Friday, 29 April 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the imposition of sales tax, import duties and other financial constraints on Telecom Australia will have the effects of:- Increasing local and STD call charges. Increasing telephone rental charges. Increasing delays in providing services to new, rural, most small business and domestic subscribers. Decreasing service standards generally. Leading to the destruction of the Australian telecommunications manufacturing industry. Increasing the internal and external pressures for the deregulation and/or privatisation of Telecom Australia. Leading to the abandonment of the ``service to all Australians'' principle on which Telecom Australia has always operated if deregulation and/or privatisation continues further. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the federal government revokes its recent decisions applying extra financial burdens on Telecom Australia and takes appropriate steps to ensure that Telecom Australia has the legal, and financial ability to discharge its statutory obligations to provide universal service under its present monopoly status as the national telecommunications provider. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 151 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we express grave concern about the public release of confidential medical information by the government, sufficient to enable the public identification of doctors and their patients and calls upon the parliament to censure all those involved in this gross abuse of the privacy of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled people and families, and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject out of hand any plans by Telecom to timecharge local telephone calls and prevent the Australian people from being seriously affected by yet another ludicrous charge. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Calvert (from 32 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the public is overwhelmingly opposed to Telecom's plans to introduce time charges for local calls; 2. that while Telecom remains a public enterprise, it must be accountable to the public, its owners; and 3. while Telecom retains a statutory monopoly which shields it from the discipline of competition, it should not be unilaterally allowed to impose extortionate charges upon the public. Your petitioners therefore respectfully call upon all members of the Senate in Parliament assembled to take action to prevent Telecom introducing time charges for local calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled people and families, and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. That accordingly the Senate and Parliament should reject any plans by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 20 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 174 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, (i) are alarmed that many sporting, cultural and community groups have been made to feel that they can attract sponsorship only from promoters of unhealthy products; (ii) call for a National Health Promotion Foundation to be established through an increase in tobacco excise of 10 cents per packet; and (iii) urge that the National Health Promotion Foundation provide national sporting, cultural and community groups with alternative sponsorship funding so that these groups can flourish without the taint of accepting money from tobacco companies and assisting in the promotion of their unhealthy products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators McMullan (from 100 citizens) and Reid (from 100 citizens). To the Honourable the President and senators of the Senate in the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Far North Queensland and other interested parties respectfully showeth: Whereas we are opposed totally to World Heritage Listing of Queensland Wet Tropical Rainforests and the associated imposition to the use of this land in the restrictions imposed by the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth will move expeditiously to have this listing rescinded forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 1,296 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The Humble Petition of the undersigned members of the War Veterans' community and concerned citizens respectfully showeth: That there has been continuous, substantial and damaging erosion of war veterans' benefits and services since May of 1985 in a very wide range of areas; That it is cruel and cynical of the Government to treat war veterans, many of whom are now advanced in age, in declining health and vulnerable, as expendable and unworthy of optimum care and benefits, when they and their comrades gave of their utmost to this country in its times of greatest need; Now, therefore your petitioners request that the Senate in Parliament assembled pass appropriate legislation to reverse the decisions of the Government which have brought about the erosion of war veterans' benefits and services. by Senator Jenkins (from 200 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The Humble Petition of the undersigned members of the War Veterans' community and concerned citizens respectfully showeth: That there has been continuous, substantial and damaging erosion of war veterans' benefits and services since May of 1985 in the areas of: the deletion of the dependants' pension; the removal from the Department of Veterans Affairs repatriation schedule pharmaceuticals of war widows, their dependants and service pensioners; a reduction in dental benefits; the deletion of the ten percent disability pension assessment previously allowed when glasses were prescribed; the restriction on the issue of glasses and other associated losses in benefits to partially blind veterans; the lack of protection in the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 for intermediate or special rate pension rates disability pensions; the loss of benefits in respect of reimbursement of substantial costs incurred in obtaining medical opinion in support of a claim or an application; the means testing of the war veterans' children education scheme; the deletion of the intellectually handicapped dependants' allowance; the freezing of the social security portion of pensions paid to war widows; the restriction of travelling and mileage allowances; the termination of the defence re-establishment agricultural and loans schemes; the loss of the automatic right of admission to private hospitals without prior approval of a DMO; the imposition of a nursing home patient contribution rate for war veterans who are resident in nursing homes or who are receiving psychiatric treatment for war related disabilities; the abolition of the defence service home loan scheme; reductions in the allowances of skin care, podiatry and physiotherapy treatments; and abuses in the use of information supplied by war veterans in responses to lifestyle questionnaires; Pensions For All Who Served Overseas (At 60 Years) That it is cruel and cynical of the Government to treat war veterans, many of whom are now advanced in age, in declining health and vulnerable, as expendable and unworthy of optimum care and benefits, when they and their comrades gave of their utmost to this country in its times of greatest need; Now, therefore your petitioners request that the Senate in Parliament assembled pass appropriate legislation to reverse the decisions of the Government which have brought about the erosion of war veterans' benefits and services. by Senator Jenkins (from 249 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The Humble Petition of the undersigned members of the War Veterans' community and concerned citizens respectfully showeth: That there has been continuous, substantial and damaging erosion of war veterans' benefits and services since May of 1985 in the areas of: the deletion of the dependants' pension; the removal from the Department of Veterans Affairs repatriation schedule pharmaceuticals of war widows, their dependants and service pensioners; a reduction in dental benefits; the deletion of the ten percent disability pension assessment previously allowed when glasses were prescribed; the restriction on the issue of glasses and other associated losses in benefits to partially blind veterans; the lack of protection in the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 for intermediate or special rate pension rates disability pensions; the loss of benefits in respect of reimbursement of substantial costs incurred in obtaining medical opinion in support of a claim or an application; the means testing of the war veterans' children education scheme; the deletion of the intellectually handicapped dependants' allowance; the termination of the defence re-establishment agricultural and loans schemes; the loss of the automatic right of admission to private hospitals without prior approval of a DMO; the imposition of a nursing home patient contribution rate for war veterans who are resident in nursing homes or who are receiving psychiatric treatment for war related disabilities; the abolition of the defence service home loan scheme; reductions in the allowances of skin care, podiatry and physiotherapy treatments; and abuses in the use of information supplied by war veterans in responses to lifestyle questionnaires; vicious cuts in pharmaceuticals and denial of repeat prescriptions. That it is cruel and cynical of the Government to treat war veterans, many of whom are now advanced in age, in declining health and vulnerable, as expendable and unworthy of optimum care and benefits, when they and their comrades gave of their utmost to this country in its times of greatest need; Now, therefore your petitioners request that the Senate in Parliament assembled pass appropriate legislation to reverse the decisions of the Government which have brought about the erosion of war veterans' benefits and services. by Senator Macklin (from 60 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth; That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the threat to personal freedom posed by the introduction of The Australia Card, call on the Government to withdraw the enabling legislation on the following grounds; 1. Expert opinion does not agree ``that a National identification system for all Australians'' would ``combat tax evasion and welfare fraud''. 2. Once established at enormous cost to the taxpayer, the system would be here to stay. 3. The potential for the invasion of individual privacy by persons unknown to the private citizen is so great as to be unacceptable to us. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect this society by rejecting the Bill outright. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator McLean (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We wish the legislation introducing the ID card, known as the Australia Card, to be rejected. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should not vote for this legislation as it will affect the civil liberties of every Australian. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McLean (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: millions of dollars of taxpayers money is spent at each Federal election in Australia in the drafting, production and distribution of How-to-Vote cards which are unnecessary and pollutant and that this waste is not desirable or essential in assisting the electorate to vote informatively for their parliamentarians. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: Urge the Government to introduce legislation which requires that the registered How-to-Vote cards of all political parties and candidates for political office must be placed under glass in every polling booth within obvious sight of all voters, thus making it unnecessary for How-to-Vote cards to be distributed at future federal elections. And your petitioners as is duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The petition of these 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 of advertising material from commercial sources into the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners as is duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That cuts in funding to the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra would cause irreparable damage to the cultural life of Tasmania and the development of music nationally. That the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with their only nationwide, 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 of advertising material from commercial sources into the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners as is duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Senators assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out that 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 Government 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 this State. by Senators Alston (from 25 citizens), Maguire (from 1,522 citizens), and McGauran (from 72 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are concerned that the Judeo-Christian moral values which have been fundamental in our laws and education systems since the foundation of the country are now being undermined in the current practice of law making, and we are concerned that the values of the secular-humanistic philosophy have taken their place therefore jeopardizing the moral climate of our society and contributing towards immorality and violence in our society. Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate for the restoration of Judeo-Christian laws and moral values. And your petitioners as is duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 99 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 365 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the proposal for the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra or the Australian Capital Territory. (2) That a casino in Canberra would detract from the unique character and status of our National Capital. Your petitioners therefore most humbly request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to reject any proposal or legislation which would permit the establishment of a casino in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 264 citizens). Petitions received. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that in the five years since the Hawke Government was elected to office: (i) the consumer price index has increased by 32 per cent, (ii) average weekly earnings have increased by 39 per cent, (iii) the rates of tax payable on the last dollar earned by an employee on average weekly earnings has increased by over 34 per cent from 30.6 cents to 40.25 cents, (iv) the tax payable by an adult male earning the average weekly earnings has increased by 52 per cent from $4038.62 to $6152.62 and he now works more than one day a week to pay his tax, (v) the amount raised from Pay As You Earn taxpayers has increased by 60 per cent, and (vi) revenue generated by wholesale sales tax has increased by over 104 per cent; (b) also notes that wholesale sales tax now covers such things as flavoured milk, fruit juices, biscuits, ice cream and household appliances all taxed at 10 per cent; toys, games, pet food, soap, sporting equipment, lawn mowers, and ladders at 20 per cent; while some cars, cosmetics, television sets, record players, tape and video recorders, cameras, watches and clocks are taxed at 30 per cent to name but a few items in each bracket; and therefore (c) condemns the Government for its disregard for the wellbeing of all Australians and the continued burden that low to middle income earners are increasingly being required to carry to finance the domestic outlays which have increased by over 59 per cent in the last 5 years; and (d) urges the Government to inform the people of Australia regarding their wholesale tax method of raising additional revenue as a back door consumption tax purely to avoid conflict with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to standing order 109a I give notice that, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 14 standing in my name for this day of sitting for disallowance of certain Australian National Railways by-laws. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short description of the scrutiny by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee and the Committee's brief correspondence. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- Statement The Committee was concerned that inconsistencies in the drafting of one By-law could render uncertain the nature of the mental element required for the commission of crime under that By-law (damaging or interfering with gambling equipment on special trains). The Australian National Railways Commission agreed to change the drafting to a consistent format requiring wilful acts in order to justify conviction for the offence. The Committee also queried the absence of a penalty for another offence (eating or drinking in areas of special trains etc. where this is prohibited). Without the specification of a penalty, there was a possibility that an accused could only be dealt with by prosecution on indictment for a common law misdemeanor. Such a consequence could undermine the effectiveness of the Commissions' reasonable law enforcement requirements. The Commission agreed to make an amendment to specify a penalty in the By-law. The Commission has also agreed to supply explanatory statements with future By-laws amendments in keeping with the modern practice that now applies to virtually disallowable instruments of delegated legislation. The Committee thanks the Commission for its helpful response to the Committee's scrutiny. 24 February 1988 Mr L. E. Marks Chairman Australian National Railways Commission 1 Richmond Road KESWICK S.A. 5025 Dear Mr Marks, At its meeting on 18 February 1988 the Committee considered the Australian National Railways General By-Laws Amendment No. 1, (being the amendment made on 27 November 1987, gazetted in S328 of 1 December 1987 and tabled in the Senate on 17 December 1987). As you know, the Committee is involved in the scrutiny of Commonwealth delegated legislation to ensure that it conforms to certain standards of parliamentary and legal propriety. The Committee seeks your advice on some aspects of the By-laws which call for comment or elucidation. Firstly, clause 67 of the By-laws is drafted in a somewhat confusing manner. It is entitled ``Wilful Interference with . . . or damage to'' certain items. Subclause (1) (a) prohibits actions ``calculated or likely to interfere with'' gambling; subclause (2) prohibits actions ``calculated to interfere with'' a poker machine; subclause (3) prohibits actions ``knowingly'' done and ``calculated to'' sabotage a poker machine. These variants in terminology are unusual in Commonwealth legislative drafting practice with which the Committee has fairly wide experience. It may be that the Commission's purpose was to ensure that legal intent or mens rea was to be a necessary ingredient of each offence. This is certainly the standard which the Committee usually requires. However, apart from subclause (3), the inconsistent terminology leaves the position unclear. The By-law may need to be redrafted to provide in each case that a person shall not ``knowingly'' or ``wilfully'' do the proscribed acts. Secondly, the Committee has noted that there appears to be no penalty for a breach of the widely drawn By-law 69 which prohibits not only the consumption of food or beverages on particular marked trains or premises but also the bringing of any such goods (including presumably goods in luggage) on to the train or premises. Where no penalty is prescribed for an offence specified in legislation a breach of the law may have to be prosecuted on indictment as a common law misdemeanor: R V Hall [1891] QB 747 at 768-769. This case was cited by Gibbs C J in Clyne v DPP (1984) 55 ALR 9 at 11 where he said It is an old principle that where an Act of Parliament creates an offence and prescribes no remedy for it, the offence is indictable at common law . . . unless of course the statute reveals an intention to exclude procedure by way of indictment . . . For the purposes of the application of this principle, the regulation must be treated as a provision of the Act under which it was made . . .''. Paragraph 79 (1) (h) of the Australian National Railways Commission Act 1983 empowers the making of By-laws to prescribe penalties of up to $500 for breaches of the By-laws. Many of the other offence provisions in this By-law Amendment impose a $500 penalty. It could well render clause 69 ultra vires if its effect would be to render offenders liable to be tried on indictment. The Committee would be grateful if you would consider this matter and comment on it. Finally, with the encouragement of the Committee, the Attorney-General and many other Ministers have adopted the practice of attaching explanatory statements to delegated legislation that is subject to tabling and disallowance in Parliament. Such statements are matters of record and are of considerable present and future value to interested parliamentarians, the Committee, the courts, the public and other users of the By-laws. The Committee would encourage the Commission to consider the advantages of this procedure. Yours sincerely, Bob Collins Chairman 7 April 1988 ES Senator R. Collins Chairman Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances The Senate Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Mr Collins, I am writing further to my letter of 21 March 1988 regarding a number of questions you raised in your letter of 24 February 1988 about the wording and content of the Australian National Railways Commission By-Law Amendment Number 1, gazetted in S328 on 1 December 1987. I forwarded your comments to the Australian Government Solicitor, who drafted the amendment. In accordance with the Australian Government Solicitor's recommendation, Australian National now proposes to further amend the clauses to comply with your suggestions as follows: Clause 57: Change title from ``Powers of Authorised Officers'' to ``Powers of Authorised Persons'' to make it consistent with references to authorised persons elsewhere in the By-Law. Sub-clause 57 (3): Change ``officer'' in second line to ``authorised person'' to make it consistent with references to authorised persons elsewhere in the By-Law. Clause 63: Divide Clause into two parts, one regarding ``passenger trains'' and one regarding ``premises'' to clarify the legal intent of the words. Subclauses 67 (1) (a), 67 (2) and 67 (3): Change wording so that the legal intent of the words is uniform among these clauses. Clause 68: Add a title, Entry Control Clause 69: Divide Clause into two parts, one regarding ``passenger trains'' and one regarding ``premises'' to clarify the legal intent of the words. Add a penalty of $250.00 for breaches related to consumption of food and beverages in areas in which signs are displayed prohibiting it. These amendments were presented to the Commission and approved at its meeting of 6 April 1988. The full text of the By-Law incorporating the amendments above is enclosed for your information. An Explanatory Memorandum for Amendment No. 1 is also provided herewith. Australian National will ensure that in future an explanatory statement accompanies delegated legislation when it is submitted to the portfolio Minister for tabling in Parliament. Yours sincerely, D. G. WILLIAMS Chairman Senator COLLINS —I also seek leave to make a short statement about serious concerns which the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has at present regarding outstanding correspondence and ministerial undertakings. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —At its meeting yesterday the Committee conducted a brief audit of its case load and noted that it is awaiting ministerial replies to its correspondence concerning 35 separate and distinct pieces of delegated legislation. Some of this correspondence is, of course, relatively recent and replies are not yet overdue. However, much of it is not so recent and replies are overdue. Senator Gareth Evans —Whose side are you on? Senator COLLINS —The side of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. The Committee also audited its position regarding outstanding ministerial undertakings to make amendments to delegated legislation which infringes the Committee's scrutiny principles. There are over 20 outstanding undertakings from Ministers. As Chairman of the Committee and at the request of the Committee I have made several statements about the crucial role played by ministerial promises to amend offending regulations. However, if these promises are not implemented by Ministers as a matter of priority within their portfolios, then the Committee's scrutiny activity, all of its efforts, its tact and diplomacy in approaching Ministers and seeking their cooperation, and our whole philosophy of avoiding disallowance in lieu of undertakings, are a total waste of time. Senator Robert Ray —You did not mention the Committee's humility. Senator COLLINS —Talking about humility, I must say that there is a reward for complying with requests from the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. On every occasion that this happens I send incredibly grovelling letters to the Ministers thanking them for their attention, their perspicacity, their statesmanship, their prescience and their ability as Ministers. Virtue has its rewards. It makes me almost sick to sign them. As we are about to move to a two-week recess, I would most seriously and sincerely ask Ministers to direct their senior officials-whose fault, of course, it is-to address these two concerns of the Committee before our next meeting on Thursday, 19 May 1988. If there has been no appreciable change in the situation confronting the Committee, we will have to look very seriously at what options are available to us to ensure that our efforts in protecting the rights of individuals and the significance of this Parliament in law-making are not a waste of time. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, and for related purposes. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(9.10) —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- Mr President, this Bill is designed to give legislative effect to the remaining acceptable recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform made in its first and second reports to the last Parliament. The first report made a number of recommendations concerning the representation of Territories and new States in the Federal Parliament and the second report made a series of recommendations designed to finetune the electoral and referendum Acts as a result of the Committee's review of the operation of the electoral legislation at the 1984 general election. Honourable senators will also recall that the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Act 1987 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 1988 were designed to give effect to some of the more important recommendations of the second report. This Bill provides fixed formulae for the representation of Territories and new States in the Federal Parliament. The JSC examined this issue, following concern that it would be possible for a government, with a majority in both Houses, to increase the representation of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory out of proportion to their populations. The Government has accepted the Committee's conclusion that fixed formulae for the representation of Territories and new States should be prescribed. Accordingly, this Bill provides for the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory to be entitled to be represented by at least one member of the House of Representatives, and that representation thereafter be in proportion to its population. Other Commonwealth Territories will be entitled to separate representation when their population exceeds more than one-half of a quota as determined by section 48 of the Electoral Act. The Bill also provides that the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory will be entitled to representation in the Senate on the basis of one senator for every two members of the House of Representatives. However, each will be entitled to a minimum of two senators. Other Commonwealth Territories will be entitled to representation in the Senate on the basis of one senator for every two members of the House of Representatives. I turn now to outline some of the major provisions of the Bill that result from the Committee's second report. The Bill provides for the printing and distribution of the electoral roll to senators, members and political parties no later than the end of the second year of each parliament. Senators' present entitlement of one set of electoral rolls for their State will increase to five, thus making it easier for senators to carry out their electorate responsibilities. Provision is also made for the electoral roll to be available to senators, members and political parties in certain cases in the form of microfiche and magnetic tapes and disks. The Bill establishes a more rational and consistent approach to the recognition of the voting rights and responsibilities of those in prison. It makes provision of prisoners, other than those convicted of treason, to enrol to vote or to retain their entitlement to enrolment. Honourable senators would be aware that the present provision only allows prisoners convicted of an offence which carries a maximum penalty of five years or less to retain their entitlement to vote. There have been some difficulties with this provision, particularly because of inconsistency in sentencing for various offences. As honourable senators would be aware, a principal aim of modern criminal law is to rehabilitate offenders and orient them positively towards the society they will re-enter on their release. This process is assisted by a policy of encouraging prisoners to observe their civil and political responsibilities. The Bill also provides for the Electoral Commission to enter into arrangements with the relevant State prison authorities for the provision of mobile polling facilities to prisons. There has been some confusion about the term `Postal Vote' as electors are able to apply in person. This Bill repeals the present provisions in the electoral and referendum Acts relating to postal voting and substitutes new provisions relating to postal and pre-poll voting. The new provisions draw a clear distinction between postal and pre-poll votes, so that votes applied for in writing and sent through the post or otherwise delivered continue to be referred to as postal votes, while votes applied for in person and returned to a polling official will be referred to as pre-poll votes. The Bill also enables the provision of mobile voting facilities in hospitals and special hospitals to be more comprehensive and confirms the right of patients to a postal vote. The electoral and referendum Acts presently give hospitals and nursing homes the right to veto mobile polling by not entering into arrangements for the taking of patients' votes. Provision is also made for mobile polling teams visiting hospitals to carry and distribute how to vote material in the same way that mobile teams in remote areas already do. Presently, both Acts require polling officials to ask voters specific questions before issuing them with ballot papers. This provision is replaced with a requirement that the polling official ask such questions as he or she thinks necessary to establish the person's name and place of living. The Bill makes a number of changes to party registration including insertion of a requirement that a party wishing to make application for registration have a written constitution, provides for public inspection of objections to applications to register political parties, requires the Electoral Commission to provide copies of objections to applications to registration to the prospective registered officer and clarifies the circumstances which may lead to deregistration of a registered political party. The Bill also makes a number of amendments to the election funding and financial disclosure provisions, including: Changing the definition of the disclosure period in relation to gifts received, to include the period of 30 days after polling day; Requiring that campaign committees of candidates and/or Senate groups endorsed by registered political parties be treated as part of the party organisation; A requirement that agents of candidates and Senate groups be appointed before close of nominations; Requiring the Commission to keep a register of party agents; enabling the Commission to extend the period for submission of claims for public funding; Enabling the Electoral Commission to redetermine claims for public funding; Changing the disclosure requirement in relation to gifts from the number of gifts received to the number of donors; Decreasing the period for receipt of returns of broadcasters and publishers from 15 weeks to 8 weeks after polling day and Requiring the broadcasters and publishers to identify the person requesting an advertisement; Requiring broadcasters to keep a copy of advertisements for one month after furnishing a return to the Commission; and Enabling the Electoral Commissioner to bring court action to recover debts due to the Commonwealth. The Bill re-introduces a fine for failure by an elector to advise of his or her change of address within a subdivision. Following acceptance of one of the recommendations of the first JSC, it was no longer an offence for an elector to fail to notify a change in his or her place of living, provided that the new address was within the same subdivision. However, with the decision to reduce the number of subdivisions, wherever practicable, such failure to notify changes of address can lead to the rolls becoming inaccurate. The JSC concluded that the Electoral Act should be amended to dispense with the requirement for DROs to exercise casting votes to determine the result of a deadlocked election. The Committee considered that an immediate recount and a fresh preliminary scrutiny of rejected declaration votes should be a statutory requirement. The Committee also concluded that if at the end of the recount, the result is still deadlocked, then the DRO should advise the Electoral Commission, and the Electoral Commission should file a petition disputing the election. Accordingly, the Bill so provides. Concern was also expressed about the possibility of petitions alleging a range of standard irregularities in general terms and relying on the court procedures to provide the evidence necessary to substantiate them. This Bill requires petitions to the Court of Disputed Returns to be more specific in their allegations disputing the result of an election or referendum. One item of concern has not been incorporated in this proposed legislation because the Government is awaiting the outcome of a High Court case. The disputed status of Senator Robert Wood, currently before the High Court, brings into question the provisions relating to the nomination of, and acceptance of nomination by, prospective parliamentary candidates. Sections 170 and 172 of the Electoral Act make it clear that the obligation to ensure that he or she meets the requirements to be an eligible candidate for parliament lies entirely with the candidate. The so-called Wood case suggests that this obligation on candidates to make accurate and truthful declarations at the time of their nomination should be spelt out more clearly. Possibly, penalties for incorrect declarations by candidates should be instituted. The Government will consider the decision of the High Court before bringing forward amendments appropriate to solve this problem. The provisions in the Bill relating to the fixed formulae for the representation of Territories and related redistribution provisions will come into effect on royal assent. The remaining provisions of the Bill, mainly relating to operational matters, will come into effect on a day or days to be proclaimed, thus the amendments in this Bill relating to the operation of the Referendum Act will not be proclaimed until after any possible referendum this year. I commend the Bill to the Senate and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —by leave-I move: That the sessional order relating to the routine of business for Fridays be varied so that questions without notice begin at 11.55 a.m. I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —The reason for the variation relates to the time constraints that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio one o'clock deadline cut-off provides for us. In order not to interfere with the full rights of honourable senators to get a full hour's Question Time and for supplementary questions and so on to be answered, if possible, in the remaining period, it is proposed to start five minutes earlier. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I acknowledge the Government's response to the Opposition's concerns in this matter and thank it for bringing in the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Reid) agreed to: That Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Reid and relating to the Australian Rifle Club Regulations (Repeal), be postponed until the next day of sitting. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales) —I present the report from Estimates Committee A on proposed additional expenditure for the year ending on 30 June 1988, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —On behalf of Senator Gietzelt, I present the report from Estimates Committee B on proposed additional expenditure for the year ending on 30 June 1988, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —I present the report from Estimates Committee C on proposed additional expenditure for the year ending on 30 June 1988, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —I present the report from Estimates Committee D on proposed additional expenditure for the year ending on 30 June 1988, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —On behalf of Senator Aulich, I present the report from Estimates Committee E on proposed additional expenditure for the year ending on 30 June 1988, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —On behalf of Senator Black, I present the report from Estimates Committee F on proposed additional expenditure for the year ending on 30 June 1988, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(9.14) —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders- (a) the Senate meet on Tuesday, 10 May 1988, from 2 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and from 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.; (b) the hours of meeting on Wednesday, 18 and 25 May 1988 and 1 June 1988 be as follows: 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; and (c) Government Business take precedence of General Business for the remainder of the Autumn Sittings. Honourable senators have had notice of this motion for a day or so. The motion reflects discussions between the Government, Opposition and Democrat Whips. It does not reflect agreement on the part of the Australian Democrats so far as the evening extension of hours are concerned on the last run of Wednesdays, but apart from that I believe that there is acceptance of the propositions. Perhaps I may just put the position very shortly from the Government's point of view. We take the view that it amounts to a reasonable set of extensions of time which will not involve protracted days and nights spent in this chamber. The final Wednesday nights are needed to deal with essential legislation which simply cannot be held over until the Budget session. I remind honourable senators that there is still a massive amount of legislation remaining on the program of which notice has been given, including the Appropriation Bills scheduled for debate when we resume in the first week back. The Constitution alteration Bills are scheduled for debate in week nine and in the last week, week 10, we have still something like 24 packages of legislation, excluding anything coming out of the May statement, that remain for debate then. With the best will in the world and with the most attention to scheduling that we can possibly muster, and have been able to muster in the early weeks of this session, we have been unable to reduce the backlog significantly and, as always, a significant body of legislation remains. At this stage may I say, particularly in response to concerns that have been expressed by Senator Reid of the Opposition, that the Government sees no need whatever to sit beyond 10.30 p.m. on the nights in question. It is certainly our intention, in the interests of the sanity of all of us, to avoid any such later sitting if that is humanly possible. If substantial difficulties are encountered in making progress on legislation, I have to foreshadow the possibility that I will seek some further agreement on extensions of that kind in particular instances. But I genuinely believe that with goodwill on all sides of the kind that, for one reason or another, we seemed to be able to muster in the dying stages of the last session, this should not be necessary. At this time I am very conscious of the desire in various quarters that the Senate not sit beyond 6.30 p.m. on the last scheduled day, Thursday, 2 June. At this stage I simply say that I see no need, provided we can get a degree of cooperation in the areas I have indicated, for that to occur. On that basis, in the hope that we can approach this matter in a consensual way, I formally put the motion to the House. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.18) —It is clear that the Opposition did not call this motion not formal and was therefore prepared to have it go without debate on the undertaking by the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans) that he would make it clear that there had been discussions and undertakings with respect to late sittings which he gave in his brief speech just a moment ago. However, since there is going to be some debate, I suspect, I should just make the Opposition's position totally clear. First, we are not at all satisfied that the program is a reasonable one in terms of the length of sittings and the hours of sittings. We think that it will impose an unnecessary strain on senators and that it is beyond what senators should be asked to do. We already have one senator ill. I do not believe that it is sensible or fair to have three weeks of sittings in a row with four days of sittings and so many night sittings. I just make that clear. The Opposition's position, however, is that we have, throughout the period of this Government, agreed to sit when the Government has sought to sit. We have done that on the basis that the Government does determine when the Parliament meets, although we have reserved a power with the Australian Democrats to recall Parliament if that is our wish. But I think that it should be said now that we do not believe that the legislative program that the Government has set down, even with the sittings which are now proposed, is attainable. I think that even with the goodwill which the Minister mentioned-I would refer to the fact that we have already instituted a new procedure of dealing with non-contentious legislation during the non-contentious debate period in the Thursday lunch hour-- Senator Haines —It did not work too well yesterday. Senator CHANEY —The Leader of the Australian Democrats never seems to be in a good mood in the mornings-or in the afternoons or in the evenings. I note that she said it did not work very well yesterday; but it has, I think, been a quite useful addition to the legislative procedures and I think that we should continue with it because quite a number of Bills have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the Opposition and clearly to the satisfaction of the Government. The reason I believe that program is unattainable is that we have major debates on the Constitution before us. We have other substantial legislation, including legislation which will flow from the May economic statement. I just think that in fairness to the Senate it should be understood that our commitment to a program which we believe is far heavier than should be required is not an admission by us that what the Government has put down is, in fact, attainable. I think that I should say to the Government too that there is very considerable dissatisfaction that the change in the sitting pattern, which was meant to be a two-weeks on, two-weeks off sitting pattern, has been translated into a three-week period, thereby putting a very considerable burden on all the processes in this place including committee operations. I do not believe that in the long term that is a successful way to operate. I would agree with something that has been said by Senator Macklin, in fact on a number of occasions in this place, that the only solution is to have more regular sittings over a longer period of the year than we at present do to get ourselves out of the present impasse. We are giving the Government the capacity to sit when it seeks to sit, including the extra day of sitting on 10 May. We do that as an indication of our good faith in this matter but with very real concern that the Government is overprogramming and we are simply not going to achieve the Government's objectives. As far as the Opposition is concerned we will fully debate matters of major significance, particularly the constitutional amendments, because to do less would be absolutely unfair to the Australian people. I hope that we will have the support of the Australian Democrats in ensuring that there is a full and fair debate of any constitutional proposals which are brought before the Parliament. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.22) —The Australian Democrats will be opposing this motion outright. It seems to me that if the Government had in fact got its act together in more ways than one we would not be in this position now. It seems to me that there has been no attempt by the Government to speed up its legislative program by actually introducing Bills so that we can get around to debating them. I think that something has to be done in both the long and the short term about the fact that we are regularly adding days and hours to our sitting time at the end of each session because the Government gives us precious little to do in the first few weeks that we are here and then piles stuff on top of us at the end of the session. Senator Stone —Quite right. Senator HAINES —Senator Stone says, `Quite right', but I add for his edification, since he has not been here during a coalition government, that the same thing happened in those days. Fundamentally it stems from the fact that most of the Bills that come into this place come in here only after they have been dealt with by the House of Representatives. Maybe we are going to have to start looking at the Senate not sitting for a couple of weeks early in the session until we have actually got something to do, and then sitting a couple of weeks later in the session. We cannot continue year after year, twice a year, to come into his place and spend what on this occasion has been seven weeks, doing practically nothing. Senator Michael Baume —Doing it very well. Senator HAINES —Senator Baume says, `Doing it very well', but that is an expert talking. I will leave that sort of decision to him. Part of the problem, of course, stems from the Opposition, which has been in such confusion and indecision over a couple of major pieces of legislation it has actually had to seek the postponement of debate on those Bills. Two fairly major Bills come to mind-the war crimes legislation, which has been hanging around for nearly six months, and the broadcasting and television legislation, about which I understand the Opposition is still in a huddle. So not all the blame rests on the shoulders of the Government. But that does not alter the fact that we have been here for nearly seven weeks and achieved very little at all. Now because the Australian Labor Party and the Opposition parties cannot get their acts together we are being asked to sit extra days, when we have already made long term plans. We are being asked to extend sitting times. We are being asked, as a matter of last resort, of course, possibly even to extend the sitting weeks. That is highly unlikely since the Government has its National Conference scheduled for 6 June and, I imagine, half the Opposition have airline tickets to go overseas, as usual. Therefore, we will be looking, quite possibly, at legislation by exhaustion, although Senator Gareth Evans indicated that the Government would avoid that if humanly possible. I suggest that it does not have much to do with being human or otherwise. The numbers in this place are what count, and as far as we are concerned sittings will not be extended beyond 10.30 on any night. It is worth looking at what we have or have not achieved in the last little while. As I have said, we have sat for seven four-day weeks. In that time we have spent more time discussing ministerial statements, papers on one thing or another, and matters of public importance on largely forgettable topics than we have discussing legislation, simply because the Government has not had its program organised sufficiently well to give-- Senator Collins —Have the Democrats done anything wrong at all, or is it just us or the Opposition? Senator HAINES —By and large we do not overload this chamber with nonsense matters of public importance. We are not the ones introducing a list of papers three or four pages long. We are not the ones who are dreaming up ministerial statements so that we can debate them in order not to make it quite so obvious that this place has got nothing else to do. Those few matters of public importance that we have introduced have been on significant topics-significant because in the main they have been opposed by both the major parties in this place. That in itself is an indication of their importance. We are scheduled to sit for another three weeks. If this motion goes through we will be sitting an extra day following the opening of the new Parliament House. In the time that we have left to us, the Government, apparently seriously, is expecting us to deal-presumably with some degree of thoroughness and competence from at least some members in this place-with such matters as the May economic statement, the Appropriation Bills, war crimes, and a package of constitutional change Bills on which I have already informed the Government that we will not be curtailing debate. It is patently absurd to expect this place to curtail debate on subjects of such importance as constitutional change. It makes no difference to me whether we are sitting here in the middle of June debating whether we should have four-year terms, the right to trial by jury, and so on. We will not be curtailing that debate, yet that is a package of legislation that is set down for us to deal with in the next three weeks of sitting. We are looking at matters such as a new industrial relations Bill, Bills relating to the Dawkins Green Paper on education, which has caused some consternation and controversy in the community, various States grants Bills, a host of Bills relating to superannuation and compensation, the odd social security Bill, and legislation affecting nursing homes, child maintenance programs, Customs, bounties, export charges, road transport, companies and securities legislation, civil aviation and crime-all of that in three weeks. It is an absurdity that the Government has left the program in such a shambles that in such a short period we will be debating matters that are of such monumental importance. We will be opposing the motion on the grounds that I believe-and my colleagues support me in this-that, if the Government had been a little more organised, we would not be facing legislation by exhaustion, sitting night after night until 10.30 and starting some mornings at 10 o'clock and-- Senator Panizza —But 10.30 p.m. is early. Senator HAINES —It certainly is early in comparison to the times the Opposition used to expect us to sit when it was in government. In the main, the quality of debate was not improved by having speeches made at 3 o'clock in the morning. It is a nonsense to expect this Parliament to try to get through this sort of legislation in three weeks. I can only assume that this means that, when we come back in the Budget session, yet again the Senate will be faced with a backlog of Bills at a time when we are supposed to be dealing with the Budget. As a consequence of that, we will be sitting probably into the Christmas week, as we seem to have made a habit of doing under this Government. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.30) —I was the one who declared this motion not formal, and I did so deliberately, although I am beginning to doubt the wisdom of that. I did it because I believe it is very important for the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans) to justify to the Senate as a whole the reasons for an extension of the sitting hours to the extent that we have before us. I say that quite deliberately. When the list came around for offices in the new Parliament House I looked down and there I was, fourth on the list. The reason I say that is that there has been an extraordinary turnover in senators in the 13 years I have been here. I have seen honourable senators in this place, including Ministers, work very long hours and their health has deteriorated. Senator Gareth Evans —You are not doing anything for my health at the moment. Senator HARRADINE —I may not be doing anything for the Minister's health at the present time but I hope he gets the message somewhere along the line. What the Minister is asking us to do is sit every day and every night except Friday night for the remainder of this sitting period. Those of us who are involved in committee work know that very often we have to be here at 7.00 or 7.30 in the morning and we do not leave the place until maybe midnight. Senator Colston —We should get penalty rates. Senator HARRADINE —Yes. The point is that we have to try to keep abreast of what is going on in the chamber. I have found that almost impossible, particularly in the last two months when there has been a substantial rewrite of a particular report which I will not go into. I do know that there are senatorial colleagues on the Government and Opposition sides who feel, as I do, that it is necessary to give mature consideration to the matters that come before us. But I ask: How can we give mature consideration to the legislation that comes before us when we are asked to sit these extraordinary hours? I am not opposed to our sitting on 10 May. I think that is a good idea. Why have us all dragged up here-that is probably putting it in rather the wrong way-for the opening of the new Parliament House without getting some work out of us? I think it is a good idea to sit on 10 May and I would have thought it would have been okay to go for the whole of the week. Senator Crichton-Browne —What about our constituents? Senator HARRADINE —I agree with the honourable senator. We have to balance that off. So that is why I called this motion not formal. Let us look at the justification given by Senator Evans on behalf of the Government for this substantial change. He talked with the Opposition and he talked with the Australian Democrats and while -- Senator Haines —He got a deal out of the Opposition. Senator HARRADINE —We do have this massive amount of legislation, including the Appropriation Bills and the Constitution alteration Bills. For crying out loud, what is so urgent about the Constitution alteration Bills? If we are talking about four-year parliaments, we could have a constitutional referendum any time between now and the next election. We could have it next year. Why does the Government have to try to truncate the whole thing within this particular period? That is no justification for what the Government is trying to do to us today. Senator Stone —Because it is worried that we will catch up with the sneakiness of the whole procedure. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Stone has thrown me off the track. Very briefly, I will end on this point: I am very much opposed to paragraph (c) of the motion, which provides that Government Business shall take precedence over General Business for the remainder of the autumn session. It is unfair for the Government not to give a justification for what it is doing on that aspect. It would deny individual senators their rights in this chamber. Therefore, Senator Evans ought to give some justification for that. I agree that at times Government Business should take precedence over General Business but at least the Government should have the courtesy to try to justify such a proposal adequately before the chamber as a whole. Let us look briefly at just some of the General Business which will not be able to get up if this motion is passed. For a considerable period I have had on the Notice Paper a General Business motion-it is No. 1 at present; it has got right up to the top-about an issue on which I am greatly concerned and becoming even more concerned. That is about youth unemployment in today's society. Also, there is the report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material that was dealt with yesterday. The debate on that was adjourned and now, because of this motion, it will not get a run around the course again. I would have thought it was vital for the matter to be thoroughly considered. I did not know whether I had been on the same committee, to be quite frank, when I read some of the Press reports. I thought it would have been useful and beneficial to have a further debate on that subject, particularly prior to the meeting of Ministers in late June. So for those reasons I believe the Manager of Government Business in the Senate has not given adequate reasons for the substantial changes in sitting times that he has proposed today by formal notice. Question put: That the motion (Senator Gareth Evans's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 45 —— Alston, R. K. R. Evans, GarethArcher, B. R. Giles, P. J.Aulich, T. G. Hamer, D. J.Baume, Michael Hill, R. M.Baume, Peter Knowles, S. C.Beahan, M. E. Lewis, A. W. R.Bishop, B. K. McMullan, R. F.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Maguire, G. R.Black, J. R. Messner, A. J.Bolkus, N. Morris, J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Panizza, J. H.Brownhill, D. G. C. Patterson, K. C. L.Burns, B. R. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Ray, RobertChaney, F. M. Reid, M. E.Chapman, H. G. P. Reynolds, M.Childs, B. K. Richardson, G. F.Coates, J. Schacht, C. C.Collins, R. L. Sibraa, K. W.Colston, M. A. (Teller) Stone, J. O.Cook, P. F. S. Tambling, G. E. J.Cooney, B. C. Tate, M. C.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Teague, B. C.Crowley, R. A. Vanstone, A. E.Devereux, J. R. Walters, M. S.Devlin, A. R. Watson, J. O. W.Durack, P. D. Zakharov, A. O. Coulter, J. R. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Haines, J. Powell, J. F.Harradine, B. Sanders, N. K.Jenkins, J. A. Wood, W. R.McLean, P. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.45) —I move: That there be a Call of the Senate on Thursday, 26 May 1988, for the purpose of considering the third reading of Constitution Alteration Bills received from the House of Representatives. This motion, if passed by the chamber, is really just the first step in a procedure set out under the Australian Constitution and within the Standing Orders of this chamber which culminates, as honourable senators will know, in the people of Australia voting in a referendum. Everyone understands, I think, that in relation to the question put to the people, special majorities are required before the Constitution alteration can be incorporated in our fundamental law. That requires a majority of voters voting throughout Australia and a majority of States assenting to the proposition. Under our Constitution, also, it is made clear that even in the passage of the legislation through the Parliament special majorities are required, given the importance of this procedure to change the fundamental law underlying the structure of the Commonwealth of Australia. Therefore, the Constitution provides that a special majority, an absolute majority, of senators is required for the passage of the referendum Bills through this chamber. That means that of the 76 senators who are entitled to vote, 39 are required to give their assent to such a Bill. Because that is a special majority and an unusual procedure, but totally understandable given the important and serious task involved in proposing a change to the Constitution and putting such a question to the Australian people, the Standing Orders of this chamber make special provision to ensure that all senators are on notice of the fact that they may be required to be here in order to constitute the chamber voting in a way which, one hopes, leads to that absolute majority of 39 out of 76 giving their assent to the Bill. Standing order 242 provides: Before the Third Reading of any Bill by which an alteration of the Constitution is proposed there shall be a Call of the Senate. And it goes on. Standing order 283 provides: An Order for a Call of the Senate shall be made for any day not earlier than twenty-one days from the day on which such Order shall have been made. In other words, roughly speaking, one has to give at least 21 days' notice of the fact that a roll call of the Senate is to be held on a particular day preceding a Third Reading on a referendum Bill. Given the structure of those standing orders and taking advice from the Acting Clerk-Assistant (Table Office), which advice was concurred in by the Clerk, and given the fact that the Whips had decided to schedule this debate on the referendum Bills for the second last week of the session, with an expectation or hope that the vote would be held on Thursday, 26 May-probably very late at night, but nevertheless on that day at the end of that second last week of the session, which the Whips have indicated should be set aside for debate on the referendum proposals-it will be seen in the notice of motion that I have given that I have nominated Thursday, 26 May 1988 for the purpose of the third reading votes on the referendum Bills. That, of course, is not set in concrete and, in the event we cannot conclude the debates by that date, postponement of the call can be made. That has also been made clear in the advice to me. The order for the call of the Senate could be postponed from day to day, as needed. Nevertheless, it is clear under the standing order and, indeed because one is talking about a roll call, common sense indicates that a day had to be selected, and I think honourable senators will agree that to set 26 May, at the end of the period set aside by the Whips for the debate on these referendum Bills, is a sensible and prudent date to put forward. But as I say, it is in no way meant to constrain this chamber in its own deliberations, serious and protracted as they are likely to be. If, indeed, we cannot make it on the 26th, then we go into the following week and merely postpone the roll call in order to deal with it. Senator Alston —There will be no gag. Senator TATE —We have already had indications that there will be no support for a truncating of the debate, and it is certainly not my intention that there should be any. Senator Stone —Do you mean otherwise you may be moving-other than the lack of support? Senator TATE —I have been here for 10 years and I think most people know that I think the Senate ought to be given the fullest opportunity to debate an important matter such as this. I have set down this motion in order to comply with the Standing Orders of this chamber. I have been informed by the Clerks that in their looking at the precedents back into the early 1970s-as far back as they have gone-it is a fact that these Standing Orders have been suspended. But I had sufficient indication from the other side of the chamber that this suspension of Standing Orders would not be agreed to to require that this particular process be put under way. It is an important first step in the process, and I have confined my remarks very carefully to the motions, rather than going into the substance of what may or may not be put. As I say, it is a necessary procedural step, and I commend the motion to the chamber. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.53) —The Opposition will be opposing this motion because we regard it as part of a fundamentally fraudulent approach to constitutional change which has been adopted by the present Government. It will be necessary for me to justify that serious charge, and I intend to do so in the course of my remarks. What we are talking about was explained by the Minister at the table, the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate). We are talking about a procedure which ensures that there is a considerable period of notice before senators are called upon to exercise a final vote on a proposal for constitutional change. The Standing Orders of the Senate give us a three-week period of notice. The senators are summonsed by an order of the Senate to come to vote on matters of very great importance, namely matters which go to changes in the Australian Constitution. The Minister for Justice referred to the fact that in the past the Senate has seen fit to suspend that standing order and not to require that formal call, or the period of notice which has been required. I acknowledge that that is a matter of historical fact. The important thing that I think needs to be noted in this debate is that we are dealing with an unprecedented motion. Senator Tate, the Government or the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen)-we do not know who-has invented a new approach to dealing with this procedural requirement of the Senate. I believe that we need to analyse the difference. In fact, the difference is quite simple. I think this is the first time that a motion of this sort has been moved before the Senate has known the contents of the legislation that is to be considered. It is quite true that in the past honourable senators, having seen legislation, have agreed to suspend this requirement. All that we have seen is a woefully inadequate Press release from the Attorney-General giving us, in a very broad way, what the Government proposes to introduce into this Parliament on 10 May. Senator Tate is asking the Senate to authorise the final passage of that legislation-to be introduced on 10 May-through this Parliament for submission to the people of Australia on 26 May, just 16 days after its introduction. It may be that the Senate, on its actual consideration of the legislation, will regard that as an entirely appropriate course. But the Opposition believes that it is totally inappropriate to ask the Senate to commit itself to this procedure and timing with the legislation still in the Attorney-General's back pocket. Indeed, I suspect the legislation has not yet been finalised. Senator Harradine —Because they are having great difficulties. Senator CHANEY —Senator Harradine says that the Government is having great difficulties. The fact of the matter is that probably the Government does not have the final detail of what is proposed. All we know is that something in these four general areas will be brought before us and we will have to deal with it post-10 May. A few minutes ago Senator Harradine used an expression with which, I think, most honourable senators would agree. He said that it was necessary to give `mature consideration' to legislation. As I indicated earlier when I spoke on the subject of sitting hours, the Opposition's stance is that we reserve the right to give full consideration to legislation that is before us. I think that is a matter which all honourable senators have a common interest in ensuring. Certainly, the Opposition is determined to see that that happens. In this case we have been asked to act sight unseen. I want to put that in the context of what the Standing Orders are seeking to protect and also in the context of the Government's history of producing constitutional changes. The call of the Senate procedure is dealt with in the Australian Senate Practice, Fifth Edition, by J. R. Odgers. The reasons for having that standing order are very clearly set out. On page 337 of that work it is stated that there is no definite explanation in the records of Parliament as to why it is there, but it is generally agreed that the provision for a call was inserted to: (i) prevent the rapid passage of a Bill to amend the Constitution and, by the provision that the Call shall not be earlier than twenty-one days from the day on which the Order is made, afford time for reflection and deliberation; This is self-evident and sensible when one is looking at proposals which go to the fundamental constitutional document of this country. I think that would be affirmed by all Opposition senators, if not by Government senators. Other provisions are there to provide honourable senators with sufficient notice to cast their votes and so on. But the essential point-the first point made by Odgers-is that it is to enable time for reflection and deliberation. We are dealing with issues which are likely to be complex. We are told in the quite flimsy Press release that has been put out by the Attorney-General that one of the provisions is that we will have a constitutional amendment to provide for four-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament. No one can claim that any constitutional proposal relating to the duration of sittings and the relationship between the Senate and the House of Representatives is a simple matter. The truth is that the former Attorney-General of this Government, Senator Gareth Evans, had a totally different set of proposals about fixed terms for the House of Representatives and different arrangements for the Senate which he wanted to put forward. There is a great diversity of viewpoints. I believe that the overwhelming majority of Australians, at first blush, would say, `Well, four-year terms of Parliament-gosh, we have too many elections in Australia! We might want a longer term parliament'. A very large number of people may say that. However, a large number of people might say, `Let us keep these politicians honest and keep them coming back to us'. Let us say that there is a majority view for four-year parliaments. If we ally that with other proposals, perhaps rather subtle proposals, which could impact upon the capacity of the Government to affect the constitution of this chamber- an arrangement which is really part of a long-term proposal by the Government to see the diminution of the power and influence of the Senate-it may well be that the 21 days that is set down by the Constitution is utterly appropriate. Let us remember the recent experience of the Senate. The Government brought major reforms in this area-`reforms' is perhaps the wrong word; they are major proposals for change in terms of the Bill of Rights and the identity card. The reality is that initial public opinion changed. It changed because there was time for the mature reflection that Senator Harradine referred to a few minutes ago. Senator Harradine —And the actions of this chamber. Senator CHANEY —Senator Harradine interjects, `And the actions of this chamber'. The truth is that it was this chamber which gave the Australian public time to absorb the real implications of what the Government was doing. It is an essential role of this chamber with respect to the constitutional amendments that the Government will bring forward that we ensure once again that not only the Parliament but also the people of Australia have the requisite time. We are dealing with this matter on the basis of having the deepest possible suspicions about the motives of the Government with respect to constitutional change and about the measures that it is prepared to employ. We have just gone through a wildly expensive charade called the Constitutional Commission. I am sorry to offend all of the members of the Commission, some of whom are people for whom I have great respect. But if members of the Constitutional Commission do not understand that the Commission has been acting out a charade, when the Minister who has just moved this motion has admitted in this chamber that the Government has made these decisions without even waiting for the final report of the Commission, I can only say that they are very charitable people in their attitude to this Government. Opposition senators in Senator Short and Senator Newman questioned the Minister for Justice, who has just been on his feet, during a meeting of Estimates Committee E. Senator Short followed this up with a question in the Senate. The position is absolutely clear. On 18 April Senator Short asked Senator Tate in the Senate: Does the Minister recall that in the Senate Estimates Committee E hearing . . . he revealed that the final report of the Advisory Committee to the Constitutional Commission will not be available to the Australian Government before it takes decisions on the content of the referendum Bills to be introduced into the House of Representatives on 10 May or before both the House of Representatives and the Senate have debated the Bills. How absolutely ludicrous! I understand that this process has cost the Australian taxpayer some $6m. What we have here is a vast program of printing material and propaganda in favour of constitutional change which is to culminate in some final and considered view of a commission that will not even be available to us by the time we, on the Government's program, will have completed consideration of these referendum proposals. How can any objective, fair observer say that this Government is proceeding in a way which is straightforward and honest in approaching this matter? If we look at the Government's rhetoric with respect to the role of the Constitutional Commission and at the way that it has treated the Constitutional Commission it is quite clear that the only reason that the Constitutional Commission has been put in place is to use it as an agent for softening up the Australian public on the need for change. Senator Shirley Walters was one of the first people to raise this matter in the Senate. Again, I think she used an Estimates committee to disclose the fact that a substantial part of the budget of the Constitutional Commission was for what might be broadly termed `public relations'. Senator Stone —Propaganda purposes. Senator CHANEY —`Propaganda', Senator Stone interjects. That is certainly the more appropriate term. I remind the Senate that it was Senator Walters who found approximately $250,000 of taxpayers' money essentially there for what the Government described as `educational purposes'. But look at the material produced by the Commission, material basically there to soften up the Australian people on the need for change. That is the context in which we approach this latest proposal from the Government which is to ensure that the Parliament does not have a full 21 days after this legislation is exposed to the Parliament and to the people of Australia in which to consider the full implications of this legislation. Proposals which at first blush may seem attractive, and which therefore are inherently difficult to oppose, may well have all the sorts of qualities that led the people on more serious reflection to reject, for example, the Bill of Rights. Let us remember that that was not rejected by this Parliament. It was rejected by the process of the people making clear, over a long period of discussion and debate, that they would not tolerate it. The Government withdrew that legislation because of that public attitude. It is not some academic matter or a slick political trick. It is a fact that these matters are only adequately dealt with if sufficient time is allowed for them to be dealt with. I accuse the Government of absolute dishonesty in its use of the Constitutional Commission. I accuse the Government of having its own agenda for constitutional change, which is not an Australian agenda but a Labor Party agenda. It is an agenda about changing the balance of power in this Commonwealth in a way that will favour the Labor Party. These proposals need to be very carefully examined against that agenda for change. We will not have this legislation to consider in detail for nearly another fortnight. It will be 12 days before we see the real colour of the Government's money. But I give notice that we will be examining those proposals very carefully against an agenda for change which has been exposed by Ministers like Minister Evans and Minister Button. Minister Button regards the defence of the Senate as something that is beyond the pale; he just dismisses it. I make the point that there is subtly one vote one value. I have lost a bit of political skin in my time in Western Australia because I think that the principle of one vote one value is an important one to consider in regard to the composition of the popular House; it is an important principle to take into account. Let us ask the Government, if one vote one value is so fundamental to the operation of democracy, will the Government's Bills remove the bias in favour of Tasmania? The Constitution of Australia specifically provides that Tasmania will get a benefit. A vote in Tasmania is worth more than a vote in Melbourne or Sydney under the constitutional requirements laid down in 1900. That is a breach of the principle of one vote one value. I say very clearly now that I defend that as a proper precondition of entry for Tasmania into the Federation. I ask the Government, is the principle of one vote one value to extend-- Senator Stone —What does Senator Tate think about it? Senator CHANEY —Yes, does Minister Tate from Tasmania regard the present arrangements which guarantee five seats for Tasmania as a breach of democratic principle? Does the precious principle of one vote one value-a principle that should be carefully considered when looking at electoral systems-apply to the Senate? Here we have a Senate in which tiny Tasmania-tiny in terms of its land area, its numbers, but huge in its water resources-- Senator Walters —And the quality of its people. Senator CHANEY —And, as Senator Walters says, the quality of its people. Tasmania has 12 senators and New South Wales, the most populous State, has 12 senators-a clear breach of the principle of one vote one value, yet a clearly established requirement of our Constitution which I am sure the Government will not attack. I do not believe the Government will attack it because it knows that it will have no chance of success. That is the simple reason why the Government would not attack it; I am sure that it would otherwise. I make those points merely because it is so easy to be glib. It is so easy to appear to be standing on an irrefutable principle when on even the most cursory movement behind the skin of the thing, quite different considerations apply. Let us remember that the people of Australia who will be called upon to make the final decision in these matters do not, like us, want to vote in every waking hour-the long hours to which Senator Harradine referred, coming in at seven in the morning and leaving at midnight. They do not devote that amount of time to politics. They devote some small part of their thinking time to politics. I envy them and congratulate them on getting on with their lives. But the reality is that it takes time for the real nature of some of these propositions to get through. It is a gross abrogation of our responsibility as senators to, sight unseen, shorten the period of notice that is required for a third reading debate on these Bills. The Australian Democrats will probably support this motion, because their own wish would be to have a referendum somewhere around the time of the Government's choosing in September. I say to the Australian Democrats that on this motion-which I suspect is essential for the Government to meet its own political timetable; not a timetable determined with the welfare of the people in mind but to meet the Labor Party's timetable-they are ignoring their responsibilities to the people if they support the motion in the absence of legislation being on the table for us to consider. On the precedents that have been established in this place, if the Bills were here and their judgment was that 14 days rather than 21 days were adequate, I could not say that they were completely out of court. I might disagree with them, but I challenge them to justify shortening the period, sight unseen. It may be that behind these brief statements by the Attorney-General one has the most complex, difficult, indeed quite horrific, proposals. I hope that the motion will be rejected in this place and that the Government will learn that in this area as in other vital areas-and I mentioned this in the Aboriginal affairs debate the other day-we should not be setting our timing on the basis of the political requirements of the Government. We should be setting that timing on the basis of the requirements of the people of Australia who will be affected by what we are doing. In this area it is clear that we have an absolute duty to be careful and not to give away or reduce any of the safeguards laid down by our predecessors. I stress that point because there are other nasty precedents for the preparedness of the present Government to subvert the system. In 1984 when the Government was playing around with constitutional changes and senators here were part of preventing the abuse I am about to describe, the Government set off to spend taxpayers' money on the Yes case. It has been a long established principle in the Australian constitutional arrangements that one of the ways that we try to ensure that the people of Australia understand what is being put before them is that we require the Yes and No cases to be distributed at public expense to every voter in the country. It is an amazing procedure which I support. Every registered voter gets a booklet from the Commonwealth of Australia with the Yes case settled by those who are supporting in this Parliament the Yes case, and the No case settled by those who are opposing it. It is a clear principle of equal treatment by the Government, equal public support in the sense that equal amounts of taxpayers' funds are expended on explaining both the Yes and the No case. Senator Gareth Evans, who began his career as Attorney-General with an enthusiasm for reform which either waned or was knocked out of him by the Caucus or the Government, I do not know which, went into this on the basis that he would get public money, taxpayers' money, not to foster an equal explanation of the Yes and No cases, but to foster the Yes case-his case. It was only this Senate which prevented that from happening. I am delighted that the Senate did so, but I think it is important to remember what Senator Gareth Evans and the Labor Government tried to do. My memory as to who sits where during divisions is not nearly as good as that of some other people here, but I assume that that means we had the support of the Australian Democrats. Senator Macklin —It was my amendment. Senator Crichton-Browne —It was my amendment. Senator CHANEY —Several senators are now claiming the credit, and I can understand that. Senator Crichton-Browne is claiming credit. I can understand everyone wanting to claim the credit because we were absolutely right in what we did. The important thing is that on that occasion the Australian Democrats and the official Opposition-the Liberal and National parties-took the view that we would not see that subversion of the process by the Australian Labor Party, and we were very successful. I remind the Senate of that because the reality is that the Opposition does need the support of the Australian Democrats to prevent any error being made in the Senate today. We will vote-to a man, to a woman-against the proposition that Senator Tate has put. We do so out of an abundance of caution. It is not enough to say that, because we have the numbers in the Senate against the Government, if the Government produces something nasty we can make sure that the debate goes beyond the 26th, and all the rest of it. My point is that we do not set aside the constitutional safeguard until we can see what we are dealing with. It really does boil down to that. Let us see the colour of the Government's money. Let us see what the propositions are. Are they propositions which advance the ambitions that have been so clearly expressed by Senator Gareth Evans and Senator Button, the leaders of the Labor Party in this place, that they would like to see the Senate disappear? They do not see the Senate as having a place in Australian government. They are learning how to work it and use it, and they will work it and use it while they are stuck with it, but they are fundamentally against its very existence, against its role as the balancing agent in the Federal compact. We want to make sure that no changes are made which will damage the role the Senate properly plays. The other point regarding what are, on the face of them, attractive proposals is this: how could one oppose something that is described as fair and democratic? All I can say is: let us look at it in substance. Let us look at it when the Bills are before us. Let us remember that the Bill of Rights was something which, after long debate in this place, the people of Australia decided that they did not want. It was not decided by the politicians of Australia; the people of Australia decided that they did not want it. I believe that that long debate was a very good example of ensuring that the people have a chance to speak. I could speak for a few more minutes, but I suspect that nothing I say is likely to influence the Australian Democrats and the independents, whose votes we would require to defeat this motion. I doubt whether simply continuing to repeat those points would change their minds. I ask them very seriously to consider this matter and to accept that, in a situation where we are flying blind, we should not give away any single safeguard until we have to or until we feel that it is appropriate to the rights of the Australian people and the obligations we have to them. I believe that Senator Tate has brought forward a motion which, given the history of his Government's approach to constitutional change, should be treated with the utmost suspicion. The Opposition certainly does so and I trust that the motion will be defeated. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(10.19) —The only reason that I rise to speak in this debate is that I take considerable exception to the statement made by Senator Chaney to the effect that the Constitutional Commission did not serve any useful educational role and was purely and simply a tool of the Australian Labor Party to soften up the electorate for change. I utterly reject that assertion, as one who has had a close role to play in assisting with its work in the Northern Territory. Before I speak on that I point out that I was very interested to hear Senator Chaney's stout defence of the Senate's role in defending the less populous parts of Australia. That is particularly ironic, because it was the Whitlam Labor Government that provided both Territories in Australia with Senate representation for the first time, against the vicious opposition of the then Country Party, now the National Party-opposition which on two occasions ended up in the High Court of Australia when the National Party Government of Queensland took the Commonwealth to court to try to remove Senate representation for those Territories. The then conservative Government of Western Australia did precisely the same thing. Of course, those two cases-Queensland and the Commonwealth and Western Australia and the Commonwealth-are found in the Commonwealth Law Reports. So the Labor Party had quite a battle on its hands in providing-- Senator Stone —But on one vote one value you would not get two senators. Senator COLLINS —I will comment on that; Senator Chaney mentioned that point. I have no hesitation in placing on the record my views in respect of that matter. I think it is ridiculous even to consider that one vote one value should apply to the Senate. I know that a number of my colleagues do; I do not. Had it not been for the creation of the Senate-I said this in my maiden speech-there would have been no Federation of Australia. It was precisely the creation of this chamber that brought about Federation. I do not think that the population or demographic situation of Australia has changed to the extent, even today in 1988, that the proper role of the Senate in defending and providing at least a voice for those smaller parts of Australia has gone. In fact, it will be with us for some time, in my view. Senator Walters —There are big divisions in your Party on that. Senator COLLINS —Senator Walters does not need to make a statement which is probably more obvious to me than it is to her. I am well aware of that. In fact, I prefaced my remarks by saying that. That is my view. I do believe that there is a role for the Senate to play. The Opposition's view is interesting when the National Party's record in providing senatorial representation for smaller places is not all that brilliant. The point I wanted to take up and totally reject relates to the assertion of Senator Chaney that the Constitutional Commission has provided no role except to soften up the electorate for change. I reject that. I have been a delegate to two constitutional conventions. I was a delegate to the convention in Adelaide and Brisbane. I can remember having a number of conversations with my colleague Senator Macklin at the Brisbane convention. I went to Adelaide with then Chief Minister Everingham and to Brisbane as a co-delegate with the then Chief Minister, Ian Tuxworth. Senator Stone —Senator Chaney was not referring to the Constitutional Convention; he was referring to the Constitutional Commission. Senator COLLINS —Allow me to finish. I am perfectly capable of making my own point. The reason I raised the question of the conventions before I talk about the role of the Commission is that, along with most delegates, I considered both of those Conventions to be the most monumental waste of time that I have ever been engaged in. I see Senator Macklin nodding his head. The reason was very simple. Senator Macklin —Appalling. Senator COLLINS —Both of them were appalling, I agree. I am glad that they have stopped. The reason I mentioned the conventions relates to the realisation of all the delegates, fearlessly expressed by many at the last convention in Brisbane from which the Constitutional Commission was born, of their futility. In the final debates, in the plenary sessions of that last convention, the futility of having conventions came home to everyone. Lionel Bowen at that time advanced the proposition of approaching the necessity-and it is a necessity-of changing our Constitution. He raised that proposition of establishing the Commission as an alternative to the conventions. It was conceded by most delegates to the convention that at least it was worth a try and that it was less expensive and perhaps more productive than for a bunch of politicians to agree wholeheartedly in the plenary sessions of a convention what should be changed and then go out on the hustings and oppose the very things they supported at the constitutional conventions because it suited the political considerations of an election campaign. That is not an accusation that I level at any particular party. It has happened to us all. That is where the conventions fell down. That was the genesis of the creation of the Constitutional Commission. It was not created from the need to push some Labor Party agenda. It was created from the need to try to raise the consciousness of the Australian Constitution in the minds of the Australian people. I cannot remember the exact figure-honourable senators should not hold me to it-but I think that since Federation the Australian Government Printing Office has sold about 1,000 copies of the Australian Constitution to the public. I do not think the figure is much more than that. One of the positive things the Constitutional Commission did was distribute copies of the Constitution very widely and it provided excellent accompanying documents. A lot of that material was sent where it should have been sent-that is, to schools. I was astounded by the response. I had the great pleasure of being asked to attend a great many high schools, and in two cases primary schools, to discuss the Australian Constitution with schoolchildren, as a direct result of the work of the Australian Constitutional Commission. One of the things that I learnt in that educative process about the Australian Constitution that I did not know-and I am fairly familiar with the document-is dealt with in section 25. If honourable senators wish to see an example of how anachronistic our Constitution is, how absolutely inadequate it is for Australia in 1988, despite its fundamental strengths, and how badly it needs to be changed, I invite them to look at section 25. I would like all those senators who know what section 25 says to raise their right hand. I give credit for that; I thought that Senator David Hamer would be one of the few who could do so. Section 25 of the Constitution is obnoxious. A great many Australians are not aware that it still exists. It is totally anachronistic. It does us no credit as a nation to have it in our Constitution and it should be removed. Senator Stone —Is that one of the referenda proposals? Senator COLLINS —It is far too early in the debate to talk about the issues. I am simply making the point, which I am sure Senator Stone will accept if he listens, that in direct response to Senator Chaney's accusation that the Constitutional Commission is nothing but a softening up exercise for the Labor Party's sake for change, I reject that proposition. Senator Stone —I agree with you. Senator COLLINS —That comes as no blinding surprise to me. I am simply saying that, as a part of that educative process, an obnoxious section of the Constitution of which I was not aware was pointed out to me. Let me tell honourable senators why I raise it. It came as a dreadful shock to a great many of the diverse population of school children in the Northern Territory. I was impressed-my use of that word is not too over the top-stimulated and encouraged by the debates about section 25 of the Constitution that took place in my presence in classrooms right across the Northern Territory. Senator Tate —Particularly the Chinese. Senator COLLINS —Indeed. Senator Tate knows what the section says. The reason this is of such interest to me as a Territorian is that section 25 was placed in the Constitution because of certain events that were happening in Australia at the time we were constituted as a nation. We were heavily into slavery at the time in Queensland. The descendants of those slaves are still with us. The history of that slavery in Australia is just as obnoxious and horrible-those bits of it which have finally been revealed-as such histories are anywhere else around the world. Of course, we were also heavily into coolie labour in the Northern Territory. At the turn of the century there were more Chinese people in the Northern Territory than there were Europeans. They outnumbered us by a considerable margin. We brought them out to work them to death on the goldfields and then we packed them on ships and sent them home. Our founding fathers recognised that that would cause a problem in future years because, after we had worked them to death, some of them might like to stay around, and some of them might even be obnoxious enough to want to vote and some of them might even be more obnoxious and want to take a place in our Parliament. So we fixed that by inserting section 25 into the Constitution. Section 24 discusses the composition of the House of Representatives, how the House of Representatives shall be constituted, and how each State will be represented. Of course, that all depends on how many people there are. It is a very fundamental consideration. Senator Chaney is to blame for this comment because he raised section 24 of the Constitution. Section 24 states: But notwithstanding anything in this section, five members at least shall be chosen in each Original State. That is how Tasmania got the five representatives to whom Senator Chaney referred. Section 25 then states: For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted. As far as the Australian Constitution is concerned, they are non-persons. Every classroom in the Territory reflects the fact-I invite honourable senators to go and have a look-that the Northern Territory is an extremely cosmopolitan society. Over 60 nationalities are represented in the small city of Darwin in which I live. It has a population of only 70,000. It is even more obvious if one glances round any classroom in the Northern Territory. One sees that the good old Anglo-Saxons are no longer the most predominant race in the Northern Territory. Senator Tate, quite correctly, mentioned the Chinese. There are many Chinese students, and they are very bright indeed. For some reason they always seem to rate in the top 10 when the matriculation results come out. I dare say their diligence is responsible for that. They were fascinated that this section of the Constitution exists. It is an obnoxious section to still stand in the Australian Constitution in 1988. I do not advance any suggestion that this issue should become part of the constitutional questions to be put, because I happen to be one of those people of the view that if we clutter up a referendum with a great host of proposals, we are doomed from the very beginning to failure; they will go down the tube very quickly indeed. I have raised the matter simply to indicate that in the Northern Territory-that is the only place of which I can speak with any authority-the work of the Constitutional Commission has not been seen by anyone in the electorate as some Labor Party exercise. It does honourable senators no credit to make that accusation. The members of the Constitutional Commission have been diligent in the work they have done. I invite every senator-and I know how busy they all are-to read at least the synopsis of the Commission's reports, which was produced in a little green coloured document. Senator Stone —A totally deluded document. Senator COLLINS —Senator Stone is a poor old bitter and twisted National Party senator. I think that a great many of the proposals are doomed to failure, but many are very commendable. However, they do stimulate people at least to discuss the issue. Thanks to the Constitutional Commission, people in the electorate are discussing it. An essential poll which was conducted before the Commission began its work showed that 70 per cent of the people questioned did not even know what the Australian Constitution was. Some of the younger ones thought that it was a rock group. Senator Macklin —Most of them didn't know we had one. Senator COLLINS —A great many did not know that we had one. I reject utterly Senator Chaney's statement that the Commission has served no other purpose than to soften up the electorate. It has served a very useful purpose indeed. It has pointed out the need for change. There is no question but that there is a need for change in our Constitution. Of those honourable senators who say that the Constitution should remain sacrosanct and not be changed, let one of them stand up in this House and say that section 25 should remain where it is. Senator Stone —Nobody said that. Senator COLLINS —That is the inference in the comments I have heard across the chamber. The debilitating and depressing part about trying to get some change to this ancient document that is no longer very relevant to our society is this: if people approach it as Australians with a view to trying to make the Constitution relevant to us, the thing will have some chance of success; but if people turn the propositions, as history has shown, into a political football-however commendable those proposition are-they are doomed to failure. That is the depressing part about it. I hope that at the appropriate time in this House there will be a full, proper and productive debate on the issues concerned. I conclude by commending the Australian Constitutional Commission for its work and the excellent documents it has produced. I thank all those in the community who have responded as positively as they have in discussing the issues raised. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.33) —The motion before us deals with a call of the Senate, which is a procedural matter that is required under the original Standing Orders adopted by this Parliament. This item was proposed for a range of reasons, not least of which was the enormous difficulty of travel, and the necessity to have an absolute majority for the passage of the third reading of Constitution alteration Bills. Senator Chaney said that, in the past, the Senate has suspended the normal arrangements, and that is the case. It has done so on a number of occasion because, after it has concluded a debate, it has decided that the decision of this chamber having been made, there was no need to send out a call of 21 days for people to get on their horses. The world has moved on somewhat since we first adopted these Standing Orders. I think the Government was intending to go down the same track. We maintain that there seems to be no reason for that particular exercise because the time was available for the Standing Orders to be adhered to. Senators who might be new to this place might not realise that attempting to change the Standing Orders is even more difficult than attempting to change the Constitution. Fairly obviously quite a lot of the current Standing Orders need to be jettisoned but most governments, including conservative governments, have thrown up their hands in horror at devoting another three weeks of the Senate's precious time to discussing, for example, whether senators can read their speeches. If people really want to go to one of the most mammoth debates that have ever taken place in this Parliament they should look at the debate on this very issue-whether senators should read their speeches. The most eloquent support for senators to be able to read their speeches was given by a senator who is no longer with us, who spoke for an hour, without a note, as to why he should be allowed to read his speech. It was a most extraordinary exercise. That is why the standing order is still here. It seems to us that, if the time is available, this course ought to be taken. It really has very little relevance to the debate any longer. From our point of view it has very little relevance to the whole exercise of constitutional reform. We have adopted a position, as honourable senators might have actually come to realise over the time that we have been here, of supporting any serious proposition put to this chamber which says that that serious proposition can go to the people. On occasions we have supported a number of propositions from the Opposition parties with which we did not, in substance, agree and which, had they been put to the people, we would have gone out onto the hustings and campaigned against. We supported the proposition going to the people because the Constitution is theirs, not ours. It is about time this chamber realised that, instead of puffing itself up. The Constitution belongs to the people. Talk about overweaning arrogance-to suggest that what the people really need is for the politicians to really get down and tell them what this all about! This is a people's Constitution. The only people who can change the Constitution are the people of Australia. I do not mind our having a debate here but, quite frankly, the debate here is not all that important: what is important is the debate the people have in the community after the Bills have been passed. We are interested in giving the maximum amount of time between those two events. We understand that the Government will do that and that we will have about six months for campaigning. I do not know what other senators have decided to do, but I have already set my schedule for the six-month campaign on these items. Our role is not to engage in this particular exercise of saying whether or not some anachronistic standing order should or should not be adhered to. We believe that the time has now been made available. The substance of Senator Chaney's proposition is that we should not be doing this before the Bills come into this chamber because we may need more time is adequately covered in the Standing Orders, which Senator Chaney did not even bother referring to. Standing order 286 provides: When the Order of the Day for calling over the Senate is read, unless the same be postponed or discharged . . . In other words, it is within the hands of the Senate to postpone it from day to day. A particular, incisive point has been made on the postponement: Provided that any alteration . . . shall be on a motion fixing . . . day subsequent to that previously named for the Call. In other words, if we have not had enough time, we can postpone it to the next day, or the day after, or the day after. There is no time limit set in this standing order which Senator Chaney was talking about. That does not appear in the Standing Orders. So the whole substance of Senator Chaney's objection falls down; it is not in there. What we are doing is notifying that we are going to have the call of the Senate. I would have thought that the Opposition would support us when we said to the Government, `No, you can't suspend Standing Orders. We want the call of the Senate. It is in the standing order. If we are not going to get rid of it, we ought to abide by it'. We are abiding by it and now the Opposition is objecting to abiding by it. One really cannot please the Opposition. We are going to abide by it and if we have not had enough time, we will go on to the next day, or the day after. What Senator Chaney failed to mention about the Bill of Rights was that we had supported the Government on the Bill of Rights. What we would not support was the debate being gagged unless there was an obvious filibuster. To our way of thinking, the debate was excellent. Many comments were made and we were working diligently through the Bill. It was going to take a long time. Senator Gareth Evans —You are not kidding-years. Senator MACKLIN —It was a very large Bill, which was the Government's problem. We were working diligently through the Bill when the Government decided to withdraw it. We wanted the legislation toughened up, which, of course, the Government was not going to agree to-that is, apply it to the States; but the Government just wanted to apply it to the Commonwealth, which was a pity. But in any event, there was no gag on that debate and there will not be a gag on the constitutional debates unless there is an obvious filibuster. Recently we gagged a 1 1/2-hour debate on the first clause of a Bill, to which no amendment had been moved. In terms of the timetable that the Whips have been discussing, the Government has set aside a week for this matter. I think that that is an adequate amount of time, providing it is not cluttered up with a whole range of other items for us to be able to work through the particular items before us. I must admit that I am disappointed at the treatment of a number of items that I have fought for for years, including at the constitutional conventions held in Adelaide and Brisbane, which were amongst the most depressing meetings of my life as I saw how manipulative politicians can become about a document which should be governing all our lives. Rather than looking ahead and being excited about these matters they were interested in fighting the petty issues of the day through the Constitution instead of knowing that the Constitution will be here in 100, 200 and 300 years and realising that in 1901 we did not have planes, phones, radio or television and that the world has moved on. It has moved on to such an extent in private enterprise that only two businesses are left that were around in 1901 in Australia. We have totally new methods of dealing with trade, companies, businesses and corporations. Everything has moved-except somehow or other the Constitution was not supposed to move. I have been reading an excellent book, to which I would refer honourable senators, called Encounters with the Constitution. It is most entertaining. Unfortunately it is a very heavy tome and very difficult to cart around on a plane. Last night I was reading about a dispute before the first High Court of Australia over section 92 of the Constitution. The four people on the High Court had all been involved in drafting the Constitution. Section 92 spoke about trade being absolutely free. On the first case that came up, what happened? The Court divided right down the middle on the meaning of `absolutely free'. Yet in the actual debates what had been said was, `This is a refreshing touch of common language'. On the very first item the people who had been there disagreed as to what was meant by those debates. Let us get a little bit of history and realism into this debate. As the world moves and becomes more complex, the Constitution has to change along with it, but not in a haphazard way. One can hardly accuse the people of Australia of being riotous in changing their Constitution-I think the number of successful referendum proposals is eight out of 38. It is hardly what one would call a headlong rush to tear the Constitution up. Every time somebody asks the Liberal Lord Mayor of my city about the Constitution she says that the whole thing should be torn up. I think that is a very interesting view coming from a Liberal Party Lord Mayor. The people of Australia have been very conservative on this issue. I believe that more issues should be put to the people; I believe that and I believe the people should be able to put forward referendum proposals, because it is their Constitution. Unfortunately, we will not have that proposition. I think a lot of things need to be changed. For example, the poor old Governor-General does not control the Air Force because we did not have one in 1901 but he controls the Army and the Navy. We must believe that 1988 is a different kettle of fish for us than 1901. That is the reason that I will be strongly supporting, for example, the recognition of local government. I hope that the conservative parties are not going to campaign against that. That recognition is long overdue. It is a very important item and one that came up at the conference in Brisbane, as Senator Collins will remember. I hope in fact that the recognition of the right to private property, contained in the item proposing that there be fair compensation for property, will not be opposed by the conservative parties. We know that the Commonwealth has had an obligation to do this. But I know, as do all senators, from actually talking to constituents that the place where fair compensation really is not offered is at local and State government levels. People are told what their compensation will be and their rights under the laws of the States are almost nil in regard to changing any compensation determination. There are appeal mechanisms in a couple of the States but by and large that is where the injustices occur in terms of private property. There are a lot of items here in which I think it is very useful to extend the range of people's rights. For me the most important out of that entire package is the item relating to fair and democratic elections. It is an item which I have spent, I would say, in fact more than half of my time as a senator working on and talking about at various meetings around this country. It is fundamental to a democratic institution that every person in the country first of all have a constitutional guarantee of the right to vote. We do not have that. The right of people to vote is merely at the behest of politicians in this country. Surely we are not going to have a debate about whether or not we should entrench in our Constitution a guarantee of the people's right to vote so that never again can women be deprived of the right to vote. Senator Stone —Come on! Senator MACKLIN —Senator Stone has interjected. He was not at the convention in Brisbane. Senator Collins, who was at that convention, would know that people stood up and talked about how the right to vote should be taken away from people aged 18 years to 31 years. A member of Senator Stone's Party said that! Let us not huff and puff in here. Senator Stone was not at that convention and he has not followed it. He does not know anything about it. There are people here who would like to do that. There are troglodytes wandering around in this country who would emerge from the wood at the merest talk about somebody taking that right away. They would love it. They would love to rort the system and take away the rights of the people. If Senator Stone thinks democracy stands around just because he wants it to, he is more naive than I thought he was. Democracy stands around only if one fights for it. What we have to do is to make sure that we fight in the most direct and honest way we can and entrench in the Constitution those fundamental rights of the people. Senator Stone will go out and campaign against it in his troglodyte way, not realising that in the last 12 months we have lost democratic countries around the world because of his type of attitude. We have to defend the rights of the people. We have to go out there and make sure that they are defended. I am disgusted at the types of proposition we have already heard about getting stuck into the niggling exercise of whether people should have the guarantee of the right to vote. That is an extraordinary proposition that we are facing now in this country if we are to have that type of debate in 1988. We need to have that right in the Constitution. It should have been in the Constitution a long time ago. In fact, I remember reading a poster that had been put up on walls in Queensland before 1901 saying that the Constitution should be rejected because, in fact, it did not guarantee equal adult suffrage and that that was absolutely necessary. That was a view held in 1901. I am pleased to say that in my State there has been a lingering tradition of democracy, although it has not fared too well. That desire to grant that right was strong at least in 1901. I add also that there was a demand at that time for the right of citizens' initiative, something which I thought ought to have been part of this package. In terms of the proposition advanced by the Government, I think, from a reading of the Standing Orders, that the Opposition's position has no substance. We have a proposition to allow a period of 21 days. Further days may be necessary. I hope that the Senate, instead of negating the adjournment at night, will be prepared to sit the extra days so the debate can take place in a reasonable way. After that the real debate will take place, not the debate of the politicians but the debate of the people whose Constitution this is. They will have the determining say, not us. I hope that, in the subsequent debate we are about to have in this place, honourable senators will not get carried away about the importance of politicians in this event. The politicians are merely an adjunct to the exercise. It is the people who will determine what they want in their Constitution. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.50) —In the statement of the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) on which this debate is proceeding the Minister is-I will not say pleading with the Senate-requesting the Senate to agree that because the proposed referendum Bills-the Bills which are promised; we have not actually got the Bills yet-will be introduced very late in the current session of the Parliament, in fact in the second last week of the sitting, we must therefore provide in advance for the procedure of the call of the Senate to which his statement referred. If we accept that, what it really boils down to is that we are being asked to approve a procedure which would authorise the passage of these referendum proposals through the Parliament, because this is a procedure relating to the third reading of these particularly important Bills, the particular significance of which is recognised in the Constitution, even before we have seen the Bills. An essential element of the Minister's argument is that the reason for this-although he did not put it in this way-is that these Bills are being brought in very late in the current sitting of the Parliament. It has been argued, I think perhaps more eloquently by Senator Macklin than by the Minister, that this does not matter and that there is nothing particularly important about the procedural change that is being proposed because, after all, we can go on debating these Bills, once they are introduced into this place, for as long as we like and the Government has given the usual undertakings to provide time, subject of course to there being no filibuster or what the Government in its judgment, with the assistance of the judgment of the Australian Democrats, will define as being a filibuster. If I may say so, there is an important distinction between those two things. Therefore, it is argued, the procedural proposal before us at the moment does not matter; it is irrelevant. That is the argument which has been put, as I said, more effectively by Senator Macklin than by the Minister. The Minister may want to refer to that himself when he responds to the debate. I do not accept the argument. I understand the point being made, I hope completely, but I do not accept that it is good enough simply to say what has been said. I hope it will not be said by those who have been inveighing against what I think was called the anachronistic quality of our Constitution that this particular provision for the call of the Senate during the referendum preparation proceedings is anachronistic and therefore we do not need to worry about it. Maybe we can strike it out of the Constitution. Perhaps the Government could bring forward a Bill to do that. In fact, one of the most noticeable aspects of the Bills which the Government apparently does propose to provide, although we do not yet have any real knowledge of the detail-we have a scrappy Press statement and a bit of heavy briefing of the Press by the Minister and the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen)-is that none of them seems to have anything to do at all with getting rid of the so-called anachronistic aspects of the Constitution which were so much the subject of particularly Senator Collins's intervention, but also of some of the extraordinary passion displayed a moment ago by Senator Macklin. We must be on air. These Bills have nothing to do with that. These Bills have to do very centrally-and have always been known to be concerned with it-with the Labor Party's political agenda. That is what these Bills are about. They have nothing at all to do with the reform of the Constitution. One might ask in that context why the Australian Democrats should be supporting them. The answer to that is increasingly plain to the people of this country, and it is that for the most part in this place the Australian Democrats behave as the left wing of the Labor Party. They are proposing to do so again today. Let me get back to the point I was making about the argument advanced by the Minister, namely that the reason we are being asked to agree to this motion is that these Bills will be brought in very late in the current sitting of the Parliament. I am sure the Minister for Justice has a good, logical mind. I leave aside the way in which that logical mind has to give way sometimes to the political process, but I acknowledge his intellectual capacity. The Minister, therefore, would be the first to agree with the retort to his position which is that if we had wanted to avoid the special procedural proposal it could have been avoided if these Bills had been brought in earlier to allow a proper debate in this Parliament. We should not have a debate which begins in the second last week of the current sitting and which therefore will have to be squeezed into the middle of the legislative program. As the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Haines) very eloquently pointed out this morning, in reply to the statement made in this chamber by Senator Evans about the ordering of our business when we come back here for the final three weeks of our sitting, that program is already overloaded with legislation. The Government will now be injecting into it a number of referendum Bills on extremely important subjects which, it is being said, will take something like a week to debate. I suppose the most kindly conclusion at which one could arrive in the light of those facts is that the Government once again has proved itself to be totally incompetent in organising and managing the business of this place. There were many on this side of the chamber who were reluctant, to say the least, to go along with the Government in its proposal to reorder the business for our final three weeks of sitting, not because we do not wish to cooperate with the Government in arranging the business of the Senate properly and with due decorum-on the contrary, we very much wish to cooperate and we have always done so-but because we too, like Senator Harradine and Senator Haines, object to the fact that late in this session the Government is simply incapable of managing the business of this place in such a way as to allow orderly procedures to take place. This has happened on many occasions. I have not been here long, but it certainly happened in the last session and I am told it happens continually under the present Government. Therefore, we find ourselves having three-week sittings, abandoning Wednesday night relief from those sittings, and so on. The only point I make in this connection is that in the earlier debate this morning Senator Harradine and the Leader of the Australian Democrats very strongly criticised the Government for its sheer incompetence in this regard and for the fact that we will be facing a legislative log jam when we return here in a couple of weeks time. Into that legislative log jam the Government will insert a number of extremely important referendum Bills and ask us to debate them and give them the `degree of mature consideration'-they were the words Senator Harradine used-to which they are certainly entitled. That raises the question: Why were these Bills not brought in earlier? Why did we have to wait for the Government to promise to bring these Bills into the House of Representatives in 12 days time? One answer to that might have been that the Government was waiting for the report of the Constitutional Commission which it set up something over two years ago, if I recall correctly, to advise it on these matters. That might have been a rejoinder to the question that I posed as to why the Bills were not introduced earlier. It might have been said that the Government was waiting for the report of this very important-in its view at least; it has always claimed it to be-body of advice. I note in passing that this Commission has spent $6m of the taxpayers' money in the course of its operations. It has been continually referred to by the Government as the likely fount, if not of all wisdom, certainly of a great deal of wisdom on this matter. What we are finding is that the Government is not waiting to receive the report of the Constitutional Commission. The Attorney-General in a Press release he put out last night acknowledged the fact that even when the Bills are brought in-they are not in yet-we will not have the report of the Constitutional Commission. That cannot be the excuse as to why the Bills are being brought in so late. If they are being brought in now without the benefit-if that is the right word-of the report from the Constitutional Commission, there is no reason at all why they could not have been brought in on the first day of the session also without the benefit of that advice. What is the reason for the delay? It clearly has nothing to do with the procedures of the Constitutional Commission. In passing, let me address the procedures of the Constitutional Commission if only because of the remarks made on that subject by Senator Collins, a Government senator for whose views I normally have a great deal of respect. Senator Collins took exception to something that Senator Chaney said about the fact that the Government had used the Constitutional Commission for its own political and propaganda purposes. I totally endorse what Senator Chaney said on that matter and I do so without disagreeing, in some respects, with some of what Senator Collins said in what he felt was a rejoinder to Senator Chaney. I can assume only that Senator Collins missed Senator Chaney's point. Another reason for assuming that is that Senator Collins normally is a rational and logical contributor to debates in this place. Senator Collins said that on the basis of his experience in the Northern Territory he was convinced-at any rate in one particular respect; he may have more general reasons for his statement-that the work of the Commission had provided a genuine educational service at least in some of the schools in the Northern Territory. I do not think I want to debate that question with Senator Collins. It may very well be true. I am prepared to accept, on the basis of my knowledge of Senator Collins, that it is true. But that does not in any way controvert the proposition that Senator Chaney put to this place, which was that the Government has both sought to use and actually used the Constitutional Commission for its own propaganda and political purposes. That does not mean to say the Constitutional Commission has spent the whole of its time on activities on behalf of the Government. There is no logical contradiction between what Senator Chaney said on the one hand and what Senator Collins said on the other. I put that clearly on record. Senator Collins referred to what he calls the `total futility' of the previous constitutional convention process. I wholly align myself with Senator Collins, who unfortunately is not now in the chamber, and his views in that regard. Those Constitutional Convention procedures were a total farce-a farce in which there participated politicians from all quarters of the political spectrum. They did the whole process of constitutional discussion in this country no credit. But it is one thing to say that, and to agree in a bipartisan way with Senator Collins, but another thing altogether to say that the setting up by the present Government of the so-called Constitutional Commission has been a great advance on that. I personally think that that is a highly questionable proposition, notwithstanding the fact-again I acknowledge it-that there may have been some incidental contribution to public knowledge and public debate on constitutional questions as a consequence of that. One always has to weigh both costs and benefits, and that has certainly been one of the benefits. However, I think Senator Collins failed to address the costs which Senator Chaney addressed so considerably. I am not merely referring to the financial costs, significant though they have been. Senator Collins suggested that a major role of the constitutional reform commission would be to bring forward and reveal to the public light of day all the anachronisms in our Constitution, the fact that our Constitution is badly in need of overhaul. Senator Macklin, in a passionate tirade, allied himself to the same view. He indicated that we now have a horse-and-buggy Constitution. I do not think he used that precise phrase but that was the general thrust of his remarks. I think he even referred to the fact that at the time the Constitution was written, Australia did not have telephones. All I can say is that Alexander Bell lived in vain. Senator Colston —Sometimes I wish he hadn't. Senator STONE —Yes, I think we might all share that view to some degree. We may all agree-and I agree-with the remarks Senator Collins made about section 25 of the Constitution and the fact that there probably are, and certainly in that case do appear to be, some anachronistic elements in our Constitution. But is that what we are talking about, or what we are proposing to talk about in three weeks time? Not at all. None of the proposals the Government is intending to bring before this Parliament has anything to do with those anachronistic elements of our Constitution. It is only by a total perversion of logic, or I should rather say rhetoric, that someone like Senator Macklin can allege or assert that the failure of the Constitution to contain, for example, a so-called right to freedom of religion or a right to vote is in any way anachronistic. What is anachronistic about that? In this country we have had those rights. They are firmly established in our total legal framework, the whole framework of our society, and have been ever since this country came into being. We seem to have got on pretty well leaving those matters to our courts within the very proud tradition of the common law heritage of this country without having a lot of lawyers rushing around wanting to entrench them, as they would say, into our Constitution in order to make future work for lawyers as to what is the precise constitutional meaning of such words. The external affairs power of the Constitution was a classic example of this kind of process in recent years. I suppose for decades most people in this country thought they knew what that power meant. Today, because of the operation of a number of people appointed to the High Court Bench, we now have a totally new view and a diametrically opposed view of the meaning of the external affairs power. This is as a result of the decisions not of an elected parliament and not of a body responsible to the people and therefore accountable at the ballot box the next time round, but of members of a High Court Bench who are appointed for life and who do not have any accountability as a consequence. Of course I understand there are very good reasons for that. Nevertheless, according to the Government we are now going to put a number of such things into our Constitution so that in future we can have legal process as to what, for example, freedom of religion means. Senator Tate —We have got them now. Senator STONE —I know, but they are not in the form in which they will be once they are the subject of a constitutional debate. They will be governed by constitutional legal arguments, not by common law and other traditional arguments. I cannot spend more time on that now. The point of the matter is that, to use Senator Macklin's eloquent term, as the world moves so we have to move with it. As I have just been saying, none of these proposals has anything to do with that process at all. One of the particular proposals the Government is apparently going to bring forward is what it calls the one vote one value principle, or what Senator Macklin calls free and democratic elections. These are all fine words but what do they mean in practice? I leave aside the question which Senator Chaney properly raised as to what would be the implication for Tasmania if we were to take those words at their face value. It is not good enough for Government senators, or the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, himself a Tasmanian, to say that there is no suggestion that if the people of this country should be so beguiled by the Government's propaganda as to accept the referendum that is apparently proposed in this matter, the so-called one vote one value referendum, there would be removal of the presently entrenched right of the people of Tasmania to five seats in the House of Representatives. Of course they would not be entitled to that many on the one vote one value basis. Why should we accept that for one moment? More particularly, why should the people of Tasmania accept it for one moment? Once the so-called one vote one value principle is entrenched in the Constitution, the next question will be: should we not be consistent and apply it more generally-including, of course, to the Senate, as Senator Chaney has pointed out. Again I will not repeat his cogent observations on that point. In my new role as a senator for Queensland I am becoming increasingly conscious that when we get out into the backblocks of Queensland people have a different view of this glib parrot phrase of one vote one value. I imagine if we went and talked to Graeme Campbell, the Australian Labor Party member for Kalgoorlie, we might find that he also understands that people have a different view in the enormous electorate he represents. It is not good enough to suggest that merely because, as we all accept, all our electors are equal and all our people are equal in the sight of the law that necessarily means that every electorate should be equal in number, or equal in number within a set marginal tolerance. Senator Colston —There's a philosophical difference between you and us. Senator STONE —If Senator Colston will bear with me I will point out to him what I am sure he already knows. There may be a philosophical difference between the Labor Party and this side of the chamber but I suggest to him, and of course he is a Queenslander, that it is not as simple as that. We are concerned, and I suggest that the Government side of the chamber ought to be concerned, with the results of that viewpoint in terms of the accessibility of members of the electorate to their representatives. If Senator Colston can persuade me that an elector residing in, let us say, the seat of Brisbane, to choose a seat in our own State, has the same level of representation from his member as someone in Charleville has from his, I will go he. I do not believe that for a moment, nor, I suspect, does Senator Colston. Senator Colston —I will try to persuade you when we have the debate. Senator STONE —Yes, I agree. I think the Government might have some difficulty because the fact of the matter is that it is very hard for anybody to conceive of how it could be possible. That is what we will be talking about, as Senator Colston rightly pointed out, when we come to debate these issues: the simple-minded approach, the chanting of slogans-`one vote one value', `two legs good, four legs bad' stuff. This is really nonsense. There is a need for mature consideration of these matters. Part of the processes of mature consideration of major questions, such as are almost inevitably involved in changes to the Constitution, which were laid down when the Constitution was laid down, involves the call of the Senate, to which the Minister has addressed himself this morning. As Senator Chaney has already indicated, the Opposition will vote against this motion. We regret that we will not carry with us the Australian Democrats, because of their affiliation and alliance with the Australian Labor Party. Nevertheless, we at least will go on record as protecting the rights of the Australian people to have opportunity for mature consideration of these matters. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(11.16) —I might just refresh the memory of those of us in the chamber and those listening about just what it is we are discussing. From listening to the debate one could be mistaken for believing that we already had the Bills before us and we were already into the thick of the debate on them. It is strange that Senator Stone and Senator Chaney should complain that they are not getting adequate time to look at the Bills to see what is in them when they feel that they are adequately briefed already to be able to debate at some great length what they think will be in them. Most honourable senators know that I am no apologist for the Hawke conservative Government. Senator Chaney talked about slick political tricks of the Australian Labor Party and about the Labor Government trying to change the process. He said that the Government was prepared to subvert the system. He also said that it was easy to be glib and to appear to be standing on principle. That is exactly what Senator Chaney was doing: he was being very glib and appearing to stand on principle, when honourable senators on his side of the chamber in 1975 were responsible for the worst ever slick political tricks and the worst subversion of the system, which brought down a democratically elected government. Senator Stone —You know nothing about it, obviously. Senator WOOD —I know all about it. My memory is as good as Senator Stone's. If Senator Chaney and the Opposition want to have any credibility in this matter they ought to be debating what the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) has proposed, and that is a procedural motion to abide by the Standing Orders and give 21 days notice of a call of the Senate. Further, the Minister in his motion guaranteed that there would be no gag of the debate. As Senator Macklin pointed out, should there not have been ample time for the debate by the time the call of the Senate arrives, it could be moved over to the next day, or the next day or the day after that, until such time as there has been adequate time for discussion. So what is the problem? What is the point? Why have we spent all of these hours debating a procedural motion which guarantees adequate time for the Senate to debate the Bills? I join with previous speakers in saying that the Bills will not be won or lost in this chamber; they will be won or lost out in the community, in the greater and more important debate that follows the debate in this chamber. Senator Stone talked about the backblocks of Queensland, where one vote one value means different things from what it means in other places. In certain backblocks in Queensland there is the point of view that the National Party has been subverted by the socialist Fabian Society. Senator Stone —Ha, ha! Senator WOOD —That is a point of view being put in the backblocks of Queensland. Senator Tate —And it won in Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's seat. Senator WOOD —Yes, it was the point of view that won in the seat of Joh Bjelke-Petersen. The other criticism that was made was that these Bills are part of the Labor Party political agenda. For heaven's sake, the people of Australia voted for the Labor Party political agenda. They had a choice between the Liberal Party-National Party coalition political agenda and the Labor Party political agenda and they voted for the Labor Party political agenda, at least in the popular House. But in the upper House here, where we have a proportionally elected chamber, we have a much fairer representation of the feelings of the community. There is absolutely no doubt in anybody's mind that the Labor Party political agenda won the day at the last Federal election, and it is highly proper that the Government should introduce in this place and in the other place the Labor Party political agenda. I thought that was what democracy was about. If part of the Labor Party political agenda is constitutional reform, so be it. My feeling is that changing the Constitution is reforming the Constitution, and it desperately needs changing. Senator Stone said that we should not entrench certain things in the Constitution because it would just make money for lawyers. It is a pity that such things had not been entrenched in the Constitution that this chamber was not able to deny Supply and government to a legitimately elected government of this country. That was a preparedness by the Liberal Party and the National Party to subvert the system. Senator Stone —No, to employ a particular provision of the Constitution. Senator WOOD —It was a convention that was not entrenched. And what about the convention which led to the appointment of Albert Field in this place? Senator Colston —I remember that. Senator WOOD —I am sure Senator Colston does. There are many around the place who remember Senator Field. That was a convention that was breached by a National Party Premier. It is a shame that that convention had not been entrenched. Once it had been entrenched in legislation, Robin Gray, the Liberal Premier of Tasmania, recently attempted to subvert it. Senator Stone should be consistent when he talks about the spirit rather than the letter. It was the spirit of the Constitution that this chamber does not deny Supply. It was the spirit of the Constitution that senators be replaced by senators of the same party. Senator Stone —Look, the people of Australia gave that an overwhelming approval six weeks later. You can't argue with that, Senator. Senator WOOD —I cannot argue with a fact. I have to agree with Jim Cairns. Jim Cairns was asked, `Mr Cairns, the people of Australia have made a decision. What do you think?' Jim Cairns had the honesty to say, `I think the people of Australia made a mistake'. I agree with him. They did make a mistake. Senator Colston —They have a right to do that in a democracy. Senator WOOD —They have a right to make a mistake. The people of Australia were misinformed about the processes which led to the coup in this country. They voted without adequate information. If we are talking about amending the Constitution, I would like to see a provision which guarantees the electorate the right to adequate and truthful information. I will not enter into a wider debate, as has been done. I will come back to the motion that is before us, the Minister's motion that there be a call of the Senate on a certain day. It is a very simple motion. It is a very proper motion. I commend it to the Senate. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(11.27) —in reply-The motion which I put to the chamber earlier this morning was put in order scrupulously to adhere to the requirements of the Constitution and of the Standing Orders of this place. It demonstrates the good faith of the Government in relation to the referendum process in that it ensures, as I say, that there is no trickery, no subterfuge, no attempt to take advantage of some procedural device. Rather, in so far as the Standing Orders require that senators be given 21 days notice of a possible third reading vote on the referendum Bills, that is what we are now giving them. In fact, we are giving them more than 21 days, as it turns out-21 days is a minimum requirement. It is a procedure which now puts all senators on notice. It is an alert sent out to them that they may be required to be in the chamber on 26 May, or on some later day if, for some reason, we do not get around to the third reading vote on that day, in order to exercise their right as senators elected by the people of their respective States or Territories to participate in the important question of putting a referendum proposal to the Australian people. It is important to re-emphasise that, whilst we have a certain assessing, deliberating, sifting role in relation to what questions might be put, the real purpose of this exercise at this time is to ensure that over the winter recess the Australian people have the time to consider the referendum questions. The hysterical display and dramatic theatrics that sometimes take place in these two chambers will not be available to us politicians during that winter recess. Thus they will not distract the people from their consideration of these matters out in the electorate over the three or four months leading up to a September referendum. We are taking every step in scrupulous adherence to the Constitution and the Standing Orders which require such special majorities, right from the vote in the chamber through to the voting by the people in their various jurisdictions, on the questions that are put. It is not my intention to traverse many of the matters which were raised incidentally and, strictly speaking, irrelevantly to this motion during the debate, except to say that I find it quite extraordinary that Senator Stone, for example, should be of the view that we should not-I recall him saying this quite clearly-entrench freedom of religion in the Constitution; that, rather, it should be left to the common law. Senator Stone seems to be unaware of the fact that under section 116 of the Constitution as it is presently drafted it is quite clear that in relation to the Commonwealth, but to the Commonwealth alone, there are certain restraints, and very properly so. Section 116 reads: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion . . . That has been subject to constitutional interpretation in the High Court of Australia. Specifically, you will recall, Mr Deputy President, in the Jehovah's Witnesses case in relation to the defence power during the Second World War, and the Scientology case more recently, the matter has already been the subject of constitutional interpretation. What we are saying is that that very important constitutional provision, which at the moment only restrains the Commonwealth, should also be made to restrain the States, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. The common law which Senator Stone spoke about is, according to a decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia in the Grace Bible Church case only a few years ago, quite feeble and unable to withstand the assault of a State parliament on the religious freedom of those Australians living within its jurisdiction. It is yet another example of the blind attitude, the blanket attitude, of the Opposition as portrayed by Senator Stone, whereby the Opposition is opposed to all constitutional change leading to a situation where Australians can have less freedom than they presently enjoy. The Opposition has already indicated that it is not a conservative party, not a conservationist force in the sense of trying to conserve the best values that underly our democratic institutions. Rather, the Opposition parties are preservationists. They want to preserve the Constitution as it was enacted in 1901. They take the same muddle-headed view as, I believe, some so-called conservationists take in relation to the question of forests and so on-that we have to preserve everything in order to conserve it, which is quite wrong as people would understand in that context. The attitude that merely by preserving the words of our Constitution we can retain Australia as a vibrant, living, democratic, pluralist society is quite wrong. When we get the opportunity, which I hope the Australian people will be given in September, to strengthen our democratic institutions and to vote for rights against governments, to vote, in relation to religion, on trial by jury and the right to receive fair and just compensation if one's property is taken away by government, we should take it. They are rights we should be asserting against governments, because they are very important rights which inhere in us as ordinary human beings. They ought to be asserted quite forcefully in our fundamental constitutional arrangements against those governments that might try to infringe them. Once again, without straying too much, it would seem to me to be very odd indeed for a political party in this chamber to vote against a proposition that the level of government which is closest to the Australian people and affects much of their everyday life-namely, local government organisations, councils and so on-should not have its position recognised in our constitutional arrangements. That seems to me to be quite an extraordinary proposition. Senator Messner —Isn't this just a Lionel Bowen retirement benefit? Senator TATE —I am certainly not going to be distracted, Mr Deputy President. I am sure that you will call me to order shortly if I do not remain relevant at least to my own motion. If this motion is not passed, and if the Opposition keeps on rejecting a motion that there be a 21-day notice of a call preceding the third reading of a referendum Bill, then we will not be in a position to do our duty as senators, as a chamber of the Australian Parliament, and vote as we ought to, in fulfilment of our duties as legislators, elected by the Australian people, and vote on that third reading as to whether certain questions should be put to the Australian people or not. That surely would be a complete subversion of our role, our status, our duty as legislators. We have to vote on the third reading of these Bills if we are to fulfil our role in this chamber as elected representatives of the people. The 21-day notice merely alerts all senators to the fact that on around 26 May, or shortly thereafter, they ought to make themselves available for that vote, given the special majorities that are required. I commend the motion to the chamber. Question put: That the motion (Senator Tate's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Aulich, T. G. Jenkins, J. A.Beahan, M. E. McLean, P. A.Black, J. R. McMullan, R. F.Bolkus, N. Macklin, M. J.Burns, B. R. Maguire, G. R.Childs, B. K. Morris, J. J.Coates, J. Powell, J. F.Collins, R. L. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. (Teller) Reynolds, M.Cook, P. F. S. Richardson, G. F.Cooney, B. C. Sanders, N. K.Coulter, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Crowley, R. A. Sibraa, K. W.Devereux, J. R. Tate, M. C.Devlin, A. R. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Wood, W. R.Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. Hill, R. M.Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. (Teller)Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Patterson, K. C. L.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E.Calvert, P. H. Stone, J. O.Chaney, F. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Chapman, H. G. P. Teague, B. C.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Vanstone, A. E.Durack, P. D. Walters, M. S.Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W.Harradine, B. Foreman, D. J. MacGibbon, D. J.McKiernan, J. P. Sheil, G.Jones, G. N. Short, J. R.Gietzelt, A. T. McGauran, J. J.Button, J. N. Newman, J. M.Evans, Gareth Parer, W. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 28 April, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Messner had moved by way of amendment: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate expresses its view that all television audience reach restrictions be removed to allow a potential 100 per cent audience reach for all competitors on the condition that: (a) the Government's moratorium on the introduction of pay and cable television be removed; (b) the existing television licensing procedures be substantially streamlined; (c) cross-media rules between pay and cable television and existing free-to-air broadcasters be introduced subject to `grandfathering' of existing holdings; and (d) when the process of aggregation has been completed, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal conduct an inquiry into issuing new television licences in metropolitan markets, subject to a final decision being made by the Government''. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(11.42) —We are debating the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1988 and the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987. The Opposition rejects the Government's proposed extension of television ownership limits which would have the effect of restricting the number of operators in the television industry to those who are presently there. There is no doubt that if the Opposition supported the Government's amendment it would entrench the domination of the existing networks and restrict the possibility of additional television stations coming into the system. The Opposition, consistent with its belief in deregulation, has a genuinely deregulatory policy which would enable real competition and real developments, and not simply favour those who are already in a very strong position and who would, if the Government's amendment succeeded, simply strengthen their respective holds on the industry. It is clear that the Government has no answer to the fact that the Opposition's policy is truly deregulatory and would provide a framework for much freer entry into the television industry, by removing the moratorium on pay and cable television, streamlining licensing procedures, introducing cross-media rules between pay and cable television and existing services, and conducting an inquiry into the issue of new television licences once aggregation is complete. The fact that the Government has no answer is reflected in the debate which has already taken place in this chamber and which has focused far more on the vilification by Government senators of the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) and the shadow Minister, Senator Messner, than on defending the position it has taken. The Government has no substantial response to the Opposition's policy so it has resorted to attacks and abuse, and makes no attempt to indicate why it would not agree with what we have put forward. It is clear also that members of the Government are not the only ones apparently confused about deregulation and what a free market really means. I was interested to hear yesterday morning an interview on AM with one of the owners concerned, Mr Christopher Skase, talking about the stand he took. In answer to a question, he said: I'm a free marketeer and a great believer in full access to all markets because in the media in Australia today we've been faced with the massive cost pressures over a number of years . . . That is largely the amount of money paid for the stations. I go on: I believe at the end of the day, whether it's the ABC or commercial television or newspapers, we need to be able to aspire to put bigger markets together so that we can reasonably expect to undertake more Australian productions, and I have nothing to fear from any expansion of the market providing- I should like that to be underlined; it is his word- that those expansion platforms reasonably respect the rights and obligations of those people already in the market. That is a very significant proviso for a free marketeer; provided those already in the system are protected with the empires they already have, they do not mind if there are a few changes. That is the free marketeer, Mr Christopher Skase, speaking on AM yesterday morning. The interviewer went on to say: But the proposal to free up things like cable networks and pay TV-isn's that a more expansive policy than the Government's present one? Mr Skase said: No, I think that the Minister, Gareth Evans, has made it quite clear that they want to review pay and cable television and we certainly are supportive of that. Review is the operative word. It needs to be analysed in a public forum. The economic consequences in terms of employment in terms of opportunities for Australian production need to be evaluated. And as I say I think there is an opportunity for all parties to come together on a common ground for the finding of a solution in the best interests of the media industry in totality. It is clear what Mr Skase intends. He wants to be protected and he will talk about inquiries and delays. There have already been sufficient inquiries into pay television for everybody to know what the arguments are. I suggest that any responsible Minister who is sufficiently informed about the industry would be in a position to make decisions right now, unless of course he has some interest in protecting anybody else and wants to delay for as long as possible. I would be interested to know what Mr Skase means when he talks about the best interests of the industry in totality. He certainly appears to me to be more interested in the position of those in the industry at the present time. We are concerned about viewers. We recognise that television is the most popular form of entertainment in this country. We also recognise that a lot of people depend on televisions for their entertainment because for one reason or another they do not have the ability to go out as others do, perhaps because they are elderly or handicapped. A lot of people just do not have the ability to move freely about the community and to go to functions, and they rely on television. We want to work towards a system in which they will have the greatest possible opportunity for choice. Let use look at what we are really talking about. In June 1987 the Parliament passed legislation relating to a 60 per cent viewing audience. Subsequent to that, Northern Star Holdings Ltd bought the Canberra CTC Seven station in August 1987. Mr Skase's purchases have been made since that time. Both of them were purchased knowing what the law was. It is clear that they have both been lobbying since then for the retrospective changes which would fix it up for them. One part of this new package related to the aggregation of areas, and I think there were four areas put together. The one I am interested in is area C, which takes in the Australian Capital Territory and the southern portion of New South Wales and out to the west, quite a large area with a fairly large viewing audience. Each of the three operators within that area, at Wollongong, Orange and Canberra, agreed to aggregation. The significance of that is that, having agreed and having notified this to the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans), they are now bound by that decision and aggregation will take place. The three stations will each be able to broadcast to the whole of the area, Channel 7 out to the other two and those two into Canberra. Under the legislation they are obliged to do so by the end of 1989, by the end of next year. I think Channel 7 indicated that it would hope to start at the beginning of 1989, and I think the other two stations each made commitments about when they would start, but certainly by December 1989, when they were required to do so. There now seems to be some suggestion that aggregation will not happen or that there is some hitch to it, but the two stations-WIN 4 and the Orange-Wagga station-will still beam their programs into the Canberra-ACT area before the end of next year, possibly much sooner than that, and Canberra will then have three commercial stations in addition to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service, which already exist here. There will be more competition; there will be more channels. I referred earlier to the Government's suggestion of an inquiry into pay television, and I also said that enough was already known. There have already been significant inquiries. Pay television is a significant advance and development. It does not depend on advertising in the same way the commercial stations do; it relies on subscribers, and that is an additional development which ought to be made available to television viewers at the earliest opportunity. Under the Government's program I think it is very clear that it is not really interested in this and it wants to defer it as long as possible. I can only conclude that that is to protect those stations that are already operating. Aggregation must go ahead. It will go ahead. The programs will come into Canberra, as I have indicated, from Wollongong and from Orange, and the diversity of television will be expanded within the terms of the laws passed by this Parliament in June last year to operate by or before the end of December 1989. I can see no reason why the Government would not accept the proposals which we have put forward. I certainly believe it ought to, because it is the viewers of television who will be the beneficiaries if that course is followed. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(11.52) —An understanding of the issues involved in considering this legislation relating to ownership and control in the broadcasting industry requires understanding of the scale and type of changes which have occurred in broadcasting, particularly television, over a period of 30-odd years. The special problems for this industry, which was new some 30 years ago, were caused by factors typical of many Australian developments-vast distances and a relatively small, fragmented population. It was simply the lack of technology which prevented the development of any system other than the one which we have today. There were virtually no coaxial cable resources; microwave links were infrequent, unreliable and costly; broadcast equipment was massively expensive; copies or originals of programs had to be flown overnight between stations; boxes of newsfilm took days to get from overseas; and the cost of film processing was high. There was no alternative but for each city's broadcasters to look after themselves. Networking in anything but limited program buying, exchange and promotion was impossible. At the same time, potential local advertisers were captive; national advertising was extremely limited; Sydney and Melbourne controlled Australia. The smaller States, which sometimes could afford to pay only one-tenth or so towards the cost of an overseas program package, were very much junior members of these so-called networks. It was against this background that third licences were granted in all States but Western Australia, a move which naturally caused much trepidation in the smaller States, which were steamrolled into the situation by their big brothers in the eastern States. Luckily, however, something else was happening which was to alleviate the lot of the smaller States in this regard, even if it was to create a whole new range of problems for the entire industry. Almost overnight it seemed there was a technological explosion. Satellites went up in droves; coaxial and microwave facilities mushroomed; videotape equipment became miniaturised and more efficient; electronic news gathering equipment came onto the scene; and television sets dropped in price. Suddenly it appeared that Australia was not such a big place after all. One other significant event, a social one, occurred which was to have great bearing on the future. Harder economic times, accompanied by a changed social consciousness, led in part to the withdrawal of many large national advertising accounts from the smaller States, leaving the industry there much more dependent on smaller local accounts for revenue. It was at roughly this time that the advantages of fully organised networking became obvious and urgent. This sparked off a financial battle among the super rich media barons for control of the eastern State capitals and eventually the smaller States and regional networks. No doubt their motives ranged from pure greed to extending their influence and power, but whatever, the ensuing competition was generally beneficial to the viewing public. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 11.55 a.m., the debate is interrupted. Under Sessional Order I call on Questions without Notice. Senator TEAGUE —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, is in five parts and concerns Ethiopia. First, what is the current level of Australian overseas aid to Ethiopia, including famine relief and development assistance; and is it not true that the Government has cited this as a measure of its own concern for the suffering people of Ethiopia? Secondly, is it not now obvious that the ruling military regime is blocking international assistance getting to the people in need, especially in the Tigre province, and that the Ethiopian Government wishes to exacerbate the famine as yet another instrument, of its terror and oppression of the people? Thirdly, is it not significant that three million Ethiopians have now fled their country and are refugees in the Sudan and many other countries? Fourthly, given the Australian Government's professions concerning human, civil and democratic rights, why has the Government not directly condemned the Ethiopian Government as one of the most offensive and oppressive regimes anywhere in the world and why, in the same way as happened in Cambodia a decade ago, is the adoption of an appropriate foreign policy approach reserved until after the worst damage has already been done? Finally, has any Australian Minister or departmental official met Mr Dawit Giorgis during his current visit to Canberra and, if not, why not? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have some briefing on this matter which probably covers most of the terrain of Senator Teague's question, but he cannot expect a complete answer if he does not give me advance notice of his questions. I will do the best I can. The Government has monitored the situation in Ethiopia with mounting concern, and especially the developing famine caused by drought and the escalation of fighting in Eritrea and Tigre. I am not sure whether any government official or any other Minister has met with Mr Dawit Wolde Giorgis, who is currently visiting Australia, but we would certainly agree with his assessment, as a former chief relief official, that, while the current famine is not as bad as that of 1984-85, it certainly has the potential to be even more serious, especially as a result of the increased military activity in the northern provinces. In early April the Ethiopian Government excluded all foreign aid workers from Eritrea and Tigre. Although a few United Nations workers have not been allowed back, the departure of the relief workers has grave implications for international feeding programs. Australia has expressed its concern about these developments to the Ethiopian Government. An officer from Nairobi is currently in Addis Ababa as is an Australian Development Assistance Bureau officer. We are also in contact with the United Nations and international relief agencies in Geneva and Rome. We shall also be speaking to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which is a close friend of Ethiopia. We are making adjustments to our current aid programs in Ethiopia to ensure that food relief supplies retain as much effectiveness as possible and to ensure that they reach the various regions affected by famine. The bulk of Australia's emergency assistance to Ethiopia in this financial year is channelled through international organisations and voluntary relief agencies. I have a little more information about the aid. As part of the international effort to avert a repeat of the disastrous famine of 1984-85, in January this year we committed a further $3m in aid to Ethiopia, which brings the current total for 1987-88 up to $15.9m, including development assistance in the form of food aid, transport assistance and other non-food relief supplies. The food aid pledges by all donors now total 1.13 million tonnes against the estimated food aid needs for 1988 of 1.3 million tonnes. However, providing logistical support to enable the food aid to reach those most in need is still a major problem. We believe, overall, that the Australian response to the Ethiopian emergency has been timely, appropriate in composition and directed to areas of greatest need. Senator TEAGUE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister to ask his colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to give a considered response to the various aspects of the question for the benefit of the whole Senate. In the absence of a statement that a Minister has not yet seen Mr Giorgis, a person who handled the whole of food relief from international agencies over the period from 1982 to 1986 and who was once a deputy foreign minister of the Ethiopian Government but who has now defected and who is as well informed as any person, I urge that steps be taken to meet him and to take fully into account the evidence that he can produce. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will ask Mr Hayden if he has any further information that he is able to give to the Senate in response to Senator Teague's questions and I will draw to his attention the latter part of Senator Teague's remarks. Senator GILES —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security to a report in yesterday's issue of the West Australian about an examination by that paper of social security payments and award wages. This report allegedly shows that people are better off receiving social security payments than they are working in unskilled jobs. I quote from this report: W.A. Chamber of Commerce and Industry executive director Colin Barnett said there was no doubt unskilled positions were not being filled in Western Australia because people found it more attractive to remain on the dole. Will the Minister comment on the study and the accuracy or otherwise of its conclusions? Senator BOLKUS —I have indeed seen the report that Senator Giles refers to. In looking at it, I also note that it follows on claims by Mr Rod Nettle of the South Australian Chamber of Commerce. The research work that is the basis of the article in the West Australian seems to be very much the work that Mr Nettle has been propagating within South Australia. The problem with Mr Nettle is that, over a long period in South Australian politics, he has never let the facts get in the way of the truth and the story that he wants to propagate. Once again, this is another instance. Senator Chaney —He never lets the facts get in the way of the truth? Senator BOLKUS —I am glad that some members of the Opposition are alert enough to pick up my mistake. He never lets facts get in the way. In essence, this is another instance of it. Mr Nettle has made a very dishonest and inappropriate comparison. He has looked at pensions and benefits and added to them additional pensions and benefits accruing to pensioners under a scheme such as the family allowance supplement scheme. But he has not done this with the other side of the equation-that is, the income of low income earners. In terms of comparison I take one instance. If we look at those wage and salary earners who are on 50 per cent or less of average weekly earnings-there are some 11 per cent of Australian full time wage earners on this scale-we find that they are the people who, under the previous Fraser-Howard-Stone regime, suffered an annual increase in real disposable income of 1.5 per cent. However, because of the effectiveness of the family allowance supplement, that same category of people are now having their real disposable incomes increased at more than twice that rate, at 3.6 per cent. Mr Nettle does not seem to take this factor into account when he produces stories such as those he has recently been propagating. In the context of making this assessment, it is also important to note that leading social workers within the country and leading trade unionists, such as Mr Bill Kelty, have seen the family allowance supplement as `better than a pay rise'. Therefore, in summing up, I go back to my initial point: Mr Nettle has had a long track record of inaccuracy and incompetence in this area. It is one that served a previous Liberal Opposition leader in South Australia very badly. It did not assist Dr Tonkin at all. Mr Nettle has a long history of creating this sort of confusion. It is a pity, in this instance, that the Confederation of Western Australian Industry (Inc) has also picked up Mr Nettle's propagating distortions. Senator CHANEY —I preface my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate by saying to Senator Bolkus that I thought he was very ungracious in not acknowledging that the problem supposedly identified by the West Australian yesterday was remedied in the 1982 Fraser Budget with the introduction of the family income supplement. I am sure he will do it next time. My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. I refer the Minister to the fact that two weeks ago the Minister for Industrial Relations said that the Government would seriously have to consider moving the submarine construction project from South Australia if the dispute over union representation was not settled within a month. Is the Minister aware of today's report that, following talks between a large number of unions and the Australian Submarine Corporation, some of the unions still refuse to accept the three-union agreement proposed for the site? Is the Minister further aware that the agreement is expected to come before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission within the next couple of months and that, when it does, unions which still do not accept the limit of participation proposal will contest its ratification? In light of these continuing difficulties, does the Government's one-month deadline remain? Senator BUTTON —In answering questions two or three weeks ago about this issue and the possible building of the frigates at the Williamstown dockyard-- Senator Chaney —This is the submarine project. Senator BUTTON —I know. In answering a question about this issue and in answering a question about the frigates and the Williamstown dockyard, I simply made the point that these issues have to be resolved now; that they cannot be left lingering around during the life of what are long-build programs for both the submarines and the frigates; and that if they are not resolved now, the submarine will not be built at Adelaide. That is what I said two weeks ago, and that remains the position. I did not see today's reports. I would like to have a detailed briefing on what has in fact happened about this issue. I make no change in the position that I put a fortnight ago, but it may be that there is some hope of resolution of this matter. I would not want to prejudice that resolution by fixing a two weeks deadline, or something like that, again. But I do not want to change the basic attitude which I expressed earlier on-and the Government will not. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his reply. I just ask him: In light of the fact that the Senate will be adjourning for something over a couple of weeks, would he, in making those further inquiries-and the Opposition also wants to see a positive outcome-let me know before the Senate resumes, as soon as he has further advice, so that I can further consider the matter? Senator BUTTON —Before the Senate adjourns? Senator CHANEY —Before the Senate resumes. Senator BUTTON —Well, although the Senate may be adjourning, the Cabinet will not. I will certainly indicate what I can to Senator Chaney if this matter comes before it soon. Senator COONEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. On 19 April this year, did the Government of Singapore arrest nine of its citizens, including a lawyer who defended some of the detainees after they were previously arrested? Do the detainees include people who worked for Catholic organisations? Were the people arrested for making a statement about the conditions in which detainees have been kept in the past? Does the Australian Government take any, and what, stance on this matter? Does the Government feel that it can do anything about the matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —I can confirm reports that the Government of Singapore has rearrested eight of the 22 persons who were detained in mid-1987 under the Internal Security Act, apparently for breaching the conditions imposed on their release from detention in December 1987. The eight, along with one other person who is presently abroad, published a statement in Singapore on 18 April alleging that their public confessions of involvement in a Marxist plot were false and the result of coercion and mistreatment while in detention. A lawyer assisting the group has also been detained under the Internal Security Act. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade understands that some of those detained did have connections with Catholic organisations. One of the original detainees, Vincent Cheng, remains in custody under a two-year detention order. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Hayden, has previously registered clearly and unequivocally with Singapore the Government's concerns about the use of the arbitrary detention powers of the Internal Security Act-once with the Singapore Foreign Minister, Mr Dhanabalan, and more recently with the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr Yeo Cheow Tong. The Government will shortly instruct our High Commission in Singapore to make representations at an appropriate level on this issue. Senator HAINES —Mr President, I direct my question to the Minister for Consumer Affairs although, if you consider it more appropriate, it may have to be answered by the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Is the Minister aware that, according to investment adviser Austin Donnelly, in a recent edition of the Canberra Times, tens of thousands of investors have suffered serious losses because of inadequate, inaccurate or misleading information provided by some life insurance offices, investment companies, stockbroking firms and investment advisers? Does the Minister agree that the present system does not in fact adequately protect investors and that, therefore, there is a need to extend to investment and financial services the protection of consumer affairs legislation, which has already worked well in other fields? Does the Minister also agree that truth in labelling laws, which apply in other areas, should be extended to investment and financial services, and that the proposed new committee to advise the Attorney-General on companies and securities should include representatives of consumers as well as suppliers of investment schemes? Finally, will the Minister take prompt action to ensure that, when investing their life savings, investors have at least as much consumer protection as when they buy a $5 jar of coffee at a supermarket? Senator BOLKUS —I have just seen the article that Senator Haines refers to and I have had an opportunity to peruse it briefly. It appears to me that the article is based on a couple of basic presumptions. Mr Donnelly said that the large losses in the share market crash were largely due to `inadequate, inaccurate and positively misleading information given to uninitiated investors'. I do not know whether we could very easily sit with that assessment of what happened last year in respect of the share market crash and whether in fact we can blame investment advisers, no matter how much their advice might have been misleading, for the enormity of the share market crash. The other aspect of the article which I find very striking is that it does not seem to be backed up with any empirical evidence and, to that extent, it should be treated with some degree of caution. However, the Government has had under examination the points raised by Senator Haines which arise from the problem put forward by Mr Donnelly. Initially, it should be noted that under section 65a of the Securities Industry Act, protection is already afforded to investors against improper advice given by involvement advisers. The advice is seen to be improper if it does not have a reasonable basis for its being given. Also, in terms of whether advice is proper, an investment adviser must have regard to the investment objectives, the financial situation and the particular needs of the person involved. Under the same section, if a person in fact suffers losses because of such improper advice, financial damages are payable to that person. As Senator Haines mentioned, the Government is in fact examining provisions in this area. We are re-examining this area as part of our proposal to establish an Australian Securities Commission. As part of those proposals, consideration is already being given to extending section 65a to cover oral advice as well as written recommendations, as is now the case. Senator Haines also raised a couple of questions with respect to the committee advising the Government on the establishment of the Commission. I will pass on that request to the Attorney-General. I will also pass on to the Attorney-General for his consideration the point the honourable senator made about the possible need to extend the provisions of the proposed Australian Securities Commission legislation to cover other investment advisers, such as life insurance offices. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer to the current visit to Australia of the Secretary of Justice in the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. Could the Minister inform the Senate of the importance of this visit, especially in relation to law enforcement cooperation? Senator TATE —It is true that the Secretary of Justice of the Republic of the Philippines, the Hon. Sedfrey Ordonez, is in Australia at the moment. Indeed, I had the pleasure of meeting him again yesterday, having met him when I was in the Philippines earlier this year for the signing of the extradition treaty between our two governments. Mr Ordonez is a very distinguished lawyer who was most courageous during the years of the Marcos dictatorship and has now assumed his important post under the President of the Philippines, Mrs Aquino. The principal reason for his visit was to sign yesterday with the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, Mr Lionel Bowen, a treaty for mutual assistance in criminal matters. Indeed, it is the first time that Australia has signed such a treaty for mutual assistance in criminal matters, and indeed for that matter, it is the first time that the Philippines has also entered into such an agreement. This treaty enables us to each take evidence for the purpose of proceedings in relation to criminal matters instituted in another country, and more especially allows for the tracing of the location of property and assets of those who might be before the criminal courts of the other country and upon conviction in that other country allows for seizure and confiscation of those assets. As we know, this chamber has taken the view that in the fight against organised crime it is extremely important, if one successfully convicts a criminal, not simply to imprison that person or even to impose a fine, but also to confiscate the proceeds of crime, the ill-gotten gains, accumulated because of the criminal and other nefarious activity. If we can do that on behalf of governments in other jurisdictions, we will certainly help when those assets have been accumulated within Australia. It is obviously in the interests of the Philippines particularly to enter into such a treaty arrangement because there may well be assets held here which have been accumulated over the years by the Marcos cronies, as they are called. This particular treaty, which was signed only several months after the negotiations for the treaty took place earlier this year in Manila, is an important step in this cooperative regional approach to fighting crime in which the Government has engaged. The fact is that criminals in their activities know and respect no borders, whether one is talking domestically within the Commonwealth of Australia or internationally, and it is extremely important that around this region we enter into these sorts of arrangements. Therefore, I am delighted that Secretary Ordonez was able to come to Australia so speedily to conclude this signing ceremony. I look forward to the ratification by the Philippines Senate of these very important treaties. Senator WALTERS —I direct my question to the Minister for Justice. When is the Government expecting the final report of the Constitutional Commission-a report which has cost the Australian taxpayer nearly $6m and is now not even required by the Government for its decision on its constitutional reform proposals? Senator TATE —There is a premise built into the latter part of that question which is not correct. The Government recently received the first report of the Constitutional Commission. It is not an interim report. It is a first report which represents the concluded views and recommendations on various issues and will be incorporated in part of the final report which is expected before the end of this financial year. In regard to the areas covered by the Government's referendum proposals, they are all dealt with in that first report of the Commission. The Government made its decisions on the referendum proposals in the light of the Commission's recommendations. The report will be released publicly by the Commission on 6 May after printing and will be tabled on 10 May 1988. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister telling the chamber that the final report of the Constitutional Commission is not necessary for the Government to look at its proposals and is a waste of money? Senator TATE —I have already made it very clear that the Government's referendum proposals have been framed, taking into account the concluded views and recommendations on the relevant issues by the Constitutional Commission. I have also made it very plain, both at Estimates committee hearings and in answer to Senator Short, that the final report which will embrace more issues no doubt-- Senator Walters —A waste of money. Senator TATE —No, it is not a waste of money. It is no more a waste of money than the very extensive work already undertaken by the Commission in its various committees, educational work and so on. The fact is that those other matters which may be canvassed in the final report of the Commission will enter into the general debate in the community about constitutional change. I imagine that it will provide very useful material for reflection on the next stage of constitutional reform that might be undertaken in this country. At the moment we are concentrating on those matters which were outlined by the Attorney-General yesterday. Senator BEAHAN —My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to reports in yesterday's Press of comments made by Mr Ian Macphee, the member for Goldstein, on the subject of the Government's industrial relations and wages policies? Does the Minister agree with Mr Macphee that the Government's industrial relations and wages policies have been a great success? Has this been a major factor behind the massive increase in private sector employment that has been brought about in Australia since 1983? Senator WALSH —I saw the report in the Australian Financial Review a couple of days ago quoting Mr Macphee as saying the types of things to which Senator Beahan has referred. I also saw reports of Senator Chaney taking Mr Macphee to task for daring to reveal in public his considered assessment of the situation. Senator Button —And businessmen taking Senator Chaney to task for taking Mr Macphee to task. Senator WALSH —I am about to quote some of the business people. The second part of the question was whether I agree with Mr Macphee that the Government's industrial relations and wages policies have been a great success. Of course I agree with him. That is not a biased assessment because I am a member of the Government. It is an irrefutable fact that there is no precedent in Australian economic history for the sort of wage restraint that has prevailed for five years in a period of almost continuously falling unemployment and, by Australian standards, a high rate of economic growth. There is no precedent in Australian history for that outcome. It is not just Mr Macphee and the Government who believe that. As Senator Button reminded me earlier, yesterday's Australian Financial Review referred to: public conflict yesterday between the former Opposition frontbencher Mr Ian Macphee, and the Opposition's Senate Leader and industrial relations spokesman, Senator Chaney. The report continues: Several of the business representatives commented that they believed Mr Macphee's observations were reasonable-that the Government's industrial relations and wages policies had produced outcomes better than would have been achieved under the Opposition's policy-and that he- that is, Mr Macphee- should not have been rebuked for making them. Mr Macphee was Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations from May 1982 until the then Government lost office in March 1983. Mr Macphee would be well aware of the sort of policy that he inherited-that was ever since the Fraser-Howard Government walked away from, and abdicated all responsibility for, a wages policy in May 1981. There was a wages explosion of 13 per cent, followed by a 14 per cent wages explosion in the next year. Mr Macphee came in at the tail end of the sort of outcome that that abdication of responsibility had induced. Mr Macphee is not to blame for what happened in 1981, or even in 1982 when he was the Minister, because by the time he became the Minister the course of events was firmly cemented in place and there was nothing much that Mr Macphee could have done about it. Of course, it did burn into his brain what happens when there is a period of fairly strong economic growth and expectations of wage increases, without any Federal government wages policy. I find it remarkable that even a coalition Opposition as dim as the present one has apparently not learnt the lesson that Mr Macphee has learnt-that is, that the sort of wages policy, or rather non-wages policy, which the Opposition practised when in government and still advocates in any situation other than deep depression is likely to lead to a wages explosion. Mr Macphee has learnt the lesson. I wish that the rest of the Opposition could learn the same lesson. The final comment I want to make is that Senator Chaney's criticism of Mr Macphee, although he parades as the urbane Liberal and ostensibly defends-- Senator Tate —The urban Liberal. Senator WALSH —Well, an urbane urban Liberal, if you like, Senator Tate. Although he parades as an urbane urban Liberal, when somebody says something that he does not like, he shows himself for what he truly is. So much for free speech in the Liberal Party! Senator Chaney's response to Mr Macphee's well considered, well reasoned and well based comments about this Government's wages policy and industrial relations policy should be compared to the sort of policy which the Opposition practised in government and still advocates in opposition. Senator BISHOP —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The following seven facts from which my question flows have been established in hearings of the Public Accounts Committee and Estimates Committee C and result from questioning-- Senator Gareth Evans —Mr President, I raise a point of order. There has been a consistent abuse of Question Time by Senator Bishop, who has used this sort of tactic on a number of occasions. Her obligation is to ask questions, not to express statements, list facts or anything else that falls short of the description of a question. Mr President, I ask you to rule accordingly. Senator Chaney —On that point of order, if there was some rule in this place which prevented Ministers from extensively debating questions and generally abusing Question Time, the point of order might have some substance. I am sure that there is nothing in the Standing Orders which prevents questions containing some preface. That is the standard practice in this place. I suggest that you suggest to Senator Evans that when Ministers are prepared to play some reasonable part in Question Time, instead of abusing it as they do, the point of order might be considered. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order, but I would like to point out that there has been a tendency in recent days for only a small number of questions to be asked. It has been caused by a number of supplementary questions, by long questions which include seven or eight parts, and by long answers from Ministers. I call Senator Bishop. Senator BISHOP —Thank you, Mr President, I will endeavour to-- Senator Robert Ray —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. Senator Bishop has indicated that she is going to ask a question based on proceedings in some other parliamentary committee. I draw your attention to standing order 99, which quite clearly precludes that. I quote: Questions shall not refer to- . . . . (b) proceedings in Committee not reported to the Senate. The PRESIDENT —I will listen to the question because that point of order has usually been referred to only in the Committee of the Whole. Senator BISHOP —The matter that is disclosed is on the public record and was not privy to a committee. The Government has approved, in principle, the expenditure of nearly $700m for computer re-equipment for and redevelopment of the Australian Taxation Office. Following the abandonment of the Australia Card, the Government asked the Taxation Office to draw up a Cabinet submission making recommendations for the implementation of a high integrity tax file number which has been labelled by the Tax Office as the common identifying number, otherwise known as the CIN number. Preparatory development work on the CIN number has been commenced. Senator Gareth Evans —I rise on a further point of order-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Bishop to ask her question. Senator Gareth Evans —In doing so, Mr President, I draw your attention to standing order 99, which states: Questions shall not contain- (a) statements of fact or names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated; I waited a few moments to see whether an intelligible question was coming from Senator Bishop's bosom. There being no sign of it, Mr President, I ask you again to rule accordingly. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Bishop to ask her question. Senator BISHOP —Thank you, Mr President. In view of the concern by the Opposition in not wishing this question to be put-- Government senators-We are the Government. Senator BISHOP —They may be in government now but they will soon be in opposition. With the seven deadly aspects already on the record, I ask the Minister to confirm or deny that the Government is considering the introduction of a common identifying number, a CIN number, by whatever name, which involves external uses beyond the Taxation Office and whether it contemplates the use of an external power requiring legislation. Senator BUTTON —Mr President, you have chided the Senate for having long questions and long answers. My answer will not conflict with your ruling. I do not know the answer. I will try to find it out for Senator Bishop. Senator SCHACHT —I direct my question to the Minister for Finance. I refer to the Minister's answer to a question from Senator Stone regarding control of spending of taxpayers' funds on free service in the parliamentary bars and dining rooms on 24 March, and in particular to the Minister's references to the behaviour of a party of Young Liberals in the Senate courtyard. Has the Minister received any correspondence from the Young Liberals in relation to this matter? To the Minister's knowledge, is the correspondence accurate? Senator WALSH —I have received some correspondence regarding comments I made in the Senate relating to the party-or, as I said at the time, what may euphemistically be known as a function-the Young Liberals held in the Senate courtyard on 24 March. I have received a letter signed by one Stephen Forshaw, and a most extraordinary letter it is. He complained about my comments and allegations that had been made in the Press that some of the Young Liberals moved into the House of Representatives courtyard and had a free swill, to top up the swill they had had previously in the Senate courtyard, for which, as I said on 25 March, the deputy manager of the bar-- Senator Cook —Did they drink Fosters? Senator WALSH —They took a couple of slabs of Fosters away from the non-members' bar later on, I understand, Senator Cook. Mr Shack, or somebody else, had paid, or was to receive an account for the drinks in the Senate courtyard. I have been asked whether the letter is accurate. The answer to that is no. In one crucial fact it is demonstrably inaccurate. The letter states; Peter Shack, M.P., who hosted the Party, welcomed the guests and saw the last of them from the building shortly after 8.00 p.m. That is an unmitigated lie. I saw the party roaring away some time after 8.30 p.m. Two members of my staff saw it roaring away some time after 9 o'clock, and I do not know for how much longer it roared away. Senator Gareth Evans —Maybe it was 7 p.m. the next night. Senator WALSH —It does not state 8.00 p.m. the same night. That is quite correct, Senator Evans; it may have been the next night. The letter also denies that any of the participants or revellers at the party left the Senate courtyard and moved into the House of Representatives courtyard. Further, the letter states: Guests were stamped on the hand which served as a pass for them to enter and leave the Senate Courtyard only. They were escorted to and from this venue. No guests could leave the area- that is, the Senate courtyard- without a Visitor's Pass, and I was the only person who had such a pass. Presumably they had an elephant stamp placed on the palm of the hand, or something like that. A similar statement was made by Mr Forshaw in a letter to the Australian Financial Review which was published this week. People who have never been in Parliament House might believe that. But fancy being stupid enough to write a letter to me saying that a person cannot get from the Senate courtyard to the House of Representatives courtyard without a pass. Anybody who has ever been in Parliament House for any time knows that once he gets past King's Hall he can go anywhere he likes around the building. Certainly, there is never any check between the Senate courtyard and the House of Representatives courtyard. I think that Mr Forshaw-by taking me, or indeed anybody who knows anything about Parliament House, for being such a mug as to believe that-has demonstrated himself to be a fool and, when his time comes, a worthy successor to the old Libs who are presently in the Parliament. Allegations have been made to me that the Young Libs, after they left the Senate courtyard and moved to the House of Representatives courtyard, as undoubtedly some of them did, took away slabs of Fosters from the non-members bar. I cannot verify that, but there are many allegations, some of which have been published, that that happened. But this letter certainly confirms the suspicions that everybody might have had previously that that is what happened and it reveals Mr Forshaw to be, firstly, a liar and, secondly, a fool. Senator CHAPMAN —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the fact that 9 May 1988 has been declared a public holiday in the Australian Capital Territory for the opening of the new Parliament House. What will be the cost to the Government, and hence the Australian taxpayer, of, firstly, the lost productivity of government employees who take the day as a holiday and, secondly, the penalty rates paid to government employees required to work? What will be the further cost to the private sector, similarly, of lost productivity and penalty rates? In particular, what will be the cost and effect on profitability of penalty rates applicable in hotels and other tourist oriented businesses providing services to the many visitors to Canberra on that day? Did the Government seriously consider the adverse economic impact of these additional costs before deciding to declare 9 May a public holiday? Notwithstanding the significance of 9 May, and without in any way attempting to understate the importance of the occasion of the visit of Her Majesty the Queen, does the Government really believe that this land of the long weekend can afford yet another public holiday? Senator BUTTON —The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and I have given considerable emphasis to the fact that we have to concentrate on the micro-economy in Australia in the next few years, but how micro can one get? Senator Puplick —About your size, I guess. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator will keep. Does Senator Chapman want me to go away and get him an answer to this question? Does he seriously want public servants to spend days working out these calculations? Is that what the Liberal Party is all about? Was this question engendered by his weight watcher friend on his left? I should have said `waste watcher', not `weight watcher' which is what he ought to be. I do not want to answer the question at any length. The question itself is so silly that I am not going to be bothered with it. Senator SANDERS —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy to Nukem and Euratom documents supplied to me by Jup Weber, a Greens member of the Luxembourg Parliament, which I passed to the Minister yesterday. The documents show that South African uranium was relabelled as uranium from Niger to get around Finnish and Soviet embargoes on Namibian and South African uranium. They also show that Euratom did not have to approve this deal because only the certificates of origin were swapped, not the safeguards obligations. I ask the Minister: Firstly, do these documents not show that origin swaps could take place in Europe between South African and Australian uranium without the intervention of Euratom or the knowledge of the Australian Government? Secondly, is it not a fact that uranium swapping procedures in the European Community (EC), which have become privatised and unregulated, are beyond the control of the Australian Government? Thirdly, is there not a contradiction between the Government's acceptance of such origin swaps in the EC, which could involve South African and Australian uranium, and its opposition to international flag swaps involving Australian and South African uranium? Finally, now that it has been proven that Australia's safeguards do not prevent circumvention of its ban on the exchange of South African and Australian uranium, what action does the Government propose to take to rectify the situation? Senator COOK —Yesterday, I think, in answer to a six-point question from Senator Hamer, Senator Ray said that Senator Hamer was abusing Question Time by asking such a long question. Senator Robert Ray —It was a nine-part one. Senator COOK —This is a five-part one. Senator Vanstone —Is that the one you didn't get the right answer to? Senator COOK —The point I make is that this is a long question and it would be more properly dealt with on notice. Asking such questions is, in my view, an abuse of Question Time. However, in the past I have complimented Senator Sanders on giving me notice of questions he intends to ask. It is true, as he said in his question, that last night he dropped a whole pile of documents on me and said, `Tomorrow there will be a question'. I make the point that there is a whole series of documents which are unofficial, leaked documents and which at this point have not been verified as being true and accurate documents. If Senator Sanders chooses to ask me a question on them with this degree of notice, he should not come into this chamber and pretend that he is operating on the basis of some principle, because what he is doing is political ambush. I do not mind political ambush; this is the place for it. Therefore, I shall deal with Senator Sanders as a political ambusher, not as a person who is acting on the basis of some great enshrined principle, because palpably he is not. Senator Chaney —Mr President-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to reply to the question asked by Senator Sanders. Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President: there has been a lot of abuse of Question Time which, strictly, is within Standing Orders. This has been a most disgraceful bloody afternoon. What the Minister has just said was out of order. I do not believe that he is entitled to attack a senator in that way and he should withdraw it. The PRESIDENT —Order! I did not think that the Minister said anything unparliamentary. However, I ask Senator Cook to reply to the question. Senator COOK —Mr President, I will reply to the question, as I believe my foregoing remarks were to the point of the question in any case. Senator Sanders has made allegations based on articles in Der Spiegel beginning, I think, on 15 January. He has made allegations based on questions in the European Parliament which were based on leaked papers, which we have investigated and replied to, and he has made allegations based on allegations made in the European Parliament by Madame von Blottnitz who, I understand, is in Australia but has not bothered to see me to discuss those allegations with me. He has made all of those allegations and now he has raised allegations made by a member of the Luxembourg Parliament. I guess we are moving from a German magazine to the European Parliament and to the Luxembourg Parliament. Underpinning all the questions which Senator Sanders has asked is a refusal to recognise the statement put down by the Government on 20 April dealing comprehensively with all of the allegations he made previously. What he has refused to recognise is the principle of equivalence in dealing with Australian origin nuclear material. He has refused to recognise that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said that there have been no diversions from the peaceful cycle to the weapons cycle during its 25 years of safeguarding the peaceful cycle. The IAEA itself has said that no Australian origin nuclear materials have been supplied for weapons use. The honourable senator has never recognised those things. Let me turn now to the documents that the honourable senator has provided me with. As I say, they are from leaked correspondence between various people and organisations in Europe, including the German nuclear company Nukem, the Euratom Supply Agency, the Russian Ambassador in Luxembourg, and the counsellor to the Finnish Ambassador in Brussels. Additionally, the honourable senator has given me Press statements by members of the European Parliament which draw on all the corres- pondence he has given me as well to make allegations. What do they assert? They assert that Nukem has circumvented a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics embargo against South African uranium. From that, the honourable senator wants to draw me into a question about whether this somehow or other impinges on Australian safeguards in terms of Australian origin nuclear materials that are safeguarded in Euratom under the auspices of our safeguards regime, supervised by the IAEA and by Euratom. The Press release that the honourable senator has attributed to Madame von Blottnitz, a member of the European Parliament, concludes with the following statement: The Green MEP has presented this material to the Commission of Inquiry of the European Parliament which will continue further research into this whole business. That is what Madame von Blottnitz has said. It continues: In view of the fact that all of the allegations concern actions within Europe I endorse the idea that the matter be handled by the appropriate European authorities, if they care to do so on the evidence available. It is not a matter for Australia-there is no suggestion of the involvement of Australian material. I could go on and answer the other questions, but I propose, as Senator Button did earlier in answer to a long question, to put those questions on notice and reply to the honourable senator more fully later. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. I refer to his rather rushed trip to Perth last week to have a meeting at Perth Airport, I understand-before returning on the same return flight-with representatives of the Shark Bay Shire and State Government in regard to the proposed World Heritage listing of the Shark Bay region. I ask the Minister, who has been remarkably silent about this matter since he went to Perth: What was the outcome of that meeting? What is the attitude of the State Government to the proposed World Heritage listing? What is the next step he proposes to take in relation to the matter? Senator RICHARDSON —First off, to allay some of Senator Durack's fears, the meeting that I had with the representatives from Shark Bay was not at the airport; it was in a city hotel. The honourable senator will be very pleased to learn that I did get four hours sleep before getting back on another plane to return to Canberra. Senator Walters —That was not our major concern. Senator RICHARDSON —Oh, Senator Walters! I was giving the honourable senator credit. Mind you, that does not happen often. I went to Perth to talk to some representatives of the community of Denham and areas around Shark Bay because of a meeting that had been held there a few weeks earlier at which a number of fairly stupid assertions had been made about what World Heritage meant, the same sorts of assertions that have been made by some rather odd people in north Queensland during the last 12 months-the same people that Senator Boswell was disowning the other day, and the same sorts of allegations. Having spent several hours with them, I think I managed to allay some of their fears, although I do not for a moment pretend that the issue is over. In so far as where it is up to or where it is going, the Western Australian Government has instituted a process of local consultation on that issue. I am told by the Western Australian Government that the process of local consultation has some 12 months to go. Therefore, I do no propose to take any action in terms of listing nomination or for listing until the Western Australian Government comes back to me and tells me what the results of those consultations are. Senator Panizza —They will be out of government by then. Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Panizza should not hang by the neck. The other point I should make is that I am going to Shark Bay in June to talk to more than just the representatives. I will make sure that I get a chance to talk to all of the groups which have an interest. At the meeting in Perth we had representatives of the fishing industry, the pastoral industry, the mining industry and the shire council-which I think was a pretty reasonable cross-section. The only way of dealing with those issues properly is to speak to the people themselves. I will spend two or three days in Denham and make sure that that is done. Therefore, no action is being taken at the moment by the Commonwealth and no action is contemplated until the Western Australian Government reports back on the results of the consultations it is having with local people. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I asked what the attitude of the Western Australian Government is to this question. In the processes that are going on and will be going on, is the Western Australian Government endeavouring to persuade the community in favour of World Heritage listing? Senator RICHARDSON —The Western Australian Government is conducting a process of consultation for the purpose of finding out what local people want. One would imagine that the Western Australian Government will determine its position after it has the results of those consultations. At this stage of the game the Western Australian Government is not asking me to list the whole of the area, or a part of it or none of it. I assume that it is waiting for the local consultations to be completed before it gets back to me with an official Western Australian Government position. Senator WOOD —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy to the statements by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy and other similar statements by the Government, and by Senator Cook today, that uranium for peaceful purposes was processed separately from uranium for military purposes. I also refer to the fact that the low and medium enrichment cascades at the Pierrelatte military plant in France were shut down in October 1982 and remain closed, and so the only source of medium enriched uranium for Pierrelatte is the Tricastin plant. I note the Minister's admission in this chamber that Australian uranium enters the Tricastin plant for enrichment and that this plant processes uranium for peaceful purposes. I ask the Minister: Will he not admit that the facts I have stated show that Tricastin has produced medium enriched uranium for both peaceful and military uses simultaneously? Does this not mean that contrary to Government statements, uranium for peaceful purposes and for military purposes is not processed separately? Will he admit that uranium physically mined in Australia is very likely to have entered the military cycle through the Tricastin-Pierrelatte link? Did he mislead the Parliament in saying that Tricastin only produced uranium for peaceful purposes? If the Minister denies the above facts, will he explain where Pierrelatte received its medium enriched uranium between 1982 and 1984 or, finally, give a categorical assurance that Tricastin was shut down and cleaned out between producing batches of medium enriched uranium for peaceful and military purposes? Senator COOK —We again have a long question. I thank Senator Wood for observing the courtesy in giving me this question in advance. The only trouble with it is that Senator Vallentine gave me an identical question in advance. I was wondering which one would win the lottery of being called first by you, Mr President, to ask exactly the same question. Senator Colston —At least they didn't ask it twice. Senator COOK —Had Question Time been able to continue a lot longer, maybe they would both have asked the question. Senator Wood —You could have had a duet. Senator COOK —We could have had a duet. As with my earlier answer to Senator Sanders, let me go right back to all the other allegations that have been made before. Those allegations have been treated seriously, have been investigated by the Government and have been the subject of a report to this chamber. On 20 April the House of Representatives dealt with all those allegations and answered them. In the comprehensive way in which that answer was given, it dismissed those allegations, either wholly or, in the case of South African flag swaps and international flag swaps, dismissed them but identified a possible intent by some people. I do not know how many more times we have to go over this question. I find it just a trite exercise in headline-grabbing and an effort to try to regurgitate an old debate which has now been put to rest. Let us go back to the elements of Senator Wood's question. He talked of `the Minister's admission in this chamber'. There has been no effort by this Government to be defensive or to conceal or cover up any aspect of what happens to Australian origin nuclear material when it goes abroad. I ask Senator Wood to please go back and read our statement again because, I remind him, it comprehensively covers all of those issues. So Senator Wood need not ask me a question about admission. We are not admitting anything. We are saying that this is the truth: this is what happens. There is no obligation of admission on our part. Senator Wood talked about the peaceful uses of uranium. I have said that he misunderstood the basic premise of what has been said. He has unilaterally refused to understand the principle of equivalence. Until Senator Wood understands that principle he will miss the tram and then want to misrepresent the whole debate. In dealing with the allegations Senator Wood made before, I took an opportunity to bring him, Senator Sanders-who brought along his staffer-Senator Vallentine and, I think, Peter Milton and a few other people for a two-hour briefing with members of my Department and members of the Australian Safeguards Office so that there would be no difference between us on the facts. I thought after that meeting that there was no difference between us on the facts. However, Senator Wood has now asked a series of questions which shows that he does misunderstand or is seeking to misrepresent what in fact happens. Senator Wood continues to ignore the principle of equivalence which forms the basis of international trade in uranium for the production of energy for peaceful purposes. He does not yet recognise that uranium hexafluoride obligated to Australia is enriched at Tricastin to the level of 5 per cent. From Tricastin it moves to facilities which fabricate fuel rods for use in nuclear power stations. No Australian obligated material moves from Tricastin to the Pierrelatte enrichment plant. The fact that Senator Wood does not recognise that really just speaks volumes for how he does not understand the issue because to be enriched to the level of nuclear weapons it has to go to the level of 90 per cent. My advice is that the Tricastin plant is physically unable to enrich beyond 50 per cent. Therefore, it is a plant dedicated to enrichment to a level usable for peaceful purposes. I would have thought that that was quite clear. Senator Wood asked whether I would admit that I misled the Parliament. Frankly, that is an offensive thing to say because, of course, that is not the case. To weave that into a question, I frankly find offensive and demeaning of the level of debate we have hitherto had and, in fact, an attempt to drag this through the gutter in terms of a political argument. It might be something from which a cheap headline can be gathered. I am glad that it was not Senator Vallentine who asked the question because earlier in this debate she accused the Government of lying. I wrote Senator Vallentine a letter saying, `Senator Vallentine, are you correctly reported? If you are, where are we lying? What we have said is that we are investigating the allegations; we will report' and `I am advised that nothing has gone wrong'. We did investigate. There was no lie there. We did report. There is no lie there. It is a matter of record that the officers of my Department advised me that nothing went wrong. Therefore, there is no lie there. Did Senator Vallentine come back and say that she was misquoted or wrong? No, she did not. When I wrote to her a second time to say that I was going to put down a statement and asking whether she could now answer the lying allegation, what did she do? She wrote back and said that she was waiting on information from abroad when she made that allegation and now that the information from abroad had been received that was the end of the matter. I have not yet got an apology about the lying allegation. I do not expect an apology from Senator Wood about the allegation of misleading either. An incident having occurred in the gallery- The PRESIDENT —Order! Order! Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Bishop asked me a question on 15 April about timed local telephone calls. I undertook to obtain further information and to provide the honourable senator with a response. Based on advice from Telecom Australia, I now do so. I seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer reads as follows- 1 Telecom sought input to its proposed consultation process by way of a letter sent on 18 December 1987 to some 40 separate organisations representing community interests, inviting them to join with Telecom in considering the issues in relation to the introduction of timed local telephone calls. Telecom subsequently met and discussed this proposal with seven of these organisations and a number of Federal Members of Parliament up until 7 February 1988. (List attached) 2 The planned consultation process did not proceed further because of the Government's policy statement on this issue. The organisations concerned were advised of the cancellation of the consultation process by letter sent on 8 February 1988. 3 The break up of the expenditure of $608,900 referred to in my earlier reply to the honourable senator is: (i) Task Preparation... $80,600 - preparation of information leaflets and brochures - artwork and design - concept research (ii) Research... $148,200 (iii) Printing... $105,000 - information leaflets, brochures and letters - Presentation Kits for use in discussions with outside bodies (iv) Media advertisements... $275,100 - metropolitan press... $166,474 - country press... $70,548 - television and magazine... $38,078 Total... $608,900 Organisations from whom Telecom sought input to its proposed consultation process in timed local calls by way of letter on 18 December 1987 (Organisations that responded to the letter and who Telecom met with are marked***) Victoria Business Council of Australia ***Australian Small Business Association Ltd Brotherhood of St Lawrence ACTU/TBFU Financial Counsellors Association Nursing Mothers Association Australian Council on the Ageing Australian Deafness Council (Vic. Divisions) Australian Videotex Association ***National Federation of Blind Citizens Australian Electronics Industry Association ***People for Equality not Institutionalisation (PENI) New South Wales Commonwealth Press Union ***Australian National Lifeline Australian Council of Social Service Australian Consumers Association Australian Pensioner Federation ***Australian Telecommunications Users Group Federation of Australian Commercial Televisions Federation of Australia Radio Broadcasters Regional Television Australia Pty Ltd Australian Direct Marketing Association Department of Consumer Affairs Combined Pensioners Association Country Womens Association of Australia Australian Capital Territory ACROD Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Australian Council of Local Government Disabled Peoples International (Aust.) Paraplegic and Quadriplegic Association National Farmers Federation Australian Information Industry Association ***Australian Deafness Council Australian Chamber of Commerce Queensland Rural Telephone Subscribers Association South Australia ***National Council of Women of Australia Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —by leave-I withdraw the matter of public importance in the name of Senator Chaney set down for debate today. Debate resumed. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(2.01) —Before the debate on the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1988 and the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 was interrupted for Question Time, I outlined the impact of changing technology on the development of the television industry in Australia. In particular I referred to initial developments in networking and the battle for control which developed among the media barons. Remote from all this activity, secure in the belief that ratings were for inferiors, was the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). It was not subject to the whims of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal or to communications legislation, nor did it have to justify itself commercially. The ABC could televise what it liked, wherever and whenever it liked. If, for example, people in Coober Pedy and the west of South Australia had to watch ABC Brisbane instead of programs produced in their own State, or Central Australians had to put up with rugby league instead of Aussie rules, that was too bad. Two sets of rules had developed: one which said that nothing was wrong for a State controlled media body to have a 100 per cent reach and minimal regulation; and another set which said that this was wrong for privately controlled media. Today we have allowed to develop a policy which is not only obsolete and impractical but which also hinders the future development of a free, efficient and high quality broadcasting industry. It is time for a full facelift-not just a nose job. The industry and the public do not need or want bandaid protection. That may have been justified during the years of slow growth and change in the media but, in the blinding light from the technical and social explosions which have occurred recently and to foreshadow the changes that are yet to occur, a new approach is required, one which can offer the industry a stable platform upon which to plan its immediate future, free of doubt and any need for hesitancy. That is why the Government's proposed changes do not go far enough. There is scope for healthy debate as to how far these changes should go. The Opposition has logically engaged in that debate, although this Hawke Labor Government, because of its widely recognised arrogance, for which it has already paid dearly at the polls and for which it will suffer much more, regards any dissenting voice as puritanical heresy. As far as the ABC is concerned, the Liberal and National parties retain a very strong commitment to public broadcasting. As the only existing truly national broadcaster the ABC has many special responsibilities which only it can hope to develop free of many of the natural restraints imposed on commercial broadcasting. However, the ABC's present structure, together with aspects of its management, is inhibiting it from developing its full potential. It requires strong management controls to ensure that the ABC is run on sound commercial principles and able to seek alternative financial support where possible. Corporate sponsorships of programs should be allowed and encouragement should be given to the farming out of program production to the private sector in a manner designed to encourage further development of the media production industry. ABC programs should reflect a balance of political attitudes and a diversity of community opinion. The ABC should be subject to the same standards regarding the broadcasting of blasphemous, indecent or obscene material as the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal applies to commercial broadcasters, thereby eliminating one area of current hypocrisy tolerated by this Labor Government. The ABC needs to improve efficiency in its broadcasting operations, particularly in radio where at present the ABC maintains three distinct operations. This will result in lower costs. In regard to commercial television we still have to adjust industry legislation to changed circumstances and provide a blueprint for the future. Ownership of individual networks means little. The ABC has always been under individual ownership, and throughout their history each commercial network has been dominated and controlled by the influence of a person or a family. Allowing ownership of a complete network would simply tidy up a presently messy situation and allow for more efficient operation of that network. As for the term `reach', it would appear that some Government members confuse potential with fact. Having 100 per cent reach simply means the ability to offer a product or service to everybody. Whether the actual market share is 10 per cent or 100 per cent depends entirely on how much demand there is for the programs offered by any particular network. So what is wrong with 100 per cent reach? There are thousands of precedents in business, including the media and principally the ABC. Is not the only proven way of maintaining standards through competition? As long as ownership does not extend past one network and new entrants are allowed to compete, the industry would be provided with stability for future planning, the opportunity for efficient operation and healthy competition to maintain standards. For the smaller States, huge increases in costs have already led to reductions in current affairs production and most forms of live television. This has been accompanied by a corresponding increase in national current affairs, documentary and soapie production in the eastern States, by the media networks and by independent producers. While this has not in all cases been undesirable, in one regard it has in that this de facto form of network control leaves little opportunity for the development of local media in those smaller States. Networking in this fuller sense would provide the opportunity for controlling diversity of production among the States. Increased competition, monitored and encouraged through the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, would ensure that. Advertising revenue and corporate sponsorship is finite and, in any battle, the smaller States can only win a decreasing slice of the cake. Any comparison with Canada, where the only known study of reach effects has been done, is ludicrous. Not only are the market regions totally different from those in Australian but also some of the key Canadian market areas come under at least fringe influence from the United States of America. Australian communities can best be served by a policy of minimal restriction and healthy competition engendered by appropriate new licences granted on the basis of local need and demand. Senator Messner —Hear, hear! Senator CHAPMAN —I thank Senator Messner. This scenario fits perfectly with the introduction-- Senator Cook —You have your own audience. Senator CHAPMAN —Senator Cook ought to be aware that this scenario fits perfectly with the immediate introduction of pay television, and with the future expansion on the Telecom Australia optical fibre network which will be progressively completed after 1995. Just a month ago, the head of the Broadcasting Tribunal, Ms Deidre O'Connor, told an investigating committee in the other place that she could `see no problem with the licensing of networks' as long as the Tribunal had the power to look at the conduct of the networks. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's problem, she said, was dominance by the three Sydney based networks over local stations-a judgment which sits perfectly with the concern of the coalition about the Government's 75 per cent proposal. The underlying factor is, of course, cost. Reception and quality of reception, more sophisticated and improved forms of transmission, and viable unit costs of receivers have all been good for the public but they carry expensive price tags and the inescapable fact of life in the mass media business today is that only the big blokes can afford to pay the big bills, and if they cannot get the returns for their investments they take Australian media money where it can get results-overseas. A move to just 75 per cent reach may, in the short term, win a few media friends for the Government but it will provide a mere bandaid for the industry and the viewing public. Senator Messner —It doesn't bring any more competition, does it? Senator CHAPMAN —In fact, it will reduce competition. It might win the Government one new friend in the media but that is all; it will not do anything for the Australian public. Senator Maguire —Mr Howard wants 75 per cent. Senator CHAPMAN —Mr Howard wants 100 per cent with new entrants and greater competition. Can honourable senators imagine this Government saying no to Bond Media if a little further down the track another purchase raises the target to 76, 77 or 80 per cent? The only terms under which 75 per cent could possibly be acceptable for a viable industry in the future is if it is accompanied by the removal of barriers to competition. How was this magical figure of 75 per cent reached in the first place if it was not a convenient number to fit a purchase which has already been made, in defiance of existing legislation? So from now on one media baron is to have an advantage over the rest. The others cannot extend their operations into true networks because to do so they would have to exceed this magical new figure pulled out of thin air to please one person. Senator Messner —Who did that? Senator CHAPMAN —This Government. Senator Messner —No, it was Mr Keating, I think. Senator CHAPMAN —Well, he is part of this Government, and so is the Minister particularly responsible for communications. Senator Evans. Christopher Skase has said that the position adopted by the coalition on the issue of ownership is at odds with our commitment to a more market oriented approach to economic and business policy. This demonstrates that Mr Skase, a newcomer to the industry, has considerable lack of understanding of the elements required for a freer market in the context of the industry in which he now finds himself prominent. It is not sufficient to allow broadcasters simply greater access to population if the industry is to develop. This must be accompanied by freedom of access to individuals and companies and by new forms of broadcasting and communication such as pay television and so on. Unless we have both conditions we do not have a freer market. The Government's policy would have the effect of entrenching an oligopoly consisting of three major players-Skase, Bond and Lowy-with one of them having an unfair advantage over the others and with the doors closed to any further competition. This is the very antithesis of a freer market, which requires increased competition. It has been suggested that because the coalition wishes to go further than the Government in allowing audience reach we should accept the Government's 75 per cent proposals for the time being and open up the market to new entrants when we come to office, which will undoubtedly occur at the next election. But to go only part way now would close the door on greater competition in the future because by the time any future action could be taken this oligopoly would be firmly entrenched and too well established for new entrants to break into the industry. Logically then, unless increased reach were linked to allowing new entrants, less competition would result and overall service to the public would deteriorate. Until such time as both requirements are met one can see no logical rationale for lifting the permissible reach limit above 60 per cent-unless one is among the millions of Australians who have come to realise that this Government can be bought. Rules can be changed for one if one is big enough. And what will happen with Australia's 139 radio stations? Luckily for the general public, there are four times as many of them as there are television stations. Unluckily for the industry and the people who work in it, not all of them will survive, certainly not under their current identities. Already satellite connections and electronic placement of local spot advertisements are replacing locally produced programs. Networking in radio is even more inevitable than in the television industry, and the sooner this Government faces the fact that it simply will not be able to stop it from happening the better. Then at least the broadcasting industry as a whole can be given some complete guidelines for the future and, equally as important, can be effectively monitored. To quote that self-proclaimed media luminary, the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans): . . . it is becoming increasingly difficult to live with, in Australia, the no less than seven major Acts, together with a mass of associated regulations and by-laws, that govern electronic communications. It is difficult to see how bending outdated and inadequate rules at whim can be a worthwhile exercise while a simpler, less regulated and more suitable alternative is so obvious. I quote the Minister again, from his media statement of 19 April: The practical effect of this tangle of legislation is to deter the faint-hearted, confuse newcomers and protect incumbents. Apparently Mr Skase is about to be elevated from the standing of confused newcomer to protected incumbent. There can be no doubt that this Government intends Mr Skase to be a protected incumbent. The comments by Mr Skase on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation current affairs program AM yesterday morning revealed this and confirmed that Mr Skase completely misunderstands what constitutes a free market. I quote from the AM transcript: Skase-I'm a free marketeer and a great believer in full access to all markets because in the media in Australia today we've been faced with massive cost pressures over a number of years and I believe at the end of the day whether it's the ABC or commercial television or newspapers we need to be able to aspire to put bigger markets together so that we can reasonably expect to undertake more Australian productions and I have nothing to fear from any expansion of the market providing that those expansion platforms reasonably respect the rights and obligations of those people already in the market. Interviewer-But the proposal to free up things like cable networks and pay TV-Isn't that a more expansive policy than the government's present one? Skase-No, I think that the Minister Gareth Evans, has made it quite clear that they want to review pay and cable television and we certainly are supportive of that. Review is the operative word. It needs to be analysed in a public forum the economic consequences in terms of employment in terms of opportunities for Australian production need to be evaluated. And, as I say, I think there is an opportunity for all parties to come together on a common ground for the finding of a solution in the best interests of the media industry in totality. Quite clearly Mr Skase expects special privileges for those already in the market against any potential new entrants. He wants the entrance of new players delayed. He wants deals done `in the best interests of the media industry'. Note that he says `media industry', not `the Australian people'. All this is the very antithesis of a free market. It is arrant nonsense for Mr Skase to claim to be a free marketeer. A freer market in the television industry requires that anyone who wants to have a go at providing a television service to the Australian community, whether broadcast television, cable television or some other form of pay television, should have the opportunity to do so. Senator Messner —Hear, hear! Senator CHAPMAN —I thank the honourable senator. It is for those potential new service providers to judge the economics and likely profitability of their proposals, not the existing players or the Government in some cosy deal, as Mr Skase appears to want. Replacing the tangle, as the Minister has called it, would be worthwhile if, in addition to simplifying the situation, the policy pursued by the replacement legislation catered to the long term requirements of the industry and the public. It does not. It does not go far enough. If honourable senators do not believe that, they should go and ask the people in Coober Pedy, or for that matter here in Canberra, whether they are happy with the standard of television service they get, and ask the broadcasting industries in the smaller States whether they are happy with the direction in which they are being pushed. It is very interesting to hear Government speakers quoting Press pundits on this issue, as if the print media were expert on the electronic media. It may have been able to lay some claim to this type of credibility once, in the days when the print barons ran all media, but there is very little reason for the print moguls to come out in support of the new breed of electronic magnates-quite the reverse. Would one sign a hire purchase agreement without ensuring that one got a warranty as well? That is why the Opposition is taking the stand it is taking on this legislation. Without some guarantees for the future of the broadcast industry, this legislation boils down to an old Act of convenience. Following the old mates Act, we have the new mates Act. This legislation is before us because it suits both factions of the Labor party. Senator Cook —There are actually three factions in the Labor Party. Senator CHAPMAN —There are two main ones. Concentration of power in a few big business and government hands, as this legislation provides, is the modus operandi of the Labor Right, whose members are committed to the corporate state, consisting of big government, big business and big unions. Members of the Left, no doubt, acquiesce, believing that, if in the future they are able to reclaim their party and pursue their socialist objective, it will be easier to achieve that against a few big businessmen than against a business sector with a broader spread of ownership. This legislation is anathema to Liberals because it entrenches concentration of power in the media industry. Such concentration of power is anathema to liberalism, morally wrong and detrimental to our economy. A Liberal approach requires diversity of ownership and the freedom for anyone who wants to take the risk of establishing a new enterprise and having a go to be able to do so. The Government, with its corporate state mentality, has rejected coalition initiatives with regard to this legislation to achieve diversity by removing barriers to entry to the industry. Those initiatives that we have taken include the following amendment which has been moved by our side: At end of motion add ``, but the Senate expresses its view that all television audience reach restrictions be removed to allow a potential 100 per cent audience reach for all competitors on the condition that: (a) the Government's moratorium on the introduction of pay and cable television be removed; (b) the existing television licensing procedures be substantially streamlined; (c) cross-media rules between pay and cable television and existing free-to-air broadcasters be introduced subject to `grandfathering' of existing holdings; and (d) when the process of aggregation has been completed, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal conduct an inquiry into issuing new television licences in metropolitan markets, subject to a final decision being made by the Government''. I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to accept this amendment, to the advantage of all Australians, because, unless removal of barriers to entry to this important industry is linked to a relaxation of limits on audience reach, an unacceptable concentration of power will occur. The only other way to prevent greater concentration of power is to maintain the status quo. I urge honourable senators to support the Opposition amendment but, should that fail, this legislation must be opposed. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(2.23) —The previous speaker, Senator Chapman, has just referred to the amendment to the motion for the second reading that has been moved by the Opposition. That amendment is an addition to the motion, `That the Bill be now read a second time'. The amendment refers to the requirement of the Opposition, for the Government to gain its support, that the Government's moratorium on the introduction of pay and cable television be removed. A number of points have been made in this debate in the chamber. I want to address that point that is before the Chair. In the report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material, which was brought into Parliament yesterday, reference was made in the majority report to the impact of new technologies. On page 161 of that report it is stated: The Government announced on 2 December 1986 that the introduction of Pay-TV services to the general public will not be permitted for at least four years. A review of Pay-TV will be undertaken during the moratorium and this will take into account, amongst other things, developments in optical fibre and communications infrastructure and the second generation of AUSSAT satellites. In 1986 the then Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, indicated: Pay-TV involves the transmission of programs to domestic premises and, unlike present television services which are free, requires the payment of a fee to the service provider and possession of a decoder to receive programs. The Joint Select Committee on Video Material also referred to other developments: cable and radio subscription television, multipoint distribution services (MDS) and video and audio entertainment and information services (VAEIS). The Committee, in the context of considering those issues, was concerned about questions which were referred to it by this Parliament in respect of censorship and standards. The Committee also received evidence from the then Department of Communications relative to the issue of censorship in the context of these types of services. The Department of Communications, in dealing with the issue of video and audio entertainment information services, is quoted at paragraph 10.17 of the Committee's report as saying: the Minister or some licensing authority would always retain ultimate control over such technologies as they would need to be licensed under some broadcasting or radiocommunications legislation. Moreover, where there is any doubt as to the likely conformity of programming with the censorship standards endorsed by the Federal Government, licenses could be withheld until appropriate State legislation is in place. The words `censorship standards endorsed by the Federal Government' are the nub of my concern and are one of the reasons why I will not be supporting the amendment, though I understand the reason for the amendment being put in place. I am sorry that Senator Gareth Evans is not here because he was responsible for the most recent exercise on censorship. Senator Cook —I am sure that he is listening in his office. Senator HARRADINE —Good. I would just like to go to the point about censorship standards being endorsed by the Federal Government. Of course, censorship standards endorsed by the Federal Government may vary. Senator Evans, for the first time in the history of Australia, legalised the sale, hire and distribution of hard-core pornography. That is not my term; it is the term used by the then Attorney-General, Senator Evans, in the explanatory memorandum to the Classification of Publications Ordinance which was brought into this chamber in 1984. Senator Evans used those words to describe the new X classification. Even though there was an uproar in the community about this classification, it was he who promoted the idea and it was he who said, `Oh, we need to change the name of this classification-change it to ER; it sounds better'. In fact, it was he who at the meeting of Attorneys-General on 26 October 1984 promoted the idea that the X classification should be referred to as ER and that the full details of the material contained in this classification should be hidden from the public. I make the accusation openly and bluntly that this was an attempt to hoodwink the public. Indeed, the document which was presented to that meeting of Attorneys-General referred to the source of this material. Let me remind the chamber that we are talking about X-rated material which the then Attorney-General, Senator Evans, wanted to rename ER and which a minority of members of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material recommended should be classified NVE-non-violent erotica. Going to the source of this material, the Ministers received a document from the Attorney-General's Department which was prepared by the Film Censorship Board. The Board said: Ninety per cent of the hard-core material in Australia and Canada originates from the USA. The Board continued: It should also be noted that information provided by the Canadian police from the Ontario based pornography squad strongly suggests that 90 per cent of the Canadian hard-core market is supplied from the USA. The same applies in Australia. This 90 per cent of the market is wholly controlled in the USA by the Mafia. When I asked in the committee stage for a copy of that information that was supplied to Ministers, the Attorney-General's Department supplied me with a copy. I have it in my hands. Reference to the control by organised crime of the material that is currently annexed was deleted from the document. Here are the two documents. They are exactly the same, except for the piece that has been deleted. In Senator Evans's statement to the Press, that was also deleted. The fact is, as is known fairly broadly, and as I was able to ascertain when I was in the United States last year-and this can be seen from my observations on page 315 of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material-that all this can be proven and shown. If any of the media are interested, I can introduce them to the key people in these investigations in the United States. The comment states: Organised crime is heavily involved in the production of video pornography in the United States. The centre for the production of about 85 per cent of this material is Southern California. Except for a weakness which occurred in the distribution chain following the disappearance in June 1986 of a distribution network enforcer, two East Coast crime families have dominated and continue to dominate the bulk of the pornography trade's distribution in the United States. There follows another paragraph which is not pertinent to this question. The comment continues: As has been indicated in evidence to the Committee, the United States is the main source of the supply of video pornography including that which receives the X classification from the Film Censorship Board. This is still the case since the new ER guidelines for the X category came into effect following the meeting of Attorneys-General in October 1984 because, as conceded in Attorney-General Department's evidence to the Committee- it had dragged out of the Attorney-General's Department in questioning from me- 95 per cent of the pre-October 1984 X material is still included in the new ER guidelines. It is proposed by the minority of the Committee that all this material-and one should remember its source-should go into the new NVE category. In questioning the Government's censorship policies, the majority of the Committee-and this is where the Press has got it all wrong-had this to say about that minority proposal: We, the majority of the Committee, strongly oppose that proposition. It would entrench X-rated video pornography described officially as `hard core pornography' . . . in the community under the guise of the misleading title NVE-Non-violent erotica. Non-violent it may be, but erotica it cannot be claimed to be. Senator Gareth Evans —Why not? Senator HARRADINE —I really hoped that Senator Evans would ask: Why not? It was nice of him to ask that. This particular material was described by Senator Evans in his explanatory memorandum to the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance as `hard core pornography'. Those are not my words; they are the words of Senator Evans. If he says that hard core pornography is erotica, then I do not know the meaning of either term. To describe it as erotica is an attempt to hoodwink the public and the Parliament. The material contains explicit depictions of sexual acts, including anal sex. That is an interesting point. Senator Evans tried to cover that up from the public as well. The original document that was placed by the Film Censorship Board before the Attorneys-General refers to what is contained in X-rated material. The list includes anal sex, multi-partners sex, and all the rest. But what did the Minister at the table, Senator Evans, do when he issued his Press statement? His statement contained none of that. All it contained was this bland statement which has been repeated often: All of this material includes explicit depictions of sexual acts involving adults but does not include any depictions suggesting coercion or non-consent of any kind. There is no detailed material as to what is included. It was an attempt to hoodwink the people. Although physically non-violent, the bulk of the X-rated material-which the minority report and Senator Evans want to rename R or NVE-treats women as sexual commodities to arouse the sexual desires of its target audience, and women are typically depicted as ever ready for any opportunity for sexual activity. That is frequently depicted in the group scenes of diverse sexual activity. It was not wrong for the media to have taken at face value the statement that came out yesterday from the Chairman of the Committee, but there was a natural misunderstanding on its part that he was talking on behalf of the Committee as a whole. In fact, he was a signatory to the minority report. What he suggested about the Committee-that it found that claims of harm from viewing sexually explicit videos were not substantiated-was wrong. The majority of members of the Committee found that there was not only harm in watching violent video material but also harm resulting from habitual viewing of sexually explicit pornographic videos without violent content. A substantial volume of evidence was received on that aspect. Bearing in mind that the material depicts women in general as being highly promiscuous and available, that material, according to the findings of quite a number of researchers, mediates in the mind of the habitual viewer a perception of women as being highly promiscuous and available, and therefore more to blame if they become the victims of rape. As well, it produces a callous attitude towards women and a disregard for female sexual autonomy and self-determination. If that is what this Government's censorship policy is doing-- Senator Gareth Evans —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: Fascinating as all this may be, I think Senator Harradine would have to acknowledge, after 20 minutes, that what he is saying bears only the most marginal relationship to the legislation before us. It is tenuously erected on the foundation of a second reading motion amendment which, in turn, makes reference to pay television and does not deal with the subject of pornography at all. I ask that you direct Senator Harradine's attention to the subject matter of the debate and ask him to be relevant to it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —I uphold the point of order. We have before us the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1988 and-- Senator HARRADINE —On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: I would have thought you would give me an opportunity to speak to the point of order before you attempted to rule on it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You have the opportunity to speak to the point of order now. Senator HARRADINE —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I hope that you will listen very carefully to what I have to say about it. Senator Gareth Evans —You are well prepared on it. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, I am. I have thought about it very carefully. There is a second reading motion amendment which says that the Government's moratorium on the introduction of pay and cable television should be removed. I oppose that amendment. I believe that, if the moratorium were lifted at this time, what has been described by the Department of Transport and Communications may well come into effect. That is why I referred to the Committee on Video Material, which said: Moreover, where there is any doubt as to the likely conformity of programming with the censorship standards endorsed by the Federal Government, licences could be withheld until appropriate State legislation is in place. I am addressing the Government's current censorship standards. If I cannot address those, I do not know who could have been in order in this debate if the amendment to the second reading motion were ruled in order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I remind the Senate that we are having a cognate debate on the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill and the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). The amendment that has been moved has within it reference to a moratorium on the introduction of pay and cable television. I have listened carefully to what Senator Harradine has said. The reason I uphold Senator Evans's point of order is that the Standing Orders require that a debate be relevant to the Bill and amendments before the Senate. I will allow Senator Harradine to continue, but I ask him to keep fully in mind the Standing Orders requirement that his remarks be addressed to the matters before the Senate. Senator HARRADINE —I will certainly observe your ruling, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will return to the whole aspect of broadcasting and television legislation, which has had a great run around the course at this time. One of the major reasons I have said what I have thus far is that, unfortunately, I do not trust the Minister. No, that is wrong; I do trust him. It is not that I do not trust the Minister personally; I just do not have faith in the Minister being either able to, or desirous of, fully carrying out the undertaking that was given to me by him on behalf of the Government the last time this issue was raised in the Parliament. Senator Haines —I think your lack of confidence is probably well founded. Senator HARRADINE —I hope it is not, but three specific undertakings were given. Mr Acting Deputy President, I say to you and to the Senate as a whole that I do not wish to reflect on Senator Evans. I respect him, but I do not believe that we are on the same wavelength. Senator Gareth Evans —I think that is a pretty fair approximation of the truth. Senator HARRADINE —Notwithstanding that, what I am trying to get through to the Minister is the need to ensure the undertakings that were given on that famous occasion, on 2 June 1987, when he stated: Finally, Senator Harradine has raised two matters with the Government. The first is the issue of penalties available to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on breach of program or advertising standards. The second undertaking, to which I have already referred, was on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). On both those issues the Minister placed on record the undertaking given by the Government. I am conscious of the fact that certain steps have been taken and that there is likely to be a document emanating from the Department in respect of one aspect. I understood that this issue was going to be the subject of urgent consideration by the Government in the hope that there would be some legislation in the autumn session. I still hope that is the case. In respect of the ABC-I think Senator Grant Chapman also raised this matter-this matter is of great importance to all honourable senators. The ABC is getting away with blue murder. It is a law unto itself. I will not go into examples, Mr Acting Deputy President, because you might rule me out of order. I am not sure whether that is appropriate here. Suffice it to say that I believe I have made the point that I am watching very carefully-I am not the only one; a vast number of other people are also watching this very carefully-to see when the Government will honour its undertakings. Those undertakings were given-not only to me but also to the whole Senate on that occasion. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(2.48) —Let me at the outset resist the temptation which was indulged in by Senator Harradine to convert this debate about broadcasting ownership and control into one about censorship in general and pornographic videos in particular. May I say for the record on my own behalf and not that of the Government that my credo on the matter of private access by adults to video material is not quite on the same wavelength as that of Senator Harradine, as he quite rightly predicted. It could most simply be expressed, I suppose, in the expression `more sex and less violence'. I applaud the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material of a category of non-violent erotica which recognises a reasonable principle reality, but that is a debate for another occasion. I would be delighted to engage in it-the debate I mean-with Senator Harradine on that occasion. The Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill which is now before us is a very large, technically complex and, in fact, utterly uncontroversial measure, implementing radio cross-media rules and some technical cleaning up of aggregation policies which were announced last year. Nobody has expressed any opposition to the Bill itself now before us, any more than they have expressed opposition to the cognate amending Bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), which cleans up some minor policy matters in the radio communications and telecommunications area. What has, of course, been engaging everyone's attention over the last few days is a legislative proposal which is not in fact in the actual Bill before us, but which is, of course, proposed to be moved at the committee stage of the debate. It is a bit like the Opposition's media policy itself, the old rhyme: Yesterday, upon a stair I met a man who wasn't there, He wasn't there again today, I do so wish he'd go away. No doubt the Opposition wishes, after the events of the last few days, that the whole issue of media ownership would go away. Its performance in getting its act together over the last week has been, as everyone in the media industry and the community at large has been obliged to acknowledge, a comprehensive debacle and one, I would have to say, beyond the Government's wildest dreams. I will not burden the Senate or poor old Senator Messner with a recitation of editorials that have been written in the last few days. I have a splendid collection and I might sent him a framed copy in due course just to remind him of how bad things can get in the political process. Senator Messner —I think you might remember similar events. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do indeed. I feel for Senator Messner; I genuinely do. I feel sorry for him because being rolled in the way he has been, so comprehensively and so often, is not a happy experience. We have had to witness something like eight major meetings-reported meetings that is, because God knows how many unreported ones there have been-over the last seven days. It began with a shadow Cabinet meeting last week, a couple of full-scale party meetings and yet another crisis shadow Cabinet meeting last night, with Mr Howard and his poor, hapless sidekick Senator Messner, like Don Quixote and Sancho Panza lumbering along in the rear, being rolled between them more often than an Eskimo's kayak. That is the situation we have been obliged to witness. It has not been a happy picture. As I say, I do feel sorry for Senator Messner. The evolution of the Opposition's response through successive stages has been wondrous to behold. It reminds me a little of the old lawyer's story about defending the man who was charged with breaking a window. The first line of defence was, `room `ad no window'; the second line, `the window wasn't broken'; the third line, `if it was broken, I didn't do it'; and the fourth line, `if I did do it, well it was an accident'. The truth of the matter is that I do not know whether it was by accident or design, but the glorious inconsistency of the sequence of propositions that has emerged from the Opposition has been such as obviously to justify the kind of Press the Opposition has had over the last week. Of course, the greatest inconsistency of all is involved in the final position that the Opposition adopted a day or so ago, after a week of agony of the kind I have described, namely a position in the following terms: `We do support 100 per cent maximum audience reach, but we don't support moving from 60 to 75 per cent'. What we have here is what I would describe as a fascinating new phenomenon which is really going to intrigue mathematicians. Until now it has been universally accepted that 75 is on the way from 60 to 100-it is 15 steps down the track, with another 25 to go. But the Opposition has now come up with a proposition that 75 is not on the way from 60 to 100. Senator Powell —It is new maths. Senator GARETH EVANS —That really is a breakthrough for modern science. Senator Powell is right. What we are seeing this week is the birth of a new mathematical phenomenon; the birth of what I have described as non-linear arithmetic. I think that that is a very considerable triumph for the Opposition and one that ought not to go unremarked on an occasion such as this. Of course, the community has had great difficulty, as has had the Government, in knowing what to make of all this-like Neil Brown, the former communications Minister, who has made clear very publicly that he thought 75 per cent was a step in the right direction which ought to be supported. But then again, clear thinking has not been part of the Opposition's armoury in recent days. I think that one of the better demonstrations of that occurred in the debate in the House of Representatives yesterday when at one point Mr Howard triumphantly declared, `The truth is far from reality'. That seems to encapsulate the quality of the Opposition's approach to this issue throughout. The only sense that anyone can begin to make, I suppose, of the Opposition's position as articulated-if that is the right word-or spelt out in the second reading amendment now before us is that the Opposition does not think the time is ripe now to move down the particular path of relaxation of the ownership and control limits. It is a bit like St Augustine-and I put this reference in specifically for Senator Harradine's benefit-who said, `Lord, make me chaste, but not yet'. Actually, the full text of that quote, as Senator Harradine would no doubt recall, is, `Lord, give me chastity and continence, but not yet'. I think some of the nervousness and anxiety which has been evident in the Opposition ranks suggests that the full content of that quote might not be totally inappropriate. Be that as it may, why does not the Opposition think it is time to be chaste? Why does not the Opposition think it is time to make some substantial move down the deregulatory track that it says it is passionately attached to? The answer seems to lie in the four conditions that are attached to the second reading amendment that is before the chamber at the moment. For the record I ought to quickly describe to the Senate the Government's reaction to each of those four conditions. The first one is that the Government's moratorium on the introduction of pay and cable television be removed. As I have already said publicly, the Government will not consider removing the moratorium on the introduction of pay television without first going through the very extensive review process which I outlined in my announcement just last week, on 19 April. I made the announcement quite before any suggestion was to emerge from the Opposition side that this was a matter of moment so far as it was concerned. It was a natural culmination of some internal deliberation that I had been giving to this matter, consideration of the need for a policy review if we were to have a credible and sensible policy in place in time to introduce pay television, if that was the final decision at the time of the moratorium's expiry or possibly before if that proved to be the outcome of the policy process. I will not go on at length about the pay television policy review that I announced last week, but I think it might be helpful if I were to seek leave to incorporate in Hansard at this point the full text of that statement, with its attachments, which indicates the complexity of the matters that have to be resolved, the degrees of difficulty that are involved and why we regard this as not a simple matter which would be acceded to, even in principle, overnight. I seek leave accordingly. Leave granted. The statement and attachments read as follows- The possible introduction of subscription of ``pay'' television after the current statutory moratorium expires in September 1990 will be the subject of a government policy review. The two-stage review (one of a number of major reappraisals of communications policy and legislation now occurring within my portfolio) will involve: * first, the preparation and publication later this year of a policy options paper by a Departmental review team; and * secondly, a period of several months for public comment and consultation (including possible consideration by a Parliamentary Committee) before a final Government decision is made. Pay television involves adding to the existing range of television services by enabling the provision of television programs to the general public for a fee. Such services have been available for many years in the United States and more recently have become popular in other countries, notably in Europe. Charges vary according to the number of channels which subscribers choose to take and are usually arranged so that they choose one or more `tiers' of programs, according to their individual tastes. Feature films and sports coverage are typical program offerings. The review will examine, among other things: * matters that need to be taken into account in deciding whether to introduce pay TV services; * the possible number and range of pay television services that could be provided; * the likely effects of the introduction of pay television upon the existing broadcasting and communications systems; * whether licensees should be subject to regulatory requirements such as limits on ownership and control, cross-media ownership, and foreign ownership; * likely effects on the production in Australia of films and television programs; * the scope for participation by Australian industry in the provision, manufacture, installation and servicing of equipment; and * an appropriate timetable for the possible introduction of pay TV. (Detailed terms of reference are set out in Attachment A). National distribution of pay television services may be via the satellite system or Telecom bearers; terrestrial delivery (re-transmission) may be through broadcasting frequencies (encoded UHF or VHF), Multipoint Distribution Systems (MDS), cable (optical fibre or coaxial), or any combination of these: see Attachment B for details. It is also possible, in the case of remote or lightly populated areas, to use signals straight from the satellite (direct broadcasting). Accompanying this announcement, I have also today issued a statement setting out a draft Band Plan for the use of Multipoint Distribution Systems (MDS), which have been the subject of considerable interest in recent years by, among others, those interested in providing pay TV services. As that statement explains in detail, some MDS frequencies will be kept in reserve for possible use as pay TV translators after 1990. It is not envisaged that those MDS bands which will be the subject of possible allocation for pay TV purposes after 1990 would be used for primary pay TV delivery systems: the more likely option in this respect is, in the first instance, a UHF broadcasting channel, and ultimately, optical fibre cable. * * * * * * Attachments A-Terms of Reference for Pay TV Policy Review B-Diagrams Illustrating Various Transmission Systems Associated with Pay TV. B1-Summary of Technical Options for Distribution and Delivery B2-Typical Distribution Using MDS B3-Distribution Using a Mixture of Transmission Systems C-Glossary of MDS/Pay TV Related Terms For further information Department: Peter Westerway-062 64 4601 Minister's Office: Mick Trimmer-062 72 7260 John Stanton-062 72 7301 Attachment A 1. On 2 September 1986 the then Minister for Communications announced a four year moratorium on pay television services (pay TV), which was later embodied in the Radiocommunications Act 1983*. The moratorium can be revoked by Proclamation after 1 September 1990. 2. The Minister for Transport and Communications has now decided to initiate a review by his Department to identify future options for pay TV policy. 3. Having regard both to the Government's broadcasting policy objectives and to its general desire to increase the competitiveness of Australian industry, the review is to examine: a) matters that need to be taken into account in deciding whether to introduce pay TV services; *The Act prevents the Minister from granting licences related to `a domestic pay-television agreement'. A pay television agreement is defined in S24A of the Act as: ``an agreement under which a television receiver in the possession, or under the control, of a person is, for a consideration, to be enabled (whether or not by the modification or adaption of the television receiver) to receive television programs to be transmitted by a radiocommunications transmitter operated by or on behalf of another person (whether or not a party to the agreement)''. A domestic pay television agreement is defined as: ``a pay-television agreement the terms of which permit, or do not preclude, the use of a television receiver to which the agreement relates in domestic premises''. b) the number and range of services that could be provided; c) likely effects of the introduction of pay TV services on: (i) the broadcasting and telecommunications systems; (ii) the production in Australia of films and television programs; and (iii) the provision of Video and Audio Entertainment and Information Services (VAEIS); d) whether licensees of pay TV delivery systems or services should be subject to regulatory requirements such as limits on: * ownership and control interests; * cross-media ownership; * foreign ownership; e) whether licensees of pay TV services should be subject to standards relating to the Australian content of programs or other special requirements; f) copyright and related issues; g) the means by which pay TV and associated services might operate, including transmission systems; h) the scope for participation by Australian industry in the provision, manufacture, installation and servicing of equipment; i) related matters referred by the Minister. 4. The review should also indicate an appropriate timetable for possible introduction of a pay TV service or services, having regard to relevant technology, including optical fibre and satellite technology, and existing plans for development or transmission systems in Australia. 5. The review will not recommend options or argue for particular policies, but will identify the implications of adopting particular proposals for Government policy; it will not act as an inquiry or seek submissions from interested parties. 6. The review will report to the Minister for Transport and Communications in approximately 3 months. The Minister will publish the report and allow a period of several months for public comment and consultation before making recommendations to the Government. Attachment B1 Attachment C coaxial cable Concentric cable able to carry signals of higher frequencies and wider bandwidth than wire. optical fibre cable Cable made of one or more strands of optical fibre each strand able to carry many more signals of wider bandwidth than coaxial cable. VHF/UHF Very High Frequency/Ultra High Frequency-frequencies used for terrestrial transmission of television. MDS Multipoint Distribution Systems. Point to multipoint services which utilise frequencies which are much higher than television broadcast frequencies. translator Remote transmitter which re-broadcasts the signal of the main transmitter to extend coverage or to fill in pockets of poor reception. Senator GARETH EVANS —I thank the Senate. The only point of all that which I repeat is that no responsible government could make a major national resource allocation decision of this kind overnight. We certainly will not be doing so to save Mr Howard's face or that of the Opposition. That review of pay television that is now under way will encompass the question of cross-media limitations, which is the subject of paragraph (c), the third condition of the Opposition's second reading amendment. Again, this is a complex question which is simply impossible to resolve on the run. As I said publicly the other day, very different considerations might well apply, for example, to a pay television operation based on first run movies on the one hand, and on the other hand a pay television operation whose program format covered material now going free to air. Considerations about cross-media principles may be very different in just those two situations, and there are many others that can be contemplated. Another of the Opposition's conditions-that which appears in paragraph (b)-is that the existing television licensing procedures be substantially streamlined. There may be a case for doing just that, but that is a matter which is already under very close and active review both within my Department and by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure. The Government takes the point-I think the Senate will acknowledge, not unreasonably-that it would be premature to jump to any conclusions on this matter at this stage. The final condition that is proposed is that the Government immediately involve itself, through the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, in an inquiry into the viability and the desirability of new television licences in metropolitan markets, the idea being that this is the avenue through which a mass of new players can get into the scene and create a more diverse and competitive television environment of the kind that is said to be so dear to the Opposition's heart-or at least the hearts of that small number of Opposition members who constituted the majority in at least one of the relevant deliberations in the Opposition ranks over the last week. The points that can be made about this are essentially the ones that I made-at some length, I acknowledge-in this chamber at Question Time earlier this week. There are all sorts of difficulties with the concept of a fourth commercial channel in any of the metropolitan markets in Australia, not just now but for the foreseeable future. The basic difficulty is imagining how, given the available and prospective revenue pool likely to be available, a fourth channel could possibly be viable or, if it were viable, the implications of that for the other players in the game. I make the point not with regard to any particular affection for preserving the profitability of the existing players. That is not the point. The point is the quality of the television programming and production available for television viewers in this country. If we dilute the available revenue to the extent that is necessarily implied with the introduction of a fourth channel, we are surely guaranteeing that the present commercial television programming, which many people do not regard as optimal, really will become the slops. The problem of dumped product, as it is described, is already with us because of the escalating costs of acquiring programs for a whole variety of reasons, and we can imagine an environment which would not be healthy at all in that respect with the viability of the existing stations being put at risk on the scale that is contemplated. I make the point, however, that it is not as though we have anything to be defensive about in terms of the competitive nature of the present commercial television environment. By any international standard-and I spelt out a whole series of comparisons in Question Time the other day which I will not stop now to repeat-we are extraordinarily well served by our three commercial networks, certainly around the metropolitan areas at the moment, and, if the Opposition policy does not prevail, very soon around non-metropolitan Australia, as well as the ABC and the Special Broadcasting Service programs. That situation compares enormously favourably with the situation in countries not only of our own size or smaller but also in a great many countries that are very much larger. So the truth of the matter is that the metropolitan commercial market is already diverse, it is already competitive. The Opposition knows that and its proposition in this respect, in paragraph (d), is no more than a blatant face-saver for Mr Howard which we have found very unimpressive and have not been attracted to. Why, then, is the Government making the case in the way it has for the change to 75 per cent of audience reach for each of the commercial television networks? Why are we pursuing this matter, which I will formally move for in a few minutes time during the committee stage? The answer is pretty straightforward. It is a proposal that was carefully crafted in the context of the whole comprehensive new broadcasting and cross-media policy that we have been introducing over the course of the last 18 months. It is a proposition that came to fruition and was argued out publicly in the middle of last year, and it is a proposition we have adhered to throughout with total consistency. The 75 per cent proposition sets a limit which of course is a compromise, but a compromise that makes sense. It is a figure high enough to enable the capital cities and some additional aggregated areas to constitute a sound economic base for the major network players while at the same time still low enough to allow room-that is to say, by the remaining 25 per cent of the audience population in each case-for smaller players to maintain their role especially in regional areas. The other great advantage of the 75 per cent figure in the present communications environment is that quite apart from its utility in enabling a strong financial economic base to be built, which in turn is relevant from the point of view of production values and the ability to sustain production in smaller capital cities and so on, it removes barriers that now exist to the process of aggregation occurring at a faster rate in Queensland and in New South Wales. That is, it removes a barrier to giving country viewers what they unquestionably want; namely, three commercial channels to look at and not just one with composite programming of an often erratic and idiosyncratic kind, which is the situation at the moment. There are barriers in the way of the Northern Star company here in Canberra spending the money, engaging in the investment, accelerating the process to get aggregation into the Orange-Wagga-Canberra-Wollongong area of southern New South Wales. There are barriers in the way of the Bond company in particular in north Queensland putting its resources into an accelerated achievement of aggregation in Queensland. The barriers simply are that as the rule now stands the population increase that arithmetically goes with the achievement of that aggregation means that they will exceed the present 60 per cent limit in each case and will be required to divest significant financial interests. Under those circumstances, there is simply no incentive for any commercial organisation to act in any speedier way than it has to as a matter of strict legal obligation. That translates through into a situation in which for most of the four million non-metropolitan viewers in this country who presently have access to only one television channel and who are very keenly looking forward to getting access in each case to three television channels, the result of the present rule would be that they would not be able to get that access as fast as would otherwise be the case, as a result of the dog in the manger attitude that has been taken by the Opposition. In particular, that attitude was articulated by Mr Sinclair just a couple of mornings ago when he indicated that he either did not understand the issue or did not care. Either way, that is totally indefensible for someone who purports to make a political life out of representing the interests of non-metropolitan viewers. The final thing I want to say goes right back to the heart of the logic, or rather the illogic, of the Opposition's position. If Mr Howard says that he and the Opposition parties have no intellectual problem or problem in principle with the 100 per cent audience reach rule, if they obviously accept as they do in getting to that point all the logic that underlies that high percentage figure, about economies of scale and about the capacity to cross-subsidise, Mr Howard and the Opposition parties should have no problem at all in accepting a figure which is along the way towards the achievement of what they regard as the ideal. If they support 100 per cent, they ought in logic, in good conscience and out of what is left of their political wisdom, to support a proposition of 75 per cent. The Government will accordingly expect Opposition support for the 75 per cent amendment which I shall be moving in the committee stage. I will expect it in one sense; I will not expect it in another. The Opposition has its last opportunity to restore just a tiny bit of the credibility which it has been losing very quickly over the last week. With all the grace we can muster, we offer this opportunity on a plate to the Opposition for the last time to get its house back in order as it wipes down the tyre marks that are all over its body. With those remarks, I commend the Bills to the Senate. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Messner's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Alston, R. K. R. Knowles, S. C.Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Patterson, K. C. L.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Calvert, P. H. Stone, J. O.Chaney, F. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Chapman, H. G. P. Teague, B. C.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Vanstone, A. E.Durack, P. D. Walters, M. S.Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W.Hill, R. M. Aulich, T. G. Harradine, B.Beahan. M. E. Jenkins, J. A.Black, J. R. McLean, P. A.Bolkus, N. McMullan, R. F.Burns, B. R. Macklin, M. J.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R.Coates, J. Morris, J. J.Collins, R. L. Powell, J. F.Colston, M. A. (Teller) Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M.Cooney, B. C. Sanders, N. K.Coulter, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Crowley, R. A. Sibraa, K. W.Devereux, J. R. Tate, M. C.Devlin, A. R. Walsh, P. A.Evans, Gareth Wood W. R.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O.Haines, J. MacGibbon, D. J. Foreman, D. J.Sheil, G. McKiernan, J. P.Short, J. R. Jones, G. N.McGauran, J. J. Gietzelt, A. TNewman, J. M. Button, J. N.Parer, W. R. Richardson, G. F. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In Committee The Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(3.17) —Mr Chairman, I suggest that it would suit the convenience of the Committee-and it has been discussed among the Australian Democrats, the Opposition and us-that we proceed on the following basis: That the first item put is what I might describe as the Government's formal amendments, which will be put together; secondly, moving the Government amendment designed to increase the audience reach limit to 75 per cent and that that be debated at the same time as the Australian Democrats' amendment subsequently put to it, relating to that same issue of audience reach; thirdly, in the event it becomes necessary, we move the Government amendment relating to grandfathering the aggregation increases; and, finally, we put the bundle of Democrat amendments relating to the prior approval issue. I suggest that that would suit the convenience of the Committee as a way of bringing the issues together. The CHAIRMAN —That seems logical. There being no objection, it is so ordered. Before we proceed in that way, I should say for the Minister's benefit-and I hope he will pass this on to the people who draft the amendments-that it is very confusing to have three different amendments No. (1) issued in the Government's name with no identification. Government amendments should be either numbered consecutively or identified in some way. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(3.18) —I acknowledge the point, Mr Chairman, but compared with the confusion we have been subjected to in the last week by your Party, our sins of commission pale into insignificance. The CHAIRMAN —That is not a reason for compounding the confusion. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr Chairman, might I do one other formal thing? I table supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the amendments and the new clause to be moved by the Government. The first batch of Government amendments is purely formal. The batch begins with amendment (1)-`Page 19, clause 4, line 27', in case anyone should be moved to look at it. It is a minor amendment of proposed new section 89x and related matters. Proposed new section 89x consolidates existing provisions in the Act dealing with the supply of ownership and control information to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The proposed amendment of 89x is in response to concerns expressed by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in regard to the apparent strict liability for offences against the section. The amendment is designed to ensure that no offence is committed where a person inadvertently provides false or misleading information to the Tribunal. The CHAIRMAN —Is leave granted for Senator Evans to move the amendments, as described, together. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I move: (1) Page 19, clause 4, line 27, leave out ``that'', insert ``where the person knows that, or is recklessly indifferent to whether or not, the information or document''. (2) Page 29, clause 13, at the end of proposed section 92za add the following subsections: `` `(8) For the purposes of the application of sections 92zd and 92ze: (a) subsections 91aad (8) and (9) shall be disregarded; and (b) where, after the grant of a licence, the first notice under section 91aad in relation to the population of the service area of the licence is published, the notice shall, in so far as it relates to the licence, be taken to have been published at the time of the grant of the licence. `(9) For the purposes of paragraphs 92zi (3) (a), (c) and (e) and 92zj (3) (a), subsection 89s (8) shall be disregarded. `(10) For the purposes of paragraphs 92zk (2) (c), (d) and (e) and 92zl (2) (h), subsection 89t (10) shall be disregarded.''. (3) Page 71, Schedule 1, after the amendment of paragraph 92d (4) (a) of the Principal Act, insert the following item: ``Subsection 92f (8a): Omit `92b', substitute `89k'.'' Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.21) —The Opposition has no objection to these amendments. Amendments agreed to. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(3.22) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 1, clause 2, line 8, after ``9'' insert ``, 9a''. (2) Page 23, clause 9, lines 20 and 21, leave out ``Section 92 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after subsection (4a) the following subsection:'', insert the following: ``Section 92 of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by omitting from paragraph (1) (a) `60%' and substituting `75%'; (b) by inserting after subsection (4a) the following subsection:''. (3) Page 23, after clause 9 insert the following new clause: Directors ``9a. Section 92c of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from subsection (1) `60%' and substituting `75%'.''. This is the group of amendments the effect of which is to increase the permissible audience reach from 60 to 75 per cent. It is a matter about which we have been arguing publicly and privately in various forums over the last week. I referred to the arguments in my second reading reply. As much as I would like to repeat them, given the hour, I will not. I just commend the amendments to the Committee and hope that there is a last minute burst of rationality on the part of the Opposition. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.22) —The Opposition will not be agreeing to these amendments. Senator Gareth Evans —Go on! Senator MESSNER —I was invited by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) to say a few words. Consequently, I think we should make our position absolutely clear. Notwithstanding all of the reasons that have been given in the past on this matter, I just want to say one thing. The simple reason why we cannot accept the Government's amendments is that the move towards 75 per cent which the Government is proposing does not carry with it an obligation to increase competition in the industry. That is the essential point that the Government will not recognise. We will stick at 60 per cent until the Government is prepared to adopt the in-principle amendments that we have put down. Senator Schacht —Sixty is closer to 100? Senator MESSNER —That is correct-with conditions of more competition. Maybe the honourable senator will have an opportunity to vote on that sooner rather than later. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.23) —I wish to move an amendment to the Government's amendments. I move: Leave out `75%' (wherever occurring), insert `43%'. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.23) —We in the Opposition will not be supporting the Democrats' amendment, for the converse reasons. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.24) —I am very sorry that Senator McMullan has just left the chamber, because there are a couple of points which I think need clarifying in relation to my amendment to the Government's amendments, my amendment being that the audience reach should be set at 43 per cent. In his contribution to the second reading debate, Senator McMullan referred to 43 per cent being the same as the two-station rule. I believe that at a later point in his speech he moved somewhat, at my insistence by interjection, to admitting that in fact it is not really the same; but then, further on in his speech, he moved again by saying that really the effect is the same. I think we need to make the position quite clear, especially as the Government has argued that its 75 per cent proposal, which I am proposing now to amend, is based on the fact that the current 60 per cent level is one out of which media proprietors can grow and, therefore, we need 75 per cent. If the argument that 60 per cent has to go because that level can be grown out of, surely the only level that ought to be set is in fact the Opposition's preferred level of 100 per cent. That appears to me to be the only one which could not possibly, in all logic, be grown out of. The Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) has, of course, made great moment of some leaps of mathematical logic that have been made by the Opposition in this debate. I wanted to bring out the point that if the reason for going to 75 per cent and moving from 60 per cent is so that the figure cannot be grown out of, that is not logical and the Government should be supporting the Opposition's 100 per cent rule. Frankly, I think that is where the Government would like to end up anyway. In a sense the 43 per cent can be seen as an arbitrary figure. However, it is a figure, as Senator McMullan and others have pointed out, which represents the Melbourne-Sydney axis. But in arguing for my amendment it is important to point out that, although under the two-station rule the Sydney-Melbourne axis was dominant and could not be challenged by any other media owners-who within the two-station rule were bound to be much smaller voices in the whole networking arrangements which at that stage, and as the Democrats would have it at a future stage, should be by affiliation and not by ownership-currently, if we go to 43 per cent, having dispensed with the two-station rule, we would have the historic situation that for the first time in the history of Australian television the Melbourne-Sydney axis would be in the minority. All honourable senators in this place who represent the smaller States, who represent country viewers and regional areas, should take that into consideration in looking at this amendment. If those honourable senators do not support this amendment, they will lose the opportunity for the first time in the history of Australian television to outvote Sydney and Melbourne in any negotiations regarding television programming and production. That is something which seems to have escaped the minds of those people. Senator Schacht —You don't understand networking. Senator POWELL —Senator Schacht talks about understanding networking. I have been speaking with some of the people who are now involved, even with the 60 per cent rule, in negotiations on networking with the major network owners. It is an interesting process, it is one which I do understand quite well and one with which I have been familiar for some time. It boils down to the fact that the one who has the biggest stake has the biggest say, and the bigger the stake, the bigger the say. That is one of the reasons why the Democrats oppose the Government's amendment. To give three owners a 75 per cent figure is to give them total dominance. The Minister in summing up said he believed that 75 per cent is still low enough to allow room for smaller players to maintain their role, or words to that effect. It certainly is-and it is that with which the Democrats argue. The role of the smaller players is utterly insignificant and impotent against the power and the might of those three proprietors who own the networks and who then have the total say. Already the Ten network is dictating to the smaller regional owners who are negotiating networking arrangements the amount of programming which they must take in order to be part of that networking arrangement. I am told that currently the Nine network is insisting on a fairly high proportion of localism. I welcome that and it should be on the record, but the question is how long it will last. As for the Seven network, it does not quite know where it is at the moment. I remind the Senate that should this amendment go through, the consequent amendments would naturally involve divestment. Divestment would have to take place since all the major proprietors are well and truly over 43 per cent. I urge the Senate not to be squeamish about divestment if it should pass this amendment. There is ample precedent for support of divestment. It is a process which the United States Federal Communications Commission has used, particularly in relation to media ownership questions. I also remind the Senate that both Mr Keating and Mr Mick Young have in the past advocated divestment in the context of media ownership-Mr Keating back in the seventies in the luxury of opposition. Senator Puplick, just to be even-handed about all of this, said last year in the report of the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation, `I believe that a policy of divestment should be put in place'. So I do not think that we should be squeamish about the divestment issue. The Minister's argument that aggregation must necessarily be delayed by this process that is taking place in the Senate today, either by the rejection of the amendment that is before us or a later amendment on grandfathering, is an argument which must draw some comment. In relation to the Canberra television channel, the fact is that when the current owner purchased it, the 60 per cent figure was in place. Aggregation was clearly on the agenda. Nobody has forced the media proprietors to take themselves to the brink of 60 per cent when aggregation was well and truly on the political agenda. There is no more reason to weep tears of blood over the fact that Capital 7 may have to be sold than there is to weep tears of blood for Christopher Skase-the bull in the china shop around here in the last couple of weeks-who may have to sell some of his recent acquisitions. I would like to place on the record the fact that I think that Christopher Skase has done us all a great service by that bull in the china shop exercise which has led to the Minister's amendment which I am seeking to amend. My belief is that we were well on the way to considering it in any case. The Opposition would dearly like it to have slipped through very quietly, but there is no way that the Australian Democrats, being the only opponents in that scenario, could possibly have got this issue on the front pages without the help of Mr Christopher Skase. As I have outlined in the second reading debate and again now, the Democrats believe quite strongly that the only thing we can do to achieve what both the Government and the Opposition say they want in terms of increasing the number of players and increasing diversity in television is to reduce the limit, to let in more players with just as much strength as the Melbourne-Sydney axis and who will have the opportunity to provide diversity in television for all Australians, including those in regional areas. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(3.33) —There is not much that I can say about Senator Powell's comments. Let me content myself simply by making the observation that 43 per cent is not a percentage that is on the wavelength of this generation at the moment, in terms of the way in which the debate has proceeded publicly. It is not a figure which is in the interests of the television viewers of this country who want better quality commercial television faster than will be the case if the percentage was as small as that. Accordingly we reject the amendment. The CHAIRMAN —The Committee is considering the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill, to which Senator Evans has moved together, by leave, three amendments-one to clause 9, one to insert new clause 9a and a consequential amendment to clause 2. To those amendments Senator Powell has moved an amendment to replace `75 per cent' with `43 per cent' in two places. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Powell be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 39 —— Coulter, J. R. Powell, J. F.Haines, J. Sanders, N. K.Jenkins, J. A. Vallentine, J.McLean, P. A. Wood, W. R.Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Alston, R. K. R. Evans, GarethArcher, B. R. Giles, P. J.Aulich, T. G. Hamer, D. J.Baume, Michael Harradine, B.Beahan, M. E. Hill, R. M.Bishop, B. K. Knowles, S. C.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R.Black, J. R. McMullan, R. F.Bolkus, N. Messner, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Morris, J. J.Brownhill, D. G. C. Panizza, J. H.Burns, B. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Ray, RobertChilds, B. K. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Coates, J. Reynolds, M.Collins, R. L. Schacht, C. C.Colston, M. A. Tambling, G. E. J.Cook, P. F. S. Tate, M. C.Cooney, B. C. Vanstone, A. E.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Walsh, P. A.Crowley, R. A. Walters, M. S.Devereux, J. R. Watson, J. O. W.Devlin, A. R. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is that the three amendments moved by Senator Evans be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Aulich, T. G. Devlin, A. R.Beahan, M. E. Evans, GarethBlack, J. R. Giles, P. J.Bolkus, N. McMullan, R. F.Burns, B. R. Morris, J. J.Coates, J. Reynolds, M.Collins, R. L. Schacht, C. C.Colston, M. A. (Teller) Sibraa, K. W.Cook, P. F. S. Tate, M. C.Cooney, B. C. Walsh, P. A.Crowley, R. A. Zakharov, A. O.Devereux, J. R. Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C.Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R.Bishop, B. K. McLean, P. A.Bjelke-Petersen, F. L. Macklin, M. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J.Brownhill, D. G. C. Panizza, J. H.Calvert, P. H. Patterson, K. C. L.Chaney, F. M. Powell, J. F.Chapman, H. G. P. Puplick, C. J. G.Coulter, J. R. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sanders, N. K.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J.Haines, J. Vallentine, J.Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S.Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W.Jenkins, J. A. Wood, W. R. Ray, Robert Baume, PeterForeman, D. J. MacGibbon, D. J.McKiernan, J. P. Sheil, G.Jones, G. N. Short, J. R.Gietzelt, A. T. McGauran, J. J.Button, J. N. Newman, J. M.Richardson, G. F. Parer, W. R. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(3.45) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 22, clause 8, lines 35 to 40, leave out paragraph (a), insert the following paragraph: ``(a) by inserting after subsection (6) the following subsections: `(6a) Subject to subsection (6b), where, because of an extension of the service area of a licence under section 94s or 94zh, the Minister specifies the service area population of the licence in a notice under subsection (1), the Minister shall include in the notice a statement that the licence is affected by aggregation. `(6b) Subsection (6a) does not apply in relation to a licence in an approved market where the approved market existed on the day on which the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Act 1988 received the Royal Assent.';''. (2) Pages 36 and 37, clause 13, line 40 (page 36) to line 5 (page 37), leave out proposed subsection 92zd (5). These amendments are what might be described as the half-loaf amendments. If it is impossible, as a result of that division, to get the 75 per cent calls up in the interests of Australian television viewers generally, it might at least now be possible to get up a provision, which I have now moved, which would grandfather any increase above the 60 per cent limit that flowed from aggregation, a measure which would, very obviously, satisfy the interests of non-metropolitan television viewers in this country. The way in which the clauses would work needs a longer description than I have got time to give it. The CHAIRMAN —Order! it being 3.45 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the negative. Senator GARETH EVANS —I think that it is in the interests of our sanity that we finish this legislation today. Very briefly, therefore, the technical aspects of this amendment need a longer description than we have time for but, essentially, what is involved is that at the gazetted date of aggregation for each of the four areas that have now been approved, there would be a provision that provided that if immediately prior to that gazetted date the proprietor in question had a total prescribed interest amounting to less than 60 per cent of national audience reach and if the aggregation itself operated to take that interest above the 60 per cent limit that would nonetheless be protected. That is the essence of the amendment. It would make it possible accordingly for the Northern Star people to embark upon the aggregation in the southern New South Wales area without risk of being required to divest as a result of that; similarly, the Bond Corporation in Queensland and also the Skase regional interests in Queensland would be thus protected. The reason for doing this, as I described earlier on-again I do not want to go into this in any nauseous detail-is to encourage the acceleration of that process of aggregation which simply otherwise will not occur because there will be so much of a built-in disincentive confronting each of the major media proprietors. What everyone wants to occur, except, I think, Ian Sinclair, on the basis of his extraordinary statement outside Parliament House the other day when he said that he regarded aggregation as not constituting any improved choice for country viewers-what everyone in the non-metropolitan areas wants to ensure, what the four million viewers who presently have access to only one channel want to ensure, is that they get, as fast as is humanly possible, access to three commercial channels. They want the dynamics of this legislation to operate in such a way that it will bring that about and not cause the kinds of delays that are inevitable if this amendment does not proceed. These people want a situation whereby every time the Sunday night movie is lousy and they have no alternative; every time the Australian Open, the VFL Grand Final or the Melbourne Cup is happening but is not available through the local monopoly station; any time there is a major event of any kind which does not make it into local programming, they have a choice. Those four million Australians in the eastern mainland regions will know, every time that happens over the next three or four years, that it is the fault not of this Government, which is trying so hard to improve the situation for them, but it is the fault of John Howard, Ian Sinclair and poor old Sancho Panza Messner lumbering along in the rear. This proposal was one that we put to the Opposition earlier this week. It was the subject of another bout of agonised hand-wringing by the Opposition over the last 24 hours as it found itself impaled once again on the horns of a two-horned dilemma. It has not been a pretty sight to watch the way in which that has occurred. As I said the other day in relation to another dilemma, I only wish James Thurber had been around to record the occasion-for those honourable senators who can recall James Thurber. Senator Chaney —We didn't laugh the first time, so we are not likely to laugh this time. Senator GARETH EVANS —I hoped that some honourable senators might appreciate the reference; that is why I used it. Those honourable senators who might be able to recall James Thurber's account of an encounter with a Roget's Thesaurus will no doubt appreciate the significance of a two-horned dilemma. I thought it was all right. Be that as it may, the choice or the dilemma confronting the Opposition was again a twofold one: does it sell out the bush by opposing this particular amendment, or does it change its policy, once again realising it blooped, and start all over again to go down the track of deregulation? The Opposition has chosen to sell out the bush once again. The Opposition-the Liberal Party and the National Party-if it opposes this amendment, will give to the bush the biggest betrayal it has had since the introduction of the prickly pear. That is the implication of what the Opposition is doing if it opposes this amendment. It will not be forgotten. Senator Messner ought to immediately undertake a tour of regional centres to explain to viewers the benefits that will flow from the Opposition's stance. It will make Richo's visit to Ravenshoe look like a family reunion by comparison. That is the reaction this particular decision will have if it is one that is made by the Opposition. Again, it has one last chance to exercise a little rationality to assist the cause of those non-metropolitan viewers who want those aggregations to occur. Its opportunity arises with this vote and I urge that it support the amendments. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.51) —The Opposition will not support these amendments. Very briefly, I will say why. One can understand Senator Evans's agitation about this. One can understand his particular hang-up on James Thurber and the problems about the Thesaurus. We can sympathise with a Minister who is known in this place for having swallowed a thesaurus at some early stage in his career in order to keep repeating and regurgitating every statement that he ever makes as we can understand, in exactly the same way, the discomfiture of the Australian Labor Party in general. At least one can say that the Labor Party is consistent in having made certain promises to its mates. Being unable to get the whole promise, they are now trying to get a small part of the promise. We will come back to that matter in a moment. Senator Evans substantially misleads people when he talks about aggregation. He substantially misleads people in attempting to make the case about aggregation in the southern New South Wales region as though the grandfathering provisions would, in fact, still be on foot, when the changes which the Labor Party is enforcing over the five 15 per cent cross-media ownership will require changes in the corporate structure of Northern Star Holdings because there will have to be a divestiture of certain cross-media ownership as far as that is concerned, which, as a result, would mean that the corporate structure of Northern Star was such as to not render it capable of being grandfathered under these provisions because of that change. So it is simply disingenuous to say that that will be the effect of rejecting this amendment as far as aggregation in this region is concerned. What will prevent aggregation in this region from occurring are the cross-media ownership rule changes made over the five 15 per cent double shuffle by the Labor Party. One can see exactly what the truth of that matter is. As far as Mr Skase is concerned, let him and the others who would have been beneficiaries stand condemned on the basis of Senator Evans's own words. He said in his second reading speech, reported at page 1529 of Hansard-page 10 of the printed speech-that the Government was not going to have grandfathering. He said: This protection does not apply, however, to prescribed interests or directorships acquired after the date of Ministerial announcement where they contravene as a result of television service area aggregation. This is because such prescribed interests or directorships have been acquired in full knowledge of the new ownership rules and the impact of aggregation on those rules. Senator Evans stands condemned out of his own second reading speech. The reason that grandfathering was not provided for was spelt out by Senator Evans in his own second reading speech and enthusiastically endorsed by Senator Schacht and all of the other proponents of this particular fiddle. Now that the grand fiddle has fallen apart, the lesser fiddle is trundled out and Senator Evans is attempting to put in place a system which in his second reading speech he rejected. On this occasion we will play the role of the Australian Democrats and, as far as the Government is concerned, keep the bastards honest. Senator SCHACHT(South Australia)(3.55) —I wish to speak in support of Senator Evans's amendment mainly to put on the record that it is the Liberal and National parties that are going to stop rural viewers having a choice of programming in the coming years. Year in and year out we in the Australian Labor Party have to put up with the Liberal and National parties, and on this occasion their Australian Democrat supporters, saying how they look after the people in regional and rural Australia. They are the ones who have hit the people in those areas on the head over this issue. In June of this year, when the Wimbledon tennis championship is being relayed to Australia and the parts of rural and regional Australia who are not covered by the network that has the rights cannot watch it, we will say quite clearly that we were trying to overcome that problem but people such as Senator Messner and Senator Puplick-who could not find his way west of the Nepean River in New South Wales let alone out into the rest of rural Australia, and we know of his attitude of being opposed to regional and rural Australia-are the ones responsible for not allowing a wider choice to be given to regional and rural Australian viewers. Over my 20-odd years in politics we have had put down our throats the argument that the National Party in particular represents non- metropolitan Australia. Sinclair let it out of the bag two days ago, when he said he opposed aggregation. I do not suppose he really understood what he was talking about. After listening to much of the debate it is quite clear that if we have to choose between a conspiracy and a stuff-up in the Opposition over this issue, we must choose the stuff-up. Most members of the Opposition do not understand what they are talking about. That is why they have had to have 25 meetings in a week to try to sort out their position on this Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill. That is why they were still meeting late last night, pulling their hair out and trying to sort out this matter. They do not understand and as a result they have made a serious political mistake because we will have great delight at the time of the next election in two years pointing out to the people of regional Australia that it was the National and Liberal parties that sold them out on the issue of having a wider choice of television services. On this point, even at this last moment, I advise the Opposition to support this amendment for its own political sake. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.57) —Just to add to the thesaurus talk evident today, my erudite colleague Senator Coulter has advised that I suggest that the Government, as demonstrated by this amendment, is obviously in congeries with the media owners. That will give honourable senators something to do on the plane on the way home. This is a desperate last minute attempt via the back door to satisfy those media owners, and in particular the owner of the television channel in Canberra, who have boosted their levels of ownership in full knowledge that aggregation was on the agenda and for whom we are now supposed to make this accommodation even though the Minister knows that both the Opposition and the Australian Democrats are opposed-he has known this for a day or two at least-to raising the level above 60 per cent. Another thing that rankles the Government, which is moving this amendment in order to squish the audience reach figure up above 60 per cent, exists courtesy of a deal which was done with the National Party of Australia, which was running wild and rampant out of coalition, just before the election. The Government has not had the grace in this debate to give credit to the National Party, without which it would not have been able to get to 60 per cent. That grace has been lacking in this debate. I am sure Senator Brownhill will appreciate my putting in a good word for the National Party once in a while, even if the Government will not. We cannot cry tears of blood or support this amendment on behalf of Northern Star Holdings Ltd in this case or anybody else in the aggregation process. If we happened to get 75 per cent, it is likely that Northern Star would have bought out Ramsay. A possibility now is that Ramsay can buy Capital 7. There are also other groups out there who are interested in buying up. There is no need to move the limit above 60 per cent. There is a market out there and there are people in the marketplace. That is what these big business entrepreneurs are all interested in. I do not see why we should go any further than 60 per cent, having got stuck with that figure which is too high in any case. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(3.59) —Quite simply-I will be very brief-this debate has nothing to do with country viewers and it has nothing to do with ordinary people; it only has to do with Christopher Skase. The National Party and the Liberal Party, I believe, have made the right decision for the wrong reasons, but I am not going to criticise them for making the right decision. Senator Collins —What you know about television you could put on the head of a pin. Senator WOOD —What I know about television I may be able to put on the head of a pin, but I know about big business. This issue is not about television; it is about high finance and big business and bailing out the Christopher Skases of the world. It is about time the Labor Party listened to its own rhetoric about ordinary people and started to bail out ordinary people rather than the Skases, the Bonds and the Lowys. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(4.01) —Just before the last election all the television proprietors came to Canberra to put forward the need to aggregate. We in the National Party accepted that need. We were told that aggregation could take place with a 60 per cent reach. We agreed, at great personal expense, to vote with the Australian Labor Party, which no-one in the National Party ever wants to do. But we crossed the floor and voted with the socialists so our people out in the bush could get television. I want the people out there to know that we crossed the floor and voted with the socialists on the 60 per cent reach so that people out there could get television. Now government senators say that we are not looking after the bush. We are not looking after the Government's mates. We are looking after the people in the bush. They should not come in here with a holier-than-thou attitude and say that we are not looking after the people out in the rural areas of Australia. There is not one station out there that cannot aggregate under the 60 per cent rule, and the Government should not say otherwise. One of the Government's big business operators flouts the law, flouts the Parliament of Australia, buys another television station and asks the Government to bail him out. The responsibility of the Parliament lies in the elected members of this House, not in some other person outside who sets the agenda. If the Government wants to crawl to such people that is all right, but we are not going to. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Gareth Evans's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 10 —— Aulich, T. G. Devlin, A. R.Black, J. R. Evans, GarethBurns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Coates, J. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. (Teller) Schacht, C. C.Cooney, B. C. Sibraa, K. W.Devereux, J. R. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. Jenkins, J. A.Archer, B. R. McLean, P. A.Baume, Michael Macklin, M. J.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. Patterson, K. C. L.Boswell, R. L. D. Powell, J. F.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Sanders, N. K.Coulter, J. R. Walters, M. S.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Watson, J. O. W.Hamer, D. J. Wood, W. R. Foreman, D. J. MacGibbon, D. J.McKiernan, J. P. Sheil, G.Jones, G. N. Short, J. R.Gietzelt, A. T. McGauran, J. J.Button, J. N. Newman, J. M.Richardson, G. F. Parer, W. R.Maguire, G. R. Baume, PeterBeahan, M. E. Teague, B. C.Crowley, R. A. Hill, R. M.Cook, P. F. S. Vanstone, A. E.Giles, P. J. Tambling, G. E. J.Ray, Robert Durack, P. D.Walsh, P. A. Chapman, H. G. P.Reynolds, M. Knowles, S. C.Tate, M. C. Messner, A. J.Collins, R. L. Lewis, A. W. R.Childs, B. K. Haines, J. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.08) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 1, subclause 2 (1), line 8, leave out ``, 5'', insert ``and 5, subsection 6a (1), sections 7a, 7b,''. (2) Page 1, subclause 2 (1), line 8, after ``9'', insert ``, 9a, 9b, 9c, 12a''. (3) Page 22, after clause 6, insert the following new clause: Limitation of interests in commercial radio licences ``6a. (1) Section 90c of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by omitting from subsection (5a) `A person' and substituting `Subject to subsection (5b), a person'; (b) by omitting from subsection (5a) `otherwise than as a result of a transaction in relation to which section 90j applies to the person'; (c) by omitting subsections (5b), (5c), (5d) and (5e) and substituting the following subsection: `(5b) A person who contravenes this section as a result of a transaction: (a) that takes place after the commencement of this subsection; (b) to which the person is not a party; and (c) to which section 90j applies in relation to the person; is guilty of a separate and further offence in respect of each day (including the day of a conviction under this subsection or any subsequent day) during which the contravention continues after the end of the period of 6 months after the transaction takes place.'. ``(2) Section 90c of the Principal Act is amended. (a) by omitting from subsection (7) all the material after paragraph (d) and substituting `this section applies to the person as if the transaction took place at the end of the relevant transition period'; (b) by omitting from subsection (8) all the material after paragraph (c) and substituting `this section applies to the person as if the transaction took place at the end of the relevant transitional period'.''. (4) Page 22, after clause 7, insert the following new clauses: Changes in ownership of shares etc. ``7a. Section 90j of the Principal Act is amended by omitting subsections (3) to (7g) (inclusive) and substituting the following subsections; `(3) Where a transaction is proposed, each person to whom this section applies in relation to the transaction may apply to the Tribunal, in accordance with the regulations, for approval of the transaction in so far as it affects the person. `(4) Where, after the commencement of this subsection: (a) a person becomes a party to a transaction; (b) this section applies to the person in relation to the transaction; and (c) The Tribunal has not approved the transaction in so far as it affects the person; the person is guilty of an offence against this section. `(5) Where a person to whom this section applies in relation to a transaction (other than a prescribed party) does not, within the period of 28 days after the transaction takes place or such longer period as the Tribunal allows, apply to the Tribunal, in accordance with the regulations, for approval of the transaction in so far as it affects the person, the person is guilty of an offence against this section. `(6) A person who contravenes subsection (5) is guilty of a separate offence in respect of each day (including the day of a conviction under this subsection or any subsequent day) during which the contravention continues. `(7) An application to the Tribunal for approval of a transaction in so far as it affects a person shall be accompanied by a statutory declaration made by: (a) if the person is a natural person-the person; or (b) if the person is a company-a director, secretary or executive officer of the company or by a person authorised by the company in writing to make such a declaration; verifying the statements made in the application, but an application accompanied by a statutory declaration that contains a statement that is false or misleading in a material particular, or is misleading in a material respect because of the omission of any matter shall be taken not to have been made to the Tribunal.'. Approval of transaction ``7b. Section 90ja of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by omitting from subsection (5) `paragraph 90j (3) (b)' and substituting `subsection 90j (3)'; (b) by omitting subsection 11.''. (5) Page 23, after clause 9, insert the following new clauses: Limitation of interests in commercial television licences ``9a. Section 92 of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by omitting from subsection (4a) `A person' and substituting `Subject to subsection (4b), a person'; (b) by omitting from subsection (4a) `otherwise than as a result of a transaction in relation to which section 92f applies to the person'; (c) by omitting subsections (4b), (4c), (4d) and (4e) and substituting the following subsection: `(4b) A person who contravenes this section as a result of a transaction: (a) that takes place after the commencement of this subsection; (b) to which the person is not a party; and (c) to which section 92f applies in relation to the person; is guilty of a separate and further offence in respect of each day (including the day of a conviction under this subsection or any subsequent day) during which the contravention continues after the end of the period of 6 months after the transaction takes place.'. Changes in ownership of shares etc. ``9b. Section 92f of the Principal Act is amended by omitting subsections (3) to (7g) (inclusive) and substituting the following subsections: `(3) Where a transaction is proposed, each person to whom this section applies in relation to the transaction may apply to the Tribunal, in accordance with the regulations, for the approval of the transaction in so far as it affects the person. `(4) Where, after the commencement of this subsection: (a) a person becomes a party to a transaction; (b) this section applies to the person in relation to the transaction; and (c) the Tribunal has not approved the transaction in so far as it affects the person; the person is guilty of an offence against this section. `(5) Where a person to whom this section applies in relation to a transaction (other than a prescribed party) does not, within the period of 28 days after the transaction takes place or such longer period as the Tribunal allows, apply to the Tribunal, in accordance with the regulations, for approval of the transaction in so far as it affects the person, the person is guilty of an offence against this section. `(6) A person who contravenes subsection (5) is guilty of a separate offence in respect of each day (including the day of conviction under this subsection or any subsequent day) during which the contravention continues. `(7) An application to the Tribunal for approval of a transaction in so far as it affects a person shall be accompanied by a statutory declaration made by: (a) if the person is a natural person-the person; or (b) if the person is a company-a director, secretary or executive officer of the company or by a person authorised by the company in writing to make such a declaration; verifying the statements made in the application, but an application accompanied by a statutory declaration that contains a statement that is false or misleading in a material particular, or is misleading in a material respect because of the omission of any matter shall be taken not to have been made to the Tribunal.'. Approval of transactions ``9c. Section 92faa of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by omitting from subsection (5) `paragraph 92f (3)(b)' and substituting `subsection 92f (3)'; (b) by omitting subsection 11.''. (6) Page 24, clause 12, proposed subsection 92jb (6), lines 37 and 38, leave out ``(5b), (5c), (5d) and (5e)'', insert ``(5a) and (5b)''. (7) Page 24, clause 12, proposed subsection 92jb (7), line 40, leave out ``(5b), (5c), (5d) and (5e)'', insert ``(5a) and (5b)''. (8) Page 25, clause 12, proposed subsection 92jb (8), lines 3 to 12, leave out the proposed subsection, insert the following subsection: ``(8) Subsections 90c (5a) and (5b) apply, for the purposes of subsection (6) of this section, in relation to a transactions that took place during the relevant transition period, as if the transaction took place at the end of that period.''. (9) Page 25, clause 12, proposed subsection 92jb (9), lines 14 and 15, leave out ``(4b), (4c), (4d) and (4e)'', insert ``(4a) and (4b)''. (10) Page 25, clause 12, proposed subsection 92jb (10), line 17, leave out ``(4b), (4c), (4d) and (4e)'', insert ``(4a) and (4b)''. (11) Page 25, clause 12, proposed subsection 92jb (11), lines 21 to 29, leave out the proposed subsection, insert the following subsection: ``(11) Subsections 92 (4a) and (4b) apply, for the purposes of subsection (9) of this section, in relation to a transaction that took place during the relevant transition period, as if the transaction took place at the end of that period.''. (12) Page 28, after clause 12 insert the following new clause: Powers of Federal Court of Australia ``12a. Section 92p of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by inserting in paragraph (1) (a) `90j,' after `90c,'; (b) by inserting in paragraph (1) (a) `92f,' after `92,'.''. Senator POWELL —These amendments relate to the reinstatement of the prior approval powers of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT). In this debate the Opposition has talked in terms of freeing up the market but also of ensuring certain safeguards in the system. In the process undertaken outside this chamber in the last couple of weeks members of the relevant Caucus committee have also expressed strongly the need-I understand that the Minister has agreed along these lines-for the Tribunal to be given stronger powers. It is certainly necessary that we restore the Tribunal's prior approval powers. I give one or two examples to show why we must do so. Last year we had the inglorious episode of the third commercial television station in Perth being awarded to Kerry Stokes after an exhaustive and expensive inquiry by the ABT, costing the taxpayer $6m. No sooner had that inquiry finished than-before the station even went to air-it was sold to Holmes a Court. There are numerous other examples-current examples-of people flouting the law in this way. We have had countless sales of radio stations, television stations and newspapers-although they are not relevant to this legislation-reducing the total numbers of owners, selling and reselling on a market which appears almost to be totally unregulated. At least one radio station had five different owners in less than 12 months. Another changed hands more than five months ago and I believe that the ABT has not even been notified yet. Others have been sold in contravention of two or even three different media laws. The whole situation at the moment is a farce-and it is not the fault of the ABT. Then came the resort owner from the ultimate part of this nation who decided that he wanted 66 per cent of television. He just went ahead and bought it and then said, `It will be all right. I will come up here to Canberra and make it all right'. He found out today that it is not all right. Just yesterday, in contrast with what he said before he came up with this lobbying in which he said, `If it does not work I will sell off', he was saying, `I am not in a hurry to sell'. Why should he be? On April Fools Day 1987 Bond Media and a whole lot of other companies rather quaintly named but attached, purchased Kerry Packer's television and radio interests. The ABT inquiry has still not been completed. When it is, Bond will still have another six months to make the necessary divestments. That means that Skase is probably going to be able to hang on to what he has until the end of the century. Those are the sorts of issues which concern the Australian Democrats and which lead us to move these amendments, which would have the effect of returning to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal powers to act before all these sorts of things happen, as a beginning to a restoration and an augmenting of all the powers of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(4.11) —I have some sympathy for the principle of restoration of prior approval, as a matter of principle. I do not have much sympathy for the detailed drafting of these amendments which are probably unworkable. But quite apart from that, this matter needs quite a lot of close attention, and it is getting that attention at the moment in two ways: under the departmental review of the whole operation of the Broadcasting Act and the ABT, and also as part of the review being conducted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure. Under those circumstances, while we acknowledge some of the points that have been made by Senator Powell-certainly not all-in support of her amendments, we do not think it appropriate to accept them at this stage. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.12) —Because of the reasons advanced by the Minister, with which on this occasion we agree, the Opposition will not support Senator Powell's amendments. Amendments negatived. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Third Reading Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 23 February, on motion by Senator Richardson: That the Bill be now read a second time. Motion (by Senator Puplick) proposed: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate- (a) condemns the Government for its lack of action to date in abolishing a number of government-imposed constraints on Australia Post, Telecom Australia and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, including: (i) unnecessary industrial relations co-ordination procedures which, in a number of cases, frustrate rather than expedite the resolution of particular industrial disputes; (ii) a costly and inflexible superannuation regime through the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme which, in the case of Telecom, represents a 20 per cent on-cost compared to an average cost of superannuation in the private sector of between 10 and 12 per cent; (iii) restrictive borrowing limits which inhibit the raising of funds for capital works programs; (iv) cumbersome contracting and purchasing requirements, which, in the case of the latter, were recommended to be abolished by the joint Committee of Public Accounts for Australia Post, Telecom and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission; and (v) constraints on new development initiatives such as joint ventures and subsidiary arrangements; and (b) further condemns the Government for its shabby handling of the privatisation debate, which is highlighted by the current intense conflict within the Labor Party on this issue''. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(4.14) —The amendment that has been moved is on the subject of all these matters that are of current review by the Government and will be the subject of a breathtakingly far-reaching announcement to be made, I hope, at the time of the May statement on 25 May. Leaving Senator Puplick in anticipation of that, I tell him that we could not possibly accept his amendment. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.15) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 4, after clause 12, insert the following new clause: ``12a. Section 24 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from subsection (1) `Subject to section 24a,'.''. (2) Page 4, after clause 13, insert the following new clause: Repeal of section ``13a. Section 24a of the Principal Act is repealed.''. If these amendments were passed it would have the effect of repealing the moratorium which has been introduced by the Government on the introduction into Australia of pay television, which is something that is strongly supported by the Opposition. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(4.16) —For the reasons I spelt out during the preceding debate, the amendments are not acceptable to the Government. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Senate adjourned at 4.17 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 10 May 1988. The following papers were tabled: Aboriginal Development Commission Act-Direction pursuant to Section 11, dated 27 April 1988. Australian Wool Corporation-Notice of acquisition of shares in Greenfields Woolscour Pty Ltd, dated 16 April 1988. Extradition (Foreign States) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 52. Federal Court of Australia Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 54. Fisheries Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 53. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1988- No. 15-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 4). No. 16-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 5). No. 17-Administrative Arrangements (Consequential Amendments). No. 18-Children's Services (Amendment). Regulations 1988-No. 3-Stamp Duties and Taxes. The following answer to a question was circulated: (Question No. 217) Senator Crichton-Browne asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 19 February 1988: Will the Minister indicate the level of Commonwealth financial assistance for each of the last three years which has been given to each of the organisations listed in the publication by the Department of Employment, Education and Training entitled, ``A Slice of the Action-47 Youth Service Projects around Australia''. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment, Education and Training has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The following table shows the amount of financial assistance for each of the last three years which has been given to each of the organisations listed in the publication ``A Slice of the Action-47 Youth Service Projects around Australia'' by the various Commonwealth agencies and Departments that now constitute the Department of Employment, Education and Training. Organisation Grant recorded under SERDOC* 1985-86 Other Funding 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 $ $ $ $ Abode of the Friendly Toad, The South Australia 5,500.00 Action Youth Service Inc., Community Youth Unemployment Program, South Australia 5,500.00 Adolescent Task Force, Barwon, Victoria 6,316.73 Annie Kenney Young Women's Refuge, North Hobart, Tasmania 5,500.00 Brisbane Youth Service, The Queensland 5,500.00 Caloola Farm-A Service to Unemployed Youth, ACT 5,500.00 Community Training Program: Employment Training Program (Calendar Year) 101,900.00 111,590.00 108,800.00 Information Technology Training Cntr (Calendar Yr) 62,372.00 59,479.00 104,454.00 Community Employment Program 31,615.00 C.I.T.Y. High Schools Program, The South Australia 5,500.00 Come In Youth Resource Centre, Paddington, NSW 8,940.00 COSMOS Inc., Tasmania 5,500.00 Crossroads Youth Project, Vic 5,500.00 Employment 2000 Perth, WA 5,500.00 Community Training Program (Calendar Year) 210,660.00 228,440.00 224,564.00 EQUIP Women's Trade/Technical Course, Frankston College of TAFE, Vic 5,500.00 Fairfield Multicultural Youth Project, NSW 5,500.00 Filipino Young Women's Project Catholic Migration Centre, WA 5,500.00 Fire Escape Youth Leisure Centre, The Darwin, NT 3,500.00 Hedland Community Youth Service, WA 5,500.00 Community Employment Program 8,516 Illawarra Youth Housing Limited, NSW 5,500.00 Indigenous People's Council Western Region, The NSW 5,500.00 KEG: Kensington Estate Gardening Inc., Vic 5,500.00 Liverpool Young Women's Resource Centre, NSW 5,500.00 Migrant/Refugee Youth Program TAFE Participation and Equity Programme, WA 5,500.00 Nhulunbuy Youth Social Group, The NT 5,500.00 Para Districts Youth Workers Network, SA 4,800.00 Perth Inner City Youth Service Streetwork Program, WA 5,500.00 Participation & Equity Program (Calendar Year) 5,000.00 Pipkorn's Projects, The At Canbrai Area School, SA 5,500.00 Roma and District Community Support Asscn., Qld 5,000.00 Rural Youth Link-Up '85, SA 3,361.70 Servicing Opportunities for Unemployed Youth, Ballarat, Vic 8,414.00 Sexuality Education Programs with Young People Family Planning Association ACT Inc. 5,500.00 South-East Queensland Youth Accommodation Coalition, Qld 5,500.00 South East Regional Youth Council, WA 7,900.00 St Kilda Community High School, Vic 5,500.00 Stretch-a-Family, NSW 6,000.00 Tranby Aboriginal Cooperative College, NSW 5,500.00 Co-ordination & Access Pilot Project to improve services for Aboriginal health 28,000.00 TRAX: Unemployed young People and Adult Education, Vic 5,500.00 Twenty Ten Association, The NSW 5,500.00 Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency-Youth Services Development Program, Vic 5,500.00 Warrane High School Student Representative Council, Tas 2,880.00 Women of our Time, The YWCA of Dandenong and Westernport, Vic 6,700.00 Co-ordination & Access Pilot Project to conduct outreach work with young people in the Dandenong Region 73,500.00 Wollongong Out of Worker's Union, NSW 5,500.00 Work Resources Centre Australian Commonwealth Territory 7,184.56 Community Employment Program 150,501.00 18,184.00 Youth Advocacy Centre, Qld 6,014.15 Youth Emergency Shelter Windsor Inc., Qld 5,500.00 Community Employment Program 11,297.00 Youth and Family Services Logan City, Qld 5,500.00 Youth Organization of the Byron Shire, The NSW 5,500.00 Youth Services in the City of Springvale, Vic 5,500.00 Youth Employment Development Office, Barwon, Vic 5,500.00 Total: 264,011.14 658,548.00 442,506.00 437,818.00 * SERDOC (Youth Services Documentation Project).