Thursday, 21 April 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and Senators assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out the aged and disabled people who require accommodation and support in nursing homes are entitled to the highest possible standard and quality of nursing care. We, the petitioners, request the Parliament to ensure that provision of funds for nursing homes in Victoria is sustained at least at a level sufficient to maintain the high standard of care now available in nursing homes in the State. by Senators Alston (from 199 citizens), Button (from 359 citizens), Cooney (from 192 citizens) and McGauran (from 183 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread concern by farmers and consumers, about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: (1) block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia. (2) ban the import of cobalt-60 and caesium-137 and caesium-134 to be used to irradiate food products. (3) ban the import of all machinery used for food irradiation (electron beam, X-ray etc.) (4) ban the importation and sale of irradiated food in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 890 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That the constitution of the Commonwealth has served Australia well, is not out of date, has proved to be flexible and should not be radically altered. 2. Our deep concern that the recommendations of the constitutional commission and its advisory committees which propose radical changes to the constitution are threatening to reduce our rights as citizens of the Commonwealth. 3. Our strongest opposition to any referendum proposals of the Hawke government which gives more power to the government and less to the people and which concentrates that power in Canberra at the expense of the States and weakens the role of the Senate. by Senator Durack (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament assembled. The petition of those residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with the only nation-wide, independent radio and television service. that the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia. that the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources, would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship or advertising material from commercial sources into the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 86 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: (1) That we oppose timed local calls by Telecom. (2) Timed calls should not be introduced in the absence of widespread community support. (3) Timed calls will seriously affect pensioners, the elderly, low income earners and other disadvantaged groups. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Messner (from 18 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I withdraw Business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 5 and 6 pursuant to notice of intention to withdraw given on 20 April 1988. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, eight sitting days after today, I shall move: 1. That the Public Rental Housing Assistance Program, dated 16 December 1987, and made under section 12 of the Housing Assistance Ordinance 1987, made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. 2. That the Defence Determination Nos 6 and 10 of 1988, made under section 58b of the Defence Act 1903, be disallowed. 3. That the Rifle Clubs (Firearms) Order, dated 11 February 1988, and made under paragraph 123g (2) (c) of the Defence Act 1903, be disallowed. This is the last day on which it is possible to give these notices. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of the legislation with a short explanation of the concerns of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- 1. Public Rental Housing Assistance Program, dated 16 December 1987, and made under section 12 of the Housing Assistance Ordinance 1987. The Committee is concerned about the absence of certain review rights and the adequacy of the protection given to confidential personal information held by the Commissioner for Housing. 2. Defence Determination Nos. 6 and 10 of 1988 made under section 58b of the Defence Act 1903. The Committee is concerned about the absence of criteria to guide an approving authority in the exercise of discretions affecting the entitlement of service personnel to certain allowances. 3. Rifle Clubs (Firearms) Order dated 11 February 1988 and made under paragraph 123g (2) (c) of the Defence Act 1903. The Committee is concerned that this Order is part of a larger delegated legislative package which, in effect, creates a permanent exemption of certain gun club members from the application of State and Territory gun and liquor laws. The stated intention of the Minister for Defence is that the exemption is intended to be a temporary one only. The Committee has suggested to the Minister that he should therefore, subject the legislation to a sunset clause to ensure that State and Territory laws and procedures that are protective of the public safety, apply at the earliest opportunity in accordance with his expressed intentions. In accordance with its principles the Committee is not concerned with the policy reflected in the intention to ensure that such clubs are established on a ``civilian'' and not a ``military'' basis. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-On page 7 of the Australian newspaper today appears a report headed `Senate probe into dangers of agricultural chemicals'. The article has the by-line Alison Barclay. The article is very brief, and I will read it: A Senate inquiry has been launched into the dangers posed by agricultural chemicals to health and the environment. The select committee on agricultural and veterinary chemicals will investigate the administration systems for chemical use and the social and economic impact of the substances. It will also examine proposed legislation on arrangements for chemical use. Releasing the committee's terms of reference, Democrat Senator Janet Powell said the inquiry came at a time of increasing concern about the effects of chemical residues in food. ``In recent times farm leaders and agricultural ministers have called on Australia to lead the world in producing clean, unpolluted and residue-free produce, precisely because it is this produce which is in great demand in overseas markets and will increasingly be demanded by the domestic market,'' Senator Powell said. ``The Democrats are convinced that Australian farmers and policy planners must take heed now of the warning signs from within Australia and overseas and look seriously at the future implications of chemical usage and the alternatives of non-chemical and integrated management systems.'' The committee will present a progress report in February next year. The truth of the matter, as every senator should know-and as I believe Senator Powell would know-is that that Senate committee has not been established. It was not established yesterday and it may never be established. Senator Boswell —It should not be if there is any justice. Senator LEWIS —As Senator Boswell said, it should not be if there is any justice. It should not be under any circumstances. Nevertheless, that report is totally false. But worse, it is not only a false report about the establishment of the committee; it even goes further and reports that the committee will present a progress report in February of next year. When I saw that I thought, `This is quite unbelievable. How could this happen?'. I made some inquiries and I discovered that yesterday a media release apparently was issued by Senator Janet Powell's staff which announced a Press conference in the Australian Democrats' party room to be held at 12.30 p.m. yesterday. At 12.30 p.m. yesterday the debate on when the establishment of the committee should be considered by the Senate had been over for some hours, and it was quite clear to everyone by 12.30 p.m. that the debate on the establishment of this committee might not take place for some months and that the committee might never be established, especially if the Government started to see the wisdom of not establishing it. The media release is entitled: Issue: Establishment of Senate inquiry into agricultural and veterinary chemicals. A journalist who does not understand the sort of language that Senator Powell uses might believe that that meant that that committee had been established. The media release then goes on to say: Senator Janet Powell, Australian Democrats spokesperson on Primary Industry, has successfully gained Government support for her moves to establish a Senate Select Committee into Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals. Apparently the Government is prepared to support the establishment of this committee if the Democrats can get this matter up for debate. I go back to the media release. It went on to say: Senator Powell will outline the reasons for such an inquiry, and the Terms of Reference will be provided at the Press Conference. For further information: Heather Jeffcoat 062 72 7790 062 72 7791 As I said, a journalist who does not understand the sort of language that Senator Powell uses-and she is a devious person; she has been shown to be that on a number of occasions-- Senator Haines —Mr President-- Senator LEWIS —Does she take objection to that? Senator Haines —Mr President, I consider that quite unparliamentary. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I would seek your ruling on that. I was listening to what Senator Austin Lewis had to say and I must say that the thought that was going through my mind was that Senator Powell had not played straight with the Government or with anybody else in this chamber over this. Mr President, if you wish to rule that the word `devious' is unparliamentary, I do not think anyone in the Opposition will mind. The use of abusive language in this place is so common from the Government benches, particularly from Senator Walsh, that if you start imposing a few restrictions on the sort of language which can be used I for one will not be raising any objection. But I think it is sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander in this place. Mr President, I would ask you formally to rule on whether the description of the honourable senator's conduct is unparliamentary. Let me repeat it, as it is important to the understanding of the point of order. The honourable senator went to Senator Evans and sought-- Senator Bolkus —On the point of order, Mr President: Senator Chaney is now debating the point of order. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chaney —The facts are that the honourable senator who is being complained about went to Senator Evans and sought an arrangement to bring on her motion and was told that that would not be agreed to. Subsequently, it was clearly represented to other people in the Government that this was a matter where there was some arrangement for Government support. You may regard the description of that sort of thing as being devious and unparliamentary, but I simply ask you, Mr President, to rule on the basis whether the use of that word, even in circumstances where it might in a strict grammatical sense be regarded as accurate, is not in line with the dignity of this place. If it is not in line with the dignity of this place, I hope that in Question Time we will have similar stringent vetting of the sorts of words that are used about people here. The PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Lewis to withdraw the word `devious'. I sit here at Question Time and hear interjections from both sides that are disorderly. If it is the wish of the Senate that this area be tightened up I will certainly do so. Senator LEWIS —I withdraw the word `devious'. I allow honourable senators and the media to draw their own conclusion about the nature of this media release by Senator Powell from, apparently, a senior officer of Senator Powell's staff. I have just been handed another Press release which has been found for me, also issued by Senator Powell yesterday, 20 April, which goes into two pages. It is dated Canberra, 20 April 1988, PR No. 88/114 and headed `Democrats Release Terms of Reference for Terms of Inquiry into Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals'. Once again I say to you, Mr President: Unless a journalist read these words very carefully, he would think that a committee had been established, simply by the heading. The first paragraph-and this will interest Government backbenchers who are concerned about primary producers in Australia-states: The Australian Democrats today released the Terms of Reference, agreed to by Primary Industries Minister Mr Kerin, for the proposed Senate Select Committee into Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals in Australia. The Press release goes on for another five paragraphs about the beauty of the inquiry. I quote from it: The Democrats are convinced that Australian farmers and policy planners must take heed now of the warning signs from within Australia and overseas and look seriously at the future implications of chemical usage and the alternatives of non-chemical and integrated management systems. This inquiry will be a valuable contribution to the task of ensuring that Australian agriculture continues to be productive and, importantly, that is has an economically and ecologically sustainable future. I raise this matter simply to draw the media's attention to the way it must treat releases from Senator Powell in future and also to draw attention to the fact that, notwithstanding the article in the Australian today, this Senate committee has not yet been established and may not be established. Indeed, I hope that it will never be established. I hope that Government backbenchers who have some concern for primary producers around Australia and for export markets of Australian produce will approach Mr Kerin and ask him why on earth he is entering into this agreement with the Democrats for this outrageously wide investigation into the use of chemicals around Australia. I hope they say to Mr Kerin, `Whatever was your deal, let us leave this matter at the bottom of the list, and never allow it to come to the top of the list, for consideration by the Senate'. Senator POWELL(Victoria) —by leave-I was very pleased that somewhere near the end of his diatribe Senator Lewis was handed a Press release, most of which he has read into the record and which clarifies the position. I understand Senator Lewis's sensitivity in this area since, having introduced a notice of motion last year on the question of an inquiry into one aspect at least of the problems of chemicals in our primary industries, it has become the subject of a great debate between Senator Lewis and the primary industries spokesperson in the National Party of Australia, Mr Bruce Lloyd, over the question of whether the Opposition does or does not want any inquiry into any aspects of the use of agricultural chemicals in Australia. Since Senator Lewis went to great lengths to keep his motion on the Notice Paper this year, seeking leave here in this chamber to withdraw it from the list of notices which were to be withdrawn-and this was somewhat of a surprise to me since Mr Lloyd was saying that the Opposition did not want any kind of inquiry into anything-Senator Lewis's inquiry proposal remains on the Notice Paper, an inquiry specifically into the beef industry and one particular current problem. In answer to the concerns raised by Senator Lewis, yes, I have spoken with the media on the terms of reference, which are a matter of public record-they have been on the Notice Paper since Tuesday of this week-in response to inquiries from the media over many months. The inquiries have escalated because of the battle which has been going on between Mr Lloyd, the spokesperson on primary industries for the Opposition, and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) over this issue and the inherent conflict within the Opposition between Senator Lewis's position, he having retained a proposal on the Notice Paper, and Mr Lloyd's position, which is publicly a position that the Opposition wants no inquiry at all. The media have been approaching me consistently since the moment that Senator Lewis was the first person in either House of this Parliament to put on the Notice Paper terms of reference for an inquiry into the use of chemicals in primary industry in Australia. I put down one myself subsequent to Senator Lewis's notice of motion. It has subsequently been changed in the period since we rose before Christmas last year. I have been responding to media inquiries which, as I say, have arisen out of the debate in the other place between the Minister and the shadow Minister. I have responded to those journalists subsequent to further discussions with the Minister, so that the terms of reference which are now a matter of public record have been given by me to the Press. I did not need to do so; I could have referred them to the Notice Paper, but since they have been kind enough to come to me for some comment on the battle between Mr Lloyd, Senator Lewis and the Minister, I certainly wanted to oblige them. That is what I did, and that is the paper that Senator Lewis finally had put on his desk which is headed `Democrats release terms of reference'. As I said, they are terms of reference which are on the public record and certainly, as Senator Lewis says, they are terms of reference which the Minister's office has been instrumental in discussing with me because neither I nor the Minister wanted to do anything to put in jeopardy Australia's primary industries, and certainly not specifically the beef export industry, which is the one that Senator Lewis's terms of reference would put right in the firing line. Imagine it-that is what Senator Lewis has on the Notice Paper. He has a set of terms of reference for an inquiry into the beef industry, which is an enormously sensitive industry in terms of Australia's trade. That was something which both the Minister and I wanted to avoid. That is what we have done by the establishment of these terms of reference. It is the release of the terms of reference which was the subject of my Press release. I seek leave to table that Press release, most of which Senator Lewis has already read into the record. Leave granted. Senator POWELL —The fact that a journalist-and I do not want to be critical of a journalist for interpreting it in this way-has looked at the terms of reference and said that a progress report will be presented next February is not something that has been picked up from the Press release which I issued. She has simply looked at the terms of reference and drawn that inference from those terms of reference. That is something which all of us find at one time or another. Senator Lewis would be very sympathetic on this point, since I am sure that he is smarting a little from the fact that the rural and regional Press have pointed out the conflict between his having a notice of motion on the Notice Paper and the Opposition spokesperson for primary industry saying that the Opposition wants no inquiry. I suppose Senator Lewis feels that it has been the subject of Press misinterpretation. The Press release which I issued has now been tabled. It is on the public record. I am not concerned about anything that is in that Press release. It was issued in response to continued requests from people in the media about the progress of discussions which the Minister and I were having and which had been prompted by a pretty heated debate in the other place and some fairly interesting Press releases that have been toing and froing between Mr Lloyd and the Minister. I understand Senator Lewis's sensitivity in this area. I think he ought to talk to Mr Lloyd and the Opposition should decide whether it wants an inquiry and, if it does, what kind it should be. If they would like to talk to me, I would be very happy to talk to them. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented. Once again Senator Powell has endeavoured to mislead-this time to mislead the Parliament. She claims that I put down a notice of motion before she put down a notice of motion. I ask Senator Powell to apply her mind to the subject and check the records instead of relying on some sort of Press release by her staff. If Senator Powell examines Journals of the Senate No. 39, page 420, and Senate Hansard page 3063 she will see that on the morning of 15 December she gave notice that, on the next day of sitting, she would move: That a select committee on the use of agricultural chemicals in Australia be established. If she then examines Journals of the Senate No. 39, page 428-that is, eight pages of the journal later-and if she looks at the Senate Hansard, she will see that at about 8.30 that evening-she having given notice of a motion that morning-I obtained leave to give notice of a motion that a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Agricultural Chemicals, be appointed. She is totally wrong in that allegation against me; it is false once again. The terms of reference mentioned in my notice of motion were: . . . to inquire into and report upon regulation by governments of the sale and use of agricultural chemicals in the beef industry- this is the important point for the beef growers of Australia and in particular the beef growers of Western Australia- the use of such chemicals by government instrumentalities . . . They allege that the Western Australian body that is equivalent to a State electricity commission has been spraying its poles with chemicals. As a result, the chemicals have got onto their properties and they believe that they are entitled to some compensation from the State instrumentality because of that work. The final part of the terms of reference was: . . . and questions of compensation and assistance to growers. So to talk about my inquiry being some sort of wide-ranging inquiry into chemicals in the beef industry is to mislead this Parliament. That was not the purpose of it at all. The purpose of my inquiry was to short circuit the arrangement so that these growers in Western Australia could get some compensation if they were entitled to it. It was intended to have a very short, sharp Senate inquiry into that matter with the possibility that, if they are entitled to compensation, they may be able to substantiate those claims before a Senate committee-not to have some wide ranging inquiry into the use of chemicals in beef production in Australia. Senator COULTER(South Australia) —I seek leave to make a very brief personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator Colston —Keep it brief. Senator COULTER —It will be very brief. It relates to a remark made by Senator Tambling last night about 30 seconds before the adjournment debate, so there was no opportunity to make it then. Senator Tambling said: There is nothing wrong with controversy but the bottom line is not to chuck the system out, not to change everything and go back to living on wood fuels as Senator Coulter would have us do. That remark referred to an interjection of mine while Senator Collins was speaking and telling us of the large amount of energy being generated by nuclear power. I interjected simply to make the point that firewood provides more energy than nuclear power. I will read into the record one line from the Brundtland Commission report. It states: In 1980, the following breakdown of primary supply was quoted: oil, 4.2TW- terrawatts- coal, 2.4; gas, 1.7; renewables, 1.7; and nuclear, 0.2. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point or order. It seems to me that the personal explanation is being stretched to breaking point by the good senator. I ask you to call him to order. The PRESIDENT —I believe that he has finished his personal explanation. Debate resumed from 24 March, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.27) —The purpose of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1988 is to make three amendments to the consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974. They result from the developments since the last major revision of the Trade Practices Act in 1986. Let me say at the outset that the Opposition supports this Bill, although it will be suggesting a variation to one of the Government's three proposals. Of the three amendments proposed by the Government, we support two. In respect of the third, we believe that the Government's proposal should be varied, not, I stress, because of any anti-consumer protection attitude on our part-on the contrary-but rather because the specific proposal of the Government involves a pre-empting by it of the rights of the States as contained in the Federal Constitution. To this extent the proposal is consistent with the Hawke Labor Government's overall centralist thrust, a thrust to put more and more power into Canberra's hands by whittling away the rights of the States in a continual and insidious manner. Let me now deal with the Government's three proposals. The first provides that a corporation, and in some cases an individual, shall not, in trade or commerce, falsely represent that goods or services are of a particular value. The amendment clarifies the scope of the prohibitions contained in the existing paragraphs 53 (a) and (aa) of the Act. Mr Justice Ryan of the Federal Court of Australia, in Ducrett v. Chaudhary's Oriental Carpet Palace Pty Ltd (1987) in reports 40-804 indicated that a representation as to value may be a representation as to quality as defined in existing section 53; but whether it does or does not depends upon the facts of each case. The amendment proposed by the Government should, in the words of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), `remove any doubt that section 53 prohibits false representations as to the value of goods and services'. We think that is a sensible amendment and we support it. The second amendment proposes the repeal of section 65U of the Trade Practices Act. That section is a sunset clause on the application of the product safety and product information provisions in the Act to food and drink for human consumption, which will take effect on 1 July 1988. Section 65U was originally inserted at the request of some sectors of the food industry in order to give the States the opportunity to put specific and, hopefully, uniform food recall legislation in place. Those industry sectors argued at the time that food recalls should be controlled under State food law rather than under the Trade Practices Act. The Government argues that if section 65U were not repealed the Commonwealth would not necessarily even know of a food safety problem and the recall may be conducted on a State basis with little or no coordination to ensure national consumer protection. If section 65U were left in the Act without any amendment, it would have the effect of removing entirely food and beverage from the scope of division 1a of the Act from 1 July 1988. Division 1a deals with product safety standards, the banning of unsafe consumer products and the recall of consumer products with safety related defects. The Government's third amendment is administrative in nature, resulting from the transfer of responsibility for the enforcement of part IV, division 1A of the Act from the Trade Practices Commission to the Federal Bureau of Consumer Affairs. Consistent with the practice of the Commission, the amendment will allow persons authorised by the Secretary of the Department to institute proceedings for alleged contraventions of the Act without being required to obtain the prior consent in writing of the Minister. As I said earlier, the Opposition supports this Bill. In particular, we support the first and third of the Government's proposals, that is, to amend section 53 to include the word `value' as one of the criteria in determining false representation, and to allow authorised officers of the Federal Bureau of Consumer Affairs, to which responsibility for the enforcement of the consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act is to be transferred from the Trade Practices Commission, to institute prosecutions in a manner similar to prosecutions instituted by officers of the Commission. The one part of the Bill with which the Opposition has difficulty is the Government's proposal to repeal section 65u of the Trade Practices Act. That section reads: At the expiration of 2 years after the day on which this Division comes into operation, this Division shall cease to have effect in respect of goods which are foods and drinks intended for human consumption. The division in question is part V, division 1A. The date of commencement of the operation of that division was 1 July 1986. As I said earlier, if no action at all is taken in respect of the existing section 65u, division 1a will cease to apply to food and drink for human consumption as from 1 July 1988; that is, in a little over two months time. Section 65u is a classic sunset clause, and it is for this reason that the Government is proposing its repeal. Like the Government, the Opposition does not wish division 1a to cease to apply to food and drink for human consumption as from 1 July 1988. But our reasons are somewhat different from the Government's. The Liberal and National parties believe that by seeking to repeal section 65u rather than to replace it the Government is deliberately attempting to pre-empt the rights of the States in relation to consumer affairs. I accept that the States have had two years in which to introduce their own legislation in this area. So far, as I understand it, only two States have done this-Queensland and Western Australia. The Opposition believes it is the responsibility of the Hawke Government to encourage the remaining States to introduce relevant legislation. If the Government's proposal is accepted, it will no longer have this responsibility. In our view, it will have abdicated its responsibility. What is worse, it will have taken yet another step along its inexorable path of centralisation. It will be one more step by this centralist, socialist Government to whittle away the rights of the States, to undermine the position of the States in our Federation and to white-ant our federal system and, through this process, our very finely balanced democratic structure. The people of Australia should never forget that the whole aim of this Government is to centralise all political power in Canberra, to reduce the States and local government to political impotency. That means reducing to impotency the will of the Australian people and their rights, because the further we remove the centre of political power from the grassroots-away from the people-the more we alienate the basic democratic political rights and power of the people. This has always been the long term game plan of the Australian Labor Party (ALP). It does not make any bones about that; it does not hide it. That game plan has not altered one iota under the Hawke socialist Government. For these reasons, at the committee stage of the debate I will be moving an amendment to extend the sunset clause provision of section 65u for a further two years, that is, until 1 July 1990. This will give the States a two-year extension in which to implement the decision for uniform State legislation taken by the Standing Committee of Ministers for Consumer Affairs, rather than subject them to the pre-emptive dead hand of a centralist Hawke Labor Federal Government approach. I believe the Opposition's amendment has been circulated to honourable senators; I will have more to say about it at the committee stage. I now turn to several other matters relative to the Trade Practices Act and consumer affairs generally. First, I will make quite clear the coalition's attitude towards consumerism. The Liberal Party and the National Party are committed to the protection of the interests of the consumer. In fact, it was a Liberal-National Party government-the Fraser Government-which established the first ministry and department of business and consumer affairs and, in fact, it was one of the very first departments established by the new Fraser Government in 1975. It was that same Fraser Government that established the National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council, which today is so influential in its role as adviser to Federal and State Ministers with responsibility for consumer affairs. Unlike what appears to be the view of the Labor Party and what is certainly the view of its increasingly powerful Left and Centre Left factions, the Liberal and National parties believe that there is no inherent conflict of interest between producers and consumers in a private enterprise system. The Labor Party and the free enterprise Liberal and National parties share a common objective of consumer sovereignty in consumer affairs. We both share that objective. However, we differ greatly in our respective approaches to the achievement of consumer sovereignty. The coalition's approach is that the sovereignty of the consumer is best enhanced by making the marketplace more efficient and more competitive through appropriate macro-economic policies and industry policies and by reducing the regulation and restriction of the private enterprise system to the optimum extent. We believe that the effective working of competition in the marketplace provides overall the best benefits to, and protection of, the consumer. That is not to say that there is no need for consumer protection provisions in the law-of course there is. The coalition has always supported such appropriate provisions. However, it is very important not to get these provisions out of perspective, not to place undue emphasis or reliance on them relative to other issues that concern consumer interests. I believe that that is what the Labor Party has done. The basically regulatory approach to consumer affairs of the Labor Party and the Hawke Government is confrontationist, costly and restrictive. I believe that the way in which the Trade Practices Act contributes most to the well-being of consumers is through its provisions to foster and strengthen effective competitive in the marketplace-not, as Labor would have us believe, through its consumer protection provisions and its huge network of committees, councils and advisory groups, many of them stacked with Labor's friends and mates. I will come back to that matter later. The Trade Practices Act has not been thoroughly reviewed or overhauled for many years-if ever. It has been amended in an ad hoc fashion over the years by successive governments but without our sitting back and taking a long, hard, objective and dispassionate view of where it stands in its totality. I believe that it is high time that we did just that, because I have a strong feeling that the Act is out of balance in its approach to the various components of trade practices, including protection and consumer affairs. I alluded earlier to the politicisation of consumer affairs, and I shall now further develop that point, as this is an issue about which the Liberal Party has been concerned for several years. It began under the Whitlam Government, while the Hawke Government has brought it to the level of an art form. The Australian Labor Party's official stated policy is to `provide for direct consumer representation' on the plethora of boards, committees and inquiries that it has established in the consumer affairs area. With very few exceptions the so-called consumer representation comes from the small select group of consumer activists and advocates who make up the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations, better known as AFCO, and the Australian Consumers Association, better known as ACA. AFCO receives almost 100 per cent of its ongoing funding from the Federal Government. That organisation and the ACA have also been the beneficiaries of State Labor government largess, at the taxpayers' expense. For example, in one six-week period alone the former New South Wales Labor Government gave the ACA $100,000 to conduct surveys of supermarket prices. It is extremely doubtful whether consumers benefit at all from that type of activity, but certainly the activists in the consumer movement do. Despite its grandiose title, AFCO is actually a very unrepresentative organisation. It certainly is not representative of consumers generally, as it parades itself to be. For example, although its governing body comprises 20 member councils, by far the largest of which is the ACA, there are only 200 people with voting rights. As few as 59 votes have been cast in its elections, and in the past seven years its membership has grown by only 47 people. AFCO's claims that it truly represents the interests of consumers is a sham. Its approach is governed by an overriding ideology, which essentially is anti-business and highly politicised. The politicising of the consumer movement in Australia mirrors, of course, developments in other Western nations. A former Minister in the Hawke Government, John Brown, has been reported as having described AFCO as being run by `the radical Left of the New South Wales Labor Party'. A former Director of AFCO, Mr Allan McCann, has described the Executive of the Federation as being `stacked with members all heavily in favour of the radical side of politics'. Mr McCann claimed that the Australian Consumers Association was `in the control of a clique carrying on the fight in the left-wing of the Labor Party in NSW'. At the time to which Mr McCann was referring the Manager of the ACA Public Affairs Unit was Mr Allan Asher. Mr Asher has recently been appointed by the Hawke Government as a full time member of the Trade Practices Commission, an appointment of which I and others in the chamber, notably Senator Bronwyn Bishop, have been highly critical. Our criticism has been echoed by large sections of the business community. The appointment obviously concerns the business community, as it concerns many others. A leading public affairs consultant, Mr Bob Browning, who has been critical of the orientation of the Australian Consumers Association, said recently that Mr Asher's appointment: threatens the objectivity of the Commission- and- erodes the democratic process by extending the already excessive influence over public policy and administration of the Australian Consumers Association. I believe that this appointment, along with many other appointments of the Government in recent years, raises very important questions about the nature of the appointments to important administrative bodies of government. If we are not very careful those appointments will diminish, if they have not already diminished-and I think they probably have-the confidence in the impartiality of those bodies. The Australian Labor Party will have only itself to blame if its support for persons with Left leaning and radical views on consumer affairs backfires, because it is the Labor Party which has brought these people and their organisations to the fore through key appointments and very generous funding. As I said earlier, the roots of this go back to the Whitlam years. I happened to see an interesting interview on television this morning. Ross Gittins, interviewed on the Good Morning Australia show, commented on the consumer conference taking place at the moment. Mr Gittins made the very interesting and important point that the great danger in terms of where we are going with consumer credit-but he was relating his comments to consumerism generally-is that we are setting up a small group of unrepresentative people who influence an enormous range of decisions of a paternalistic nature by saying to the Australian people that they, this small group of people with a particular ideological bent in terms of regulation and ideology, are going to know better than the consumers themselves what is in the consumers' best interests. I think Mr Gittins's point this morning and his use of the word `paternalism' in that context were very important indeed. The concern about these developments goes much wider than merely a concern for the direction of consumer affairs as such. At a recent symposium entitled `Business Regulation, when does the consumer profit?', an AFCO representative said, amongst other things: The outcome of the regulate debate will significantly shape the legal and social and environment of the Australian economy- I think it should have been `legal and social context'- in the years to come. That pitches an agenda far wider than just the question of consumer protection and consumer affairs. What it really seems to be putting straight on the line-nothing hidden about it-is that AFCO, and particularly its member bodies, have a much wider agenda of radical social change to the whole structure of this country. I think that that is an extraordinarily disturbing trend that has not yet been brought home fully to the Australian people, and if it is not we will finish up going a long way down the road to which I referred earlier of paternalism and regulation in a whole range of areas and that will be at great cost to this nation. Through the attacks of consumer organisations on a host of industries we have seen that they have adopted an anti-business attitude which puts much of the private sector, the productive sector of this country, at risk. Some of the absolutely disgraceful unresearched reports that have come out in the Australian Consumers Association magazine Choice in recent months are a matter of the greatest concern. In Melbourne in my State a small pate manufacturer has been affected. Last year the magazine carried a report on the pate industry, which has suffered dreadfully because of that totally biased and unresearched report. It did not in any way touch in its research on that manufacturer, or indeed on any other manufacturer in Victoria. It was a blatant, misleading article which has put an admittedly small industry, but there are others that one can point to, at very great risk. A few months ago I spoke in this place on some of these matters, particularly the role of AFCO and the Australian Consumers Association. As a result, I received a very wide range of comments and responses from the community. One of those raised with me two points which I believe are very important. I hope that the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Senator Bolkus) will follow these up for me, if not in the course of this debate then not long thereafter. In fact, I have a question on notice for him in relation to the rules for AFCO representatives. That is one of the two points. I have been advised that the ACA frequently tests imported goods for the Australian Customs Service. If it does, I would like to know whether the ACA is paid for the testing. If it is, does the testing go out to public tender or is it a preselected arrangement? For example, I understand that the ACA got $90,000 for its food irradiation report. I would like to know what goods the ACA tests and how much it is paid for that. What is the security situation in relation to its test results? That touches on the second point I want to raise; that is, the rules for AFCO representatives. As I said, many representatives of AFCO and representatives appointed by AFCO to government bodies have been given guidelines by AFCO as to their conduct in these forums. I understand that AFCO has warned its members that their first loyalty is to AFCO even when they are on government bodies which expect persons, once appointed, to serve the public as individuals, not AFCO instruments, and to put consumer, not consumerist, views. AFCO has addressed all members, saying: Appointees are regarded by AFCO as accountable to the Federation- that is, AFCO- and obliged to act in the interests of the Federation. If that is so-and I have no reason to believe it is not-what on earth does that mean for the impartiality of government bodies? What it means quite simply is that no government body which has on it an AFCO representative could in any way be regarded as being impartial. I am interested in that context to see Senator Gietzelt sitting in the chamber listening to this debate. In the early 1980s and, I think, the late 1970s he was one of the key promoters of the thrust for these sorts of representatives and the involvement of these people in Labor Party appointed consumer affairs bodies. As most, if not all, of AFCO's executive are ALP members or supporters, and as AFCO is in close liaison with the Federal ALP Caucus subcommittee on consumer affairs, might it not be reasonably assumed that the Government is tempted to usurp the voice of consumers for its own ends? The link between the ALP, AFCO and the appointments to consumer affairs bodies is of major concern because it brings government, business and individual privacy and confidentiality into question. AFCO has also said: For various reasons bodies on which AFCO is represented decide or are required to maintain confidentiality over all or some of their work. AFCO considers that such confidentiality should not preclude its representatives from seeking advice from others in the Federation on a limited basis. That is an extraordinarily serious statement and I hope that in the context of replying in this debate the Minister and other senior representatives of the Government on the other side of the chamber will take those points into account. Finally, I reiterate that the Opposition supports the Bill with the exception of the variation we wish to see to the Government's proposal in relation to section 65u and we will not oppose the Bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Zakharov) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.57) —As Senator Short has said, the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1988 amends three sections of the Trade Practices Act: section 53, section 65u and the section relating to the ability of the Federal Bureau of Consumer Affairs to authorise prosecutions without depending upon the authorisation of the Minister. The first of the proposed amendments, that to section 53, provides that a corporation and, in some cases, an individual shall not in trade or commerce falsely represent that goods or services are of a particular value. In simple terms, the amendment inserts the word `value' as one of the criteria in determining false representation. The necessity for this amendment arose from the Chaudhary case to which the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Senator Bolkus) referred in his second reading speech. In this case, Chaudhary's Oriental Carpet Palace ran an advertising campaign which the prosecutor alleged contained misleading statements with respect to the price of certain carpets. One of the allegedly offending statements was that the price of one type of carpet was `Usually $4,675, sale price $1,759, now only $497'. In another part of the advertisement an illustration of another type of carpet was accompanied by a drawing of a price ticket which bore the legend `usually $250, sale price $125, now only $12.50'. The prosecutor alleged that the statements were misleading because they indicated that the usual or fair retail prices of the carpets in Melbourne, where this was taking place, were $4,675 and $250, which allegedly was not the case. Expert evidence was adduced that it was impossible to specify a single specific price as the usual retail price in Melbourne of rugs of a particular size and type. The charges against the company were dismissed on the basis that the actual advertisement in this case did not contain a statement which indicated either the usual retail price or a fair price or a fair retail value of a rug to which the advertisement referred. However, the decision allowed for the possibility that in some circumstances goods had a definite degree of some reasonable characteristic which was recognised or so widely accepted within the relevant trade or by commercial practice generally that to ascribe that value to them in, say, an advertisement was inferentially to warrant that they were of a standard likened to that value. In short, Justice Ryan of the Federal Court of Australia indicated that a representation as to the value may be a representation as to quality, as defined in the existing section 53. Whether it does or not depends on the facts of each case. The amendment in this legislation, therefore, is clearly desirable in that it will remove any doubt that section 53 prohibits false representations as to the value of goods and services. The second amendment in this Bill proposes the repeal of section 65u of the Act, which is a sunset clause on the application of the product safety and product information provisions in the Act to food and drink for human consumption. It will take effect on 1 July 1988. As honourable senators are, I am sure, aware, that sunset clause was inserted into the Act in 1986 by Democrats' Leader Senator Janine Haines. Despite Government protests at that time during the debate on that Bill, the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) acknowledged in another place that Senator Haines's intentions were good. Basically Senator Haines's intention was to give the industry time in which to pressure the States into introducing in the area of food and drink supply and sale consumer protection legislation which was uniform and incorporated all the requirements contained in the Federal trade practices legislation. Senator Haines said at the time: We certainly believe that foods and beverages intended for human consumption should be subject to all the legislation and regulatory requirements that would make them fit for human consumption, and allow their recall if they fall short of that; but we believe that it is better, at least at this stage, to give the States the opportunity to get themselves organised and to put laws into place on a State by State basis . . . The imposition of a sunset clause was designed to force the States to act more speedily on the matter of model food Acts. As we know, the hoped for uniform food recall legislation at State level has not eventuated. As Senator Haines indicated in 1986, in those circumstances the Australian Democrats will support the removal of the sunset clause. The Opposition's proposed amendment would continue the sunset clause. It was the Democrats' intention two years ago to give the States that time. Very little action has taken place, Western Australia and Queensland having acted. We have to take a stand now in the interests of the community as a whole. In health matters the Federal Government certainly has not only the right but also the obligation to act in a situation where the States have not done so. Certainly one agrees with the States' rights argument, a finely balanced argument, but the balance needs to be set against the rights of members of the wider community and their need for protection in this case. It is on that basis that the Democrats are going ahead, as we foreshadowed two years ago, with supporting this amendment. It is worth reiterating briefly in this debate how important the product safety and product information provisions of part 5, division 1a, of the Act are and why their application to food and drink is so desirable. It is the desire of the Australian Democrats that the Federal Government introduce comprehensive regulations regarding food and drink labelling. I hope that the Minister will give this matter his urgent attention. Division 1a, which was inserted into the Act in 1986, provides for the banning of unsafe goods, the declaration of product safety and information, and the mandatory recall of hazardous foods. First, the 1986 amendments were necessary because earlier provisions had no application to unsafe product supply before a banning order was issued. Secondly, no powers were available to deal with the problem of unsafe products which had reached the hands of consumers. Thirdly, under the legislation adequate opportunity was not provided to review decisions taken by the Minister under the then sections 62 and 63. We are all aware in our daily lives of the incidence of hazardous products-adulterated salami and the tragic disembowelling of a child by a swimming pool filter, to name just two. The pre-1986 position was clearly unsatisfactory. The insertion in 1986 remedied the situation by bringing in recall powers and powers to prevent the supply of unsafe products. Naturally, the Australian people expect the Commonwealth to be able to protect consumers nationally from unsafe consumer goods and it is pleasing that it has been able to do so since 1986 and that the provisions will now apply to food and drink as well, through the amendment in this Bill. The last amendment contained in the Bill is essentially administrative in nature, resulting from the transfer of responsibility for the enforcement of part 5, division 1a, from the Trade Practices Commission to the Federal Bureau of Consumer Affairs. The Australian Democrats have no quarrel with that and will be supporting the amendment. I would like to make some comments about the general area of consumer affairs and specifically to address some of the issues raised by Senator Short in his contribution to this debate. Senator Short's complaint was, as I think he put it, about the politicisation of consumer affairs. I found his argument, in a sense, quite fascinating. It is flying in the face of reality to avoid any sort of politicisation in any public interest area, although I understand that Senator Short's concern about politicisation is one about party politicisation, but I would make it clear that activism in this area of community interest is a highly political exercise. I sometimes find it frustrating, when dealing with community groups, that they very often insist that they are not political. Of course they are. Obviously questions of party politicisation are a concern, but the arguments that Senator Short makes have a great many flaws. He is looking at only one side of the balance of power out there in the real world. He complains, for instance, about the representational levels of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations (AFCO) and points out that by far its latest membership comes from the Australian Consumers Association (ACA), a group which has very wide membership throughout the community. I have been a member of the ACA for more years than I care to remember. I joined the ACA when I became a housewife. Having been a member-a very unpolitical member-way back then, long before the days of the Australian Democrats, on many occasions I have been grateful for the information provided to me. Even information for which I have had no personal use has been at the very least stimulating and thought provoking. If Senator Short is arguing against the provision of that kind of information to consumers and ordinary people in the community, I certainly cannot support his argument. He seems to be arguing against any contribution by government to the major consumer organisations in Australia. To do that with any balance, anybody in this debate would have to argue, there ought to be no government support, for instance, for the business sector. What we are looking at in the whole area of consumer affairs and consumer representation is an achievement of some balance in a society in which our business and industry sector has enormous power by virtue of its position in our economy. Individual consumers can be totally lost in this sort of situation, and should not be. The development of a community sector which represents the voices of the community, of individual and ordinary consumers, should be welcomed. In any community organisation it will always be difficult to achieve total or perfect representation, and even to have all the activities of such an organisation perfect and unchallenge- able. But surely that is also the case on the other side of the coin, and it goes much too far to talk of these organisations as a sham. Senator Short expressed sensitivity about an anti-business bias on behalf of the consumer affairs sector and even, I suggest, on behalf of consumers. One needs to be careful about accusing any individual or sector of being anti-business. If voices are raised against the activity of another sector in the community, particularly a sector like the business sector, which has enormous power and influence in our community because of its economic base, because of the fact that it is such a large and productive sector of our community, the fact that voices are raised against business at one time or another on one issue or another should be seen by business as a cautionary note. It should be taken by business as part of its responsibility to listen and to act where necessary. To believe otherwise is to say that we should still be driving cars which basically are unsafe, that we should still be prepared to put up with no regulation at all in the areas I have already mentioned in my speech; that we should take a risk with what we drink, eat, use or buy. That argument cannot be sustained. Business can be very sensitive about regulation. I exhort Senator Short and any of his colleagues who share his views, if they really are concerned about business regulations, to support an Australian Democrat initiative which is coming up via Senator McLean, which is designed to cut red tape and regulation for small business as opposed to some of the corporate giants about the place. I confidently expect that Senator Short will exhort the Opposition seriously to look at that. Of course things can be overregulated, there is no question about it. Senator Short was concerned about influence over public policy specifically in regard to groups such as AFCO and the ACA. If we want to talk about influence over public policy, we should look at a couple of other areas-not the consumer affairs area necessarily and some community based groups with government funding and a fairly wide membership, but the potential influence over public policy of the increasingly fewer number of media moguls about at the moment. I hope that Senator Short's concern about undue influence over public policy will be exercising his mind in the current debate in the Opposition coalition as to what it will do with the proposals to put more ability to influence public policy into fewer hands when it comes to television ownership, which is a very current issue. There is a need for balance. I think that Senator Short was endeavouring to contribute to that point in his argument, but he takes the argument too far. He seems terribly concerned about radical social change at the hands of these consumer organisations. I would say that we have had some radical social change through consumer organisations and will continue to do so, but while that social change is occurring through the giving of information to ordinary consumers, by putting pressure where it should be duly put on decision makers relating to dissatisfaction with business products and industry, that change is necessary and defensible. Ordinary individuals in the community need to be able to make their own decisions and any legislation or organisation designed to enhance people's ability to do that gets the support of the Australian Democrats. But people must also be able to make those decisions when they possess information. The consumer organisations and movement provide information to people in the community. That is necessary because the only other sort of so-called information that is available, apart from in the halls of academe, is what passes for information but is pushed down everybody's throat by way of advertisements. We all know that what we see in advertisements is all too often not information but promotion, propaganda, what the advertiser wants the community to know, think, feel and, more particularly, buy. There is a need for a counter to that sort of promotional exercise which is undertaken through advertising by business to entice consumers into buying products. If that is a legitimate exercise, so is the exercise of the provision of information of a more specific nature which may question some of the promotion by business or industry concerned. It is taking the argument too far to suggest that the provision of this sort of information to people in the community should be condemned. It takes the argument too far to say that if organisations that attempt to do this are not totally representative of everybody in the community they should not exist. It is also taking the argument too far to say that the entire membership or leadership of an organisation such as this comprises members of the Australian Labor Party (ALP). If that were the case 12 months ago, I believe that it is far less likely to be the case now. What the Democrats are finding increasingly is that people such as those who have been members of the ALP in the past are not renewing their membership, and are actively contacting the Australian Democrats in the interests of the issues about which they are concerned, having felt very badly let down recently as the Government appears to be moving more and more in the direction of the top end of town and less and less in the direction of the ordinary people. They are clear messages which the Government has had in recent elections. I suggest that Senator Short's concerns about ALP membership of organisations such as these might be somewhat allayed by that kind of trend. However, I wonder whether Senator Short is as concerned about the political leanings of people in other organisations representing other sorts of groups in the community. I have already mentioned small business. It would be interesting if we had some sort of breakdown of the party membership of the leadership at least of the Australian Small Business Association (ASBA). I did not hear Senator Short condemn that organisation for being in a position to have undue influence over public policy, for pushing for radical social change, or for being unrepresentative of the constituency that it claims to represent. I do not want to single out ASBA; I suggest that there are any number of business and industry organisations about which the same sort of accusation could be made. That is a fact of life. People make political decisions. They choose which side of politics they believe will push their interests further, and that is part of the political process. There are some sensitive positions which would require that people do not have overt party membership. That is something we Democrats experience all too often. I suggest that officials in organisations lay themselves open to some criticism if they actively push a party line. I suggest that politically that is particularly debilitating. It is a pity if any community organisation closely aligns itself to any political party. What such organisations should be doing, and what increasingly those groups on the side of politics which are concerned for ordinary individuals in the community are doing, is casting around. In recent election campaigns we have heard from the Liberal Party claims to the allegiance of many of those ordinary Australians who feel let down by the Hawke Labor Government. It is not beyond canvassing support from those people; nor, I think, is any honest political party. We all put forward what it is that we have to offer. We are there in the marketplace for people in the community. I make those few remarks on the general issue of consumer affairs in response specifically to some of the points raised by Senator Short. As I said, the Oppositions's proposed amendment will not receive our support. We have given the States two years to perform in this area. Given that Western Australia and Queensland have performed, people cannot even use the argument, which is often used in this place, that all the good States have done it; it is only those baddies that we are waiting on, and we had better not infringe people's States rights just because the States rights States will not perform. That is not the case in this regard. Clearly, the Democrats are interested in ensuring that all Australians, whichever State they live in, are protected in the way that this legislation will proceed to protect them. Therefore, the Democrats support this legislation. Senator HILL(South Australia)(11.21) —I rise briefly to speak to the amendments to the Trade Practices Act. The amendments are not particularly controversial. I wanted to make a contribution to the debate in an attempt to put them in context. I am putting them in the context of noting that the consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act are not being used by private consumers. I note also that the Trade Practices Commission did not readily take up the provisions of the Act. When I asked why, and carried out an investigation, I found the answer was, firstly, largely related to cost-that is, consumers cannot afford to use the recourse of the law in this area. Secondly, they fail to understand what their rights are or how to enforce them, so there is a shortcoming in education. Thirdly, it seems that there is a lack of expertise in the professional legal world in this area largely because there is no market to warrant the development of that expertise-a dog chasing its tail argument. What is the point, one might ask, in looking to further continual reform of the consumer protection provisions of the Act if, for other reasons beyond the draftsmanship of the provisions, the remedies will simply not be utilised by consumers? I will try to develop this argument a little further. In doing so I find it useful to refer to an article by Peter Cerexhe in Consuming Interest of March 1988. He expresses concerns under the heading `The Trade Practices Act: a farce for consumers'. He noted that a survey conducted by the National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council indicated that, of 152 trade practices cases decided by the Federal Court between 1 July 1985 and 30 June 1987, only 13 were commenced by private consumers. Most cases were initiated by businesses using the consumer protection provisions of the Act against their competitors. This is a useful vehicle that we certainly do not condemn, but it was not the intention of the draftsmen in implementing these consumer protection laws in this Act. Furthermore, he noted that the Trade Practices Commission was responsible for only 24 cases. That would indicate that the Trade Practices Commission also saw its principal responsibility in relation to other parts of the Act. That might also be a sound argument when looking at questions of resources and so forth. It indicates that if the consumer was to look to the Trade Practices Commission as the Government watchdog in this area, the Trade Practices Commission, for reasons, as I said, of resources or other priorities, would not meet that responsibility. As I indicated, the reasons for this failure to utilise the provisions of the Act seem to be the three areas of cost, education and lack of expertise. Cost is fairly obvious. In consumer cases we are generally dealing with individuals who often do not have great resources. Their cases are likely to be against businesses-often multinationals-with enormous resources. One can readily see that the risk of entering into that litigation for a consumer who may well feel aggrieved in most just circumstances is, to that consumer, rarely warranted. The answer to that, one might immediately think, is that the consumer should seek the assistance of legal aid. However, the facts seem to be that very little legal aid in this nation is appropriated to the needs of consumers in this type of case. Why is that? It would seem that it is partly a prejudice, partly a view that these matters are not of great consequence and that moneys put aside by the public to assist those who are not able to fund their litigation would be better spent in areas of criminal law, matrimonial cases, running down matters, or other types of law. Certainly the facts seem to indicate that very little legal aid funding is appropriated in the causes of consumer actions. It is the argument of Mr Cerexhe that there is a prejudice of judges against these actions-partly, I guess, because of pressures on them. The natural tendency is to look upon matters of greater importance as being those involving much larger sums of money. There is a tendency, therefore, for what might be described as the small case to be pushed down the list or pushed down to lower courts. Mr Cerexhe, in his article, gives specific examples of judges in the Federal Court who find these cases before them regarding them as being more appropriately dealt with before a registrar. This fails to appreciate that to that individual consumer his action, which may not involve a large sum of money, is just as important as another case, involving for example, the Coles-Myer group, and a much larger sum of money. The tendency is to regard the latter as of greater importance. It is very difficult to try to calculate in any accurate terms what percentage of legal aid is available for this cause. I say to the Minister that when he looks at breaking down the functions of the administration of the Australian Legal Aid Office in the future he might look to a category that involves consumer protection because at the moment it does not exist and therefore in absolute terms we are unable to say what sum is utilised in this way. All evidence that is available through the consumer organisations would suggest that very little is utilised. It is also interesting when one looks at the provision that exists in the Act that allows the Attorney-General to give assistance. We find-at least if we take the advice of Professor Goldring-that as far as he has been able to determine no assistance has been granted under this section in the case of contravention of part V, division 1 of the Act. Therefore, there seems to be little assistance available from the public purse for consumers to gain assistance in prosecutions of these claims. There is the concern of the small consumer that the action may well become a test case, as is often the case in relation to these matters, and therefore what he might regard as a simple dispute between himself and, say, a manufacturer suddenly becomes a matter of enormous consequence to the manufacturer. Not surprisingly, therefore, that manufacturer, recognising the chance of a test case, will put great resources into defeating the claim. What is the answer? The answer is obviously that the Minister and the Government should recognise that to consumers their actions, although they may not involve large sums of money, can be just as important under this head of action in part V of the Trade Practices Act as are cases in many other categories. Legal aid should be treated in that light. In the longer term class actions might be of some assistance. I note that we can now expect the report of the Australian Law Reform Commission on class actions finally to come down in July this year. I think the wait has been nearly a decade. It will be interesting to see whether that report will also, in some way, be able to assist consumers in certain circumstances to overcome this cost impairment to using the remedies available under the Act. The second area of failure would appear to be that of education. Consumers still do not realise-although this Act has now been in force for some considerable time-the provisions of the Act that offer them protection in this area. They still do not understand their rights in this area and, furthermore, do not know how to enforce them. That also came out in Mr Cerexhe's article and seems to be widely accepted. It therefore places on all of us-in the Parliament and elsewhere, not only the consumer organisations-a responsibility to ensure that members of the public are made aware of their rights under legislation that we have passed and their capacity to enforce those rights. As to the third area in which Mr Cerexhe sees a failure occurring, when a consumer does have an action under the provisions of this Act, very often he finds that there are not experts available in the community to take the action on his behalf. I guess that the answer again comes in the form of education. Perhaps the reason has been, as I indicated earlier, that the Act-even the consumer protection provisions-has tended to be used in a predominantly commercial way rather than in a consumer protection way. I note that the Minister, in a Press release on World Consumer Rights Day on 15 March, stated: . . . I will ensure that everything is done to make sure that low income earners and welfare benefit recipients have equal and easy access to consumer rights and redress mechanisms. I remind the Minister of that, with great respect. It would seem to me, certainly on the basis of my research, that that does not exist at the moment and therefore I urge the Minister to meet his own rhetoric with action. I note that we now have a Federal Bureau of Consumer Affairs in this area and that it is now employing 26 staff. I suggest that the time of members of this staff could well be served not only in looking at further ways of changing the law, but also in looking at ways in which the public can be made more aware of the law and given the resources to enforce their provisions under the law. In these general comments on the weaknesses of the practical application of the consumer credit provisions, I must also mention the problem that is obvious to anyone who attempts to study this area: the fact that it comprises at the moment a myriad of different provisions at both State and Federal levels. Many of them are inconsistent, many are confusing and many offer different remedies. When we have the law in this state of confusion it is not surprising that the innocent consumer who was to be protected by it has difficulty in finding his way through these provisions of protection. It is obvious that something needs to be done about this confusion. I note the argument that it has come about largely because of the tenuous constitutionality of the Commonwealth provisions and, therefore, the feeling that they need to be supported by State legislation; nevertheless, this maze of Federal and State pieces of legislation is not putting together law that can serve the consumer as it should. I notice that the Constitutional Commission has been giving some consideration to this matter. I hope that we will at least in turn give consideration to its recommendation. I think its recommendation has been that section 51 of the Constitution should be amended to include protection of consumers and their interests as a concurrent power of the Commonwealth and the States. Having made those general comments about what I see as a failure of the system, I nevertheless recognise that the three specific amendments before the Senate today are necessary-two of them absolutely necessary. In the case of the third amendment we have an alternative way of doing it but, nevertheless, a change must be made. The first amendment concerns the provision relating to false representations. In Chaudhary's case it was said that this did not apply to value. Obviously, that required a small and simple amendment to section 53 of the Act, which is before us and has the support, as Senator Short said, of the Opposition. I note that the second amendment requires the removal of a sunset clause put in by the Senate which dealt with food and drink for human consumption as part of the general provision that covered the banning of unsafe goods. If that sunset clause is not removed now, food and drink included for human consumption would not be included. We on this side of the chamber have said: why not extend the sunset clause for a further two years to allow the States to implement uniform laws? I can only say that whilst that remains our preference-that is, a preference for consumer laws at a level of government closer to the people than is the Federal Parliament-one must note that the States have not implemented this law during the period that was allowed by the Parliament. I note that only two jurisdictions-Queensland and Western Australia-have made the necessary regulations to require the recall of foods, and even they have not done it in a uniform manner. Certainly, coming from the State of South Australia, which has been proud of its contribution to consumer protection law, I for one will go back and inquire as to why South Australia has been inactive in meeting its responsibility. But, certainly, if the States are not going to meet a responsibility that is obvious, the Commonwealth must step into the breach. Although we have a preference for doing it in a different way, we recognise that something needs to be done today. The third amendment concerns the question of enforcement and is really an internal procedural matter that is necessary for efficient enforcement by the Federal Bureau. Looking at the record of the Trade Practices Commission in the enforcement of constitutional matters, which I mentioned earlier, it would seem to me that a strong argument has been developed for moving this function to the Federal Bureau. Therefore we support this small amendment, which will allow the more efficient utilisation of the provisions by the Bureau. In summary, I support the tenor of the amendments. But I repeat that these amendments are going to be of little use if, notwithstanding the legislation, consumers find that because of cost, a lack of understanding or a lack of expertise in professional circles they are not able to take advantage of the benefits of the protections that we afford them under this legislation. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(11.41) —I rise to respond to the arguments put in this debate by both the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. At the outset I wish to place on record my acknowledgment of the constructive way in which the Australian Democrats have played this piece of legislation and also the way in which the Liberal Party has acknowledged the necessity for at least two of the three points that the Government seeks to address with the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1988. However, I wish to respond to some of the points made in the debate by Opposition speakers on the second issue, that of course being the food provisions. Before doing so I want to acknowledge the way Opposition speakers have handled this debate. On the one hand, I think Senator Hill approached it with a great degree of intelligence and maturity, acknowledging the problems along the way, and made some constructive comments and analysis, some of which I will go back to at a later time. On the other hand, I think Senator Short reacted in a manner indicative of the way that not only the consumer advocacy world but also industry seem to have lost contact with the Liberal Party. His contribution as official spokesperson in this place and Mr Moore's contributions in the House of Representatives are indicative that the will of not only the community but also industry has managed to leave the Liberal Party behind. Let me make a couple of points in general about consumerism and consumer advocacy and the role of the respective parties in this Parliament. I think Senator Short laid claim to Liberal purity and support for consumer advocacy. I remind Senator Short that it was in 1974 that consumer protection provisions were first placed in the Trade Practices Act. In fact, they were opposed at that stage by the shadow Attorney-General, Mr Ellicott. I remind honourable senators also that in 1975, when the Federal Labor Government intended to introduce comprehensive legislation to cover consumer affairs, that was very strenuously opposed by the present Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard. I also remind honourable senators that the rhetoric has not changed and that in 1985, when we were dealing with hazardous product recalls, the Opposition once again opposed a very effective and important measure to protect consumers. I remind honourable senators of the rhetoric of Mr Moore, the shadow spokesperson in the House of Representatives, who said, `The marketplace on the whole can provide the best for consumers'. Senator Short may have had a couple of initiatives along the way, but I think on the whole that when one looks at the substantive record and at the rhetoric of the Opposition at the moment one does not have to get emotive and call it an affront to intelligence, as some speakers did in the House of Representatives. It is fixed very much in an ideology which does not share much with reality. The approach seems to be to deregulate at any cost, because deregulation provides benefits to consumers. But it is not a left wing position to argue to the contrary. I quote the following editorial from the Financial Times of 31 January 1986. The last paragraph refers to the deregulation debate in the United Kingdom and states: . . . there is a vital and probably permanent role for regulatory policy. As policymakers in both the US and Britain are already finding, they cannot just set rules designed to let competition flourish and then stand back. They also need to be ready to intervene to keep markets open. One needs only to look at the history of food legislation and this provision to see what would have happened if the Opposition's position had been carried in 1986. Since that time there have been 10 product recalls. Let me cite one example. In November 1986 baby food was recalled under this specific legislation because of its poisoning effect. I could go through a list of contaminated food, ranging from ricotta cheese to brown sugar, desiccated coconut and canned tuna-all products recalled because of effective Federal legislation. In terms of being out of touch with reality, let me also look at this argument that the Federal Government is making a grab for power in the States. What we are talking about with this initiative is a situation where the Federal Government exercises a reserve power. There is still power in the States to pursue food law, so long as it is not directly inconsistent with Federal legislation. But, more importantly, we have over recent years set up a system of food law regulation which has the degree of uniformity that the consumer deserves and industry wants. We have set up a Uniform Food Law Interpretation Committee, whose role is to set standards for food laws. That is a State and Federal body which will operate under the provisions which Senator Short threw a big question mark over. Not only is the setting of food standards going to be approached in a cooperative way, but also the enforcement of them will be pursued in a cooperative way with the agreement of and with the mechanism set up with the States. The States and the Federal Government recognise that we are talking about a national market and national producers. We are talking about companies that produce items that cross State boundaries. If Senator Short were to spend some time talking to some portions of industry that he has not spoken to so far, he would get a very strong push to do even more than what this Government is doing. Industry is concerned that it has to conform to different laws in different States and to different sets of standards. The greatest degree of uniformity is the most desirable for industry. I think a consultative process with industry groups would be quite beneficial to the Opposition and the contribution it could make to better government in this country. But that is not the end of the argument. On the one hand, the Government and I are criticised for a grab for power. On the other hand, the same people who do that put out Press statements saying that the Federal Government does not act strongly enough in the interests of consumers. I refer honourable senators to what Mr John Moore, the shadow Minister for business and consumer affairs, said on the issue of flammable foam in furniture, such as beds that can explode because of their high content of particular chemical ingredients. On 17 March Mr Moore criticised me for not acting quickly enough and for not regulating the use of flammable foam. He wanted a national response in that area. He wanted the exercise of national legislation. But is it not contradictory and hypocritical that, on the one hand, he says to the Federal Government, `Act quickly, without any consultation with industry or the States, and regulate the use of flammable foam' and, on the other hand, he says, `We do not really see a role for you in the setting of food standards'? I think this contradiction is highlighted even more when we look at some foods. The Opposition is questioning the Government's role in the setting of national food standards. We are told that it is the State's role. But dog food is not food. The Opposition's approach, which acknowledges product safety but not food safety as being the role of the Federal Government, is that the Federal Government can intervene to legislate to protect dogs in their consumption habits, but not human beings. I think that very starkly illustrates the sorts of problems that fixed ideology causes the Opposition in this place. Even if we did not have Federal food laws and we left it all to the States, with the national market, with the mobility of food and consumers, there would still be a need for national food legislation to cover situations where food crosses borders and where some States will not have the constitutional power to cover it. Senator Short went on to make a point about appointments made by the Federal Government in the consumer protection area. Let me make it very clear that people are appointed by me and by this Government not because of any affiliation with the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations (AFCO)-although in some instances they are-but more often than not because of the contribution that they make to the general interests of consumers in this country. Senator Short questioned appointments because of their political bias and this close interrelationship with AFCO. I direct Senator Short's attention to the National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council. Without going through all the members-of course, if he wishes me to incorporate the list I will do so-the Council has 15 members, including someone who was the Consumer Relations Manager for Kraft Foods Ltd; someone who was a vice-president of the Queensland Bar Association; someone who was a Director of University Carpet Wholesalers Pty Ltd in Sydney; a person who was Deputy Chairman of Television Broadcasters Ltd and is a retiring member of the Advisory Board of the Business Studies Unit, University of Adelaide; a person who was a quality controller with K Mart (Australia) Ltd; and someone who was the Chairman of Grace Bros Pty Ltd; and Director of Standard Telephones and Cables Pty Ltd; and the list goes on. If Senator Short is to be fair about this and if his criticism is to have any value at all, it needs to be balanced. I think that Senator Short has done himself a disservice by picking on one part of the Government's representative selection process and not the other. Senator Short then went on to make a very general attack on advocacy groups-AFCO and the Australian Consumers Association (ACA). Those groups play a very important role, especially in the context of the debate pursued by Senator Hill when he recognised the powerlessness of consumers to pursue a remedy under the current legal system. The Government acknowledges that those groups play a very important role; it does not always agree with them, but their role is vital for the protection of consumers in this country. The ACA has a membership and circulation list of over 200,000 people and, in fact, it is more representative than the Liberal Party of Australia. Senator Short —That is not a membership. They are not members; they are subscribers to Choice. What voting rights do they have in the ACA? They have none at all. Senator BOLKUS —I will come to that. I draw the comparison between the ACA and the Federal Liberal Party one step further and pick up a point made by Senator Powell: What sort of representative rights do members of the Liberal Party have at Federal Executive and Federal Council level? In respect of the specific questions raised about ACA and AFCO, to the extent that they come within my responsibility, I will respond; and I am sure that the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) will respond in respect of the extent that they come within his responsibility. I am informed that, in terms of the research work conducted for the Australian Customs Service, no such paid work is undertaken by AFCO. I will leave these questions on notice and come back to them. Senator Short then proceeded to attack Alan Asher for some general political involvement. Perhaps it is a reflection of my state of ignorance of politics, but I do not know Alan Asher's political involvement. He was appointed to the Trade Practices Commission (TPC) not because of any political involvement but because of his long and well-respected history in protecting consumers and pursuing their interests. Bodies such as the TPC have the important role of protecting consumers, and that is acknowledged. Senator Short then went on to attack AFCO for its close links with the ALP Federal parliamentary Caucus. Let me place on record my acknowledgment and support for the work done by the Caucus committee on consumer affairs. I have been present from time to time when AFCO members have been in attendance, as have industry and consumer representatives. It is a very energetic and hard-working committee which conducts consultations throughout the country in both city and rural areas. It would be totally incongruous if AFCO was not one of the groups with which that committee had consultations. I turn now to some of the problems raised by Senator Hill, and I will do so in the spirit in which they were presented. Senator Hill raised the problem that consumers were not using the provisions of the Trade Practices Act in any substantial way. There are a number of responses I could and should make to that. First of all, the Government's approach to trade practices and consumer protection provisions is not to drag into court every retailer, manufacturer or distributor who breaches the Act; it is a consultative approach. The TPC has continuing discussions with, and information channels to, industry, and on the whole we see the provisions as very much setting standards of conduct in industry; and on the whole industry has complied with them. Just because only a small number of people sue for tort does not mean that they are not aware of their obligations under tort law, and that is very much the situation under consumer protection legislation. We also recognise that the provisions may not be used by individual consumers as much as we would like. As a consequence, in recent days we have taken steps to introduce representative actions to allow for the cross-vesting of legislation to allow consumers to initiate actions in lower courts. In response to Senator Hill's last comment, I point out that the Australian Law Reform Commission is in fact looking at class actions. I also put it to Senator Hill that not all actions under the Trade Practices Act are pursued in the Federal Court. Most consumers are concerned about warranties and many actions are commenced in State small claim tribunals in pursuance of consumer rights under the Trade Practices Act. Let me make one final point: the Australian Government sees consumer protection as very much part of our social justice approach to government. We acknowledge the need to protect consumers and their rights and to ensure that those rights are effectively pursued. We do this in the context of acknowledging the need for greater deregulation, and in that context we also acknowledge a need for regulation which is effective, uniform and streamlined to ensure that the principle of caveat emptor, which some of those opposite want us to go back to, does not dominate the marketplace. We acknowledge the need for greater participation of consumers, consumer representatives and government in these decision-making processes, and we also acknowledge the need for greater uniformity in Australia, not only because of the interests of consumers but also because of the interests of industry. I congratulate Senator Hill for noting that the Constitutional Commission at least has acknowledged the need for broader Commonwealth power in the area of consumer protection. Of course, in this respect he disagrees with his colleagues, but he shows the constructive way that government in this country should be approaching issues such as this, and of course that indicates why someone with Senator Hill's talent is ignored by an excessively cynical and pragmatic Opposition. In closing, I thank the Australian Democrats and the Liberal Party for supporting two of these three measures. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.59) —I have circulated on behalf of the Opposition an amendment to clause 4. It proposes the repeal of section 65u of the principal Act, which, as we discussed during the second reading debate, is the sunset clause. If existing section 65u is not altered, part V, division 1a of the Trade Practices Act would have no application as from 1 July this year, which is just a couple of months hence. As I said during the second reading debate, we share the Government's wish not to have from 1 July a situation where this part of the Act does not apply. However, unlike the Government, we believe that the States should be given an extension of time for the introduction of legislation to mirror the Federal Act. This has not happened, despite the hopes that we had when the sunset clause was inserted in 1986 on the proposition of the Australian Democrats. When proposing the sunset clause amendment Senator Haines said: The intention of this amendment is to give the industry time in which to pressure the States into introducing consumer protection legislation in the area of food and drink supply and sale which is uniform and which incorporates all the requirements contained in the Federal trade practices legislation before us. As yet that has not happened. Only two States, Queensland and Western Australia, have introduced regulations or taken action to implement that intent; the other four States have not done that. I think that is a matter for regret. In commenting on Senator Bolkus's response when winding up the second reading debate, let me say that it is not the view of the Opposition that there should not be uniformity of laws across Australia in this area. We agree with what Senator Bolkus said about the desirability and need for uniformity. What we are talking about is whether that uniformity can be achieved by the States introducing uniform legislation, mirror legislation, or whether it can be done just by Federal government legislation-which, of course, amongst other things, would involve major constitutional problems. So there is no difference, I believe, between the Government and the Opposition in relation to the end objective, but what we do wish to see and give every opportunity to happen is the end objective achieved by the introduction of uniform legislation by the States. It is indicated in the Government's explanatory memorandum to the Bill that the intention to have uniform legislation brought in by the States has not been realised. That is certainly true. The explanatory memorandum then says, `. . . nor is it likely to be in the foreseeable future'. The Opposition does not know whether that is the case; it is an assertion that we would like to see tested by an extension of the existing sunset clause for a further two years. I agree that it has already taken the States many years even to focus on this issue, and it is a matter for regret that the States have not taken action to introduce legislation in the two years since the sunset clause was inserted. However, the Opposition would like to see such an extension. With the Minister's persuasive powers amongst his Labor colleagues throughout Australia, I am sure that we are looking to him to exercise his responsibility to encourage the States to adopt the very legislation that we are talking about. Of the States involved, of course, Victoria and South Australia are Labor States; New South Wales has just changed political hands and I am not sure-- Senator Vanstone —For the better. Senator SHORT —For the better, of course. After 12 years of neglect and disregard in New South Wales we now have a government that is prepared to act in the interests of that State and its people. I have not had the opportunity to discuss with the incoming Liberal Party and National Party Government in New South Wales its attitude towards this matter. However, the very fact that there has been a change of government is one reason, I believe, for an extension of this sunset clause. It would also give the Federal Government the opportunity once more, together with industry-and I stress that-to encourage and pressure the States to take the necessary action that we all desire. If at the end of a further extension of time that has not happened, a decision on the matter will have to be made at that time. But we would press the Government to accept the view that, whilst it is understandable that it may feel that two years has been enough time to try to get the States to act, it should use its influence, in conjunction with the industry, to achieve the result that we all regard as being preferable. It is for those reasons that I move on behalf of the Opposition this amendment for an extension of the sunset clause for two years until 1 July 1990. I have just outlined some of my reasons and I outlined other reasons during the second reading debate. I move: Page 2, clause 4, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Extension of section 65U ``4. Section 65U of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section is substituted: Cessation of Division in respect of food and drinks `65U. On 1 July 1990 this Division shall cease to have effect in respect of goods which are foods and drinks intended for human consumption.'.''. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(12.07) —I want to reiterate some of the points that I made in the second reading debate in relation to the amendment which has now been moved. I think Senator Short was not in the chamber at the time. Senator Short —I was listening, actually. Senator POWELL —I am sorry. I indicated that the Democrats had moved for the two-year sunset clause for all the reasons that Senator Short has outlined. Senator Short has once again referred to Senator Haines's comments at the time. I want to refer to a couple of examples that the Minister gave in his second reading response of areas where recall of goods has had to be exercised, and I think he referred to baby food and tuna. As to Senator Short's comments, in terms of giving every opportunity to the States to implement legislation in this area and to test the assertions of the Government, I think what is inherent in those suggestions is that it is the consumers who will be doing the testing. I think that the two-year period has been long enough for the States to take this action. I think it is also important to make the point that business is really interested in having in many areas, not just in this area, national legislation because of the increased mobility of its products and the consumers of those products, which is a point that the Minister also made. I have come across this quite often in a number of other areas as well. So, it is not always the case that business really wants to have less regulation. Quite often these matters involve a national responsibility, and certainly the Democrats believe that that is so in this case. On the question of food legislation generally, I would also like to take this opportunity to ask again that the Minister give serious consideration to national labelling legislation. Adding to my own support for this, that view is supported by groups such as the Australian Allergy Association, the Environmental Medicine Association, and other groups which are concerned that as yet in Australia we do not provide enough information to consumers. These issues relate to the health of consumers and they must be raised at every possible opportunity. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(12.09) —Very briefly, my response on this occasion is very much as I related in my reply to the second reading debate. The Government will be opposing the amendment of the Opposition. In respect of Senator Powell's request for me to look seriously at national labelling legislation, I will undertake to do so. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Bolkus) read a third time. Debate resumed from 23 February, on motion by Senator Richardson: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(12.10) —We are debating the Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill 1987, the purpose of which is to amend the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972 to implement changes in a variety of areas dealing with promotions, transfers, appeals, forfeiture of office and attachment of salary, basically in the same way as the Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Act 1986 did for the Public Service Act. One of the most attractive aspects of the Bill is that the definition of `efficiency' is brought into line with that in the Public Service Act. This means that seniority has been abolished as a basis for promotion or transfer and efficiency is the only criterion that will be taken into account. Of particular interest is the fact that efficiency includes the potential of the applicant for further career development in the Public Service and the ability of each officer to perform the duties of other positions of the same or equal classification. The coalition regards that as a very positive move for the Commonwealth Teaching Service and supports that aspect of the Bill. A further attractive aspect of the Bill is that the appeals procedure is substantially streamlined. The first point I wish to make in that respect is that appeals can be made only by people who applied for the position in the first place. Of course, this seems a very commonsense amendment and one wonders why we have taken so long to get there. Commonsense in this regard should perhaps be referred to as uncommon sense; it seems ridiculous that someone who did not apply for the position in the first place should be able to hold up the process of appointment, et cetera, by appealing. The second provision for the streamlining of appeals is that where the selection was made other than by a joint selection panel someone can appeal but if the selection is made by a panel the person cannot. It is in terms of the panels that the coalition has some concern. I will get to those in a minute. The joint selection panels are made up of a chairman appointed by the Minister and two or three other people appointed by the relevant authority. Those other people cannot serve unless the relevant staff organisation agrees with their appointment. There is something of a technical contrast here between the Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Act and the Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill. Under the former, the Merit Protection Agency appoints the chairman or convener of a panel, the Secretary to the department has a nominee and the staff association has a nominee. As I understand it, the Merit Protection Agency has no power with respect to the Commonwealth Teaching Service so the Minister makes the appointment of the convener, who may well come from the Merit Protection Agency. While the relevant authority cannot appoint someone whom the staff association disapproves of, as the Secretary to a department can, I am told that if this Bill is passed in its existing form the procedure outlined would simply reflect the existing practice. The Government's approach has been that it is better to have a more conciliatory system of industrial relations within the Commonwealth Teaching Service and that it would be more efficient and conducive to harmonious industrial relations if, instead of the equivalent of the Secretary having a nominee and the staff organisation having a nominee, two or three nominees were appointed where both parties agreed that they were suitable appointees. Expressed in that way it does seem commonsense. In formulating the legislation to reflect what I am told is existing practice, the Government has given the staff associations effectively a right of veto over appointments to the joint selection panels because if they do not like someone they simply do not agree, and someone cannot be appointed unless it is with their agreement. The coalition asks: If this simply reflects existing practice-it would be a good sign if it did; if the staff association and the Minister could agree and were consistently agreeing-and it is not designed or intended to give the relevant staff association a power of veto and that would not happen in practice, what is the matter with removing the clause which effectively gives a right to veto? Given that it is existing practice it could proceed as we are told it is now, namely, in a harmonious fashion, and the appointments could be made by agreement if that is what the parties want. So we see circulated amendments Nos 1 to 3 as achieving just that, giving the opportunity for the Minister to make appointments to the joint selection panels in agreement with the unions but without a right of union veto. They seem most appropriate amendments to make. I understand that the Australian Democrats have an amendment in this regard which basically simply puts into other words that the appointments ought to be by agreement. The coalition will not accept the Democrats' amendment because all that it requires is for the relevant staff association publicly to say that it does not agree with the appointment of any particular person to the joint selection committee or panel and that makes it abundantly obvious that it is not in agreement and there is still an effective power of veto for the unions. All they have to do is to state publicly that they are not satisfied with the appointments and the Minister would have to change them. We think it is much more appropriate to leave the responsibility for selecting the panels and for taking all appropriate matters into account, including the need for agreement, with the Minister. So if the Minister chooses to make appointments that the union disagrees with it will be on the Minister's head and the Minister's achievements in industrial relations in that area will be the worse for having proceeded in that way. But that is where the responsibility should lie rather than the union having the veto power. The other amendment that we will move in the committee stage is listed as No. 4 on the circulated amendments. It seeks to spell out even further our views with respect to union membership. It is in two parts. Firstly, it inserts a clause indicating that a joint selection committee would not be able to refuse to consider an application on the basis that the applicant was not a member of a relevant staff organisation. The second part of the amendment would ensure that a joint selection committee or a member of it would not, in assessing the claim of an applicant in accordance with the relevant section, take into consideration whether the applicant was a member of that union. The coalition will move those two parts together as amendment No. 4 in the committee stage. The Bill deals with a number of other areas. Apparently, the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972 was inadequate to deal with the arrangements for forfeiture of office by persons who did not show up at work. That inadequacy is catered for in this Bill. The Bill also deals with the question of transfers. Transfers have been required as a consequence of restructuring within the Australian Capital Territory. The Bill will allow people in the Commonwealth Teaching Service to be transferred to an institute of technical and further education. The Bill also puts the arrangements for attachment of salaries in line with the Public Service Act. There is one matter, minor as it may seem, on which I would appreciate some comment from the Minister. The only apparent difference between the Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill and the Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Act is the greater penalty under the Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill, of $1,000 or six months gaol, as opposed to $100 or three months in the Public Service Act, for the offence committed when a creditor fails to notify the paying officer that the debt has been paid. This may seem a minor point, but, for the same offence, one wonders why the financial penalty is 10 times greater in the Bill and the alternative gaol penalty twice as long. The coalition will support this Bill-even if the amendments are not agreed to by this chamber. However, I would be grateful if Senator Jenkins, in her speech, would detail for the chamber on what basis the Democrats feel they could not support our first, second and third amendments. Without going into detail, I remind honourable senators that those amendments remove the power of veto of joint selection committees from the relevant staff organisation and put the full responsibility for achieving harmonious industrial relations in that regard with the Minister. I look forward to hearing Senator Jenkins's comments in that regard Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(12.22) —In my speech on the Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill I certainly will address the issues to which Senator Vanstone referred. I do not have a copy of the Opposition amendments, but I presume that they are the same amendments as were put forward in the House of Representatives. Senator Vanstone —Yes. Senator JENKINS —As stated, the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972. The principal amendments bring the Act into line with the Public Service Act, which we applaud, in the areas of promotions, transfers, appeals, forfeitures of office and attachment of salary. Provision is also made for the transfer of staff from the Commonwealth Teaching Service (CTS) to certain Commonwealth authorities should it prove necessary, and I am sure that it will prove necessary, given the changes that are going on in the Australian Capital Territory schools and technical and further education (TAFE) sector. The Bill also provides for the implementation of certain technical changes to remove inconsistencies from the Act. The 1972 Commonwealth Teaching Service Act has been amended a number of times, during the Whitlam, Fraser and Hawke governments. The amendments contained in this Bill are welcomed by the Australian Democrats. Our only argument with the Government is with the wording of clause 32 (2), which, in the opinion of the Australian Democrats, does not faithfully reflect the actual situation. I will address this matter in detail later. Clause 3 (b) contains additional definitions, including a definition of `relevant staff organisation'. `Relevant staff organisation', in relation to a position, means an organisation that is registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 and for membership of which a person holding the position would be eligible. That point is relevant to the clause in question, about which there will be some debate. Clause 5 alters the definition of `efficiency' used by the selection panels in the initial selection of an officer and in appeals against selections to conform to the formula contained in the Public Service Act. At the same time, seniority is abolished as a factor for consideration in promotions and transfers, leaving efficiency as the sole determinant. The Australian Democrats also welcome this provision. Clause 6 limits appeals to those persons who have applied for an advertised position-also a welcomed amendment. I agree with Senator Vanstone that it is totally ludicrous that people who have not even applied for a position in the first instance should be able to waste time and money putting forward an appeal-and appeals do take both time and money. This tightening is welcomed by the Australian Democrats. Clause 7 inserts a new division 4 in the Bill. The provisions relating to the joint selection committees in this new division do not introduce any fundamentally new principle not already passed by the Parliament in the Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Act 1986. I do not know what the coalition's position was on that issue but I suspect that it supported it. Under the new division 4 a relevant authority has the option of selecting officers on the advice of a joint selection committee. The recommendation of a committee, if accepted, is not subject to appeal. There will probably be debate on this point in the committee stage. The joint selection committees represent, for management and staff associations, the option-and it is an option-for promotion selection in which the existing statutory appeal right is forgone. Therefore, it is critically important that the constitutions of these selection committees are credible and agreed to by all parties. In this case the relevant authority would be the Chief Education Officer of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, or the yet to be appointed directors of the new Australian Capital Territory Institute of Technical and Further Education and Canberra Institute of the Arts. As I said, the process can occur only with the agreement of the involved parties. If such agreement is not reached, the usual procedures for promotion selection, which involve appeals procedures, are followed. The system is not disrupted in the event of the parties not being able to reach agreement. If agreement is not reached, the applicant goes through the appeals procedure. In the Public Service reform legislation both management and staff associations have separate representatives on the joint selection panels. If either party does not wish joint selection to occur, it simply does not nominate representatives. This is not seen as the exercise of either a management or a union veto which grinds the selection process to a halt. Rather, it is the application of a legitimate preference by either party for joint selection or the standard promotion process. In practice, I have been told, there have been few joint selection committees, if any, operating in the main body of the Public Service, because the staff associations are most reluctant to forgo, on behalf of their members, the right of appeal. Accordingly, the benefits of the joint selection process are not being experienced in any significant way. In the Commonwealth Teaching Service, I have been informed, a de facto system of joint selection has been operating for many years. The proposal now before the Parliament formalises this practice, which is considered by all parties to be credible and efficient. The difference from the Public Service reform legislation is that both parties in the Commonwealth Teaching Service wish to agree jointly on the total composition of any joint selection committee, except for the chairperson, who is appointed by the Minister. The Australian Democrats' amendment makes this absolutely clear. In other words, we also do not like the way in which the clause is set out in the Bill. To our minds, it is a veto clause. We prefer to see such wording as to make it absolutely clear that the formulation of a selection committee would be by agreement. Our suggested amendment is that the person shall not be appointed under paragraph (1) (b) unless the relevant authority and the relevant staff organisation have first agreed that the person is suitable for appointment. I have been informed that in fact this is what has been happening for some time; it has been a form of practice. This situation is seen as a far better one than that in the Public Service reform legislation, which polarises the joint selection committee into two major camps-that is, management and staff association. The method proposed in the legislation is based on a true industrial democracy style, which is applauded by the Australian Democrats. In practice, the Commonwealth Teaching Service parties have had no difficulty in reaching agreement on mutually acceptable members of joint selection committees. However, because the CTS Act has not been amended, the statutory right of appeal still remains. This means that, besides the exhaustive inquiries which are made in selecting persons for promotion, the system also has to meet additional expenses associated with running an appeals system; and this can involve many thousands of dollars. In the school and TAFE systems, it is estimated, the immediate benefit by way of saving of public money is in the vicinity of $175,000, that is, the equivalent of six full time teaching positions. I would add, as someone who comes from the TAFE system in Western Australia, that in that State there is no system of selection panels and all appointments are subject to appeal. Everybody appeals, whoever is appointed, and I know full well that the system is costly and time-consuming and that much precious time is wasted in this way, although one would never want to remove the right to appeal where this is felt to be appropriate. I turn to the Liberals' amendment. I understand that it seeks to change the method of appointment of joint selection committees such that only consultation will occur with the relevant staff association. We cannot agree with that because we feel that that the full composition of the committee should be by mutual agreement on both sides. Rather than management consulting with staff associations, we prefer to go for the mutual agreement-true industrial democracy. I cannot imagine why any staff association would want to forgo the right of a statutory appeal for its members if it were only to be consulted on the composition of a joint selection committee. In effect, the Liberal amendment could render the joint selection useless and could deny the ACT schools system the benefits to which I referred earlier. I turn to division 5 of the Bill. This allows a relevant authority to retire an officer who has been absent on unauthorised leave for an extended period. It seems incredible that the matter has not been addressed before and it is a sensible amendment. However, in regard to 5a, which provides for a proportion of an officer's salary to be paid to a creditor where judgment is given against the officer by a court, I look forward to hearing further details from the Minister. The Bill also contains a proposed new section 50a. The Government has stated that it proposes to consult with employee representatives about applicable conditions before staff are transferred under the proposed new section 50a. As this consultation is not included specifically within this legislation, I assure the Minister that the Australian Democrats will closely monitor these transfers between the various areas of education within the Commonwealth Teaching Service. This matter is of particular concern to teachers and lecturers in the Australian Capital Territory. That concludes my remarks in this second reading debate, but I feel that we shall need to spend more time at the committee stage on the clause which is at present subject to three amendments. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(12.38) —in reply-It will come as no surprise to the Senate when I say that the Government believes that the Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill is appropriate in its present form. It is vital for an efficient public schooling and technical and further education system in the Australian Capital Territory and brings the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act into line with the streamlining of the Public Service that took place in 1986. Nevertheless, given the concerns which have been expressed in this debate, I foreshadow a Government amendment to proposed new subsection 32 (2) to be inserted by clause 7. That would require that a joint selection committee member other than the chairperson may be appointed only if the employing authority and the relevant staff organisation agree that the person is suitable. This reflects the current practice in respect of conventional selection committees and is not different in substance from the Government's original proposal. I do not propose to say much more at this stage on the amendments and will wait until we reach the committee stage, but Senator Vanstone asked that I say something about the penalty provisions in proposed new section 34d. It is modelled on the Public Service Act, but sets a higher penalty than does that Act. There is no special reason for that other than that this is a somewhat more up to date penalty than that in the Public Service Act, and it was set on advice from the Attorney-General's Department. We can refer to the Public Service Commission the question of whether the Public Service Act penalty should be reviewed. Senator Jenkins asked for more detail on the provision dealing with the attachment of salaries. Details are given on page 7 of the explanatory memorandum. Senator Jenkins should look at that and ask any further questions on it during the committee stage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Zakharov) —It being almost 12.45 p.m., under sessional order the Senate will now consider matters of public interest. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(12.41) —I would like to address my remarks during this debate on matters of public interest to a few taxation matters and anomalies that have arisen. On 10 December 1987, and again on 24 February 1988, I raised in the Senate the subject of lifting the provisional tax threshold-in other words, the figure at which unearned income would qualify for provisional tax-which has been sitting at $999 per year for at least the last nine years. That threshold has netted the savings of many young people and pensioners. I have just read an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 20 April 1988 which included these references to the Treasurer (Mr Keating): The Federal Government is ready to increase the tax-free threshold on pensions in the May economic statement . . . and is considering altering provisional tax arrangements affecting pensioner earnings from savings and investments. He said that he would like to announce increases in the pension tax threshold together with provisional tax adjustment provisions. I applaud him for those statements. With regard to the lifting of the provisional tax threshold, it seems to me from this statement-that is, that the Treasurer is considering increasing that threshold from $999 of unearned income to whatever figure he is thinking of-that he is thinking of increasing it only in the case of pensioners. This would be discriminatory. We have to look at the other end of the scale-young people trying to save for a home, as I have said before, or people who are just generally saving. When their unearned income reaches that figure of $999-or whatever figure the Treasurer decides on-they could be getting into that bracket. If he does not alter the $999 provision for anyone except pensioners, anyone with savings of $6,000 or $7,000 would be caught in the provisional tax net. In relation to people's savings, accountants time and time again say to both young and old people who have not paid provisional tax, `Now you will have to pay it'. They say, `What's this provisional tax bit? I had better spend some money and make sure that I do not pay provisional tax'. That is the context in which I raise this matter. I ask the Government, when it is considering whether, in the May economic statement, to increase the provisional tax threshold, to apply it across-the-board and not just to pensioners. I am sure that some such move will be made. I would now like to move onto a different matter; that is, the taxing of share profits under section 26aaa of the Income Tax Assessment Act. I will quote a brief passage in a letter to me from the Taxpayers Association of Western Australia. I will quote straight from the letter: The Perth office have indicated that they are sympathetic to the view that short term speculative losses should be allowed as a deduction however, although they have had continuous liaison with Canberra, their efforts have been unsuccessful. We understand that the Taxation Office are shortly to issue assessments to taxpayers whereby profits on disposal of property within 12 months are assessed under Section 26aaa and losses on disposal of property- which includes shares- within 12 months are treated as a capital loss. Take the simple example of a person on fairly average wages-a clerk somewhere, or a truck driver, a miner or something like that-of around $25,000. Under the pay as you earn (PAYE) system he is up for $6,682. But what if he made a $30,000 profit on one share transaction. Let us say he had a couple of thousand dollars to invest just before the share boom last year. A lot of people, working at the mines or in solicitors' and accountants' offices, got the bug and if they got on to a good issue they could quite easily have made such a profit-and I know some who did, although I am using the figure of $30,000 to make it easier. So this person bought these shares and then made a $30,000 profit. Then, of course, got the bug a bit more and decided to carry on in the market-and then lost that $30,000 in another share transaction. His effective balance after his dealings was nil. In other words, he made no money and he lost no money, so one would expect that at the end of the year when his tax bill came he would only need to pay tax according to his PAYE figure. But it does not work that way. Under section 26aaa the Australian Taxation Office simply takes the $30,000 and adds it to his PAYE income, which makes a total of $55,000. The tax on that would be $19,801, using today's rates. We must add $687.50 for Medicare and $16,081 for provisional tax, giving a total of $36,569. If we deduct what he has already paid in PAYE tax, we are left with a net liability of $29,887.50. Of course, not having any share profits as at 31 March next year-I would say that he would be scared right out of the market, thinking `I will stay on wages for the rest of my life; I am not going to do that any more'-he can then ask for a provisional readjustment and that provisional tax will be wiped off. In other words, his total tax bill, after having wiped out that $16,081, will be $13,806. That is the bill he will be getting, and he will be getting that bill even though he made no profit on his transactions. One way or another, like it or not, he will have to foot the bill. I know that he has capital losses to wipe off against his capital gains, but a fellow of modest means, on $25,000 year or whatever, with a family, having been scared off after his first time in business or share trading will probably not be game to try anything like that again. He will never, unless he gets a capital gain somewhere by selling one of grandma's paintings or something like that, get a chance to wipe that capital loss off, so he is left with this $13,806 tax bill to pay. Worse still, he might have borrowed $2,000 to buy those shares in the first place. I stress that he could be a very ordinary wage earner, such as a truck driver, an office worker or whatever you like. It could happen to anyone. As I said, he could even have borrowed the money. So, I put that scenario forward as a very simple example of the problems people face, and on about 31 March next year dozens and dozens of these cases will crop up right around Australia. I implore the Government to take this matter on board and see that something is done. The last point I make on taxation matters, Madam Acting Deputy President, is one that I have already spoken about in this chamber before; that is, problems with provisional tax since we have gone onto the quarterly system. There are computer problems around the country in that when people pay their quarterly instalments and then get their final instalment out at the end of the year, they do not have their credits. That is simply put down to computer error. It is said that there are computer faults, or that they are not working. The trouble is that our taxpayers are suffering because of this. To give an example, I quote from a letter that I have received: It appears that the Tax Office is not fully recognising past provisional tax payments in the assessment of quarterly provisional tax. Consequently, wrong assessments have been issued by the Tax Office and taxpayers are being forced to effectively pay double tax. In a lot of cases, of course, people have to borrow money to pay this tax. The letter continues: In a number of cases, the double tax payment runs into thousands of dollars. While the Tax Office recognises the problem- and it does recognise it; it does not try to hide from it- it is advising taxpayers to remit their payments or suffer the consequences of the very severe penalty payments. I find this situation extraordinary as taxpayers are being financially penalised by an error that has occurred exclusively within the Tax Office. It is as simple as that. Of course, there is the added problem that when the Tax Office recognises that there has been a problem and finds the credit in there, there have been cases where taxpayers have been told, `Well, it is there; it can sit there as a credit for future tax assessed'. So, they have paid it twice, they are probably paying interest on the money they borrowed to pay the second round of assessment, and now it is sitting in the Tax Office and not getting interest. That is the problem I have heard of in Perth, in Adelaide, and in relation to the Brisbane computer. Whether there is one central computer, I do not know. I presume that if there is a problem everywhere it could be centralised. These share trading/provisional tax concerns and the other provisional tax problems are serious matters affecting many taxpayers. The Government has to do some quick work between now and 31 March next year to bring these problems into line. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) agreed to: (1) That discussion of Matters of Public Interest be not further proceeded with this day. (2) That intervening Government Business be postponed till after consideration of Government Business, Orders of the Day Nos 10 (Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Amendment Bill 1988), 11 (Laying Chicken Levy Bill and related Bill) and 12 (Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1988). (3) That this Order have effect till 2 p.m. this day. Debate resumed from 17 March, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(12.55) —The Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Amendment Bill amends the diplomatic and consular privileges and immunities Acts as they affect the diplomatic and consular corps to provide that tax imposed under the various sales tax Acts is not payable in respect of goods intended for the official use of and not resale by a diplomatic mission or consular post of a prescribed overseas country provided the goods are purchased from a registered sales tax payer. These amendments are brought about as a result of increasing difficulties that Australia has been experiencing overseas in claiming exemption for its missions and posts from sales tax and value added tax. The Bill is supported by the Opposition. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(12.56) —I thank Senator Reid for her contribution. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 23 March, on motion by Senator Richardson: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(12.57) —This laying chicken levy legislation was foreshadowed last year when we passed the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Bill 1987. The situation is that egg marketing arrangements are, of course, a matter for State governments to administer. Under current arrangements for research sponsored by the egg industry with the aid of matching Commonwealth grants, egg producers contribute towards research through a levy imposed on their operative hen quota issued under State or Territory law. The relevance in this case is the Federal contribution towards research. These Bills essentially provide a contingency plan in case the present arrangements based on State hen quotas are abandoned, which would stop the flow of funds for research in this industry. The Bills provide for a standby levy mechanism which could be introduced without delay to ensure continuity in the egg research program. The mechanism agreed on with industry is a levy on hens hatched for egg production. A similar levy on chickens hatched for meat production provides industry contributions to the chicken meat research scheme. The egg industry in Australia is a $200m per annum industry and recently egg producers have begun to develop profitable export markets. Australia has an efficient and highly rated poultry industry by world standards. Research is essential to retain this position. In September last year the industry won a $15m contract to supply egg products to Japan, in competition against subsidised products from the European Economic Community and the United States of America. The maximum levy which can be introduced under the proposed legislation is 10c per hen and the operative rate is to be set by the Australian Agricultural Council. The coalition is strongly supportive of research which increases the competitiveness of rural industries and the efficiency of the poultry industry, and will support these Bills. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(12.59) —We are discussing two Bills today-the Laying Chicken Levy Bill 1988 and the Laying Chicken Levy Collection Bill 1988. The first of those Bills seeks to provide a standby levy mechanism to enable egg research to continue should present egg research levy arrangements, which are based on State hen quotas, become unworkable due to the abandonment of the quota system in one or more States. The second of the Bills makes arrangements for the collection of the levy that may be imposed if needed under the Laying Chicken Levy Bill 1988. As these Bills seek to ensure the continuation of research funding for the chicken industry, which the Australian Democrats welcome, I do take this opportunity to make a couple of brief comments on the 1986-87 annual report of the Chicken Meat Research Council. On pages 6 and 7 of that report we find the heading `Refinement of Husbandry Approaches and Address Welfare Issues' and the sub-heading `Research Trends and Results'. When this report was placed before us some months ago I particularly noted that there was a project concerned with the study of the self-selection of feeds by chickens four weeks of age. It indicated a number of things, and among them that chickens living in groups were able to balance their diets more effectively than individually accommodated chickens. Another project involved a study of the nesting behaviour of hens in order to alleviate the floor egg problem. The report said: Experiments have been conducted to encourage hens to go up to nest boxes, and attract them into nests, in order to identify the cause and possible remedies for the floor egg problem. It has been found that the main reasons for floor laying appear to be: the poor perching ability of some hens; the lack of prior experience of being in a nest; and the hens not realising that the nest boxes are potential nesting sites. I do not think it would surprise anybody if I, of all people, were to be horrified by this. In case Senator Watson and Senator Walters are listening avidly in their rooms, and knowing as I do that they often wager a little something on the side as to how quickly in an egg Bill debate I mention free-range eggs, I now mention free-range eggs. But because of the question of the poor perching ability of hens and because it is noted in the same research project that chickens living in groups can better balance their diets than chickens living alone, I do raise the issue of animal husbandry in intensive farming. I think it is something we should all bear in mind. My first reaction was that if I were confined to a very small space I do not think I would be able to stay on my perch, either, so I am not surprised the chickens cannot stay on theirs a lot of the time. Certainly many members of this chamber engage in fairly strenuous physical exercise because they know the value of that exercise to their own physical health and well-being. I think Senator Michael Baume, who normally sits here on my right-somewhat appropriately, I believe-is a regular tennis partner of Senator Cooney who, not so appropriately perhaps, sits on my left. I know that Senator Patterson, who is in the chamber, engages in strenuous swimming at every possible opportunity. It is one of her major interests. Senator Button, I read in the paper one day, was once jogging around Lake Burley Griffin when he should have been here doing something else. I have seen Senator Alston gulping in the pollution of Melbourne at lunchtimes in an attempt to stay fit. If one gets here early in the morning one sees Senator Crowley coming in from her morning's exercise. We want to engage in exercise, and I think that is the very least that we could enable our chickens to do. I certainly hope that the Chicken Meat Research Council will look very seriously at that. Senator Boswell —What about the increased cost? What about the consumer? Senator POWELL —My colleague behind me refers to the cost of eggs. There is a bit of a furore about this in Victoria at the moment. While eggs remain under $2 a dozen, eggs being almost the perfect food and one egg on a piece of toast being a good meal, I think they are still pretty cheap. I would like to refer to a section in this report which refers to investigations being undertaken into the harmful effects of weed seed contaminants in cereal grains which are fed to poultry. I am very pleased that contaminants of whatever kind are being looked at by the research body. I did see in the Canberra Times quite recently, in February of this year, an article relating the fact that traces of insecticide had been found in New South Wales chickens. Certainly these traces were not above the maximum residue level but it has been found that the wood shavings used in the chicken's breeding areas have contained chemicals such as DDT, aldrin and heptachlor, which of course are chemicals with which we are having considerable contamination and residue problems. I do hope that the research authority will be looking not just at the effective contaminants in feed for chickens but also at contaminants in their general environment. As members of this place will know, chemicals in agricultural production generally is a matter of major concern. So I just make those few remarks and reiterate that the Australian Democrats will support the Bills. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(1.06) —I thank Senator Lewis and Senator Powell for their remarks in this debate. I have nothing to say in reply. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment, requests or debate. Debate resumed from 15 March, on motion by Senator Bolkus: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(1.07) —The Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Act 1986, the basis of the new dairy marketing arrangements, imposed a levy on butter and cheese produced after 1 July of that year. Butter and cheese exported was exempted from the levy, with the exception of small consignments and those containing less than 25 per cent of dairy produce, in the mistaken belief by the Australian Dairy Corporation that it would be easier to impose the domestic levy on small packages rather than exempt small packages from paying the levy. The intent was to reduce administration costs but the opposite has occurred and the Australian Dairy Corporation has requested the removal of these restrictions, recommending that retrospective to 1 July 1986 all exports be exempt from the levy. The limit also discriminated against a manufacturer who exported a large amount of butter or cheese in small consignments compared with one who exported small amounts in large consignments. The Australian Dairy Corporation cites savings in administrative costs and hence savings to the dairy industry at large as the reason for this amendment. The purpose of this Bill is to make it clear and specific that all dairy product exported, irrespective of the weight of the export consignment or the percentage of dairy products, be exempt from the domestic levy on butter and cheese, and that that be back-dated to 1 July 1986 so as to reimburse those who have paid the levy. The coalition parties will be supporting the Bill. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(1.09) —Senator Lewis has clearly outlined the purpose of the Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill. However, there is one very small sector of the dairy industry that does not believe this Bill goes far enough. On a recent trip through Gippsland I had the very great pleasure of visiting the Gippsland blue cheese factory. Many honourable senators will be familiar with this cheese, and any honourable senators who have travelled on Qantas in first class will know that this cheese is served as a speciality cheese. Senator Boswell —What cheese is it? Senator PATTERSON —Gippsland blue cheese, Senator. Five years ago this small factory did not exist. I would like to tell the Senate the story of the development of this cheese, because I think it is a story of enterprise, innovation and sheer determination. A farmer in Gippsland decided he would try to be innovative. I think he rues the day he did. He set out, in conjunction with a young man living in the area who had been trained in cheese manufacturing, to develop a small speciality cheese industry. They went into considerable debt because, as many honourable senators will be aware, such a project requires extensive capital. They also demonstrated some foresight by attaching to the factory an afternoon tea or small luncheon area where tourists could come to watch the cheese being made. As well as trying to get into the cheese business they were also opening up this area to the tourist industry. It is a beautiful area; in fact the locals call it God's own country. So here we have a farmer attempting to move into an area and be innovative. What has happened? First of all, he has gone into enormous debt to do this, and he and his directors claim that, if State and Federal regulations continue in the way they are going, the Gippsland blue factory will be further in the red. We will be the poorer for it. Why? Because this cheese, unlike our other dairy products, comes under the import replacement category. There has been a significant demand for this cheese and for other cheeses in the speciality area produced by places such as Jindi, which is just down the road from the blue cheese factory. They are working towards import replacement and, in addition, working towards building up an export market. But they have been daunted by the regulations in the industry, both at a State and Federal level. Local people who may have gone into the industry have also been daunted. Their vision was to have blue vein cheese made in their factory; to have the Jindi factory, a small factory down the road which produces brie, co-operating with them; and also to encourage other farmers in the area to set up specialty cheese factories. Their vision was that they would be able to build up an export industry and be able to export quantities in refrigerated containers from that area, benefiting from the economies of scale and, in addition, from sharing laboratory facilities. I have learnt a lot about specialty cheese manufacturing in the last little while, and every batch of cheese, especially if it is for export, has to be tested. That is fine if one is exporting large volumes of cheddar cheese, but it is not fine if one is trying to get into the export market and export small quantities of specialty cheese. The people involved believe it is impossible for them ever to become exporters as the testing of this cheese is so costly that once that cost is spread across their small batch it will make the price of the cheese prohibitive. Another problem they have expressed to me concerns the current levy. I will put honourable senators in the picture. The cheese factory is on a dairy farm. The dairy farm is owned by one set of proprietors and the cheese factory by another, some of the proprietors being common to both. A quarter of the milk is sent to the local co-operative and is subjected to the dairy levy but they get back the stepped-up payments involved, as do all other producers who contribute milk to the co-operative. Three-quarters of their milk goes into their own little factory and, lo and behold, we find that they now have to pay the levy on the milk that goes to their own factory across the paddock and because they are not involved in the export market they do not get the step-up payment back on that three-quarters. So what has this meant? It has meant that one of the directors, who is the technical adviser, has had to go out and seek employment in a university to make up the loss resulting from contributing to this levy. It seems to me that although the industry as a whole agrees with this legislation it is very typical of the head in the sand attitude that we have to innovation in Australia. New Zealand stole the march on us in the selling of wool products. They were first on the market in the United States with woollen underblankets; they were the first in the United States with woollen coats; and they are going to steal the march on us with specialty cheeses. Already they are ahead of us. I would like to draw attention to the need for the Federal Government to attend to the needs of minority groups in industries such as the dairy industry, especially those that are doing exactly what the Government wants to do-replace imports and develop exports. This is what these innovative people in the specialty cheese industry are trying to do, and they are being hindered in every way, both State and Federal. I guess the reason I am speaking today is to ask that the Government address this issue and ensure that legislation, even though it might already suit the majority, also include incentives and encouragement for the sort of project that we have seen with the Gippsland blue. I believe this project ought to continue. I believe it ought to be supported in a way that is consistent with the way that large cooperatives and large proprietary companies are supported. I would make the plea that this issue be considered so that we are not beaten to the post by the New Zealand specialty cheese industry. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(1.17) —Senator Lewis has explained what the Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill seeks to do, but I want to go a little further into the dairy industry because there are some clouds on the horizon that I want to point out to the Senate and to the public servants over on the advisers benches. The problems of the dairy industry now will fade into insignificance if the Government's decision to open the door to free trade with New Zealand is left the way the Government proposes. As a senator representing the people of Queensland, I am aware of the concerns being expressed by the dairy industry in relation to this action by the Federal Government. I firmly believe that this move represents the greatest threat to the future profitability of the dairy industry in Australia. Since moves towards closer economic relations, CER, with New Zealand were started, the dairy industry has been actively involved in a number of discussions with the New Zealand dairy industry in order to secure an equitable agreement for dairy trade between the two countries. It was the industry's belief that the memorandum of understanding drawn up as a result of these discussions would be allowed to continue into the future. But what happened? The Australian Labor Party has now sold out the industry by indicating that the agreement will not operate for a timeless period but will be terminated in line with the introduction of free trade arrangements which may now be in place by as early as 1990, one or two years hence. This decision has the potential to destroy the Australian dairy industry and force many dairy farmers from their properties and onto the unemployment queues. Australian farmers want this Labor Government to consider the concept of fair trade rather than free trade. This Government is blind if it does not realise that there are substantial differences between the working of the New Zealand and Australian dairy industries. In New Zealand the industry operates under a system of cooperative companies controlled by the New Zealand Dairy Board. This board is responsible for all aspects of dairy production-the storage, packaging, distribution and financing of dairy products. It is through this system that returns are able to be pooled and a common price for the products provided to companies regardless of where those products are sold. By contrast the Australian dairy industry is relatively open and competitive. Australian farmers cannot allow this Government to give New Zealand a stand-up start in trade between the two countries. Even Labor senators opposite agree-I know Senator Cook is riveted by this debate, but I want him to listen because he may be able to take the needs of the dairy industry back to Cabinet with him, and if he listens he will learn something and understand the situation-that numerous advantages are provided by the New Zealand Government that allow New Zealand farmers unfair advantages in any dairy trade exchange. The ability of the New Zealand Dairy Board to use its monopoly position to pool returns to farmers is a substantial benefit that is not enjoyed by our own farmers, whether they be Queensland dairy farmers or Victorian dairy farmers. This pooling provides a considerable benefit to New Zealand farmers. The pooling of farmers' returns for New Zealand access into the European Community is alone worth an average of around $9,000 per farmer. But the most significant advantage is that the New Zealand Government has given the Dairy Board a $NZ750m loan, repayable over 40 years at the token interest rate of one per cent. How in the world can Australian dairy farmers compete against interest-free loans for the dairy industry in New Zealand? If that is not bad enough, in 1986 the New Zealand Government replaced this loan with a commercial loan of $150m. In effect, it gave the New Zealand Dairy Board $600m as a gift. If it was left in the bank, it would return to the New Zealand farmers a profit rate of 10 per cent, even on bank interest alone. This advantage is clearly something that this Government would not provide to the Australian farmers. I have often said that this Government has never been concerned with Australian farmers. It has one rule for secondary industry and another for primary industry, which is certainly the last cab off the rank. The New Zealand Dairy Board has already moved to use this money to benefit its farmers. A New Zealand distribution company, Riviana (Australia) Pty Ltd, has already been purchased in Australia and the New Zealand industry is looking to expand this facility further, courtesy of the funding provided by its Government. The New Zealand strategy is clearly to develop and expand its distribution in Australia to capitalise on the loan that it has in order to sell higher quantities of dairy products in this country. I am not opposed to free trade but I am opposed to another country getting government subsidies to take the market of our Australian farmers off us. I do not mind people playing on a flat field-that is referred to around this place often enough-but the field gets awfully rugged because it is lop-sided and tilted against the Australian farmer who has to compete against heavily subsidised products coming into Australia. That is the view of the dairy industry of Australia, and I back that view sincerely. I know all members on this side of the House would agree with me. I look over at Senator Devlin from Tasmania, and he is nodding in agreement too. I know he is concerned about the dairy farmers of Tasmania. If this Government is intent on opening the doors to free trade, it should be aware of the catastrophic effects this will have on all industries affected by a corrupted world marketplace for their product. I can see this affecting all our rural produce. Australian farmers are the most efficient farmers in the world. They have no peer. But they cannot compete against subsidised products. Labor should be very wary of destroying the Australian dairy industry in the interests of free trade. I believe we should be looking at fair trade based around the current memorandum of understanding as negotiated by the dairy industries of both New Zealand and Australia. New Zealand and Australia are by far the lowest cost producers of dairy products in the world. If the Federal Government does not take into consideration the benefits provided to the New Zealand industry by its Government, we may have a situation where our efficient industry, an industry recognised worldwide as being competitive and effective, is destroyed by another highly competitive industry which is subsidised and aided as a result of interference by the New Zealand Government. If we do not heed those warnings of the dairy industry, farmers could well be wiped out by the short-sighted approach of this Labor Government I would urge this Government to reconsider urgently opening Pandora's box, and let the industry negotiate its own memorandum of understanding. If it does not heed these warnings there will be a drastically reduced industry by the turn of this century, in around 10 years time. I believe this Government is not concerned about the welfare of farmers. It certainly has not displayed any concern in the time it has been in office, over the last five years. The question has to be asked: is this Government more concerned about free trade or bringing down the price index at the expense of our farmers? I suggest very strongly that that question must concern every member of this Senate. If Labor does not take action to stand behind the memorandum of understanding, it will be doing little more than importing artificially cheap produce and exporting jobs and ruining the family farm that is the backbone of this nation. Another area of concern in the dairy industry is the fight which appears to be coming ever closer because of the strong rumour that there will be a considerable increase in the sales tax on flavoured milk in the May mini-Budget. In the last Budget the Government placed a 10 per cent sales tax on flavoured milk, under great pressure from manufacturers of carbonated products. The sales tax on flavoured milk should not be there in the first place. Senator Powell —Hear, hear! You should have voted with the Democrats. Senator BOSWELL —I do not want to get into that, and the honourable senator knows very well that that is a very sore point with me. She can sit there with a holier-than-thou attitude, knowing that she is never going to be in government-I am talking about the motley 6 per centers-and she can be friends to all people. But Senator Powell cannot ever say that the Australian Democrats are the friends of the Australian farming community, because I have a list of sins committed by the Democrats and I am only too willing to expose some of the mean and nasty things that they have done to the rural producers of Australia. However, I will not get diverted by that. The Government is now apparently thinking of increasing the tax on flavoured milk by 20 per cent to boost its sagging taxation coffers and I hope it is a vicious rumour that has no substance in it because it really will send the sales of flavoured milk plummeting. Local producer groups that have contacted my office to protest against this taxation increase have pointed to a drop in sales of this product by up to 12 per cent in some areas as a direct result of sales tax being imposed. I might also add, while I am talking about the dairy industry, that the sales tax on ice-cream sent ice-cream products plummeting, too. In pure dollar terms, this represents a serious loss to the farmers struggling to keep their heads above water. The lifting of the sales tax from 10 per cent to 20 per cent will be disastrous. The Government has a case to answer as to why it has unfairly singled out dairy products and fruit juices as the two forms of food to be taxed. Any action to increase the sales tax on these products should serve as a warning to consumers that the Federal Government has already set the scene to introduce sales tax on food products in general. Of course, we have had great debate on the increase in the sales tax base since this Government came into office. We have seen sales tax on flavoured milk, on bird seed, on tools and on bathroom fittings and now, of course, the Government has got its sticky fingers on the dairy industry and the fruit juice industry-on food products. One wonders whether this expansion will go on to the necessities of life. While I support the legislation currently before the House, I believe the concerns I have raised in relation to the very real threats facing the industry need to be addressed quickly by the Government. If the Government hopes to have a viable dairy industry operating in this country at the turn of the century it should move, and move very quickly. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(1.31) —I will not go into the details of the Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill; as other speakers have said, Senator Lewis has outlined them. The legislation does redress an inequity in the imposition of a levy on dairy products and this redress is taken at the recommendation of the Australian Dairy Corporation. This debate has featured heavily the comments of both Senator Patterson and Senator Boswell relating to New Zealand. I will take a couple of minutes to make a couple of points in regard to New Zealand and our relationship in a couple of specific areas. Senator Patterson complained that New Zealand has stolen a march on Australia in relation to exports of specialised wool products, in particular, and warned us that New Zealand was in the process of stealing a march in the specialty cheese area. I would add to her list, and perhaps augment one of those areas she mentioned. In the area of wool products, at a recent meeting of the Australian Allergy Association there were a couple of very interesting guest speakers from the United States who are involved in environmental medicine in that country and who have done considerable research and are achieving great success with people who have chemical allergies. One of the people who spoke at that meeting is specifically involved in establishing home environments for people who are chemically sensitive. I think this is commonly known as twentieth century disease. He said that in setting up these safe environments for the chemically sensitive one of the things that have to be done, almost immediately, is to discard most carpeting because of the chemicals that are used either in the fibres of which the carpets are made or in the production of the carpets. His complaint to us, as Australians, was that in an environment using appropriate timber flooring obviously people would like to have rugs to give warmth to the home. They have not yet, in 10 years of setting up such environments, been able to buy wool rugs sourced in Australia because all of these chemically sensitive people have been getting too much reaction to Australian woollen rugs. They always have had to buy New Zealand woollen carpeting for this purpose. That brings me on to the next area, which Senator Patterson did not mention, where New Zealand is stealing a march on Australia's primary industry-that is, the area of chemical-free primary produce. That country, along with the State of Texas in the United States-and for all I know now other States in the United States, because my information is six weeks old-has established national legislation on organic standards. They know and they understand that this is a growing market internationally. Senator Boswell's contribution highlighted, as did Senator Patterson's, the way that New Zealand is moving out into world markets as an increasingly exporting country. It is exporting to specialist markets. There is a growing specialist market out there in the world, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere and particularly post-Chernobyl, for clean and safe food. That is one other area I would like to point to, on top of those that Senator Patterson has pointed to, where New Zealand is stealing a march. Of course, there are various moves that we can make here in this place to see that we do not get left behind in all of this. I do feel that I really must take up the point that Senator Boswell made about sales tax on food. During debate on the previous Bills, the Laying Chicken Levy Bills, I pointed to eggs as being nutritious. I always call the egg perhaps the ultimate in fast food because there it is, beautifully packaged, and in three minutes you can eat it. Certainly milk, too, is a highly nutritious food. The Australian Democrats join with Senator Boswell in expressing our abhorrence of the thought of a sales tax on food products. The only difference between us is that we were prepared to act and vote against the sales tax on flavoured milk and on fruit juice in the 1986 Budget, and we will continue to take that stance. While Senator Boswell might castigate the Democrats for being irresponsible in attempting to stop governments from doing those iniquitous things, things which he considers to be iniquitous as well, can I just say that I do tire of reading in members' local newspapers of how members of the Opposition parties, who in fact did vote with the Government on that measure, opposed that legislation. I put that on the record. I have in my files several articles from various regional newspapers in which members of the Opposition have claimed to their public that they have opposed those measures. They have not opposed those measures other than by words, and they certainly have not done so by actions in this place. Senator Boswell said it would be abysmal if we did go further and put a sales tax on all food products. On behalf of the Australian Democrats I have gone on the record as saying that we would oppose a broad-based consumption tax. Senator Boswell referred to the Government possibly wanting to introduce such a tax at some stage to fill its shrinking coffers. I think we should remember that the major proponent of a broad-based consumption tax here in Australia at the moment, a tax which would fall on food like milk, eggs and the other products that we are dealing with here today, is Mr John Elliott, who is part of that corporate sector whose contribution to the Government's coffers has significantly fallen over the past decade at the same time as the tax that individuals in the community, including farmers, have to pay has gone up. I make those points in response to Senator Boswell's comments. The Democrats support this Bill on the basis that it is a recommendation of the Australian Dairy Corporation and redresses an inequity which has been found in the Act. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(1.38) —The Senate is debating the Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1988. I thank Senator Lewis, who is still in the chamber, for his remarks. Senator Patterson referred in her speech to Gippsland blue, a cheese produced in Gippsland, which has obtained some fame in its area and which is available on Qantas flights, as I think she reminded us in her contribution. I have noted the remarks she has made about that. We will take those remarks on board and I will see the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) about them. He may take the opportunity to reply directly to her about those matters. Senator Boswell made a long speech in this debate today. I note all of the points that Senator Boswell raised. We are aware of those issues and they will be taken into account when we negotiate the closer economic relations between Australia and New Zealand. We have noted Senator Powell's remarks, many of which were comments on previous speakers. They are noted by us. I have nothing further to add in response to those who have spoken in the second reading debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Sitting suspended from 1.40 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Minister representing the Attorney-General to the War Crimes Amendment Bill and to the second reading speech, in which the Attorney-General said: No distinction is drawn . . . between members of the allied or axis forces, or between persons of different races or origin. Consistent with the Government's even-handed policy, the Bill applies to any person who commits a war crime as defined. That quote brings together a couple of passages. It is not a complete piece, but the meaning is, I think, undisturbed by that. I refer the Minister to the statements of Mr Bob Greenwood, QC, to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to the effect that allegations of war crimes against Australian service personnel during World War II would be investigated. I ask: Is it the Government's intention that Australian ex-service men and women could be liable to prosecution under the war crimes legislation? Senator TATE —Because of the very sensitive nature of the legal opinion which I am being asked to offer, I ask Senator Chaney whether I could have the indulgence to answer that question more precisely at the end of Question Time. In so far as I understand it, the allegations which are made are that the legislation would enable any person who comes within the terms of the statute, if passed by this Parliament, to be prosecuted. I do not think that it would make any difference as to the service of which they were members at the time of committing an offence as defined under the statute, but I would have to get my file on that. I will try to give the honourable senator an answer at the end of Question Time. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I agree with the Minister that the matter is sensitive and, indeed, that is why I am raising it; it is both sensitive and difficult. I simply say to the Minister that I am not seeking a legal opinion but rather an indication of what the Government's intentions are in this regard. I therefore ask the Minister: Can he give us an answer now, although I would be very happy to have some supplementary answer at a later time, on whether it is the Government's intention that Australian ex-service men and women could be liable to prosecution under this legislation? I quoted to the Minister an extract from the second reading speech which appears to me to suggest that they could be, but I really want to know from the Minister whether it is in prospect as far as the Government is concerned that that would happen. Senator TATE —Unfortunately, I am unable to respond at this precise moment. I will try to do so at the end of Question Time. Senator COLLINS —My question is to the the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Can the Minister advise the House of any progress made in negotiations between the Federal Government and the Northern Territory Government in respect of granting excisions for living areas for Aboriginal people on Northern Territory cattle stations? Senator TATE —It is a fact, and a very welcome one, that the Federal Aboriginal Affairs Minister, Gerry Hand, and the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Steve Hatton, only two days ago confirmed a number of agreements which had been negotiated between pastoralists and Aboriginal groups relating to land on Northern Territory properties. The agreements were reached following several months of direct consultation between pastoralists, Northern Territory land councils and the Commonwealth and Territory governments. The agreements provide for the granting of over 20 particular parcels of land to Aboriginal groups from eight pastoral properties and one national park. In return the Aboriginal land councils have agreed to withdraw claims to stock routes and stock reserves within those pastoral properties. The Ministers have sent-two days ago now-a jointly signed letter to each pastoralist asking him to confirm the arrangements. On receipt of such confirmation and to assist an early, complete and satisfactory resolution, title to the agreed areas will be handed over to the Aboriginal groups concerned and at the same time all claims over stock routes and reserves over which there is no outstanding area for negotiation will be withdrawn by the land councils. As I understand it, both Ministers have expressed the hope that the new arrangements will lead to additional agreements being concluded in the near future. They said that these arrangements will demonstrate bona fides on all sides and encourage others to reach an early settlement. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and it is about the offsets program. I ask: Is the Minister aware of what has been described as a flourishing secondary market in offsets credits which has developed overseas in particular, in the United States of America? Is the Minister aware that Australian offsets credits are being traded in the United States for about 5 per cent of their face value and, given the ready availability of such cheap credits, it is financially disadvantageous for companies with outstanding offsets liabilities to expunge their liabilities by undertaking the types of activities which the offsets program seeks to encourage, including export of locally produced products, technology transfer and research and development? Is it a fact that the so-called civil offsets authority must approve transfer of offsets credits? If so, will the Minister reveal to the Senate the names of the companies which are satisfying offsets obligations as a result of transfer of credits? Finally, did any of the firms which have signed partnership in development agreements satisfy any of their offsets obligations by the transfer of credits earned by other companies? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the last part of the question is no. In so far as the earlier parts of the question are concerned, I am not aware of what Senator Lewis describes as a flourishing market in offsets credits. I am aware of a lot of activity in relation to offsets credits which I am inclined to think, on the basis of my understanding, is a desirable thing, particularly when one looks at the situation of the offsets scheme before it was amended by the present Government. The build-up of offsets default was just enormous. That has been considerably eroded in the last year or two. I will obtain a further, more detailed answer for Senator Lewis to the other aspects of the question and provide it as soon as possible. Senator LEWIS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I appreciate that the Minister will be giving me some supplementary information, but the Minister has indicated that he is aware of some activity in regard to offsets. Is he able to indicate what he believes is the current market value of the offsets in the United States? Senator BUTTON —No. Senator DEVLIN —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to a report on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Country Hour yesterday that the Queensland Graingrowers Association has demanded grants from the Commonwealth rather than loans under the natural disaster relief arrangements for drought affected Queensland farmers who are not able to service their debts? Is it true that the State and not the Commonwealth has constitutional responsibility for drought relief? What is the Government's response to the demand for Commonwealth grants by the Queensland Graingrowers Association? Senator WALSH —In reply to the last part of the question, about the Commonwealth's response to a demand for grants, the answer is an unequivocal no. Regarding the second part of the question, it is true that it is the constitutional responsibility of the State Government and not the Commonwealth Government to provide relief of this type, if any is to be provided, which is spelt out very clearly in Budget Paper No. 4 on pages 98 and 99. I will not bother to quote it, but if anybody wants to look up the exact words they are easily obtainable. Anybody who supports the proposition that grants should be made available in lieu of loans for natural disaster relief or for anything else is advocating an increase in taxation. Let us be perfectly clear about that. Anybody who advocates that change is advocating an increase in taxation. I do not know whether that applies to Senator Stone as a representative of the Queensland National Party, the State branch of which has been campaigning for virtually free money from the Commonwealth for it to hand out at its discretion for a considerable time. Apart from the fact that demands for grants are demands to increase taxation, any business which is in the position of not being viable with concessional finance at 4.5 per cent, which is the rate normally charged, but has to have a grant, is by definition an insolvent business. The Commonwealth Government is not in the business of guaranteeing business solvency, and nor should it be. Indeed, if any government were to put itself into the position where it guaranteed the solvency of every business in the country, the system would break down. I am sure that Senator Stone understands the reasons why the system would break down if any government were silly enough to offer grants under those circumstances. There would be a particular objection to offering grants to the Queensland Government for this purpose, because we could not be sure where the grant money might finish up. It might finish up in the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation or some other Queensland National Party slush fund. Indeed, as I have informed the Senate before, in the past some of the loan funds have finished up in peculiar hands, if I may say so, in breach of the guidelines which the Commonwealth Government lays down. Some time ago a Mr Michael Behan-no relation to Senator Beahan-who was indeed an apparatchik of the Queensland National Party, was granted a $145,000 loan in breach of the Commonwealth guidelines. It is difficult enough to deal with Queensland when we are giving loans. It would be much more dangerous to deal with Queensland if what is presently provided as a loan, and therefore must ultimately be repaid, were to be provided as a grant. The existing arrangements for natural disaster relief are tied to a formula, and have been, from memory, since 1984. The result of that formula, when applied to Queensland, is that the State Government must provide the first $14m of relief from its own resources-I am using round figures-the next $10m is matched by the Commonwealth on a dollar for dollar basis and beyond that figure, which in the case of Queensland is $24m, the Commonwealth provides $3 for every $1 from the State. I am also informed, via an article by Mr Peter Clack in the Brisbane Courier-Mail, that Queensland's Primary Industries Minister, Mr Neville Harper, said that up to $25m was outstanding in bad debts. So what his predecessor describes as a piddling amount of $145,000 which went quite improperly-indeed, I suggest, corruptly-to Mr Michael Behan, the Queensland National Party apparatchik, has apparently grown to $25m. I believe that I said some time ago that, when Queensland got a new Premier, I would be writing to him to see what could be done about tightening up the at best slack administration of the scheme by the Queensland State authorities in the past. Finally, it should be noted for the record that, if any government were to follow the policy direction advocated by Senator McGauran at the Senate Estimates committee hearings last week when he proposed that Australia would be better off if we did not have any taxes, there would be no money available to provide loans for natural disaster relief, let alone to provide grants for natural disaster relief. But then we have become accustomed to hearing, from one prong of the National Party's forked tongue, demands for additional handouts to everybody in sight or to everybody who the National Party thinks can be bribed into voting for it and, with the other prong of the forked tongue, simultaneous demands for reductions in taxation. Senator SANDERS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. I refer to an article in the December 1984-January 1985 edition of Cogemagazine, the journal of the French company Cogema, which is responsible for producing reactor and bomb fuel in France. Briefly, the article indicates that the Tricastin plant in France has been used for both military and civilian enrichment since October 1982. I also refer to a statement in the Senate on 22 August 1986 by Senator Gareth Evans, in which he said that Australian uranium was enriched at Tricastin, which he described as a `civil nuclear enrichment facility'. I ask: First, does this not mean that some Australian uranium, mixed in with uranium from other sources for enrichment at Tricastin, has been siphoned off for enrichment to weapons grade for military purposes at Pierrelatte? Secondly, does this not mean that Senator Evans's statement, and the Minister's statement of yesterday, that Australian uranium has not been diverted for military uses, were false? Thirdly, is it not a fact that the United States Oak Ridge enrichment plant, where Australian uranium is also enriched, is also a joint military-civilian enrichment plant? Fourthly, is it not a fact that the Australian uranium sold to Finland is enriched in the Soviet Union, where civil and military functions are combined? Fifthly, is it not a fact that there are at least 15 other nuclear facilities in France, including three reprocessing plants, which produce plutonium and which perform both military and civilian functions? Finally, if the Minister is denying that Australian uranium in enrichment streams ends in weapons, can he therefore give a categorical assurance that all joint military-civil plants are stopped and cleaned out between military and civil batches? Senator COOK —I have not seen the article-- Senator Bishop —Again. Senator COOK —No, I have not seen the article. I am not an avid reader, it might surprise everyone, of the Cogemagazine. As far as I know it does not come through my office every day. I do not read it. It appears from the question Senator Sanders poses that it is a magazine of a French company that makes bombs. Senator Chaney —This is the only broth spoilt by one cook. Senator COOK —I did not hear what Senator Chaney said, but I am sure it was not of any use to this debate, and I am sure it does not help to throw any light on the question that has been put. Senator Chaney —Nothing you have said so far has helped either. What about getting on with it? Senator COOK —That is not entirely true. I remember being in the Senate yesterday when the Opposition's spokesman said that we had put down a very good statement indeed. Perhaps the honourable senator should talk to Senator Austin Lewis about the statement before he asserts that nothing we have said throws any light on the subject. To return to Senator Sanders's question, I have not read the magazine. I notice that he did not quote explicitly from the magazine, but described what the magazine said. He would appreciate that, on a matter such as this, where it is necessary to be very precise and very pedantic about what is or is not the case, I will check the magazine and so forth before I accept that. But it does appear, from what Senator Sanders said, that it is a technical explanation of what occurs. I am pleased to observe also from the question that at last there is a recognition that there are two French factories, the Tricastin factory and the Pierrelatte factory, and that the Tricastin one enriches for the civil program and the Pierrelatte factory enriches for the weapons program. Up to 20 per cent is enriched for the civil program, and up to 90 per cent for the weapons program. The important point to make in answering Senator Sanders's question is that Australian uranium goes to the Tricastin plant and not the Pierrelatte plant, and to the 20 per cent enrichment program. Senator Sanders —But they have closed down the first stage at Pierrelatte. Senator COOK —It is entirely irrelevant, in terms of Australian uranium, whether the first or all of the stages at Pierrelatte have been closed down, because Pierrelatte is dedicated to the making of bombs. Australian origin nuclear material is put into the civil cycle in France, which is, as Senator Sanders properly identified, the Tricastin plant. I now turn to the six questions put to me by Senator Sanders. With respect to the first question, I would have thought that this was understood, but I will repeat it. Australian origin material enters the Tricastin civil program plant for enrichment and an equal amount based on the principle of equivalence, the core principle in terms of safeguards-which was explained in the document that I read to the Senate yesterday reporting on the outcome of our investigations into the allegation in the Der Spiegel magazine-leaves the Tricastin plant for fuel fabrication, so there is no contribution of Australian nuclear material to the French weapons inventory. Senator Sanders then asked whether this meant that Senator Evans's statements in the past have been false. The answer to that question is one word-no. Senator Sanders's next question related to the Oak Ridge enrichment plant in the United States of America. I am advised that the Oak Ridge enrichment plant contains two separate streams-one for civil use and one for military use. In fact, I am advised that the streams are not under the one roof, as it were, or beside each other so that they are easy to divert; I am advised that a roadway physically separates both streams and that the Australian origin nuclear material is in the civil stream. Senator Sanders's fourth question was about the Soviet Union and Finland. Of course, Finland is a customer for Australian uranium and as such full Australian safeguards apply. The Australian origin nuclear material which was enriched in the USSR-but that has not been the case now for some years-for Finland was on the basis of all in, all out. That is to say, Australian origin nuclear material entering the Soviet Union is processed, and all Australian origin nuclear material in the form of either uranium or the tailings comes out again and the equivalence principle obtains. In answer to Senator Sanders's fifth question, I point out that Australia's concern is with plants which process Australian origin nuclear material, and all such material is accounted for. In answer to Senator Sanders's sixth question, I indicate that all Australian origin nuclear material is accounted for in the civil program and has not been diverted to military programs, and therefore the question of the cleaning of plants is not relevant. In conclusion, a couple of other points need to be made because over the past few days we have been favoured with the presence in Australia of Dr Hans Blix, the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is set up under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Agency's sole purpose under the Treaty is to be the world's watchdog to prevent the diversion of uranium for civil use into military use. Senator Hill —It has other functions now, as well. That is not its sole purpose. Senator COOK —That is not its sole purpose, but its key and primary purpose is to guarantee that there is no diversion from civil to military use, and that is the point that is relevant to the questions that I have been asked. What does Dr Blix say? He says that under the charter of his authority over the past 25 years, the whole period for which the IAEA has operated, there has been no diversion from the civil cycle to the weapons cycle, and that that covers all uranium from whatever source and not just Australian origin nuclear material. Another thing that Dr Blix said, and this has not been quoted or recognised in this whole debate, is that Australian uranium-and he has said this to me personally-has not added to the supply of uranium for military purposes. So with all those considerations I conclude by saying that everything we have said in a comprehensive reply to the allegations in Der Spiegel which relate to Senator Sanders's question is confirmed and there is nothing more to add. Senator SANDERS —I have a supplementary question. I apologise for taking up any more time but, if possible, I would like the Minister for Resources to clarify his statement about the Soviet Union, all in, all out, and equivalence. All in, all out indicates a batch process and we understand equivalence to be chasing the paper and not the uranium. I ask the Minister to clarify his statement. Senator COOK —I do not accept that the equivalence principle is simply chasing paper and not the uranium. The paper is a way of identifying where the uranium is, and it is matchable to physical quantities. The all in, all out principle is not at all inconsistent with the equivalence principle because in putting the yellowcake through the process to bring it up to the standard of fuel rods other things develop, and they come out as well as the equivalent quantity. Senator WOOD —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. In light of the listing of 30,000 hectares of Jervis Bay and surrounds on the National Estate Register this week, can the Minister inform the Senate of the impact that the proposals for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) fleet base relocation will have on the national heritage value of Jervis Bay? In light of the death of 3,000 fish in the bay last month attributed to naval underwater explosives, can the Minister inform the Senate of the effect of such continued activities? What status do current development proposals, such as the fleet base relocation, have during the listing process? Senator RICHARDSON —As honourable senators will be aware, the question of Jervis Bay and the move by the Royal Australian Navy to it has been a matter of some controversy. The Australian Heritage Commission has been looking at the Jervis Bay area for some time. It employed a number of consultants to look at aspects of it and recently two members of the Commission-Don Henry and Keith Cottier-visited the area. As a result of those inspections and the report of the consultants the Commission has decided to nominate for our National Estate some 30,000 hectares of the Jervis Bay region. Obviously the RAN is moving its Sydney based operation to Jervis Bay, provided that an environmental impact statement, which is currently being prepared, is accepted by the Government so that the development can go ahead. An integral part of any environmental impact statement is the social impact. The statement that is now being prepared will be ready in draft form by, I think, next March and it will then be published and available for public comment for some seven months, I think, until October. There will then be a period for the Government to consider those reports and I imagine that a decision will be made in about March 1990. So there is quite some time before the Government sits down-- Senator Puplick —Who's doing it? Senator RICHARDSON —I do not have the name of the company; I will find out for the honourable senator. That will be a fairly lengthy process but I think all senators would agree that, given the importance of the issues involved, it is worth while having a full investigation. Obviously the environmental and cultural values of the region will be taken into account. I am aware of reports that 3,000 fish were recently killed in the bay. I think the reports said that this occurred as a result of naval explosives testing. I am not yet certain why the Navy had to conduct testing in the bay. I have asked for details of that and as soon as they have been provided I shall naturally make them available. In regard to any other development that may take place in the region, registration of Jervis Bay obviously places constraints on the Commonwealth. Commonwealth Ministers are bound to consider areas of the National Estate when they are looking at Government decisions. However, they do not place constraints on either State or local governments. That being the case, we will have a problem with some developments if State and local governments tend to ignore that listing. All I can do as Minister responsible is urge the New South Wales Government and councils in the region to take note of the listing and, hopefully, to make sure that developments do not occur until we have the results of the environmental impact statement, until we have had a period of public comment, and until we can all examine the results of that process. Senator STONE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the Minister agree that, notwithstanding the improvement in our balance of payments position in the current financial year because of the largely unforeseen rise in the prices of our major exports, Australia is today still running the largest current account deficit of all the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries except Norway? Does the Minister also agree that the heavy dependence of our balance of payments on future commodity prices, when combined with our huge debt servicing obligations, means that the structural nature of our deficit is worse than that of most other OECD countries? Against that background, does the Minister agree with the Treasurer's recent prediction that the worst is over for Australian living standards, and that Australia is no longer heading down that Argentinean road to which the Minister himself referred in his very sound remarks to the meeting of Lawyers for Labor in Perth on 20 September last? Senator WALSH —I am not sure whether I got all those questions down, but I think I got enough to cover them, anyway. The honourable senator referred to the `unforeseen' increase in export prices over the past 15 months or so. I am not sure whether it was unforeseen; it is certainly true that the terms of trade improved for the year ended December 1987 by some 7.6 per cent over what they had been in December 1986. Most of that improvement was, of course, due to the rise in export prices, which naturally is very welcome. However, it remains true that our terms of trade and, implicitly, our export prices are still very substantially below what they were 2 1/2 years ago or thereabouts. I think they are still some 10 per cent or so below what they were at that point. On the question of Australia's current account deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) being the second highest of all the OECD countries, I do not know about that, although I think I read in this morning's Australian Financial Review that that was the case. I was asked whether the combination of a current account deficit of the size that Australia is running and foreign debt is one that makes the country vulnerable to external shocks. The answer to that has to be yes. There is no secret about that. I have been saying that, and a number of other people in the Government who are involved with Budget preparation and economic policy have been saying the same thing. Finally, Senator Stone referred me to some recent comments made by the Treasurer. If I remember correctly, I was asked almost the same question last week. I do not know whether I can remember to give exactly the same answer-or, as my very witty colleague Senator Evans said the other day when quoting himself, he hoped that he could do it with more confidence than President Reagan. I will not attempt to quote myself, as I do not have the record of what I said here, but it went something like this: The rate of change over the past two years, as shown by the most important indicator, that is, the current account deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product, has fallen from 6 per cent to about 4 per cent-although nobody can be sure of this year's outcome-and probably a little lower than that, notwithstanding that yesterday's figures for the month of March were less favourable than most people had expected. That is a very rapid rate of change; to bring down the current account deficit by a full 2 percentage points of GDP in two years is very significant. Just what level could be regarded as being safe is a matter of some judgment, but I think there would be little disagreement that, if it was brought down another 2 percentage points, that is, to 2 per cent of GDP, we could feel reasonably secure. I believe that the Treasurer's remarks were made in that context and that that is the context in which they should be received. Senator STONE —I ask a supplementary question: In light of the closing comments of the Minister in his response, do I take it that the Minister is saying that, having achieved, with the help of a major increase in export prices this year, a reduction in the current account deficit from 6 per cent to 4 per cent of GDP, that is, 2 percentage points, we have at least-and I would underline the words `at least'-a further 2 percentage points reduction to achieve in the future? Against that background, I repeat my earlier question: In those circumstances, does the Minister agree with the Treasurer's recent remarks that the worst is over and that we are no longer heading down the Argentinean road? Senator WALSH —I do not think the Treasurer said those last few words. The point is that, if we can maintain the very rapid rate of progress that has been made over the past couple of years, I think we can see light at the end of the tunnel. Senator Stone —If we can maintain it, how can the worst be over? Senator WALSH —Nobody can be certain. Senator Stone is one of the few people who never had any doubt about the infallibility of their economic prophecies: the catch is that he was nearly always wrong, as Michael Stutchbury pointed out, with a lot of specific evidence, in an article in the Financial Review some 15 days ago. There was in the question implicit criticism that the rate of adjustment had not been fast enough. It is probably true that under particular economic policies a faster rate of adjustment could have been achieved, but almost inevitably that would have entailed driving the economy into a catastrophic recession in order to close the current account deficit, by suppressing total demand to the point where imports shrank to the extent that the current account deficit was wiped out. It might have been technically feasible to do that but it would be highly speculative as to the unemployment rate that would be associated with it. Most people would not put it at below 20 per cent-a sort of early 1930s-type scenario. It may be that it could have been done that way, but I do not believe that there are many people, either supporters of this Government or supporters of the other side of politics, who would have wanted us to overcome the current account problem in that way, particularly when there are other ways of doing so, although not as quickly. Senator COATES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I ask the Minister whether he has seen the letter from the Tasmanian Premier, Robin Gray, in Tuesday's Australian Financial Review, in which Mr Gray states: The level of Commonwealth assistance (including all general and specific purpose payments, both recurrent and capital) to the States and the Northern Territory . . . has fallen in real terms since 1984-85 by 9.6 per cent. Is that assertion by Mr Gray true? Senator WALSH —Yes, I did indeed read that letter last Tuesday and my reaction was that either it was a complete fabrication or it had been fiddled. The answer was that it was not a complete fabrication but the figures had certainly been fiddled. We are quite accustomed, of course, to Mr Gray doing this sort of thing, especially on the eve of a Premiers Conference, when he feels the need to do a bit of chest thumping, as do most State Premiers. Mr Gray has a particular need to do so because he has to explain away his mismanagement of Tasmanian State finances over a number of years. The fact is that 1984-85, which was the year Mr Gray selected as his base year, was the end of a triennium in which payments to the States increased in real terms by 10.7 per cent, with `real terms' defined as the nominal amounts adjusted for the State and local government recurrent expenditure deflator, which covers the great majority of State government spending. Just after that year Australia's export prices collapsed and there was a need for major economic adjustments. For the years from 1984-85 to 1987-88 payments to the States in real terms have declined not by the 9.6 per cent that Mr Gray asserts but by 2 1/2 per cent, again measured by the State and local government recurrent expenditure deflator. The figure of 2.5 per cent real defined over, I remind the Senate, a three-year period, I believe was no more than the States could reasonably have been expected to bear as an adjustment due to the export price collapse and the consequent economic problems that created. Measured against the consumer price index the decline over that period is higher but, as I have already explained, it is not appropriate to use the consumer price index in this context. The proper index to be used is the one which most accurately reflects the actual expenditure patterns of State governments and that is the State and local government recurrent expenditure deflator. The reason that that deflator increased by much less than the consumer price index is, of course, the success of the Federal Government's wages policy, the success of the accord and the restraint which has been shown by public sector employees and most private sector employees as well. So, in summary, what Mr Gray has done is a double fiddle. He chose as the base year the pinnacle of expenditure, then implicitly asserted it was a plateau and then he adjusted that pinnacle by the use of a shonky index. Senator SHORT —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. It relates to the Minister's extraordinary explanation yesterday in response to Senator Durack's question on the reasons for the delay in the completion of the Australian Federal Police investigations into non-disclosure by the Australian Labor Party of the Harris-Daishowa election campaign donation last year. The Minister will recall that in his reply yesterday he said that the Australian Federal Police inquiries `have been prolonged due to difficulties in arranging mutually convenient times to interview two witnesses'. I ask the Minister, firstly, what precisely are the difficulties in arranging mutually convenient times? Secondly, who are the two witnesses? Thirdly, are they members of the Australian Labor Party? Fourthly, since when has justice in Australia been conducted on the basis of mutual convenience? Senator TATE —In answering the question yesterday I was relaying to the Senate the information which had been provided to me by the Australian Federal Police. It is quite clear that, where they need to discuss matters with those whom they think might have useful information in relation to an investigation or inquiry that they are undertaking, the timing of the discussions with those persons cannot be a matter of compulsion, though obviously the more expeditiously they can be carried out the better. I have no information whatsoever on the question of who might be involved, have never sought it and have never been provided with it. I would not expect to be provided with that sort of operational detail. I am sure the matter is being progressed by the Australian Federal Police investigators as expeditiously as is possible but within those constraints. Senator SHORT —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I understand the reasons for sensitivity in the Minister's inability to answer some of those questions but is he telling the Senate that he does not know what the difficulties are in arranging mutually convenient times? Why should not the interviewing of witnesses in such an important matter be compulsory? Why should it wait on mutual convenience? Senator TATE —To answer the first supplementary question, no, I do not know precisely what the difficulties are: I have never been informed by the Australian Federal Police what they are, but they say there have been difficulties in arranging mutually convenient times in relation to persons, once again whose identity I do not know. I have never been informed of their identity, nor have I sought to know. Senator Chaney —How long will this delay go on before you ask? Senator TATE —I do not intend to ask. I have no intention of asking. As far as compulsion is concerned, I would hope the police, when conducting normal inquiries, are never in a position to compel people to make certain arrangements of the sort that the honourable senator is implying should be made. There has to be mutuality in relation to calling on people to provide information of this character. In relation to the National Crime Authority, there are certain powers to compel persons to attend and give answers but that is a very extraordinary power which was bestowed on that body by special Act of Parliament. Senator BURNS —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Being aware of the Minister's concern for those people who have been disadvantaged by the World Heritage listing of the north Queensland rainforests, I draw the Minister's attention to criticism of the $75m compensation package announced on Friday, 15 April, for the effects of World Heritage listing of north Queensland rainforests. Can the Minister advise the Senate of the basis upon which the compensation package was arrived at? Senator RICHARDSON —I am aware of the criticism of the $75m package. It has filtered through from a number of points. I have seen some Press releases from various people in the Queensland Government. It should be remembered first off that last year we had a two-month public consultation process in which we sought the views of people in north Queensland. Further to that, in order to make a proper decision, as honourable senators will be aware from the number of times I answered questions on it, the Government carried out extensive consultations with local government in the area, the timber mill companies, the tourist operators, community organisations, conservation groups and indeed the timber workers. In addition, the Commonwealth commissioned six independent studies on the social and economic impacts of World Heritage listing. Those studies looked into the regional economy, alternative employment creation, social impacts, the timber industry, the mining industry and the tourism industry. They were commissioned in October of last year and were completed and the reports given to the Government at various times in the early months of this year. They have been of great use to the Government and they were, of course, necessary in considering just what sort of compensation package the Government could come up with. They have provided important information for the development of a discussion paper on future management arrangements for the area. It has now been finalised and I would hope to release it tomorrow for a period of public consultation until 22 July. Of course, I have always said that the reports of the studies to which I have referred, the consultancies, would be released once the Government had considered them. The period of Government consideration has ended. In keeping with that promise, I have already arranged for copies of them to be sent to the offices of Senators Boswell, Puplick and, I think, Sanders. I am endeavouring to have them sent to Senator Durack. I am not sure whether they have yet reached his office. I cannot say that I have a plentiful supply of copies at this point, but they will be made available to interested senators if they care to contact my office. Similarly, that will be the case with the Press. Hopefully, over the next week, as more copies are made available, there will be less of a problem with access to those studies. It is those studies and the consultations to which I referred which formed the basis of the information that we used in the package. It is because we did all of that that the package has been received as well as it has. Senator VANSTONE —I refer the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women to her answer to Senator Zakharov on 17 March this year with respect to Australia's report to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and to that part of her response to that question in which, on four separate occasions, she specifically called for a bipartisan approach to status of women issues, in fact, using that term. In light of those calls for bipartisanship, how does she explain the fact that, of the 372 people invited to the launch of the Rural Women's Survey, some 41 were Labor politicians, both male and female and, according to the list, no Liberal, National or Democrat politicians were invited? What is her explanation for calling for bipartisanship in this place and deliberately making outside functions strictly party political and partisan, other than sheer hypocrisy? Senator REYNOLDS —I welcome the opportunity to answer Senator Vanstone's question. I am pleased that she agrees with me about bipartisan support for the National Agenda for Women. I remind the Senate that it is the Government's view that there should be bipartisan support for the National Agenda. I am pleased that it is also Senator Vanstone's view. I quote from her address to the Liberal Party women's conference on 11 April: At this point let me steal a phrase from my leader, John Howard. He used it on election night last year to describe the relationship between the two parties and the problems we face as a nation. It is equally true in the sense that I now use it, and that is to describe the relationship between Liberal and Labor women and issues affecting the status of women. What unites us is far greater than what divides us. I welcome that statement by Senator Vanstone. She went on to say-- Senator Haines —Now we know you can read, answer the question. Senator REYNOLDS —I am coming to that. Senator Vanstone went on to say: We agree that the Commonwealth Government's economic policies are the means by which the Government must best ensure a bright and secure future for all present and future members of our nation. We want women to make better use of the opportunities available to them and for more opportunities to be made available. There are so many areas where there are improvements to be made and we share with Labor a commitment to find the right solutions. There is no doubt about it: Senator Vanstone and I are on the same wavelength in terms of the National Agenda for Women. Senator Vanstone —The question was not about the National Agenda. Senator REYNOLDS —It was about the launch of the Rural Women's Survey. I understand that Senator Vanstone sent a staff person to the launch of the Rural Women's Survey? Senator Vanstone —No, wrong again. Senator REYNOLDS —I ask whether Senator Vanstone sent a staff person to the launch of the National Agenda. Senator Vanstone —No, I did not. Senator REYNOLDS —I wonder why not. I will give a specific answer to Senator Vanstone's question, but she should be aware that she is making gross allegations about the participation of those rural women if she is suggesting that they are all Labor voters. I am sure that Senator Boswell and Senator Stone would be very concerned about the allegations Senator Vanstone is making, in suggesting that there has been some political manipulation of the mailing list. The point is that the mailing list was set down to attract the kind of women in Bathurst who would have been the most ready and able to participate. Senator Vanstone —I take a point of order, Mr President. I understand that you do not have the power to direct Ministers as to the content of their answer other than to direct them to be relevant. The Minister was asked about the Rural Women's Survey and whether this Government practises what it preaches. We have heard everything but that from the Minister in her answer. I ask you to direct her to answer the question. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator REYNOLDS —Mr President, I can understand Senator Vanstone's embarrassment. I can understand her not being happy to have the contents of her speech revealed in this place, but I welcome her approach of bipartisan support. I have already undertaken in my answer to find out precisely who was on the mailing list. I do not think I can undertake to find out their political persuasion, as Senator Vanstone has suggested, but I certainly undertake to seek information regarding the substance of her question. I assure Senator Vanstone that she would have been invited to the function, as she was invited to the launch of the National Agenda. Senator VANSTONE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Am I to take it from the Minister's answer that she denies that an extensive range of Labor parliamentarians were invited to the launch of the Rural Women's Survey and denies the allegation that I have made that no Liberal, National or Australian Democrat politicians were invited? Senator REYNOLDS —I have already undertaken to get a specific answer about the alleged mailing list that Senator Vanstone is so concerned about, and I will do so. Senator Puplick —Mr President, I ask Senator Reynolds to table the excellent speech by Senator Vanstone from which she quoted. Senator Crowley —Mr President, I also ask, under the appropriate standing order, that Senator Vanstone table the document she just quoted from. Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President: I do not think any standing order permits that request to be made. Although I do not think Senator Vanstone cares, I do not think she can be so directed. The PRESIDENT —Senator Crowley, you cannot ask for the statement to be tabled. You can move it. I point out to all honourable senators and all Ministers that the Standing Orders Committee, in a report in November 1985, said that it was not necessary for Ministers to table speech notes-only documents. Senator POWELL —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Treasurer. Given the proliferation in the distribution and use of credit cards in Australia, I ask: Is the Minister concerned about the high level of interest rates charged on these cards? Secondly, in view of the fact that these accounts all carry compounding interest above 20 per cent and have not followed the downward trend of other commercial interest rates, will the Minister put pressure on the banking industry to reduce those interest rates, particularly as they are having a significant impact on low income earners with high consumer debt? Senator WALSH —I would have thought prima facie that low income earners with high debts would have difficulty in getting a credit card. Senator Haines —They do, and that is the trouble. Maybe you should do something about it. Senator WALSH —I will get the fairy at the bottom of the garden to fix it up-how's that? I will refer that question to the Treasurer, but I am not sure what is being suggested. It is implied, it seems to me, that there should be some sort of government intervention or regulation other than credential-type regulation. I will see what the Treasurer's response is to that specific suggestion, but it would be somewhat inconsistent with the general thrust of Government policy over the last couple of years in regard to the financial system. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 18 April Senator Bishop asked me a number of questions about a Telecom Australia advertisement about what was described as the world's loneliest phone box which appeared in the House Magazine in December last year concerning the installation of a public telephone at William Creek in South Australia at a stated cost of $1.6m. I undertook to obtain further information about this latest triumph for Telecom's public relations and to provide the honourable senator with a response, which is in the following terms. The reference to $1.6m in the advertisement was in fact incorrect. I am advised by Telecom that the public telephone in question was only one aspect of a much larger $1.6m program undertaken by it as part of the rural and remote area program. That $1.6m bought a digital radio concentrator system which provides telecommunications services to persons living within an area of 26,000 square kilometres, some 45 separate customers and homesteads in all. Whatever may have been the case for the cost of the provision of the particular phone service referred to in the advertisement, this total service certainly could not have been provided for less than $100,000 by Aussat, which was Senator Bishop's suggestion, since the individual satellite earth stations of the type required each cost about $80,000. Aussat was not in fact asked for a quotation, but Telecom, which is a 25 per cent shareholder in Aussat, estimates that the cost of providing each of these customers over the area in question with earth station facilities to access Aussat could be about $4m. As to ensuring that Telecom uses the cheapest means to service its customers, Telecom informs me that its studies showed that the use of terrestrial technologies, particularly digital radio concentrator systems, is the most cost effective way of providing basic rural and remote telecommunications services. Senator TATE —In Question Time Senator Chaney asked me a question concerning the War Crimes Amendment Bill and its applicability to Australian ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen. He provided what he described as a compendious quote from the second reading speech of the Attorney-General on the Bill in another place. Senator Chaney —I did not use the word `compendious'. Senator TATE —I thought the honourable senator said that it was concertinaed or put together from two different sources. Senator Chaney —Yes, but I did not use that expression. Senator TATE —I beg the honourable senator's pardon. The quotation given by Senator Chaney at the time was: No distinction is drawn . . . between members of the allied or axis forces, or between persons of different races or origin. Consistent with the Government's evenhanded policy, the Bill applies to any person who commits a war crime as defined. That is the case. There is no exclusion clause or any quarantining of Australian ex-servicemen or ex-servicewomen in this regard. It is important to try to think through the types of activities in which Australian ex-servicemen might be alleged to have been involved during the Second World War, which is the war under consideration. It may be useful if one considered the most frequently quoted possible instance, which is the question whether Australian servicemen who took part in the Allied area bombardment of Germany would be liable to prosecution under the Bill. I am advised that the answer is that they would not be. Australians who took part in Allied bombing raids in Germany would not be covered by the Bill, because their actions were not wanton and were justified by military necessity within the terms of article 6 (b) of the Nuremberg Charter. That is the advice available to me on that particular example, and I think that it is the one most commonly thought of. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 14 April Senator Harradine asked me a question without notice about the requirement by overseas and Australian airlines for disabled passengers to complete forms relating to their fitness for air travel. I seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- The requirement is a general airline industry practice, adopted world-wide, governing clearance for travel by incapacitated travellers to enable airlines to determine what special services, if any, are required both inflight and at airports. While the air travel medical clearance forms for Qantas, Ansett and Australian airlines do ask whether the passenger's incapacity will inconvenience other passengers, the forms are designed to provide for the welfare and comfort of all passengers with medical or physical limitations by seeking information from both the intending passenger and his/her physician on the type of travel and medical needs required. Airlines can then ensure that medically or physically disabled passengers are properly and appropriately seated and receive proper care and attention both inflight and at airports. This practice helps to ensure the safety and comfort of both disabled and other passengers. Senator BEAHAN(Western Australia) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation. In an answer given earlier today Senator Walsh referred to the dubious financial activities of one Michael Behan, a Queensland National Party apparatchik. While Senator Walsh indicated that the Michael Behan in question is not related to me, I wish to make the fact quite clear that not only does the Queensland Michael Behan differ greatly in views and behaviour, but also he spells his name differently. I believe his name is Patrick Michael Behan and not the same as mine, which is Beahan. I wish to place on record that I am neither related to him nor do I want to be associated with him in any way. Senator TATE —Yesterday in Question Time Senator Newman asked me a question about alleged medifraud and in particular allegations by Dr Menon. It would not be true to say that I have been advised by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) that, in Senator Newman's words, `there was substantial evidence to warrant further investigations'. Cheques tabled by Senator Sheil in the chamber on 16 March, for example, have been examined and involved a fault in the Medicare computer system which has now been rectified. Dr Menon provided to the AFP copies of five cheques in March this year. Three were dated October 1987, one was dated November 1987 and one was dated February 1988. They are being examined by the AFP and the Health Insurance Commission. I repeat, as I have said before, that the AFP is committed to investigate Dr Menon's allegations of fraud if he can substantiate them. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate advising me of Senator Morris's resignation from the Standing Committee on the Environment, Recreation and the Arts and nominating Senator Collins to be a member of that Committee. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator Morris be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts and that Senator Collins be appointed a member of the Committee. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(3.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Crimes (Torture) Bill will enable Australia to ratify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which was signed by Australia on 10 December 1985. The Convention, generally known as `the Torture Convention', came into force on 26 June 1987, 30 days after the twentieth country, Denmark, deposited its instrument of ratification. The Attorney-General announced the Government's decision to ratify the Convention at the Human Rights Congress in Sydney on 25 September 1987. Ratification of the Convention by Australia has been the subject of consultation with the States in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and there is general agreement with this decision. Torture is an abhorrent practice and much work has been done in the councils of the United Nations to find practical ways of combating it. Australia has played a prominent part in such work and this Bill should be seen as a part of that process. In accordance with the provisions of the Convention, its main purpose is to deny safe haven in Australia to any person who, while acting officially, or at the instigation or behest of a person so acting, is involved in the torture of a person in another country. There are currently 28 parties to the Convention each of which has undertaken similar obligations to those embodied in this Bill. As a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Australia is already bound by the obligation in Article 7 of that Covenant which provides: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. The Government takes the view that the laws of the States and Territories are already adequate to fulfil this obligation and the obligations of the Torture Convention insofar as acts committed within Australia are concerned. The Bill does not, therefore, apply to acts within Australia. Instead, the substantive provisions in clause 6 of the Bill apply to any act of torture as defined in the Convention which is committed anywhere in the world outside Australia. The Bill does not apply retrospectively to acts of torture committed before the legislation comes into force. Australian domestic law will be applied to an Australian citizen and to any person present in Australia who has committed an act of torture as defined in the Convention. The law to be applied will, in substance, be the law of the State or Territory where the offender is prosecuted. In the Government's view, adoption of the well developed criminal law of the States and Territories is a preferable course to the creation of new Commonwealth law to deal with these very particular and, in the Australian context, hopefully rare circumstances. It should be noted, however, that the provisions of State and Territory legislation, and the relevant common law principles, will be applied as federal law. Clauses 8, 9 and 10 of the Bill make necessary incidental provision for the handling of any prosecutions which, by virtue of section 68 of the Judiciary Act, will be heard in State courts. Clause 11 will preclude the raising of defences of exceptional circumstances or superior orders. Clause 13 recognises the obligation under article 6 of the Convention to allow an alleged offender who is not an Australian citizen access to his or her country's diplomatic or consular representatives. The remaining clauses ensure that State and Territory laws are not displaced, make appropriate provision for the Act's application and adopt the Convention's definition of torture. It remains for me to explain why it was considered unnecessary to include certain other provisions which might appear to be called for by the Convention. The obligations under Article 5 to establish jurisdiction when offences are committed on an Australian ship or aircraft are already fulfilled by the Crimes at Sea 1979 and the Crimes (Aircraft) Act 1963. The other categories in that Article are, I believe, encompassed by the Bill or by existing State and Territory law. Obligations in relation to extradition are fulfilled by our extradition law, treaties and practice. Obligations under Article 16 in relation to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture are, in the Government's view, fulfilled by State and Territory criminal law, and the obligation under Article 14 to provide for fair and adequate compensation for the victim of an act of torture is met by State criminal injuries compensation legislation and by common law rights in tort. The passage of this Bill will be a significant step in the international effort to combat torture. Whether or not the occasion ever arises for the legislation to be invoked, its existence will be a clear indication to the international community that Australia will never become a safe haven for those who breach fundamental human rights. It will also provide a practical means of dealing with any situation where a person who is alleged to have committed acts of torture overseas is found within Australian territory. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(3.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of the National Companies and Securities Commission Amendment Bill 1988 is to amend section 21 of the National Companies and Securities Commission Act 1979 so as to clarify the power of the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) to give a general direction to a Division established by the NCSC. In addition the Bill will retrospectively validate any past directions to a Division under section 21 of the NCSC Act. The Bill will not, however, necessarily operate retrospectively where a past direction under section 21 is the subject of Court proceedings that are in progress when the amendment commences operation. Section 21 of the NCSC Act in its present form permits the NCSC, by resolution, to direct that its functions or powers in relation to `a matter' be performed or exercised by a Division of the NCSC. The purpose of section 21 is to enable the NCSC to make the most efficient use of the limited number of its members by delegating certain of its functions or powers to a smaller Division. The present Bill is necessary to overcome the doubt now cast on the provision by comments made by some members of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria, in a recent as yet unreported case (NCSC v Sim, 23 February 1988) on the power of the NCSC to give a general direction to Divisions. In that case it was said by those members that the reference to `a matter' in section 21 of the Act appeared to contemplate specificity in the resolution, and would not enable a general bestowal by the NCSC of all its functions and powers upon a Division. The section if construed in this way would mean that the NCSC's method of operating through Divisions would be fettered in that each individual matter would require a specific direction. It would not be possible for the NCSC to give a general direction to a Division that it exercise or perform the powers or functions of the NCSC. It was not the intention that the ambit of section 21 be confined in this way. Indeed, since the formation of the NCSC in 1979 it has been accepted practice for its standing Divisions (which now comprise the Companies, Takeovers, Executive, Securities Industry and Futures Industry Divisions) to perform most of the NCSC's day-to-day decision-making functions. In addition the NCSC has given a general direction that all matters arising under the legislation for which it is responsible are able to be exercised by the relevant Division. It is also desirable that the amendment preserve the validity of past actions by a Division of the NCSC to avoid possible administrative dislocation and public confusion which would result if previous decisions or acts were to be nullified. However, to protect the rights of those persons who may have already begun proceedings against the NCSC, the amendment will not apply in those cases to retrospectively validate the NCSC direction in question, except where the Court decides that it would be just and equitable for the direction to be treated as valid. The Bill, therefore aims to redress any misconceptions about the intended operation of section 21 and endeavours to ensure that the NCSC can conduct its business through its Divisions by virtue of either general or specific grants of power. In accordance with the Commonwealth's obligations under the Formal Agreement establishing the Co-operative Companies and Securities Scheme, this Bill was approved by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities on 17 March 1988. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee D will meet in committee rooms 1 and 2 and Estimates Committee E will meet in the chamber. The bells will be rung for three minutes prior to the commencement of sittings of the Estimates committees. Senate adjourned at 3.11 p.m. The following answer to a question was circulated: Senator Cook —On 16 March 1988 (Hansard, page 841), Senator Sheil asked Senator Tate, as Minister for Justice, a question without notice concerning allegations of fraud within the Health Insurance Commission. Senator Tate indicated that the question would be better directed to the Minister for Community Services and Health, who has provided the following information: When interviewed by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in December 1987, Dr Menon undertook to provide information to assist in establishing whether or not there was any substance to his allegations of fraud within the Health Insurance Commission. Despite discussion with the AFP on three separate occasions, I am advised that Dr Menon has provided the police with no material which would substantiate his allegations. The honourable senator's suggestion that electronic funds transfer (EFT) is somehow involved in the alleged fraud, shows a total lack of knowledge and understanding of the Medicare computer system. EFT is not employed by the Commission in any of its claims payment transactions. I am advised by the Commission that the so-called `bogus cheques' tabled by the honourable senator which were issued between 26 October and 11 November, were all stopped on 13 November 1987. These cheques were, I understand, issued incorrectly due to a computer systems fault which has now been rectified The Commission has indicated that the problem occurred due to the re-use of old `group link' numbers which enable the Medicare computer to link the provider of the service and the name and address to which their cheques should be directed. The Medicare computer was not programmed to cope with re-use of these numbers and, as a result, the claims payment system directed cheques to incorrect locations and providers. Approximately 12 doctors were affected by this error in the period before it was rectified. One of these was Dr White. As I mentioned earlier, the relevant cheques were stopped and replacement cheques have been reissued to the doctors to whom these benefit payments should have been made for the services listed. Therefore, the cheques held by Mr Menon and tabled by the honourable senator are merely worthless pieces of paper. The General Manager of the Commission is satisfied that there was at no time any indication of fraudulent activity by Commission staff in relation to these particular cheques. The AFP is still awaiting substantiation from Dr Menon of his allegations.