres in the Aboriginal People of this land: it has never been extinguished by cession, by treaty, nor by formal purchase, nor by conquest; neither was it acquired by the invaders, the British Australians, by peaceful settlement of an uninhabited land. Our land has been inhabited since the Beginning and resistance to invasion was so aggressive and protracted that the frontier has been described as a line of blood. This resistance has never ceased nor abated to this present day. In order to enshrine our Sovereign Rights we pursue a Sovereign Treaty under international law with the `Australian Government'. That is the Aboriginal position which we must address. A compact or a makarrata is not a sovereign treaty because it can be amended by legislation. It is nothing more than a contract between a sovereign group and its subjects. We have to address the question of Aboriginal sovereignty and look to Aboriginal proposals for the settlement of this dispute and for the resolution of this conflict. Senator Crichton-Browne was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Its report entitled 200 Years Later contains in appendix 1, 24 demands as proposed by the National Aboriginal Conference. I will not read them because time does not allow me to do so. These demands cover self-government, land, the payment of a percentage of gross national income to the Aboriginal people, national parks, the right to art works and artefacts, rights to hunting, the right to all mineral and other resources, the recognition of Aboriginal customary law, Aboriginal schools and freehold title and ownership. In 1983 we had proposals from Aboriginal people as a starting point for the development of some sort of process to deal with Aboriginal sovereignty and the settlement of this conflict. Senator Crichton-Browne —The Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee report did not recommend a makarrata. Senator WOOD —Senator Crichton-Browne has had enough of a say today. Senator Crichton-Browne —Do you mean you cannot answer the question? Senator WOOD —I did not interrupt Senator Crichton-Browne during his address and I resent his interruptions now. There has been a preoccupation among certain speakers in this debate with the difference between tribal and urban Aboriginal people. There was talk about part Aboriginal people. How is it that we hear everywhere that there are part Aboriginal people but we do not hear of part white people, part Europeans, part Italians or part Greeks? A person's identity is defined by the community to which the person belongs and the community which recognises that person. An Aboriginal person is an Aboriginal person whether he is born and brought up in an urban environment or a traditional tribal environment. The problem with the statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) and the problem with the sort of process that is being addressed here is that they assume a certain structure for the Aboriginal people to organise themselves within. They assume that there is some sort of national body which will deal and negotiate with the Australian Government. The structure of this body is defined by European culture. We are imposing on the Aboriginal people the sort of structure with which we want them to manage their affairs. It seems to me that we need to allow the Aboriginal people the opportunity to develop their own structures coming out of their culture and their traditions and to develop an authentic national Aboriginal system of consultation. From there we should adjust our own cultural and legal frameworks to meet the needs of Aboriginal culture rather than impose our own frameworks upon them. I wish to give time to Senator Collins. He in this place and his colleague Warren Snowdon in the other place have spoken eloquently and with passion about the Aboriginal people. I wish to hear what Senator Collins has to say. I wish to address the issue of next year which I, quite frankly, would prefer to call 1987A. I would like not to think of there being a 1988. I ask: What are we celebrating? We are celebrating an invasion. We are celebrating rape, murder, torture and theft. As non-Aboriginal people, as a European culture, we are cutting ourselves off from our feelings and our history by denying the reality of history and celebrating a manufactured history, a pretend history, a public relations view of history. The year 1987A, or 1988 if one prefers, should be a year not for celebration but for reflection. It should be a year not for new beginnings but for the carrying through of statements that have been made time and again. I was here in 1972 when the Aboriginal tent embassy was set up on the front lawns of Parliament House. I saw the Whitlam Government's attempts to do something to bring justice for the Aboriginal people. Time and time again these attempts have stalled and we have had new schemes. What is required is the pursuit of long, protracted, but absolutely necessary negotiations with the sovereign Aboriginal nations. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(11.50) —I thank Senator Wood for the courtesy he has shown in curtailing his speech so that I can make a few remarks. Unfortunately, of course, with only 10 minutes to go I will have to trim my sails somewhat. I was going to refer to some of the positive contributions made to this debate this morning by Senators Tambling, Chaney and Childs-and I must say, in particular, the contribution made by Senator Peter Baume. But I do not have time for that. So in the 10 minutes that I have I just want to address a number of issues that underlie the statement. I do so in the full knowledge that this matter inevitably will come back before this chamber before too long, so I am not too concerned about running out of time this morning. Senator Cooney certainly nailed it down: this document is not a textbook, nor is it a detailed treatise on the administrative structures that will be provided. It is a policy statement. But, with some degree of feeling, I wish to add my voice, even though it has been said before, to the contribution made by Senator Baume this morning. It is quite incorrect to say that this is the first public acknowledgment of the prior ownership of this land by Aboriginal people. The landmark motion moved in the Senate by former Senator Bonner still stands as a very profound statement. Along with a number of others, I regret that, although it was carried unanimously in this chamber, it was never carried in the House of Representatives. Another point I want to make very quickly is that the 1976 Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, which was introduced into this Parliament and which has operated since then, has as its very basis the recognition of prior ownership by Aboriginal people. It is indeed the very foundation-stone upon which that Act functions. It is by proving prior ownership before the land commissioner who operates under that Act that Aboriginal people can assert, in the Northern Territory at least, their right to be given crown title to land. The preamble is an important part of this document. In response to that age old question `What's in a name?' I do not flinch from saying that the answer is, as it has always been, `a great deal'. How could I flinch from saying that when I am on the public record as supporting this makarrata, treaty or otherwise, not only in the Northern Territory Parliament on many occasions but also in this chamber. The name is important because it embodies precisely what it is that we are trying to do. Senator Baume went over the history of the original treaty which moved to makarrata. Indeed, I have spoken in this chamber previously about some of the misconceptions that surrounded even that name. What we get at the end of the line is important. But I refer honourable senators to what is contained in this document in view of the comment made by Senator Vallentine this morning when, distinguishing the difference between what is contained in this document and Senator Bonner's motion, she said that what is contained in here embodies a legal right rather than a moral right. I just point out to honourable senators that it does precisely the opposite. Page 10 of the document states: AND WHEREAS they were dispossessed of their land by subsequent European occupation and have no recognised rights over it other than those granted by the Crown; It may well be that something may appear in the Bill which will follow this preamble at some stage and which may change this situation somewhat; but that is what is in this document. The question of consultation is important. The fundamental thrust of this document is correct in that it is trying to put decision making back into the hands of Aboriginal people. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) has been very specific about his desire to consult broadly on this matter. By doing so I simply assume-I think I have a right to do so-that he will take on board the very hard-nosed-I do not think that is too strong a word-feelings already expressed on this matter by the Aboriginal Development Commission, and indeed the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. They are legitimate Aboriginal points of view and I have no doubt that the Minister will take them on board. Senator Tambling said a number of things that I wish to discuss as quickly as I can. He said that there is no reference in this document to consultation with non-Aboriginal people. I point out to Senator Tambling that reference to that occurs twice in this document. Both references are to be found on page 4. One is specifically directed to consultation with non-Aboriginal people; the other, a more general reference, talks about refining options put forward by the Australian community for consideration by the Government; so the Minister has taken that on board. Senator Tambling also made some references to a perception of this body as a black parliament. I would like to disabuse anyone who thinks that is so. It is an unfair comparison because the organisation will be an advisory body-I stress that-to the Minister. It has no more status as an advisory body to the Minister than has any other board set up to do the same sort of work; so, to consider it to be a black parliament is unfair. I have some very strong views on the matter of black parliaments, and I am on the record as putting those views. It is my view that, rather than setting up a black parliament, as the National Aboriginal Conference presumed to be, all major political parties in this country have an absolute obligation instead to do everything in their power to get Aboriginal people into the real parliament rather than setting up some alternative structure. I have to say that I probably have better credentials than anyone else in public life in Australia for asserting that. Hopefully, at some stage we will see Aboriginal people back in the Federal Parliament as they have been-at least in the one isolated case of Senator Bonner-in the past. I want to make another important point in respect of something Senator Tambling said. He talked about the great powers of this proposed organisation and `the disbursement of very large sums of money'. I assure Senator Tambling that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission has no such power; it may well be that there will be some Aboriginal objection to that at some future time. I refer Senator Tambling to two parts of the document to satisfy his puzzled frown. Page 12 states: The Commission would be responsible for formulation and implementation of general policy, including budgets, subject to the powers of the Minister. That is not a mistake; it has been very deliberately put in there and in fact is expanded upon at page 18 which, again relating to powers, states: . . . in the light of regional priorities, develop budgetary proposals for the Minister's approval. It will in fact advise the Minister on budgets. It will set priorities, but-I refer Senator Tambling to the document-the disbursements of money under these arrangements will be made, as they are now, by the responsible Minister. Senator Tambling made a reference to nepotism and his fear that Aboriginal people will use this organisation to accommodate their relatives. I have some feelings about this. That may well happen. But nepotism is not a personal trait confined exclusively to Aboriginal people. I know of some members of this Parliament who have employed their wives and indeed their children in their electorate offices-so nepotism is hardly a fault that can be confined exclusively to Aboriginal people. I wish to finish on the question of zones because I have made representations to the Minister about them, as has the honourable member for the Northern Territory, Warren Snowdon. I will conclude, unfortunately early, by saying that I share the concerns that have been raised by a number of honourable senators in this House this morning about the unworkability of the current draft-that is all it is-arrangement of the zones that have been provided in the maps attached to this document. I believe that some of them are unworkable. But the Minister has assured me that he is flexible on this matter and will act on representations made to him from across Australia. SENATOR CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr President, I move: That the debate be now adjourned. I think this matter is of major significance and it will be of ongoing interest to the Senate. I know that many honourable senators would like to consider the matters involved. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —Order! By arrangement, I propose that Question Time conclude just before 1 o'clock to enable Australian Broadcasting Corporation commitments to be met. If Ministers have answers to questions asked earlier in the week, these answers may be given at 2 o'clock. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, as the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I ask: Did the former Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories at any stage discuss with the Prime Minister, or any of the Prime Minister's senior advisers, the tender process for the theatre complex for Australia's World Expo pavilion? If so, when did any such conversation or conversations occur? Further, what was the extent of the involvement of the Prime Minister, and/or his office, in the tender process? Finally, if the Minister is still in a state of blissful ignorance, will he ascertain the facts and advise the Senate as soon as possible? Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney refers to my state of blissful ignorance. I am quite happy to accept blissful ignorance about a matter which has unduly excited him but has not unduly excited me, if I might say so, in the terms in which he puts it. Senator Chaney —It caused the resignation of one of your colleagues. Senator BUTTON —Look, I understand Senator Chaney's view of the world. I will just give him mine, if he does not mind. Senator Chaney —We are a bit of a crosspatch today, are we? Senator BUTTON —Yes, I am a crosspatch today. It is not difficult to be a crosspatch when one has to listen to some of Senator Chaney's parsimonious views of the world. Senator Chaney —Parsimonious? I do not think you know what it means. Senator BUTTON —Of course I know what it means; it means stingy minded, lest there be any doubt about that. Senator Chaney —Not stingy minded; just stingy. Senator BUTTON —If Senator Chaney wants to be a pedagogue I suggest he go back to school; he would be very good at it there. I am sure, of course, that the Prime Minister had discussions with Mr Brown at various stages about the theatre project for the World Expo in Brisbane. But, of course, I am unable to provide details of those discussions or really comment on when and where they occurred. I am sure that many of the discussions-if there were many-would have taken place not in any formal sense but in exchanges which normally occur between Ministers about various matters. So in terms of discussions I am unable to answer the question, except to say that I have no doubt that there were discussions from time to time, but not of any formal nature of the kind which might be suggested in the question. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In light of the Minister's concession-which seems to be based just on surmise on his part-that the Prime Minister would have had discussions with Mr Brown, will he ascertain what conversations did occur and the extent to which the Prime Minister, and/or his office, were involved in the tender process-a process which has been clearly shown to have been defective in a whole series of particulars? Senator BUTTON —I am quite able to say that the Prime Minister was not involved in the tender process. Senator Chaney —That is not the question. Senator BUTTON —I beg the honourable senator's pardon. Senator Chaney just asked me: Was the Prime Minister involved in the tender-- Senator Chaney —I said: Were there conversations about the tender process? Senator BUTTON —Well, I am not sure that that is the way the honourable senator put it. But let me say that the Prime Minister was not involved in the tender process. Also, insofar as the tender process may have involved reports from the relevant committee, yes, I am sure Mr Brown would have had discussions with the Prime Minister about those matters-but discussions of the kind to which I referred in the earlier part of my answer; namely, not in any strictly formal sense, but discussions which are a normal part of discourse and interchange between Ministers about various matters affecting their portfolios. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Is the Minister aware that the Aboriginal and Islander Community Health Service placed an advertisement in the Courier-Mail of Saturday, 28 November 1987, calling for an `Aboriginal hospital liaison officer'? Is the Aboriginal and Islander Community Health Service federally funded? Did the advertisement stipulate that the position was to be filled by a person of Aboriginal or Islander descent? Were people who inquired about this position advised that it was in fact a condition of employment that the applicant had to be an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander? If this was the case-that is, that non-Aboriginals and non-Islanders were excluded from consideration for the position-is this action a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act or any other Federal Act? Senator TATE —Senator Colston did give me some notice of this question, which enables me to answer that, yes, I am aware that an advertisement was placed by the Aboriginal and Islander Community Health Service on 28 November 1987 for an Aboriginal hospital liaison officer. The Aboriginal and Islander Community Health Service is federally funded. The advertisement did not stipulate that the position was to be filled by a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. One of the qualifications was that applicants must relate well with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Inquiries made of the Aboriginal and Islander Community Health Service indicate that people who inquired about the position were informed that it was in fact intended for Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders. An apology was offered to callers who felt that the advertisement was misleading. It is open to any person who feels that he or she has been discriminated against to complain to the Race Discrimination Commissioner under the Racial Discrimination Act or to the Human Rights Commissioner under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act. Inquiries made of the commissions indicate that no such complaints have yet been made. If a complaint were made under the Racial Discrimination Act, one issue that would need to be considered would be whether action taken by the Aboriginal and Islander Community Health Service amounted to what is termed `a special measure' taken for the sole purpose of advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, as permitted by the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. But as to the question of whether in fact there has been any breach of the law, of course that involves formulating a legal opinion based on the facts and I will not offer such an opinion. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate as the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I preface my question by saying that I hope the Minister is today better informed on the misleading of Parliament by former Minister John Brown than he was yesterday when he claimed, quite incredibly, not to have been aware of the front page news report in the Sydney Morning Herald. I ask: Why was no action taken by the Government to correct the serious misleading of the Parliament by former Minister Brown when obviously a number of people in the Minister's Department or his personal office, and perhaps even other Ministers' offices, must have known that he had given wrong information to the House of Representatives? Why was it only after the matter became public in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald that the Government addressed this most serious issue? Finally, did the Prime Minister take action following the censure motion against Mr Brown last week to assure himself that the account given by one of his most senior Ministers was correct? Senator BUTTON —The misleading of Parliament by Minister Brown on 10 December was first drawn to the Prime Minister's attention yesterday. It was first drawn to my attention yesterday, somewhat more slowly, I presume, because I was not made aware of it in the morning. Minister Brown, even as at the time of his resignation, believed, and still believes, that he did not wilfully mislead the Parliament about his understanding of the set of circumstances. That was his position last night, and it still is. It is quite clear that whatever the Minister's state of mind about his belief at the time he spoke in Parliament, on 10 December and earlier, there was clear evidence of a set of circumstances which was different from the Minister's understanding of the matter. I am asked why Ministers in the Government were not aware of Mr Brown misleading Parliament on 10 December, as it is alleged, until 17 December. I remind the House of how the parliamentary process works. There was not much evidence that anybody in the Opposition was aware of it until yesterday, either. Senator Chaney —We did not have the facts. We did not have the information. Senator BUTTON —We did not have the information either. Senator Lewis —You did not try to find out. Do you think Fraser would not have gone looking for information after the censure motion? Senator BUTTON —I do not know. Fraser might have gone looking for anything-maybe his trousers. I do not know what Mr Fraser might have done. Ministers do not, in this Government, or in any government, spend all their time reading speeches by other Ministers and checking their veracity or otherwise. If we did, we would be doing nothing else. We are very busy doing things which are important. Senator MacGIBBON —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Setting aside as an irrelevance the well-known fact of the slower reflexes of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and that he did not hear what went on on AM or in the Sydney Morning Herald, I still ask the final question again: Are there no procedures in place in this Government so that when the most serious of charges are laid, leading to a censure motion, a follow-up is made to see whether there is any substance to them? Senator BUTTON —The censure motion, I remind Senator MacGibbon, was not about misleading Parliament. It was in the censure motion debate that the alleged misleading of Parliament arose. The misleading of Parliament is an event subsequent to the censure motion. Insofar as the honourable senator wanted a personal explanation of what I was doing instead of listening to AM, I was, in fact, running around the Canberra lake at that time of the morning. It is something I do every morning. I do not regard it as an act of crass political irresponsibility not to listen to the AM program. Subsequent to running around the lake, I was engaged in a series of meetings all morning until I came to Question Time. I was not engaged in a series of meeting which gave other Ministers or members of my staff access to me at that time. Senator SCHACHT —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer to an article in yesterday's Daily Telegraph regarding the annual report of the Defence Force Ombudsman and in particular to a reference to the case of a former Army sergeant's claim to have eight years of her enlistment included as a qualifying period for long service leave after having a break in service longer than the 12 months permissible for maintaining continuity of entitlements. Can the Minister explain why he did not make an act of grace payment effectively facilitating the reinstatement of entitlements which would be attached to continuity of service? Senator WALSH —I did see the article. Let me state the facts of the case. A member of the Defence Force, specifically of the Army, took a discharge and later sought to re-enlist. The Act provides that such a person must be re-enlisted within 12 months of the resignation in order to have the prior service counted for long service leave purposes. In this case, the re-enlistment was not completed within 12 months. The application for re-enlistment was lodged within 12 months but it was not processed. The basis for the claim-spurious though it is-that I should have used my powers under the Audit Act to grant an act of grace payment equivalent to the long service leave forgone rests on the fact that the application was lodged within 12 months but the re-enlistment procedures were not completed within the 12 months. I do not believe that the Commonwealth has any obligation to retrospectively arrange people's affairs in such a manner as will maximise benefits in accordance with the options they had available at a particular time but did not at that time pursue. I make absolutely no apology for my decision. Indeed, for me to do otherwise, to capriciously, subjectively or arbitrarily-however you like to put it-overrule a provision of the Act that re-enlistment must occur within 12 months, would be an erosion of the rule of law. I am surprised that people who regard themselves as conservatives cannot see that. It would be an erosion of the rule of law because the Act lays down conditions under which certain entitlements will accrue. It would be, I believe, quite wrong for me to overrule that. Returning to the justification-spurious though it is-cited in support of this claim: it rests, as I said, on the fact that the application was received within 12 months but was not processed. If it is to be accepted that that is a valid justification, let me cite another possible example. I determined, three weeks ago today, I think it was, that the exit rate for the Commonwealth superannuation scheme employee contributions for the September quarter and up to 20 October would be zero. I have no doubt that people would have submitted their resignation applications the day before I did that, or the week before it, and those resignation applications would not have been processed. Not even an ombudsman, or a former ombudsman, I would expect, would believe that the Commonwealth should instantly process all applications which come before it. It is not practicable to do that. To return to the case of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust, no doubt such applications were received but not processed. The people affected by that could quite easily lose amounts of $8,000 to $10,000 because of it. I have absolutely no intention of using my act of grace powers to compensate those people for not having put their applications or resignations in early enough to have had them processed by Friday, 26 November, or whenever it was. As this is a very important point I will repeat it. Not only will I make absolutely no apology for the decision I took; for me to have done otherwise would have been to use my authority under the Audit Act to effectively overturn a section of an Act of Parliament. I regard that as an erosion of the rule of law. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in a Christmassy spirit of good will and genuine helpfulness that seems to be somewhat lacking around here at the moment. Given that two Opposition senators were given leave to have their speeches on the fishing Bills incorporated in Hansard last night, thereby speeding up proceedings considerably, does the Minister believe, firstly, that standing order 406, which prohibits the reading of speeches, is now essentially meaningless; secondly, that in the interests of saving taxpayers' money, Australia should institute a system of parliament by post, in which legislation is tabled and interested-or even disinterested, not to say the occasionally uninterested-members of parliament can forward their speeches by mail to the Clerk for incorporation in Hansard, thereby not having to interrupt important electorate duties, or overseas travel arrangements in the case of Senator Hill; thirdly, that the committee stage debate should be conducted via senators' and members' and Ministers' fax machines, thereby increasing the profits of Telecom Australia so that time charged calls would not need to be increased; fourthly, that debates on matters of public importance and urgency motions should be conducted via Australian Broadcasting Corporation video link to the electorate offices of members of parliament, unless the Minister considers that this would prove ultimately the undesirability of televising Parliament; and finally, that questions without notice should be placed on notice on the grounds that most of them already are and that most are not answered anyway, so the current situation would continue in its normal fashion? Senator Puplick —Mr President, I take a point of order. I understand that Standing Orders prohibit a question being asked which is a reflection on the decision of the Senate. The Senate having decided to grant leave yesterday for certain speeches to be incorporated, I put it to you that the question is out of order. Senator MacGibbon —Mr President, on a point of order, I ask you to apply standing order 438, which states: If any Senator- (a) persistently and willfully obstructs the business of the Senate- This leads on to other charges. My basis for asking you to apply that standing order is the fact that the Australian Democrats, on reading the division lists for this session of the Parliament, found that the score was not high enough to demonstrate their independence. So, at seven minutes a time for a division, we had probably 20 or 30 unnecessary divisions during which the Democrats sat on one side of the chamber and the Liberal, National and Labor parties sat on the other side. The good order and the conduct of the Senate were thereby infringed. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. In the spirit of Christmas, I will allow the question, in the way in which it was asked, to be answered. I ask the Minister to deal with those areas in the question which are within his area of responsibility. Senator Teague —Mr President, I take another point of order. Is it not the case that when leave is sought for a speech to be incorporated it can be refused by any single senator, including Senator Haines? Therefore, on the evidence that leave was granted, Senator Haines obviously gave leave for the incorporation of those speeches. The PRESIDENT —Order! That is not a point of order; it is a matter of fact. Senator Boswell —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The question asked by the Leader of the Australian Democrats was directed at me. I think if she reads the Hansard she will find that Senator Macklin asked me to incorporate my speech. A check on the Hansard-- The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order but the honourable senator has made his point. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator BUTTON —Mr President, the points of order and the discussion have been so scintillating that I have forgotten the original question. But I remember sufficient of it at least to hazard a guess that it is directed at me in my capacity as the Minister responsible for technology. One of the things which societies such as ours have to confront is that with advancing technology a number of professions become redundant. It is very difficult to explain to people in the community that they have to adjust and take new steps to fulfil their life-paths because of the onslaught of new technology which renders them increasingly irrelevant. Senator Puplick —That is why you have taken up running around the lake, is it? Senator BUTTON —It is one of the reasons. In fact, Senator Puplick, who is probably more astute about these matters than are most members of the Opposition-if I may say so, that is not saying very much-would understand the expression `high touch'. Running around the lake is a high touch activity as distinct from a high tech activity-that is to say, it is a reaction to high technology which leads people into different forms of activity. I suppose being here is a high touch activity; it is certainly not high tech. There is much point in Senator Haines's question. I often ask myself why politicians, including me, invited to speak at various functions do not send a brochure instead of going themselves. I know exactly what Senator Boswell is going to say every time he makes a speech. I like to think that I divert him somewhat. He always attacks me when I walk into the chamber and I think that is the sort of digression which is useful and entertaining and all that sort of stuff. I could devise a brochure for Senator Boswell which could be handed around to all honourable senators. We know exactly what he would have said if he had been here. I am not picking on Senator Boswell; it is just that he made the last point of order. It was the only memorable one and he is the only person whom I remember. But there is a lot of point in Senator Haines's question. I suppose from time to time the Standing Orders Committee tries to grapple with these issues. I say, as a member of that Committee, that, except for the Clerks, who probably make some more sensible input, we are probably total failures. I cannot help Senator Haines with many of the other aspects of her question. I would like to think about them over the Christmas vacation, but I assure her that I am not going to because I intend to enjoy myself. Senator MAGUIRE —Mr President, my question is directed to you. Yesterday, I believe, your attention was drawn to the report in Wednesday's Sydney Morning Herald about overweight politicians and senior public servants in New South Wales. Is it proposed to prepare an overall summary of the results of all the heart risk and weight tests carried out on honourable members and honourable senators earlier in this session in this place, which were arranged by the Parliament House authorities? Would it be considered appropriate to release the summary results of those heart risk tests, with a view to demonstrating clearly that Federal parliamentarians, by comparison with their New South Wales counterparts, are increasingly `trim, taut and terrific'? The PRESIDENT —As in previous years, the National Heart Foundation is preparing a report on the annual heart risk evaluation program for parliamentarians. Copies of the reports are made available to all the participants. These reports do not include information on individual assessments but do contain trend analysis. I am advised that, on the basis of these studies, Federal parliamentarians are healthier than their State counterparts, although looking around this chamber I have some doubts as to whether this would apply today. Senator ARCHER —My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts. What discussions did the former Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories have with Qantas Airways Ltd, Ministers, or anyone else about possible sponsorship by Qantas of the theatre project at the Australian pavilion at the Brisbane World Expo? Did the Minister ever attempt to use the promise of Qantas financial support, conditional on Bob Rogers winning the contract, and in advance of any formal decision by the Qantas Board, to help him get his-expletive deleted-way and to ensure that Mr Rogers was successful? Senator RICHARDSON —Yesterday I was asked a series of questions on this matter by Senators Puplick and Chaney. They primarily concerned the second committee and I therefore spent a great deal of time yesterday afternoon looking at those documents in terms of whether or not former Minister Brown had misled the House. I indicated this morning that I would be prepared to answer the questions that were asked of me yesterday. I am not fully aware of conversations that Mr Brown had with Qantas because they were not germane to the discussions that we had last night. If the honourable senator requires further information about that, I will certainly attempt to answer his queries for him. I cannot at the moment. Senator BEAHAN —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen an article in today's Sydney Morning Herald reporting the Opposition Leader, Mr Howard, contradicting Senator Stone by making it clear that the Opposition will be examining consumption tax proposals? Does the Government welcome the Opposition's acceptance of the need to fund its tax cut proposals, as indicated by this change of attitude? What are the reasons for the Government not seeking to broaden the tax base in this way? Senator WALSH —I have seen the Sydney Morning Herald report, the most important section of which quotes Mr Howard as saying: We will be examining all funding options, including a consumption tax . . . He was asked: In spite of what Senator Stone said? He replied: In spite of what anyone says. He went on from that. In one sense I welcome this somewhat belated recognition by the Opposition Leader that there would be a need for an alternative tax if income tax rates were to be cut to the extent that he was talking about, that there must be some alternative tax that would raise many billions of dollars in revenue. Naturally, I welcome his belated, implicit recognition of that fact and the small step towards fiscal responsibility which he has taken in acknowledging that. My fear, however, is that when the crunch comes at some time in the future Mr Howard will do what he did in the past; that is, cave in to the National Party in Queensland, instead of going to Brisbane to grovel before the former Premier of Queensland, he will go there to grovel to Senator Stone. Senator Chaney —I think this is losing the Christmas spirit altogether. I ask the Minister to withdraw that. Senator WALSH —Very well, I will withdraw it. I was also asked why the Government did not proceed with that type of tax measure. There were a number of reasons, but I think everybody would agree that the principal reason was the possible inflationary consequences. The broad-based consumption tax, which the Government looked at just over two years ago, would have increased the consumer price index (CPI) by 6 1/2 percentage points. That would have been much less of a problem if the CPI effect of that could have been quarantined from wage demands and wage outcomes. It appeared at the time that it was highly unlikely that that could have happened. So instead of there being a 6 1/2 per cent blip in the inflation rate, we would very likely have moved to a new plateau 6 1/2 per cent higher than the one that existed before. That, by general agreement, was the principal reason that the Government did not proceed with that measure. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations noted reports that the pace-setting severance pay agreement, now ratified by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, for approximately 1,000 building workers on the new Parliament House will add a further $1m to the cost of the project? Did the Government make any submission to the Arbitration Commission on this matter before the determination was handed down? If so, was it in support of or in opposition to the proposal, particularly in view of the fact that previous opposition had led to a 12-week strike over this issue, costing multi-millions of dollars? Does the determination `conform to the Government's social security, taxation and wage-fixing principles' which were stated by the Minister here on 7 October as a requirement for favourable consideration as a severance pay scheme which at that time he said required substantial amendment if it was either to meet its intended objectives or to satisfy Government wages policy or conciliation and arbitration principles? I ask the Minister: What substantial changes have taken place since October 7 to make this scheme acceptable, if it is now acceptable, and what will the costs and other consequences be of this decision being spread through the building industry? Senator BUTTON —It is an important question. I do not seem to have any briefing material on it. I know that Mr Willis, the Minister for Industrial Relations, spoke to me briefly about this matter some weeks ago. I will try to obtain an answer. I doubt whether I will have it before the end of Question Time but I will try to provide the honourable senator with an answer today. Senator VALLENTINE —Could the Minister representing the Minister for Defence state whether or not Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Hercules planes were used to transport Diana and Congo, two West African pygmy hippopotami, from the Melbourne Zoo to Broome in north Western Australia to a private zoo owned by the British developer, Lord MacAlpine? If so, what were the terms and conditions, including costs to the Australian taxpayer, of this excess baggage? Will this service be made available to Lord MacAlpine for the purpose of transporting his British hybrid cattle to his lease at Walcott Inlet in remote north Western Australia, which he has obtained for cattle breeding and tourism development inside a proposed national park? Senator ROBERT RAY —I have had this matter investigated. The first hint that there may be some truth to Senator Vallentine's question came with an examination of the flight catering manifest, which contained a provision for four hundredweight of swamp weed, 200 gallons of Yarra River water, eight dozen cream buns and a bucket and shovel. There is no truth to the allegation that the RAAF was tricked into carrying the abovementioned Congo and Diana in the belief that they were two nuclear disarmament senators. It is true, however, that two pygmy hippopotami were transported on an RAAF C130 Hercules aircraft from Melbourne to Broome on 5 and 6 December 1987. The aircraft in question was tasked on duties associated with an RAAF team of personnel engaged on adventure training in the north-west, involving the recovery of a World War II Spitfire aircraft from the Prince Regent River. No additional costs were involved in the activity and no charges were levied. The background to the approval by the Chief of the Air Staff is that Lord MacAlpine had been of immeasurable assistance to the RAAF team in its recovery operations in providing the use of a barge from which to mount the operation. The use of an already scheduled RAAF aircraft to convey the animals in question represented an opportunity to respond appropriately to the assistance, at no cost to the Commonwealth. There is no intention to offer similar assistance to Lord MacAlpine in relation to any other activity, nor has any such request been received. For background purposes, it is advised that the RAAF team successfully recovered the Spitfire, on behalf of the RAAF museum. The team operated in the most arduous conditions and the success of the operation was due in no small measure to the large degree of assistance and good will shown by the people of the north-west. Senator WATSON —The Minister representing the Treasurer will be aware that a recent Auditor-General's report found that there were significant deficiencies in the procedures of the Australian Taxation Office to combat tax avoidance by international profit-shifting practices. How does the Minister account for the failure of the Australian Taxation Office to improve its international auditing effort, as there had been an acknowledgment for some years of the huge loss to tax revenue through profit shifting? Can the Minister give the Senate an estimate of the cost to Australian revenue of overseas profit-shifting arrangements? If not, will the Australian Taxation Office be initiating a comprehensive assessment of the cost to Australia of this tax evasion, as the Auditor-General recommended? Senator WALSH —I am, in general, aware of the substance of the Auditor-General's criticism, but I do not recall it in any detail. Frequently, however, when such criticisms are made, they refer to a period two or even three years ago-and there could have been significant changes in the meantime. Indeed, since this Government came into office the Taxation Office has been provided with a very substantial increase in staff and other resources, unlike the record of the previous Government, which kept running down the resources available to the Tax Office to make life easier for tax evaders and tax avoiders. There certainly have been cases-but that may not be applicable in this instance-where the Auditor-General's criticisms have been, to say the least, drawing a rather long bow in the attempt at quantification. I cannot give Senator Watson an estimate of how much tax may be avoided or evaded in the way he suggests. I am not sure whether anybody could give anything that reasonably could be called an estimate. I would expect it to be more like a guess. However, I will refer the question to the Treasurer to see whether any more definitive information can be made available. Senator WOOD —I address my question to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts. Senator Cook —Are you Congo or Diana? Senator WOOD —I am not quite sure whether I am Congo or Diana. Is the drilling work which Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd has recently admitted to conducting outside the Coronation Hill lease in Kakadu National Park being done with the approval of the Government? If not, what action will the Government take to halt these activities? Senator RICHARDSON —The work done by BHP in recent times has been done with the approval of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, and it has involved, as examples, some drilling for looking at the tailing stand for the purposes of an environmental impact statement and some road alignments. As to the claim made by the Wilderness Society in recent days that work is being done outside the project area without permission, as far as I have been able to ascertain that is incorrect. Senator BOSWELL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. Has the declaration of the rainforests of north Queensland as part of the World Heritage drastically changed the guidelines for the construction of the new Parliament House? Does it mean that, as from 11 August 1987, timbers from the rainforests will no longer be acceptable? Does this mean that a team of public servants has been involved and is now involved in deciding which timber is acceptable-that is, that provided before 11 August is acceptable but that provided after that date is not acceptable? Is exactly the same timber capable of being good timber or bad timber purely as a result of the date on which it was logged? How is timber which was felled before 11 August 1987, but dressed to satisfy the Parliament House Construction Authority tender in a factory subsequent to that date, to be treated? What is the Authority's position on legally binding contracts for rainforest timber when the Authority now reneges on accepting delivery? If the additional cost is not an estimated $10m to $15m, what is the extra cost and how will it be determined? Does the Minister not think that this situation is absolutely stupid and shows a lack of consultation with the Government? Senator ROBERT RAY —I rarely put on record my views of what is absolutely stupid, or whether a question is particularly wooden, but that contains a substantial degree of detail and I can assist Senator Boswell only by putting it on notice and giving him an answer in the new session, although the matter has been on the public record in terms of the Government's attitude to the use of rainforest timber in the new Parliament House. This has received a fair bit of publicity and has been referred to in the various reports of the Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. As to some of those details on costing and other opinions sought by Senator Boswell, I will have to seek some advice from portfolio Minister West and provide that information later. Senator JONES —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a media report yesterday that plans for the Royal Australian Air Force's Williamtown base were found on a pavement in Elizabeth Street, Sydney, by a passerby? Is the media information as outlined on page 3 of yesterday's Brisbane Courier-Mail accurate and, if so, can the Minister explain how this event came to take place? Has any inquiry been set up, or is any inquiry envisaged, to identify obvious security breaches involved and the names of those people responsible? What, if any, was the potential threat to national security with the loss of these plans? Senator ROBERT RAY —My attention was drawn to that article. I am informed of the following, which may assist Senator Jones. Resulting from media inquiries regarding the finding of the sketch plans of the RAAF base at Williamtown by a member of the public in Elizabeth Street, Redfern on 16 December 1987, RAAF police began an immediate investigation into the circumstances and consequences of the discovery. The investigation revealed that the plans were 1982 conceptual sketch plans of various domestic and unclassified operational facilities and contained no information that could be regarded as having any security significance. Further inquiries indicate that the construction plans had possibly been discarded by Department of Housing and Construction (DHC) staff as part of a general waste disposal exercise at their construction office at Elizabeth Street, Redfern. The documents are unclassified and are representative of the type of documentation openly available to the public contractors as part of the normal tendering processes for Government construction projects. Firms and individuals interested in submitting tenders for construction projects have to have access to such documentation to decide whether they are interested in tendering for such projects and, if so, for the necessary preparation of the tender. Such tendering processes are handled by the DHC on behalf of the Department of Defence. On the other hand, I am advised that any defence construction projects which have security implications-for example, the need to protect sensitive defence capability or involving construction details of sensitive installations including security arrangements-are, as a matter of course, given security classifications. They are handled using quite different procedures which ensure that only those with a need to know have access, and availability is restricted to firms that have cleared facility status. The documents found yesterday do not fall into that category. Further investigation by the Department of Defence is therefore considered not to be warranted and the documents have been returned to the Department of Housing and Construction authorities. That Department is, I understand, conducting further inquiries on its own behalf. Senator NEWMAN —My question is directed to Senator Button as the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and as the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that a hearing date for the second tier wage claim for the defence forces has already been delayed twice, and is now set down for Wednesday, 23 December. I also draw the Minister's attention to the widespread dissatisfaction in the defence forces over pay and conditions. It is a fact that the Armed Forces Federation has telexed the Minister, Mr Willis, asking for his assurance that his Department will have reached agreement on a second tier package in time to meet the hearing date next Wednesday? Is it also a fact that, if the date is not met, the hearing will be delayed well into January? Will the Minister assure the Senate and the defence forces that the Government will be ready to proceed to a final hearing next Wednesday? Senator BUTTON —The briefing that I have on this matter is not as up to date as Senator Newman is, but I will try to get an answer this afternoon. I understand the point of the question clearly and, as I understand it, negotiations have been proceeding satisfactorily, but I had better get a full report on them. Senator MACKLIN —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts. I refer him to the mining activities presently being undertaken at the Mount Etna limestone caves in central Queensland. Does the Minister accept that there is a need to protect and preserve the limestone caves and the world famous Bat Cleft and its associated wildlife? Is the Minister aware of the advice tendered to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs by Sir Maurice Byers, QC, in which he stated that the Commonwealth had the opportunity, under the corporations power of the Constitution, to control the trading activities of mining companies and, therefore, by extension to halt the vandalism occurring at Mount Etna? If not, will he give an undertaking to the Senate that he will examine the Byers option and report back to this chamber on the possibility of using such powers to protect Mount Etna and its associated wildlife? Senator RICHARDSON —Yes, I am aware of mining activities at Mount Etna. I think that they are not necessarily a recent feature of the landscape. They have been going on for some time. The significance of the caves is well and truly established and I know that they provide habitat conditions for cave animals, particularly the endangered ghost bats and the bent-wing bats. Over several years, conservationists have expressed their concerns to successive Commonwealth governments about limestone mining at Mount Etna. The caves are listed on the Register of the National Estate. While that is laudable, of course it does not impose any legal constraint on an owner of private property. On a number of occasions in the past the Commonwealth has drawn the attention of the Queensland Government to the significance of the caves, particularly in view of the conservation problems for the bats. Since mining at Mount Etna is for the production of cement and other lime products for domestic use and not for export, the opportunity for Commonwealth intervention may be restricted. I have asked the Department to investigate and report on the options that are available to the Commonwealth and to take into account any advice tendered to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs by Sir Maurice Byers, QC. I will advise the Senate of those investigations, although it would be no secret to Senator Macklin that the use of the corporations power does, at a minimum, involve some legal difficulties. I shall look at the possibility of its use and report back to Senator Macklin. Senator VANSTONE —My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. I refer the Minister to the National Agenda for Women grants program, which states-and I quote from the material sent to women's groups: . . . has been established to assist organisations and individuals to carry out programs of activities and research which will aid the implementation of the National Agenda for Women. The Minister will know that this program replaced the `operational grants' implemented to assist in the normal operation of women's groups. I ask: How can women's groups be expected by 31 December this year to frame proposals to implement that agenda, when the Government has not yet set it? If the material sent to women's groups is meant to be sufficient to indicate what that agenda will be, is that an indication that the Government will not formally set an agenda? Why is there an iron fist in a velvet glove condition in the grants that the women's groups must `be prepared to co-operate with the Office of Status of Women initiatives to consult with women in the community'? Does that mean that a body such as the Catholic Women's League would be breaching its grant conditions if it refused to co-operate in respect of consultations on, for example, developments in contraceptive options? Why has the Government not set the National Agenda for Women this year as promised? Senator RYAN —I think that Senator Vanstone has not been following very closely the developments surrounding the National Agenda for Women. If she had, she would be aware that a preliminary document called Setting the Agenda was circulated many months ago to women's organisations and gives a general indication of the outline the agenda will take, the kinds of issues that women all over Australia raised when they had the opportunity to speak to me about their concerns and the kinds of directions in which the Government will go. The revised grants program will provide assistance to organisations for their general operational activities if those activities are generally within the status of women areas. The reason the activities will be asked to be in line with the agenda and in co-operation with the Office of the Status of Women is that the current grants program replaces other programs which were designed to assist women's groups to work with government to inform government of the views of their members. Therefore, there is no great change in direction. The process has been a consultative one-a two-way information exchange out of which we hope and believe better policies have been developed. No particular organisation is obliged to consult on any particular matter. The Catholic Women's League may wish to hold consultations on matters concerning education, adult education, domestic violence or whatever it wishes to consult on. There is no particular agenda for consultations that every group will be obliged to involve itself with. However, given that the range of issues to be on the Agenda is so broad, I am sure that all women's organisations, including the Catholic Women's League, will find many issues on which they will wish to have a say. They will have a say. The final National Agenda document will be launched-- Senator Peter Baume —Is this your last answer? Senator RYAN —It looks like it-and a very appropriate one. Senator Richardson —Talk it out. Senator RYAN —Senator Richardson would like me to talk it out, I am sure. The National Agenda will be launched early in the new year by the Prime Minister. When it is launched I am sure that Senator Vanstone, like women all over Australia, will be very heartened to see the Government taking such a long term interest in the welfare of women. Women's organisations will be very satisfied to see that all the efforts they made to inform the Government of their views during the consultation process have been taken on board. I think that other elements in the community, such as employers and people involved in providing education services, will be pleased to see that the needs of the economy for a better skilled work force, including better skilled women workers, have been taken into account. It will be a very successful document. It will provide a basis on which government will develop legislation and make budgetary decisions over the next few years. It will be, I hope, a document for which there will be bipartisan support. So Senator Vanstone will not have very long to wait for the final agenda. I am sure that when it appears she will be one of the first people to congratulate the Government on such an achievement. Senator BOLKUS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Justice. Has the Minister seen Press reports to the effect that police intend to lay charges against a Mr Robert Pavlovic and a marriage celebrant, Ms Jill-Ellen Fuller, as a result of Mr Pavlovic's much publicised wedding to Miss Debbie Newsome? Can the Minister say whether charges have been laid and whether he is in a position to propose any action against the celebrant? Senator TATE —I must say that a week or so a go I did see in one of the Sydney papers, I think it was, the headline ` ``Hubby'' may be charged'. It appeared that an Australian Federal Police spokesman speculated that both the husband, Mr Pavlovic, and the marriage celebrant, Ms Fuller, might be charged in relation to the alleged bigamous marriage between Mr Pavlovic and Debbie Newsome. Honourable senators will recall that my interest in this matter was as Minister for Justice with portfolio responsibility for marriage celebrants. It was in that respect that I was particularly concerned about the position of Ms Fuller, who is a well-known marriage celebrant in Sydney. The fact is that the police have completed their investigations, as was indicated in that particular newspaper article, and forwarded briefs of evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am concerned that the speculation of the last week or so as to whether charges would be laid should be put at rest. The fact is that the Director of Public Prosecutions has now indicated to the Australian Federal Police that Mr Pavlovic should be charged with bigamy-I believe that they are going to proceed by way of summons, if they have not already-and that no charges should be laid against Ms Jill-Ellen Fuller because there is no prima facie case. Naturally the Government will not leave the matter there. The Attorney-General's Department has under consideration amendments to the Marriage Act to avoid what is reported to have occurred in this case happening again. In brief, the amendments should require a person who has been previously married and who intends to remarry to produce a copy of the divorce decree absolute to the marriage celebrant at the time the notice of intention to marry is lodged. The notice has to be lodged at least one month before the marriage takes place. Sitting suspended from 12.59 to 2 p.m. Senator TATE —I have several answers to honourable senators who were kind enough to put questions to me but which I was unable to answer during the week. The first answer is to Senator Walters, who sought information regarding the appointment of a replacement for Ms Pam O'Neil, who has announced her resignation as Sex Discrimination Commissioner. I am able to tell Senator Walters that consideration is being given to a replacement for Ms O'Neil. In accordance with established practice, no announcement will be made until the appointment of Ms O'Neil's successor has been made by the Governor-General-in-Council. There is no established practice for advertising statutory offices which are not Public Service offices, and advertisements are placed in circumstances where it is thought appropriate, but this is a matter for judgment in each case. Senator TATE —Senator Chapman asked me a question about reported approaches by a number of Aboriginal organisations to embassies in Canberra for financial and other support. I undertook to obtain information and provide it to the Senate. To this end my attention has been drawn to a recent media report in which it is claimed that an approach will be made to certain embassies in Canberra seeking funds to establish black ambassadors overseas and as well to call upon the same countries to make public statements condemning Australia over its handling of Aboriginal issues. The report claims that this approach has been endorsed by a number of Aboriginal organisations. All I can say is that the Government recognises that Aboriginal people are, as a group, the most deprived and disadvantaged Australians. As a statement made on 10 December by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Hon. Gerry Hand, made clear, it is committed to measures to overcome this deprivation and disadvantage. Moreover, we recognise that Aboriginal organisations should be free to put the case for their people before as wide an audience as they wish, nationally and internationally, such as the National Party of Australia does before various international forums on particular agricultural issues it feels strongly about. The Government has no intention of taking action that would curtail the right of Aboriginal organisations to pursue whatever lawful and peaceful means they choose to bring attention to their situation and their aspirations. Senator Chapman asked me about finance, perhaps by the Commonwealth, for these organisations. I am unable to answer for all government departments and authorities, but I can say that, of all the organisations listed in his question, none received direct funding through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. That is as much as is within the responsibility of the Minister whom I represent. Senator TATE —I was asked by Senator Cooney whether agreement has been reached between the Trade Practices Commission and Unilever Australia Ltd regarding Unilever's takeover of Bushells Pty Ltd and, if so, what the resulting degree of competition in tea bags between Unilever and the remaining producers would be. Section 50 of the Trade Practices Act prohibits acquisitions resulting in dominance of a market or a substantial increase in existing dominance. The Trade Practices Commission (TPC) Press release on 17 December stated that a formal undertaking was given to the TPC by Unilever, although the undertaking must at present remain confidential for commercial reasons. TPC's investigations show that the relevant market is not tea bags, rather tea in whatever form it is sold. In reaching this conclusion the TPC considered that coffee is substitutable for tea but concluded that sufficient unique characteristics attach to tea to regard it as a market of its own. The TPC has taken the view that after Unilever divests appropriate trademarks to an approved purchaser it will be unlikely to be in a stronger position in the market than prior to the takeover. In fact, TPC feels that the agreed divestiture will strengthen competition in the tea market and deny a dominant position to Unilever. As far as I am concerned, anyone who produces tea bags is probably practising a deception on the public by hiding the sweepings of the tea factory floor in those little bags, but that is the answer I have been asked to provide. Senator BUTTON —On 15 December Senator Archer asked me, in my capacity as Leader of the Government in the Senate, a question without notice concerning domestic savings and a statement by the Prime Minister. I undertook to consult the Prime Minister concerning the meaning of the statement in question. The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer: In a press conference on 9 November I was asked, in the context of the response of ordinary Australians to the sharemarket correction, if I would advise them to save more and borrow less. I responded that my advice was to continue their patterns of behaviour and I gave this advice in contrast to any panic response, which could only worsen the economic impact of the sharemarket correction. That there was no conflict between this comment and that of Senator Button of 16 October would have been quite evident to anyone present at the press conference. As I said to the Conference of Economists in August, we need to reduce domestic consumption and raise domestic saving to the extent required to lower substantially our dependence on foreign saving. This must, however, be part of our long term adjustment strategy, not a destabilising, knee-jerk and probably reversible response. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of the answer in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- Government policy is attuned to this need to reduce our call on overseas savings. The November Review of the Budget shows a comfortable surplus in prospect, which will further reduce the public sector's borrowing requirement this year and the Forward Estimates show a real decline in outlays in prospect for 1988-89, moreover the Government has announced our intention to introduce a further statement of fiscal measures in May. Clearly, this Government has an exemplary record of fiscal and economic management and we will continue in the same responsible vein. Senator BUTTON —On 15 December Senator Vallentine asked me a question about Libyan connections with Fretilin. I have obtained an answer from the Prime Minister and I seek leave to incorporate that answer in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- The Government's reasons for closing the Libyan People's Bureau were set out in my press statement of 19 May. Available evidence indicates contacts between Libya and organisations such as Fretilin. I do not propose to elaborate further on the sources and extent of the evidence on which the government's decision was based. The Government is not aware however of any Indonesian document, fake or otherwise, relating to this question. Debate on the East Timor issue in the United Nations has been deferred since 1982. Preceding that year, Libya was absent during votes on the United Nations' resolution on the issue. Senator BUTTON —On 17 December Senator Bjelke-Petersen asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning logging in the proposed wet tropics World Heritage area and the use of timbers from that area in the new Parliament House. I have been provided with an answer to that question. I seek leave to have that answer incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- On 11 December 1987 Senator Richardson, the Minister for the Environment and the Arts, announced that the Government had decided to nominate the Queensland wet tropical rainforests for inscription on the World Heritage List. The nomination will be lodged with the World Heritage Committee Secretariat shortly. The Government is determined to protect the outstanding values of the area. At the time of announcing the Government's decision Senator Richardson said that logging must cease immediately in the proposed World Heritage Area and emphasised that any ex gratia payments to operators within the industry would be contingent upon the immediate cessation of logging. To guarantee protection of the area provisions of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 will be invoked by the promulgation of relevant proclamations and regulations. In relation to timber used in the new Parliament House, on 10 August 1987 the Minister for Administrative Services announced that action was being taken by the Parliament House Construction Authority to cancel a contract for the supply of rainforest timber for the new Parliament. Senator BUTTON —Senator Teague asked a question of Senator Gareth Evans on 15 December 1987 about the strategic defence initiative. Senator Evans has now provided further details. In essence, his answer states that the Australian Government has consistently said that it endorses the strategic defence programs of neither the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics nor the United States of America, and this policy has not changed. The Australian Government will continue its efforts to urge both sides to show flexibility and realism to resolve remaining differences but new initiatives from the Australian Government are not called for at this stage. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Publications, I present the Committee's fourth report. Report-by leave-adopted. Assent to the following Bills reported: Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987 National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 Bankruptcy Amendment Bill 1987 Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1987 States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 Student Assistance Amendment Bill 1987 Maritime College Amendment Bill 1987 Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1987 Australian National University Amendment Bill 1987 Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1987 Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 Migration Amendment Bill 1987 Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State) —by leave-I wish to make a statement responding to the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 and the report of the Family Law Council entitled Creating Children, and I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE HUMAN EMBRYO EXPERIMENTATION BILL 1985 AND THE REPORT OF THE FAMILY LAW COUNCIL ``CREATING CHILDREN'' I am today responding on behalf of the Government to two important reports which have contributed significantly to the issues facing the Australian community in the emerging area of reproductive technology. These reports are: (a) The report of the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 of October 1986 entitled ``Human Embryo Experimentation in Australia''. (b) The report of the Family Law Council of August 1985 entitled ``Creating Children: A Uniform Approach to the Law and Practice of Reproductive Technology in Australia''. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE HUMAN EMBRYO EXPERIMENTATION BILL REPORT 2. The Senate Select Committee was established in October 1985 following Senate debate on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 brought forward by Senator Harradine. The terms of reference of the Committee required it to examine the need for research on embryos in the context of the In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) programs, the necessity for guidelines for research, and the Bill's proposals for certain research to be prohibited. 3. Senator Harradine's Bill proposed prohibitions on human embryo experimentation, criminal penalties for such experimentation and allowed for injunctions to be sought restraining institutions or persons from engaging in experimentation. During the debate on the Bill there was concern expressed that the injunction procedure, together with the imposition of criminal penalties, would bring about the cessation in Australia of research relating to IVF. 4. The Senate Committee reported in October 1986 (Senate Hansard p 970). The Committee was not unanimous in its recommendations, presenting majority and minority reports, with Senator Harradine joining the majority subject to certain qualifying comments. 5. The majority of the Committee pointed to a distinction between ``therapeutic experimentation'' which was defined as experimentation with diagnostic or curative value for the embryo concerned and ``non-therapeutic experimentation'' with no such value but undertaken to advance medical and scientific knowledge. 6. They concluded that the respect due to the embryo from the process of fertilization onwards required its protection from destructive non-therapeutic experimentation. Therapeutic experimentation would, however, be permitted. 7. The majority saw no ``marker'' event in the development of the embryo as being significant in determining the respect to apply and recommended that a concept of ``guardianship'' be adopted as the most appropriate model for protection of the status of the embryo. They also did not allow any distinction between so called ``spare'' embryos and those which might be created for experimental purposes. 8. The majority of the Committee found inadequate the present system of regulation of IVF research through Institutional Ethics Committees established in individual institutions giving voluntary adherence to the nationality promulgated guidelines of the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council. They favoured a co-operative legislative approach by Federal and State legislatures in which accredited institutions would need to seek a research licence from a national body prior to research being carried out. In considering proposals for the licensing of research the national body would need to act consistently with proposed Commonwealth legislation. That legislation would include a broad declaration of principle supporting the creative aspects of reproductive technology but making unlawful any destructive non-therapeutic experimentation which frustrated the development of the human embryo. 9. In other words rather than the prohibition model put forward by Senator Harradine in his Bill the majority of the Select Committee proposed an accreditation and licensing system based on national legislation and with a national regulatory body. 10. The minority of the Senate Committee took a different approach which did not involve a prohibition on experimentation but proposed that the decision makers in relation to the embryo be the gamete donors and/or the woman in whose uterus the embryo is to be placed. These decision makers would be able to make all decisions about their embryo, including the type of research which might be undertaken, taking into account a requirement that full and proper advice and information be given to them prior to and during their time on an IVF program. 11. The minority also accepted the proposal that there be a national body to establish guidelines and examine research protocols to ensure they conform with the guidelines and to recommend licensing of research institutes and programs. The minority recommended broad community representation as part of this national body to foster continuing debate and to take account of new developments in medical and scientific endeavour in the field of reproductive technology. FAMILY LAW COUNCIL REPORT 12. In February 1984 the Family Law Council established a sub-committee under the Chairmanship of Mr Justice Asche, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, to report on the issues raised by reproductive technology. The report of the Council entitled ``Creating Children'', was tabled in Parliament on 21 August 1985. 13. The principal recommendation of the Family Law Council was that there should be a national approach to the range of issues arising out of reproductive technology and that a National Council on Reproductive Technology, a multi-disciplinary body with lay representation, should be established to advise Commonwealth and State Governments on matters relating to reproductive technology. 14. Some of the issues considered by the Family Law Council and for which it saw value in examination by its proposed National Council included a review of State and Territory laws on the status of children born of donor gametes; questions of counselling and keeping of records; surrogacy; use of donor gametes in reproductive technology; the allocation of health care funds; commercial exploitation of reproductive technology and human embryo experimentation. 15. The Family Law Council also touched upon the issue of human embryo experimentation, and its regulation, which was the focus of the Senate Committee Report. It recommended that the production of human embryos for the sole purpose of research or experimentation should be prohibited and, by a majority opinion, that research or experimentation on `spare' embryos from an IVF program should also be prohibited. The Council recognised that the issue of embryo research was a contentious one, that should be taken up by its proposed National Council on Reproductive Technology. ISSUES 16. The Government recognises that the matters dealt with in these two reports are profound and complex. They raise fundamental questions of the nature of life and of the values of society. 17. The issues will not go away-indeed the expansion and development of biomedical knowledge and technology will continue to raise new challenges and dilemmas equally as difficult in the future. 18. As identified in the reports of the Senate Select Committee and the Family Law Council there are a large number of sometimes competing interests which need to be taken into account in developing social policies for reproductive technology. Included in these are the interests of the infertile, the interests of embryonic life, the interests of medical researchers and persons suffering from diseases which may be assisted by research on embryos, and the interests of women. There are also differing and conflicting views within the community over the social and ethical issues raised by the IVF program generally and by embryo experimentation in particular. These differing and conflicting views can be expected to apply to other areas likely to be affected by science and technology in the future. 19. The Government, in responding to these two reports, has considered the principal issues they raise. These issues are:- (a) whether destructive non-therapeutic embryo experimentation should be prohibited by legislation; (b) whether there should be legislative regulation of IVF practice and research and, if so, what form that regulation should take; and (c) whether a national body on reproductive technology should be established and, if so, what the functions and role of that body should be. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE 20. As recommended by both the Family Law Council and Senate Committee reports, the Government has consulted with the States and Territories through the Australian Health Ministers' Conference and the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The States are not inclined to support a uniform prohibitive approach, preferring a consultative body with responsibilities for providing advice to governments on the full range of issues arising from reproductive technology. 21. All States have commissioned reports from broadly based commissions of inquiry into issues related to the practice of artificial conception. Only New South Wales has not yet received a report for Government consideration. Victoria has passed legislation to give effect to the report that it has received. South Australia recently introduced a Bill to give effect to its Government Report. 22. I will now outline the current States' approach to the main issues raised by the reports. 23. In Victoria, the Waller Committee reported in 1983 and 1984; its recommendations have been substantially implemented by the enactment of the Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act 1984, not all Parts of which have yet been proclaimed to commence operation. That Act prohibits research procedures which would result in damage to the embryo except where it has been approved by a Standing Review and Advisory Committee established under the Act. IVF practice and research is also confined by the Act to institutions licensed by the Committee. The Waller Report recommended, by majority, that embryo experimentation should be limited to spare embryos produced during an IVF program. More recently, Victoria passed further amendments which will allow for scientific experimentation on pre-syngamous embryos in limited circumstances. 24. In Queensland, the Demack Committee reported in March 1984. The Committee recommended that a State body be established to develop ethical guidelines for research into human reproduction and that IVF and embryo transfer should only be performed at centres licensed by the Director-General of Health for that State. The Queensland Government has so far only agreed to the recommendations to regularise the legal status of children born as a result of IVF or embryo transfer. 25. In Tasmania, the Chalmers Committee reported in June 1985. While recommending that research and experimentation on human embryos was not acceptable to community standards in Tasmania, the Chalmers Report recommended that decisions on this issue should be taken at a national level. The Chalmers Report did, however, recommend that medical practitioners operating IVF programs should be regulated by a scheme of Ministerial licensing. The report is still under consideration. 26. In South Australia a Select Committee of the Legislative Council reported (the Connor Report) in April 1987. The Connor Report recommendations have been substantially incorporated by the introduction of the Reproductive Technology Bill into the South Australian Parliament. 27. In Western Australia the Government has under consideration a report in this area (the Meadow Report, September 1986). This recommends that experimental research on spare embryos produced in an IVF program should be permissible if approved by a State licensing authority, which would license all premises and persons engaged in artificial conception procedures. 28. In New South Wales the Law Reform Commission of that State is presently working on an artificial conception reference. In July 1987, it released a detailed Discussion Paper which tentatively favoured properly conducted research, subject to conditions, on any embryo produced in an IVF program in licensed institutions for specific purposes including the alleviating of infertility, disease, abnormality of birth and relief of human suffering. In coming to this tentative conclusion, the Law Reform Commission did not accept the arguments for limiting embryo experimentation to either therapeutic experimentation, as recommended by the Senate Committee, or to experimentation on spare embryos produced in an IVF program as recommended by several of the State reports. The Law Reform Commission also tentatively concluded in its Discussion Paper that effective regulation of IVF may be accomplished without blanket licensing requirements extending to every aspect of its practice. 29. An IVF program has not been established in the Northern Territory and its Government has not, in these circumstances, called for a report on these issues. 30. It is clear to the Government from the findings of the various State Commissions and Enquiries and the State governments' responses to them that no consensus of expert or political opinion on these difficult issues has been reached in Australia at this time. 31. The Victorian experience has highlighted the difficulties in developing legislation in this area. Problems have arisen in determining whether research falls within the prohibitive provisions which are contained in the Victorian legislation. It is clear that there is a grey area dependent largely on medical opinion. 32. The explicit constitutional power over clinical medicine and biomedical research rests with the States. 33. It may be that the Commonwealth's implied powers under s122 (The Territories Power), s51 (xx) (The Corporations Power) and s51 (xviii) (The Patents Power) provide a limited base for legislation in the field of human embryo experimentation but would not be sufficient to support comprehensive national legislation. Senator Harradine's prohibitive approach to human embryo experimentation is based upon such a use of a number of the Commonwealth's powers. 34. The Senate Committee recognises the Commonwealth's legislative limitation and any comprehensive legislative approach could only be achieved by co-operation between the Federal and State Legislatures and Governments. Such co-operation has not been forthcoming from the States, nor at this time is there any consensus among the States and Territories regarding the appropriate level of IVF practice and research. 35. In these circumstances the Government does not propose to implement the Senate Committee's recommendation for legislation establishing a co-operative accreditation and licensing system incorporating the prohibition of destructive non-therapeutic experimentation. The matter will be kept under review and the Government will further consider it in the light of experience and any advice received from the National Bioethics Consultative Committee which the Government proposes to establish and to which I now turn. 36. There is significant Commonwealth and State consensus regarding the desirability of a national body on reproductive technology. The Government has, through the Australian Health Ministers' Conference and the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, achieved agreement with the States to establish a National Bioethics Consultative Committee having a broad charter including, but also going beyond, reproductive technology. 37. The co-operation of the States and Territories with such a body is vital in order to achieve a national uniform approach to bioethical issues. A purely Commonwealth body would only be of limited value. 38. We are therefore proceeding, in co-operation with all States and Territories, to establish this national body. 39. This national body will provide a forum for ideas and issues to be publicly debated and analysed outside of the political arena. It will also mark the first national interdisciplinary group to provide guidance to policy makers on some of the most difficult, complex, ethical and moral problems of our time. 40. The Government sees the national body as having a consultative role and not being involved directly in the regulation of research or the licensing of institutions. 41. Clearly such a body should have a broadly based membership including people from the general community and people with expertise in philosophy, ethics, women's health, biomedical research, law, the practice of medicine, and health care provision. The existing national and State bodies currently involved in bioethics such as the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Medical Research Ethics Committee and the Standing Review and Advisory Committee on Infertility would be consulted on all relevant issues. 42. These appointments will be made by the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health following wide consultation with State Ministers and Attorneys-General. 43. In bringing forward advice on issues referred to it, the national body will consult widely with the public to be able to truly represent community opinion. 44. It is felt that the establishment of the National Bioethics Consultative Committee will provide the next essential step towards developing a uniform approach to bioethical issues arising out of areas such as reproductive technology. 45. Finally, the Government would like to take this opportunity to thank both the members of the Senate Committee and the Family Law Council for their valuable work in this most difficult and controversial area. Senator RYAN —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(2.09) —We are discussing what the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan) alleges is a response to the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 and to the report of the Family Law Council entitled Creating Children. That is what the document we are discussing purports to be. I acknowledge that we have in the chamber now some members of that Senate Select Committee and, in particular, Senator Harradine, who proposed the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which was the subject of the Senate Select Committee. I am aware of the hour of the day and the fact that those Committee members will want to respond. Accordingly, my remarks will be brief. However, there are some things that the coalition feels must be said today. We are appalled that the Government has taken so long to respond to both of these reports. But more particularly, it is a disgrace that this matter has been brought on in the dying hours of this Parliament. I say that because, firstly, both these reports-as the Special Minister of State acknowledges in the statement she has tabled-deal with some very fundamental issues that affect many Australians. Secondly, a significant amount of effort was put in by the Senate Committee on these very sensitive matters. The Government acknowledges the work of those Committee members, as does the coalition, and in particular of former Senator Sir John Carrick and my colleague Senator Walters. In our view a response at this late hour is disrespectful to the effort of those senators. Their work deserves a fuller debate than will be possible this afternoon. It is also a disgrace that this matter has been brought on in the dying hours of this session because only the Senate is sitting. Given this Government's attitude to the Senate, it is somewhat surprising that such an important matter is being raised here and the House of Representatives will not have the opportunity to discuss the Government's response to these two reports in the parliamentary forum until February next year. The Minister and the Government may think it is acceptable that the response was tabled here only. But I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, apart from the fact that this report deals with fundamental issues that ought to be addressed by Parliament as a whole, it touches specifically on two portfolios-that of the Attorney-General and that of Community Services and Health. I remind the Minister that the relevant Ministers and shadow Ministers are in the other place. Therefore, that is an additional reason why it is so appalling that this response-or what is alleged to be a response-to some very detailed work by senators and others is brought on in the dying hours of this Parliament. In this alleged response the Government rejects the Senate Select Committee's recommendation that the Federal Parliament, by legislation, make it unlawful to carry out destructive non-therapeutic experimentation on human embryos. It does so with three reasons in mind. Firstly, the primary legislative responsibility is with the States. Secondly, it draws attention to the fact that the States have not ignored that responsibility; some of them have legislation and some of them have sought reports on this area, and indicate, therefore, that they will be acting in the future. Thirdly, there is insufficient constitutional power for the Commonwealth to act in this area. In this statement the Minister points out that any legislation in this area produces difficult grey areas. She refers in particular to legislation in Victoria. I have no doubt that what she said in that respect is true. But it is not really an adequate reason for not proceeding, because a variety of pieces of legislation create grey areas. We manage to live with them in other areas and I do not see that it is a substantive reason in itself. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that in the report she details what happens in the States and leaves out the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). I am aware of the fact that the ACT does not have an in vitro fertilisation research program. Nonetheless, the ACT should be included, almost as a courtesy to its people. There is no reason why they should be left out when the Northern Territory is mentioned. In the paper the Minister says that the Government has consulted with the States, but unless my memory fails me-and Senator Harradine may have some more to say about this-I recall responses by the Minister to Senator Harradine quite recently indicating that there had not been formal consultations with my State and, accordingly, that makes the statement that the States have been consulted look a bit thin and, at the very least, is indicative of a last minute job. The Minister says that the Government will establish a National Bioethics Consultative Committee, which will look at, but will not be restricted to, human reproductive technology. The Minister told us that in July. The only new thing she has told us today-I concede that she has announced that the National Bioethics Consultative Committee will not limit itself to human reproductive technology, which, as I understand it, was not said in July-is who will make the appointments to the Committee, indicating the range of the membership of that Committee. But that is all she has told us. The Minister could have announced in one sentence that the Government had decided as a further response that not only was it establishing a National Bioethics Committee but it would consider other than human reproductive technology. The Minister could have detailed who would make appointments and indicated the range of membership. In that respect, this response offers nothing more. We are not told who can refer to that Committee, how it will report, whether the reports will be tabled in Parliament or how long the appointments will be for. I could go on for some time about the administrative options, once one has decided to have a national bioethics committee, which are not addressed in this report. It is a pathetic response to a quite detailed suggestion put forward by the Senate Select Committee. The Minister recently went overseas at taxpayers' expense. Her agenda in the United States of America included several meetings to discuss issues pertaining to the establishment of a national bioethics committee. Six months have passed since the Minister first announced that we were to have a national bioethics committee. The Minister went on an overseas trip and, as I understand, took a staff member with her, and still we have not really advanced. We have just been told a few little extra bits and pieces about this committee, despite the fact that, at taxpayers' expense, the Minister has had an overseas trip, allegedly to discuss these matters. It is a very poor final effort from the Minister to produce this statement to the chamber in the dying hours of this Parliament. I am sure that the senators who were members of that Senate Select Committee and others who have a particular interest in this area will detail for this chamber the points that are not addressed in this statement. If one were simply to talk to this statement, one might not have a lot to say; but if one links it back to the report, one will see how very thin on the ground this response is. I simply repeat that it is a very poor effort from the Minister in the dying hours of this Parliament. It is an insult to the people-- Senator Ryan —The Parliament has two years to run. Senator VANSTONE —Of this session. It is a poor effort and it is an insult to the senators who put in so much work on the Senate Selection Committee. The coalition says that, if the Government were serious about this, the response would have been more detailed and the Government would have outlined why it was not accepting some of the recommendations, rather than simply saying that it was not. The Government would have outlined why it is more appropriate to go the way it has chosen rather than to do what the Senate Select Committee and the Family Law Council suggested. This statement is very thin on the ground and an unsatisfactory response from the Government. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(2.19) —This long delayed response by Senator Ryan represents an attack on the principles of parliamentary democracy and responsible government and ignores the well reasoned and soundly based recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985, especially its chief recommendation that human embryos be protected by law from destructive experimentation which would frustrate their development. This statement is a response to two reports, that is, the report of the Family Law Council-for shorthand purposes I will describe it as the Asche report-and the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985, shorthanded the Tate report. Senator Tate chaired the latter Committee and Justice Asche chaired the former. The Asche report was submitted to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in August 1985. The Tate report was tabled in this Parliament in October 1986. Both reports urged action to prevent experimentation on human embryos. The Asche report dealt with areas which were not within the terms of reference of the Tate Committee. Why does Senator Ryan, who is the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), bring down a Government response to the Family Law Council report which was submitted to the Attorney-General? Senator Peter Baume —Because they were done together. Senator HARRADINE —But why did Senator Ryan bring down a response to the report of the Tate Committee which said that the Attorney-General should have the running on this matter? An explanation should be given by Senator Ryan on the last day of her existence as a member of parliament. I express my support for the comment that was made that this is an attack on the principles of parliamentary democracy and responsible government. In this report the Government acknowledges that the issue of human embryo experimentation is fundamental, going to the very nature of life itself and to the value of society. It is a major question of public policy which should not be left to non-elected cliques to determine but, in a democracy, should be determined by the elected representatives of the people who are answerable to the people. Either it is a major question of public policy or it is not. Yet the Minister's response, to pass the issue over to a non-elected National Bioethics Consultative Committee, is an abdication of the responsibility of an elected government to decide its view on one of the most vital of all public policy issues facing this nation and the world and to bring legislation to the Parliament in respect of that matter. This issue is long overdue for determination by the elected representatives of the people. After all, the Asche Committee inquired over quite a long period. It has had its report in since 1985. The Tate Committee has had its report in since October 1986. Here we have a document which does not even address the well-reasoned recommendations of the Tate Committee or the Asche Committee. All it says is, `We will cop out of this and we will hand it over for, perhaps, another 10 years to a non-elected bio-ethics consultative council'. Senator Durack —Which has no power. Senator HARRADINE —Of course not. That is the situation we have to address. The Minister's response is inept. It does not address the major questions that have been raised and dealt with by the Senate Committee. Where, in this document of the Minister, does she deal with the issues which were dealt with quite adequately in the Senate Committee report? Chapter 1, for example, sets out the issues. Chapter 2 sets out the meaning of human embryo experimentation. Where, in this document tabled by the Minister, does she address the difference between therapeutic and non-therapeutic destructive experimentation on human embryos? She does not deal with that at all. She does not make that distinction. It is a difficult question. Obviously, it was too difficult for her. But it was not too difficult for members of the Tate Committee, after considering all of the evidence from experts and others, to come up with certain recommendations based on the well known, internationally accepted differences between non-therapeutic destructive experimentation and experimentation which was for the benefit of the human subject. She does not even deal with that in the document; there is no mention of it. The document refers to the ethical issues, for example, between so-called spare embryos and so-called specially created embryos. There is a mention of it in regard to the Senate Committee, but the Minister does not address that issue; nor does she address the basis upon which the Tate Committee founded its recommendations. There was a firm basis of understanding of international protocols relating to experimentation on human subjects which arose out of the problems in nazi Germany concentration camps and which are very vital for the future of this nation and, indeed, the world. It was also based on our concepts of guardianship in domestic law. That issue is not even addressed. I could go on, but I will not do so, because a number of senators wish to speak in this debate. The Tate Committee, in the spirit of Australian parliamentary committees of inquiry-whose members had a wide variety and diversity of views and background-attempted to reach common ground on the resultant report, including the description of the human embryo, couched in minimum, measured and restrained terms, based on the evidence before it. I am quite disappointed that the Minister has chosen not to address those well reasoned arguments. Her response is, in fact, a temporary victory for the deliberate, concerted and organised attempts by some science technologists with a vested interest in human embryo experimentation, supported by the Medical Research Ethics Committee (MREC) to prevent this issue from coming to Parliament, where it belongs. Indeed, much of this campaign has been funded from the medical research endowment fund. In fact, $450,000 of that fund has gone to the Monash Bioethics Centre. The argument to prevent the matter being properly considered by Parliament is based on this project which is funded by the taxpayer. I have asked questions about that and I am expecting a response, as are a large number of medical doctors and scientists who have had their medical research projects approved but who have been told that there is no money in the fund. The requests for funding for many of those beneficial research projects on cancer and the like have totalled only $6,000. Yet this group has been able to get, with the support of the National Health and Medical Research Council, $450,000. Over the last three months the Minister, sad to say, has been part and parcel of that campaign. It is all very well for her to abdicate her responsibility as a sort of departing gesture in the dying hours of the sitting of this Parliament, but this issue will not go away. Those who remain will have to face the issue and decide it. Parliamentarians who take seriously their responsibility to represent the people will take exception to the calculated insults that are contained in this paper. There are a number of them. It is clear that the Government intends to use the National Bioethics Consultative Committee as an excuse for delaying decisions on human embryo experimentation and also as an excuse to pass over to the Committee other hard decisions. This document simply says that. Let me tell honourable senators what the next decision is that the Government will pass over to this body-euthanasia. That is the question that Professor Peter Singer, the utilitarian philosopher who has received this money, wants to go to such a committee. It was his idea in the first place, published in 1984, in the Reproduction Revolution, that a national bioethics commission be established. He stated: Stimulating public debate would be part of the brief of such a Commission. The role of this debate would be to ensure that all the information and arguments came out into the open: the Commission would not be aiming at accommodating all points of view in its final recommendations, since, as we have seen, some views are mutually contradictory. On the contrary, sometimes the Commission might have to challenge widely held but ill-founded moral beliefs. It cannot do this if consensus is its main aim. It is a strange situation where the Government says, `There can be no consensus, therefore set up this commission'. And here it is. What is being said here is that this Commission is going to be used as a propaganda tool to prevent these matters from coming to the Parliament where they belong. Others may have different views from mine on this matter but it is a question of major public policy and it ought to be determined here, and it is high time that it was. Some interesting points should be raised very quickly here. I refer to the people the Government is looking at putting on this Committee. It is very noticeable that Professor Max Charlesworth, in an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation-Michael Kirby was there also-on 27 October, talking about a bioethics commission, had some rather interesting observations to make about the legislature. I thought they were rather quaint ideas from an academic. When talking about whether lesbian couples should be allowed to have children through in vitro fertilisation on taxpayers' funds, he said: The question hasn't come up in the past, however, whether lesbian couples should be allowed to have children through in vitro fertilisation means, et cetera. Most people, I think, up until the present time have said, `No, we don't think that would be a legitimate use of public funds to allow that'. But these are precisely the sorts of questions that do need to be discussed, I think, in open forum. I do not know whether the Minister is thinking of appointing Professor Charlesworth as the chairman of this committee but listen to this: No one has got the right answer and in a sense there's no right answer because they're extraordinarily difficult questions. They're all in the grey area. They can't be settled by legislation but we do need public discussion about them so that we've got some kind of general consensus about them. That issue of general consensus was also addressed by Mr Russell Scott. His draft paper was mentioned by the Minister in her paper. I refer very briefly to page 8. There is a rather large paragraph on the New South Wales Law Reform Commission recommendation. Mr Russell Scott is not the chairman of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission; he was in charge of this particular reference. But it is interesting to note what Mr Russell Scott feels about this matter. He has indicated that there should not be legislation on the question of human embryo experimentation. His committee recommended to the New South Wales Government that it not legislate against experiments on human embryos to the time of implantation. However, he admitted that his recommendation as to time limit was not based on the inherent status of the human embryo but simply reflects `a judgment of community feeling'. His report went on to say: . . . it may be that in the future the time limit would be extended, for example from the time of implantation to the stage before development of sentience. In other words, that could be up to eight weeks. It continued: Such extension would be related to community opinion and acceptance at the time. In other words, he is saying that it would be a case of what the market will bear. This is totally against what I would expect Australian Labor Party policy to be. It is a laissez-faire policy dictated by the science technologists with a vested interest in human embryo experimentation. I make one other point on commercialisation. The Asche Committee referred specifically to the problem of commercialisation in this area. Of course, the Tate Committee had that in mind when it made its recommendations. There is nothing in this document by the Minister which deals with that question. I know that others wish to speak, so I will finish by giving two very quick quotes from this document. At page 6, paragraph 20, there is this bland assertion: The States are not inclined to support a uniform prohibitive approach . . . Yet at page 10 paragraph 37 states: The co-operation of the States and Territories with such a body- that is, the proposed national body- is vital in order to achieve a national uniform approach to bioethical issues. What is the Minister telling us? At page 20 the document states that the States are not inclined to support a uniform prohibitive approach, then at page 10, in paragraph 37, it states: The co-operation of the States and Territories with such a body is vital in order to achieve a national uniform approach to bioethical issues. What she is saying there is that there will be a uniform approach, but only on her conditions, that is, that human embryo experimentation continues. She knows as well as I do that her unit in the health department tried to interfere with the legislative process in South Australia. The South Australian Government put forward a Bill to establish a reproductive technology council which would say yea or nay to experimentation on human embryos. I am glad to say that the Opposition and the Australian Democrats in the Legislative Council, having read and understood the Tate Committee report, introduced an amendment, which was successful, which in fact prohibits any experiment detrimental to a human embryo. The next day the Minister of Health there welcomed that total Bill, saying that it provided a proper balance. In this document the Minister says that the States do not want a uniform prohibitive approach. South Australia will get one, and Victoria has one to a certain extent because of the infertility medical procedures legislation. The Premier of Queensland, Mr Ahern, stated publicly only last week that he was opposed to human embryo experimentation. That leaves Barrie Unsworth, Brian Burke and Robin Gray. I do not know what Robin Gray's view on this matter is, but I would be very interested to find out. I very much doubt whether Barrie Unsworth would accept proposals of the Scott type, and I very much doubt whether Brian Burke would want to have human embryo experimentation and leave it up to the science technologists with a vested interest. Senator Vanstone said in relation to the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) that this response is an abdication by the Minister in respect of her or the Government's responsibilities so far as the ACT is concerned. This is a question that needs to be determined sooner rather than later. Putting the matter off by referring it to a bioethics committee will make the determination come much later; and it will be too late, because today the smallest member of our human family is under threat. Today there are science technologists who want to experiment on human embryos just as freely as if they were rhesus monkeys or laboratory rats. The quest for knowledge is not the only driving force behind this experimentation. Today human embryos are at the point of being grown, because of commercialisation, as a cash crop. They are on the point of finally being sold to the highest bidder, through IVF Australia and its associated company in the United States of America-all in the name of science, progress, humanity and profit. Finally, I repeat one simple statement though it is not my own. I read this somewhere in a technical journal and I cannot remember who wrote it: `Ten years ago proposals now being made for human embryo experimentation were the basis of science fiction horror. Today they require scholarly demolition; tomorrow our objections may appear to be quaint'. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(2.44) —In September 1986 the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 brought forward a most important report on human embryo experimentation. Now, 15 months later, in the last hours of this session of Parliament, the Government has decided to bring in its response. I am sure not only I but all senators on the Committee-including Senator Tate, who was Chairman and who unfortunately is not present for this debate-will be most disappointed that the Government has not seen fit to accept the recommendations of that Committee and has decided that there is no need for the introduction of legislation on this most important matter. As Senator Harradine pointed out in his motion on Wednesday, the Government has totally misunderstood the Committee's report. Indeed, the Attorney-General's Department annual report concluded that the key recommendation in our report was the establishment of a national body to regulate and licence in those areas of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) research. While this was one of our most important recommendations, our key recommendation was stipulated as the principle protecting the embryo from destructive, non-therapeutic experimentation. I hope that the Senate will take this into consideration. No marker event prior to which one should consider that any type of experimentation can take place was found by the Committee. No evidence whatsoever was brought to us to indicate that there was a marker event significant enough to suggest that prior to a certain stage experimentation of any description should be allowed and after that stage it should not be allowed. Whenever people mentioned the time of implantation we questioned them thoroughly on what that time was. We had varying responses. Dr Jansen, who is the director of the IVF clinic in Sydney, said that implantation can start on the seventh day. He is also a member of the Medical Research Ethics Committee. The other members of that Committee say that it could be 10 to 14 days. For those people who thought that it was from the moment of implantation, I stress that it was not from implantation but from the date that implantation normally takes place. We questioned everyone very closely about this stage. We asked why they picked a particular date. They just said, `That seems a pretty good time'. There is no evidence at all that life does not begin from the moment of fertilisation. It is obvious, if one witnesses it, that the cell starts dividing immediately. And of course it is human life. Nobody suggested that it was anything else. There is no evidence that it was any other type of life. Of course, no one suggested, no matter how radical, that that was not when life began. We could not come up with any marker event because no scientific evidence was given to us in that respect. As I have said, we questioned everyone very closely on that particular issue because we thought that it was most important. As a result, we brought down what we believed were two types of experimentation. One was therapeutic, which was, in general terms, for the good of the embryo. We said that this could be a fairly blurred area. We said that as long as the scientist believed that what he was doing was or would be for the ultimate good of the embryo, then that would be therapeutic. The second type of experimentation was destructive non-therapeutic, the deliberate destruction of the embryo. It could not be classed in any way as being for the good of the embryo. As has already been said, this was our key recommendation: that there should be no destructive non-therapeutic experimentation at any stage once the egg was fertilised, but that it would be right for therapeutic experimentation to go ahead. A number of our research scientists in this field were happy with that recommendation. We believe that at the moment the present system of voluntary regulation of IVF research is inadequate. The National Health and Medical Research Council has voluntary guidelines. I do not want honourable senators to think for one moment that it does not set guidelines, albeit they are voluntary. However, it became very clear to us that these voluntary guidelines were not substantial enough or supported sufficiently. We became very aware that there was in the States and the various ethics committees considerable scope for determining their own implantation date and the sorts of experimentations that would be undertaken. So every State does not have to abide by uniform guidelines. Therefore, we found that the situation was totally inadequate. We believed that a licensed national body should put out guidelines that were acceptable to the community. The Government in its response has ignored that recommendation completely. The Government has gone through what is happening in the States and said, `You see, the States don't agree, so we can't do anything about it'. Let me go through the States. The Waller Committee in Victoria reported in 1983 and 1984 that the research should be confined by an Act to institutions licensed by a standing review and advisory committee. It is very important to note that the Waller Committee in Victoria said that there should be licensed institutions. In 1984 the Victorian Government passed an Act to prohibit research procedures which would result in damage to the embryo, except where it had been approved by a standing review and advisory committee. But it is important to note that Victoria also went for licensed institutions. In Queensland the Demack Committee also came out and said that IVF and embryo transfers should be performed only at centres licensed by the Director-General of Health for that State. Queensland has not yet picked up the recommendations of the Demack committee, but it is looking at them. In Tasmania the Chalmers committee decided that national guidelines should be set down. The report recommended that medical practitioners operating IVF programs should be regulated by a scheme of ministerial licensing. The Western Australian committee says exactly the same thing-that an IVF program should be permissible if approved by a State licensing authority. Like Victoria, South Australia has already passed legislation. That legislation was passed only on the twenty-sixth of last month. A news report stated: Destructive experimentation on human embryos . . . will be banned in SA under legislation which passed through the Legislative Council yesterday. It went on to say: Non-invasive or non-destructive research will be allowed . . . Obviously South Australia has picked up the report and recommendations of our Committee. So far, as I have just said, all of the reports that are coming through have suggested that there should be a licensing body. The Law Reform Commission in New South Wales, which is at the moment working on a reference, has already come out tentatively favouring properly conducted research, subject to conditions on any embryo produced in the IVF program in licensed institutions. Every State has come out in favour of the need for a licence or regulation. Yet, the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan) in her report sums up what is happening in the various States by saying: It is clear to the Government from the findings of the various State Commissions and Enquiries and the State Governments' responses to them that no consensus of expert or political opinion on these difficult issues has been reached in Australia at this time. That is a lot of rot. Every one of them has suggested that we license the institutions. For the Minister to brush this off and say that there has been no consensus of expert opinion is just not true. It concerns me considerably that that has been said. The Government is saying that there is no co-operation between the States and, therefore, the Government cannot do anything about national guidelines and national licensing. I have found this Government to be a very centralist government. In the past, it has found it very easy to introduce legislation stopping the damming of the Franklin River, for example. While I would not suggest for one moment that it should have such a centralist power-and I sincerely hope it never will have-I do not believe that it has conferred with the States. Senator Vanstone said today that the Government had not officially conferred with South Australia. The point is that this Government hands out the money. It gives money for research to the National Health and Medical Research Council. All that council has to do is say that only those research units that are licensed can be funded. It is a very simple thing for the Government, should it want, to be able to make sure that such important research and experimentation be undertaken in a proper, regulated and licensed fashion. It was a unanimous decision of our Committee. As has been stressed, two senators voiced a minority view but they, too, said that there should be licensed institutions to do this research. Should there be a need for licensing? Before I was a member of this Committee, I did not quite see the need as much as I do now. Some of the evidence we took, would literally make one's hair stand on end. Let us consider one of the papers by Professor Carl Wood. In the name of science he introduced a human embryo into the uterus of a sheep. He says in his paper that it was probably just as well that the experiment did not come off because he would have had a hard time explaining it to the people of Australia. Senator Zakharov —Gametes. Senator WALTERS —I am sorry, not a fertilised cell-the egg and the sperm were introduced. He also thought that injecting female hormones into a male embryo may reduce the aggressive traits of males without altering the reproductive capacity of that embryo. These sorts of things are of great concern to people outside. During one of the hearings we had been discussing embryos being grown for spare parts. That sounds a bit emotive but embryos, at certain stages, could be used for tissues. Over a cup of tea, I was asked, `Just think: if you had a three-year-old daughter who was going blind, would you deliberately become pregnant and grow that foetus in your uterus until it was old enough for its retinas to be used to save your daughter's sight?'. That really made me feel sick. My response was that no woman should ever be asked to make that decision. I do not believe that anyone in this chamber would think that women should ever be asked to make that decision. But that is the scientific thinking in this area, and let us not hide our heads and say that is emotive, because that was put to me by a person who is very eminent in this field. I was told that I should think about it. If we in this chamber hide our heads to that sort of questioning, I think that this Parliament has a lot to answer for. We had evidence from Professor Singer, who has just been given a grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council of $190,676 over a period of three years. Let me just read a little of his evidence, because I think it is very important that we should know what the scientists who are using taxpayers' money are thinking. This Government is saying that these scientists should not be restricted by legislation because they are all very responsible and are all doing the right thing, and there is no need even to regulate or license the institutions to which they belong. It is very important that we know how these people are thinking. This is what Professor Singer said: Once an embryo may be capable of feeling pain, I believe that we need very strict controls over the experimentation which can be done with it. He went on: The capacity to feel pain is enough to entitle a being to moral consideration. There are, however, different forms moral consideration can take. A right not to have pain inflicted upon one unnecessarily is not the same as a right to life. Finally, then, when does the developing person acquire a right to life? I would argue, following Michael Tooley, who has discussed this matter very thoroughly in his recent book Abortion and Infanticide that there must be something more: a sense of self, an awareness of the continuity of one's existence over time, a knowledge that one has a past and may have a future and the capacity to have desires about that future. He says that the only time that one should have a right to life is when one is aware of one's future, aware of being and aware of desires over a future. He went on: I think we can be confident that no embryo or foetus has these capacities. It is of course true that in this respect too birth does not make a morally crucial dividing line, for the newborn infant equally lacks this kind of self-awareness. But this raises another topic, which I cannot go into now. He goes into it in another book. This man, this scientist, believes that newborn babies, until they have a form of sense, a desire of the future, have no right to life. Senator Puplick —That is rubbish. Senator WALTERS —It is absolute rubbish. However, the National Health and Medical Research Council has funded this man to the tune of $63,558 for three consecutive years-a total of $190,676. That was the evidence he gave. I agree with Senator Puplick that that is absolute rubbish. We must have legislation that provides national guidelines. We must have guidelines that ensure that the National Health and Medical Research Council can go only so far. The legislation must ensure that the Council cannot grow foetuses to be used for spare parts; and that it cannot say that a small baby who desires for the future has no right to life. That is not the sort of scientist that we, as taxpayers, are willing to fund. I do not know why the Government has taken this attitude. I do not know why the Government has chosen to have a national body to decide just which matters should be discussed-which matters should be brought up for discussion and general advice. I do not know why this Government has chosen to shut its eyes. I hope and pray-I am very sincere in this-that there will not be some dreadful tragedy before the Government comes to its senses and before the population out there realises what can happen. I can almost understand the situation. I guess if I were a scientist and very involved in a particular issue I might be tempted to ask, `I wonder what would happen if I did this and this?'. It would be very easy to get carried away with the scientific life and the scientific approach. I guess if one were dealing with embryos 12 hours a day it could be very easy to get carried away. It is up to the people of Australia to say how far these scientists should go and where the guidelines should rest. I really believe that unless we do that we in this Parliament will be very sorry. In the past we have warned the Government on many issues. Again I warn the Government that the National Health and Medical Research Council has come out very clearly and said that it does not want legislation, that it does not see the need for legislation and that it believes that it can control the situation. However, when that august body grants money to people such as Professor Singer, who gave evidence to our Committee in the fashion he did, this Council, in whom we have put our faith to be able to guide our research in this very important area, cannot understand that he has these thoughts. That Council should have listened to the evidence that he gave us. Maybe the Council is unaware that Professor Singer has given this evidence. I appeal to the Government, for heaven's sake, to take note and to make sure that nothing dreadful happens before it brings in legislation. Indeed, if something does happen, the Government will be held responsible by the people of Australia. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(3.10) —I do not wish to take a great deal of time. I believe we have already heard a little filibustering on this matter, and I think other people, particularly members of the Senate Select Committee on Human Embryo Experimentation, have the right to speak in this debate, and I know that time is short. I therefore do not want to take the time of the Senate to answer all of the points made by Senator Harradine and Senator Walters, much as I would like to because I believe some of them were fairly outrageous-for example, Senator Walters's discussion of the marker event. I consider that she gave a totally inaccurate description of the evidence that we heard before the inquiry. I do not want to answer the various relatively detailed points, let alone go into the broader philosophical issues which both of those speakers tried to address, and which obviously cannot be adequately addressed, without taking a great deal more time than is available. Some people, myself included, have the view that we live in a pluralist society. Senator Vanstone seemed to consider it a disgrace that this report was brought forward today, in the dying hours of this session. Would she have preferred that it be left over to the next session and so deny community discussion in the meantime, let alone progress on the actual setting up of the national body? I find that attitude hard to accept, particularly in view of the lengthy, and at times extremely repetitive, debates that we have had this week simply because the proceedings have been broadcast every day since the House of Representatives has been in recess. I speak as a member of that Committee and as one of the two women authors of the dissenting report. I would like to refer to a few points that Senator Harradine made. I may be misquoting the term he used but he referred to this report as being a `cop-out'. I think that is what he meant. Senator Harradine —The response. Senator ZAKHAROV —I am sorry, he says that the response was a cop-out. Most of the matters addressed in the recommendations of the majority report and, indeed, the minority report are in the hands of the States. I was surprised to hear Senator Walters apparently looking for a more centralist point of view. That is not the usual stance she takes, particularly in matters which concern her State of Tasmania. Senator Harradine also referred to this as being a major public policy issue. I would very seriously challenge the assertion that this is a major public policy issue in the eyes of the vast majority of the population. I think a reading of the list of people and groups who appeared before the Committee would show that it is not a major public policy issue in the eyes of the vast majority of the population. He also referred to a wide diversity of views on the part of members of the Committee. I simply make the point, which can be verified by an examination of the membership of that committee, that it is not really representative of a range of community attitudes, particularly, I believe, or a range of religious and social attitudes, but I do not intend to go into detail on that either. I would like to refer to the very positive recommendation of the report to set up a National Bioethics Consultative Committee, which will have a much wider scope of operation than just human embryo experimentation which, of course, was the Committee's term of reference. One of the fears expressed by a number of witnesses, particularly by some of the feminist groups that appeared before us, was that this was the thin end of the wedge; in other words, if some experimentation in this area is allowed it will lead to all kinds of things such as cloning and the sorts of fanciful things we read about in science fiction. I do not think the thin end of the wedge argument can ever be considered a logical one. But that sort of argument is adequately answered by the setting up of this body which will cover all bioethical issues-not just the narrow ones which were considered by our Committee-whether those issues are in research or in the practical applications of that research. A lot of things are being experimented with in medicine today which will not only prolong life but also greatly increase the quality of life on earth. I welcome the setting up of this body and I would like to say that its setting up does not imply criticism of the present Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council, to which I pay tribute. I think the members of that Committee have done an extremely good job with very limited resources and very limited time available, as they are all part time members and cover the whole of Australia. I pay tribute to that very responsible and widely-based Committee that represents a range of community views including the views of Dr McCaughey, the present Governor of Victoria, who retains an interest in that Committee. I was shocked by Senator Walters's suggestion of thought control when she was talking about Professor Peter Singer. She said that she did not think the National Health and Medical Research Council would have given a grant to Dr Singer if it had understood what he was thinking. It is extraordinary that the thoughts of somebody in one area could be taken into account in denying that person the right to a research grant in some totally different field. I welcome particularly paragraphs 42 and 43 of the statement by the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan) referring to the composition of the National Bioethics Consultative Committee. I will not take time to read its composition because I know that other people wish to speak in the short time available. But I point out that it does not actually refer to the representation of women on the Committee. I believe, unlike some on the other side of the Senate who spoke last night, that these days we do not have to spell that out. I trust that this Government will ensure, and I hope that future governments will ensure, that wide representation in the community means people of both gender as well as people with expertise or particular community beliefs or thoughts. I assume that that Committee will reflect the interests of women and the interests of consumers and potential consumers when considering the benefits of research in the bioethics area. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.18) —I thank Senator Zakharov for speaking only briefly to enable me to make some comments on the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985. As a member of that Committee and as a signatory of the majority report I am disappointed with the Government's response to the major recommendation of that majority report, which was to seek a co-operative legislative arrangement so that institutions could be accredited for the purposes of research in this area and proposals for the consideration of those licences would conform with Commonwealth legislation. The majority report proposed that that Commonwealth legislation would have a broad declaration of principle concerning this matter. I say I am disappointed because I think this is one of the major difficulties that we are facing in this legislature with regard to committee reports. Essentially, detailed investigatory activities are being undertaken by members of parliament as representatives of the people. The whole exercise is then being counter-guessed by bureaucrats who are accountable to no one. That may be fun and games for everybody concerned but, at the end of the day, it is absolutely counter-productive to the operation of reasonable committee stages in this chamber. I think at some stage we will really have to come to grips with this major problem because time and again the bureaucrats' responses really start a long way back from where a particular committee has actually ended. Often, as is the case here, they have started even further back than where the committee started. Although I did not agree with Senator Zakharov's findings, I think that if we compared this report with her minority report, this one shows a lamentable understanding of the issues. Even Senator Zakharov had a grasp of them at the end of her report. It shows a very shallow understanding of the major points that were raised in this area. I am concerned about this essential conundrum that faces us. The Committee members-and I was one-came to this particular investigation with a view contrary to the majority report that I eventually signed. I am happy enough to say that now; I had quite a different view. But in listening to representatives of women's, scientific and religious groups and the various ethics boards that came before us, we were led inexorably to the conclusions which were in the majority report. That was my understanding. I am quite happy to accept that it may be faulty. These types of deliberations are fraught with an enormous number of problems. But at least I was exposed to all those community influences. At least I, as a representative of the people, tried to wrestle with the problem and come to some conclusion which I felt was generally one which the community would accept. The bureaucrats had no such input-they give advice off the tops of their heads in a cloistered environment here in Canberra. I strongly object to this type of exercise being imposed on us, particularly when we have this type of shallow exercise. It is shallow and it shows no understanding of the enormously complex range of issues with which one has to grapple in this area, and they are complex. I respect people who come down on both sides of this particular issue. I do not think it is cut and dried; that is not the case at all. It is a very difficult matter. Some of the most difficult times that we had in this Committee were when we sat and listened to men and women who wanted to have children but were not able to do so. As members of parliament we at least have something that the bureaucrats do not have. We have a grounding in listening and understanding and trying to empathise with the general views which are held by people in the community. I think that is what the Committee tried to bring to its final report. I am not saying that because of that we were right. I am saying that because of the influences that we were exposed to and because of the attempt to grapple with those particular types of problems in a constructive and realistic way, we came up with a final conclusion which was reasonably acceptable to the majority of the community. It did not seek to cut off in-vitro fertilisation funding or research, as some people have suggested. It did not seek to do any of those things. It sought to put it into a regulatory environment that took account of the diversity of views which exist within our community. It did not go as far as Senator Harradine, who initiated the proposal, would have wished. It sought a stance which was hopefully as representative as it could be of those items. I believe that it is representative. I do not think that the Government's response sought to grapple with any of those complex views that were put to us or tried to enunciate precisely why the Government was unwilling to respond by going down the track recommended by the Committee. It did not attempt to come to grips with that at all in this very shallow document. I think that essentially that is a pity. I hope that over time all senators may give some consideration to the way in which report after report which comes into this place-reports which, when compared to similar items existing either within Australia or elsewhere, are invariably held to be of the highest standing-is then treated in such a cavalier and off-handed fashion by the bureaucrats who write the responses. This majority report of the Committee was received in the international circles as a major contribution to thought in this area. When combined, the majority and minority reports clearly show the two sides of the argument. I consider it an insult to both the majority and minority members on that Committee to have this type of Government response before us. I hope that the Government will reconsider its position and at least read in detail not only the report but also the exhaustive transcripts of evidence taken. Perhaps the bureaucrats who are advising the Minister will educate themselves a little to be able to write a reasonable response to a very detailed and worthwhile report. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —I was flattered last night when I was told that the Liberal Party of Australia had made a unanimous decision that I should deliver the end of year greetings. I am suitably flattered by that, but I am not going to do it. The PRESIDENT —Senator Gareth Evans has asked me to make the following statement on his behalf: Having had to leave Canberra to represent the Government at the memorial service for the Melbourne massacre victims this afternoon, and not having the opportunity accordingly to speak during the valedictory session, I have asked the President to make this short statement on my behalf. I want to thank you, Mr President, the Clerks and all the relevant parliamentary staff-especially Anne Lynch in the Table Office and Paul Conn, the Parliamentary Liaison Officer-for the contributions you have all made to the effective operation of the Senate, and in particular in helping me carry out my functions as Manager of Government Business-as inherently unachievable as those functions probably are in this place. I would also particularly like to thank the Whips-Gerry Jones, Margaret Reid, Michael Macklin and Grant Tambling, and their respective assistants-for the major contribution they have made this session to making this place as harmonious as it can be in all the circumstances. The job of managers and leaders is made infinitely easier when one has Whips who are competent, industrious and amply endowed with common sense, and we are very lucky indeed to have a group of Whips that satisfy all these descriptions. Finally may I say a word on the record-not nearly as many as I would like to-about my friend and colleague Susan Ryan, whose last day in the Senate this is. I simply want to say that Susan has been an outstandingly intelligent and sensitive parliamentarian and Minister in her 12 years in this place. She has been an ornament to the women's movement, the Australian Capital Territory, the Australian Labor Party and the Hawke Government. I know she will become an equally glittering ornament to the Australian publishing industry, and I wish her every success in that new career. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-On behalf of Government senators, I wish to make some remarks about the contribution of my colleague Senator Ryan, who will leave the chamber before we reconvene next year. Listening to some of the churlish interjections of the Opposition, I was reminded of that great story about somebody buried in a British graveyard. On the tombstone the words appeared, `Here lies so and so, an honest man and a lawyer'. Somebody looking at the grave remarked, `There are two people buried in this grave'. A lot of the interjections from the other side of the House have that sort of flavour about them. Senator Ryan was elected to the Senate for the Australian Capital Territory in 1975. That was the year after a very good vintage year, 1974. It was also not a bad year. Senator Macklin —You were elected then, were you? Senator BUTTON —That is right. As we all know, she served as a Cabinet Minister in this Government, first as Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women and, more recently, as Special Minister of State, with a range of responsibilities. I have had a lot of arguments with Susan Ryan over the period of our joint ministry-I think she will concede that-but they have never been conducted with any rancour. We have had differences-- Senator Michael Baume —You pulled rank but not rancour. Senator BUTTON —Mr President, this pre-Christmas wit is too much for me. I say very sincerely that those differences have always been conducted in a very friendly way. Sometimes they have been profound but they have always been like the brewery product-mild rather than bitter. I very much appreciate that. Senator Ryan has been a very talented, enthusiastic and committed Minister. The great philosopher, Herbert Spencer, once said, before he could have had the benefit of Susan Ryan's views on a number of issues-they were not available to Victorians-in what was a very sound injunction to Ministers: The man of higher type must be content with greatly moderated expectations while he perseveres with undiminished efforts. He has to see how comparatively little can be done and yet find it worthwhile to do that little, so uniting philanthropic energy with philosophic calm. Senator Chaney —Good heavens! Senator BUTTON —I know it is a bit much for you, Senator, at this time of the year, but it is very important. In a sense it applies very much to the work which Susan has done as a Minister because, in many ways, she has been a pioneering figure in this place. Many of the things which women have achieved on the political agenda have been very much due to her efforts, and it has not been easy. Senator Ryan leaves the Senate in a very honourable way, that is, to take on a position as Publishing Editor of Penguin Books Australia Ltd-a great firm-to which she looks forward and in which position, I believe, she will acquit herself very well. She is not a politician leaving for retirement in terms of the best-- Senator Lewis —A post overseas. Senator BUTTON —Yes. Senator Lewis is completely locked into posts overseas. He has been offering me one for the past five years. I understand his anxiety to get rid of me. Senator Ryan is going to a position in which she will acquit herself well. I think it is a great thing for politicians that she is doing so. I think she will be very successful in that career. She will have pleasant and unpleasant memories of this place. I hope that she will be sustained by the unpleasant memories because they will confirm her view that she made a very right decision to leave politics and to take on a job in the private sector, which I have come to admire more and more since I have been a politician. There are some things which she will leave behind her. As an avid reader of Penguin books, I hope that she will leave the National Agenda for Women behind her in politics and not intrude it into the publication of Penguins too much. I like a lot of books that Penguin publishes, Susan, and I could not really read all the books that might be on the women's agenda, or approved by the women's agenda. Still, as long as Penguin can publish Peter Corris and people like that I will be satisfied. Senator Ryan —That is Allen and Unwin. Senator BUTTON —But under the new regime at Penguin, Senator Ryan may well be able to get hold of Peter Corris. I hope that she can, because he will sell much more widely than he does at the moment for Allen and Unwin. On behalf of my Senate colleagues, I would like to wish Susan every success in her new career. In spite of all the exchanges that take place across this chamber, it has been a pleasure to have Susan Ryan as a senator. I think that all senators would agree with that. I take the opportunity also of wishing every senator a successful Christmas and new year. My observation is that the Opposition is looking very tired. I recommend that they all take a good break, have a good rest and come back invigorated. People say that one gets better governments out of better oppositions. I concede that we can be better. If Opposition senators have a good rest, they may be better next year. I send those good wishes to all senators on both sides of the chamber. I would like to thank the Clerks, staff and others. Mr President, I thank you for your sensible presiding over this chamber during the year. I hope that we can all look forward to a profitable, sensible year in 1988. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-Mr President, on behalf of the Opposition I extend my thanks to you, to the Clerks of the Senate and to the hundreds of people who help us during the year. It has been a very eventful year which turned out the wrong way for us, of course, in that it was an election year-an election that we lost. Senator Button is quite right: the Opposition is tired. It is thoroughly tired of being in opposition. We undertake to come back determined to take government again. As well as extending our thanks to the many people who have added to our comfort, I too echo the sentiments of the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Senator Gareth Evans, because I think that the Whips have done us proud during this session. I thank them for that because I believe it helps us greatly in the conduct of business in this place. I have been wondering what I should say about Senator Ryan. I thought I would resist imitating Senator Button when he farewelled Opposition senators and said how sad it was to lose them because such rubbish was left behind. I will not say that to Senator Ryan on this occasion, true as it might be. Senator Ryan is leaving in a way which many of us might envy. She is going to another career which is peculiarly suited to her talents. For many years now I have said that Senator Ryan's talents lay in Australian literature. I want to thank her for proving that on this rare occasion I have had some prescience. I recall a long plane journey from Kununurra to Perth when she was stranded by a strike during her period as shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I am always peculiarly cheerful when Labor senators and members are stranded by strikes. There seems to be a certain sort of justice in it. On this occasion, since Senator Ryan was anxious to get back to her family-I think she pulled that trick; she wanted desperately to get back to Canberra to feed her daughter-we flew together on a Royal Australian Air Force plane from Kununurra to Perth. I would like to be able to say that we talked of Australian literature. I think it would be more accurate to say that she talked of Australian literature and I listened. I am quite used to doing that. My spouse follows a similar role. I was very impressed, and have remained impressed, by her depth of knowledge and love of Australian literature. I think that it is a very good thing to have as a publisher at Penguin Books someone with those attributes. I wish her well. I am sure that all Opposition senators will wish her well in what I think will be a most interesting, useful and comparatively very pleasant career. I do not intend at this stage to discuss Senator Ryan's politics. As I think back on her role as shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and shadow Minister for Education, I think I could probably enter into a debate with her right now on issues which were dearest to her heart and which were dear to mine and on which at times we held very contrary views. She has been a very pleasant person to have on the other side of the chamber. We will miss her but we certainly wish her well in her new career and life. Mr President, it has been a long year and I think you have shown great patience and forbearance with us and the fairness that we sought of you when you were elected President. I particularly thank you for that. I hope that all honourable senators will have a Christmas which will touch their lives in a way which will mean that all Government senators will come back converted to the truth and that all Opposition senators will come back determined to ram the truth down their throats. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —by leave-On behalf of my Party and particularly Senator Haines, who had an engagement and had to catch a plane, I also would like to say that we will miss Senator Ryan. I think she probably stands out as a Minister mainly in terms of her role as Minister for Education, a portfolio which she held for so long. Since the new Minister responsible for education has been appointed I wake up every morning thinking, `Come back, Senator Ryan, all is forgiven'. We thought we had difficulties before; we really have difficulties now. We in this place all too often take for granted the many people who support us over the year. On behalf of the Australian Democrats I thank the Parliamentary Library and the research staff in particular because of the very great assistance that they provide to us. I also thank the Clerks, who give unstintingly of their time and their advice. I thank the Hansard staff, who make our speeches into English that presumably at some stage will be tendered as scripts to Susan Ryan under the door in the hope of publication. I thank the dining room staff, the general Senate staff and the transport staff. Another group of people who do not appear here but who suffer constantly from what goes on in this chamber are our families. They know very well the types of things that probably a lot of people in the community do not understand, and that is the types of sacrifices that spouses and children make so that their father, mother or spouse is able to take part in public life. We were very happy a couple of days ago to find out that the President was still the President a la the High Court of Australia judgment. For that all senators are all very much grateful as I am sure many other people here are. The election in the middle of the year significantly changed the composition of the chamber. I congratulate my new colleagues. It is remarkable how all the new senators quickly took to their role and managed to find their feet and engage in fairly rigorous debate-some more rigorous than others. A sort of sumo wrestler comes to mind, but I will not mention who that is. Senator Collins —Robert Ray has been in the House for years. Senator MACKLIN —I am sure all senators are very much looking forward to the bicentennial event that has been promised to us by two honourable senators. In closing, I wish all honourable senators a happy and holy Christmas. Hopefully, they will be able to partake of this period with their families and to enjoy some of the things that are denied for so long because of the contribution that all senators and all parties make to public life and to the governments of this country. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —by leave-I am not going to make the end of year speech. Senator Button would not let me, and I had my moment of glory last year. But I am going to say something about Susan. I first met Susan in the spring-- Senator MacGibbon —In the dark. Senator WALSH —No, it was not in the dark; it was in the spring of 1975, in the non-members bar. Not too much should be assumed from that fact. The year 1975 appeared to many of us at the time, and I suppose for many years thereafter, a rather dark year. Susan was at that time the endorsed Australian Labor Party candidate for the Australian Capital Territory and was one of the very few new Labor Party members in the Caucus after the 1975 election. We have spent 10 years and, if my memory is correct, two days on the front bench together-firstly, of course, in opposition and then in government. It sometimes seems that we have been in government for a long time, but in fact it has been just over 4 1/2 years. It did occur to me today that there were six Labor Party Ministers in the Senate after the March 1983 election; when Susan goes, only three of those six will be left, so there has been a fairly rapid turnover. Susan and I have had policy disagreements, which is a well known fact. But, as John Button said, there has never been any personal rancour. Indeed, we have had a very convivial social relationship over, I would say, the whole time that we have been in the Parliament together, although I have been told that I am not allowed to give any of the details of that. The previous speakers have made the point that Susan is leaving for another career at a time when she is young enough to do it. I do not regard myself in that category. But we all wish you well in that career, Susan. The last thing I want to say is, `Thank you for your friendship over the last 12 years'. The debate is interrupted. The PRESIDENT —It being 3.45 p.m. the debate is interrupted. Under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-I will be brief at this late hour. Susan and I have been following different philosophical paths over the years that we have known each other, but I can say that the debate between us has always been political, never personal. I know that that applied also with my predecessor, the late Senator John Knight. Through you, Mr President, I just want to say to Susan, `I wish you well with your new career'. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —by leave-I must say, as a preamble to what will have to be my very brief remarks because many of us have to whiz and catch a plane, that, Susan, I have to warn you that we will have to talk about you when you have gone because I certainly do not believe that I can say now all of the things I would like to say about your contribution to Australian society, let alone the Parliament and the Government. If I can in one minute summarise what I would like to say, it is that you have been an extraordinary model-a model for women and a model for men. You will be greatly missed by all sorts of people who have shaped their ideas, their values and their perceptions in discussion or argument with you. Your views and your perspective have enriched the Parliament and certainly the Government. Others have alluded to your achievements for women and in education; I will not stay on those. I want briefly just to say that, as well as being a person of ideas, you have seen the importance of establishing the processes, the structures and the administration necessary to make sure that those things that have been put in place stay there. They are not just achievements for yourself; they are achievements for all women and are in place for all time. In particular, I cite the achievement of the establishment of the Women's Budget Statement, yet another initiative under the proposals essentially led by Susan in this Government. When I was in Nairobi I discovered that ours is the only country in the world that has such a Budget paper. It is an achievement for women in this country that all other countries envy and are beginning to want to emulate. I simply say, in summary, that I am sure Susan moves from one brilliant career to another. I wish her very well. I will certainly miss her considerably in Parliament, as a colleague and especially as a great friend. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave -Very briefly, I would like to wish Sue Ryan all the very best in her future career. I do not consider Senator Ryan to have been an adornment to the Senate in the way that the men have said today that they do. I consider that she has been a very worthwhile senator, and she has put her views. While I have very rarely if ever agreed with her, I believe that those views should be put in this Parliament. I wish her well in her future career and I am pleased that she is so happy about the job she is going to. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-Mr President and my Senate colleagues, I am a very fortunate person. Many Australians, I think most, form ideas about their society and aspirations about how they would like to see it improve and have ideals they would like to see implemented. But not many of us actually get the chance to act on all of those things. I have had that chance and I am very grateful for it. I have had that chance because many people have supported me. Initially there was the Australian Labor Party in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), which took the very adventurous move right back in 1975 of endorsing me as its Senate candidate. It was a controversial move at the time, and I suppose controversy has dogged me ever since. Then there were the electors of the ACT, represented now by Margaret Reid and myself, who voted me into power and continued to do so over six elections. I am grateful to my Caucus colleagues who very early on gave me the opportunity to be the first woman to serve on a Labor front bench and therefore to get involved in the development of policies we would later implement. My Caucus colleagues then elected me to the Ministry. I thank them for that and I thank the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for the succession of very exciting and challenging tasks he has given me. I would not have been able to achieve what I believe I have achieved had it not been for the excellent personal staff I have always been lucky enough to attract, and I would like to place on record my gratitude to them. I refer to both my electorate staff and my ministerial staff who have made it possible for me to do the work that I have done. Also, all of the staff at Parliament House have, from my first day in this place, been friendly and supportive and have made life here a lot more reasonable than it could easily have been. I would also like to say that a person does not get through the ups and downs of a political career without close personal support. I have always had that from my own family, my children, and from close friends whom I have known since childhood and who are still prepared to look after me in times of political crisis. So I have been a very fortunate person. I can only say thank you to all of those who have made it possible for me to make a contribution to Australia. I seem to be maintaining my run of fortune in that I am about to embark on a new career which I believe is also a very important one for our society and our community. I hope that the contribution I will be able to make there will be something that I will be able to sit back in my old age and feel as pleased about as I do about my 12 years in the Senate. Mr President, thank you for being such an excellent Presiding Officer. You and I, of course, have a long history, being a couple of the very few survivors of the terrible 1975 election. Thank you for the way you have handled yourself in your new role. I wish you all the very best. I wish all honourable senators the very best, not only for Christmas but for their future lives, and of course I wish our Government, the third Hawke Government, every success in its future endeavours. The PRESIDENT —On my own behalf, may I also wish you, Susan, the very best for your new career. As you just mentioned, the Labor class of '75-that is, in the House of Representatives and the Senate-has now only two survivors. So much for the long terms of parliamentarians. I believe that this is the latest date in December that the Senate has sat in the last 40 years, and I can assure honourable senators that I do not want to be in the chair when that record is broken. I would like, however, to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to all honourable senators who have contributed to making my responsibilities, both here in the chamber and outside the chamber, satisfactory and rewarding ones. In this context I wish to thank particularly Senator David Hamer for his support for me in the chair, and to draw attention to the value of the work done by all the Temporary Chairmen of Committees. I also thank the Leaders, Deputy Leaders, Whips and Deputy Whips for all their efforts to keep the business of the Senate, with a few minor aberrations, flowing as smoothly as possible. My thanks, on behalf of all honourable senators, go to the Clerk and the officers of the Senate Department. I express the gratitude of all senators to the Parliamentary Librarian, his staff, the Principal Parliamentary Reporter and reporting staff, the Secretary and officers of the Joint House Department, the officers of the Parliament House Construction Authority, the officers of the Australian Federal Police who are stationed at Parliament House, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation personnel who arrange for the broadcast of the proceedings, and all media representatives. I must also express the gratitude of all senators for the patience and good humour the staff have shown over the past two weeks with the number of late nights we have all had to endure. I also wish to mark the departure, during the year, of two long-serving Senate officers. I refer to the retirement of Mr Bert Nicholls, the former Deputy Clerk, and the resignation of Mr Peter Murdoch, the former Clerk-Assistant of the Table Office. Bert Nicholls served the Parliament for over 30 years in many capacities and built up an enviable reputation on parliamentary matters. Senators and staff who know Bert Nicholls have missed his good humour and friendly personality around the corridors of this place. Peter Murdoch resigned in the middle of the year to go into private enterprise. He too served the Parliament for many years and was recognised as an effective administrator and a fine procedural officer. I am certain all senators will join with me in wishing them well for their future. It is also my duty to alert honourable senators once again to the very great challenges facing the Parliament next year. Not only will we have the opening of the new Parliament House in May but senators and staff will face the daunting task of moving into the new building over the winter recess. There will be a large number of visiting delegations, state visits, and Presiding Officers' visits associated with the opening of the new building and the bicentennial celebrations. Nineteen eighty-eight promises to be one of the biggest years in the history of this Parliament and I trust that all honourable senators will make the most of it. I will not delay the Senate any further. I simply express my seasonal greetings to all members of this Parliament and to all people associated with it; may you all have a happy Christmas and a great bicentennial year. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition, from 50 citizens, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders, as it is not in the correct form and it was not on my desk this morning: The undersigned War Widows wish to protest at the Minister's statement that the Repatriation General Hospital is to eventually be transferred to the State System. The number of beds at the Royal Hobart Hospital has already been reduced by 28 and it is becoming increasingly difficult to gain admittance to either hospital without causing distress to the patient. Petitions received. Motion (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senate adjourned at 3.57 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 16 February 1988, unless otherwise called together, in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 26) Senator Jones asked the Minister for the Environment and the Arts, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) In view of the reported decision by the Queensland Cabinet to reverse an earlier decision and allow ICI Australia to construct a $24 million chlorine plant at Lytton in Brisbane, what rights exist for the Commonwealth Government to evaluate safety factors surrounding this particular project. (2) What rights or procedures are available to the Commonwealth to prevent the construction of such an establishment should it feel it has the evidence in the interests of public health and safety. (3) What information is available to the Commonwealth on safety and toxicity factors surrounding the establishment of the Lytton project by ICI. (4) What negotiations have either taken place or are contemplated between the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government on all aspects surrounding the construction and operation of the proposed chlorine plant. Senator Richardson —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1)-(4) Shortly after this question was placed on notice, ICI abandoned its plans for a chlorine plant at Lytton in Brisbane. At the time of the company's announcement, my colleague, the Hon. John Brown, and I applauded the decision. The concerns of the Commonwealth Government over the proposal for the Lytton plant were outlined in a reply I provided in the Senate to another question from the honourable senator also addressed on 15 September (Hansard, page 55). (Question No. 29) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) What measures are in place by the Federal Government in conjunction with State Administrations to monitor the following: (a) recruitment of staff into the tourism and hospitality industry (b) training of staff to take up suitable positions in these areas (c) the monitoring of the payment of award wages, conditions and all other entitlements to employees in the industry. (2) In an obviously expanding industry, how does the Australian performance in the service industry measure up to the demands of overseas consumers. (3) What effects would there be on this level of service if penalty rates and holiday benefits be withdrawn to existing or potential employees. Senator Richardson —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: 1. (a) Recruitment of staff is facilitated and monitored through agencies of the Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education and Training such as the Hospitality Staffing Service (within the Commonwealth Employment Service) which provides specialised placements for the industry. Regular reports of Notification of Vacancies and other labour market data are provided to government and industry bodies to assist planning. (b) The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) compiles statistics on employment in a number of sectors of the hospitality industry, which are used by both Commonwealth and State Departments. Measures to co-ordinate training of staff exist through the industry training network. The National Tourism Industry Training Committee is a tri-partite body (including representation from this portfolio) which oversights the activities of State industry training committees involving State government representation. There are also consultative mechanisms of education authorities (eg TAFE Hospitality Educators). In a general context consultations with States on the matters covered by (a) and (b) are conducted primarily through the Australian Standing Committee on Tourism (ASCOT). (c) The Arbitration Inspectorate, established within the Department of Industrial Relations, provides a labour inspection service, the primary function of which is to secure the observance of Federal awards. Such awards include a number which regulate the pay and conditions of employees in the tourism and, particularly, the hospitality areas. In pursuing this function, the Inspectorate responds to enquiries and complaints, conducts inspections of employment records and workplaces, seeks to have award breaches rectified voluntarily and, where necessary, institutes legal proceedings. The States and Territories also have labour inspection services to secure the observance of State/Territory industrial legislation, awards and determinations which, within jurisdiction, also regulate the pay and conditions of many employees within the tourism and hospitality areas. Whilst there are no formal arrangements in place to co-ordinate the activities of the various inspectorates, they maintain a close working relationship on matters of mutual concern. Additionally, of course, trade unions monitor the observance of award conditions in all jurisdictions. (2) There have been no detailed formal studies comparing the Australian service industry to those overseas. However there is little doubt that with the recent increase in investment in tourism facilities, Australian hotels and resorts are now world class. Informal surveys undertaken by independent agencies have ranked Australian establishments among the top ten. Standards of service are more difficult to assess. However, the Australian Tourist Commission conducted a survey of tourists leaving Australia throughout 1986, seeking their impressions of particular aspects of their experiences. The results of this survey when available, should provide a good indicator of how well Australian standards of service satisfy demands. (3) The Government is aware that penalty rates and holiday benefits such as annual leave loading are sometimes criticised as an obstacle to the provision of services in the tourism and hospitality sector. However, detailed studies into the effect of penalty rates on employment have not been conclusive in establishing such a relationship. In particular, studies by the National Institute of Labour Studies at Flinders University and the Monash University Centre of Policy Studies have concluded that, in the absence of penalty rates, additional compensation for work in non-standard hours may be necessary in order that sufficient supplies of adequately skilled employees are available at such times. Any moves to alter longstanding employment conditions would need to have regard to the wider implications for the wage system and union commitment to that system. Under the Restructuring and Efficiency Principle within the current two-tier wage fixation system, however, there is opportunity for employers and unions to negotiate improved wages and employment conditions in exchange for greater efficiency, with the reform of restrictive and outmoded practices and award provisions. That is an avenue through which the industrial parties could address any existing arrangements considered to limit the efficiency of operation of the tourism and hospitality industry. (Question No. 46) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Of the crashes recorded in the United States aviation industry since the advent of de-regulation, how many were recorded in or near the major airports in that country on an individual basis in the succeeding financial years. (2) How many deaths were recorded at or near each airport in each of the years under review. (3) How many injuries were recorded from commercial airline crashes in the same period. (4) How many of the accidents recorded at each airport came from (a) failures after take-off, and (b) failures after landing. (5) How many of the crashes recorded by commercial aircraft were attributed, following further investigation to defects in the maintenance system. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: De-regulation of the airline industry in the United States commenced in 1978. The body responsible for investigating aircraft accidents and recording aircraft accident data is the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). This organisation publishes two reviews of aircraft accidents annually. One for General Aviation aircraft and another for Air Carrier operations. Each review consists of about 100 pages of statistical data. Copies of these documents are held by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI). The most recently published is for 1981. Figures for the years 1982-86 were obtained by direct contact with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Unfortunately these reports do not contain information in the format requested. No other source of this data in the format requested is readily available. However, some general information on accidents prior to and after de-regulation is provided. Any comparison of this data is complicated by the statement appearing at the front of the 1980 report: ``This report presents a compilation and statistical review of accidents which occurred in 1980 and involved operations under 14 CFR 121 (and 14 CFR 127 for helicopters) or 14 CFR 135. In years prior to 1980, the National Transportation Safety Board has reported, in its annual reviews of U.S. air carrier operations, all accidents involving aircraft operated by air carriers and (since 1975) by commercial operators of large aircraft. For 1980, only the revenue operations of these operators are reported in this document, while accidents during non-revenue operations (e.g., training, ferrying) will be reported in the Safety Board's annual review of general aviation accidents.'' Air Carrier Year Accidents Fatal Accidents Fatalities 1975... 237 39 221 1976... 195 42 165 1977... 226 45 805 1978... 281 73 363 1979... 272 74 381 1980... 228 55 143 1981... 214 53 128 1982... 177 40 320 1983... 182 33 88 1984... 184 31 104 1985... 196 49 639 1986... 151 34 71 General Aviation Year Accidents Fatal Accidents Fatalities 1975... 4001 636 1258 1976... 4023 662 1226 1977... 4083 663 1280 1978... 4218 721 1558 1979... 3825 638 1237 1980... 3597 622 1252 1981... 3502 654 1282 1982... 3233 591 1187 1983... 3075 555 1064 1984... 3010 543 1039 1985... 2741 498 950 1986... 2581 469 959 (Question No. 47) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) What has been the United States' experience in terms of airline safety since the exercise of so-called de-regulation began. (2) How many commercial airline crashes were recorded in each of the three years prior to the de-regulation exercise. (3) How many deaths have been recorded in each of these years. (4) How many crashes have been recorded in each of the three years since de-regulation. (5) How many deaths have been recorded in each of these years. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: See my answer to Question 46. (Question No. 94) Senator Black asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 26 October 1987: (1) Has the Minister seen recent reports of an accident involving the New Guinea airline Talair, which resulted in the deaths of two people; is the Minister aware this is the second fatal accident involving Talair this year, the first in February having resulted in 15 deaths. (2) Is the Minister aware of questions I placed on notice earlier this year relating to Talair and its Queensland operator, Flightwest. (3) Is the Minister aware of some 14 fatal accidents, involving Talair, in which, between June 1975 and February 1987, 95 persons were killed. (4) Does the Minister know whether, despite frequent references to `unsafe flying conditions', any of these accidents happened because of inadequately trained pilots, pilots flying while under the influence of alcohol, or poorly maintained aircraft. (5) Can the Minister confirm that Talair's Queensland operator, Flightwest, received written confirmation from the Federal Government that the airline's safety record was considered satisfactory. (6) Is the Minister aware of the circumstances leading to receipt of such written confirmation. (7) Can the Minister advise when application for such confirmation was received, and when it was granted. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Information on overseas air safety occurrences which involve foreign registered aircraft, are not provided to my department on a formal basis. As a consequence I have not seen the reports referred to by the Honourable Senator. (2) Yes (3) Advice received from the PNG Civil Aviation authorities have indicated that since 1975 Talair have had 63 accidents including 13 which caused 76 fatalities. (4) Advice received from the PNG Civil Aviation authorities has indicated that there have been no accidents to Talair aircraft caused by inadequately trained pilots, pilots flying under the influence of alcohol, or poorly maintained aircraft. (5) The Federal Government did not write to Flight- west in relation to the Airline's Safety Record. (6) No written confirmation was forwarded to Flightwest. (7) No request for such information was received from Flightwest. (Question No. 95) Senator Parer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 23 October 1987: (1) Can the Minister detail the amendments to the building industry severance pay scheme that the Federal Government is seeking from the parties to the Agreement in order to satisfy the tax and social security requirements. (2) Will these amendments enable building workers to receive the dole in addition to their redundancy payments. (3) Will these amendments allow each building job-finish to be treated as a bona fide redundancy which will attract tax on five per cent of the lump sum at the marginal rate. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government has urged the parties to revise the proposed redundancy scheme: (a) to ensure that it conforms with the National Wage Case principles and is capable of acceptance by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; and (b) that redundancy payments apply in cases of genuine redundancy only, enabling it to be defined as a bona fide redundancy scheme. Such a scheme would provide the best chance of ensuring there was no conflict with a redundant employee's social security entitlement and that the scheme would attract a favourable taxation arrangement. (2) It is not possible to determine what entitlement to unemployment benefits may exist until the details of the revised scheme are known. (3) The Government requires that the scheme be genuine and in these circumstances the normal taxation benefits applicable to such schemes would apply. (Question No. 105) Senator Haines asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 29 October 1987: (1) In 1985, did the Department of Aviation (as it was then known) seek an audiogram test report from Mr Ben Buckley, a commercial pilot from Victoria, without specifying when this was to be carried out. (2) Did the Department fail to reply to Mr Buckley when he wrote in late 1985 to ask if the test could wait until his routine annual medical check. (3) When Mr Buckley sent his licence for routine annual stamping, did the Department withhold the licence. (4) Did the Department continue to withhold the licence after three separate copies of the positive audiogram result had been forwarded and acknowledgment of receipt of the third of these was sent to Mr Buckley. (5) Did the Department receive the second copy of the audiogram test result which included a note from Mr Buckley; and did a Department official later produce that note. (6) Did the Department suspend Mr Buckley's licence in February this year and cancel it in April, giving as its reasons a contravention of Air Navigation Regulations (by flying without a licence), failure to fly an aircraft safely and that Mr Buckley was ``not a fit and proper person'' to hold a licence. (7) Can the Department elaborate on these reasons as follows: (a) other than flying without a licence while the Department was withholding it, when did Mr Buckley contravene Air Navigation Regulations; (b) other than several instances of technical illegality in which Mr Buckley was flying badly injured children to hospital, can the Department say when Mr Buckley failed in his duty to fly an aircraft safely; (c) on what basis does the Department consider Mr Buckley ``not a fit and proper person'' to hold a licence. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) On 18 October 1985 Mr Buckley was advised that an audiogram was required in connection with the medical examination he had recently undertaken for the renewal of his licence. Because of his age this was the first year that Mr Buckley had been required to have an audiogram and his licence had been renewed in anticipation that he would quickly meet that requirement. In the event he did not do so until February 1987. (2) No. The Department wrote to Mr Buckley about the need for an audiogram on 18 October and again on 19 November 1985. In response to his letter of 9 December 1985 the Department asked him on 18 December 1985 to arrange a test within three months. Mr Buckley agreed to this in a further letter of 13 February 1986 but did not comply, although he again wrote on 9 April 1986 requesting that it be deferred until his September 1986 medical examination. This was not agreed to but his licence was allowed to run its normal course. (3) Mr Buckley's licence expired on 30 September 1986 and was received for annual renewal on that date. This is not merely a routine stamping. As Mr Buckley had not fulfilled the medical requirements in regard to an audiogram and eye examination his licence could not be renewed. He was reminded by letters dated 26 October 1986 and 11 November 1986 that he had not yet met the medical requirements for renewal of his Commercial Pilot Licence. Considerable effort was made to contact Mr Buckley by telephone and in early January 1987 he advised that he had undertaken and passed an audiogram some six weeks previously. Again Departmental officers expended considerable effort in trying to contact the person who had conducted the audiogram in an endeavour to expedite renewal of the licence. Efforts up to and including 29 January 1987 were not successful in obtaining a copy of the audiogram. (4) No. Records show that only two copies of Mr Buckley's audiogram were received by the Department. The first of these was received on 10 February 1987, four months after his licence had expired and 16 months after the audiogram originally became due. The name on the form was ``Ben'' Buckley and was not immediately identified with Pearce Edward Buckley. It is relevant to note in this context that some 700 medical reports are received each week and there are 57 pilots named ``Buckley'' currently on file. The Director of Aviation Medicine issued a ``pass'' assessment in respect of Buckley's medical on 9 March 1987. A second copy of Mr Buckley's audiogram was received in the Department on 10 March 1987 from his solicitors under cover of a letter dated 6 March 1987. (5) The first copy of Mr Buckley's audiogram which was received by the Department on 10 February 1987 included a note from Mr Buckley. This note was provided to Mr Buckley and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) as part of the documents required to be lodged under Section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. (6) No. Mr Buckley's licence was suspended on 27 April 1987 and cancelled on 16 June 1987. The full reasons for the cancellation are contained in the cancellation letter sent to Mr Buckley on 16 June 1987. If Mr Buckley has no objection I can make a copy of the letter available to the honourable Senator. (7) The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 provides a right of appeal to the AAT against licence cancellation. Mr Buckley appealed to the AAT and also requested an order temporarily ``staying'' the Secretary's action. The ``stay'' application was dealt with on 13-14 August 1987 and refused. The Tribunal stated that ``it would not be proper to grant a stay in this case as the risk is too great''. The full appeal has yet to be heard. But for an adjournment sought by the applicant this matter would have been heard on 30 November 1987. The other questions raised by the honourable Senator have still to be dealt with by the Tribunal and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them at this stage. (Question No. 111) Senator Reid asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 2 November 1987: (1) (a) Was the predicted saving in outlays of $12.6 million for 1986-87 referred to in the Second Reading Speech for the Superannuation and Other Benefits Amendment Bill 1986 achieved; if not, what was the actual result. (2) Is it correct that some 113,000 beneficiaries were adversely affected by the 2 per cent discounting authorised by the Superannuation and Other Benefits Amendment Act 1986 effective from 10 October 1986; if so, (a) what percentage of those beneficiaries received offsetting adjustments under Social Security legislation from 10 October 1986 in the following categories: (i) Defence Force Retirement Benefits, (ii) Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits, (iii) Superannuation Act 1922, (iv) Superannuation Act 1976, (v) Papua-New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Legislation; and (b) what was the cost involved in each case. (3) Is it correct that the anticipated savings in outlays of $12.6 million referred to in the Second Reading Speech for the Superannuation and Other Benefits Act 1986 was a gross figure; if so, will the Minister for Finance provide the offsetting amounts for 1986/87 for short falls in income tax revenue and medicare levy due to the 2 per cent discounting under that Act. (4) Is it correct that: (a) prior to 1948 members of the Defence Forces contributed to benefits under the occupational superannuation provisions of the Superannuation Act 1922; and (b) a large number of veterans from World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam have been contributors under the Superannuation Act 1922 and 1976; if so, will the Minister for Finance provide an estimate of the relevant number of beneficiaries under those acts in comparison with some 32,800 beneficiaries under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Acts. (5) How many veterans or their dependants are included in some 650 beneficiaries at 30 June 1986 under the Papua-New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Scheme. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: 1. Savings in outlays for 1986-87 (estimated in the Second Reading Speech for the Superannuation and Other Benefits Amendment Bill 1986 as $12.6m) is now estimated to have been $15 million. 2. Yes. As superannuation benefits are not subject to a means test the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office (AGRBO) does not hold information on what assets or income from other sources pensioners may be receiving or whether they are in receipt of Social Security benefits. It is therefore not possible to calculate the percentage of beneficiaries who received offsetting adjustments under Social Security legislation, or the costs sought. Tables I9-I12 of the Commissioner's Annual Report for 1985-86 provide a stratification of numbers of pensioners by levels of pension and show, for comparison purposes, the income means test cut-off points for various levels of Social Security Age Pension entitlement. 3. The $12.6 million predicted savings was a gross figure. Based on that figure, loss of income tax and medicare levy was estimated to be $2.8 million for 1986/87. 4. (a) This is partly correct. Prior to the implementation of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948 the position was: (i) Both officers and other ranks in the Permanent Military Forces contributed for benefits under the Superannuation Act 1922 and became eligible for full pension at age 60. (ii) Airmen in the Permanent Air Force contributed for benefits under the Superannuation Act 1922. Officers were credited with deferred pay and they also contributed for restricted benefits, i.e. they had a cover against invalidity or death while serving but if a pension was payable under that provision no deferred pay was paid. (iii) The pay rates of the Permanent Naval Forces consisted of active pay and deferred pay, the latter being credited because no superannuation provision was made for Permanent Naval personnel on retirement. (b) As preference in recruitment was given to veterans under the Public Service Act a large number of veterans would have been contributors to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. However, former members of the Defence Force are not separately identified in AGRBO's superannuation data and therefore the number of such veterans is not available. 5. Although some former members of the Defence Force or their dependants may be included amongst the beneficiaries under the Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Scheme, they are not separately identified in AGRBO's records. (Question No. 136) Senator Jenkins asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 25 November 1987: (1) In how many instances have Australian beef exports been found to contain unacceptable levels of toxic residues. (2) In which countries did this occur. (3) How much beef was involved in each instance. (4) In each instance, what was the source within Australia of the beef concerned. (5) In each instance, what was done with each consignment of contaminated beef. (6) Was any contaminated beef returned to Australia; if so, what was then done with the beef. (7) Has any of this beef been re-exported to other countries; if so, (a) to which; and (b) was each importing country informed of the provenance of the beef concerned. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) During 1987 unacceptable trading levels of chemical residues have been found in sixteen consignments of Australian export beef overseas. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that these were toxic. (2) The United States of America (10) and Japan (6). (3) (a) In the United States: 300 cartons (8165 kg); 274 cartons (7457 kg); 306 cartons (8328 kg); 343 cartons (8160 kg); 310 cartons (8437 kg); 317 cartons (8627 kg); 317 cartons (8627 kg); 250 cartons (6804 kg); 315 cartons (8573 kg); 326 cartons (8872 kg); (b) in Japan: 366 cartons (95490 kg); 460 cartons (12000 kg); 495 cartons (12994 kg) the other three violations reported were from product that had already entered Japan. The quantity is not known. (4) (a) in the United States: 4 each from Queensland and Western Australia 1 each from South Australia and Victoria (b) in Japan: 3 each from Queensland and Victoria (5) The identified consignments were refused entry into the United States and Japan. They were either destroyed by the importing country authority or became the property of the insurer. In the case of the disposition of the beef that had already entered Japan, the action taken by the Japanese authorities is not known. (6) No. (7) It is the prerogative of the insurer to dispose of rejected beef that is not destroyed. The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service is not a party to such decisions and will not re-certify the product. Senator Button —On 18 December 1987 (Hansard, page 3476), Senator Newman asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, the following question without notice: I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that a hearing date for the second tier wage claim for the Defence Forces has already been delayed twice and is now set down for Wednesday, 23 December. I also draw the Minister's attention to the widespread dissatisfaction in the Defence Forces over pay and conditions. Is it a fact that the Armed Forces Federation has telexed the Minister, Mr Willis, asking for his assurance that his department will have reached agreement on a second tier package in time to meet the hearing date next Wednesday? Is it also a fact that if the date is not met the hearing will be delayed well into January? Will the Minister assure the Senate and the Defence Forces that the Government will be ready to proceed to a final hearing next Wednesday? In my reply, I undertook to refer the question to the Minister for Industrial Relations. The Minister has provided the following response: The Defence Force has been developing a case for the application of a second tier wage increase for submission to the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, and it is the Government's expectation that ultimately an agreed package providing the basis for a second tier increase can be submitted to the Tribunal. A telex has been received from the Armed Forces Federation concerning the case. An initial detailed outline of the Defence Force's proposed case was submitted to my Department on 7 December, and detailed discussions ensued, in the course of which it was agreed that various modifications, changes and supplementary information were necessary. A further draft of the proposed claim was submitted to my Department on 16 December, and this is currently being analysed and discussed between my Department, the Defence Department and the Defence Force. The Government is making every possible effort to ensure that the Defence Force claim is progressed as quickly as possible, and is of course very conscious of the expectations of Defence Force members in this regard. However, I am sure Senator Newman would appreciate that such claims are very complex matters and, despite efforts by my officers to assist the development of a case and substantial progress in this regard, it is very difficult to see how the matter can be progressed sufficiently to enable an agreed case to be brought before the Tribunal on 23 December. As Senator Newman would be aware, it is imperative that the wage fixation principles applying to second tier claims be satisfied and that the Government be in a position to satisfy the Tribunal that such second tier increases are justified. In many industries, these cases have taken many months to develop. Nevertheless, Senator Newman should be assured that there will be no delay on the Government's part in relation to the claim, and that it is my confident expectation that an agreed claim can be brought before the Tribunal in the near future. Senator Walsh —On 10 December 1987 (Hansard, page 2892), Senator Michael Baume asked me a series of questions without notice about the impact of the stock market collapse on the performance of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust (SFIT) and the implications for the entitlements of contributors to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS). By way of background, I should explain that the retiring age benefits payable under the CSS are in two parts: (a) a defined benefit in the form of an indexed non-commutable pension financed by the employer; and (b) an employee-financed benefit that can be taken either as a non-indexed pension or as a lump sum equal to the aggregate of the employee's contributions accumulated with interest at rates prescribed by regulation from time to time. The size of the employee-financed benefit is directly related to the performance of SFIT which is responsible for investing the contributions of members of the scheme. Clearly, however, the employer-financed pension is unaffected by the stock market crash. However, certain types of lump sum employer-financed benefits are related to the size of the accumulated contributions of members-as for example, retrenchment benefit where one option is a lump sum of 3 1/2 times accumulated basic contributions. The following answers to Senator Baume's questions have been provided by the Acting Chairman of SFIT: (a) Consistent with the experience of other large superannuation funds with investments in the sharemarket, the value of SFIT's share portfolio declined during October 1987. The extent of the decline in the equities portfolio as at 28 October was approximately $300 million as reported in the notes to the 1986-87 financial statements. (b) At 30 November 1987 (latest available figures), SFIT's domestic and overseas equities portfolio (representing approximately 30% of the total fund) had incurred a ``loss'' of approximately $355 million since 30 June 1987. Of this total, approximately $280 million relates to the domestic equities portfolio and $75 million to the offshore portfolio. (c) The unrealised loss on SFIT's holding in the Bell Group of Companies (Bell Group Ltd, JN Taylor Holdings Ltd and Bell Resources Ltd) at 30 November 1987 was approximately $86m from the value of SFIT's holding in that stock at 30 June 1987. Other institutions with the same or larger holdings in these stocks would have incurred similar losses on their holdings. (d) Any individual or funds manager with a share portfolio would have been affected by the stock market slump, just as they would have benefited from the earlier boom in stock market prices. Over the longer term, however, empirical evidence shows that investments in shares outperform non-equity investments. Given the long term nature of superannuation funds management, prudence demands that share investments should continue to feature in SFIT's portfolio notwithstanding the recent slump. (e) At 30 June 1987, SFIT held 23% of its portfolio (or approximately $1100 million) in the domestic share market and 8.4% (or approximately $376 million) in overseas markets (mostly shares). As at 30 November these proportions were approximately 20.9% and 8.9% respectively. Given SFIT's modest exposure to international equities markets and the fact that the decline in the value of Australian shares was greater than that of overseas markets and decline in the domestic market had the greater effect on SFIT's portfolio. In other words, had SFIT been more heavily weighted in international markets the effect on SFIT's equities portfolio overall would have been less. Nevertheless, SFIT's exposure to equities generally was well below that of many other funds some of whom had equity exposures in excess of 50% of their portfolios. (f) The impact on contributors in the short term is that the ``exit'' allocation rate which, as the term implies, applies to contributors leaving the CSS, has been set at zero percent until such time as SFIT's performance warrants a review of that rate. Contributors staying in the scheme will not have the exit rate applied to them-they will bear their share of the share market losses when the allocation rate for the financial year 1987-88 is later declared. That rate will be based on SFIT's overall performance for 1987-88, after taking into account the extraordinary losses in October 1987. In that context SFIT is targeting a positive performance rate, albeit single digit, for 1987-88. (g) After an exhaustive inquiry into the operations of SFIT, the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations in 1985 unanimously recommended that market value of accounting be adopted for the Fund (this supported an earlier decision by SFIT to move to market value accounting). Accordingly, the CSS allocation policy is based on the allocation of both realised and unrealised gains and losses. The $791.8 million is allocated by application of the 1986-87 annual interest rate, whereas any gains or losses attributable to the current financial year will be reflected in the annual allocation rate set for that year. As I mentioned earlier, SFIT is targeting a positive performance rate for 1987-88. It should not be overlooked that contributors have benefited considerably from attractive performance rates achieved by SFIT which have averaged 20% per annum compound over the past four years. The $791.8m referred to in answer (g) above is, I am advised, the amount available for allocation to contributors from the 1986-87 income, and this allocation is unaffected by the subsequent fall in the stock market. I can only add to that response from the Acting Chairman by emphasising that the Fund comprises the contributions of members of the scheme and income earned thereon; there are no employer moneys in the Fund. Moreover, as a result of the attractive performance rates mentioned by the Acting Chairman, the annual allocation rates have averaged 17 per cent per annum over the past 4 years, after the application of a smoothing process. As stated in my Press release dated 27 November 1987, the performance will be closely monitored and the exit rate revised as soon as positive returns are achieved.