Thursday, 19 May 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —Order! I wish to advise the Senate that at a meeting on 27 April 1988 the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings passed a resolution to transfer the parliamentary broadcast from the Senate to the House of Representatives on Wednesday, 25 May. This is to be offset by the transfer of the broadcast from the House of Representatives to the Senate on Tuesday, 24 May. Accordingly the Senate will be broadcast next Monday and Tuesday, and the House of Representatives on Wednesday and Thursday. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That although elector-initiated referendums are conducted successfully in such countries as Switzerland and the U.S.A., no such facility exists for Australian citizens. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Initiate the necessary action for a referendum to be held to amend the Constitution to provide for such an initiative on the following conditions: If a specified percentage of voters (such as 2%) sign a petition asking that a referendum be held on a certain question the Federal Government would be obliged to hold that referendum and the result would become law. And your petitioners further humbly pray that the referendum be timed to coincide with the referendum to be held to extend the term of office of the House of Representatives from 3 to 4 years. And we humbly pray that you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Powell (from 264 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia wish to express their opposition to the privatization and de-regulation of the Australian telecommunications system and to the proposed implementation of timed local calls and directory assistance charging. Your petitioners pray that the Australian Government will take the necessary action to prevent any such privatization, de-regulation, timed local calls, and directory assistance charging. And we, your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 64 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 327 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 66 citizens), Powell (from 213 citizens) and Zakharov (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectively showeth: that while having some reservations on individual aspects of the Constitutional Initiative (Electors Initiative) 1987 your petitioners wish to express our strong support for the concept of people's democracy implied in that Bill. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will Refer the above mentioned Bill to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters and will examine the operation of direct democracy procedures overseas with the intention of passing legislation granting such facilities to your petitioners during the Bicentennial year. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bishop (from 171 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament The petition of the undersigned shows: Our deepest concern at the plight of Mordechai Vanunu, who revealed details of the nuclear weapons arsenal of Israel; Our belief that Vanunu's actions were a service to humanity-including to the people of Israel-and were in fulfilment of his duty under international law; Our belief that the unlawful abduction of Vanunu from Rome, his imprisonment since then, his prison conditions, and his conviction on charges of espionage and treason are denials of his fundamental human rights. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Resolve to ask the Australian Government to appeal to the Government of Israel to release Mordechai Vanunu immediately and without conditions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Powell (from 14 citizens). Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition, from 2,133 citizens, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form, praying that the Australian Capital Territory, including Jervis Bay, be declared a nuclear free zone: We the undersigned concerned citizens and residents of the A.C.T. reject the proposed military and industrial developments at Jervis Bay. We support the conclusions of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation Reports of 1975 and 1986 which found that Jervis Bay should be preserved for recreation and scientific research purposes. We also oppose plans for the establishment of a Nuclear Reactor at Jervis Bay and for visits by Nuclear-Powered and Nuclear-Armed warships to the region. We call on the Federal Government to implement legislation to declare the A.C.T. (including Jervis Bay) a Nuclear Free Zone. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petitioning letter, from four citizens, which is not in conformity with Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form, praying that adequate funds be provided for nursing homes in Victoria to maintain a high standard of care: The Honourable the President and Senators assembled in Parliament. In reference to proposed legislation on the funding of Nursing Homes- We, the undersigned, have relatives either awaiting admission to or who are already in Nursing Homes, and we are justifiably concerned at what effect a severe cut in funding would have. These elderly people are the former young parents who reared families during the depression years, and have earned some care and consideration in the final years of their lives. Indeed, if the funding cuts are to be as severe as the media has indicated, in addition to a sharp decline in nursing care, many of these folk would be unable to remain in care at all, and as most of them have sold their homes in order to meet expenses, they would have nowhere to go. This situation has engendered enormous fear in the elderly, an extra worry they do not need. Petitions received. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters have leave to meet during the sitting of the Senate, for the purpose of hearing evidence in public session, on Monday, 23 May 1988. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to standing order 109a I give notice that, immediately after Question Time this day, I shall withdraw Business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1 to 13 standing in my name for this day of sitting for disallowance of certain delegated legislation. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —Mr President, the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has been corresponding with various Ministers about delegated legislation which appeared to be at variance with the Committee's principles. Ministers have now given the Committee satisfactory explanations for certain provisions and undertaken to amend other provisions to ensure that the Committee's standards are complied with. I thank all of the Ministers for their cooperation. In two of the 13 instruments examined, Ministers have given satisfactory explanations of certain provisions about which the Committee was initially concerned. In the remaining 11 matters Ministers have agreed to bring forward amendments including the following measures to protect personal liberties: various Administrative Appeals Tribunal review rights are to be granted when certain discretions are exercised; a reference to an absolute discretion is to be replaced by a right to seek reconsideration of a decision; certain officials and inspectors are to use proper photographic identity cards; written instruments are to be used when Ministers take certain important administrative decisions; a reasonable time is to be allowed for public submissions about certain proposed plans of management; various matters are to be reported to the Parliament which might not otherwise have been made public; and certain strict liability offences are to be re-examined in the light of the Committee's principles. The Committee hopes that all of these important ministerial undertakings can be implemented within six months as recommended in the Committee's eightieth and eighty-third reports. If, for whatever reason, it proves impossible to finalise matters within six months, the Committee hopes that Ministers will take the opportunity to advise the Senate of the reasons for any delay. Mr President, I also seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short description of the Committee's scrutiny of the matters that are now resolved. This will be available immediately for any honourable senators who wishes to read it. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Regulations (Amendment) [nC](S.R. 1987 No. 296) The Regulations exempted from a certain levy foreign fishing boats imported into Australia by resident Australian citizens or companies. The Regulations made the question of determining the ownership of a boat a matter for the unreviewable discretionary decision of the Departmental Secretary or an officer authorised by the Secretary. Such an unreviewable discretion appeared to the Committee to be inappropriate since citizenship and ownership would be ascertainable matters of fact and law. Since as a matter of law Australian owned boats are exempt from levy the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, the Hon. John Kerin, M.P., agreed to amend the Regulations to make it clear that the Secretary has no discretion in this matter and that his or her responsibility is limited to ascertaining whether, as a matter of fact, a boat is Australian owned. Canberra Institute of the Arts Ordinance 1988 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 1 of 1988) The Committee was interested to ensure: (i) that certain statutory decisions to be taken under the Ordinance would be made in writing for the protection of all concerned; (ii) that certain Fees Determinations would legally be subject to parliamentary control through procedures for tabling and disallowance; and (iii) that some possibly confusing drafting errors were examined. The Minister for the Arts and Territories, the Hon. Gary Punch, M.P., (i) assured the Committee that the Determinations in question were legally subject to parliamentary procedures; and (ii) agreed to amend the Ordinance to remove typographic errors and require that, to be lawful, certain discretionary decisions must be taken in writing. Quarantine (Animals) Regulations (Amendment) (S.R. 1987 No. 303) These Regulations repealed earlier Regulations which established and regulated the importation scheme for the landing of meat and blood products in Australia. The repealed Regulations have been replaced by Proclamations which are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Proclamations are drafted in a style little different from regulations and contain provisions concerning unreviewable discretionary powers. Had these provisions appeared in Regulations the Committee would have discussed them with the relevant Minister and sought certain amendments. Because proper parliamentary controls were not available, the Committee wrote to the Minister for Resources, Senator the Honourable Peter Cook, M.P., about the issue. Although the Proclamations as such are not subject to the Committee's scrutiny the Minister has nevertheless undertaken to amend them to provide for AAT review of the discretionary powers they contain. A new Agricultural Quarantine Bill is in the course of preparation for introduction in the Budget sittings which will provide that the matters currently dealt with by the Proclamation, including necessary review rights, will instead be prescribed by regulations subject to parliamentary oversight. Telecommunications (General) By-laws Amendment No. 50 Under the By-laws the Commission may determine that a group of buildings is not a building complex and therefore, the owner or tenant of the complex (the relevant subscriber) is not eligible to receive an authorization to operate a shared tenant private branch exchange. The Committee was concerned about a number of aspects of the By-laws. No criteria existed to guide the exercise of that discretionary power. A negative determination could cause commercial or other damage to a relevant subscriber. Such a determination could be arrived at erroneously, unfairly or arbitrarily. There was no right under the By-laws to apply either to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or to the Commission for review of such a determination. Long standing Australian principles of fair administration in the public domain suggested to the Committee that in these By-laws there should be some legal criteria for decision making and some legal right of appeal on the merits. Having considered these points the Australian Telecommunications Commission has agreed that (i) the By-laws should be amended, as soon as possible, to provide relevant subscribers with a right to apply for internal reconsideration of a determination that a group of buildings is not a building complex for the purposes of the By-laws; (ii) the By-laws should provide the usual range of procedural safeguards and requirements for this right of reconsideration, for example, a relevant subscriber who is affected by such a determination should be informed in writing of the decision and of the right of reconsideration within a reasonable time; (iii) the reconsideration should be conducted expeditiously by the Managing Director and one or more Commissioners appointed by the Commission for this purpose; (iv) within the next 12 months set criteria should be developed, and expressly included in the By-laws, as the criteria in accordance with which determinations will be made whether a group of buildings is a building complex; and (v) in 12 months time the Commission will advise the Committee on how the internal reconsideration procedure is operating. Occupational Superannuation Standards Regulations (S.R. 1987 No. 322) These Regulations prescribed certain Standards for the preservation and portability of benefits in superannuation funds and approved deposit funds. Under the Regulations a fund member's benefits will be preserved until the member leaves the fund or benefits become payable on the member retiring, dying, emigrating or in ``such other circumstances (if any) as the [Insurance and Superannuation] Commissioner approves''. The Committee sought advice from the Treasurer, the Honourable Paul Keating, M.P., as to whether the exercise of these discretionary decisions of the Commissioner should be subject to review. The Treasurer advised that-(i) the regulations continued a pre-existing arrangement under which the Commissioner of Taxation approved early release of benefits; (ii) in other than very special circumstances release of benefits that had enjoyed taxation concessions would reduce the incentive to invest income for genuine retirement purposes and cause inequity for other fund contributors and tax payers; (iii) the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner will carefully consider applications made for early release of funds outside the circumstances prescribed and decisions will be subject to judicial review in the Federal Court; (iv) the unreviewable discretions identified by the Committee related to the Commissioner's power in special and clearly warranted cases only, to make exceptions or grant exemptions to an otherwise universal administrative scheme. After reflecting on these points the Committee agreed to accept the Treasurer's explanations for the absence of explicit merits review mechanisms. In the particular circumstances of this case the Committee considered-(i) the special taxation and policy complexities of the Standards in question; (ii) the national financial and economic significance of the general scheme in which exemptions of necessity and by definition would be exceptional; and (iii) the practice of not subjecting to independent review administrative exemptions from the application of a general scheme that is intended, in all but exceptional circumstances, to apply uniformly and in its entirety to a general class of persons-this is not a general principle for the Committee but merely a guideline to assist its categorisation and evaluation of certain discretions. Bearing in mind all of these factors the Committee accepted the Treasurers' explanations. Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Regulations (Amendment) (S.R. 1987 No. 330) These Regulations provided that, although generally proceedings before a Redeployment and Retirement Appeal Committee were public, the Committee could by order prohibit or restrict the publication of evidence if satisfied that this was desirable because of its confidential nature (for example, in cases involving certain kinds of medical evidence). The Committee pointed out to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, the Hon. Ralph Willis, M.P., that there was no legislative power or penalty to enforce such an order, and while generally all proceedings should be open, where an exception was needed it should be enforceable. The Minister agreed to amend the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984 to allow for the imposition of a reasonable sanction for breach of a confidentiality order issued by the Committee. Schools Authority (Amendment) Ordinance 1987 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 70 of 1987) The Committee was concerned that section 55 might have conferred on the Schools Authority (a corporation sole) immunity from civil action for negligent or other acts committed in the performance of the Authority's functions. The Minister for the Arts and Territories, the Hon. Gary Punch, M.P., advised the Committee that the section did not confer immunity on the Authority as such which could still be sued for wrong-doing. However, the past and present holders of the office of Authority (i.e. essentially the Chief Education Officer) would be protected from action in the same way as an employee would be protected. The Committee accepted this. The Minister also undertook to amend the Ordinance to ensure that powers either affecting individuals or committing the Commonwealth to obligations would be exercisable only in writing. The Minister has also drawn to the attention of his legislative drafters the importance of requiring such powers in future legislation to be exercised in writing. In the interim he will require writing as an administrative practice in relation to relevant powers. Finally, the Minister also undertook to amend the Ordinance to make it clear that employees of the restructured Schools Authority would continue to be employed on the same terms and conditions they were subject to immediately before the commencement of the Ordinance. A.C.T. Institute of Technical and Further Education Ordinance 1987 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 71 of 1987) The Committee was concerned about a number of technical aspects of the Ordinance namely: (i) that the law should require certain important decisions to be taken in writing-the Minister, the Hon. Gary Punch, M.P., undertook to amend the Ordinance to reflect this principle; (ii) that the Minister's power to withhold from Parliament all information about the commercial activities of the Institute where disclosure would adversely affect the Institute, should be reduced to enable publication at least of the fact that information is being withheld for good reasons-the Minister undertook to seek an amendment to the Audit Regulations to require that the Institute's Annual Report would record and until the situation altered, go on recording, the fact that the Minister wished to withhold certain information about the commercial transactions of the Institute, the Report itself being subject to tabling and debate in Parliament. (iii) that the Ordinance include the usual ministerial powers of removal of the Director of the Institute in specified circumstances only-the Minister agreed that the office of Director should be protected in this way; (iv) that the Ordinance itself place a limit on the penalties that might be imposed for infringement of administrative arrangements and directions made and given by the Director-the Minister undertook to do this and provide for AAT review of any administrative decision that could result in the imposition of such a penalty. Liquor (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 2) 1987 (A.C.T. ordinance No. 72 of 1987) The Committee obtained the assurance of the Minister for the Arts and Territories, the Hon. Gary Punch, M.P., that section 17a of the Ordinance did not reverse any onus of proof in criminal proceedings under the Ordinance. The provision was designed to facilitate the seizure of alcohol from underage drinkers. The Minister also assured the Committee that in the interests of fairness when a young person had been cautioned under the Ordinance, and was later prosecuted for a similar alleged underage drinking offence, the circumstances of the first caution would not ground any additional offence. States Grants Petroleum Products Schemes Amendment (Amendment No. 88/01) A previous amendment to the Scheme erroneously omitted to include appropriate reference to 4 remote Western Australian localities as localities where petroleum products consumers were eligible to receive a petroleum subsidy. As a result since 6 March 1987 consumers had paid higher prices than was intended. The latest amendment was designed to restore the localities to the Scheme from 15 January 1988. The Committee was concerned about the consequences of the error for consumers during the period March 1987 to January 1988. The Minister, the Hon. Barry Jones, M.P. explained that two fuel distributors had supplied 24 customers. The distributors had received $12,208.30 of subsidy less than they should have received and since subsection 5 (4) of the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965 requires that subsidy be passed on to end-consumers, 24 customers paid $12,208.30 more than they should have done for fuel. The Minister suggested that the consumers might apply for an ex gratia payment by the Commonwealth. The Committee has decided to withdraw its notice of motion of disallowance of the Amendment because it is beneficial to consumers. However, the Committee has written to the Minister urging him to take the initiative by directing that the Commonwealth should make the required payments to people who have been denied a benefit, of which they were probably unaware, by a mere administrative and drafting error in the preparation of the original Amendment. The Committee considers that equity in administration of the subsidy scheme demands no less than ex gratia payments at the initiative of the Minister (not the unwitting consumer) if a premium is not to be placed on administrative error as a means of economising on certain payments which people would otherwise enjoy as a legal right. Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 2) 1987 (A.C.T. Ordinance No. 74 of 1987) Where an employer failed to pay timely contributions to the long service leave fund the penalty was a $10,000 fine. The Ordinance reduced that penalty to $500 on the assumption that for each day of non-payment after the obligation to pay had arisen, a fresh offence, carrying a penalty of $500, arose. Thus, the deterrent effect of the old law was thought to remain no less effectively but perhaps more reasonably in the new provision for the protection of employees. However, the Committee pointed out to the Minister for the Arts and Territories, the Hon. Gary Punch, M.P., that the new provision had not legally created an adequate mechanism to make it certain that a continuing daily offence had been created. The relevant section of the Ordinance (s. 11), and of the Interpretation Ordinance 1967 (ss. 33B and 33C), had not referred to ``a day'' as being the period of time on the expiration of which a fresh offence arose. Provisions of other legislation did make such express reference to the relevant period. Such reference was probably essential to avoid uncertainty as to the frequency with which a continuing offence was repeated, (e.g. an hour, a day, a week), uncertainty which could have undermined the deterrent effect of the reduced penalty. (See, for example, section 87 of the Taxation (Administration) Ordinance 1987, regulation 7aa contain the National Parks and Wildlife Regulations (Amendment) (S.R. 1985 No. 275) and subsection 4K (2) of the Crimes Act 1914 contained in section 11 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 1987). The Minister agreed to correct this flaw by amending the Interpretation Ordinance to specify that a continuing offence would arise on every day that overdue contributions had not been paid. Canberra Sewerage and Water Supply Regulations (Amendment) (A.C.T. Regulations 1987 No. 19) These Regulations enabled the A.C.T. Engineer to refuse a permit for building work unless he or she was satisfied that an adequate drainage device, namely a back-flow prevention device, would be installed to prevent contamination of the Canberra water supply. An unfair refusal could seriously disrupt building operations. The Engineer could also refuse to approve of new devices designed to achieve the same effect as devices described in a Schedule to the Regulations. An unfair refusal to approve could cause a designer, manufacturer or supplier commercial damage. While in no way suggesting that the Engineer had or would make decisions other than those properly based on professional judgments and expertise, the Committee was concerned about the absence of review rights. The Committee suggested to the Minister for the Arts and Territories, the Hon. Gary Punch, M.P. that, on the grounds of principle, the AAT should have power to review these two discretionary decisions and the Minister undertook to amend the Regulations to so provide. Environment Protection and Management Ordinance 1987 (Heard and McDonald Islands Ordinance No. 1 of 1987) The Ordinance provided for interested persons to make representations about proposed plans of management for the Islands. However, it did not specify any definite and reasonable minimum period for submission of such representations. It left open the legal possibility that submissions could be refused after an unreasonably brief period. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Senator the Hon. Graham Richardson, undertook to amend the Ordinance to specify a reasonable period for submissions to be lodged. The Ordinance contained numerous strict liability offences and offences for which there was no express defence of reasonable excuse. In many cases these were coupled with penalties which were higher than usual for regulatory offences. The Committee was concerned about this as a matter of principle. However, the Committee also acknowledged that the Islands exhibited unique environmental attributes which required stringent protective measures. The Minister agreed that his officers and officers of the Attorney-General's Department should review the offences and penalties in the Ordinance in the light of the Committee's concern. The Minister also undertook to amend the Ordinance-(i) to limit the level of fees that may be imposed by Island Territory regulations; (ii) to require use by inspectors of proper photographic identity cards; (iii) to specify a maximum time limit for the notification of certain decisions; and (iv) to correct some possibly confusing drafting of definitions in the Ordinance. Senator COLLINS —Mr President, finally I seek leave to table the Committee's correspondence for the information of honourable senators and others. It is too lengthy to incorporate in Hansard. Leave granted. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales) —by leave-Mr President, in my private capacity as a senator, as distinct from my membership of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I move: That the Senate take note of the correspondence. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate noting that- (a) the widely publicised improvement of $60 million in Australia's exports that contributed to the much improved trade deficit in April 1985 would simply not have taken place but for a $75 million rise in exports of uranium, without which Australia's export income in April 1988 would actually have fallen by $15 million; and (b) a report by a member of the Hawke Labor Government, Mr Gordon Bilney, M.P., that his Government's uranium policies have cost Australia billions of dollars and hundreds of jobs, a conclusion backed up by the Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research at the University of Melbourne which has reported that, by blocking only one proposed uranium development, this policy will have cost 240 000 jobs, $600 million a year in export income and $5 billion in consumption spending by 1992, calls on the Hawke Government to cease its restrictive, discriminatory and costly policy as dictated by the left wing of the Labor Party of preventing the proper development of Australia's uranium resources and to allow the expansion of uranium mining and exports to the benefit of all Australians. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Merit Protection Review Agency-annual report 1986-87-section 83 of the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984. 2. State of the Automotive Industry 1987-Automotive Industry Authority report-section 8 of the Automotive Industry Authority Act 1984. 3. New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission-annual report 1986-87-section 13 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986. Motion (by Senator Black) agreed to: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts: (1) The role of the Commonwealth Government in the further development of the Australian tourist industry with particular reference to: (a) the environmental impact of tourist developments, particularly in coastal regions and national heritage areas; and (b) the co-ordination of foreign tourist development strategies between the States. (2) The role of foreign investment in tourist developments and the net benefit to Australia of overseas tourism. Motion (by Senator Black) agreed to: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts: The use by Australian sportsmen and sportswomen of performance enhancing drugs and the role played by Commonwealth agencies. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.11) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave not granted. Senator WALSH —Who said `No'? Who denied leave? Senator Chaney —Lots of people, actually. Senator WALSH —So Senator Chaney is going to be smart. Will he move that motion in a while to protect the Kelly brothers and their ilk who rob the Taxation Office and employees-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator WALSH —Still protecting tax evaders-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister sought leave for the second reading speech to be incorporated in Hansard. Leave was denied. I now ask the Minister to read the second reading speech. Senator WALSH —If Opposition senators want to be here at the end of June, that is okay by me, because I will be here anyway. This Bill proposes amendments to the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 to empower a Minister, with the agreement in writing of the Minister responsible for the Act, to make minor changes in the provision of tariff assistance to industries in narrowly defined circumstances without the requirement for a prior report of the Industries Assistance Commission. At present, section 23 (3) of the Act prevents changes in prescribed forms of assistance unless a relevant report of the Commission has been received by the Government within the preceding 12 months. The only exceptions are for changes that relate to bilateral or multilateral trade negotiations or to tariff preferences for developing countries. Section 23 (3) is of fundamental importance to the Act and to the role of the Commission. It aims to ensure that, when governments make decisions on matters involving assistance to particular industries, they have available to them up to date, independent and informed advice by the Commission on these matters. The Commission's reports, being based on processes of public inquiry in which the views of all interested parties can be presented and examined, provide a vital means for allowing public scrutiny of the claims of individual industries for assistance before decisions are made. The Government fully endorses this objective and will continue to maintain the role of the Commission. However, section 23 (3) is at present very widely drawn. Apart from the two exceptions I have mentioned, it prevents all changes in prescribed forms of assistance, no matter how minor, in the absence of a relevant report of the commission or legislation by the Parliament. The proposed amendments will provide a very limited degree of additional flexibility to make minor changes in industry assistance in specified circumstances. The amendments relate only to changes in assistance provided through customs duties, not other forms of assistance, and the circumstances are precisely defined. These circumstances are: where action is necessary to correct anomalies, errors or ambiguities in the Customs Tariff Act; where action is necessary to correct an error in the implementation of a government decision on assistance to industry where that decision arose out of a report of the Commission; Where action is necessary to vary details of industry assistance arrangements because of changes in circumstances where provision for such action was made in the Government decision establishing those arrangements and where that decision arose out of a report of the Commission; where action is necessary to maintain the level of assistance previously applying where a decision by a tribunal or a court has had the effect of altering the rate at which duty on imported goods is collected; or where action is necessary to keep tariff classifications in line with the Australian Customs Service co-operation council nomenclature. The last of these circumstances relates to the implementation of tariff classification rulings by the Customs Cooperation Council under the International Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System. The Bill makes clear that such changes are covered by the existing exception in section 23 (3) relating to multilateral trade agreements. The provisions in the Bill relating to the other four circumstances involve the establishment of new exceptions in section 23 (3) under which tariff changes can be made when more than 12 months have elapsed since the receipt of a relevant report by the Commission. In each case, the circumstance is carefully defined and has the objective either of correcting anomalies, errors or ambiguities, or of maintaining the intention of earlier government decisions on industry assistance where those decisions have been made on the basis of Commission reports. As an additional safeguard to ensure that the role of the Commission is not eroded, action by a Minister under any of these four circumstances requires the written approval of the Minister administering the Industries Assistance Commission Act. The provisions in the Bill relating to anomalies, errors or ambiguities, and to errors in the implementation of decisions, are intended to apply to simple clerical mistakes, such as the misspelling or misspecification of an item, or the like. They do not apply to situations where a government may wish to change its mind after the 12 month period following the receipt of a report of the Commission has elapsed. Similarly the provisions in the Bill relating to changes in circumstances are restricted to situations where a government has decided, at the time it made its decision on assistance arrangements for an industry following receipt of a report of the Commission, to allow specific actions to be taken if those changes in circumstances occur. These provisions are intended to provide scope for variations in tariff rates to be made in response to changes in economic conditions affecting an industry where the variations are within predetermined limits set at the time of the original decision and the circumstances involved were specified in that decision. For example, an industry plan might make provision for variations in the duty rates applying to out-of-quota imports in the event that imports of the goods concerned exceed specified limits. The Bill also provides for variations in tariff assistance to particular goods following a decision by a court or tribunal. Under Australia's tariff system, an appeals mechanism exists on the classification of goods. Such appeals are decided on legal grounds, although a decision to vary the classification of particular goods usually results in a change in the level of assistance provided to a domestic industry. The provisions in the Bill will allow action to be taken to reinstate quickly, and with minimal loss of revenue, the level of assistance previously decided by the government where the government's decision arose out of a report of the Industries Assistance Commission. These provisions in the Bill will not overturn a ruling of a tribunal or court on the classification of goods between tariff items. Such rulings will stand. However, the provisions will permit the intent of government decisions on levels of tariff assistance to be maintained. Changes in tariff assistance following government consideration of a report of the Commission are normally introduced initially by way of customs tariff proposal when Parliament is sitting, or Commonwealth of Australia Gazette notice of intention to propose a customs tariff alteration when it is not. The provisions of the present Bill will allow these procedures to be utilised, in the specific circumstances I have outlined, where a period of more than 12 months has elapsed since the receipt of a relevant report of the Commission. In each case, the action taken will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny when the corresponding Customs Tariff Amendment Bill is introduced. The proposals put forward in the Bill are expected to have only a minor financial impact. The Bill does not involve any additional staff or resources for the Industries Assistance Commission or the Australian Customs Services, which is responsible for implementing changes to the Customs Tariff Act. Present practice is to introduce a Customs Tariff Bill into Parliament to give effect to the proposed changes in the Bill. This delays the collection of duties. The financial impact of the Bill would result from more timely changes to the rates of duty which may flow from the proposed amendments, but it is expected that any such changes would be minor. I commend the Bill to the Senate and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Lewis) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(10.18) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Transport Legislation Amendment Bill contains amendments to a number of Acts administered by the Transport and Communications portfolio. The amendments are of a kind which it has been the practice, in recent years, to make in an omnibus Bill of this nature. Amendments of the Navigation Act 1912 Under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement in 1979 it was agreed that jurisdiction over offshore industry vessels would normally be exercised by the States and the Northern Territory. However, section 8a of the Navigation Act 1912 provides that the Minister may, following consultation with State-Northern Territory Ministers, declare an offshore industry vessel to be a vessel to which the Act applies, where the owner declares that the vessel's operations will not be confined to the waters of one State or Territory during the subsequent three years. At the 74th Australian Transport Advisory Council in July 1987, Federal, State and Northern Territory Transport Ministers agreed that the statutory constraints upon the Minister's declaration should be dispensed with. The Bill, in clause 5, gives effect to that agreement. The efficiency scrutiny unit established by the Government in 1986, and headed by Mr David Block, reviewed the functions and administration of mercantile marine offices. The review found that many of the functions performed by the Government through mercantile marine offices were out-of-date and wasteful of resources both of the taxpayer and the maritime industry. Significant streamlining measures were recommended and after consultation with the industry, involving both maritime unions and shipowners, have been given effect by clause 6 and schedule 1 of the Bill. The proposed amendments will accordingly eliminate detailed involvement by the Department in the engagement and discharge of seafarers. The Act will, however, maintain a legislative framework ensuring the welfare of seafarers in accordance with International Labour Organisation conventions. The opportunity is also being taken to remove references in the Act to indentured apprentices. Such references are obsolete and contrary to the future training initiatives recently taken by the maritime industry through the Maritime Industry Development Committee. At the same time, a now obsolete transitional provision in the Navigation Amendment Act 1979, relating to ships' crews is to be repealed. Unproclaimed amendments contained in the Navigation Amendment Act 1980 and the Navigation Amendment Act 1981, which were intended to introduce a contract of sea service as an alternative to articles of agreement in the offshore industry, are to be repealed as being no longer required following the Department's reduced involvement in the employment of seamen. The levels of penalties under the Navigation Act 1912 have been revised by Attorney-General's Department to conform to penalties applying to similar offences in other Federal legislation. Clause 7 and schedule 2 of the Bill give effect to these. Amendment of the Air Navigation (Charges) Act 1952 The amendment of the Air Navigation (Charges) Act 1952 is to make decisions in respect of remission or refund of charges due or paid under the Act reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Amendments of the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986 The amendments of the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986 are: to ensure that the Corporation's liability for accrued staff entitlements including annual and long service leave transferred by the Commonwealth to the Corporation is taken into account in determining the capital of the Corporation; to clarify the power and procedure relating to the determination of charges under the Act; to enable the Corporation to establish a second superannuation scheme for short-term contract staff; to make a minor editorial correction. Clauses 11 to 15 inclusive of the Bill give effect to these amendments. Amendments of the Shipping Registration Act 1981 The amendments to the Shipping Registration Act 1981 are to ensure that where a ship or a share in a ship is disposed of, the registration certificate for the ship is returned to the Registrar of Ships for registration of the change. Amendments of the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 Amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 are of an editorial nature to correct erroneous cross-references. Financial Impact Statement Implementation of the scrutiny review recommendations regarding mercantile marine office services will achieve savings through more efficient utilisation of staff and accommodation. All remaining services provided to industry will be fully cost recovered from users. In 1988-89 it is estimated those savings will amount to $0.7m (reflecting gradual implementation of new procedures) and in 1989-90 savings of $1.4m will be achieved (based on 1987-88 costs). There will be no significant costs, revenues or savings to the Government arising from the other amendments in the Bill. None of the amendments proposed in the Bill are of a controversial nature and I commend the Bill to honourable senators and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Jenkins) agreed to: That Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 17 standing in the name of Senator Jenkins for this day, for the disallowance of the Canberra Institute of the Arts Ordinance 1988 (as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 1 of 1988), be postponed till a later hour of the day. Motion (by Senator Knowles for SenatorPuplick) agreed to: That Business of the Senate, Notices of Motion Nos 15 and 16 standing in the name of Senator Puplick for this day, for the disallowance of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Regulations (Amendment) (as contained in Statutory Rules 1988 No. 47), and the disapproval of the Declaration in the Proclamation, dated 31 March 1988 and made under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983, respectively, be postponed till 4 sitting days after today. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.22) —I move: That Regulation 3 of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 322 and made under the Occupational Superannuation Standards Act 1987, be disallowed. The Opposition indicated some time ago that it proposed to move for the disallowance of the definition section of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Regulations, not because it opposes all of the definitions contained but quite specifically because it is concerned with one particular definition, namely, that of a member representative in relation to a board or committee of trustees of a superannuation fund. As the motion indicates, the regulations were made under the Occupational Superannuation Standards Act 1987, which is a very broad Act providing the Government with considerable regulation making power with respect to the rules which are to be applied to occupational superannuation. That legislative action is occurring in the context of a considerable expansion of occupational superannuation following decisions of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission relating to a 3 per cent wage rise being taken in the form of occupational superannuation. I think it is generally welcomed that there should be expanded access to superannuation for the Australian work force. The concerns which have arisen relate to the extent to which expansion of superannuation is used for purposes other than the provision of superannuation benefits and the best possible superannuation benefits for the employees concerned. I noted in his somewhat irritable comment following the refusal of leave to incorporate a second reading speech a suggestion-- Senator Walsh —You would rather have the Kelly brothers running the funds. Senator CHANEY —There was some suggestion from the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), which has now been repeated, that I might rather have some particular individuals whom he has named running the fund. I make it quite clear that the Opposition is concerned to ensure that the fund should be run by people who are genuinely representative of the members of the fund, people who will benefit from the fund and not anyone else, whether they be employers with a quite separate interest-- Senator Walsh —You are full of sanctimonious humbug. Senator CHANEY —It is typical of the way Senator Walsh conducts debate in this place that before I have a chance to outline my case he interjects with statements like `sanctimonious humbug', and so on. The Opposition is totally fed up with, and sick of, the childish behaviour of Senator Walsh in this place and his refusal to debate these matters sensibly. I simply point out that I find his intervention from the front bench, firstly, childish and, secondly, unlikely to ensure that we will be able to deal with this matter sensibly and briefly so that we can get on with Government business in this place. The Government has set an impossible legislative target for the Senate and it is unlikely that we will be able to make much of a dent in it while Senator Walsh continues to interject from the front bench in this way. However, to return to the motion, the Opposition is concerned to ensure that where contributions are made to superannuation funds, whether by employers or employees, they are directed to providing the maximum possible benefit to those who are supposed to benefit from those contributions, namely the employees, and that they achieve the maximum possible retirement benefits from the investment of those funds. I take it from the Minister's interjection that he is concerned that in the past there have been occasions when individuals, including employers, have ensured that superannuation funds were used for their benefit rather than for the benefit of the employees and their retirement incomes. I would just like to make it utterly clear that it is in no way the desire of the Opposition to protect any malpractice, past, present or future; our sole concern is to ensure that the employees concerned get the maximum benefit from the money which is invested on their behalf. To the extent that the Government moves to prevent abuses of superannuation, that will have the support of the Opposition. To the extent that the Government enables people to obtain access to or control of superannuation funds in a way which might not be used for the benefit of the employees, then the Opposition will object, as it is doing in the present case. Our concern about this particular regulation is quite simply for the reason that it provides: `member representative', in relation to a board or committee of trustees of a superannuation fund, the board of a body corporate acting as the sole trustee of a superannuation fund or a management board, management committee or other management body that exercises actual control over the policies of a superannuation fund, means a member of that board, committee or body nominated by the members of the fund- here we come to the words that concern the Opposition- or by trade union or other organisation representing the interests of those members. So we find in the definition that a member representative may be a person nominated by a trade union or other organisation representing the interests of those members. In reality what this definition permits is for a superannuation fund to have as a member representative or, indeed, as member representatives people nominated by trade unions who themselves are not members of the fund. In other words, there is no necessary connection between the nomination by the trade union and the actual direct interests of the members of the funds. It may well be that that person is not a member of the fund. It certainly may well be that that person is not put there with the acquiescence or the approval of the members of the fund. In other words, it puts beyond the capacity of the members of the fund the control over who will represent them and permits people to be there who may have no real interest, their only interest in the fund being to get the maximum possible retirement benefit from it. It is important to understand that this push for the involvement of trade unions in the administration of superannuation funds is something which is causing concern to many people. The Life Underwriters Association of Australia on 9 September 1987 issued a media release which, to some extent, is representative of the sorts of concerns which are held much more widely. The Association asked in that Press release: Does this mean that union leaders are now able to influence the investment decisions by the Trustees of union superannuation funds? It referred earlier in the Press release to: The threat by trade union leaders to use the vast amounts of investment funds accumulated in union controlled superannuation funds to buy public utilities . . . That is just a single example of the expressions of view by trade union representatives over recent years that superannuation funds should be used not primarily to protect the retirement incomes of the people who are members of the funds but to pursue other social or political objectives. In the case commented on in the Press release of 9 September 1987 by the Life Underwriters Association, it involved the assertion that trade unions could use these accumulated investment funds in union controlled superannuation to buy public utilities. It may well be that there are people in the Australian Labor Party and the trade union movement who see the public ownership of certain utilities as being in the national interest. Interestingly, the Minister at the table, Senator Walsh, about whom I was complaining a few minutes ago, had some very sensible things to say about the ownership of public utilities and where the public interest lay. I congratulate him on his recent contribution to that debate, because I believe that it was a rational and sensible contribution which will, I hope, help to produce rational and sensible responses from the Party of which he is part. Senator Stone —He described the arguments of some of his colleagues on this matter as `the three great lies'. Senator CHANEY —That is right. I am assisted by Senator Stone, who reminds me that what Senator Walsh was talking about were the three great lies which are propagated in this debate. Senator Walsh —Some of the quasi theft, or actual theft, is practised by the Queensland Government; it is taxpayers' money. Senator Stone would agree with that too. Senator CHANEY —Senator Walsh interjects on the basis that there has been quasi theft by the Queensland Government with respect to some superannuation funds. I made the point earlier in the debate that it is no part of the Opposition's wish to see other than the most effective management of superannuation funds for the benefit of employees. What the Life Underwriters Association is talking about is the clearly expressed view by some trade union representatives that superannuation funds ought to be directed to achieving social and political objectives which bear no relationship to the immediate requirement-to the primary, and indeed the only, requirement-on those superannuation funds which is to provide the best possible retirement benefits for the people whose money it is. There are other elements of concern around. Again, I quote from a source outside politics, the Australian Association of Independent Businesses Ltd. In its newsletter of March 1988 in an editorial headed `Union juggernaut rolls on', it referred with concern to union activity being on the increase in the superannuation area, with awards being varied daily to force employers to make contributions to superannuation funds for their employees, and to unions stipulating which superannuation fund the contribution must be paid into. The editorial states: Yes that's right-``no freedom of choice''-except in some cases where Employers or their Associations have stood up and demanded a fair go. The reality is that the trade union movement is undertaking this superannuation push for a number of reasons. Some of the reasons relate to a perfectly proper and sensible desire to see the benefits of superannuation extended more widely to the non-government work force. Again, let me say that, as an objective, the Opposition believes that is entirely appropriate. The secondary agenda falls into a number of parts. There is the element to which I have already referred-the other social and political objectives-and the fact that unionisation of the work force is declining. In the Senate chamber this morning there are a number of senators whose backgrounds are in trade unions. They would know-and I am sure that they would share the concern of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and people who have spoken on this topic-that interest in being a member of a trade union is declining. Only 46 per cent of the Australian work force is unionised. The great proportion of unionised people lies in the public sector. Nearly 70 per cent of people employed in the public sector are unionised. In the private sector, which is the sector that badly needs expansion and which is expanding in Australia, between 65 and 70 per cent of the work force is not unionised. That is a matter of choice. It is a choice which some trade unions seek to circumvent by use of the procedures for giving preference to unionists. De facto compulsory unionism can be imposed in some circumstances. The simple truth is that in the Australian community in 1988, a declining proportion of people are choosing to join trade unions. They do not see that as being in their best interests. That is a matter about which the Labor Party and the trade unions are entitled to be concerned. They are entitled to take action to try to reverse that trend, but they are not entitled to take action to force people to join trade unions. It is one thing for the trade union movement to offer better and improved services to its members-a higher standard of servicing, better results and so on-and thereby attract people to its ranks; it is a totally different matter to use trade union or industrial muscle of one sort or another or superannuation schemes to increase in an involuntary way the membership of trade unions. Senator Devlin —A lot of those people want to join a union. If they are not in one, they will get the sack. Senator CHANEY —That interjection comes from a senator from Tasmania who has a trade union background. Let me make it clear that I respect his trade union background. But I disagree with the spirit of his intervention in this debate by way of interjection because the reality is that trade unions by and large are not seeking to expand their membership by increasing the attractions of membership. They are trying by various means to coerce people into membership. The greatest possible condemnation of the trade union movement is that it is not prepared to go out and win its membership on the basis-- Senator Devlin —Name them. Senator CHANEY —Let me say that in the north of Melbourne, for example, at the time of the last election-- Senator Walsh —Even if that were true, what has it got to do with this motion? Senator CHANEY —It has a lot to do with this motion. This motion is about a regulation which requires people to have as their member representatives and trustees on superannuation boards people who are the nominees of trade unions. That is something-- Senator Walsh —That is a misstatement of fact for a start. It does not require; it provides. Senator CHANEY —The Minister intervenes and says that it does not require. In one sense that is right. But in another sense it is wrong, because in many circumstances individual employees are not being given a choice as to where their superannuation funds will go. In those circumstances, people who may not even be members of a trade union may well be forced to be members of a superannuation fund on which trade union representatives are the trustees. I would like to go back to the point that I was making when Senator Walsh again interjected. The simple fact of the matter is that in numerous discussions that I have had with employers I have found circumstances, particularly in the context of small business, where membership of trade unions is forced upon an unwilling work force and where the complaint is that, membership having been achieved, the unions do not then service that membership. I can cite, for example, a person running a building supply operation in a northern suburb of Melbourne who resisted at first, along with his employees, unionisation of the work force. But in the end the union came along and said, `There are safety problems here'. The work force was enrolled and the union was not seen again. The employer rang the particular union on numerous occasions and said, `You have claimed that there are unsafe conditions of work here. I do not wish my employees to have unsafe conditions of work. Come to my place of work and show us what is wrong because we wish to rectify it'. There was no interest on the part of the union and no visit. I am not suggesting that there are not excellent trade unions that are providing excellent services for their members and attracting membership. Senator MacGibbon —Where? Senator CHANEY —I have a doubtful interjection from Senator MacGibbon, who is sitting behind me. I am prepared to say that in my dealings with the Vehicle Builders Union, for example, I have been impressed by that union's concern for the welfare of its members. I have been impressed by its overall approach to the industry in which they work. I cite that union as but one example of what I would see as positive trade union activity. But I am also saying that there are many elements of negative trade union activity. In the time that remains to me, let me return to the simple reality that under this definition individual members can be effectively forced to be members of a fund, given the combination of circumstances which now apply in terms of Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission decisions about superannuation and so on, of which the trustees are not representative of members of the fund in the sense that those members have absolutely no say in who shall look after them. That may well be determined by factors totally outside the control of the members. That is the narrow point of concern which underlies this motion for disallowance. I hope that a whole lot of red herrings are not drawn into subsequent debate. I want to be quite precise. Our sole concern is with the reality that, under this definition, members of a fund-incidentally, they may not be members of a trade union-without any say on their part, will be represented by nominees not of themselves but of a trade union. I return to the point that there is a serious doubt as to whether all trade unions are concerned to achieve what members wish to achieve, which is the maximisation of their retirement benefits. The simple illustration of that is the formal document produced by the ACTU entitled Australia Reconstructed. That document represents a statement by the ACTU on which a great deal of work was done by the trade union movement. It makes considerable reference to superannuation in the section dealing with the proposal of the ACTU that there should be a national development fund. The relevance of that to this disallowance motion is the specific recommendation in Australia Reconstructed on page 23 under the heading `Funding the National Development Fund'. Recommendation No. 1.6 states: All superannuation funds be required to make available up to 20 per cent of their future income to be drawn on by the National Development Fund. Recommendation No. 1.7 also affects investment by superannuation funds. It states: Those superannuation funds which already have more than 15 per cent of their investment overseas should be required to reduce such investments according to the following timetable: It then sets out a year by year reduction schedule to apply from 1987 to 1992-presumably, those dates would have to be adjusted to fit in with the timing of the introduction of this proposal-bringing such investments down to a maximum of 15 per cent. In other words, the trade union movement is saying in this formal document that it believes that a significant proportion of the funds should be directed to funding this national development fund. The document makes it clear that the national development fund is to be used to achieve other economic and social objectives. For example, it will be specifically concerned to ensure the achievement of long term investment. That may well be a very good thing to achieve in a broad theoretical sense; whether or not it is a good thing to achieve for a particular superannuation fund is a matter which, in the view of the Opposition, should be judged according to whether that represents a sensible investment for the membership of the fund. Page 22 of Australia Reconstructed reads: Since the projected growth of superannuation funds is rapid, there is an argument for using some of the funds for housing in addition to industry finance. On social welfare grounds the highest returns would be gained if funds were concentrated on the building of modest houses, preferably through the public housing authorities, for sale on income-related mortgage instruments. The balance of investment between housing and industry would depend strongly on whether these needs can be met from other sources, and would have to be aligned with the overall economic strategy. That is perhaps an unexceptionable statement of social policy. If we were debating the way that taxpayers' funds, government funds, should be used to assist socially people on low incomes with housing, that would make a lot of sense. But we are not talking about the general pool of taxpayers' funds here; we are talking about a pool of funds which are accumulated from the contributions of employees and employers towards the long term retirement incomes of those employees. It is suggested here that what may well be laudable social welfare objectives should be pursued using those funds. The Opposition's simple point is that that is not the correct source of such funds. It flies in the face of the requirement which should be and has always been on the trustees of superannuation funds to maximise the returns for retirement incomes. That is why we are concerned about the suggestion that there should be some compulsory limit on investment out of this country. Again it is being said that the interests of the employees in having a maximised retirement income is to be sacrificed to a separate economic or social objective. Again, on page 22 we find these words: Decisions would also need to be made on the appropriate rate of return on the AIDC Fund- that is, the Australian Industry Development Corporation fund- that would accrue to the superannuation funds either as an equity return or as a nominal interest return. The simple point to be made in respect of that is that again it represents a step back from the fundamental principle which has always dictated the actions of trustees in the past; namely, that they should maximise the return which can be achieved for the membership. To the extent that Senator Walsh chooses to enter into this debate and make it a vehicle for discussing what he sees as past abuses by participants in the superannuation industry-- Senator Walsh —You know the Kelly brothers were abusing it. Senator CHANEY —I am not making a prejudgment on the examples that might be brought forward. I simply want to make it clear that no part of the case made by the Opposition concerning this regulation in any way defends the abuse of superannuation funds by people who use them for a purpose other than the purpose for which they are put together. Senator Walsh —The Bank of Adelaide. Senator CHANEY —The more the Minister chooses to multiply the examples the more I would wish to say in response, `Do not add to the possibility of future abuses by putting in requirements which will mean that we may have trustees who have duties other than a duty to the members'. In other words, if Senator Walsh is going to say there have been abuses, and by abuses we mean an attempt to divert the use of the funds from providing benefits for members, all I can say is that we wish to make common ground with him and to establish that this should not become an opportunity for future abuses. There are plenty of statements on the public record. I have chosen to quote some in the debate. Significant elements of the trade union movement would argue that the direction of superannuation funds should be for purposes outside the provision of a maximised benefit for the employees. That is our point of concern and that is why we seek to disallow this regulation. We seek to disallow it on the basis that the Government can then remake the regulation containing all of the other definitions and simply remake even the particular regulation to which I have referred-the definition of `member representative'-but omit the words `or by a trade union or other organisation representing the interests of those members'. We are looking for control by the members of the fund of those member representatives. The arguments that I think can be put up basically relate to questions of whether there is any cost to be incurred in ensuring that these member representatives are genuinely representatives of the members of the fund. That is no different from the costs which are incurred in a public company where the membership of the board of directors is left with the control of the owners of that company, the shareholders. In exactly the same way costs are incurred in the trade union movement in ensuring that the management of the trade union movement is elected by its membership. Yes, there are some economic costs in that but I believe those costs are minuscule compared with the absolute requirement that the member representatives of committees of trustees ought to be people whose sole responsibility is to the members of their fund and who do not have a separate agenda in their activities as members of boards or committees of trustees. The position the Opposition has taken is clearly correct in principle. I believe it should have the support of the Senate, and I commend the motion and ask the Government to give very serious consideration to the amendment of this particular regulation to provide genuine protection for the workers of Australia who will be contributing to these funds for their future retirement. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.50) —Senator Chaney said several times during his contribution to the debate on this motion for disallowance with regard to occupational superannuation standards regulations that he did not want to see red herrings take up a great deal of time, and yet I suggest that the greater part of his speech was devoted to precisely those red herrings. He talked about the fact that members of superannuation funds would not have any say in how the funds were invested or in the appointment of union representatives on boards as trustees. I wonder how often members of the funds are consulted, in any event, no matter who the trustees are. I wonder how often members of superannuation funds are consulted about how those funds are invested. Senator Chaney argued that the main responsibility of trustees is to maximise the return to the benefit for the members. That is fine as far as it goes, but he was talking about it in the context of offshore investment by those superannuation funds. I think it is worth while pointing out that taxpayers are subsidising those returns on investments, because the profits of superannuation and life funds are not taxed and, as we all know, the majority of taxpayers are not members of superannuation funds. For a variety of reasons, the majority do not benefit from superannuation. It seems a little questionable to argue that taxpayers generally, as a group, should subsidise a part of their group who do benefit from belonging to a superannuation fund, even when such a fund invests offshore, and in so doing deplete domestic lending reserves. For a variety of reasons of his own, Senator Chaney threw quite a lot of red herrings across the path of this debate. Apparently, what it boils down to, having listened to Senator Chaney, is that he, and I presume the entire Opposition, is concerned about one aspect of regulation 3; namely, that relating to the definition of a member representative. Under regulation 3, `member representative' is defined as: . . . a member of that board, committee or body nominated by the members of the fund or by a trade union or other organisation representing the interests of those members. According to Senator Chaney, apparently the Opposition wants fund members to elect member representatives to a board, committee or body corporate, rather than simply nominating members. I would think that the attitude of the principals of the fund in this case should be considered by the Senate chamber. They surely have a place in this debate, and their opinions ought to be considered to be quite relevant to this. The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia has approached us with its views on the matter, and it takes a much more cautious, if not to say rational, approach to the problem. In the memorandum forwarded to us, dated 18 April, referring specifically to the Opposition's proposal to disallow regulation 3, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia said: Supporting this proposal would be a very serious step. Regulation 3 contains the definitions which are then used in all other regulations, and the step would therefore bring the operation of the regulations to a halt. I point out that the superannuation funds have been under some considerable pressure over the past year or two because of slowness on the part of the Government in getting its act together in these areas. We have all had plenty to say in this place on legislation by Press release, particularly when the Press release is made six months or a year or more prior to the Government actually introducing the relevant legislation. To then meddle in the area of delegated legislation, in the area of regulation, is not making it any easier for the funds to operate, to know where they are going, or to have any certainty at all in their method of operation. I understand from Senator Chaney that the Opposition would prefer that the word `nominated' be replaced by the word `elected' and for all the words relating to appointment by a trade union or similar body to be deleted. This minor paranoia that Senator Chaney seems to have about all those unions other than the ones involved in building cars is a little out of place in this debate, I would have thought, but it certainly seems to be behind the motion that Senator Chaney has moved today. Again, I think it is worth while pointing out what the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia has to say on this matter. It is very clear. In opposing the Opposition's proposals, the Association has informed us: The industry could not support either of these specific changes. Election must not be the only acceptable method of appointment. Also, for industry funds, particularly those established jointly by an employer organisation and the ACTU, it is quite appropriate for some trustees to be appointed by the ACTU or a trade union. On the question of election versus nomination, the Senior Superannuation Actuary of the Australian Mutual Provident Society (AMP) in a letter of 21 April specifically addressed the matter of the definition of `member representative' in regulation 3 and in particular the fact that nomination by a trade union satisfies this definition. The AMP had this to say: While this may well have been a concern prior to the advent of `productivity superannuation', the fact that this development emanates from the industrial relations arena changes our attitude somewhat. Where a productivity plan arises through a consent award through the Arbitration Commission we believe it is natural that the parties to this consent award are represented as trustees of the ensuing plan. The wording of the definition is wide enough to embrace this situation without requiring it. To require an election of trustees in a multi-employer industry plan would we believe be impractical and we don't see this as a satisfactory alternative. The memorandum from the AMP also points out-and I do not recall Senator Chaney addressing his attention to this-that regulation 14 in fact requires a two-thirds majority for trustee decisions, and this ensures that neither employer nor union representatives can force decisions without some support from the other. Senator Chaney did not indicate in his contribution why he thinks that regulation 3 would somehow mean union domination of the decision-making capacity, when regulation 14 quite clearly requires a two-thirds majority for a trustee decision, and it is unlikely that the union representatives will form a two-thirds majority of any group. So, unless the employer representatives also concur with the proposal, there is little likelihood of some sort of hidden agenda pursued by the unions being forced through. I am sure that honourable senators will recall that the Opposition did everything it could at the end of last year to reject, or at the very least hold up, the passage of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill 1987. The delayed introduction of that Bill by the Government, following its Press release, had already caused concern in the industry and again we were contacted by senior groups in the industry requesting that we not support the Opposition in delaying or defeating that legislation. They were already in a confused enough state over what delays had already occurred and they did not want any more. What appears to have happened is that yet again an opportunity to do a bit of union bashing has got in the way of concern for the effective and efficient operation of an industry. Frankly, it is no wonder that Ian Macphee, who I remind the Senate was Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in the Fraser Government, was moved to say in the Melbourne Herald only last month: I frankly am in no doubt that the wages outcome which has been delivered so far by the Government could not have been achieved by a Coalition Government, even if I had been Industrial Relations Minister. Given that the Opposition parties, through Senator Chaney and with the enthusiastic support of Senator Stone-who twitches madly at the very mention of the word `union'-seem to be basing their opposition to regulation 3 on the fact that a union representative will be part of the trustee system and, worse, that he will be a nominated instead of an elected person, I can see absolutely no justification at all for supporting the motion. At the behest of the industry most affected by these regulations, an industry very keen to be able to get on with doing what Senator Chaney argues it is there for-maximising returns and benefits to its members-the Australian Democrats will not support Senator Chaney's motion for disallowance. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(11.02) —Senator Haines has suggested that all Opposition members are paranoid about unions. In general, I agree with that, but it is not entirely true. I recall that when the Australian Capital Territory branch of the doctors' union-the Australian Medical Association-was blackmailing taxpayers, it had the public support of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Thus, while Senator Haines is generally right, there is the odd exception to the hostile paranoia that the Opposition displays about unions. To unions in general, the Opposition is hostile and paranoid, but when it comes to the Australian Capital Territory branch of the Australian Medical Association it is highly supportive of the doctors' union when it attempts to blackmail the taxpayers. First, I should clear up at the outset an important matter, otherwise something quite wrong could be read into the remarks made by Senator Chaney. Regulation 3 does not require that there be union representatives on a superannuation fund. It allows for the nominee of a union to be appointed as a trustee. It is not mandatory; it is a provision that allows it to happen. Senator Chaney, in putting his case, produced no evidence whatever of any malfeasance or malpractice by union nominees who were trustees of superannuation funds. He just speculated about the possibility of there being some malpractice in future by union nominated trustees. However, on the other hand, we have hard evidence-which I know Senator Chaney does not want me to regurgitate-of malpractice by employers in managing superannuation funds in the past. There was the celebrated case of the Kelly brothers, to whom I referred, who ran a moderately sized business and had a superannuation fund for their employees, although most, if not all, of the employees were unaware of that fact. The Kelly brothers paid into this fund tax deductible payments over a number of years-quite a long period. However, to qualify for any benefit an employee had to remain for, I think, 15 years in continuous employment. The Kelly brothers ensured that no employee actually remained employed for 15 years. Ultimately, of course, the assets of the fund would have reverted to the Kelly brothers without employees ever getting a cent out of that fund. That was tantamount to theft. The Government could not do very much about it because, although it was tantamount to theft, it was not technically theft. The Government could not do much about the fact that the Kelly brothers had ostensibly made a payment to their employees when they had no intention of ever making one. However, the Government could do something about the taxation implications of the matter. It introduced a Bill to deny to the Kelly brothers and others who had similarly rorted the superannuation system the tax deductibility of the payments they had made ostensibly for their employees but in fact for themselves. What happened then was that the Opposition ensured that the money remained tax free, even though the Kelly brothers had already effectively stolen it from their employees. None of this became public until these rogues fell out, and one Kelly brother started to spill the beans on the other. They were regarded as, if not shady and disreputable characters, fairly inconsequential people. However, there was another example of mismanagement of a superannuation fund by employers, by no less than the Bank of Adelaide, a pillar of the Adelaide establishment, which was using the employees' superannuation fund to buy the bank's own shares on the stock market. Thus we have hard evidence of employers manipulating and misusing their powers on superannuation funds. On the other hand, we have wild and paranoid speculation about the possibility of union nominees doing that. The Opposition says that we cannot allow union nominees to be trustees of a fund, while saying nothing about employers. Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not suggesting that a large number, let alone a majority, of employers behave as the pillars of the Adelaide establishment, who were trustees of the Bank of Adelaide's superannuation fund, behaved, or as disreputable characters such as the Kelly brothers behaved. Those cases are atypical of employers but nevertheless such abuses have taken place in the past. The Opposition expressed no concern about that fact but used its numbers in the Senate to ensure that the money effectively stolen by the Kelly brothers from their employees remained tax free in the hands of the Kelly brothers. If this motion for disallowance were to be carried-and I have noted that Senator Haines has said that the Australian Democrats will not support it, so that it will not be carried-it would raise the question of what would replace regulation 3, and Senator Chaney did not address that matter. Senator Chaney —I did address that. Senator WALSH —I am sorry; I did not hear him do so. I was going to say that that matter was addressed by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) in the House of Representatives, who suggested that an election should be held. Incidentally, an election is not precluded by regulation 3. It is one of the options available, just as one of the other options available is for a union nominee to represent the employees on the fund. If an election were to be mandatory, as the honourable member for Bradfield suggested-and I am not sure what Senator Chaney was suggesting-it should be noted that a statutory requirement to hold elections would bring with it a considerable extra layer of requirements, including such matters as the frequency of elections, how they are to be conducted, who oversees the operation, and procedures for handling disputes. I am advised that the Insurance and Superannuation Commission's contact with industry bodies has shown that there is no need to impose additional and costly legislative requirements of this kind. Senator Haines referred to correspondence that a national organisation and the Australian Mutual Provident Society (AMP) addressed to the Australian Democrats. I think the AMP is the largest superannuation fund; if not, it is certainly among the largest. Neither of them is supporting the Opposition's action. I am also advised by the Insurance and Superannuation Commission's office that no complaints have been received from either employers or employees about regulation 3, which the Opposition proposes to disallow. If this motion of disallowance were to be carried-and, as I said before, clearly it will not be-I am advised that it would not only affect the question of rules under which trustees representing employees could be appointed but also remove all of the definitions from the occupational superannuation standards regulations, not just the one relating to the members' representative. This would obviously also cause confusion about regulations in the industry as well as difficulties in administration. It would, of course, also undermine the equal sharing of control principle which the regulations seek to establish, as well as a number of other important standards designed to protect member interests; for example, minimum vesting requirements. That points directly to the matter I raised earlier. If there are no minimum vesting requirements, it certainly opens the system up-much more so under this regulation-to further abuses of the type practised in the past by the Kelly brothers and the directors of the Bank of Adelaide. Honourable senators interjecting- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walsh has the call. The other two honourable senators should have their discussion privately. Senator WALSH —I do not think I need to say very much more. I do not have to convince the Democrats; apparently they have already made up their minds and have reached a sensible decision. I am a bit puzzled as to what motivates the Opposition. It has these obsessive attitudes and hysterical, irrational reactions any time the word `union' appears in front of it or when the word is mentioned; it could be that, or it could be that in the absence of any significant policies of its own it continues to play a spoiling role about everything. The only point which Senator Chaney has put up in favour of this proposition is that in the future there might be some union nominee who will abuse his position as a trustee of a fund. He then drew a longer bow and alleged that there was coercion by some unions of employers and their employees to enrol members for no reason other than to swell the unions' income flow. That may be true. However, if it is true it has nothing to do with this question. The Opposition is essentially saying that one cannot allow union nominees to be trustees of superannuation funds because they will abuse their position. The Opposition produced no evidence of union nominees having abused their position-and they have been sitting around superannuation funds for at least 15 years. Senator Devlin probably has a better idea of that than I. Is it longer? Senator Devlin —A bit longer. Senator WALSH —Senator Devlin tells me it is a bit longer than 15 years. There is no evidence that I am aware of and certainly none has been produced by the Opposition that any of these union representatives have abused their position over the last 15 years and beyond. But the Opposition says that they might abuse their position. However, as I have mentioned, there is hard evidence of employers having abused their position. But we, on the Government side, do not say that because there are a couple of crooks called Kelly and because the pillars of the Adelaide establishment decided that they would sacrifice the funds of their employees' superannuation fund in order to protect their position, we will not allow any employer representation on the funds. It is a pity that the Opposition cannot be equally rational. We do not draw general conclusions from a couple of isolated incidents. On the other hand, the Opposition draws general conclusions on the basis of no evidence at all, just the possibility that something might happen. Of course, hanging over all this is the fact that these jointly managed funds must still comply with the rules laid down by the Insurance and Superannuation Commission and that that Commission has an ongoing oversighting role to play to ensure that superannuation funds are properly managed. Of course, that does not entirely remove the possibility. No system yet devised by human society is perfect. We cannot guarantee absolutely that the Commission will ensure that there is never any abuse of any superannuation fund. But here is an additional and totally independent overseeing body which is charged with, amongst other things, the responsibility of seeing that funds are properly managed. I do not intend to say any more. It is clear that the disallowance motion will not be carried, and a good thing too. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.16) —in reply-The speeches made on behalf of the Australian Democrats and the Government had a number of points in common and, in the interest of time, I will deal with them in common. I will first dispose of the furphy which was put, I think more forcefully by Senator Walsh than by Senator Haines but indeed put by both of them, that in some way the Opposition in moving this disallowance motion is trying to dispose of the whole of the definition. In moving this motion I made it quite explicit that what is objected to by the Opposition is essentially one line in the definition of `member representative' which permits the appointment of a person who is nominated by a trade union which is not necessarily a trade union of which the members of the fund are themselves members. It was simply suggested that the effective deletion of that line from that definition would adequately meet the Opposition's concern. With the disallowance being moved, there is no technical reason why the other definitions cannot be restored and, indeed, why this amended definition cannot be restored. So it is a complete furphy for the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and, indeed, for Senator Haines to suggest that some great vacuum will be left. There is absolutely no need for that. The simple reality is that when the Government chooses to legislate in an important area such as this by means of subordinate legislation-that is, the use of regulations-there are limitations on the capacity of the Parliament to move amendments. It can move disallowance motions only in terms of a section or a clause of the regulations. That is one of the reasons that, in important matters such as this, we should see these matters dealt with by proper legislation rather than regulation because there is that restriction on us. But, in this case, there is absolutely no ground for the Australian Democrats to hide behind that technicality in indicating why they will not support this particular disallowance motion. Senator Haines —I am sorry, I said we would not support it because the industry does not want to support it. Senator CHANEY —I am very glad to have that interjection from Senator Haines, who now says, in her irritated manner, that the Democrats will not support this because the industry does not want them to support it. In this debate, we are not speaking for the Australian Mutual Provident Society; we are speaking for the people in this country who have superannuation benefits. The Australian Democrats may choose to listen only to those whose basic interest is accumulating superannuation funds for their administration. We are concerned with the basic interests of the members of superannuation funds who may be in a situation where their benefits are not being maximised. We do not feel it necessary simply to listen to those people who have the administration of the funds; we are concerned with the interests of the members of those funds. It is a pity that the Australian Democrats do not remember that we are here representing people-we are not here representing narrow interest groups. However, there is no question of difficulties and confusion arising; procedurally, there is not a problem. The suggestion by Senator Walsh that this course of action should not be taken because it is costly is exactly the same objection that could be taken to having democratic control of corporations or of trade unions. Clearly either of those propositions would not get a hearing in this place. The Opposition believes that the principle that we should be most concerned with is ensuring that those people who are supposedly there to represent the members do in fact represent the members and not other interests. In fact, the difference between the Government and the Opposition and the Opposition and the Australian Democrats in this matter I think basically comes about because neither the Government nor the Australian Democrats are prepared to accept that a union nominee may, in the clear terms that have been indicated by the trade union movement itself as to its attitude to superannuation, find himself in what is essentially a conflict of interest situation. The reality is that the trade union movement has spelled out through the Australian Council of Trade Unions and through the document Australia Reconstructed that it believes that superannuation is there to serve purposes which go beyond the direct interests of the members of a fund in obtaining good retirement incomes. The simple reality is that there is therefore a possibility of a conflict of interest and, as law-makers, we should be concerned to avoid that. I will address a point that was made by both Senator Haines and Senator Walsh about what they call the Opposition's paranoia about unions, and I do so because each time an issue relating to trade unions is raised in this place, and raised in a way that is not laudatory of the trade union movement, there are allegations that the Opposition is union bashing. I find that a very interesting allegation. It comes in particular from Senator Haines but it also comes from members of the Australian Labor Party. I think, as I have said often in the past, that the trade union movement has more than one face in this country. It has the smiling and generally responsible mask of Mr Crean and it has the less smiling but overall broadly responsible mask of Mr Kelty. The reality is that many people in the trade union movement are as anxious as any member of the Government or the Opposition to see Australia prosper, and they have the same concerns about the wider national interest. That is part of the truth about the trade union movement in Australia. I acknowledge that now, as I have acknowledged it before audiences of industrial relations societies in different States, before the H. R. Nicholls Society and before any audience to whom I have spoken on this subject. However, I think it is arrant hypocrisy to deny that there is another face to trade unionism in this country. Senator Devlin —The same as the employers. Senator CHANEY —The good senator from Tasmania, Senator Devlin, says, `The same as the employers'. He is right-there are saints and sinners and in the main just pretty ordinary blokes on both sides. Part of the reality with which we as parliamentarians must come to grips is the very ugly side. One can look at many reports that have nothing to do with politics, for example, the report of the Sweeney Royal Commission into Alleged Payments to Maritime Unions. Senator Devlin knows more in a practical sense about the waterfront than I could ever know because he has worked in that industry. I would say that if Senator Devlin went away and read the Sweeney report he would not be able to come back into this place and say, `Mr Justice Sweeney was afflicted with paranoia; of course all those dreadful things never occurred'. I do not believe that Senator Devlin would come into this place and say that because he knows that in a sector of the trade union movement, of which he has direct and, as I understand it, virtually lifelong experience, there are examples of abuse which would make him and any other decent Australian ashamed. Mr Deputy President, when you are not filling your present role but are serving in the capacity of a senator, you have raised issues relating to the trade union movement on the waterfront and in the coastal trade, and so on-issues which I believe are worrying for any Australian. That is also part of the less smiling face of trade unionism. I am sick to death of the prissy rubbish with which Senator Haines goes on with respect to paranoia about trade unions, so I will quote not what politicians have to say but what some pretty impartial observers have said about some of the conduct of trade unions in this country, the sort of thing that sickens the men and women of Australia and leads 80 per cent of them to believe that trade unions have too much power. Until the representatives of the trade unions in this place, like Senator Devlin and the 26 other Labor members of parliament who have come from the trade union movement, are as loud in their condemnation of thuggery and bullying in the trade union movement as any Liberal, we will not have a decent country and a decent place for every man and woman in which to work. When the Dollar Sweets case got out of the political arena and into the courts, evidence-not assertions by politicians, whether Labor, Liberal or National Party-was given and we heard some of the things which make me very angry and which lead me to complain in a way that Senator Haines has the cheek to say is an example of paranoia. I refer to what was done by the picket line in Melbourne. I will read from the judgment, not of a politician but of a judge: Then a number of women who were in the picket line punched and kicked Mr Lendon. The fourth-named defendant . . . ripped a hairpiece from his head, which he said caused him to bleed. Mr Lendon could not break free from his assailants.- This is a worker being assaulted-not a politician, a policeman or an employer, but a worker, a man driving a van, a truck or something else and he was assaulted by his fellow workers. The judgment continues: Mr Lendon could not break free from his assailants until two other truck drivers came to his assistance. The police were called but the picketers by this time had dispersed, at least for a moment. The uncontradicted evidence is that Mr. Lendon has, as a result of the assault, been required to have an operation on the retina of his eye, and now wears glasses. Furthermore, he has received a number of abusive phone calls during which threats were made to him. The obstructive tactics of the picket line directed to him have continued since that day. A number of his fellow employees, drivers employed by Erand Transport Pty Ltd have perhaps not unnaturally, refused to take deliveries to the plaintiff's premises because of fear of physical violence should they venture to pass through the picket. I infer that their fears are more than justified, and the knowledge of the assault on Mr. Lendon has lent strength to the intimidation caused by the obstructive and violent tactics of the picket. I do not believe that it is some form of paranoia to raise these matters, whether it is in this debate or elsewhere. It is part of the reality that men and women in Australia must put up with, and I think it is a crying shame. I turn to one other document from which I have quoted before but it is a more recent example and it occurred in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). Mr Commissioner Baird is an ex-trade unionist-he is not a Liberal politician or some sort of outsider; he is a man with a lifelong involvement of the sort that Senator Devlin has had. I will read part of his account of his dealings with the building unions here in the ACT. I point out that he is not a union basher or a man afflicted by paranoia; he is a man who has struggled to get sense where there is none. He says: There is almost no credibility with the undertakings given by the unions. A little later he says: . . . I find that while there are a number of cases where they are adhered to, the preponderance of disputes occur as if no agreements existed of any kind . . . A little later he says: Now, am I to assume that the union is going to support liars and frauds, because that is really what I am faced with, and I must say it is getting to a stage where the description of anarchy is the only description. A little later he says: I must say, if I were an employer I would have no hesitation, if I could not get the work done, and had issued a lawful instruction to take whatever course was available to me to either enforce the order or shut the job down. It has gone beyond the normal industrial relationships, where the official can talk with the employers, and their representatives, in a manner-a rational manner-out of which some resolution of the dispute normally can take place. He continued: I could go on to give some other interesting examples of things which have happened; threats about demonstrations when I wanted to carry out inspections- I interpolate: Here is a commissioner not, as I understand it, known as an enemy of the trade union movement, who tells us that there have been threats about demonstrations when he has wanted to inspect a building site. He continued: verbal abuse at a football club, which I underwent by members of the FEDFA, while I was having dinner; and a number of other incidents, which, in my view, reflect the fact that there is an anarchistic situation there, which will only be resolved by very firm action both by the union officials, and I know there are a number of them that are very unhappy about the position, and by the employers. I am sorry to divert this debate but I find it absolutely extraordinary that the Australian Democrats are not prepared to face the fact that that is also part of the industrial relations reality in this country. I am accused of paranoia when all I have done is simply quote what the trade union movement itself had to say about superannuation. Senator Walsh says that I am acting on suspicions and concerns about what might occur. All I can say is that a lot of time, effort and money-a lot of it public money-went into drawing out these views of the ACTU on the purposes for which superannuation should be used. I am sorry, but I am not deeply moved by the authorities cited by Senator Haines nor, indeed, by the AMP because I do not believe that those authorities-the AMP or, indeed, any other body-are speaking for the people of Australia. They are quite properly speaking for the interests they see themselves as representing. What I am saying is that this regulation leaves it open for some of the members of these boards to have a genuine conflict of interest. I think that until commerce in Australia wakes up and remembers that conflicts of interest matter we will go on having the sorts of difficulties that the Minister at the table now, the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate), is unable to deal with at Question Time-that is, about what is happening in the capitalist system in Western Australia. I think that a lot of the issues we are called upon to deal with show that people have forgotten what their simple duties are to shareholders and what problems arise when there is a conflict of interest-in this case the potential of a conflict of interest between a view of superannuation funds as a source of strategic investment to meet the housing needs of poor Australians, a view that superannuation funds are there to meet strategic investment requirements for an industrial renaissance in this country, a view that the superannuation funds of Australia should be directed not to invest overseas, even if we are not delivering a proper investment environment in Australia, and the view that the mobility of capital should be restricted because it does not meet political, strategic and economic objectives which might be the objectives of the trade union movement, of the Government or whatever. I simply say that there is a problem here that could be avoided. I believe that it is symptomatic of how pathetic this Parliament has become that one cannot get an intelligent, sensible response from the Australian Democrats without them indulging in the sort of abuse we got. I believe that the Minister at the table, who, of course, is an appalling example, is symptomatic of the inability of this Government sensibly, openly and honestly to debate serious issues. It is quite clear that this motion will not be carried. However, I am very glad that I brought it forward on behalf of the Opposition and Mr David Connolly, the shadow Minister for the conduct of superannuation matters. I think, if nothing else, it has served to expose some of the deficiencies in the way in which we debate these issues in this country and the lack of concern for principle which is evident in many of the responses. I commend the motion. I trust that it will be carried. I know from the speeches that have been made that it will not be. I believe that is a pity. Given the depth of feeling that the Minister showed he had about abuses by employers-people he described as crooks of the superannuation system-it is a pity that both he and the Government should not be assiduous in ensuring that people on these bodies which have the responsibility of looking after these funds should avoid any risk of conflict of interest. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Alston, R. K. R. Lewis, A. W. R.Archer, B. R. McGauran, J. J.Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J.Bishop, B. K. Newman, J. M.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Panizza, J. H.Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Hill, R. M. Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. Aulich, T. G. Giles, P. J.Beahan, M. E. Haines, J.Black, J. R. Jenkins, J. A.Burns, B. R. McKiernan, J. P.Childs, B. K. McLean, P. A.Coates, J. McMullan, R. F.Collins, R. L. Macklin, M. J.Colston, M. A. (Teller) Maguire, G. R.Cook, P. F. S. Powell, J. F.Cooney, B. C. Ray, RobertCoulter, J. R. Reynolds, M.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Watson, J. O. W. Jones, G. N.Baume, Peter Morris, J. J.Chapman, H. G. P. Richardson, G. F.Vanstone, A. E. Button, J. N.Reid, M. E. Evans, GarethMessner, A. J. Bolkus, N.Teague, B. C. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed from 18 May, on motion by Senator Robert Ray: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(11.42) —Last night when the legislation was before the Senate I said that I wished to speak about the new Brisbane Airport and the particular points I wished to raise related to the mismanagement of that new facility by the Australian Labor Party. I outlined the history of the old airport and the reasons that it was totally inadequate and said that a decision to build a new one was taken in the late 1960s. The principal reason for that decision was that the pressures on residential areas around the airport were getting to be unmanageable. The airport was technically inadequate. The runway length for heavy international traffic was such that aircraft could not depart at their maximum all-up weight. I talked about noise in various suburbs and said that one of the design parameters was that there be a significant reduction in noise for the surrounding population. We have developed, through the Department of Transport and Communications, our own noise assessment technique-the Australian noise exposure forecast (NEF). That is not a straight measure of noise intensity or a straight decibel count; it is something that we have developed in Australia which takes into account the unpleasant qualities of noise as well as volume. It represents a serious attempt to measure the discomfort, irritation and unpleasantness of noise, rather than just measuring the straight noise intensity, because the degree of unpleasantness depends on the frequencies of the sound waves themselves, as well as many other factors. The Australian noise exposure forecast contains four significant scales-20, 25, 30 and 40; that is, in increasing levels of unacceptability. The 25 NEF figure is regarded as the acceptable level for suburban noise. With the old airport, the suburbs of Doomben, Ascot and Hamilton, which are quite closely settled, had a 40 NEF figure-I think it is a logarithmic scale-which was very much above the acceptable level. Doomben, Whinstanes, Ascot and Bulimba were in the 30 to 40 NEF range. A larger number of suburbs were above the 25 NEF level, which is regarded as the cut-off point. In 1974, the Department estimated that at least 3,500 houses were above the 25 NEF level. The figures that the Department published in relation to the study showed that the noise discomfiture with the new airport would be a whole magnitude less. Its estimate was that 49 houses, rather than 3,500, would be discomfited to a considerable level. The offer was made at that time to resume them and pay adequate compensation. There was never any promise made that the airport would be noise free because such a condition is absolutely impossible when residential areas are nearby. However, the reduction in noise was to be quite enormous. According to the figures that the Department published, about 200 to 300 houses would get some noise exposure and the level would be significant for only 49 of those. That was important because one of the design parameters of the airfield was to create a curfew-free operation. I have mentioned noise because there has been quite a degree of complaint in the Brisbane community since the airport has been opened. I return to the history of the development of the new airport. When the Liberals went out of office in 1972, the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, promised that the airport would go ahead, but, in the usual style of Labor Prime Ministers, funding for the new airport was discontinued in March 1973. Despite repeated attempts by interested parties to get the airport back on the agenda, the Labor Party refused to do so. In 1976, an independent study by the Bureau of Transport Economics recommended that the airport should proceed. The Liberal Government of the time, under Malcolm Fraser, went ahead with it and, in December 1977, committed $12m. On 5 June 1980, the first sod was turned to mark the start of the construction. I was one of the few people who are still in the Parliament who was there when Malcolm Fraser drove a backhoe on what was the western side of the new airport to start it going. The construction of the airport then proceeded. In 1983, the Fraser Government lost office and the Labor Government came in. The Minister responsible for the airport at that time was Mr Hurford, the Minister for Housing and Construction. In Brisbane in 1983 Mr Hurford said: Priority for funding the Brisbane Airport development would not be changed under the Labor Government. Less than 12 months later-in fact, in March 1984-out of a Budget allocation of $70m in the Supplementary Estimates for that year, the Labor Party took $20m, despite Mr Hurford's promises that the airport would not be affected. But we have come to expect such things from a Labor government. It promised that there would be no capital gains tax and no tax on gold. Words mean nothing to the Labor Party. As a consequence of those Budget cuts, the airport took a lot longer to finish than it should have. Nevertheless, it was finished. It was finished nearly 12 months ago. I am at a total loss to understand why the Government did not open the airport in March or April 1987 because it was finished. It just sat there. It was the woolly-minded or featherbrained activities of Cabinet that let this great asset sit there. It is hard to put an accurate price on the new Brisbane Airport, but it is about $600m in today's prices. A completed asset for which the Australian taxpayer had paid sat there collecting dust because of this Government's bureaucratic incompetence. In interest payments alone, it cost the Australian taxpayer between $60m and $80m. We had paid for that asset and it sat there doing nothing. That is absolutely incomprehensible to anyone with any business sense and it is something which private industry would never do. The airport was finally opened at 2 p.m. on 19 March 1988. I was interested to read in the paper this week a comment by Dr Alan Reynolds, who came to Australia as a consultant to look at the Australian economy. He has been widely reported this week as saying that Australia is a big country that thinks small. I have no doubt that he reached that conclusion after meeting members of this Government. This Government has a minuscule vision of Australia's opportunities. Mr Hawke has a dwarfish view of what the possibilities are for himself, his government and the country. It is quite different from the view that was held by Malcolm Fraser and John Gorton, let alone Bob Menzies and even Mr Whitlam. They had a much wider vision of what this country should be. This sort of thinking was shown in the way in which the Government opened the Brisbane Airport. I have never known a government in this country that plays politics so hard, that so selfishly keeps public events to its own friends and supporters. Not one Liberal from Queensland was asked to the opening of the airport. Mrs Tonia Cairns, the widow of the Hon. Kevin Cairns, the man who started off the whole airport movement, was not asked. I think that was an execrable display of bad taste. The only two Liberals who were asked were Mr Howard, Leader of the Opposition, and Mr Beale, the shadow Minister responsible for this area. I represented Mr Howard at the opening and Mr David Jull represented Mr Beale. Apart from that, there was no-one from any other political party at the opening, which was full of Australian Labor Party apparatchiks, their families and friends. It was most galling to hear the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), with his eyeballs rolling round the ceiling, looking at no-one, taking full praise for himself and his Government for the construction of this new airport-an airport which he and his Party have done everything to obstruct. Nevertheless we now have a very fine airport. It is by far and away the best airport in Australia and a major asset for the Australian community. Having made that investment, this Government has an obligation, however much it might try to avoid it, to maximise the airport for the benefit of all Australians. The airport is suffering from a few problems. It has some major problems and some minor ones. The first major problem relates to the absence of a decent international terminal. An adequate international terminal was a fundamental part of the original design proposals for the airport. Every publication by the then department shows the international terminal side by side with the domestic terminal. At the moment a store shed designed by the previous Whitlam Government is being used as an international terminal at this $600m airport. If one can imagine a shed that Mr Charlie Jones, the former Minister for Aviation in the Whitlam Government, would design, one would have a pretty fair concept of what the international terminal is like at Brisbane Airport. It is totally inadequate. One day recently five 747 aircraft were pulled up in front of the terminal. Another 747 and a DC10 were waiting to get onto the apron. Seven international aircraft were parked before this small shed. At least four direct flights a week from Japan bring in thousands of tourists. There are no covered walkways at the airport. Passengers get off their aircraft and move to this tiny little overcrowded shed. Despite the plans that are on the books to build the new international terminal, the Labor Party refuses to do anything until 1992. This is an absolute disgrace. It is not only passengers who are inconvenienced by being packed into a totally inadequate facility for Customs, baggage and all the rest of it. There are also some big operational problems. The international terminal is not even on the airfield. That is how absurd the situation is. There is at least an-8 kilometre taxiway from the start of the runway to the international terminal. A fully loaded aircraft like a 747 takes a great deal of time to taxi that distance. Because these aircraft are taxied at no more than walking pace, maybe half an hour to three-quarters of an hour is lost by aircraft having to travel this distance. There is also a technical problem in terms of brake overheating. These aircraft are steered only by wheel braking and at low speeds the brakes cannot be cooled. Therefore, the handling of this type of aircraft in that very long taxiing situation is a real economic and technical penalty for the airlines. They do not like doing it, they do not want to do it and they should not have to do it. In addition, the taxiway is a one-way street. Once an aircraft enters this very long taxiway of four to five kilometres, into the field beside the airport, the taxiway is immobilised for 20 minutes until the aircraft has turned off it. The amount of traffic is such that this creates a great deal of congestion. Of course, the taxpayer had to pick up the cost of building this four or five kilometres of high strength paved taxiway purely because the Government would not build a new terminal. It does not matter if the Government does not have the money to build a new terminal. Queensland and Australian commercial interests have made many offers to build the terminal and to lease it to the Commonwealth. The design has been completed and the site preparation has been done during the construction of the airport. All that this Government needs to do is to get away from its ideological obsession of doing everything through the Public Service. Let private industry build the terminal. Let the Australian community get the benefit of it. All of the preparatory work has been done and the terminal could be built and in service within six to nine months. The other major problem we have with this airfield relates to complaints about noise. I have been involved with the planning stages of this airport for well over a decade. The original submissions by the then Department of Aviation indicated that noise should not be a problem. But it is a problem. One of the reasons why it is a problem is that suburbs which had never experienced aircraft noise are now having aircraft flying over them. It is not so much a question of noise intensity but the fact that now people are hearing noise from aircraft which previously did not overfly them. This is because the airport is sited in a different place and the runway directions are different from what they were at the former airport. Putting that aside, a considerable number of houses are being affected by aircraft approaching and departing. I raised this problem with departmental officers when they appeared before the relevant Estimates committee. I simply do not see why there should be a noise problem. Aircraft using runway 19 take off to the south. I do not see why aircraft which start at the threshold of that runway cannot make a left hand turn at 500 feet, clear the built-up areas entirely and go out over Moreton Bay. I do not see why that cannot be done. Aircraft are being sent straight ahead over the densely populated city of Brisbane residential areas. I see no air traffic control requirement for that to be so. The other night I was on a flight to Rockhampton which took off on runway 19. We maintained the runway heading right over Morningside and Annerley. We eventually made a right turn over the central business district of Brisbane. I was sitting on the left side of the aircraft and when I looked down I saw Expo underneath us. I see no reason at all why those sorts of flight paths should be implemented. It is important to note that these flight paths are quite at variance with the flight plans that the then Department showed us during the construction stage of the airport. Aircraft taking off to the south have the option of making a left turn-there are about 50 to 100 houses in Pinkenba which would experience some noise level-keeping to the north of the river over an essentially industrial area with no residential population at all, and then going out over the bay. Alternatively, we could go back to the original proposal put up by the then Department eight to 10 years ago in the planning stage of the airport. Aircraft could make a slight left turn after lift-off and pass between the residential areas on the bay side of Wynnum-Manly and Lota and Seven Hills and Carina on the right and depart over the Leslie Harrison Dam where there is a corridor essentially free of residential build-up. But it is for the Department to correct that matter. I believe that there are solutions to it and I do not believe that the people of Brisbane should be subjected to the annoyance of the noise from the new airport. I rather suspect that some sort of warfare is going on between the air traffic controllers and the Department about the second tier wage negotiations, and I think the controllers see part of the battle as being fought by annoying the general public. There are minor problems with the airport as well. They relate purely to the managerial incompetence of the Federal Airports Corporation. There are a lot of nitpicking bureaucratic problems such as the way Commonwealth cars are not allowed to wait at the kerbside for more than two minutes to pick up passengers. The only place at which Commonwealth cars or hire cars can wait is a car park a very long way from the terminal building. The Federal Airports Corporation's response to that was to put up a monitor in the car park, which for a long while showed only departures, which is useless for Commonwealth car drivers picking people up. The argument was that the Commonwealth drivers in the car park area could watch the television monitor to see the arriving flights, wait 10 minutes and then go to the terminal building. That simply does not work. As I said, the monitor was showing only departures instead of arrivals and even today it shows only one company-I cannot remember whether it is Ansett Airlines of Australia or Australian Airlines. The solution to the problem is very simple. It is quite possible to let drivers of Commonwealth cars hold on the other side of the kerb across from the terminal. My advice to the Government is to get rid of that Corporation before it creates further problems. It is just a monster which is spending money and making life increasingly difficult for anyone who has business in the airports over which it has control. To return to the problem of the cars, it would be quite easy to have a pick up point on the other side of the kerb. When I put that proposition to the Federal Airports Corporation I received a letter telling me that it would be highly dangerous for us to walk across the roadway to pick up cars on the other side of the kerb. If it is highly dangerous, why does the Corporation allow the general public to cross that road to get across to the second road to get taxis or rental cars? It is absolute nonsense. There are other problems that can be resolved by a bit of goodwill and a bit of intelligence on the part of the Federal Airports Corporation. The final point is that Brisbane now has the best airport in Australia. Geographically, it is located in the ideal site to be the entry point and the exit point for Australia. It should be Australia's prime international airport. We have made the financial investment and we have the facilities there. We need an international terminal and we need the Brisbane City Council and the Queensland State Government, which have been totally uninterested in this great asset on their doorstep, to get behind this facility and to develop it because there are great commercial opportunities for Australia and for Queensland in particular. We need a change in mind on the part of this Government, instead of the blatant opposition to it and the statements from the Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Gareth Evans, that it is the greatest white elephant ever in Australia. A total opposition to doing anything constructive to make the airfield work is operating very much against the interests of all Australians. The condition of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, which is Australia's main entry point, is such that, with overcrowding, the lack of runway facilities and the argument over a new airport in Sydney, the problems in Sydney are insoluble inside 15 to 20 years. We have a developing tourist trade and we want to develop our international freight trade. The new airport in Brisbane is the place to do it. Let us get behind it and make it work, whatever views the Labor Party might have had about how it came about. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(12.05) —In this cognate second reading debate on the Appropriation Bills and the Supply Bills, I wish to comment on the economic situation facing Australia today and the outlook for the future. I will reserve some of my detailed comments on specific issues until the committee stage of our deliberations. I support the second reading motion amendment to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) foreshadowed by my colleague Senator Stone, which seeks to add to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time the following notation by the Senate: ``, but the Senate notes: (a) Australia's $86.77 billion net foreign debt at the end of December 1987 and its continuing balance of payments deficit on the current account which increased by $1185 million during March 1988; (b) the Government's inappropriate response, which has been to increase taxation revenue collections to the highest levels in post-war Australia; and (c) the urgent need to reduce public sector outlays as the major element of a Government policy response to our current economic difficulties''. Senator Stone foreshadowed that amendment yesterday on behalf of the Opposition-but an hour or so before the April 1988 balance of payments figures were released. Those figures showed a significant improvement in the sense that the deficit figure for April was of the order of $396m compared with the much larger figure of over $1 billion for March, but there were some fortuitous factors concerning the April figure and I will come back to that later in my remarks. The words of Senator Stone's amendment contain the essence of the Opposition's concerns about Australia's economic outlook and the reasons for those concerns. In a nutshell, we are concerned at the quite massive level of our foreign debt and the massive rate of increase in that debt which has occurred since Labor came to power. We are concerned at the totally inadequate and inappropriate policy responses by the Government to the debt build-up. Indeed, we are concerned that the Government does not even seem to be aware that its policies have been the major contributors to the debt problem. We want to stress the urgent need to reduce public sector spending as a whole if we are to be able even to make a start towards tackling the problems we face and to avail ourselves of the great opportunities which face us if we adopt the appropriate economic policies, both micro and macro. Let me stress the latter point. It is often said that the Opposition simply talks negative gloom and doom about the economy. I refute that assertion very strongly indeed. The Opposition is not talking gloom and doom for the Australian economy-quite the contrary, we believe that there are enormous opportunities for sustainable long term growth and development in this nation. But that will occur only if we put our economic house in order. There is no point in standing Canute-like as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have been doing until very recently and saying that we have turned the corner, that a rosy future is assured. That is a cargo cult mentality. Indeed, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have been guilty of an even more serious error. Until very recently they have been determinedly attempting to talk up the economy at the very time when there was a crying need for responsible leadership and debate on economic matters. If one compares the Australian economy today with the economy that Labor inherited from the previous coalition Government in 1983, it is clear beyond any doubt that Australia is now a much less fair society. Under Labor, Australia is rapidly becoming a land of shattered dreams and abandoned hopes. Let me just give some examples. In Australia today there are 140,000 young Australians unemployed. There are 100,000 low income Australians who are condemned to interminable hospital waiting lists because of the Medicare debacle. We have 700,000 more Australians living below the poverty line-almost three-quarters of a million more-than five years ago. The total figure nowadays is about 2.7 million people living below the poverty line-700,000 more than when this Government took office. Public housing waiting lists now exceed 150,000-and 40,000 Australians now live and sleep in the open or in refuges. We have had an increase in loan repayments as a proportion of average incomes to a level which has placed home ownership outside the reach of many Australians, especially young married couples. We had a fall last year in real household disposable income. That was the first fall in 30 years. Today, average wage earners are paying 40c tax on each dollar of additional income earned, compared with only 30c when Labor came to power. We have seen in the last five years a fall in the standard of living of virtually every Australian, particularly young couples with children. A two-parent single income family with two children, with the income earner on average weekly earnings, has suffered a $42 per week fall in that family's standard of living over the past five years. I could give numerous other examples but those I have given amply prove the point that for a vast number of Australians the past five years of Hawke Government policies have been accompanied by enormous hardship and a rapid march backwards in their living standards and in their legitimate expectations of a fairer and more prosperous society. Perhaps Australians might have been prepared to accept these hardships if they could see long term benefits arising from their sacrifices over these last five long hard years, if they could see that the structure of the economy had been fundamentally changed in ways that would augur well for Australia's future, if they could point to a leaner, more efficient and less expensive government or more incentive through a lower tax regime, more competitiveness through increased productivity or a reduced stranglehold on the nation's fortunes by the trade union movement. But the Government can point to none of these things. On the contrary, Australians can see a worsening of the fundamentals of our economy over the past five years. What they see is not more efficient and less expensive government but rather a government which in its first three years in office spent taxpayers' money as if it were confetti and which, over the past two years, has been forced to attempt to come to grips, so far with only limited success, with the excesses of its first three years. We have seen taxation inexorably rise to and remain at the highest level in our peace time history. So much for a restoration of incentives. We have seen the highest levels of interest rates in our history and we have experienced inflation at up to 10 times the levels of some of our major trading partners-generally three to four times the average of our major trading partners. We have seen the highest ever deficits in our balance of payments on current account and the largest ever drop in the external value of the Australian dollar. We have seen Australia placed firmly into the hands of foreign creditors and financial markets as our foreign debt has accumulated at a terrifying rate, an accumulation which has almost quadrupled our debt in the past five years to a level where it now amounts to $6,700 for every man, woman and child in Australia. This financial year alone, our debt has increased by an average of $888m each month-although that is an improvement on last year when it increased by something like $1,000m each month. We have seen no improvement in our national productivity, the cornerstones of our future prosperity. Our productivity is appallingly low and shows no sign of improving under the policies of this Government. Those are some of the very sober facts about our economic situation over the past five years. The overwhelming cause of those facts has been the inappropriate macro-economic policies of this Government. The extent to which the Government appears to be unaware of its role in producing this outcome is almost unbelievable. It is unaware of the failure of its policies, the extent of the dangers facing the economy and the tasks ahead of us. Only last week, the Treasurer was telling the Premiers Conference: Since our last meeting very substantial progress has been made in our economic restructuring. The Australian economy today is clearly more internationally competitive, more responsive and more dynamic than at any time in our recent history. Together we have laid a firm foundation for sustainable economic growth well into the 1990s. A little later in his speech, he said: The easy thing for all of us today would be to take in the revenue benefits of the recovery in commodity prices and stronger economic activity and spend it. This is the sort of short-sighted thing Australian governments have done in the past. He said subsequently: We must press on with economic restructuring. This task is being tackled across a broad front. The Commonwealth's ongoing reform of structural policies is contributing toward making Australia permanently internationally competitive. That, I say without any hesitation, is a complete and utter lie. There have been virtually no structural improvements of a macro-nature in the economy in the period of this Government and, as well, there have been precious few changes in the micro-economic restructuring. Indeed, the Government's chief advisory body, the Economic Planning Advisory Council (EPAC), in a paper it released last weekend, is reported to have said: . . . excessive regulation, inefficient work and management practices, inadequate training and skills formation and a poor research and development effort all contributed significantly to the failure of some industries to expand exports and replace imports. The report calls for co-ordinated micro-economic reforms on a broad front. It says that this should include: a more flexible industrial relations system, a more skills oriented education system, greater labour mobility through retraining and multiskilling, removal of excessive regulation, reductions in industry protection and increased research and development. Those are all matters that come within the preserve of government. This report of the Government's chief economic advisory body is saying to the Government, `You have not started to tackle the basic problems in the micro-economic area facing this country'. As Mr Ross Gittins, the economics editor for the Sydney Morning Herald, said on Monday, the day after that report was released: By rights, we should have had a thorough public debate of the issues and the priorities, followed by a well-briefed Cabinet decision on the appropriate plan of attack. He was talking about the micro-economic constraints on economic growth-which is the subject of the EPAC paper. Instead, Mr Gittins says: . . . the issue of micro reform blew up during the election campaign after someone accused the Government of lacking a vision for its third term. No sooner had the Government been re-elected than Cabinet's newly-formed Structural Adjustment Committee began casting around hurriedly for decisions to announce in next week's mini-Budget. Bob Hawke got a bee in his bonnet about privatisation, so that went on the list; John Dawkins wanted to get stuck into education; Paul Keating thought they had a political problem with corporate taxation; and someone thought of tariff reform. The priorities and the sequence seem to have been decided by Topsy. And once we've seen the mini-Budget we may decide that the pace has been determined by Nervous Nelly. They are very accurate and damning comments about the approach of this Government to the formulation and priorities for reform and restructuring of the economy. It brings to mind very vividly the great thought that the Prime Minister gave to tax reform when, during an interview on a radio station in Perth during the 1984 election campaign, in response to a question that the interviewer asked him in relation to what he was going to do about tax reform, and pointing out that he should do something about it, the Prime Minister replied, `Yeah, that's a good idea, we'll have a summit'. That is how the tax summit came about-off the top of his head and shooting from the lip, in 1984. A similar thing occurred during the Adelaide by-election campaign this year, which cost the Government dearly, thankfully, when the Prime Minister, again shooting from the lip, said, `Yes, there will be timed telephone calls'. That is just a small example of the continuing shambles of economic policy making on the part of the Government. What are our prospects in the period ahead? What policy directions do we need from the May statement next week and from the August Budget? The economy is overheated. I accept that the Treasurer acknowledged this in his speech made at the Premiers Conference last week. Growth in gross domestic product (GDP) has been much stronger in the current financial year than was forecast at the time of the Budget. It now seems that GDP growth in 1987-88 will be of the order of perhaps 3 1/2 per cent, compared to the Budget forecast of 2 3/4 per cent. In some respects that economic growth rate is no bad thing. Looking at it simplistically, without going any further, some people might say that it is a good thing, that higher growth is desirable. In particular it has assisted employment to grow at a higher rate than expected. But there are some very worrying aspects of this growth. The most worrying is that it has come from a growth in domestic demand rather than through the net contribution of the external sector. As it is the external sector that is our Achilles heel, this is a matter of very real concern. On the external front there has been some improvement in our balance of payments on current account, but nowhere near enough. We are still going to run a current account deficit this year in the order of $10 billion. The Government trumpets that as a major improvement-because last year it was something like $14 billion. However, only five years ago we would have thought that a $10 billion deficit was absolutely unbelievable. The overheating of domestic demand has occurred as a result of a combination of factors. It has occurred as a result of less tight fiscal policy than was required in the circumstances, a loosening of monetary policy in the latter half of 1987, a questionable policy in relation to the exchange rate, a level of wage increase through the two-tier system in excess of what the economy could reasonably afford, and a rate of increase that bore no relationship at all to productivity movements in our economy. The overheating has sucked in imports at a rate far too high for economic comfort. Added to this, the volume growth in imports has well exceeded the volume growth in exports. The unexpected rise in prices for our commodity exports has been the major contributing factor to the somewhat improved trend in our current account deficit. In Australian dollar terms, the index of commodity prices has risen by about 50 per cent over the past 18 months to two years. As the Treasurer himself pointed out to the Premiers last week: This year net exports are forecast to make little, if any, contribution to GDP growth. The current account deficit will fall as a percentage of GDP in 1987-88. However, virtually all of that fall, some one per cent of GDP, will be due entirely to the lift in commodity export prices, a lift which is entirely fortuitous so far as the Hawke Government's involvement is concerned. This is a precarious base for future economic policy formulation. World economic activity and the level of international trade have been relatively buoyant over the past year, although performances have differed considerably from one nation to another. As to what has been said by commentators on this matter, I shall just take one example. The Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd in its latest issue of Business Indicators pointed out: It is now clear that the world economy had greater underlying momentum than was thought at the time of the October stockmarket crash. This momentum is likely to sustain world activity well into 1988. Beyond that, a pronounced slowdown is expected as the USA is forced to reduce its trade deficit and debt build-up. What is being pointed out there is that the major and fundamental imbalances which precipitated last October's stockmarket crash still exist. The enormous United States trade deficit continues. The surpluses of the new industrial giants, like Taiwan and Korea, are continuing. Japan's trade surplus is still huge, although easing somewhat. But sooner or later-and quite possibly sooner-steps will be taken to correct these fundamental imbalances. The most likely candidate is the United States of America, once the US presidential election is out of the way. This could well signal a rise in US and, therefore, worldwide interest rates, a slow-down in economic growth in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations and elsewhere, leading to a fallback in world trade and a consequential collapse in commodity prices. In that event, Australia would face an enormous problem. That problem could mean a dramatic fall in our export income at a time when we are still importing at a high level as a result of an overheated economy and facing mounting internal cost and price pressures. Those increasing cost and price pressures are there at the moment for all to see. The crunch that would inevitably follow would be very severe indeed. It is this scenario that the Government must keep uppermost in mind when framing next week's May statement and the August Budget. The scenario demands several major policy responses. The first, and overriding requirement, is for a significant reduction in government spending. It will not be sufficient simply to budget for a surplus. The Government has cash running out of its ears at the moment as fiscal drag takes its toll of wage and salary earners and as the unsustainable overheating of the economy brings short term revenue benefits for the Government's coffers. It would appear that without any policy changes the Federal Government's Budget surplus in 1988-89 could be of the order of $2 billion to $3 billion. If that is the case, the Government should certainly be going for a surplus well in excess of that figure, to be achieved by a further reduction in its own spending, because it is only in this way that the Government can deliver on the three most important requirements facing us over the period ahead. These three requirements are: Firstly, a slowing down of domestic demand; secondly, a strengthening of our external account; and thirdly, the restoration of incentive through a meaningful and sustainable reduction in the overall tax burden. In this latter context, I must say that, if I were in business in Australia, I would not be holding my breath awaiting the outcome of the Government's review of business taxation. The Treasurer has said that any changes will be revenue neutral. Therefore, the business sector as a whole will be no better off. There is little merit in shuffling the tax pack if one finishes up with the same size pack. The May statement and the Budget must not only tighten fiscal policy they must also tighten monetary policy. It is true that monetary policy has tightened somewhat in the past two to three months, but essentially this has been simply a long overdue correction to a far too permissive approach by the authorities in 1987. The Government must also get serious about its much vaunted restructuring. As I said earlier, when one casts aside the rhetoric there has been precious little restructuring. The Government must make a meaningful start on deregulation, and on improving competition and efficient resource usage through a carefully planned program of privatisation, through encouraging a more flexible union structure based increasingly on enterprise unions rather than taking the opposite line that it is pursuing in its current industrial relations legislation, and through taking other positive measures to lift our appallingly low level of productivity. I am not at all optimistic that the Government will tackle any of these requirements. Many of them involve firm, tough decisions. Despite the rhetoric, the hype and the media massaging, the fact is that this Government time and again has backed away from the correct and necessary macro and micro policy decisions. Senator Cook —You are confusing us with the Fraser Government. Senator SHORT —If the Government once again fails in its responsibility-and seeing Senator Cook on the front bench makes me less than confident that it will do otherwise-it will stand condemned for failing to create the environment which can so readily be created with leadership and determination and which will enable Australia and Australians to grasp the wonderful opportunities that could exist for growth and development and rising living standards in an increasingly competitive world, a world in which we have to live and compete if we intend to grow and to benefit our people. If the Government fails in these responsibilities, the economic and social consequences for Australia will be enormous. The one possible consolation would be that the political consequences for the Australian Labor Party would also be enormous, because until we get rid of this Government and we have a government that will take firm, responsible and leadership decisions on the fundamental issues of economic policy, direction and thrust, our nation will continue to suffer the hardship it has experienced over the last five years. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(12.33) —In speaking in this cognate debate on the Appropriation and Supply Bills, I intend to address my preliminary remarks to the question arising from the hearings of Senate Estimates Committee A, and indeed address particularly the reasons why the Opposition senators who are members of that Committee chose to publish a dissenting report, technically termed a reservation. It is important to place on the record that, unless the Estimates committees are taken seriously and the information ascertained is made public, and attention is drawn to it and it is acted on, we could be described as not sensibly spending our time in those committees. Perhaps the most significant areas dealt with by Estimates Committee A involved the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, the Department of Industrial Relations, and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I was greatly concerned when, after spending many hours and addressing many important questions, we received a report that virtually said, `We came, we sat, we went'. Whether or not that has been the practice over many years, I can find no compelling argument to continue it. I believe it is important that many of the matters raised be placed on the record so that they can be read by people interested in them. I will touch on only a few of the matters in the report, but I would like also to bring to the attention of the Senate other matters that were also raised before the Committee. One of the items in the dissenting report relates to a memorandum published by Mr Terry Hilsberg, who was then the First Assistant Secretary of the Technology and Business Efficiency Division of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. On 22 July 1987, he sent to all staff members in the Industry, Research and Development Branch a memo that stated: I am writing to express my thanks for the excellent work you have performed during the past year. In particular, I would like to commend you for achieving that important goal of exhausting moneys allocated to the IR and D Branch during the 1986-87 financial year. I am sure your efforts in the coming year will prove to be equally successful. Opposition members of Estimates Committee A have simply pointed out that in our view the aim of exhausting moneys allocated can never be a justifiable goal for any government department. The sooner we see accrual accounting for government departments, the happier we will be. The second matter I raise is also touched on in the dissenting report. I refer to the question of partnerships in development. Of course, this matter is part of the gradual development of the civil offsets program which, in turn, originally arose from military or defence offsets and which began life as corporate citizenship. Reasons were not given at the Committee hearings for the change in title from `corporate citizenship' to `partnership in development'. One could not help feeling that some sort of cosmetic manoeuvre was being made to attempt to get the offsets program viewed in a better light, because serious concern is abroad that the Government is not serious in ensuring that overseas corporations that give undertakings pursuant to the offsets program are meant to fulfil them. Many such unfulfilled undertakings are currently outstanding. No messages or signals are being sent by the Government that it is serious about enforcing those undertakings. A further matter raised in the dissenting report related to Kirribilli House. I heard Senator Michael Baume refer to much of the extravagance that has taken place as part of the so-called updating, renovation and interior decoration at Kirribilli House. The report makes the point that the reason given for the so-called urgent renovations costing a total of three-quarters of a million dollars was that they were needed to make the residence suitable for the accommodation of guests of government, particularly during the Bicentenary. Evidence showed that it could well be that the expenditure was merely to make Kirribilli House a pleasant second residence for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). If it were true that the refurbishment was designed to make it a suitable residence for visiting guests of government, as has been the previous function of Kirribilli House, it could well be that the sort of money that has been expended is warranted. If, on the other hand, it is merely to be a second residence and it needed tarting up, then expenditure of three-quarters of a million dollars is clearly not warranted. During the Estimate Committee hearing, I asked whether I could have a list of the people who had stayed at Kirribilli House during the last decade. I asked whether any people had stayed at Kirribilli House recently or whether it had been used merely by the Prime Minister. I have received answers to those questions. During the period from 1978 to 1983, when Mr Fraser was the Prime Minister, an average of just over one person a month stayed at Kirribilli House. These people ranged from the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester to the Prime Minister of Western Samoa, the Governor-General of the Solomon Islands and the like. This Government came to office in 1983 and the sole guest in that year was the Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands. In 1984-85 the Foreign Minister of Somalia, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Perez de Cuellar, and the Minister for Agriculture of Vietnam were the sole guests. During 1985-86 the Secretary of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Minister for Foreign Affairs from Madagasca were guests. During 1986-87 and 1987-88 apart from the Prime Minister there were no guests at all. While Mr Fraser was Prime Minister an average of 13 guests a year stayed at Kirribilli House; in the six years that Mr Hawke has been the Prime Minister, six people have stayed-that is, an average of one a year. It is justified to bring this expenditure to the attention of the Senate and, indeed, to the attention of people further afield because there are still more questions which need to be asked. For instance, Mr Spode, who was appointed the interior decorator to oversight the decoration of the rooms, was asked to give quotes to decorate the formal rooms, the bathrooms, the kitchens and the bedrooms. I intend to seek further information as to the expenditure on materials such as curtains, furnishings, carpets and the like to see whether ordinary Australians who are struggling to decorate their own homes are in any way perturbed about the degree of money being spent not for guests of government, such as visiting heads of state, but simply for a second residence for the Prime Minister. The final matter that was raised in the report relates to the Department of Industrial Relations. It was a very serious matter which dealt with money which was paid in settlement of claims for compensation for industrial action taken by Builders Labourers Federation (BLF) members during the period of the deregistration hearings. The concern was not that the Government had taken the sensible attitude and moved to make payments to employers who had suffered at the hands of the BLF members, but that the Department had not taken any action at all to recover that money from the BLF funds which, as we all know by reading the Press, are quite substantial. Indeed, the whereabouts of those funds could be said to be in some doubt. It was only after fairly vigorous questioning that the Department, in answer to the questions at the hearings and subsequently in written responses, said that it would investigate methods by which that money may be refunded to the Department so that the taxpayer does not have to pick up the bill for the behaviour of BLF members. As well as those matters which are in the report, there are several others which I would like to raise. The first of those is Austrade and the relationship that we have-or rather, do not have-with our sixth major trading partner; that is, Taiwan or its capital Taipei. During the hearings I specifically asked what would happen if I were a businessman who wanted to further my exports and do business in Taiwan, which is, as I said, our sixth largest trading partner. What assistance could be expected from Austrade? I was told that there was no Austrade office in Taipei and that I would have to do business through the Australian Chamber of Commerce in that city. However, the Department would be prepared to give export assistance of one kind or another. I quote the answer of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button): Assistance of a financial kind may be available. There may be a capacity for advice in Australia which Austrade would give. For a businessperson going to Taipei, their business in Taiwan would be handled through the Australian Chamber of Commerce. We addressed the question of the difficulty of the relationship between Taipei and the People's Republic of China. I pointed out that there were many examples where accommodations had been worked out. Indeed, other nations seemed to have solved their problems in a much more efficacious manner than we have here. Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., pursuant to sessional order I call on matters of public interest. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(12.45) —This afternoon I want to raise a number of issues but particularly the question of the proposed Australian Capital Territory (ACT) casino. I want to discuss the manner in which decisions are made in the ACT. The casino is a very good example to use to highlight some of the problems facing residents of the ACT under the rule of this Government. We had a situation where Minister Brown-now former Minister Brown-decided it would be appropriate if the ACT had a casino. Consultants' studies were set up. Minister Brown exited stage left and Minister Punch took over. Minister Punch endorsed the proposal to have a casino in the Territory. There was substantial concern in the community about the proposal to redevelop section 19 of Civic, and in particular about placing a casino there. A social impact study was set up, although we have to wonder why because the Minister said that it did not matter what the social impact study came up with, what concerns it raised, as the ACT would have a casino. But, of course, we have seen since then something of a shift by the Minister. He has now said, well, maybe not. He says some doubt has been cast over this proposal, and he has chosen to cast that doubt by saying that this whole proposal for the redevelopment of section 19 might fall apart because there is not bipartisan support for it, and if only the Liberal Party would make up its mind what it wanted to do he could proceed. The Minister would be able to proceed. We have Senator McMullan, a senator for the Australian Capital Territory, saying that perhaps this is a matter best left until self-government comes. That is what has happened, and I suggest that what we are seeing is classic Labor right wing politics-this is what the people are going to have whether they like it or not and the bully boys are going to come around and push them into it. We are not going to be a part of that. Minister Punch's politics might be described quite fairly as punk politics, but that is not the way this chamber operates and that is not the way the coalition parties will operate. He may be a former mayor who has read some Boys Own Annual and decided that daring feats of bravado are the way to get his way. Senator Alston —He might be punch drunk. Senator VANSTONE —As my colleague says, he might be punch drunk on the power proposal. Nonetheless, if he believes that bravado and brawn are what will get the section 19 redevelopment off the ground he is very sadly mistaken. This is not some kids sandpit where we can sit around and decide we would like to build a castle and Minister Punch wants to build a casino. It is just not that simple. It is much more complicated than that. So let us look at how much Minister Punch wanted this proposal to proceed. There has been not one approach to me by the Government, by either Minister Brown or Minister Punch, or their respective offices, in favour of this proposal-not one piece of paper offered in favour of this proposal. So, Mr Acting Deputy President, if you were the Minister and you believed in an idea and thought it was good for the ACT you would push it and you would push it by putting out a decent, well put together proposal so that your opposition could say yea or nay. You would not simply put out a Press release and hope for the best, keep putting out the old Press release about how good the casino and section 19 redevelopment would be; you would put together a proper proposal. As a result of my approach to the current Minister's office, Senator Reid and I had a meeting with someone from the Minister's office and someone from the ACT Administration. They had the temerity to come in and say, basically, to put it in colloquial language, `There you are, dears, it will all be okay; there is going to be plenty of money from this and it will be wonderful because it will provide revenue for the ACT'. So when Senator Reid and I, ignoring the somewhat paternalistic approach of the two gentlemen, said, `Thank you very much, we would like to read the financial report', they replied, `Oh, we do not know that you can have that'. It is a joke to expect coalition parties in a Federal parliament to endorse a proposal when they do not have the material before them. It did not take very long, of course, for the relevant people to accept that in the end we would have to have the details of the proposal. So, a week later, we did get a copy of the Jedd report, which details some financial plans for the casino. We have had nothing since. All we have had coming to see us is lobby groups which have been told by the Minister, `It is the lousy Liberal and National parties that are blocking this development; go and give them a push'. One can imagine the look on their faces when we tell them what I have just told you, Mr Acting Deputy President, namely that the Minister has not made one effort to push this proposal with us at all-not a piece of paper. They are very surprised. They say, `Why would he not be pushing it?'. Of course I am not a psychiatrist, I cannot say what is in the Minister's mind at all. But I can say that he is big on talking in the paper and very short on producing facts that we can make an assessment on and give him an answer. We are quite happy to do that but we are not happy to go bit by bit, fiddling about. No other Minister, basically, asks for support, for example, for division 1 of a Bill, comes back a couple of weeks later and asks for support for division 2 of the Bill and, perhaps a month or so later, asks for support for divisions 3 and 4. Not at all. Most Ministers understand that if they want to get a package through they have to put the whole package before the people so they can see what they are going in for. The Minister must understand that there has been concern not only in the ACT community but in any community where a casino has been established about the selection of an operator. There has certainly been concern raised in this chamber about the capacity of interdepartmental committees to select the appropriate tender application. So we are obligated to have that information before us before we consider the proposal. How would we select an operator? How would we run the casino? What controls would the Commonwealth have? We have heard nothing from the Minister on this; just dead silence. The Minister is clearly, in my view, trying to back off from this proposal. He has got his feet too far in the water and he wants to get out. But he wants to blame someone else and he is trying to say that the proposal is being blocked by the Liberal and National parties, by the coalition. That is a big load of rubbish because there is no proposal before us. There are a few Press releases and, sure, there is information gained under the freedom of information legislation, but nothing from the Minister-no concrete proposal about what he wants to do. If the Minister does not have the capacity to put the proposal forward he should give the job to someone else. The question I pose to the Minister is: Does the Minister have a formal proposal for the coalition to consider with respect to the section 19 development and, in particular, the proposed casino? Does the proposal include details of how the operator will be selected and how the casino will be controlled? Until he does that he may as well stop talking to the media and stop getting lobby groups to come and try to pressure us because all we are doing is turning those people back on to the Minister. Of course this is causing uncertainty in the community. People who work in the building industry naturally want to know if this development will go ahead. Those employed on the new Parliament House site might be deciding that they would like to stay in the ACT if there were jobs. So this will be important to them. We would like to be in a position to give a yea or a nay. But we cannot do that because the Minister has not given us a proposal. Private enterprise in the ACT, the Canberra Association for Regional Development, just about any group in the ACT, all want an answer. But the Minister has not posed the question. We are still back at the sandpit and he is saying, `Let's build a casino'. We do not have the details of any substantive proposal that will enable us to give a response. That is one example of how decisions are made in the ACT. They are made, as I say, with a typical New South Wales right wing Labor Party `You are going to have it come what may and we will sort out all the details later', and everybody is expected to fall into line. The Minister might now be finding that the Australian Democrats and the coalition are not prepared to fall into line on this or indeed any other issue, and that he will have to come forward with a proper proposal before he gets an answer. My colleague Senator Reid will be speaking in this debate shortly. She will raise another example of how decisions are made in the ACT-an appalling example, if I may say so. It relates to the closure of the Page primary school. The only thing that I want to say about that is that when residents of the ACT, dissatisfied with that decision, indicated they were going to put in a freedom of information application to make some assessment of how the Government came to this decision, what were they told by the relevant public servants? I read this in the paper; I am not relying on what I have been told. They were told they would not get much out of it because there is not really a very good file on it; not much information there. That, of course, begs the question: Did the ACT Administration, in this respect the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, base its decision on information in an assortment of files and not bring that information together into one file particularly so that ACT residents would not be able to see the basis on which the decision was made, or was the decision made in a smoke-filled back room over a couple of drinks or perhaps over a cup of tea? Is this decision one that has been made at the whim of the Schools Authority? Certainly the response these residents were given following their indication that they were going to put in a freedom of information application indicates a gigantic reluctance on behalf of the public servants involved to have their decision put under scrutiny. Senator Reid, who will be speaking in this debate shortly, will outline the disastrous situation in relation to the closure of the Page primary school and I look forward to listening to what she has to say. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(12.58) —Mr Deputy President, as indicated I want to talk about the closure of the Page primary school. Late last year a document was produced by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority entitled Community Schools for Canberra, 1989 to the year 2000, with the subtitle, `A draft plan for matching school accommodation with student numbers?' This plan indicated that some 16 primary schools and one high school would be closed, but that eight new consolidated primary schools would open in, of course, eight of the existing buildings. This caused quite a reaction in the community. At the time of the release of the draft plan the Schools Authority indicated that parents, schools and others who had an interest would have the opportunity to respond to the proposals and they were given until the end of March of 1988 to do so. Many people recognised that it was necessary to close some schools, and certainly necessary to cut costs. There has been a difference of opinion as to how this might be done. Some are totally opposed to any closures. My view was that it was likely that some would close but I want to refer specifically to one of those schools. My office received a large number of submissions from parents who were concerned about what was happening, and parent organisations made submissions to me and to the Schools Authority. Some of the schools and communities mounted very vigorous campaigns; others were less vocal about the closures. But at the time of the announcement there was also a pamphlet printed entitled Planning Schools for Canberra's Future, and I want to read a part of that pamphlet headed `Why should parents be involved?'. It states: Participation is a key element of the public education system. To ensure that the best possible decisions are made it is very important for parents to be closely involved in examining the draft plan and preparing responses from their schools. Later it will be just as important for parents to be involved to ensure that new schools meet the needs of the new community. They are very laudable aims, but are they able to be carried out? The parents and schools in the south Belconnen community and in the rest of Canberra took that statement quite seriously and, as I have indicated, did put in a number of submissions in response. The schools targeted for closure prepared submissions and the schools which were to remain open commenced doing what they were required to do, that is, indicate their plans to deal with the new arrangements. Five schools in the south Belconnen area were affected. Macquarie and Scullin were to be closed and new amalgamated schools were to be created at Cook, Weetangera and Page. The parents at Macquarie and Scullin were, quite understandably, involved in mounting campaigns to keep their schools open and, as I have indicated, there were in all 250 submissions made to the Authority. There was some criticism about the way the Authority handled that aspect of the matter but eventually, on 6 May, a further report, Community Schools for Canberra, 1989 to the year 2000, with the subtitle `A final Report', was released by the Minister for Arts and Territories (Mr Punch). It indicated that some of the schools previously targeted for closure would remain open but the bombshell of the final report was that one of the schools, which had never been targeted for closure or in any way put under threat, and which in fact was preparing for its future as an amalgamated school, was then told it would close. That school was the Page primary school. One might think that there was some conflict between the interests of Page and Scullin, but that need not have been the case. I believe there was a very good reason for the Scullin school remaining open but it never entered my head that it would remain open at the expense of Page. Page was given no warning. The parents at Page had not had the opportunity to participate and respond, as the pamphlet advised. They were a school which had been told to prepare for the enlarged enrolment that it would expect. It now would seem, the way this proposal is presented, to be a final report, that Page's closure is a fait accompli. The parents have not had the opportunity to take part in the discussions. What, I ask, has Page done to be treated in this way? There are two significant issues. Why was Page misled, why were the parents of that community misled by the Schools Authority, and on what basis was the decision to close the school made? The initial report I have referred to, which came out last year, set the criteria for the closure of schools, and that draft report at paragraph 1.2.5. shows the suburbs of the Belconnen areas with circles with a 1.2 kilometre radius drawn around the primary schools. The radius was chosen by the Authority as it was felt it represented a reasonable walking distance for primary school children. It looked at the circles it had drawn and found that some suburbs which had their own schools came completely within the area of circles drawn from other suburb schools. Scullin in fact was one of them. As I indicated, I have no quarrel with the decision to leave Scullin open, and on the ground of the safety of children alone that should be the case. That safety aspect should be applied to the Page closure as well. The Authority has said that Scullin is to stay open because in the initial draft it had not included part of Florey as a priority enrolment area for Scullin, but that that now has been included. South-west Florey has been included in its priority enrolment area, which means that within this context Scullin does become more centrally located. The question is: Why is Page closing? By the Authority's own criteria, Page would be the last school that one would have expected to close. Certainly there are others nearby that one would have expected to close. Forty per cent of the suburb of Page falls outside the 2.2-kilometre radius of any other school. The distance the Page children living in this part of the suburb will have to travel to attend Scullin, the school they are told they will now have to go to, is between two and 2.5 kilometres, meaning that they will have to be bussed. The school presently has 237 children, 67 from Florey, but there is no indication that those children will attend the new Florey school. Their parents may well want them, for continuity, to stay where they are. There are 102 children either at Page now or at the preschool in that area which falls outside the 1.2-kilometre radius from Scullin. There are also in the Page area a large number of service families. There are 42 Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) houses, and a number of other service people rent in that area. They are likely to want to leave that area so they can live nearer a school. It would be strange for the RAAF to continue to have houses in an area where there is no school that the children can go to easily. There are enough problems for service families shifting around as it is without this happening to them. That is an issue which ought to be looked at by the Government when action has been taken in the way that it has been in this case. The other matter that needs to be reviewed as far as Page is concerned is the numbers. Many of those service houses were closed for renovation and the like when the survey of numbers was undertaken by the Schools Authority in 1986. They are now occupied and presumably will continue to be occupied, so on that ground alone the matter ought to be reviewed. What in fact is to become of the suburb of Page? Is it the Government's intention, or the intention of the National Capital Development Commission, that Page will become a retirement suburb? Part of it, in one area, already is. Is it a fact that it will not have a school, and that the sorts of facilities that will make it a suburb nice to retire in will be put in? These are the sorts of decisions that ought to be made known. The matter of the freedom of information inquiry has already been referred to by Senator Vanstone. When parents from Page asked to see the documentation they were told that there was no point in applying, that there was not any. If this decision has been made without there being any documentation, just merely by tossing a coin or by saying `We have had a lot of lobbying from Scullin, we had better leave it open; we will close Page', it is a disgrace. The residents of Page are angry at the way in which they have been treated by the Authority and want to see the documentation on which the reversal of the decision to allow the Page primary school to remain open has been based. It is hard to believe that this action has been taken in the way that it appears to have been taken. It is a high-handed action; it is thoroughly unprincipled. I think the whole exercise of school closures now lacks integrity. The Minister should tell the Authority that the present plan for closures in this area is to be abandoned and that the whole process should be started again. It may be that in the future Page will still be the school that closes, though I would think not if the criteria that the Authority adopted initially were applied properly, but at least the parents of Page would have the opportunity to present a point of view and not be left out in the cold and treated as they have been with this high-handed, unprincipled action that has taken place. They have been treated shabbily. It was interesting that, when the Minister released the final report, he said, in part: The fact that the Government's decisions differ from the published draft plan is proof, if it were needed, that the consultation process was genuine. No, Minister, it was not genuine. Certainly the Authority has fiddled with the original plan to some extent, but when we look at the way the citizens of Page have been treated we can see it has not been genuine. One can only draw conclusions as to how this came about. I repeat, for the benefit of the Minister, that if the Schools Authority is to have any credibility this part of the plan at least must be abandoned and a totally fresh approach taken to the whole of this area. We have three schools just about within walking distance of each other in one area, and now this school in another area is being closed. The only crime Page seems to have committed is to vote strongly Labor throughout. Perhaps that is the reason nobody bothers to care about them or feel that they matter in any way. I regard this decision as an absolute disgrace and I hope that the Minister will respond promptly to set right a grave injustice. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(1.10) —I rise on a matter of public interest which concerns the behaviour of one of the Ministers in the Federal Labor Government; namely, the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Senator Richardson. Senator Alston —It could be anyone. Senator NEWMAN —It could be anyone. Sadly this case is very serious. I believe honourable senators will find the Minister's behaviour just as unacceptable as I do. I am absolutely appalled at an article which appeared in today's Launceston Examiner. Very similar reports also appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age. The Examiner article is headed `Minister incites greenies'. That refers to a launching yesterday, by the Minister, of a wilderness inventory report at the Australian Heritage Commission. I am quoting the Examiner but I have checked with the other newspapers and the reports are very substantially the same, so I do not think there will be any question of my being unfair to the Minister with the quotations that I use from the story. The article states: The `voice of the people' would be the deciding factor in influencing Federal Government decisions on conservation and wilderness, the Environment Minister, Senator Richardson said yesterday. It further states: . . . Senator Richardson said that the Government could not act unless the voice of the people was heard. Then he is reported as follows: `I am listening, but so far the roar isn't deafening', he told conservationists and heritage activists in Canberra. `When it is, then I am sure we can take the action you all want'. I quote again: . . . I hope that those environment groups who are represented here, and those of you from the Government, will . . . make sure that in the next 12 months the voice of the people is heard. What voice of the people does this Minister want? Does he want the voice of the greenies? I would imagine that is what he is on about. Does he want the voice of the workers? I would have thought his party would expect him to be listening to the voice of the workers. He clearly says that he wants the voice of government employees. It seems to me that is rather an open admission of the fact that the Government has increasingly politicised the Federal Public Service. What about the voice of the States in a federal system? I would have thought that he should have been listening to those too, quite apart from the voice of the industry concerned. I would also like to ask the Minister: In just what way is the voice of the people to be heard? How are we to judge how the people's voice is coming to the Government? Does he intend it to be received through violence or blood in the streets? Does he intend to receive the voice of the people through a media campaign-a campaign by the conservationists but no doubt funded by the Federal Government, as we have seen in the past? When calling on government employees was he expecting them to use their privileged position to undermine the decision of the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests, which was, I remind the Senate, set up and paid for by the Federal Government? Will he judge the voice of the people by the number of banners that are draped round trees, by the number of streets that are blockaded throughout Australia or by the number of letters to the newspapers? How will he judge the voice of the people? How is he going to assess that roar? I think that the Minister has very conveniently forgotten that the voice of the people has been expressed very clearly in far north Queensland over recent months. Senator Puplick —And in the New South Wales State elections. Senator NEWMAN —And in the New South Wales State elections; Senator Puplick is quite right. The Minister chooses very selectively to hear the voice of the people. I am afraid that he does not show much respect when he goes out selectively to receive the voice of the people. What worries me is not just that the Minister is on the record as saying that he wants to hear the voice of the people but that he is actually inciting them to provide a roar which will help him to undo the report of the Helsham Commission. He will undermine his Government in the process and I fear that he may incite unbalanced people to violent action. Look at the Press release which was put out on 17 May by the Minister for Resources, Senator Cook. I am sorry he is not here now; he may have been able to contribute. He commented on the Helsham report, saying that the tabling of the report opened the way for substantial and comprehensive discussions with the Tasmanian Government on the management of the Tasmanian forests. He went on at some length about what would happen post-Helsham, referring to action to deal positively with the Tasmanian forests now that the decision has been made. We also know that Minister Kerin is of like mind. I wonder what is going to be the situation in this Federal Labor Ministry when Senator Richardson and all his hordes of roaring voices are stood against the voices of Ministers Kerin and Cook. What will be the weight of opinion then? I remind honourable senators that in the debate this week Senator Puplick, our shadow spokesman, said: The Government is now on the horns of a dilemma which it has created. The Government established this commission of inquiry for a particular purpose; it gave its guidelines and rules, supplied the resources, and selected the three commissioners. At the end of the day the commissioners have made a series of recommendations that the Government did not want to hear. Certainly Senator Richardson clearly did not want to hear them. Senator Puplick continued: The question will now be: What is the integrity of the Government in relation to the recommendations put before it? All the people who wanted to give evidence to that Commission did so. It had expert advice. It had a lot of professional assistance. It had a Supreme Court judge as its chairman. It made significant judgments on the claims. Now that the Commission has reported, we expect the Government to implement its decisions and recommendations. I support absolutely what Senator Puplick said. Clearly the Government is going to have this battle ahead of it within the Ministry, and we recognise that frequently in governments Ministers have different views. I believe that a quite different matter, and very serious one, is seen in the Press today, where we read of a Federal Minister going out inciting people to unspecified but strong action to support his case and to enable him to toss a report which has been made with all the due process that one could possibly expect, and paid for by the taxpayer. This Government, this Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), should condemn the Minister for his behaviour. The Government has to accept the umpire's decision, and Senator Richardson should be disciplined. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(1.17) —I draw attention today to two matters that have become known to honourable senators. One is the annual report for 1987-88 of the Australian Finance Conference, which all honourable senators would have received in their mail today. I would like to link it with a Press report that has been distributed through the Australian Associated Press (AAP) wire. That report refers to an academic who says that car dealers take advantage of Aborigines in Arnhem Land. I quote from the AAP report: Unscrupulous car dealers have taken advantage of primitive Arnhem Land Aborigines, according to a Melbourne academic. Some of the Aborigines who had bought cars under loan agreements now owed up to $20,000 each with no way of paying their debts. `Sometimes these dealers resort to terrible scare tactics to intimidate them,' La Trobe University genetics research Dr Neville White said. `Many are being hounded by finance agencies after falling behind in payments of loans provided with little or no collateral.' I have taken the time to look in detail at the report by Dr Neville White, which is a feature article in the autumn edition of the magazine Record produced by La Trobe University. Dr Neville White certainly highlights a number of social and economic problems of Aboriginals based on his experiences in Arnhem Land. He concentrates on matters right across the gamut-problems in employment, problems in health issues and problems in economic areas. Whilst he certainly drew attention to instances where car dealers had entered into unsavoury financial arrangements with Aborigines, I believe that today's Press report on his article takes this out of the context in which it should be properly addressed. It is rather sensational to use adjectives like `unscrupulous' car dealers and `primitive' Arnhem Land Aborigines or to speak of Aborigines being `hounded' by finance agencies. To give the article that sort of connotation I think is to concentrate this issue far too narrowly, albeit on the real problems. I am not denying for one moment that we ought to be properly looking at the problems of Aborigines. But Aborigines do live in the twentieth century; they do have access to excellent education facilities, whether or not those education facilities are provided by government and whether or not they are received through television or other means of communication. But what we need to concentrate on, of course, is the fact that education needs to be appropriate to the needs of any particular community no matter where in Australia it is. It is an historical fact that Aborigines live in Arnhem Land. Denigrating them by describing them all as primitive is just not satisfactory and, similarly, suggesting that all car dealers are unscrupulous or that all finance companies hound their customers I think also adds to the problem. We need to look very carefully at the way in which consumerism is embraced in our community. The report of the Australian Finance Conference brings to our attention many of the important rules that ought to be accepted and abided by all consumers. With the leave of the Senate I will incorporate one of the chapters from the report of the Australian Finance Conference's credit advisory service which contains basically the golden rules applying to the seeking of credit. I seek leave to incorporate that document. Leave granted. The document read as follows- GOLDEN RULES Used wisely consumer credit can be of great assistance to you. Used without care, it can result in more cares than you would want to worry about. Follow the Golden Rules of Consumer Credit and your credit cares will be kept to a minimum. DO Remember that credit costs money; shop around for it as you would for goods. Make sure that the goods which you are wishing to finance are what you need. Before you apply for a loan review your total financial position to work out how much you can afford to repay. After you have obtained finance follow the disciplines of effective money management and budgeting. Pay the highest possible deposit so that you will have a worthwhile equity in the goods; this will result in lower repayments without leaving you too short of funds. Carefully examine the goods to make sure that they are in good order and will meet the purposes for which you want them. Consider the additional costs of the items you buy (e.g. annual car registration, insurance and other service and running costs) and make sure you budget for them. Contact the credit provider immediately you look like getting into repayment difficulties. Carefully consider all of the terms and conditions in the credit contract; do not be afraid to ask for an explanation. If you do not fully understand the contract seek independent advice. Think carefully before you take on the responsibility of a guarantor. Make sure you are comparing like with like when shopping around for credit: ask for the amount of regular repayment, the annual percentage rate and whether any establishment, joining or like fees are required. Understand how interest is charged in the contract and what happens if you pay-out early or make extra repayments. Remember that you are entering a contract-contracts are serious business. Make sure to keep your copy of the contract and file this along with other related documents and correspondence in a safe place. When filling in an application form answer the questions asked honestly and accurately; this avoids embarrassment of being found out if aspects are false and reduces the risk of overcommitment. Take great care with your credit history-it is an asset and should be well looked after. DO NOT Do not sign a blank form or a form that you do not understand. Do not mislead the credit provider by incorrectly completing the application form. Do not borrow without knowing your current and likely future financial position. Do not borrow the deposit. Do not confuse the different types of interest rates; do not compare a flat rate with an annual percentage rate. Do not just buy something because you can get it on credit or because the deposit or repayments are small. Do not be rushed into signing a contract. Do not sign as a guarantor without carefully thinking about the responsibility that you are taking on. Do not forget that you have rights and responsibilities-make sure that you are an informed consumer. Senator TAMBLING —I thank the Senate. If we look carefully at the do's and don'ts of the golden rules of consumerism we can see there are certainly many lessons to be learnt by many people, whether they are Aboriginal or not. We need to remind ourselves that sales of vehicles to Aborigines are not limited to Aborigines in Arnhem Land. Aborigines live in all urban communities and in many other remote parts of Australia. They need to have access to vehicles. There is certainly no public transport in many of the Aboriginal communities that I am aware of, and therefore there is a very heavy reliance on vehicles. Certainly the Aboriginals of Arnhem Land do need to have access to both used car sales and new car sales facilities, according to their economic circumstances. We need to be reminded that Aboriginals, as a consuming group, do not just walk into a car yard one by one and try to negotiate a sale. They usually make these types of decisions in collaboration with their families and their broader community groups. Therefore it is very unfair to describe car dealers as unscrupulous, because generally the consumer in each instance is not just one person; a group of people make the final decision. The finance arrangements that are entered into by Aboriginals also need to be looked at very carefully. Any company that I am aware of, and certainly those that are members of the Australian Finance Conference, would assess each and every case for application for finance on its merit. That means that the person applying for finance needs to meet the criteria-the deposit, the term, the satisfactory income. That would be established at the point of credit. That, I think, is the very essence of this matter. There ought not to be any discrimination against Aboriginal people purchasing anything if they can demonstrate that they satisfy the normal community standards and rules relating to credit and finance in this country. Certainly there are problems of education. The few Aboriginals in the very remote areas have a problem in relation to the maintenance of vehicles. I think it is argued in part of Dr White's article, or in something else that I have read recently, that when a vehicle breaks down, in some instances communities do not see the need to keep up the finance commitment that they have entered into. That is surely a problem of education, of understanding what a finance contract is and what the obligations are in that instance. Similarly, there is the difficulty of understanding the very complex and detailed nature of a hire purchase or other finance arrangement. As I said a few moments ago, I do not believe that finance companies or agencies would negotiate for finance unless it could be demonstrated that the borrower had adequate collateral. It is very unfair on the finance companies to imply that they would enter into special deals with Aboriginals without security. They would apply the normal community standards in each of those particular areas. The main point that I am trying to stress today is that Aboriginals are now a very important and integrated part of our economic community. There ought to be absolutely no suggestion of any discrimination with regard to what they can or cannot do in the commercial arenas of Australia and what areas of finance ought or ought not to be available. It is very easy and bland to try to draw these threads together with funny adjectives. I would certainly agree that in all communities, whether we are talking about teenage, adolescent or particular ethnic groups, we do need to ensure that the rules that apply to managing money and credit ought to be properly looked at. We must ensure that the education systems in these areas do meet the needs of the consumers. I therefore commend the Australian Finance Conference on its booklet How to Manage Money and Credit which was launched during the last year. But I would suggest to its members that they look carefully at the areas requiring specific targeting, areas of specific need where they may have to tone up the document and look at particular communities. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(1.27) —There are two matters that I want to deal with, and the first relates to problems in Eritrea. The recent reports that have been received in this country indicate quite clearly that there has been a dramatic turn of events in that troubled area, and in particular it is now increasingly clear that the Government forces are in retreat. As a result of the events of 19 March, something like 20,000 Ethiopian soldiers were either killed or wounded and since that time there have been several divisions imported from the Ogaden and there are threats that upwards of 100,000 troops will be brought up from the south to continue to wage the war against the Eritreans, that war having been continuous since 1962. The real tragedy of the matter is that there has been so far very limited international response despite the fact that I am sure most of the international community would recognise the rightness of the Eritrean cause and the abhorrent nature of the Mengistu regime. It is now pretty much a fact that as a result of recent events the whole of the west of Eritrea has been freed up. The Dergue has abandoned a number of the cities in that area and left the countryside open to movement by civilians and military forces of the Eritrean Peoples Liberation Front. But despite that the Ethiopian Government persists, in its death throes, and it is widely reported as using napalm and anti-personnel cluster bombs. There is talk of nerve gas possibly being introduced, and the Government has given explicit warnings that expatriates working for relief agencies should withdraw from the region immediately. The result of that is that there are now very many more starving Eritreans, not least because many of them have fled from the area and those who have remained are no longer being effectively supported by the military. As a result there is a very serious need for assistance, estimated by the Eritreans at something in excess of 130,000 tonnes of wheat. The Australian Government made a grant of food aid last November, and more recently it announced a $300,000 cash grant which will be given to non-government organisations for channelling through to the Eritrean people, but I would have to say that I regard that as manifestly inadequate and I am very disappointed at the Government's lack of response. A very respected former Attorney-General in Ethiopia, Professor Bereket Habte Selassie, is currently visiting this country. He has been here for several days. I can well recall reading his book in 1980 when I visited Ethiopia, and I think he is a very responsible spokesperson for the Eritrean cause. He has made it clear that despite the fact that Australia has given 2,100 tonnes of food to the Liberation Front in the past 12 months, there is a desperate need for much greater assistance. It is very sad that he has been in Canberra for the last several days, he is leaving this afternoon and the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Duffy, has not been able to find the time to see him. That is very disappointing, and so is the Government's silence on the whole issue. It should not be too much for the Government to express its disgust for the reign of terror that has beset Ethiopia since 1975 and for the civil war that has been raging in that region, a war of liberation as far as the Eritreans are concerned and one which I would have thought would inevitably end up in their favour. So I would urge the Australian Government to take action in the United Nations in support of negotiations for a peaceful settlement of the conflict, to state publicly its support for self-determination in Eritrea, to increase the ratio of humanitarian aid to the people of Eritrea through non-government channels and to request the world food program, the United Nations Children's Fund and other multilateral organisations to provide assistance during the conflict. Finally, I believe there are three questions which should be addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. They deserve speedy answers. The first is: Is the Government aware that on 12 May 1988 the Ethiopian Government massacred over 400 civilians in the village of Shiib, and that 80 of those victims were run over by tanks? Second, in view of the expulsion of private relief agencies from Eritrea and northern Ethiopia and the recent declaration of martial law in Eritrea, and in view of the massacre at Shiib, what is the Government of Australia doing by way of bringing international pressure to bear on the Ethiopian Government to cease and desist from committing further atrocities. Third, has the Government held any consultations with other governments or raised the question of the current situation in Eritrea with other governments, including the Government of the Soviet Union, with a view to stopping atrocities and to bringing about a just and peaceful settlement to the conflict? I think it is fair to say that the Soviet Union, in the wake of its disaster in Afghanistan, is likely to be much more amenable to those sorts of suggestions and I think there are good prospects that Mr Gorbachev would be prepared to express his concerns to Mengistu and make it plain to him that there will not continue to be unlimited Soviet support and that the time has come to call a halt to the bottomless pit of suffering that has beset the region for so long. I turn to another matter altogether, and that is the disgraceful and craven capitulation of the Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Evans, in yielding to Caucus pressures on the matter of cellular mobile telephones. It is a great tragedy for the Australian community that we have seen in recent days a decision by the Cabinet, a decision by the structural adjustment committee, that there is a need for competition in this area. It is important that this expanding growth industry be allowed to compete with the basic network, and provide services which would encourage efficiency and competition in Australian industry. Yet what we have is a very sorry state of affairs-this is a case of the tail wagging the dog if ever there was-whereby a Caucus committee, by a seven to four majority, has decided that there should be no competition in this area. In that distinguished minority we have Senator Evans and Mr Morris, the Minister for Transport and Communications Support. It is quite clear that the forces of reason were in the minority, and the forces of vested self-interest were in the majority. It is obvious that the reason for their decision was that they saw this as the thin end of the wedge for Telecom Australia's monopoly. The tragedy of the situation and the tragedy for the Australian community, and it is something that I do not think is readily appreciated in the media or elsewhere, is that the freeing up of the radio paging market in recent years has led to a veritable explosion in that area-increased demand, increased competition, lower prices but, more importantly, more business for Telecom. Yet those sorts of rational decisions have been totally ignored by this Caucus committee and ultimately by this Government. We hear a lot about the Opposition being in disarray because somehow there are sometimes conflicts, differences of opinion on questions such as referendum matters-matters which are not going to determine the fate of governments, when all said and done, but nonetheless what in normal circumstances could be regarded as matters involving healthy differences of opinion. But, no, what do we have? The media are sooled on by the Australian Labor Party, fuming and foaming at the mouth, because somehow this is evidence of total disarray. But what do we see on the other side? We see that the Government is controlled by a very small minority within the Caucus who have no interest in competition, no interest in expanding the Australian manufacturing sector, no interest at all except in protecting the rights of Telecom unions, the rights of a very small group of people who are not committed to competition at all. That is a tragedy. It is symptomatic of what has happened over the last 12 months, when the whole privatisation debate has been led very tentatively by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and senior Ministers who well understand the virtues and the necessity of competition. They have been overruled time and again by the economic troglodytes of the Labor Party. The real conservatives, the left wing of the Party, are too timid and too afraid to understand, ever to want to understand, the merits and virtues of competition in those areas. This is not a question of ideology. It is a question of practical economics and what is in the long-term interests of the country. The Prime Minister knows it. Mr Keating knows it, all of the senior economic Ministers know it, but what do we find? They get well and truly overridden, thumped, ridden into the ground, and utter not a word by way of response. Senator Evans is simply the latest in a long line of those who have cravenly capitulated, who are quite prepared to settle for a bit of peace and quiet, who are not interested in the long term welfare of the telecommunications or any other industry, but who are simply interested in harmony with Caucus, in maintaining their numbers and their positions and to hell with the state of the economy. I regard that as a tragedy-one that this Government and this country will live to regret and one which will certainly be rectified by an incoming coalition government. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) agreed to: (1) That discussion of Matters of Public Interest be not further proceeded with this day. (2) That intervening Government Business be postponed till after consideration of Government Business, Orders of the Day Nos 9 (Crimes (Torture) Bill 1988 and 10 (National Companies and Securities Commission) Amendment Bill 1988 and the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. (3) That this Order have effect till 2.00 p.m. this day. Debate resumed from 21 April, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator HILL(South Australia)(1.39) —The Senate is debating a Bill for an Act to give effect to certain provisions of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and for related purposes. To put this Crimes (Torture) Bill in context, I remind the Senate of a debate in this chamber on 5 April 1984 on the subject of torture which immediately followed the release by Amnesty International of a major book on the extent of torture throughout the world, and the use by governments in particular of torture. The Amnesty International report indicated that torture was occurring in some 98 countries. On that occasion we specifically debated a motion put down by my former very good friend, the late Senator Missen. Part of that motion contained a request that the Australian Government seek the expediting of the completion of the proposed international covenant against torture. Of course this Bill is now putting into legislation that particular covenant. We noted in the debate on that occasion some positive signs. In particular, we noted the fact that the United Nations had in recent times made a declaration on the protection of all persons from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. We saw that as a small but positive step towards the reaching of a formal convention and we commended that convention, obviously, in the terms of the motion. The convention came into effect on 26 June 1987, which was 30 days after the twentieth country, Denmark, deposited its instrument of ratification. As I have said, this Bill will now enable the Australian Government to ratify the convention. In fact, the Australian Government signed the convention on 10 December 1985, so at the very least we can say that our Government-and I say it with regret-has been somewhat tardy in reaching this stage of putting down legislation so that our country can ratify it. The development of this convention is just another step towards a regime that can counter this terrible practice of torture which is adopted by so many nations throughout the world. But we ought not believe that it will achieve too much. There was, I remind the Senate, a prohibition of torture in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which of course, was adopted in 1948. I remind honourable senators of Article 5 of that declaration, in particular. Again in the Geneva Convention of August 1949 torture was outlawed, as it is in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. So declarations against torture by the world's community are nothing new. Unfortunately the practice of torture has not ceased with the declarations. We recognised in that debate back in 1984 not only public declarations but also the work of numerous bodies throughout the world that were positively trying to do something about this scourge. In particular, we recognised the contribution of international bodies such as the Human Rights Committee, the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights, in Geneva, all of whom are at least bringing to the public's attention examples of torture. Hopefully that can lead to international pressure for such practices to cease. I particularly commend the work of the rapporteurs to the Human Rights Commission in Geneva who have gone into various countries, investigated allegations in depth and put down most worthwhile reports, bringing to our attention examples of these horrific practices. It is not surprising that nation states are somewhat reluctant to expose torture if it is taking place under their particular governments. I know of no countries that publicly acknowledge it as a practice. Anyway, in that debate back in 1984 we referred to rapporteurs' reports, particularly in relation to South Africa and the territories occupied by Israel and Chile. Before someone jumps up and says that they seem to be all related to nation states with some similarities, let me say I also highly commend the report of the rapporteur on Afghanistan that was put down the year before last. It outlined horrendous examples of the torture that was taking place in Afghanistan, and directly attributed blame to the Soviet occupation. So it is not only criticisms of so-called right wing governments that we see being brought to public attention by these rapporteurs, but also of Communist regimes. As I said, I particularly commend their work. The exercise, of course, is then to attempt to shame these governments into better practices, and regrettably that is proving to be difficult. In that previous debate we also acknowledged the role of regional organisations such as the Organisation of American States and the Council of Europe, examples of groupings of states that are attempting to bring pressure upon each other. Clearly they can work in a way that contributes to achieving the goal that we are seeking. Needless to say, because the debate was particularly on an Amnesty International report, a report most helpful in outlining these practices, we commended the work of that organisation. That is a commendation I am happy to make at any appropriate time. In addition, we stressed the importance of bilateral pressure. Successive governments in Australia have applied themselves to this task with quite reasonable diligence. It is the task of governments to gather information, to make recommendations and, in the case of Australia, to bring such information to organisations such as Amnesty International, and particularly to our parliamentary Amnesty International group to enable us in turn to try to apply pressure to the regimes and to the governments that are defaulting. I can remember when I represented this Parliament at the United Nations the year before last making representations on behalf of the Australian Government to the Ambassador from Cuba in relation to a number of poor souls who were being abused in Cuba. The efforts of individuals might not count for much but if there are enough individuals making this effort there is the chance that it can come to something. One cannot discuss this subject without also commending the Red Cross organisation for its magnificent contribution, with its visits to prisoners and particularly its efforts to improve their conditions. Whenever we hear that the Red Cross is being excluded from a trouble spot, immediately loud alarm bells ring. It is clear, regrettably, that international norms of behaviour are insufficient in this area. Torture continues to be practised by many countries throughout the world. What is necessary is some form of enforcement mechanism, some mechanism that can force nation states to behave properly. Of course that is the theory behind this convention. That is what it was thought this convention could achieve. Regrettably, if one peruses the convention, one will find that it lacks mechanisms for implementing and enforcing the cessation of abuses. What it does is provide for a new committee, a Committee Against Torture, that will investigate and report. As I have indicated, such efforts are always worthwhile, as far as they can go. But there is no power of enforcement. Although the world community becomes part of this exercise, through the convention, no powers of authority are given to any third party to enforce the provisions of the convention. What the convention rather seeks to do is oblige individual states to take action within their state to outlaw torture. But as much torture, as we know, is torture by the state, it does not take too long before one realises that that is a very major limitation on the likely effectiveness of this particular convention. Some regional bodies have set an example that I think could be taken up by others. I refer, for example, to the convention adopted by the Council of Europe which has in it a provision that its body can go in and investigate torture within a national state without there even being any complaint. It seems to me that the existence of that body is a deterrent, and it is clearly has a convention that goes further than the UN convention. I regret that the UN convention has not been able to go that far. If one looks further at the UN convention one will find that it can come into effect only in relation to an investigation by the Torture Committee if in fact the nation state that is a party to the convention agrees that the body should do so. Under Article 21 of the convention a nation state must first indicate that it is prepared to allow investigations before investigations can take place, and that relates to investigations of complaints by individuals or by third parties. I hope that Australia is going to set the example and indicate upon ratification that we would be prepared to allow such investigations, because I note that of the first 20 parties to ratify the convention only six have been prepared to do so. So, in effect, it seems to me to be somewhat of an example of double standards if a nation says that it will be party to the convention but will not allow investigations of complaints to take place. As I said, I hope that we will set a better example. This Bill, in itself, does not do a great deal. It creates for us the offence of torture. It creates the offence of torture committed by public officials of Australia outside Australia. They will go to trial before an Australian court in this country. One would realise that there will be very few examples of that offence occurring, and very few trials of that nature in Australia. It does not allow for defence of exceptional circumstances or superior orders, and, that I commend. But our Government takes the view that acts committed within Australia are already adequately covered by existing State and Commonwealth legislation and therefore we need not go down the path in this country that we say other countries of the world should go down. It seems to me that by taking this particular stand we are not giving the example that we should; we are taking the position that so many countries have taken, and that is that the evil exists elsewhere; it cannot exist within our own system. The danger in that, I would suggest, is that in this country we take our safeguards for granted. At first blush we would say that torture in this country does not exist, but perhaps it is something that we should reflect upon more carefully particularly when we look at the wide definition of torture that is included within the convention. If, for example, a drug addict has been placed in custody and a confession is taken from him at a time when he is coming out of the effects of his drug addiction and therefore is unable to properly comprehend what he is saying-such people are then often in a state of agony-that would clearly amount to torture under the convention. Perhaps we need to reflect upon that. Look at what is becoming apparent as a result of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. It may well be that much stress might be placed upon an Aboriginal who is put in a position with which culturally he cannot cope, and a confession taken in those circumstances could amount to torture under the convention. It seems to me, without thinking long and hard about it, that there may well be circumstances in this country where the offence of torture may be committed within its wide definition. Rather than simply adopt the position that this Government has adopted, which is that it cannot occur in this country, we should face up to that responsibility. Eternal vigilance must be maintained if we are to maintain the standards that we believe it is important to maintain in this country. I regret the sense of complacency that one finds in the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). Let me just quote from one sentence of that speech: . . . Australia will never become a safe haven for those who preach fundamental human rights. But when one looks at the War Crimes Amendment Bill, which is before the Parliament, one finds that this Government has been exclusive in relation to those who have breached that particular human right. So to come here and say that these things will never occur in this country, that we will never be a haven, I believe shows a sense of complacency that is undesirable. I regret that we have not taken this responsibility more seriously, but before sitting down I want to put a few positive suggestions that Australia should adopt and mention a few areas in which I think it could be doing more to contribute to a world in which torture by the state is less widespread. In particular, we should be making a greater effort to develop a stable international legal system. I am on the record in this chamber as saying that I am concerned that we have made an insufficient contribution in that regard. I have spoken of our negligible contribution in that area in the United Nations, and I would like to see it upgraded. We must be prepared to support financially prisoners of conscience and their families and to assist the rehabilitation of torture victims. We have tended in this country to preach, but we are not prepared to dig deep in the areas where we can materially help these people who have suffered. We must keep up our contribution to the Human Rights Commission, and I was most pleased that after the representations of Senator Bolkus and myself we upgraded our representation by one person on the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, and I think that in itself made the contribution of the parliamentarians in our delegation worthwhile. We must encourage international mechanisms whereby international bodies are empowered to make their own inquiries on their own initiative and, as I said, I hope Australia is going to set the example by taking the action it needs to take under this Bill to allow investigations. We must continue all reasonable bilateral efforts and support of non-government organisations, as we have done, but I suggest we do so even more vigorously and resourcefully than we have done in the past. I regret that torture by states continues to be widespread. I acknowledge the convention and this Bill as small steps in the right direction, but I would like this Government to be taking the subject much more seriously, setting an example and putting much greater resources behind them. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(1.58) —Madam Acting Deputy President, I think the hour is such that it would be fairly silly of me to start on a second reading speech on what I believe is a very important Bill involving the ascribing of this country to the so-called torture convention of the United Nations. In fact I have expressed the view that this Crimes (Torture) Bill seems to me to be a totally inappropriate type of Bill to have a debate on at this particular time. It is a Bill which is fundamental to democratic institutions; it is fundamental to the way that Australia has developed in the past and the way its foreign affairs operations are likely to be conducted in the future. Like Senator Hill, I am very much of the view that there has been a fair amount of complacency about this matter in Australia. There are a number of factors that I certainly wish to rehearse in my second reading contribution on this matter. Debate interrupted. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed not to the Leader of the Government in the Senate but to the Minister for Home Affairs. Is it not a fact that the Government is putting forward the first referendum proposal on the basis that it will have no impact on the term of office of the current Government? If so, is it not also a fact that under the existing Constitution the last practical date on which the next half Senate and the current House of Representatives elections can be held together is 2 June 1990? Is it not also a fact that if the first referendum is carried, the last practical date of the next Senate and House of Representatives election to be held together will be extended to 17 November 1990? Does the Minister therefore deny that a practical consequence of this would be to enable the Government to stay in office almost six months longer than is now provided for under the current constitutional arrangements? Senator ROBERT RAY —This matter, of course, is not within my portfolio. It is a matter for the Attorney-General, who has carriage of referendums and like matters. Senator Chaney —Dates of elections are your specialty though. Senator ROBERT RAY —No. Even dates of elections, with all due respect, are within the Prime Minister's prerogative. I sometimes get asked these questions because I have made a study of these matters over the years. However, I am not inclined today to be erudite on these matters. It is a matter for the Attorney-General; he has carriage of the Bills in this chamber. I think my colleague Senator Tate, who represents him here, got down only the last half of the question. Perhaps the honourable senator should sent it across to Senator Tate very quickly while I am talking if he wishes him to respond. Senator CHANEY —I am happy to accept the correction by Senator Ray to the effect that the question should have been addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. It seems to me to be a quite important but relatively straightforward question relating to the constitutional amendments which the Minister for Justice is introducing this afternoon. I ask again: Is it not a fact that the Government is putting forward the first referendum proposal on the basis that it will have no impact on the term of office of the current Government? If so, is it not also a fact that under the existing Constitution the last practical date on which the next half Senate election and the current House of Representatives election can be held together is 2 June 1990? Is it not also a fact that if the first referendum is carried, the last practical date of the next Senate and House of Representatives election to be held together will be extended to 17 November 1990? Does the Minister therefore deny that a practical consequence of this would be to enable the Government to stay in office almost six months longer than is now provided for under the current constitutional arrangements? Senator TATE —The fact is that the House of Representatives term is set under the present Constitution to run-I have not the terms in front of me-some three years from the date of the calling of the Parliament together after the last election. That sets the term for the House of Representatives, and it is in no way altered by the constitutional proposal. Senator CHANEY —I ask the Minister a supplementary question. Is the Minister suggesting that the constitutional limitations on when a Senate election can be held are irrelevant to the Government's consideration of when an election can be held for the House of Representatives, because that would appear to be the basis of his answer? Or does he agree that, in general, the requirement or desirability of holding those two elections together means that the present term of the Senate is very relevant to the likely election date for the House of Representatives? In a practical sense, if the referendum is passed, does the Minister not agree that that extends by nearly six months the period whereby the Government can hold a House of Representatives and a Senate election together? Senator TATE —I do not agree. The fact is that whatever is desirable about the holding of half Senate and Representatives elections together-that has been a matter of contention in Australian politics for many decades-the Constitution as presently framed sets the date for the necessary limit on the date on which the House of Representatives election must be held. That is the fundamental constitutional criterion governing the calling of that election. Senator COLLINS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. What is the Government's assessment of the current situation in El Salvador in the light of the Press reports such as that in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald outlining an apparently deteriorating political outlook in that country? Senator GARETH EVANS —A period of uncertainty and instability has followed the March elections in El Salvador. The National Assembly refuses to meet, the ruling Christian Democratic Party is divided and in disarray-rather like some other parties I can think of at the moment-and legal disputes over the election results continue. More seriously still, politically motivated violence by rightist death squads, the military and the FMLN-the armed opposition-is on the increase. In a recent incident a military court judge involved in politically sensitive cases was shot down and killed. FMLN guerillas, still a strong force with a membership estimated at between 4,000 and 7,000, have the potential to destabilise the situation severely as they react to military provocation. The continuing political chaos and instability in El Salvador are particularly regrettable in the light of the call for national reconciliation in the Central American peace process begun on 7 August 1987, a call which the Australian Government continues fully to support. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. I refer the Minister to his answer yesterday to Senator Chaney's question in which the Minister conceded that claims lodged by unions for 6 per cent pay rises could be said to be technically in breach of the current wages guidelines. Is the Minister aware that the Australian Council of Trade Unions Executive yesterday officially endorsed the campaign for a 6 per cent wage rise to be paid by instalments in July and December of this year? In view of this decision and today's Australian Bureau of Statistics figures which show earnings growth of 7.3 per cent for the year ending February 1988, and the consequent certainty that the Budget forecast growth of 6 per cent will be exceeded, does the Minister agree that such an across the board rise paid before the end of the year, plus second-tier increases likely to flow in that time, would have disastrous consequences for the inflation rate and Australia's international competitiveness? What does the Government propose to do in the face of this open defiance by the trade union movement of the existing guidelines and this obvious attempt to undermine the about-to- begin review of these principles? Senator BUTTON —That is a very long and detailed question which has a number of purported facts in it and a number of examples of conceptual confusion. Senator Lewis —Absolute rubbish! The question is as simple as anything. Senator BUTTON —Why should I answer a question when Senator Lewis, the moment I start my reply, says that I am talking rubbish? Let me explain to Senator Lewis that the question Senator Chaney asked me yesterday related to no extra claims provisions in respect of the current wage fixing system. It is easy to confuse and blur the current wage fixing procedures and system with the sort of system which is likely to be in place following the review by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I mentioned factual errors. It is true that the ACTU endorsed claims for a 6 per cent wage rise in the forthcoming year. That has been the subject of a lot of public discussion in terms of wages being consistent with the anticipated CPI increase during that period. I think that Senator Lewis will be aware that, according to the President of ACTU yesterday, it is conceded that those claims may have to be modified in the event of the CPI being less than the 6 per cent anticipated. Senator Stone —Six per cent CPI anticipated? Senator BUTTON —No. Of course, we could play verbal tootsies all day, if that is what honourable senators opposite want, but that is not what I am doing; I am answering the question. When I referred to the CPI anticipated 6 per cent I was referring to the ACTU view that it would make an ambit claim and, if the CPI is 6 per cent, that would be the nature of its claim. However, if the CPI as it anticipates, and as the President of the ACTU said last night, is less than 6 per cent, the claim will be modified accordingly. Senator Short —What if it is 8 per cent? Senator BUTTON —I do not know. What about the workers? Senator Short —It is a pretty important point. Senator BUTTON —Senator Short says that it is an important point, but we will cross that bridge when we come to it. This is another in the type of questions that we normally hear from the Opposition about wages policy and anticipating what will happen, speculating what will happen before it ever does. This Government has administered the most successful wages policy in the history of this country. Senator Stone laughs, but when he was the Secretary to the Treasury 600,000 people were put out of work in one year, and there were 15 per cent wage claims simply because the Liberal Party's former leader, the former Prime Minister, had to go to the royal wedding instead of looking after the economy as this Government has done. Even though this mob of wimps opposite may not realise it the fact is that under this Government, with employment growing at twice the rate of the OECD average, we have been able to maintain a sensible and realistic wages system in this country, a system that is the envy of many other countries; and of course it is the envy of the Liberals because they know that they could never do it. The Liberals succeeded, as I said, in throwing 600,000 people out of work in one year, while at the same time-- Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections. Senator BUTTON —This answer seems to be working. The Liberals succeeded in doing both things at once. To return to Senator Lewis's question, because there were several other points, he asked me whether I think it would be disastrous for inflation and the competitiveness of Australian industry. My answer to both questions is no. Senator McMULLAN —Is the Minister for Justice aware of delays in the processing of some criminal cases in the Australian Capital Territory and, if so, what action is the Government taking to remedy this situation? Senator TATE —I have been aware of the difficulties experienced, particularly in the magistrates courts here in the Australian Capital Territory, in dealing with serious crimes, the backlog and the difficulty in finding time to hear those cases. Of course, as the Chief Magistrate has pointed out, this is particularly serious in those instances where, for example, a defendant is in custody for some time awaiting trial. Given that increased workload, which tended to erupt particularly late last year and earlier this year due to the commission of some serious criminal offences, there has been cause for particular worry. Indeed, the Chief Magistrate has taken certain steps to deal with this matter, and I am aware that they are beginning to have some practical effect. For example, he has issued a practice direction requiring that from 2 May 1988 all criminal hearings will be subject to a case status inquiry no less than five weeks before the matter is due to come on for hearing. The aim of these inquiries is to ensure that criminal cases are ready for hearing and that there are no last minute requests for adjournments or a decision not to proceed with a case. That should go a long way towards ensuring that maximum use is made of available court time and reduce court delays. There is also a question simply of providing sufficient personnel for the magistrates bench. In that respect the Government is pleased that a Mr John Murphy has been appointed as a special magistrate for the Australian Capital Territory. Mr Murphy, who is 43, practises as a barrister in Victoria and was formerly a magistrate in the Northern Territory so he brings considerable expertise and experience to this particular post. He will be available to sit in the court on a sessional basis and, whilst at the moment there is no very significant delay, I am informed, in those cases where defendants are in custody, the delay in other cases is obviously of much concern. I believe that Mr Murphy's appointment will go a long way towards allaying the concerns held in the community about those delays. In addition, together with those of the Chief Magistrate, a number of other initiatives have been taken. These include an examination, as a matter of priority, of the need for the appointment of additional permanent magistrates to the court, a study of the overall resource needs of the court and consideration by the Attorney-General's Department of a report prepared for it on the new computer system in the Victorian magistrates courts with a view to introducing a similar system in the Australian Capital Territory. Senator McMullan rightly raises concerns held in the community. I believe it is evident that both the Chief Magistrate and the Government are taking very useful steps in remedying what was a matter of great concern earlier in the year. Senator POWELL —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training and is in reference to a document which has come into my possession proposing the closure of a large number of community youth support scheme (CYSS) projects in Victoria. How does the Minister explain the existence of this document? Who is the author of the document, why was it prepared and have other States produced similar documents? Why is electoral information included in the assessment of CYSS projects? Was the Department under any direction to consider political issues? Why are most of the projects which are listed to be scrapped located in safe Opposition seats? Why are decisions being made about projects before submissions have even been called for? Finally, can the Minister give an assurance that this outrageous assessment will not result in a $3.4m cut to CYSS projects in Victoria? Senator WALSH —This tatty little collection of paper which is somewhat humorously described as a `document' was handed to a member of my staff a couple of hours ago by a member of the Australian Democrats' staff who said that it was purloined from a typing pool, or picked out of a waste paper basket, or something like that. All honourable senators can see that the document is 20 or 30 pages of handwritten scribbling. It could have been written by anyone. Even the fairy at the bottom of the garden could have written it and probably did before passing it on to the Democrats. I reject the fundamental assumption contained in the question that some collection of paper with scribbling on it by persons unknown should be regarded as a document. However, there were a couple of other points in the question as to why it identifies CYSS projects in particular electorates, or something like that. I believe it is the custom for the Department of Employment, Education and Training, as it was for the Department that previously performed this function, to inform members of parliament that offices are to be opened in their electorates or whatever, but I will check that out. In any event, I think that this document should be taken about as seriously as it deserves. Senator POWELL —I have a supplementary question. In light of the fact that the Minister has denied the departmental origin of this information, in spite of the appearance of the Department's fax number on the first page, can he give a commitment that the closures and amalgamations outlined in the information will not take place and, in particular, that cuts of this level to youth projects in Victoria are not destined to take place? Senator WALSH —I know that it is hard for the Australian Democrats to assimilate facts, but I did not deny that it had a departmental origin. In fact, I said that it was written by persons unknown, certainly persons unknown to me, and that it could have been written by the fairy at the bottom of the garden for all I knew. I do not think that I can say any more than that. Senator VALLENTINE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. I refer the Minister to the report on the front page of Monday's Sydney Morning Herald about the transport of highly toxic nuclear fuel waste from Lucas Heights either to Port Botany or Port Sydney and also to the answer to a question I asked on the same subject of Senator Gareth Evans on 6 May 1986. I ask: Why is the waste being transported without the concerns of local councils, environment and resident groups being addressed, as well as without a response being given to the question of insurance raised by Australian Lawyers for Nuclear Disarmament? What will the overall cost of the contract be? The then Minister said two years ago that that cost would be made public after the contracts were finalised. Has the Government now made a decision on the final use of the highly enriched uranium which will be recovered from the spent fuel elements which includes a total of a quarter of a kilogram of plutonium? Finally, are the nuclear fuel rods going to the Hanford nuclear reservation in the State of Washington? If so, is the Minister aware of the article in the January-February edition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists entitled `Hanford's bitter legacy' on the contamination record of the facilities there since 1943? If the fuel rods are not going to Hanford, where are they going? Senator BUTTON —Mr President, the question was directed to the Minister for Resources, Senator Cook, but as I have responsibility for the Lucas Heights research laboratories I will answer the question. Senator Walters —Don't you trust him? Senator BUTTON —Oh, really, Senator Walters! The article in the Sydney Morning Herald has been drawn to my attention. Unfortunately it contains allegations about secrecy and hazards which are specious and likely to create unnecessary confusion and concern. Of course, Senator Vallentine is a classic victim of any confusion and concern which might be created by specious articles. The details of timing and choice of route will not be decided until closer to the time of shipment. As is common practice with other sensitive cargo movements, such as payroll transfers or the transport of chemicals, these details will not be publicised. All relevant Commonwealth and State agencies have been notified. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) also wrote to all relevant local councils on 6 May to advise them of the forthcoming shipment. The relevant unions have also been informed and continue to be consulted to provide accurate information to the persons who will be involved in the shipment. Therefore allegations of secrecy are totally unfounded. The spent fuel will be shipped in accordance with the Government decision announced on 17 December 1985 by the former Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans. The spent fuel which is generated by the Hifar reactor at Lucas Heights contains valuable unused uranium which can be recovered from the reprocessing operation and credited to ANSTO as future fuel for Hifar. About 50 spent fuel elements accumulate each year. Apart from a shipment of 150 elements to the United Kingdom in 1963 all spent fuel has been stored at Lucas Heights. The storage capacity is full and the option of providing additional storage is not desirable as it would further defer the recovery of the valuable uranium contained within the spent fuel. Fission products from the reprocessing will be incorporated into the waste management system of the United States Department of Energy, as will the small amount of contained plutonium which is uneconomic to separate. Of course, all nuclear material will be subject to nuclear safeguards and will remain solely for peaceful use in accordance with the Australia-United States safeguards agreement. The spent fuel will be transported to the United States in a specially designed cask which meets all the United States and Australian requirements for the safe transport of radioactive materials. These are based on the transport regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency. I might add that in over 25 years of transporting high level radioactive materials in accordance with the International Atomic Energy Agency regulations there have been no deaths or injuries incurred as a result of the radioactive nature of the material. Senator Vallentine's question also contained a section asking me the precise destination of the uranium and asking me something about safety measures at that destination. I am unable to answer that part of the question at this stage, but I will obtain an answer for her. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. I refer to information contained in a paper prepared for the Minister by Mr Roger Smith, First Assistant Secretary of the Broadcasting Policy Division of the Department of Transport and Communications. I ask: Is it a fact that the paper reveals that News Corporation Ltd held shares in television companies amounting to 17.16 per cent at the end of last year? Is it a fact that under the law the prescribed interest limit for newspaper proprietors having television interests is 5 per cent? Does such a holding breach the cross media and foreign ownership laws? Why has the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal or the Government not taken action to enforce the law when they have known of this apparent breach for some considerable time? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not at all sure that there has been any breach as Senator Messner said, in the sense of any interest being retained in excess of a statutory amount for a longer period than the periods of grace that are allowed under the respective statutes. These things are quite complex. They are matters for the Broadcasting Tribunal, of course, rather than the Minister to administer. I cannot recall the particular internal departmental minute to which Senator Messner is referring. Many such pieces of paper are prepared, particularly in the context of the ongoing policy issues that arise about media ownership and control. I will seek some further information to clarify the situation, as far as I can. But I doubt whether I will be able to give him much more information than he has sought today. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories whether he has heard of allegations that he is inciting people to oppose the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests recommendations. Does he accept the allegations as having any basis? Senator RICHARDSON —I have heard of these claims. Senator Alston —Were you drunk or mad? Senator RICHARDSON —I will get to Senator Alston in just a moment. Of course, as usual, I was neither; nor was I lying on the front lawn. I would have to say to Senator Coates that no less a journal than the Tasmanian Examiner this morning had a headline claiming, `Minister incites Greenies'. I am not very big on inciting at the best of times, so I would never do such a thing, as I am sure all honourable senators would realise. However, I would like to quote just a few of the things I did say to put this matter in some context. Senator Newman —The Sydney Morning Herald and the Age too? Senator RICHARDSON —The Age was very wrong, but the Sydney Morning Herald was less so. It is all right though because I have to get to Senator Newman as well yet. I ask her to be patient. I said: I will be saying nothing about the Helsham report until the Government has made a decision on what to do with it and I will make those recommendations to the Government in the coming weeks. When I have done so I will be more than happy to speak further. And that's all I wish to say on Helsham at the moment but on wilderness and on Tasmania there are some things that I would like to say. In the context of a discussion about wilderness issues generally and about issues in Tasmania and the environment generally I went on to point out to those present that if they wished the Government to heed their point of view and to take action on it they would need to make sure that their voice was heard. I said that so far the roar of the crowd was not deafening. I do not resile from those remarks. They were more than appropriate remarks. I think that they were in tune with the context in which they were put. I spoke about how Australia was fortunate in being perhaps the only land left that had large enough areas undisturbed by human contact and able to be called wilderness and how we had a duty to protect those areas. I was launching an inventory of wilderness in Tasmania. I might say that this is an inventory that covers areas much broader than those just covered by Helsham in his report. I went on to speak about how Australia might best live up to that duty. I certainly hope that we would all be wanting to live up to that duty. I am sure that we all are. However, I did hear that Senator Newman had taken this line in the Examiner a step further. She apparently suggested that I was inciting people to violence and that I had forgotten Ravenshoe. It will be a long time before I forget Ravenshoe. I will not forget what happened before Ravenshoe and why it occurred. Senator Brownhill —Ravenshoe won't forget you, either. Senator RICHARDSON —The people of Ravenshoe will not forget it because of the money the Government is prepared to spend to make sure that they stay in work and that the mill stays open, provided there is some cooperation from that Government run by Senator Boswell's mates. I will not forget what happened. A former Premier-Senator Boswell will remember him because he was a pretty close associate of his-whose name was Bjelke-Petersen-- Senator Aulich —Bjelke-who? Senator RICHARDSON —Bjelke-Petersen was his name. When he went to north Queensland, he attempted to stir up the people of Ravenshoe against me. He said, `It's war. We're in a warlike situation'. It is those sorts of comments that I would say incite violence, not my saying to a crowd of academics, people from the green movement, public servants and even representatives of the Australian Mining Industry Council, that I did not think the roar of the crowd was deafening. In a democracy, organising to make sure that one's point of view is heard is a basic right. No doubt over the next few weeks both sides of the argument on the Helsham report will want to make sure that that right is exercised. I support those people in the exercise of their rights. I repeat that I will be saying nothing about Helsham until the Government has made its decision on the matter. Senator Walters —I seek leave to move that the Senate take note of the Minister's statement. Leave not granted. Senator Newman —I raise a point of order, Mr President. I ask that the Minister table the document from which he was reading. The PRESIDENT —If the Minister has a document, he may table it. If he was quoting from notes, he need not table them. It is up to the Minister. Senator RICHARDSON —They are notes, Mr President, but I am happy to table them. I also have a transcript of what I said. I am happy to table that as well. Senator Newman needs some education; there it is. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister has tabled the notes. Senator DURACK —Does the Minister for Justice agree that the Western Australian Government is an integral part of the operation of the national companies and securities scheme and a member of the ministerial council which controls that scheme? In those circumstances why does the Attorney-General, or indeed he himself as Minister for Justice, refuse to take any action to persuade the Western Australian Government to require its instrumentality, the State Government Insurance Commission of Western Australia, to cooperate fully with the National Companies and Securities Commission inquiry into the Bell matter? Senator TATE —I agree that the Western Australian Government is an integral part of the machinery established to govern the companies and securities industry in Australia. Of course, the relevant Western Australian Minister is a member of the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. As to whether the Federal Attorney or I should intervene and direct the Western Australian Government as to what direction it might give to one of its instrumentalities, I believe that that rests on an assumption explicit in the question that the instrumentality is not cooperating with the inquiries being undertaken by the Companies and Securities Commission. I have already indicated that, due to the fact that the Commission is undertaking certain inquiries and has sought counsel's opinion on various matters as to the steps that are open to it, I believe it would be quite premature and not required for either the Federal Attorney or me to intervene at this stage. Senator DURACK —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Does the Minister agree that, as reported widely in the newspapers, but, apparently, not known yesterday to the Attorney or himself, that instrumentality has declined to provide information unless certain confidentiality is attached to it? It is in those circumstances that I ask whether this Attorney will do anything to try to persuade-not direct-his colleague to be more cooperative. Senator TATE —This very matter was raised yesterday and I answered in the terms that I have repeated today. I believe that steps are being taken which are being properly pursued by the National Companies and Securities Commission. In that situation, I do not believe that it is appropriate that the Federal Attorney should intervene. Senator BURNS —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources. Given the recent escalation of fighting in the Gulf war between Iran and Iraq, can the Minister indicate to the Senate what will be the effects on Australia of developments in the Persian Gulf? Specifically, can the Minister advise the Senate whether the renewed heavy fighting in the Gulf will have any effect, first, on the level of exploration for oil in Australia and, secondly, on the price of oil to the Australian consumer? Senator COOK —Honourable senators will be aware that over the weekend Iraq carried out air raids on two of Iran's major oil terminals, reportedly using Mirage fighters. The most serious raid occurred at the Larak terminal situated near the entrance to the Gulf. The world's largest ship, the Liberian flagged tanker Seawise Giant, which is of 550,000 tonnes, was set ablaze after being hit by parachute bombs. Other tankers hit and damaged in that raid were the Burmah Endeavour, a United Kingdom registered vessel of 457,841 tonnes; the Barcelona, a Spanish registered vessel of 235,000 tonnes; the Khark, an Iranian registered vessel of 231,712 tonnes; and the Argosy, a ship bearing a Cypriot flag, of 152,000 tonnes. The Barcelona is reported to be sinking while the latter two tankers were part of Iran's shuttle fleet between Kharg Island and Larak. A sixth tanker is reported to have been attacked at the Kharg Island terminal. It is feared that these latest attacks on Iranian terminals could set off a new phase of retaliatory actions by Iran. Of course, the United States of America has announced that its warships would offer protection to neutral vessels under attack if they were serving states other than Iran or Iraq. The latest action by Iraq could also be a further move to encourage Iran towards a settlement of the war following Iraq's recapture of the strategic Faw peninsula in April. As to the impact of these attacks on Iran's oil production and export capacity, not a lot is known about that at this stage. There are no reports from the oil markets as to whether or not that will result in some form of reduced supply, but the increasing tension in the Gulf region causes short term fluctuations on the speculative spot market. My Department is monitoring those fluctuations and keeps me advised of them. I think most resource analysts would look forward to the price of a barrel of oil being $US14 to $US15 for a number of years to come. Although the fluctuations resulting from the war are in the spot market prices, by virtue of very high inventories kept around the world there is a good supply of oil to the world. In terms of Senator Burns's question about the effect of the war on the level of exploration in Australia and the price at the bowser, one of the advantages that Australia has-this is highlighted particularly by the sad conflict in the Persian Gulf-is that we are a stable democracy. We offer a stable political climate in which oil search can go on. That in itself is a significant incentive for investment here. As well, under my predecessor, Senator Gareth Evans, and his predecessor, Senator Peter Walsh, the Australian Government has pursued a course of systematically reducing the risk for oil companies in an industry which is notably a high risk industry. In fact, the levels of risk on which the oil industry operates would not be tolerated in other industries. In order to reduce systematically the level of risk in Australia, we regularly release acreage for oil exploration and research, both onshore and offshore. We have introduced stability in the industry by the introduction of our tax regime. In the last round we provided excise concessions in respect of the first 30 million barrels of oil which is, in itself, a significant incentive in marginal fields. We have a resource rental tax which in fact is a super profits tax-a tax calculated by the long term bond rate plus 15 per cent, beyond which point the tax then checks in. It is not a tax on production and that, in itself, is an incentive for exploration in Australia. Government assistance is given for exploration. At the moment the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics is conducting a $6m survey of the geology of the Canning Basin in Western Australia for both oil and mineralisation purposes. All of those measures combine to reduce the level of risk. I think that is one of the significant reasons why we are seeing a fairly good level of exploration in Australia at the moment. The events in the Persian Gulf are in stark contrast to the stability that we offer. I do not believe consumers should be concerned about events in the Persian Gulf in terms of their effect on oil prices in this country. What the Persian Gulf events do is cause the price to oscillate a little in terms of spot market prices. But it is important to note that this does not and ought not compute through the system to affect bowser prices in any way at all. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I remind the Minister for Resources of his answer to me on 14 April confirming that there would be no tax imposed on gold in either the May statement or the August Budget. I refer the Minister to the Prime Minister's recent statement when he was asked about a tax on gold. He said: When you are having a review of the business tax system, everything has got to be on the table. That is the honest answer. I further refer Senator Cook to Senator Button's answer in the Senate yesterday in which he would neither confirm nor deny whether there would be a tax on gold. Of course, we all know Senator Button, like Brutus, to be an honourable man. So clearly a tax on gold is on the Cabinet agenda. I ask Senator Cook: On what basis did he give his original undertaking and will he now re-affirm it? If not, did he originally mislead the Senate or did he simply not know what he was talking about? Senator COOK —I really think that that is a very nice try but a very poor effort by the honourable senator. He ought to go back and read the Hansard. What the honourable senator has said in his question to me now is, from my recollection, an embellishment of his previous question. I said then that the Prime Minister had, of course, given an undertaking before the election. We all know what that is. We have seen it reproduced in a number of newspapers. Certainly, what he has said in the public arena recently is quite understandable. There has been a review of corporate tax and that review will go to the Government for consideration. The missing part of Senator Button's answer yesterday that the honourable senator failed to quote is that Senator Button said, as I recall, `Just you sit and wait. If you sit and wait until next week-in fact on the twenty-fifth-you will get the full answer'. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I ask a supplementary question. I remind Senator Cook of his original answer in which he referred to the Prime Minister's letter and said that there was no reason to depart from that unequivocal commitment. I ask Senator Cook again: Has the question of a tax on gold been under review? Is it under review? If not, will he give an unequivocal commitment, as he did on 14 April, that there will be no tax on gold? Senator COOK —I said that I had no reason to depart from anything that the Prime Minister has said, including all of the things that he has said on the record in the last couple of weeks, or anything that Senator Button has said. I have nothing further to add to the answer. If the honourable senator will just show a modicum of patience, he will find out. Senator DEVEREUX —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of claims that income associated with the retained earnings of companies is subject to `double taxation' under the present tax arrangements? Is this claim valid? Senator WALSH —Yes, I am aware of a claim that income associated with retained earnings is subject to double taxation. It is one of the claims made in the National Priorities Project's Spending and Taxing mark 2. I will just quote briefly from a document. It is asserted: Undistributed corporate income is subject to double taxation, once as corporate income at the maximum personal rate and then again when a capital gains tax is levied on share sales. Later the document asserts: In the case of shares, there is also some double taxation of retained earnings, corporate tax and capital gains tax. The claim is not valid. It is disappointing to see that two years in a row this so-called right wing think-tank, which appears to be the most intellectual group that the people on the other side of politics can assemble, has produced another shoddy document which is loaded with factual and conceptual errors. The situation is that if a company has paid tax on company income which it then retains, it will be in a position to issue franked bonus shares. The issue of franked bonus shares will then prevent shareholders from being taxed on capital gains which represent no more than the build-up of retained earnings within a company. If the company sits on a rising franking account, which is a possibility, and does not issue bonus shares, that is not a question of tax but of company management policy. It is something the shareholders ought to take up with the company concerned. Senator PARER —I preface my question to the Minister for Resources by saying that, notwithstanding the stupidity of a three-mine uranium policy which, according to Senator Bob Collins and Messrs Gordon Bilney and Graeme Campbell, has cost Australia billions of dollars, it is a fact that the Government supports the export of uranium for peaceful purposes. In the absence of a sensible mining policy, when does the Government intend to take the next step of supporting value added uranium enrichment which would not only give Australia more control over the end use of this great energy source but also add around a billion dollars a year to our export earnings? Senator COOK —I think this question was asked so that Senator Parer could launch into an analysis of our uranium policy. We thank Senator Parer for his fairly predictable analysis which was contained in the preface to this question. I guess this has given him his day in the sun. In so doing, the purpose of his question has been achieved. Let me go to the first of the two questions that the honourable senator actually did ask-namely, whether it is a fact that we support the export of uranium for peaceful purposes. Of course it is a fact. But the question does not go far enough. We insist that we obtain an agreement with the countries to which we export under the terms of the nuclear non-proliferation agreement so that there are full safeguards to guarantee that Australian origin nuclear materials are not diverted for weapons use and that the handling, transport and safety concerns about Australian uranium are properly met to the highest level in terms of the entire world trade in uranium. The honourable senator may not have asked that question, but I think in terms of understanding our policy position on the export of Australian uranium that that addition has to be spelt out because it happens to be integral and vital in our approach to the export of Australian uranium. The honourable senator then asked me, in his next foray into policy, whether we will embrace a value added path in terms of enrichment in Australia. The answer to that is the same as an answer I gave in this chamber, I think last month. Senator Parer —`I don't know'. Senator COOK —It was not, `I don't know'. It was that that is not our policy. That is not our policy. Senator PARER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister said in reply that it is not the policy, but the question I asked was: Does the Government intend to move to the next step of value-added, for the reasons I gave, which would give more control over the end use of this great energy source? I also asked whether this would add around $1 billion a year to our export earnings. If the Government does not intend to go that way, is it simply because of ideological reasons from the left wing of the Labor Party? Senator COOK —I said that it is not our policy and the rest of that question is hypothetical. I decline to answer it. Senator GILES —Has the attention of the Minister for Local Government been drawn to editorial comment which suggests that constitutional recognition of local government would be in breach of States rights? Is it not a fact that the wording of the proposed amendment refers quite clearly to State governments providing for a system of local government? Senator REYNOLDS —Yes, it is certainly true that there has been some misleading editorial comment about constitutional recognition of local government. It has even been suggested that the issue relates to States rights. I find that very difficult to understand when the full wording of the proposed amendment is detailed in terms of State legislation. Senator Stone —It does not give the local authority any independence at all; is that what you are saying? Senator REYNOLDS —I can understand the looks of discomfort on the faces of members of the Opposition because many of them have approached me, privately of course, indicating that they have some support for local government recognition in the Constitution. Senator Alston —What will they get out of it? Senator REYNOLDS —Local government will get long overdue recognition. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator REYNOLDS —I am very happy to let the people of Australia, and particularly local government, listen to the calls of derision from members of the Opposition. We all know that a news poll that was released on Tuesday indicated that 66 per cent of people support the recognition of local government in the Constitution. We also know that there are great divisions on the benches opposite. We know, for instance, that the shadow Cabinet recommended that local government be recognised in the Constitution. I am not surprised that a number of honourable members on the opposite side of the chamber and in the other place are very embarrassed and disturbed by the very partisan decision that has been taken. I have had various exchanges with Senator Vanstone about bipartisan approaches to issues of great importance. I ask again, as I have in a number of statements in recent days, that the Opposition think again about the recognition of local government in the Constitution. We know that many honourable senators opposite are not happy with the No vote and that they would really like to support it. So why do they not take a leaf out of the book of Mr Spender and Mr Ian Wilson, have another think about this and talk to some local government representatives such as the Australian Local Government Association, the Municipal Association of Victoria and associations all over Australia that are very disappointed with the stand those opposite have taken. I suppose the comments I make are made more in sorrow than in anger that those opposite could not have adopted a sensible, common-sense approach to this issue. Deep down they would like to support it and they know they have nothing to lose but everything to gain by supporting constitutional recognition of local government. I predict that when the issue is debated in this place next week we will find a number of honourable senators who do not want to contribute because-- Senator Boswell —I'll be there. Senator REYNOLDS —Senator Boswell will be there. I am sure that local government in Queensland will be very interested in the fact that he does not support it. Senator HAINES —Has the Minister for Transport and Communications or the Government been considering a proposal to set up a new organisation to oversee Telecom Australia? Is it the intention of the Government to remove from itself or the Minister responsibility for the running of Telecom by setting up such an organisation? Will this new body, which I understand is to be called Austel, also deal with consumer complaints regarding Telecom, rather than these complaints being referred to and handled by the office of the Federal Ombudsman? If so, why? If this body or a similar body is planned, what will be its structure, how much will it cost to establish and run, to whom will it be responsible, will its establishment require legislation and when is it anticipated that it will become operative? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will be making a very detailed statement next Wednesday night on this whole matter and all Senator Haines's questions will be answered then. Senator HAINES —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I can understand the Minister's reluctance to give the Senate any information. But when a journalist in the Age today refers to Austel as if it is a fait accompli and when a Labor Caucus committee is, I understand, planning on referring a matter to Austel, the Senate is entitled to get more information than simply a brushing aside and a request that we sit back and wait until next Wednesday. So I repeat: Is this body or a similar body planned? What will be its structure? How much will it cost to establish and run? To whom will it be responsible? Is legislation required for its establishment? When is it anticipated that this body will become operative? Senator GARETH EVANS —I repeat my earlier reply. Senator McGAURAN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade aware of the proposed liberalisation of meat exports to Japanese markets following the expected relaxation of Japan's strict meat import laws? Is the Minister also aware that Japanese interests have now purchased 4 per cent of Australia's meat processing works and that Japanese companies are seeking to purchase further meat processing plants, not only to protect their interests in Japan but also to extend their control of the purchase and production spheres in Australia? What guarantee can the Minister give the Australian cattle producer that export cattle sold to Japan will not be limited to animals processed in Japanese controlled meatworks? Will the Government give an assurance that during future discussions with Japan it will argue the case that if the Japanese are allowed to own Australian meatworks, Australian interests should be allowed to actively distribute and sell their product to retailers and consumers within Japan so that true market competition may be maintained at all levels? Senator GARETH EVANS —I thank Senator McGauran for the question of which Senator Boswell gave me notice several days ago. Accordingly, I am able to give him-I hope-a reasoned and full reply. Australia, along with the United States, has fundamental concerns about the highly restrictive Japanese beef import regime. We are both pressing the Japanese to liberalise access for imported beef. From Australia's point of view, the existing Japanese beef regime also discriminates against the entry of our product. We believe that liberalisation is the only way to address our concerns. Because of the price competitiveness of Australian beef, we would expect to benefit from any liberalisation of the Japanese beef market. It is true that in recent times Japanese interests have made investments in Australian meatworks which now account for some 4 per cent of the total livestock slaughtered at export works. While we understand that there is some concern within industry about this, these investments do not pose a threat to the Australian industry since the present and projected levels of demand for Australian beef by Japan far exceed the production capacity of these plants. Moreover, the positive aspects need to be recognised, not the least that it is a sign of the Japanese confidence in the Australian beef industry that it does create an incentive for Japanese interests to source supplies from Australia. The key objective of the negotiating stance of Australia and the United States of America is to bring about the free interplay of market forces in Japan and a much more direct relationship between buyer and seller. As such, any concern about the distribution and selling system in Japan is being covered by our overall approach to the negotiations. Senator REYNOLDS —In Question Time yesterday Senator Vanstone asked me a question concerning invitations to the Tasmanian launch of the National Agenda for Women on Monday, 16 May. I understand that Senator Vanstone has since put out a Press release reiterating her charge that no Tasmanian Liberal senators were invited to that launch. I have since learnt that, contrary to Senator Vanstone's claims, both Senator Walters and Senator Newman were in fact invited to that function-as they should have been, as I said. In fact, Senator Walters courteously apologised, I understand, for her inability to attend. Invitations were extended, as is always the case, to all women and women's organisations. In relation to the Tasmanian function, the mailing list was drawn up by the Tasmanian Women's Information Service, and both Senator Walters and Senator Newman are on that mailing list. Invitees and attendances at the launch covered the entire political spectrum. Women from the Tasmanian Premier's Department were invited and they attended. Women in the Tasmanian Parliament were also invited, and the fact that there were no women members from the Tasmanian Government was because, of course, there are no Liberal women members. Senator COOK —On 17 May I was asked a series of questions by Senator Coulter concerning radiation and I now have an answer. The dose limits for exposure to radiation are based on effects observed in humans who have been exposed to high doses from different sources. Studies on survivors from the atomic bomb explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki increased the knowledge of dose-effect relationships and form part of the base used for deriving the limits. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) considers that activities which lead to doses about the limits are unacceptable and recommends that all doses be kept as low as readily achievable. It has noted that in large occupational groups, the mean dose is one-tenth of the limit. This means that, in practice, the risks associated with occupational exposures are very much lower than in the construction industry. A complete review of the implications of the new Hiroshima and Nagasaki data is being undertaken by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) this year. Whilst there is a suggestion of a 5-15 times risk for some types of cancer, this does not apply to all types. The ICRP will be making new recommendations in 1990, based on the UNSCEAR review. The National Radiological Protection Board in Great Britain has only made recommendations in regard to radiation exposure; they are not mandatory. In these, the ICRP dose limits have been retained but it is recommended that a level of three-tenths of the limits should not be exceeded when averaged over a few years. The National Health and Medical Research Council is keeping the position under review and will give further advice in line with the UNSCEAR review and the new ICRP recommendations. It has been shown that, in Australia, the average dose for radiation workers is less than one-fiftieth of the annual dose limits. The PRESIDENT —I wish to inform honourable senators that owing to an unavoidable hospital appointment I shall be absent from the sitting of the Senate tomorrow. In accordance with the Standing Orders, the Deputy President will take the Chair. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to notice of intention given earlier today, I now withdraw Business of the Senate, notices of motion Nos 1 to 13 standing in my name for today. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(3.07) —I move: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. I have secured the agreement and cooperation of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney)-I have mentioned it to Senator Harradine also but have not yet had an opportunity to speak to Senator Vallentine-in relation to a procedure whereby the Bills be introduced into the Senate at this time, that they be read a first time, and then I will move that the Bills be read a second time. I will read the second reading speech into Hansard as I understand that I will not get leave to incorporate the speech. In any case, the Bills are of sufficient constitutional importance to warrant that reading. I assure the Senate that by an agreement reached by the Whips and indicated to all honourable senators the debate is scheduled to be held next week, and this is in no way an attempt to accelerate that process. In so far as the first and second reading motions are to be put in respect of each Bill separately, that also does not prejudice the question to be decided next week whether a cognate debate should take place. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.08) —In response to what the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) has had to say, I thank him for making clear what his intentions are, following the discussions that we have had today. I indicate to the Senate that the motion which the Minister has just moved is one which enables the Bill to be dealt with without formality and the practical effect of that is to enable the second reading to be given today, instead of tomorrow. The Opposition is of the view that Bills of this importance, Bills which potentially go to the constitutional structure of this country, ought to be dealt with with due formality. We made that clear when the motion for the call of the Senate was put by the Minister for Justice some weeks ago. But the point is that if we were to deny the Minister the right to a second reading today that would simply postpone the second reading until tomorrow, delay the delivery of the second reading speech in this chamber until tomorrow, and shorten the period between the giving of the second reading speech and the second reading debate, which has been programmed to start on Monday. In those circumstances, there is really nothing to be gained and, in fact, we get some slight additional amount of time to consider the matters between the presentation of the second reading speech and the debate. It was on that basis that the arrangement that the Minister has just outlined was made, and I thank him for what I think is his good sense in accepting that there is good reason for having Bills of this importance dealt with in a more formal way, and with the second reading speech actually being read rather than simply being incorporated in Hansard. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(3.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Last week, we were all privileged to take part in a great event in the history of this Parliament and the history of Australia. Above everything else, the permanent Parliament House represents a deep and enduring affirmation of the Australian people's commitment to the future of Australian parliamentary democracy. The Australian Constitution is the foundation of Australia's Federal parliamentary democracy. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that we, as a Parliament and a nation-in the year of the bicentenary-should take this unique and historic opportunity to examine and advance measures to strengthen that foundation. That is the sole purpose of the proposals I place before the Senate today-to enable the people of Australia, by their own free choice and decision, to strengthen the foundations on which our Federal parliamentary democracy rests. The great building, opened on 9 May 1988 by the Queen of Australia, can fulfil its true purpose in the service of the people only if the men and women, called upon to serve within it, make it a living and working expression of Australian democracy. Equally, the Australian Constitution is, and must continue to be, a living and working document, relevant to the needs and capable of responding to the challenges of our own generation, and the generations to come. That was the fundamental consideration behind the Government's decision to establish the Constitutional Commission in December 1985. The Commission's first report was tabled last week in the House of Representatives and in the Senate on Tuesday, 17 May 1988. The Commission's terms of reference, the long and dedicated work of its members, the unprecedented participation of so many individuals and community representatives, and the first report itself, have all been based upon one key assumption. And it is this: The basic building blocks of our parliamentary system are firmly in place; the edifice of the Australian federation, its basic principles of responsible and representative government, upheld by our judicial system, are not under challenge. In the words of the Commission in its first report: From the outset it has been our clear intention not to propose an entirely new Constitution. We have sought to ensure that any proposals for change would preserve the framework and principles contained in the Constitution. In particular, we have been conscious of the need to retain in form and spirit the federal framework of government in Australia, parliamentary government and democratic institutions. But, the Commission continues: There are, however, some significant problems, and we have sought to identify ways in which the Constitution should be improved. It is in that spirit-and the desire to maintain and strengthen the fundamentals while improving certain particulars-that the Commission has approached its task so far, and has presented its first report. It is in that spirit the Government has received and reviewed its recommendations. I trust it will be in that spirit that this Parliament, and then the people of Australia, will approach one of the greatest responsibilities and opportunities enjoyed by a free and independent people-the task of making and amending their own Constitution, under which we all live, in this generation and for the generations to come. And this points to the central feature of the new approach the Government takes to the task of constitutional reform. In Australia-perhaps, to a unique degree in Australia-the people themselves are the custodians of their own Constitution. The Parliament has its important role in proposing change. The judicial decisions of the High Court have a profound influence in defining change. But the ultimate responsibility for deciding for or against change rests with the people. And that is how it should be. It is not the politicians' Constitution; it is not the lawyers' Constitution; it is the people's Constitution. We believe that failure adequately to recognise this fundamental fact, and to make it the starting point for change, has been, at least in part, responsible for the relative lack of success in previous attempts over the past nine decades. Since 1901 there have been eight amendments carried by referendum. On 30 other occasions referendums have failed. A number of bodies have been created to consider constitutional reform since Federation: the 1929 Royal Commission on the Constitution, none of whose recommendations have been implemented; the 1942 conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers, none of whose recommendations were implemented; the 1959 Joint Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Review, whose recommendations were largely ignored; and the 1973-1985 Constitutional Convention. Of the 14 referendums held in 1967, 1973, 1974, 1977 and 1984, only four were successful. The first in 1967, giving the Commonwealth an express power to make laws with respect to the Aboriginal people, was of major significance. The other three in 1977 were of a minor nature relating to the retiring age of Federal judges, the filling of casual vacancies for the Senate, and the obvious need to give electors in the mainland Territories the right to be counted in constitutional referendums. While it is true that the State majority requirement in the Constitution adds to the difficulty of change, it was not the decisive factor in most of the referendums. A number of factors have contributed to this lack of success. Rightly or wrongly, the process has been perceived as dominated by politicians, acting for political advantage. Too often parochial and party political interests have swamped national interests. Sometimes one-off referendum proposals have been formulated in reaction to perceived difficulties and not considered in any broad context. Proposals have seldom been put forward as a result of widespread consultation. Many have not been clearly explained, and others have simply disappeared in the heat of a general election. Many of the proposals have been depicted as a power grab by the Commonwealth Parliament or by that side of politics forming the government of the day. We have seriously and sincerely attempted a fundamentally different approach. We have not restricted constitutional review to one-off issues. Instead, we have placed it in a broad perspective. In establishing the Constitutional Commission and five advisory committees, we appointed people with vision and a wide range of talents and experience and with strong links throughout the community. The Commission and the committees consulted widely in an attempt to build the kind of consensus on, and understanding of, the issues necessary for success. The Government gave the Commission a broad charter: to provide a basis for constitutional review not only in 1988 but into the twenty-first century; and to provide the most suitable framework for Australia's economic, social and political development. In particular, the Constitutional Commission was asked to consult widely with the public and to stimulate public discussion and awareness of constitutional issues. Over the last 2 1/2 years the Constitutional Commission and its Committees have made effective use of members' skills to raise public awareness on constitutional issues. They have achieved a good deal of success in obtaining popular participation in a way never before attempted, much less achieved. It is important to emphasise two points. First, wide-ranging as its first report is, the work begun by the Commission is not complete. Even with the presentation of the final report later this year, the great educative process involved in so massive and momentous an enterprise, of this scope and scale, will have only begun. Secondly, it is vital that the momentum of the Commission's work should not be lost. It is essential that the sense of public involvement, interest and immediacy in the task of reform already generated by the Commission, by the distinction and representativeness of the Commission and its committees, and by the thoroughness and quality of its first report, should not be dissipated. These are the reasons why the Government believes it imperative to take a prompt initiative. We take the view that a genuine national debate on concrete and specific proposals is the best way to ensure that the wider questions of constitutional reform raised by the Commission are placed firmly in the forefront of the agenda of this nation. We believe our present proposals stand on their own merits. But we also believe that this initiative itself will advance the ongoing-the never-ending-cause of constitutional reform. In that sense, our proposals should be seen as a first instalment in a long and steadily maturing process, and a first infusion into the life-blood of our parliamentary democracy-this living Constitution of our `one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth'. The dedication and hard work of the Commission, its advisory committees and the staff of the secretariat have significantly contributed to a unique process of constitutional reform. The key element of the work of the Commission was establishing a process whereby distinguished Australians from many walks of life consulted widely with the community to ascertain the aspirations of all Australians for constitutional change. The recommendations of the Commission are the result of that process; they are not the work of politicians and political parties. To Sir Maurice Byers, the members of the Commission and its advisory committees I extend the Government's and my own deep appreciation for their work. To the staff of the Commission I say thank you for the enthusiastic and professional way they have supported the Commission's work. To those many Australians who have contributed ideas and opinions, and so have significantly assisted the work of the Commission, I also express my appreciation. Their involvement in the processes of the Commission has underlined the importance of public consultation in constitutional reform. It is against that background that I now bring forward proposals contained in four Constitution Alteration Bills. The Government had before it the Commission's proposals in the first report when it made its decision on the questions to be put to referendum. The Commission had provided the Government with a summary of its recommendations in advance. Except for the proposal relating to four-year parliamentary terms, the Government's Bills differ from the Commission's Bills only in presentation and detail. There are four Bills and there will be four separate questions presented at the referendum. But I must emphasise the common theme and purpose which links them all. They are not about the power of the politicians or the political parties. They are about the rights of the people. The proposals address four fundamental democratic rights: the people's right to a more effective registration of the mandate they give at elections, through greater stability, responsibility and contemporaneity, in both Houses of the national Parliament; the people's right, everywhere in Australia, to vote in free and fair elections; the people's right, as members of local and regional communities, to have the important third level of government recognised as part of the Australian Constitution; and the people's right to have guaranteed, in the Constitution itself, certain inalienable rights and freedoms-trial by jury, just terms for compulsorily acquired property, and freedom of religion. I now briefly outline the first of the Bills, its purpose and the reasons for recommending it. The Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1988 proposes to extend the maximum term of the House of Representatives from three years to four years, beginning with the next Parliament. It also proposes that the terms of all senators will expire upon the expiry or dissolution of the House of Representatives. The practical effect of the Bill is to establish a maximum four-year term and elections for both Houses of Parliament on the same day. This proposal does not involve any alteration to section 53 of the Constitution-which deals with the Senate's power in relation to Supply Bills-or section 57 dealing with double dissolutions. We believe this is a timely proposal. Its purpose is to provide greater stability by reducing the frequency of Federal elections. The need for a greater degree of stability in the years ahead is especially relevant to the challenges posed by the economic problems Australia will face into the twenty-first century. There can be no doubt that we are in an era of unprecedented change and complexity in both the national and international economy. Equally, there can be no doubt that the remarkable frequency of elections in Australia is tending to build an inherent instability into the system. Since 1949 there have been 21 Federal elections. This exceeds the number held in the United States where there are fixed biennial elections. Australians have gone to the polls for Federal elections on average once every two years since 1945. With the exception of Queensland all State lower Houses now have four-year terms. The vast majority of democratic countries have four or five-year terms. The Constitutional Commission recommended four-year maximum terms for the House of Representatives. There has been general support for such a change. The Commission, like the Government, sees the clear benefits of a four-year term-greater stability and less frequent elections. The Commission also recommended restrictions on the powers of the Senate, the effective introduction of a minimum term of three years for the House of Representatives and extending the length of terms of senators. Whatever their merits, public reaction to these proposals since the Commission put them forward in October 1987 indicates that they have yet to achieve widespread support. The Government believes that our Constitution should continue to allow elected governments to test the will of the people at the ballot-box without a requirement for a minimum term for the House of Representatives. Furthermore, the Government does not believe that now is the time to address the question of the powers of the Senate. Proposals concerning the powers of the Senate deserve consideration in their own right after full exposure of the complex and substantial issues involved. To provide for senators to serve for a maximum term of eight years would significantly reduce the Senate's accountability to the people. We therefore propose that a senator's term should be the same as that of a member of the House of Representatives and that, in line with this, the terms of current senators would expire with the present House of Representatives. It is worth pointing out that, of the senators elected for six years since 1967 whose terms have ended, none served a full six years. Only half served terms of more than four years. The other half served for less than three years. The last senators who served a six-year term were those elected on 5 December 1964 who took their places on 1 July 1965. It will be seen, therefore, that this proposal, as it affects the terms of senators, would bring the Constitution into line with the reality of the past 20 years. Overall, the Bill will bring Commonwealth elections into line with the general democratic norm of four-year parliaments. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(3.23) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill 1988 introduces to the Constitution two basic principles that will guarantee fair elections. First, that in a democracy all elections should be conducted on the basis of one vote one value. Secondly, that the citizens of a democracy should have an enforceable, inalienable and constitutional right to vote at elections. The Bill applies these principles to elections for Commonwealth and State parliaments and mainland Territory legislatures. The principle of one vote one value means that the vote of each elector should have approximately the same weight in determining the outcome of an election, so that every member of a legislature represents roughly the same number of electors. A majority of the High Court held in 1975 in McKinlay's case that there was no constitutional requirement for one vote one value in House of Representatives elections. No senator would deny that such a requirement should exist. This Bill locates the fair election provisions in a single chapter entitled `Fair Election'. The Commission recommended, as a basic principle, that the number of electors in electoral divisions should vary by no more than 10 per cent from the average. A redistribution based on a 10 per cent tolerance may properly be regarded as a fair redistribution. Under the Bill an election held in electoral divisions more than one year after the commencement of the amendments will be invalid unless it is based on a fair redistribution within the previous seven years. There must also be a fair redistribution before any election is held in divisions after the commencement of the amendment, but with a period of 12 months grace. In addition there must be a fair redistribution where more than one-third of the electoral divisions have exceeded the 10 per cent tolerance for two successive months. The Bill allows a challenge to a redistribution only within 40 days of its public notification. This allows for certainty in the electoral process by precluding the validity of an election from being challenged if the election is held after the 40-day period, and each challenge to the redistribution instituted within 40 days has been withdrawn or dismissed. The Bill provides that, subject only to two exceptions, the right to vote extends to each Australian citizen who complies with reasonable conditions prescribed by the applicable Commonwealth, State or Territory laws as to residence and enrolment and who has reached the age of 18 years. The exceptions are any disqualification prescribed by the applicable laws as to persons who, because of unsoundness of mind, are incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting, and persons who are undergoing imprisonment for an offence. The Bill applies to voting in elections held more than one year after the commencement of the amendment, and includes a provision dealing with standing in the courts to enforce the constitutional right to vote. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(3.26) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Traditionally a three-tier system has been the basis of government in Australia. At present, however, there is no reference to local government in the Constitution. The constitutional recognition of local government was discussed regularly at sessions of the Constitutional Convention, culminating in a 1985 proposal to insert into the Constitution a new section providing for recognition of local government. Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and New South Wales have all amended their Constitutions to recognise local government, but in differing forms. Queensland and Tasmania are the only States which do not recognise local government in their Constitutions. The Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill 1988 will give proper recognition to the third level of public administration in Australia today. Although local government bodies existed well before Federation, the range of functions undertaken by local governments has expanded considerably since then. Many now provide a wide range of social services, recreational and sporting facilities, town planning, support for the arts, and significant measures to protect the environment. The Government has accepted the recommendation of the Constitutional Commission that the proposed law should be confined to the States. The Commission noted that local governments might not be appropriate in the constitutional development of Territories such as the Australian Capital Territory, Christmas Island or Norfolk Island or in remote and sparsely populated areas in the Northern Territory. The Bill does not give the Commonwealth Parliament power to establish local government bodies in the States. It expressly recognises that the form and structure of local government is a matter for the States. It requires each State to provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government. The provision is not intended to prevent State governments from providing for the amalgamation of local government councils or for their dismissal on grounds of incompetence or malpractice. It is expected, however, that the States will need to make provision for the election of new councils within a reasonable time after any such dismissal. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(3.29) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill 1988 proposes to strengthen three fundamental rights and freedoms already in the Constitution-trial by jury, fair compensation for acquisitions of property, and freedom of religion. The Bill extends the protection of these rights and freedoms in relation to actions taken by the States and Territories. This Bill gives real force and effect to the right to trial by jury. Section 80 of the Constitution currently requires trial by jury where the trial is on indictment for any offence against a law of the Commonwealth. However, as the Parliament is free to decide whether a particular offence must be tried on indictment, it may avoid the guarantee by establishing other forms of trial for particular offences. The Bill requires trial by jury where the accused is liable to imprisonment for more than two years or any form of corporal punishment which includes capital punishment. The Bill excludes trials for contempt of court and courts-martial of members of the Defence Force under a law relating to the discipline of the Defence Force. The Bill extends the right to trial by jury to trials for offences against State and Territory laws. The Bill makes appropriate provision for the places where jury trials for Commonwealth offences must be held. The Bill also allows for laws permitting an accused to waive his or her right to a trial by jury. Commonwealth, State and Territory laws now provide in many cases for an accused person to consent to be tried before a magistrate, and usually in these cases a lesser maximum penalty applies. It is not, however, contemplated that waiver of the right to trial by jury would apply in the case of the most serious offences, such as murder or major drug offences. There is also a public interest in ensuring community participation in the processes of the criminal law through trial by jury which ought not to be waived by decision of the accused alone. These matters are best left for determination by the relevant legislatures-Commonwealth, State and Territory. There are already State and Territory laws relating to the size and composition of juries and providing for majority verdicts. The Bill therefore allows the relevant Parliaments to make laws dealing with those matters and allows existing laws to continue in operation. The second fundamental right guaranteed by this Bill is fair compensation for acquisitions of property under Commonwealth, State and Territory laws. Section 51 (31) of the Constitution currently provides that the Commonwealth Parliament may make laws for the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws. However, there is at present no constitutional requirement for the State Parliaments or territorial legislatures to provide just terms for acquisitions of property under State or Territory law. The High Court has said that the States `may acquire property on any terms which they may choose to provide in a statute, even though the terms are unjust'. This will no longer be the case. The High Court has also held that the constitutional guarantee does not apply when the Commonwealth provides for the acquisition of property from a person in a Territory. The constitutional guarantee will now apply in this case also. The third fundamental right guaranteed by this Bill is freedom of religion throughout the whole of Australia and its Territories. Section 116 of the Constitution currently prevents the Commonwealth from making any law for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. It also forbids any religious test as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. Under this Bill the same safeguards will now apply to the States and Territories. If religious freedom warrants constitutional protection, the guarantee should apply uniformly to Commonwealth, State and Territory governments. The Bill also extends the protections in relation to any executive actions by governments. I commend the Bill to the Senate. The four Bills that I have introduced do not involve any increase in Commonwealth power, either at the expense of the States or of the people of Australia. As I have already said, they are about the rights of the people of Australia. When the Constitutional Commission was first established, it was always envisaged that 1988-the year of the Bicentenary-would provide a focus and impetus for the work of revising and improving the Australian Constitution. I believe that much has already been achieved towards that end. But it is vital that the impetus and momentum should be maintained. There is a reason of very profound national importance why this should be so. The Bicentenary itself has a purpose far beyond, and far more important and far more enduring than, the celebrations and the spectacles, the great projects and monuments throughout Australia. Its larger purpose goes to the heart of our sense of national identity, our national self-understanding and our national unity. It goes to the heart of our nationhood itself. The Constitution under which this nation lives is surely an essential element in that process of nationhood-the keystone in the arch of the great institutions of Parliament and the law which unite us as one of the world's strongest and truest democracies. I believe the work of the Commission is creating a new recognition of the importance of the Constitution and its basic strengths, as well as its flaws. Many of us-and not least, I freely acknowledge, on this side of the Senate-have tended to emphasise its defects. But the Commission's first report has offered us all the opportunity-and the challenge-to take a new look, from a new and broader perspective. We can now, I believe, approach the task of constitutional reform, not from the perspective of the partisan passions and prejudices of the past, but with a measured, informed and constructive desire to strengthen and improve the Constitution for the future-rationally, relevantly, realistically. We are in the closing sittings of the last session of the Parliament to meet in this historic chamber. There is nothing we could do, more fitting or more worthy, as the people's representatives, than that our last major act in this place should be to give the people of Australia the opportunity to enhance the Constitution under which this Parliament exists and under which this nation lives. It is in that spirit that I have commended the four Bills to the Senate. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.34) —May I say in the briefest possible way that the Opposition disagrees very strongly with the concluding comments of the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate). There is nothing that we, the Opposition, as the people's representatives, could do more fitting or more worthy than as our last major act in this place to defend the Constitution of the Commonwealth. That we will do in the debate next week and I expect that to be the first step in the destruction of these referenda proposals. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator AULICH(Tasmania) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training: Priorities for reform in higher education. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(3.35) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This, the second report of the Merit Protection and Review Agency, is for the year to 30 June 1987. It is almost 12 months late. Members of the Agency did not sign the report until 29 March. It is almost two months later that it has now reached this place. This is yet another example of the inability of this Government and its agencies to operate within the statutory requirements laid down for them. Delays of this nature are basically a sign of bad administration and a sloppiness in ministerial control which is becoming increasingly the mark of this Government's activities. The report mentions the implementation of the Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Act, which was implemented from 20 July 1987, though the report does not cover this matter because the period to which it relates terminated at 30 June 1987. Neither does it cover the effects of the reorganisation of the Public Service that occurred following the most recent general election. I wish briefly to comment on those two points because I believe they will give the Merit Protection and Review Agency a great deal of work in the period ahead. The more significant point about those changes is I believe, that they have done mortal damage to the structure of the Public Service and to the whole question of a professional, apolitical, Public Service. Those changes have added to the destruction of the Public Service-a highly regarded professional body of great value to this nation which has existed throughout most of our history and which began to be dismantled through its politicisation by the Whitlam Government, a process which has been turned into a veritable art form by the Hawke Government. This nation will rue the day when those things happened. There are many examples of the problems that have been caused. For example, I note in today's newspapers the announcement of the resignation of the Secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Dr Stuart Harris. I am sure that the Press reports contain a great deal of accuracy when they say that Dr Harris's relationship with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) has been difficult for some time. It is not the first time that Mr Hayden seems to have had difficulty with the heads of his Department. Senator Stone —Mr Hayden initially refused to appoint a Foreign Affairs official and picked Dr Stuart Harris in the first place. Senator SHORT —That is right. It was Mr Hayden who overturned an earlier proposed appointment to head the Department of Foreign Affairs, as it was at that time. It was also Mr Hayden who virtually forced from office, by creating a totally unworkable situation, the previous permanent head, the very distinguished public servant Mr Peter Henderson. One has only to talk to public servants of whatever department and at whatever level around Canberra and throughout Australia to realise that the morale of the Public Service is at an all time low. The inefficiencies in staffing arrangements that are resulting, with absurdly created surpluses in some areas and deficiencies in others, are a matter for very great concern. This Government will leave this country with the lasting legacy of the destruction of the Public Service-a service without which this country will be unable to operate in terms of government efficiency and meeting the needs of government services. It is a matter to be decried-a matter that we do not hear enough of and a matter that we must hear a lot more of. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(3.40) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to speak to the motion that the Senate take note the Automotive Industry Authority report on the state of the automotive industry 1987. Seeing that I have such little time I will concentrate very quickly on two chapters-chapter 3.4 `Quality and delivery performance' and chapter 3.8 `Australian design, research and development'. However, I indicate first that quite clearly nowhere in the report is there any indication of any changes that have been made in relation to car safety. It is almost as if the Australian design rules, of which there is a plethora, have been the only successful method of ensuring that cars on Australian roads produced by Australian manufacturers are safer, and I will tie this in with the section dealing with design, research and development. Looking at Australian cars and, as I have said, there is no mention in the report about safety, it seems that in the quest for technological advances and technological gimmickry in the interior design of Australian cars one can make some criticisms which I hope some manufacturers heed if people like us and forums like this are able to bring those points home to them. I refer, for example, to the dashboards of a significant number of cars currently sold in Australia, and in particular some of the Australian models, where the layouts of dashboards are unduly complicated in the quest for high-tech advances. For example, digital readout displays for speedometers and tachometers are confusing to the average motorist. Other examples include the positioning of radios on dashboards. They are a danger in themselves because drivers have a long reach to tune them; in fact, people unfamiliar with a particular vehicle, are often still trying to find how to change radio stations or whatever after driving 30 miles. A problem brought to my attention in the hire car industry is that the types of radios placed in many Australian vehicles are a danger to people who are unfamiliar with the operation of that particular car. Literally thousands of people visit Tasmania each year. They fly down and hire a car which is usually unfamiliar to them and has controls which are overcomplex in pursuit of style or gimmickry, and in fact they are a danger on the road. It is a trend that is much too common in Australian cars or cars designed and produced in this country. I make a plea to Australian manufacturers to look carefully at component suppliers and designers and to start thinking back to the basics, which is often the case with German cars. Generally speaking the layout of German cars is fairly simple and people who are unfamiliar with a particular car can quickly come to grips with its layout thereby avoiding some of the dangers when people play around with the controls and, for example, try to use unusual controls, work the radio, and so on. The second point I make relates to quality control. It is just as important, if not more so, given that the latest model Falcon is now priced at a minimum of about $20,000 before one optionises, as the industry calls it, to take a car up to an even acceptable standard. If Australian consumers are to be expected to pay prices like $20,000 and over for a basic family car, they should be able to expect certain things. First, of course, is quality control, and I suppose ultimately flowing from that, is durability. According to the report, the standard of quality control of Australian cars is not yet approaching that applying to, for example, many of our Japanese competitors. The third paragraph of chapter 3.4 states: For the 10 domestically produced model lines currently in production, the average number of faults per vehicle ranged from 1.5 for the Ford Laser/Meteor to 3.1 for the Ford Falcon for the six months to June 1987. The average number of faults per vehicle for the five comparably fully imported Japanese models, however, ranged from 0.8 to 1.5 per vehicle for the first half of 1987. That comparison is pretty odious as far as the Australian car industry is concerned. I acknowledge that the plan has created a new industry in Australia and that consumers should rightfully expect these improvements. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Zakharov) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.45) —I wish to speak to the motion that the Senate take note of the report on the state of the automotive industry 1987, the Automotive Industry Authority report. At the outset I point out that I am gravely concerned about this report because it is not what it purports to be. In other words, it is not the report on the state of the automotive industry for the year ending 31 December 1987. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) is gravely in breach of his own Act in the tabling of this report. Senator Chapman —He has broken the law. Senator LEWIS —He has broken the law, and he has paid a momentous disservice to the members of the Authority whom he appointed, namely, Mr Hunter, Mr Conron, Mr Gietzelt and Mr Scales, because the Act requires the Authority, not later than 31 March, to present a report to the Minister on the state of the automotive industry during the 12 month period ending on the preceding 31 December, and in this case that is the period ending 31 December 1987. According to the second page of the report, on 31 March 1988 the members of the Authority presented the Minister with their report as they are required to do under the Act. However, the Minister has failed to table that report as is required by section 8 (1) of the Act. What happened is that subsequently, on 13 April 1988, the Automotive Industry Authority presented the Minister with a supplementary report for 1987, and apparently that supplementary report was given in the light of the Government's decision to revise the assistance arrangements under the passenger motor vehicle plan. The Minister has tabled the supplementary report; he has not tabled the original report, which was presented to him along with a letter dated 31 March 1988 and signed by the members of the Authority. We want to know what was in the report that the Minister is keeping secret from Parliament. This Minister and this Government have shown contempt for Parliament ever since they came to office. All the Government considers is the Executive authority of government; it never considers Parliament. The Australian Labor Party (ALP) has never had any concern for the Senate or the institution of parliament, and this is a perfect example of the contempt with which the ALP treats the Parliament of this nation. Here is a clear example-and I draw Senator Aulich's attention to it as he sits opposite and gets his pen out-at page 53 of the report where there is reference to a ministerial announcement on 13 April 1988. The report states: The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) announced changes to the PMV plan on 13 April 1988. How can this be a report of things which happened up to 31 December 1987 when it talks about things that happened on 13 April 1988? The Minister is not present in the Chamber to give us any explanation. The Minister is ignoring the Parliament. As I said, he is treating us with complete contempt. We expect the Minister to explain what he is doing. I would expect the Minister to comply with the provisions of the Automotive Industry Authority Act and, at least for the sake of the members of the Authority, Messrs Hunter, Conron, Gietzelt and Scales, to come into the Parliament at some stage in the near future and table the document that he is required to table under section 8 (3) of the Act, which requires him to report on the state of the automotive industry for the 12 months ended on 31 December 1987. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia)(3.50) —I rise today to address a few remarks on the Automotive Industry Authority report entitled Report on the State of the Automotive Industry 1987. Contrary to some of the views that have been put, this report is quite an excellent one. There is a lot of detail in the report. The statistical information and its general overview are most comprehensive. I would be less than generous if I did not congratulate the authors on the comprehensive and balanced approach they took to this report. The automotive industry has experienced great changes since 1981 when I was Secretary of the Vehicle Builders Union of South Australia. In the late 1970s the sales of motor vehicles, as reflected in new registrations, appeared on the whole, to be quite sound. However, those sales figures at that time paralleled some serious developments which were clearly apparent on closer evaluation of the industry. The automotive industry in Australia in the late 1970s and the early 1980s experienced a large shift in market share occupied by imported models. The imported models in many ways were the industry benchmark. The constant erosion of the market for locally produced models stemmed from the competitive pricing of imported models and, in general, the great attention to quality control on imported vehicles. This is something which Senator Aulich adverted to earlier. This report brought down today addresses these issues. It is a particularly timely report because it addresses the progress made since the introduction of the Button plan in 1983. The industry has weathered some terrible storms since 1983. The peak motor vehicle sales of 1984 and 1985 paved the way for rapid declines in sales in 1986 and 1987. The factors which led to the peak sales and then the declines in sales resulted from consumers buying models prior to the introduction of lead-free motor vehicles in 1986 and the expected price increases following the currency depreciation in 1985. The report points out that although sales are still low compared with sales for peak years, some good news can be seen. The great cloud over the industry prior to 1983, in general has been lifted. The future for the local industry as a manufacturer of models and exporter of completed vehicles and components seems more sound than ever. In many ways the increase in the value to $755m of motor vehicle exports in 1987 shows a vibrant and healthy automotive industry in Australia now exists. The growth of the export sector has gone a long way to cushioning the employment losses due to poor sales figures. The report states that the number of local models now in production has declined since the early 1980s. At present 10 models are in production. By the end of this year that will be reduced to eight models. This is in keeping with the Government's plan of creating industry groupings in Australia that encourage longer production runs on vehicles. The importation of vehicles in the late 1970s was curbed only by stiff quotas. Such quotas are now unnecessary because the local product has become more price competitive and has experienced leaps in quality control. The report mentions that much more effort needs to be made on quality control. The other factor the report mentions is that because of the significant devaluation of the Australian currency since 1985 and a great revaluation of the Japanese yen, much of the pressure to implement the car plan quickly has subsided. However, it is my view that the car plan has shown the way forward for the car industry and for a local industry that will be able to compete against imported products domestically. As a significant exporter this industry will mean a whole new future for Australia. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(3.55) —I support the motion. I will briefly restrict my remarks to Table 2.5 of the Automotive Industry Authority Report on the State of the Automotive Industry 1987. This table shows the annual rate of growth in prices of passenger motor vehicles by market segment from 1984 to 1987. I will take the example of the medium size motor car, which most people use. The price of that category of vehicle rose by 6.8 per cent in 1984 and 10.4 per cent in 1985. We have had an increase in price of 51.1 per cent over the three years 1985-87. Imported vehicles experienced an 86 per cent price increase over the same period. Obviously, that is why the sale of new cars has dropped dramatically in the last three years. As has already been pointed out, the substantial price increase was relative to wage increases. This has affected purchasing power. In December 1983 a person on average weekly full time earnings required 33 weeks of work to be able to buy the average six cylinder car. However, today the average cost of such a car is $18,500 and it takes 39 weeks of average weekly earnings. Of course, one could easily say that that does not represent a great loss in purchasing power because it is only an extra six weeks of the year. That is all very well if one happens to be employed on indexed average weekly earnings but people on fixed incomes now find it impossible to replace their car. As has been pointed out this has resulted from the appreciation of the Japanese yen. However, I also believe it has resulted from the tariff protection that Australian manufacturers have had over the last umpteen years-about which something has been done lately. Of course, tariff protection in this area, just as in the production of a lot of other commodities around Australia, helps the lazy Australian manufacturer just to keep below the price of imported goods. Hopefully, with something being done about tariff protection a lot of that will disappear. One of the problems that I see our needing to face as a result of the decline in new car sales over the last three years relates to the dramatic rise in the average age of cars in Australia. In fact, I know that in Western Australia the average age of motor vehicles is eight years. Of course, that is relevant to safety. More and more road accidents will be caused by unsafe cars. Of course, this problem is coupled with the fact that this Government has reduced funding to local roads. As I pointed out in this chamber last night, a decline in local road funding and road funding as a whole will add more and more to a decline in road safety and to an increase in road accidents. I know that there are certain countries that will not licence a car after it reaches a certain age. I believe that in Switzerland that limit is 10 years. With an average age of cars in Western Australia of eight years, if that sort of law were to be introduced we would be in dire straits. I commend the report which has shown exactly where we have fallen in a hole in the last few years in regard to car prices. With the motor vehicle plan in operation at present and with the promised reduction in tariffs-something which I hope the manufacturers will pass on-hopefully these will improve the situation. I know manufacturers are quick to increase the price when there is a revaluation of foreign currency yet are slow to pass on a reduction in price resulting from any tariff reduction. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(4.00) —The Report on the State of the Automotive Industry 1987 includes a supplementary report which has been handed down since the Government's momentous decisions in April to alter assistance for the passenger motor vehicle industry in Australia. The report that we are now examining is the third report which has been prepared on the state of the automotive industry in Australia and is the mid-term review of the Government's passenger motor vehicle manufacturing plan. Rationalisation of the Australian car industry is long overdue. I am pleased to say that it is proceeding apace under the Hawke Government. It is a problem which was compounded by the antics of various Liberal State Premiers in the 1960s and 1970s when, in their mad scramble for overseas investment, they went around hawking the States' resources to overseas firms and ended up with a situation where, particularly in South Australia and Victoria, a number of manufacturing plants were too small; and their production runs were well below the economic optimum levels. The car industry, the chemicals industry and the automotive tyre industry are good examples of how Liberal politicians at the State level left Australia with an enormously bad legacy of economic problems which still have to be fully addressed. Because of this incredible situation, we still find a scattering of uneconomic plants in various industries. It is pleasing to note that the number of models in the Australian car industry is being reduced. By the end of 1989, under this plan, it is expected that only eight models will be produced by the Australian passenger motor vehicle industry. The car industry is vital in my State of South Australia. Holden's Motor Co. produces at Elizabeth and Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd has plants at Tonsley Park and Lonsdale. One of the great success stories of the car plan is that of Mitsubishi Magna station wagon. A grant was made by this Government some time ago to enable Mitsubishi Motors to develop a station wagon variant of its passenger car. The aim of that grant was to generate longer production runs for the basic Magna vehicle. As a result, a very successful station wagon has been developed by Mitsubishi Motors Australia-produced in Adelaide, I am pleased to say. It is very interesting to note that that station wagon is the No. 2 seller in Australia. So as a direct result of a grant made by the Hawke Government, a very tangible improvement has been made in economic costs and a very successful vehicle is being produced for the Australian market. Appropriation and Supply Bills Another great success story in the Australian car industry in recent years has been the resurgence of production at the Elizabeth plant of what is now known as Holden's Motor Co. In the 1970s the Elizabeth plant of General Motors-Holden's Ltd as it was then was plagued by industrial disputes, poor management and very bad labour relations. But it is very pleasing to note that, as a result of the resolution of a number of the problems at Elizabeth, it is now the largest manufacturing site in Australia of the General Motors-Holden's group. That is a very big change from the past when the largest levels of employment were at sites at Woodville in South Australia and Fishermans Bend and Dandenong in Victoria. Elizabeth is now the largest work site in that organisation. The plant is very impressive. It is interesting to see the highly automated equipment there. It has state of the art manufacturing technology in place. I am pleased to say that a number of the new machines and items of equipment have been designed by engineers on site. I think that the confidence at Elizabeth is such that Holden's Motor Co. will continue to produce a large volume of motor vehicles there for many years to come. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time for consideration of Government Papers has expired. Senator Chapman —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. Only six senators have spoken on Government papers and not one spoke for his full five minutes. Therefore, the 30 minutes allowed for the consideration of Government papers cannot have expired. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —My information is that the debate started at 3.35 p.m. It is now five past four, which is half an hour. The Clerks keep the time. I am sure that it is 30 minutes. I trust the Clerks. Debate resumed. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(4.06) —Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch, I referred to Estimates Committee A and information that had been gained during questioning of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and government officials during the Committee's hearings. I was in the process of addressing the question of Austrade and had identified the problem we have with our sixth largest trading partner-namely, Taipei-where we have no Austrade office. I had itemised the sort of assistance that may be available to a business person who wished to go to Taipei to conduct business and, hopefully, increase our exports. I had made the point that many other countries have managed to accommodate the sensitivity that may exist between the People's Republic of China and Taiwan and have been able to effectively service in a better manner than we have people who wish to conduct trade negotiations in Taipei. I suggest that that matter needs to be addressed seriously. I want to raise two other important items that came out of the hearings of Estimates Committee A. One relates to the Trade Union Training Authority (TUTA). I asked whether or not fees were charged by TUTA and whether there was a comparison between fees collected and the cost of maintaining students. The answer, which has been given in writing, is that the only `fee' which is payable is a fee to cover the cost of air fares of a student going to the Trade Union Training Authority, from wherever he or she comes. That is a fixed amount. It is the same no matter what distance a student travels. Thus, in the financial year to 31 March 1988, $216,055 had been collected; whereas the cost of students travelling to Wodonga over the same period was $253,161. The Authority charges no fees for attendance or for the courses provided, but it says it costs $160 per student per day. In view of the discussion that is going on regarding a tax surcharge on graduates of universities and colleges of advanced education, I point out that such a tax will not apply to students who attend TUTA because it is not a relevantly prescribed institution. Therefore, it would be possible to conclude that people who seek and gain education are to be taxed, but people who get propaganda, are not to be so taxed; they are to remain free of tax. The other matter of some significance that arose from the hearings concerned the Australian Customs Service. I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that when I asked the Minister whether he was satisfied that the barrier at airports and ports was adequate and met the requirements of Customs, quarantine and immigration, particularly in respect of the smuggling of illicit drugs, Senator Button answered that he was not so satisfied. As we went through various questions as to the operation of the Customs Service, we ascertained that officers work a minimum shift of 7 hours 21 minutes. This means that, although there is a peak period for inbound passengers between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. and a further peak period for people leaving Australia, there is no way at the moment that the shifts can be split so as to make a more efficient use of staff who are expensive to train. In fact, there was evidence that an investigation had been undertaken into this matter. However, it was decided finally that the industrial relations problems were too difficult and therefore this matter has been put into the too-hard basket. In previous debates I have said that this Government continually takes the soft option. It continually looks for the easy way out and never tackles the difficult industrial relations questions. The Government acts in this way in relation to protection given to certain industries. There is always debate about slashing tariffs, but there is never any Government initiated debate about the reduction of restrictive work practices, which is the other half of the equation. Equally, it is quite clear that, by splitting shifts worked by officers of the Australian Customs Service and by a better use of manpower, we could make the entry of tourists into this country much easier. Tourism is a money earner for this country and is one of the ways in which we can reduce our national debt. If we took these measures it would be possible to make a far more effective use of the manpower available, but this is not being done because such a move would promote industrial problems. It is time that this Government addressed the difficult option and did not just take the soft option. For the remainder of my time I want to discuss a most important question relating to Telecom Australia. I have spoken at some length in this chamber on two occasions concerning Telecom and the manner in which it conducts itself and its monopoly. Often in this chamber when we ask questions about Telecom of the Minister responsible, we get an attempt to say that he is somehow at arm's length from Telecom and that the actions of Telecom really cannot be dealt with by him. During Question Time earlier today Senator Haines asked a very specific question about the proposed Austel body. The Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) replied that he would be making a statement next Wednesday. He gave a most arrogant answer to Senator Haines when she pointed out that she had read newspaper reports about what was planned and said that it was only proper that the Senate be at least as informed as the newspapers to which information obviously had been leaked. The Minister refused to give any further information and merely said that he would talk about the matter next Wednesday. I can only say that the arrogance of the Minister is truly matched by the arrogance of Telecom itself. This morning Senator Collins tabled correspondence relating to several matters that had been dealt with by the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. I moved that the Senate take note of the correspondence. I did so in my capacity as a senator and not as a member of that Committee. The Committee has at all times acted in a proper and bipartisan manner and it has done all it can in this matter. But I am concerned about the arrogance that has been displayed by Telecom Australia. Mr R. W. Brack, Chairman of Telecom Australia, says continually in a letter, of which he is the author, that the review of Telecom is a political matter rather than a legal matter. This letter is a result of the questioning by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee of by-laws which were purported to have been made pursuant to the Telecommunications Act 1975. The Committee took a fairly serious view of the proposed by-laws. It wrote a letter to Telecom, which has similarly been tabled, in which it said: . . . the Committee remains somewhat concerned whether the proposals in the By-laws go far enough to protect adequately the expectations of the community to enjoy a high degree of service and administrative justice from a statutory body . . . The particular by-laws related to the exercise of power which the letter continually describes as an `arbitrary' exercise of power, for which it in no way apologises. In fact, Telecom describes itself in several places in the letter as `a statutory monopolist with authority to authorise third parties to engage in activities in a monopoly sphere when that is considered to be appropriate'. The letter goes on to say that, as it has a conferred monopoly, there are no private rights and that decisions it makes which permit members of the public to obtain certain rights are strictly the conferring of privileges. In other words, Telecom regards all the decisions it makes as the conferring of privileges. Telecom goes on in another part of the letter to say: . . . long-term enjoyment of a permit privilege creates expectations which transform the privilege into a right . . . privileges do not become rights in that manner. In other words, Telecom believes that there is no right to continue a usage even though a business enterprise may have enjoyed that particular usage for, say, 20 years. Telecom describes its discretion as `unfettered'. It takes issue with the Committee's assertion that by-laws, in order to be good by-laws, ought to be consistent and predictable. Telecom says that the conferral can vary due to changes in circumstances and that it is not bound by the consistent and predictable criteria by which other pieces of delegated legislation are bound. Telecom goes on to tell the Committee how, in its view, it ought to conduct its business. Telecom says that it can decide not to bestow a privilege on people who are subject to a determination and that they are not entitled to know the reasons why Telecom has made that decision. It says in its letter that there is no entitlement to criteria, that it will not be necessary to publish them and that the reasons for the denial or the granting will not remain static. It goes on to say that its power is not totally arbitrary. It is, however, bound only by standards of administration propriety. The letter says: Within those limits Telecom is authorised by its Act to be arbitrary . . . and may consequently refuse, in its absolute discretion, to confer privilege exceptions to that monopoly. The letter continues: . . . review of its conduct is to be political, not legal. I have raised this matter today because I think it is important that people should be aware of the arrogant nature of the responses of Telecom. I think this letter will go down in the annals of history as a statement of the way in which Telecom conducts itself and its business. On a previous occasion in this chamber I asked whether anybody knew anyone who had ever won a fight with Telecom. I think the answer is no, because one never has a leg to stand on when one deals with Telecom. Telecom is secretive and, as I said, it considers itself to be above the people. The Committee said: In a situation where there are no public criteria to guide and inform the exercise of administrative discretions then all the greater is the need for some independent avenue of appeal to underwrite the quality of primary decision-making and provide the means of dealing with genuine grievance. Telecom answers that point by saying at the moment that it reserves the right to address decision-making. It says: . . . any refusal to accept a building complex as being eligible for a shared-tenant exchange can be considered to be genuine only in the context that people will often be aggrieved by the failure of a monopolist to confer privilege. Telecom says at every point that the people have no rights and that they are at the mercy of Telecom to confer privilege. Telecom is perpetually engaged, as it states in its letter, in arbitrary decision-making, which it defends. I have said that Telecom wished to tell the Committee how to do its job. The Committee is there to protect the rights of individuals and enterprises. The letter says: In Telecom's view . . . the present case is not one in respect of which the Committee's general philosophy is applicable. In other words, Telecom says it is above ordinary mortals in the rest of the land. It acknowledges graciously that the Committee has a right to scrutinise delegated legislation but says Telecom is exempt from that scrutiny. I am pleased to say that the arrogant nature of this letter has subsequently been drawn to people's attention and a more happy result will follow in that there will be some sort of internal mechanism for appeals. A further statement in the letter that I have mentioned and that has been tabled in this place says that a conferral on the Commission of a review function would mean that it would be `swamped by individual cases to the detriment of policy formation'. It is virtually saying that its decision-making is so bad that many citizens will spend their time appealing against these bad decisions. What a self-indictment! Telecom says, finally, on page 10 of its letter-and it is a 10-page letter-that it would: . . . have preferred not to engage in a semi-public debate on the basis of implications of its charter during the current period of review of its functions and it would have been easy for it to propose some cosmetic modification of the amendment which might satisfy the Committee's concerns without providing applicants with any real increase in their rights. In other words, the letter has insulted the Committee, and the Parliament by implication, by implying that cosmetic alterations would have satisfied the Regulations and Ordinances Committee which, in fact, is determined to ensure real rights and never will be satisfied by cosmetic modifications. That arrogant assertion is not to be allowed to stand. It shows a contempt for the Parliament and for the committees of the Parliament. The Regulations and Ordinances Committee is a watchdog. It is answerable to this Parliament. It does its job, as I have said before, in a bipartisan manner. The concern for rights of individuals is real-and in no way could the statement in that letter be allowed to stand. Senator PARER(Queensland)(4.23) —Today we are debating cognately three Appropriation Bills and three Supply Bills. I would like to concentrate on what I believe is a gross discrimination against young people in Queensland in terms of the lack of tertiary education places. For some years now I have been drawing to the attention of the former Minister for Education, ex-Senator Susan Ryan, this blatant discrimination against Queenslanders, compared with people in every other State. Students in Queensland particularly school leavers, are grossly disadvantaged in opportunities for tertiary education. The Federal Government must be forced into action to correct this inequity. It is probably easy to say that, but what are the facts? Once I have described the facts, that recognition will come through. Queensland has the lowest participation rate in Australia in tertiary education. For example, on a population basis, 10.3 per cent of people in Queensland in the 17 to 64-year-old age grouping are in tertiary education, compared with 13.1 per cent in New South Wales, 13.2 per cent in Western Australia, 15.1 per cent in South Australia and 23.9 per cent in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). Just as an aside, when collecting and collating these figures, one of my staff discussed this matter with someone in Canberra who made the point that everyone knows that children of parents in the ACT are twice as smart as the children of parents in Queensland. That is a trite remark but the thing is that the person meant it. That is the sort of thing we have to put up with. What concerns us most is the 20-year-old and under age group. Those people are particularly disadvantaged in my State. In 1987, 37.2 per cent of people in that age bracket missed out on a tertiary education place in Queensland. The State coming closest to that was New South Wales with 28.2 per cent. The least affected State was Tasmania with 8.3 per cent. The funding position has improved slightly over recent years. I can recall former Senator Ryan quite correctly saying that with the additional places Queensland would get some benefit-and so it did. But it was a drop in the bucket, a couple of hundred extra places. Shades of Marie Antoinette-if the people do not have bread, let them eat cake. Just to give honourable senators an idea about this, let me say that even with that increase-and the Government has defended its position on a couple of occasions, although I do not believe that it should defend it; it should come out and say what the position is and what it will do to fix it-in 1986 approximately 6,660 young Queensland school leavers missed out on a tertiary place in that State. These 6,660 people qualified and if they had lived in any other State they would have had access to tertiary institutions. In 1987, that figure had grown to 6,970 and this year, 1988, approximately 7,860 people missed out. I repeat that these people, had they lived in another State, could have had access to a tertiary institution. I point out that these figures do not include technical and further education, which would have made the situation even worse. As can be seen, the position is getting worse, year in year out, and must be corrected. This year, as an example, 43,400 people applied through the Queensland tertiary admission centre for a place at a university or college of advanced education in Queensland. About 29,000 people completed grade 12 and, of them, 19,000 were accepted. It should be pointed out that that figure is inflated because, for the first time, nurses were included and there were 1,122 of them. The interesting point is that of that number accepted, around 19,000-only 8,300 or 48 per cent-came from the 1987 grade 12 group. That is a drop of 3 per cent from last year. A comparative figure is that in Victoria, 65 per cent of people going into the first year at a tertiary institution come from grade 12. The question is: Why the difference? Is it something peculiar to Queensland? What is the reason? The reason is that the other 52 per cent came from varying groups. A large number, approximately 2,000, were upgraded from grade 12. That figure included deferred students. The reason they upgraded is that they could not get into a tertiary institution the year before or did not get sufficient points to get into the course of their choice. Another 2,242 students partially completed their degrees. This is what is commonly known as course jumping. The reasons students do that are twofold. The main one is that they get into a course they really do not want but use it to upgrade their tertiary education scores so that they can get into the course they would like. The other part of that group contains students who got into a course that they found did not appeal to them and hence moved to the one that did. A growing number of students are now completing a first degree. The present figure is 1,639. A common habit of students is to do a degree that they do not really want to do and then use it to get into the course that they really wanted to do in the first place. I am not in any way criticising students for doing that. In fact, I admire them for going to those great lengths to complete a course that they wish to do. However, this is having a compounding effect on those students from grade 11 coming into grade 12, because that same number of students will have to go through exactly the same exercise in order either to get into a tertiary institution or to do the course of their choice. There is a misallocation of resources here because of the basic lack of places and the efforts that enthusiastic students have to go through. One can do a bit of a calculation in relation to, say, the Queensland Institute of Technology, which is probably the cheapest and most efficient tertiary institution in Queensland. Its average cost of educating a student is about $6,500. The wastage due to students doing courses that they do not want to do or repeating grade 12 is costing some $30m a year. That misallocation of resources of $30m each year would in fact pay for the additional places required by those who presently miss out attending a tertiary institution in Queensland. The Federal Government, quite correctly, has encouraged young people to remain at school longer. Queensland students, however, did not need that encouragement because already 58 per cent of young people in Queensland go on to grade 12, whereas the national average is less than 50 per cent. The Minister has said that by 1995, or perhaps 1992, he wants to see 65 per cent going on to grade 12. In Queensland we are nearly there and yet what happens when those students complete grade 12? Because of the discrimination that occurs in Queensland, compared with the other States, those students have nowhere to go at the end. I would not complain if, due to the dire economic circumstances that we are in after five years of the Hawke Government, any restrictions that needed to be put on this were equitable across Australia. However, they are not equitable across Australia and there is discrimination in Queensland. I now refer to some interesting figures. A student seeking acceptance to study physiotherapy at the University of Queensland must be in the top 2 per cent of the State; for occupational therapy a student must be in the top 5 per cent of the State; and for speech therapy, the top 4.5 per cent of the State. To do law at the Queensland Institute of Technology, a student must be in the top 4 per cent; for optometry, the top 3.5 per cent; and for electronics computing, the top 4 per cent. In this day and age when we want more and more young people to get into so-called high-tech areas it is an absolute disgrace that a student wanting to do electronics computing at an institute such as the Queensland Institute of Technology must be in the top 4 per cent of the State. Of course, the root of all the problems is the lack of funding from the Federal Government. I believe that State governments have a role to play in the absence of the Federal Government doing its job-the job that it took on in 1973, when the then Whitlam Government said that it would take over tertiary institutions and that students would not pay fees. It is interesting to look at Queensland's share of the total Commonwealth higher education grants and to propose what the figure should be. Queensland received 14.5 per cent of grants for universities, 15.7 per cent for colleges of advanced education, and 14.3 per cent for technical and further education. However, Queensland has 16.6 per cent of the population of Australia. Also, this does not take into account the higher retention rate that I mentioned earlier of students going on to grade 12, that is the 58 per cent retention rate, as against the Australian average of less than 50 per cent. On a funding basis, if Queensland were to be brought into line with the other States it would require an extra $35m, which would provide places for another 5,500 or 6,000 students. As I indicated earlier-and I am not one of those people who go around asking for governments to cut expenditure while at the same time demanding an increase in spending-I believe that there is a gross misallocation of resources. The money needed could be made up if the extra places were provided and paid for by students who are taking up places by repeating grade 12; who are doing courses that they do not want to do in the first place; or who, for the purpose of course jumping, are using first degrees as a stepping stone to get into the course that they really want to do. What can be done about this matter? A number of things can be done, but one of them is not the Wran plan for tertiary institutions. First of all, Queensland must be given equity. That is the first priority. As I have said, in the absence of that, there are avenues that a State can use. One of them is to apportion part of the State's payroll tax into tertiary institutions. I know that that is not the role of the State governments because the Federal Government decided that it would take over the funding responsibility. However, a State may be forced into that position. Victoria found itself in that position some years ago, and that is the plan that Victoria used. The Wran plan has been described by Professor Bird, a Melbourne academic, as follows: It seems to have been designed with the intent of fooling the `anti-fee' elements within the ALP rather than the allocative effects it will have on an already very inefficient system. That was put very well by Professor Bird. As pointed out in an article in today's Brisbane Courier-Mail by Professor Lauchlan Chipman: The protesting students have a point when they say the same logic which dictates a tax surcharge for those who have undertaken higher education also dictates that those who have been on the dole should pay a tax surcharge if and when their income reaches average weekly earnings. That is good logic. The article continues: Then, of course, there are all those supporting mothers who get assistance in raising their children. Why should they not have to pay back at least part of it through a tax surcharge, if and when they reach average weekly earnings, or have the good fortune to marry someone whose earning power is above the magic line? Or perhaps we should wait until their children reach average weekly earnings, and then hit them with a special tax for the benefits that they have derived for the special support provided for their upbringing. Those are a few examples of the stupidity of this approach. The Liberal Party of Australia went to the last election with a very honest approach to education. The Australian Labor Party has gone around for ages saying that it would not have fees-and yet a fee was introduced, although it was called something else. It was a Clayton's fee, the $250, which has now gone up to $263 or something like that, 95 per cent of which of course went back into Consolidated Revenue and not into tertiary education. Of course, it could well have gone to Queensland to fix up the gross inequity that exists. Incentive must be given for students to complete courses in the minimum time, otherwise they are doing a disservice to those who cannot get places. I have no disagreement with that. However, as I have said, the Liberal Party went to the election with an honest approach. That was that we would reintroduce the scholarship system; in other words, tertiary institutions would be able to set a fee that they would decide. It would not be decided by government. Scholarships would be provided on merit, on an equitable basis. As I have pointed out, currently the basis used is most inequitable. Under what we propose, the students who did not make the quota would be able to attend a tertiary institution under conditions set by that institution-again not by government. Students who passed under those conditions would be able to pick up a dropped scholarship. What effect would this system have? According to fairly conservative estimates that have been given and to discussions that I have had with tertiary institutions, the incentive to which I have referred would increase throughput in our tertiary institutions by about 20 per cent without it costing the taxpayer one more cent. In addition, we should also allow to Australian students the same facility as we allow to overseas students. Overseas students who want to go to a tertiary institution in Australia may come here and pay a fee to attend. That option is not available to Australian students. Such an option, however, would fit hand in glove with the scholarship system that we would promote. Although I will not go into detail, there is a need for more autonomy and flexibility in tertiary institutions. That is a vital requirement, but it relates to a whole host of issues, such as tenure and so on. I want to conclude by quoting from an article in the University News of the University of Queensland of 9 March 1988. Written by Professor Brian Wilson, the Vice-Chancellor of the university, the article states: Queensland, demonstrably, is a disadvantaged State; Queenslanders have less chance of gaining entry to a higher education institution than other Australians. A national survey of unmet demand for entry to universities and colleges in 1987- and I point out that the situation in 1988 is worse- showed that of those who graduated in the top half of year 12 and who did not receive a place, 40 per cent were Queenslanders. From another perspective, this year only 40.6 per cent of Queensland higher education applicants (excluding nursing) could be offered a place, a reduction from 41.3 per cent in 1987-despite an increase in total places of more than 1,000. He goes on to say: As the Liberal Party pointed out recently, Queensland has 16.6 per cent of Australia's population but receives only 14.5 per cent of university funding and 15.7 per cent of college funding. It is ironic that, at the same time, Queensland had the highest retention rate (58 per cent) of people staying on to year 12, but the lowest tertiary participation rate (10.4 per cent compared with 23.9 per cent in the ACT). One of the roles that a senator plays is to represent his State. I believe that by tackling this problem in the way I have tackled it, I am doing just that. This role of senator is often forgotten. This matter of places for tertiary education should be approached in a totally bipartisan manner. I have said the same thing at a number of public meetings that I have attended on this matter. It may be of interest to the Senate to know that I have addressed about 15 to 20 concerned groups of parents and friends, parents and citizens and teachers. At one school-not a very large school-about 700 parents and concerned students showed up at the meeting. The situation I have described as it affects tertiary education in Queensland is totally untenable, but it could be fixed without too much expense. I will add one further comment about a situation that would not apply anywhere else in Australia but, if it did, the parents would take to the streets. The James Cook University of North Queensland is the next closest university to Brisbane but it is about as far away from Brisbane as Sydney is from Brisbane, and it serves an area from Mackay through to Cairns. It is doing its best in very difficult circumstances, and I believe it is leading the way in the direction in which I think we should go. It has a campus in Cairns, where it is using the technical and further education college as the place in which to educate young people. What is being done by the university is only in phase one so far. However, what I want to say is this: Cairns is the fastest growing city in Queensland and probably in Australia with a present population of 80,000, yet the campus at James Cook University was funded by this Government for 55 places. How many other areas in Australia would accept that? It is a disgrace. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(4.46) —I congratulate Senator Parer, the previous speaker, on the way in which he put his case for Queensland, his home State. He did so with great feeling and he spoke with great feeling for Queensland people. At present, we do not have a government that is putting things on the right track. In this debate on the Appropriation and Supply Bills we have a chance to try to give our opinion of how things can be improved. I have a variety of feelings in speaking in this debate. In August of 1984 I made my maiden speech in this chamber in a debate on the Appropriation Bills. It is quite possible that this will be the last major speech I will make in this chamber before we move up the hill. Although four years does not sound a great deal of time, nevertheless on occasions the past four years seem to have been an eternity, while at other times they seem to have flown. When I first spoke here I spoke with the enthusiasm and, perhaps, naivety of a new boy in school. I believed then that anything was possible and that all one needed to do to change things was point out the errors and they would be corrected. However, after four years of telling the Federal Labor Government that what it is doing is wrong, I believe my pleas are falling on the same deaf ears as they fell on four years ago. Senator Vanstone —That is right, they do not listen. Senator BROWNHILL —What Senator Vanstone says is correct: the Government does not listen. Senator Tate —We do listen. Senator BROWNHILL —It is good to hear that the Minister for Justice is listening. I spoke four years ago of many matters-of a worsening economic climate, of money not being spent fairly in rural areas, and on such necessities as roads, schools and health. I spoke on the vital importance of trade to an exporting country such as Australia. I spoke about militant trade unionism crippling the productive sectors of this nation. Now, four years later, I want to return to those themes because, after four years of Labor Government, four years of such debate, things have not really improved. Indeed, in many areas things are worse-indeed, much worse. As a senator based in rural New South Wales, my interest in this place has always tended to be centred on the rural sector. Of course, what affects rural Australia affects all of Australia. Rural Australians have always played a vital role in our economic well-being, and rural Australia is basically the economic barometer for the whole of the nation. If things are okay in the bush, they are generally okay in the rest of the country. Repeatedly this Government regards the rural sector as nothing more than a great milch cow. If money is short, the Government squeezes the cow a bit harder. That is fine when there is still something left, but for too many years I believe the Government has been trying to milk a dry cow. While the farmers are providing nearly $20 billion in export income, they are having to fight to get basic education for their children, they are forced to travel on roads better suited to Third World countries and they are slugged with taxes and charges such as export inspection costs and chemical residue testing. When they do not earn any money from the farm they have to battle for unemployment benefits and when they have a good year they pay through the nose in taxes. A study of Labor's record in office reveals a litany of confusion and untruths because those years are littered with examples of saying one thing about the economy and doing another. This indicates that the Government either does not know what it is doing or is deliberately and continuously misleading the electorate. Let me give a few examples. In February 1983 the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, said that there would be no devaluation of the dollar. Yet the dollar was devalued in March. In April 1983 the Prime Minister said that there would be no increase in tax on lump sum superannuation; a tax on lump sum superannuation was introduced in July of that year. In November 1984 the Prime Minister claimed that inflation would be less than 5 per cent in 1985 and that interest rates would fall. Inflation was 8.5 per cent in 1985-86 and in the next year it was about 15 per cent. But it is not just the Prime Minister. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has been caught out in the same way. In March 1986 Mr Keating said he remained confident that a downward trend in the current account deficit would emerge during 1986 but by October that year the current account deficit had soared to $1.45 billion-the sixth consecutive month it had exceeded $1 billion. By the end of 1986 Australia had the second largest current account deficit in the Western world. Australia was beginning to doubt the ability of the Treasurer, and even the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, was quoted as saying: I don't know who invented the bloody J curve, but I tell you it wasn't an Australian who learnt about the Australian economy. The rest of the world followed suit. First Moody's and then Standard and Poor's downgraded us from a AAA credit rating. That is just a little bit of history. In the five years that the Government has been in office we have had 12 Budgets, mini-Budgets and special aid packages-that is more than two per year. We have not had one three-year term of parliament and yet this Government is now going to the people saying that it needs to change the Constitution because three-year terms are not long enough and four-year parliamentary terms are necessary. I, for one, could understand the request a little better if the Government had at least stuck with the three-year terms but it has not even been able to do that. Why is it now asking for a longer term? The best we can say about this Government is that it has been a record breaking one for some of the reasons I have given. While it makes much of the fact that it is the first Labor government to run four years, it has a few other records for the history books. It has achieved the highest interest rates ever, record bankruptcy rates, the highest current account deficits, and it is the biggest spending government. It also has the biggest tax take of any government and it has overseen the biggest fall in the Australian dollar. This Government has produced the longest public housing lists and achieved record levels of home loan repayments. That is an impressive list for this Government. Of course, over all this-I am glad that the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) is sitting up now-- Senator Tate —Yes, I am listening intently. Senator BROWNHILL —As I have said, the result has been a fall in the living standards of Mr and Mrs Average Australian. Cars today cost what houses did 10 years ago; the price of fuel for those cars has doubled in four years. Economic policies have created deeper and deeper divisions. The old adage about the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer is applicable in Australia today. While the Australian Labor Party has been looking after its rich mates, the number of Australians living in poverty has increased. The Weekend Australian of last weekend highlighted this dilemma with the headline, `Gold: PM's dilemma-to tax or not to tax'. A question was asked about this in the chamber today and Senator Cook, with all his guile, tried to avoid answering it. As the article's author, Paul Kelly, summed it up: Rich mates, restraint with equity and a fair tax system-all are bound up with the nasty gold tax option . . . Gold today spells Alan Bond. The dilemma for the Government is that by not taxing the gold industry it is missing out on between $100m and $600m. While the Government wrestles with this problem, it wastes $40m on a referendum which the Minister for Justice spoke about earlier today. His Government agonised over spending $4m on a Picasso and yet it allowed an extra 700,000 people to fall below the poverty line. I do not know who is doing the economics on those figures. This Government is obviously causing that. Its priorities are wrong and Mr and Mrs Average Australian are suffering because of it. One in every eight households lives in proverty. Nowhere is the Government more misguided than in its tax arrangements. Senator Cook, who I have just said was pretty clever in avoiding answering a question today, summed it up correctly when he said: The Labor Party is a high-taxing Party. It has to be to carry out its reforms. I do not know about reforms in the Labor Party, but we all know the reforms it has made to the tax system: additional capital gains taxes, a fringe benefits tax, a wine tax, petrol taxes, Medicare levies, assets testing, departure and arrival taxes, a resource rent tax, a tertiary education tax and perhaps now a gold tax. The result of all these is a massive increase in the tax take from $44 billion in 1982-83 to an estimated $78 billion in 1987-88. As I said earlier, our trade performance must improve. After all, it is the key to our economic salvation. The Government talks about trade but does not actually do much. Again I refer to the same article in the Weekend Australian dated May 14-15 1988 which quoted the Director of the Australian Goldmining Industry Council, Mr Duncan Bell. It said: . . . Mr Duncan Bell, said last night: ``The Prime Minister has given an undertaking in writing that there would not be a tax (on gold) for the life of the Parliament so members of the industry could invest in confidence over the next three years based on that undertaking.'' How can we expect to increase and help trade if we have a government making a commitment to something and then changing it half way through. A business or an industry making a decision would then have to change and base its investments and its program on the changed circumstances. If the Government decides to tax gold next week, I think it will find that this will be another impost on the people contributing to the export industries of Australia. About $2.5 billion is earned in gold exports. Another export industry will be slugged. The Government claims that it cannot do much about all these things because of the overseas influences, low world economic growth and rising protectionism, but that has nothing to do with the article I have just quoted from the Weekend Australian. But that is only part of the story. The other half of the situation is our macro-economic policies, wages and productivity policies, tax and industry policies. These have all impaired our competitive position. Many current economic policies are anti-trade. While we have enormous overseas debt problems, I insist that trade is vital. But the extent of our debt is too much just for increased exports to bail us out. Australia is already paying over $2 billion a day in interest alone on that debt. Just to hold the debt at the present level, our trade balance would need to improve by some $10 billion. Considering the fact that this year rural exports, our largest export sector, will bring in some $19 billion to double that figure would be totally unrealistic. Other measures must also be taken. I have mentioned the other half of the equation-wages, productivity, tax and industrial relations policies, all of which play a part. A study commissioned by the National Farmers Federation from the Centre for International Economics is compulsory reading for anyone genuinely interested in improving our trade, and therefore Australia's economy. One hopes that it has been studied by the Government. It is the Government that taxes incentive out of the work force when it ought to be creating inducements for greater productivity. Increased productivity in the work force and an improved trade performance would turn this country around. A recent Australian Financial Review article summed the situation up well when it said: Productivity is like love-a many splendoured thing. A recent Economic Planning Advisory Council paper demonstrated Australia's dilemma when it said that gross domestic product per employee had fallen in 1986-87. It showed that Australian manufacturing was only about 80 per cent productive and the building and construction industry about 60 per cent. That is an appalling indictment of the malaise spreading across this nation. We seem to have an increasing number of people without a job and wanting to work, and an equal number of people with a job not wanting to work. We need fewer militant unions-it is nice to see Senator McKiernan in the chamber-dictating unaffordable terms to industry. We need fewer restrictive work practices. We need better industrial relations, less regulation and unnecessary bureaucracy and we need the ability to stand on our own feet in our industries. In short, we need to put commonsense back into the workplace. The last area on which I wish to comment, and one which is relevant to present legislative discussions, is the role and function of local government. The Labor Government's record on local government is not good. Over the years it has frozen Commonwealth road funding, which in real terms means a cut of about 25 per cent, or $300m, in the past five years. General purpose assistance to local government has not increased in that time. Local government itself claims that in recent times it has spent more time and effort in arguing with other levels of government either to win back or to retain what it believes to be its rightful property. Local government authorities are understandably concerned at the prospect of yet another mini-Budget which chops their funding and allows them no avenue for complaint or appeal. Of course, the referendum proposals will do nothing to improve this relationship and will not guarantee them a thing. Local government knows that it was the Labor Government that disbanded the only forum available to it, the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. Local authorities feel, with a fair deal of justification, that it is always other tiers of government that decide what is best for them. It is always another tier of government that controls how much they get from taxation. They also know that while the Federal Government is spending $6m to set up a Constitutional Commission and another $40m to run a referendum, it claims that money is not available for much needed roadworks in shires throughout Australia, particularly in my State of New South Wales. It is these sorts of misguided priorities which have sent and are sending this country and its inhabitants broke. It is time that the Government took stock. Mini-Budgets provide only mini- solutions. We need bigger thinking and more permanent answers. This Government has to do something now-something it has neglected to do over the past four years-to make this country a better place for us all. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(5.06) —I welcome this opportunity to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1987-88. I direct attention to the Government's comments, particularly in referring to the economic miracle which, to use the expression of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), has allowed the Australian economy to turn the corner. Senator Tate —Hear, hear! The J-curve. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It has turned the corner, but it has turned the wrong way: it has turned downwards. It is quite clear that there never was going to be an economic miracle, and there never will be. With the exception of people such as the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, this Government has no right to claim a miracle from our God. Certainly Mr Hawke and Mr Keating are trying to convince the Australian public-and obviously have already seduced a significant part of the media into believing it-that the economy is now on the yellow brick road as opposed to the Argentinean road, but the truth is to be found elsewhere. In fact, on present indications the stark reality is that this is a delusion which can no longer continue. One has only to look at the December quarter national account figures to see the exact state of our economy. The figures show that the total final domestic demand had increased by 2.5 per cent compared to the Budget estimate of 1.5 per cent, that private final consumption expenditure had risen by 2.6 per cent compared with a Budget estimate of 1.5 per cent and that private final domestic demand was up 3.3 per cent compared with the Budget estimate of 2.25 per cent. Clearly, the figures demonstrate that the economy is over-heated, in large part due to the fact that there has been substantial easing in monetary policy, instigated by the Government from 1987 onwards. That has inevitably led to a significant reduction in interest rates from the artificially high level at which they had previously been pitched due to the economic climate and circumstances in which we found ourselves and the Government's attempt to tighten up the economy. Once we had an easing off in interest rates, this flowed through the economy, particularly in terms of consumer demand. That in itself was reflected in the February and March balance of payments result. The deficit on current account in March had deteriorated to $1,094m from the February figure of $764m and the January deficit of $389m. As expected, both figures showed a substantial blow-out in imports, the March figure being $3,733m-the worst import bill for more than a year. The April figure was substantially better, but in many respects this was due to seasonal circumstances. There was some reduction in imports of plant and equipment which shows that during that period there was a turndown in productive investment. The current account figures were followed quickly by the release of the March quarter consumer price index figure which indicated a rise of 1.8 per cent-well above the estimated Government figure of 1.5 per cent. This has meant that Mr Keating's anticipated inflation rate of 6 per cent just cannot be achieved. Notwithstanding that 1.8 per cent quarter increase, the Treasurer has the audacity to stand before Australian people and declare that that figure indicates that there is a downward trend in Australia's inflation rate for the 1988-89 period and that it is likely to be as low as 5 per cent. That flies totally in the face of logic, for crude political reasons. Senator Tate —That is what a miracle does. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —There is always a very logical reason for miracles, and Senator Tate would know that. The fact that the Treasurer is still prepared to defy gravity to persuade the people that the Government is doing a good job is, in my view, a cruel joke on the Australian community. I mentioned the recent fall in interest rates which has caused a real surge in domestic demand over the past year or so but, despite this, the Hawke Government has been blessed with strong world commodity prices since May 1986. In fact, it has been well blessed in the period that it has been in office. The sad thing is that it has squandered the blessings granted to it. We had the breaking of the drought in 1983-84, and that was worth several million dollars to our economy, but what did the Government do with that extra revenue? Of course, it avariciously devoured it. If we look at the increase in world commodity prices, which is the underpinning structure for the apparent improvement in our economy, it can be seen that in November 1987, for example, international monetary funds indexed for non-oil commodity prices were 25 per cent higher than the first quarter of 1987. The Westpac Banking Corporation estimates that if 1988 commodity prices maintain their recent high levels, in Australian dollar terms, a further 16 per cent increase can be expected. Accordingly, of course, with the excellent improvement, our terms of trade position rose last year by 7.5 per cent, and that has significantly improved the rising imports bill. However, it is significant that, excluding this term of trade result, our balance of payments position is still actually deteriorating and in fact did deteriorate over that same period. The reality is that there will be a slump in commodity prices, although I cannot be certain whether it will occur during the latter part of this year or in 1989. Without structural adjustment at a pace greater than that sought by this Government our current account deficit will again deteriorate dramatically on the back of the present excessive domestic demand. It is clear that there will be a significant decline in commodity prices and, as I have said, the question is when that will occur. The commodities will be undermined owing to the predicted slowing of world economic growth in the medium term. The Economic Planning Advisory Council (EPAC) expects that the slowing down in growth in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) area as a whole will show up in the latter half of this year and into the 1989 period. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard, without my reading it, a table which summarises the projections for growth in gross national product for the major economies. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 1 GROWTH IN REAL GNP 1986 1987 1988 1989 (per cent change on previous period) United States ... 2.9 2 3/4 2 1/2 1 3/4 Japan ... 2.4 3 1/2 3 1/2 3 Germany ... 2.5 1 1/2 1 1/2 1 1/4 Total OECD ... 2.8 2 3/4 2 1/4 1 3/4 Major trading partners (a) ... 2.5 2 3/4 2 3/4 2 1/4 (a) Australia's major OECD trading partners are the United States, Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada and New Zealand, weighted on the basis of Australia's 1986-87 exports. Source: OECD; Economic Outlook No. 42, December 1987. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —As a result of the slowing down in world growth, commodity prices will come under downward pressure. One of the most significant primary countries from Australia's point of view is the United States of America (USA), which consumes almost 12 per cent of our exports at something like $4 billion, and the other country is Japan which takes over 25 per cent of our exports at a figure of something like $9 billion. For the time being we are seeing the American domestic economy appearing to have strength. Senator Tate —There must be an election coming up. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Tate is absolutely right; the fact that an election is coming up has meant that the hard issues, the hard decisions that should be addressed by the Democrats, the Republicans, the President, the Congress or the Senate have been ignored. In fact, they have all been shelved. As a result, there has been a move towards greater protectionism in the United States. Senator Tate —They should have longer terms, shouldn't they? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I think there is a great deal to be said for senators having six-year terms, and preferably eight years, so that there is continuity, certainty and stability. You would also have decision-makers prepared to make courageous decisions without being intimidated and threatened at the prospect of being turned out by the public because of short term pain. Senator Brownhill —Making the place a rubber stamp for the House of Representatives. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Absolutely-something that will never happen in this country. Senator Short —And therefore the Executive. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —And therefore the Executive, which would wish to put its tentacles through the House of Representatives, grasp the Senate and strangle its power, strangle its contribution and strangle its right to represent the people of the States. While the production sector of the United States' economy remains relatively strong, as I have said, there has been unchecked domestic spending and there have been significant fiscal imbalances in that country. As I have said, for the time being there has also been a suspension of macro-economic adjustments but, of course, they will have to be made in the near future, whether it be by George Bush or the successful Democrat candidate. Accordingly, Australia will be required to tighten its belt as the Americans come to grips with the enormous deficit that it is running. In September 1987 its balance of payments deficit was a `lazy' $156.8 billion. The US gross foreign debt in March 1987 was a `laid back' $601.96 billion. Therefore, the US Government will have to struggle with those problems and it will have to cool down the economy and reduce imports. The moment it does that it will significantly reduce demand for metal and mineral commodities, and that will spark off an incapacity for the Japanese to export into the American market at the present rate. Once the Japanese market starts to slow down, it will promptly shunt into the Australian economy. Putting that aside for the moment, this country has for too long depended on commodities-farm and non-farm commodity resources-for its very financial existence and perhaps in the past its affluence. Perhaps we have ignored the fundamental signs which can be seen by anyone who lifts his head, and by the rest of the world. In terms of our wheat exports we have contemporary dumping by the United States and the European Economic Community (EEC). In relation to China, by the year 2000 that country, which has been one of our largest buyers of wheat, will be self-sufficient in food. India, another major buyer of our wheat, is now a gross exporter. In fact, 15 years ago 20 per cent of the Indian wheat harvest was retained and the rest was lost primarily because of poor storage facilities. That has now been corrected and the vast majority of Indian stocks are intact. One has only to look at the minerals and metals area. Brazil and a number of South American countries are now opening mines and exporting to attract American dollars and foreign currency, and they are prepared to do it without significant profit. That will affect our market and the demand for our commodities. As we see, particularly in respect of high technology, there is a move away from the base metals. If we look at the metal components of a motor car now compared to those of a motor car 20 years ago we will see a dramatic reduction in metal but a great increase in the use of plastics, rubbers and fibres. It is now possible to put more telephone calls through a pound of plastic than a ton of copper. However, we still think that we have no need to keep up with the rest of the world in terms of the transfer of high technology, that we can keep dumping out our commodities into ships and that we will continue to survive. Of course we will not; of course we cannot. Of course, it is plain that in the face of a slowing world economy we cannot rely on improving our terms of trade or continue to allow our current account deficit to be the way it is. As a result of the predicament into which the Labor Government has uniquely plunged us, it is highly likely that the current account deficit will, at best, persist at around $11 billion for the next financial year. That is about what we can anticipate for 1987-88. Accordingly, Australia's external debt and debt servicing burdens will continue to grow despite Mr Keating's insistence that the debt to gross domestic product (GDP) ratio can be stabilised at around 40 per cent by the early 1990s. Clearly our Treasurer has a secret that nobody else in this country knows about. He has a panacea. He himself has a formula for ensuring that there will be a dramatic change in our balance of payments and that there will be a roll-back in our debt and interest repayments. I wish he would let us all into the secret. I wish he would save us all the anxiety. He might tell us how he is going to do it. Perhaps in part he is going to retire some of our debt-retire it by Budget surpluses; Budget surpluses which flow from excess taxation. I remind honourable senators that at December 1987 Australia's gross external debt stood at $111.6 billion, with a net figure coming in at around $86.8 billion. Senator Tate —How much of that was private and how much of it was public? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Two-thirds of it was private and one-third public. I inform Senator Tate that as long as it involves money owed overseas by Australia and there is not a corresponding inflow in assets this will still represent a debt for all Australians. Of course, the difference is not too subtle and the Minister is quite right. The interest payments alone on this debt amount to almost $8.8 billion, or 20 per cent of our total receipts from the export of all Australian goods and services. Perhaps even more staggering is the fact that interest and principal repayments represent 64 per cent of export receipts. That means that for every $10 earned from exports, $6 goes towards paying our foreign debt. As we are all aware, Mr Hawke blames our critical, foreign debt position on the fall in our terms of trade over the 1985-86 period associated with a fall off in commodity prices. Of course, he does not blame it on his indolent indulgence with the public purse. He does not blame it on his own economic mismanagement. He blames it on circumstances beyond his control. Of course now that economic indicators relatively are marginally better this is his doing; this is his handiwork. Of course, this is cynicism of the highest order. Perhaps that is the reality of modern politics, but it is cynical by any measure. The truth of the matter is that the ordinary Australian is now paying for it through unprecedented levels of taxation. I ask honourable senators to consider the position that applied at the end of financial year 1983. At that time gross external debt stood at around $35.5 billion or about 21 per cent of GDP. Gross debt currently is operating at levels in excess of 40 per cent of GDP. The Prime Minister has just doubled the level of debt as a ratio of GDP. Further, the servicing requirements on interest in 1983 amounted to less than 12 per cent of export receipts. They are now running at levels of around 20 per cent. Of course, it is the extravagance of this Government, particularly in its earlier years, that has caused the problem. Perhaps that extravagance is no better reflected than in the massive increases in the Government's own purpose general government outlays. Of course, the figures for own purpose general government outlays can be obtained by netting off from total outlays payments to or on behalf of other governments and public trading enterprises. I seek leave with the indulgence of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard tables showing the own purpose general outlays of both the Commonwealth and the States over the last seven years. Leave granted. The document read as follows- GENERAL GOVERNMENT OWN PURPOSE OUTLAYS General government outlays presented in the main tables of this publication for the Commonwealth and State governments include payments made to or on behalf of other governments and public trading enterprises. A measure of `own purpose' outlays by general government sectors can be obtained by netting off from total outlays payments to, or on behalf of, public trading enterprises or other governments. Data for `own purpose' outlays from 1981-82 to 1987-88 are derived for Commonwealth general government in the table below. `OWN PURPOSE' COMMONWEALTH GENERAL GOVERNMENT OUTLAYS (derived using figures taken from table 1) ($ Million) 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 Total outlays ... 41,472 49,156 56,851 64,272 70,360 75,352 78,725 less: subsidies paid to PTEs ... 150 186 170 267 190 121 127 less: current grants to State and local governments ... 11,403 13,133 14,947 16,465 17,714 19,332 20,756 less: capital grants to PTEs ... - - - 3 - - - less: capital grants to State and local governments ... 1,778 2,231 2,814 3,187 3,283 3,248 2,972 less: net advances paid to PTEs ... 22 228 -14 9 -95 -112 -96 less: net advances paid to State and local governments ... 865 1,056 996 791 783 546 -40 less: interest received from State and local governments (a) ... 1,742 1,938 2,083 2,227 2,330 2,427 2,497 less: interest received from PTEs (a) ... 511 601 723 782 819 783 773 equals `OWN PURPOSE OUTLAYS'... 25,001 29,783 35,132 40,541 45,336 49,007 51,736 Percentage of total outlays (%) ... 60.3 60.6 61.8 63.1 64.4 65.0 65.7 (a) These receipt items are deducted as proxies for interest payments made by the Commonwealth Government on borrowing undertaken by it on behalf of its public trading enterprises and other governments. 2. Data for `own purpose' outlays by each State general government sector from 1981-82 to 1987-88, calculated using the formula used in the previous table, are presented below: `OWN PURPOSE' STATE GENERAL GOVERNMENT OUTLAYS 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 ($ Million) New South Wales ... 6,954 7,607 8,665 9,788 10,657 11,816 12,713 Victoria ... 5,126 5,992 6,688 7,331 8,126 8,855 9,697 Queensland ... 3,324 4,042 4,426 4,949 5,755 6,149 6,325 South Australia ... 1,825 2,129 2,369 2,693 3,056 3,394 3,688 Western Australia ... 1,990 2,311 2,609 2,904 3,292 3,781 4,002 Tasmania ... 753 825 940 1,047 1,150 1,243 1,328 Northern Territory ... 563 616 710 804 913 968 966 Total ... 20,529 23,519 26,404 29,516 32,947 36,206 38,722 -per cent New South Wales ... 88.1 84.8 85.5 85.4 86.6 86.3 86.8 Victoria ... 87.4 87.9 84.6 84.2 84.5 82.2 85.1 Queensland ... 91.6 90.4 96.1 92.8 94.4 93.9 93.4 South Australia ... 85.4 83.2 81.7 81.8 82.9 83.8 85.1 Western Australia ... 87.7 85.7 79.9 82.7 82.2 84.6 86.0 Tasmania ... 85.6 86.7 84.8 82.0 85.4 84.8 85.1 Northern Territory ... 82.6 79.0 80.5 81.5 78.2 73.4 81.0 Total ... 87.9 86.3 85.7 85.4 86.2 85.6 86.9 Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It can be seen from these figures that in 1982-83 Commonwealth own purpose outlays increased nominally by a massive 19.1 per cent. This was followed in 1983-84 by a rise of 18 per cent, a 15.4 per cent increase in 1984-85 and an 11.8 per cent increase in 1985-86. It can be seen that only in the last two years has the penny slowly dropped for this Government. It is only in the last two years that it has realised that there has to be restraint, a reining in of public sector expenditure. Of course, in spite of this, it is still significant that the amount spent in monetary terms by the Federal Government for its own purposes has in fact not decreased as a proportion of total outlays. It has not decreased in real terms. In fact, as a percentage of total outlays, the Hawke Government's own purpose outlays have increased from 60.6 per cent in 1982-83 to 65.7 per cent in 1987-88. Of course, this reflects the fact that the Hawke Government has the unique distinction-as have those members of the Government-of being the least caring, least compassionate, highest taxing, highest spending government in Australian peacetime history. That is how this Government will be remembered. For this Government to claim that Australia's recent better economic performance, as I say, relative as it might be, has been due to its better fiscal management is cynical in the extreme. The facts of the matter are that revenues received by this Government have increased at a far greater rate than inflation. Over the five years of the Hawke Government total revenue received has increased by about $34 billion. That is $34 billion extra that this Government gets which Malcolm Fraser's Government did not get when it was defeated. That represents an increase of 60 per cent. If we look at inflation over the same period we see that it has risen by about 39 per cent. Therefore, in real terms this Government has had the benefit of a 20 per cent increase in revenue. When one compares the increase in receipts to Government spending over the same period-that is an increase in receipts of $29.4 billion-it will be very obvious to the most elementary of economics students that the present expected Budget surplus will not be due to fiscal restraint but due to excesses in taxation. The excess in taxation receipts over the level of expenditure is the equation that gives the surplus. In fact, if revenue increases in real terms over 1988-89 by the projected figure of about 2.5 per cent, the Budget surplus for the next financial year will be $3 billion. It is very simple to have a Budget surplus if a government just keeps screwing people-that is, taxing the poor voters out there. Anybody can get a surplus. The trick is to reduce expenditure and maintain taxation at its present level. That is the answer, but this Government is not prepared to try it. This massive burden is not falling on the rich; it is falling on the average income earner. Over the life of the Hawke Government, personal income tax has risen by about 40 per cent. For example, when the Hawke Government came to power, the proportion of average weekly earnings payable before deductions was 22.9 per cent. By 1986-87, the figure and jumped to 25 per cent. In the case of a taxpayer with a dependent spouse and two children, the proportion of total earnings paid in tax has risen from 14.1 per cent in 1982-83 to almost 18 per cent in 1986-87. The fact that these figures exist should come as no surprise when one considers the higher marginal rates of taxation now paid by the ordinary wage earner. In June 1983, the effective marginal rate on the last dollar earned by a person on average weekly earnings was 30.67c. In 1986-87, a worker on average weekly earnings had taken from his pay packet, 45.395c on the last dollar he earned. A worker spends half of the last day of his working week working for the Government. He virtually goes to lunch before he starts to make any money for himself. Of course, the reason for that is obvious; it is the insidious bracket creep which is due, as we all know, to the effects of inflation. By the financial year 1989-90, over 2.15 million Australian taxpayers will have crossed over into a higher tax bracket. In 1987-88 alone, 660,000 Australians will pay more tax than they did in the previous year. In the coming financial year, 760,000 people will pay more tax under this Government than they paid last year. And this Government talks about tax reductions, tax cuts! Try telling that to the poor soul out there who finds, every time he collects his pay packet, there is less in it. Where has the money gone? It has gone to the Government. The tragedy is that this Government has taken money from taxpayers by stealth, through the insidious effects of inflation. The inflation rate will not fall to 5 per cent, as this Government predicts and pretends. Without doubt, by the end of the next financial year it will be 7 per cent. There is no economic miracle on the horizon. There is no economic miracle that the Australian people can expect. It is part of the Hawke Government's hypocrisy, deception and dishonesty in seeking to have people believe that under this Government, somewhere down the road there will be some form of relief. The truth of the matter can be found elsewhere. My guess is that the Australian public will no longer be deceived. The fact that we have witnessed two by-elections and seen the government ignominiously defeated is a clear indication that the Australian people are aware of the Government they elected. I am sure they are compelled to the view that only a Liberal-National coalition will promise them a genuine tax package and give them genuine relief and reform and a capacity to save and work for reward. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(5.35) —I wish to raise matters of concern to me which arose when Estimates Committee C examined the Department of Employment, Education and Training. Estimates Committee C met on Tuesday, 19 April and the Hansard record of that hearing is available to honourable senators. For some 20 minutes of that hearing I asked questions on a couple of matters to which I wish to refer this evening. Most of the answers were given by Mr J. Mullarvey, Assistant Secretary, Tertiary Statistics and Operations Branch, in the presence of the Minister attending the hearing of Estimates Committee C, Senator Walsh, and other senators on that Committee. I am very troubled by the answers I was given in two areas. By setting out these concerns now, I alert the Department and the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) that I wish to have more satisfactory, complete and truthful answers to the matters which I raised. The first broad area concerns higher education statistics collection. I have been concerned for some months, indeed, since late last year, at the new level of data being required by the Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education and Training on every student in higher education-more than 40,000 students-and now on every staff member in higher education. In fact, I estimate that the unit records affect about half a million Australians. There are towards 20 elements of data on each of these half a million Australians. It is my understanding that next year the elements of data on these individuals will rise to more than 30 items. I have two concerns. The first is that the original data was given by enrolling students and employed staff in our higher education institutions on a confidential basis to the institution of which they were a part, but, by statutory provision, the Minister and the Department are requiring up to 30 items of information on these half a million Australians and, if they are not received, the institution will not receive its grant. This leads to two quite massive problems. One is the insecurity of the data coming from 65 higher education institutions to one databank in Canberra. Who has access to that databank and what safeguards are in place to guarantee that the information is used even for the purposes for which it was given? It is my knowledge, and I was told this in the Estimates Committee, that there are no statutory safeguards to guard that information. There is nothing to stop the Minister, for example, asking for data on any individual student or staff member. Let me hasten to add that the names of students and staff members are not filed at the same point as the items of data of each individual student and each individual staff member. But, as I will go on to describe in a moment, the date of birth, the home postcode, the course being undertaken, whether a student or staff member is male or female, the individual's qualifications, the course enrolled in and the course taught, are all set out. If even three or four of these items are known, one could very quickly guess with the aid of a general list or some background information which individual the data entry concerns. I note that earlier this year there was a furore when the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) was accused of breaking the law in releasing to a backbencher in the House of Representatives some health information concerning doctors and patients. It was subsequently found, after inquiry, that the Minister had not strictly broken the law, but certainly he regretted that he had given this information, which was improperly released. There is a statutory bar in the area of health. There is a law that prohibits the misuse of such information. However, I was told in the Estimates Committee that there is no such law with regard to the databank on half a million Australians to which I am referring. There is no statutory provision under which one could deal with any abuse that may arise. I believe that the assurances and solemn guarantees that are being given to students and staff by the 65 registrars of the higher education institutions concerned that the material they are gathering will be confidential are not now worth the paper they are written on. All of the data about students who enrol for higher education in this country or staff members in higher education institutions is open to abuse. This information will be listed in a databank and the confidentiality of that material is now directly under threat. The second major concern is that there has been a massive increase in the amount of data transferred to Canberra. Up until 1977 no information was sent to Canberra about individual students, and certainly not about individual staff members. However, over the last decade some unit record level data has been recorded for university students only. A few items are involved. But last year, for the first time, data on students attending colleges of advanced education and institutes of technology was also transferred. This year, for the first time, data concerning all staff in the advanced education sector and the university sector is being transferred. There has been a threefold increase in the number of individuals concerned. Also, there has been a massive increase in the number of people involved and in the amount of information collected about each individual. The number of items on which data is collected has grown from six to 15, with 30 items in prospect for next year. This massive increase in data will serve directly the present Labor Government's intention to manage higher education from Canberra through the Minister and through the Department of Employment, Education and Training. This is being done in spite of a century of an accepted tradition of autonomy in our higher education institutions and against the assumptions of staff and students alike in those institutions. I believe that not only is confidentiality under threat but also this development is becoming an instrument of the Labor Government's corporatist management of higher education in Australia. A departmental letter dated 5 February 1988 claimed: By collecting information at the unit record level (i.e. a record for each staff member and each student) the Department will in theory be able to collect whatever information it chooses. The Commonwealth has recently amended the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act so that it provides that the Department can withhold the payment to an Institution of normal periodic grant payments `where an institution fails to provide to the Minister, by the due date validated statistical data'. The data currently sought by the Department, under that compulsion, in relation to staff members-and this is happening this year for the first time-includes: an institution code; a person identification code, which is a unique number; sex of the staff member; date of birth; length of tenure; substantive classification type; level and increment; whether the staff member is full time or fractional; length of term in current duties; current classification type, level and increment; classification group; organisational unit of staff member; work sector; function-for example, teaching, research or some combination; the full time equivalence of the staff appointment; the full time equivalence in the year preceding; the citizenship of that staff member; the substantive salary for the position occupied; and the actual salary paid. I understand that additional elements are to be added next year. The data being sought for each student, including some items proposed for next year, includes: the institution code; the course; the course type; the field of study; the student identification code, which is a unique number for each of the 400,000 students of Australia; the date of birth of the student; sex; whether the student is Aboriginal or a Torres Strait Islander; whether the student is an overseas student; the semester residence-I do not know whether that means the precise address; the home postcode of the student; the highest qualification the student has reached; the year the student completed secondary schooling; previous courses attempted; the basis of admission; the date the student commenced his course; attendance mode and type-that is, whether the student is full time or falls into some other category; course specialisation; academic organisational unit; the discipline group of course; the equivalent full time student unit value-that is, the degree of part time or full time enrolment; the country of birth of the student; the year of arrival in Australia; and the language spoken by the student at home. The Department also seeks a fee paying indicator. It wants an indication of the fee that has been determined. As honourable senators opposite know, fees are already established with regard to an administration charge and some post-graduate courses. A pay later fee at least has been proposed by the Wran Committee on Higher Education Funding. Overseas students pay fees of two quite different types. This fee paying indicator will, therefore, apply to every student. Data will also be sought on the minimum completion time of the course for which a student has enrolled, as will completion rate information. A great number of elements are required, especially next year, to measure the degree of progress that a student is making through a course. Why does Canberra need to have all of this information, which otherwise would be confined to the education institution in which a student is enrolled or to which a staff member is appointed? The need for the information to be collected at the unit record level is explained by the Department as allowing it to maximise the `ability to generate reports that will meet the requirements of users'. Departmental officers have explained that the unit record information was needed since they could not foresee all the needs for information but could meet them as they eventuated if they had the base data. In other words, aggregate information about students and staff of a general or summary kind is not good enough if Canberra wants to manage 65 higher education institutions or to look up any precise matter with regard to an individual staff member or an individual student. This Labor Government is wanting to gather individual files on half a million Australians, on all those leaders and potential leaders of the future who are going to be involved with higher education. This creeping Big Brother state, I think, takes even honourable senators opposite somewhat by surprise. Senator Reynolds —You forgot the sisters. Senator TEAGUE —Is Senator Reynolds happy with the situation? She does not answer. Her husband happens to be one of those people who, as a staff member in a higher education institution, has a file in the Department of Employment, Education and Training. I am convinced that the majority of students and staff members do not know that this is the situation and would be horrified that information is being transferred for the management purposes of this Government-or at least its aspirations, for we do not know what the outcome will be until the White Paper comes down and there are some decisions in the Budget period. Those people ought to be horrified not only at the management style that is going to take autonomy from institutions but also at the totally inadequate security set up to maintain confidentiality of that information. I put it, maybe somewhat hypothetically, that if the Minister for Employment, Education and Training wants to know the background of all the student representative council members in an institution, with a little information he could match up information he may have with files available in his Department-and there is nothing to stop him. Let me outline the questions I put. They are set out on page c41 of Estimates Committee C Hansard of 19 April. I had introduced this area of my concern, as is clear from the preceding pages. Then I asked: The Minister does not have access to it?- meaning the data that is accumulated. Mr Mullarvey replied: The Minister does not . . . That was his first answer. However, because I was not satisfied, I asked the question a second time and I got an evasion. I asked the question a third time and got an evasion. I asked it a fourth time and was distracted again. I asked the question a fifth time and-honourable senators could not guess the result-the answer was 100 per cent different; it was totally different from the first answer I got. I will read my question and then the answer: Senator TEAGUE —You said, Mr Mullarvey, that no officer of the Department has the ability to look up the individual data on any one unit file. What is there to stop the Minister from looking it up? Mr Mullarvey-There is nothing to stop the Minister looking it up. Yet, a matter of minutes earlier, on the first time of my asking he said the opposite. It is just not good enough for a departmental official-and there are 3,500 departmental officials in that Department-or the Minister to be able to look up individual files on students and staff. I am not satisfied with the administrative arrangements that are alluded to from time to time with regard to access to this material. I am not satisfied that, although there is only an identifier number, the identity of the student or staff member concerned cannot relatively easily be determined. I seek leave to have incorporated in my speech a series of 21 questions. That will save reading these pages that flow on from this matter. Leave granted. The questions read as follows- 1. What information is currently obtained by the Federal Government from universities and colleges of advanced education relating to students and staff? 2. What are the exact questions being asked of universities and colleges relating to students and staff? 3. What questions were asked of universities and colleges relating to students and staff in: (i) 1984 (ii) 1985 (iii) 1986 (iv) 1987? 4. Are extra questions to be asked of institutions of higher education regarding students and staff in 1989? 5. If so, what extra information is to be gathered? 6. Do institutions of higher education have any choice in supplying information regarding staff and students? 7. How is the information stored by the Department? 8. Are identifier numbers tagged on to individual student and staff records? 9. What use is currently made of the statistics on students and staff gathered by the Department? 10. What safeguards exist to protect data collected on students and staff? 11. Are any extra safeguards planned? 12. Is it true that extra information is being gathered in anticipation of proposals outlined in the Government's `Higher Education Green Paper'? 13. If this is true, what use is to be made of the information gathered? 14. What provisions in the Green Paper make it necessary for the Department to gather increased information? 15. Is it now possible for officers of the Australian Taxation Office or the Department of Finance to gain access to any information on students or staff held by the Department of Employment, Education and Training? 16. If so, what information are they able to gain access to? 17. What officers in the Department of Employment, Education and Training can gain access to information on students and staff gathered from institutions of higher education? 18. How many officers does this represent? 19. What safeguards prevent officers of other Commonwealth departments or bodies from accessing this information? 20. Is it technically possible for files on individual students and staff to be linked to their actual names? 21. Is it technically possible to match information on individual students and staff with other records held by the Commonwealth, so as to identify the name of the individuals? Senator TEAGUE —I thank the Senate. The 21 questions that I have set out are urgent and need to be answered. I am looking for answers from the Minister and the Department. Later today I will put these questions to the Minister on the Notice Paper. I also seek leave to have incorporated that short section of Hansard on page C41 to which I have already referred. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Senator TEAGUE —The Minister does not have access to it? Mr Mullarvey-The Minister does not neither do-- Senator TEAGUE —What would stop the Minister? Is there a statutory bar? Mr Mullarvey-I make the point that giving people access to record 2,000 is going to tell them nothing. Senator TEAGUE —No, I am asking a question. What would stop the Minister asking for the precise item as recorded-- Senator WALSH —He would have more useful things to do, I would expect, for one. Senator TEAGUE —I agree with you, Minister, but I am asking because people are concerned. I would just remind the Estimates Committee about the Australia Card debate. I am not drawing an exact parallel here. I take your request to me to withdraw any prejudice that this is like the Australia Card. Senator WALSH —You are making the inference. Senator TEAGUE —No. It is a new area of massive data collection. What is to stop the Minister from reading an individual's data? Mr Mullarvey-It is not a new area of data collection. The Commonwealth has been collecting this data since 1977 for universities which comprise approximately half of our total enrolments. It was extended to the advanced education sector in 1987 so that the Commonwealth would have comparable data across the area into which it puts considerable funds. It is not a new area which the Commonwealth has gone into. Senator TEAGUE —You said, Mr Mullarvey, that no officer of the Department has the ability to look up the individual data on any one unit file. What is there to stop the Minister from looking it up? Mr Mullarvey-There is nothing to stop the Minister looking it up. But I come back to the point that you made that this is a new area of collection of data. I reiterate that it is not. The Commonwealth has been there since 1977. Senator TEAGUE —I again thank the Senate. I now come to my concern at the answer I was given by this responsible public servant. It gives me no pleasure to doubt a servant of the Commonwealth, a senior member of the Department of Employment, Education and Training. But I have already indicated that it was with a great deal of reluctance, and after I had asked the question five times, that I got an answer to the question I had put about the Minister's access to the information. On another matter, which was answered by the same officer, I gained a similarly quite unsatisfactory response. I wish to refer to it. On page C47 of the same Hansard I said: Could I put a question on notice? How many persons who were employed by CTEC at any point during 1987 have now resigned from not only CTEC but the Department? What level of employment did those persons hold before they resigned? I was just putting that question on notice. Senator Walsh said: We will take that on notice. Just to gain an approximate answer I then said: There is a substantial number I understand, Minister, of such officers who no longer work for the Commonwealth. Mr Mullarvey then answered: I am not sure that there are substantial numbers; I think there were two, but, as we have said, it needs to be taken on notice. I put a number of questions on notice during that hearing of Estimates Committee C and I received answers in writing more than a week ago but I have not received an answer on this matter. I remind the Senate that I have just said that the officer said, `I think there were two'. My response to that was, `That surprises me'. Because it surprised me I made some inquiries. I make the point that I have not yet got any detailed further information from the Department. I am certainly looking for it before we have a Committee of the Whole debate on these Bills. Much to the contrary to there being only two people who have left, all have left save one, who happens to be Mr Mullarvey. Is it credible that the senior officers of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission that is about to be disbanded-the House of Representatives is debating right at this moment that the CTEC legislation be abolished in favour of the new legislation for the National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET)-have all gone? Those senior officers had a 15-year period of operation and contributed a great deal to this country. We used to receive CTEC reports every year, including many reports on particular matters. Let me list some of the officers. They include Professor Don McNicol, Commissioner for Universities, who became Vice-Chancellor of the University of New England after completing little more than one year of a seven-year term. Mr Chris Burgess, Secretary to the Universities Council, became business manager at Griffith University after some 15 years public service. Mr Bob Arthur, former Assistant Commissioner, recurrent programs of CTEC, has transferred to the Canberra School of Art. Mr Hunter Grahame, former Assistant Commissioner, Executive Branch of CTEC, has been retired. Ms Margaret Groube, head of the CTEC Equity Section has resigned from the Commonwealth Public Service. Dr Gregor Ramsey, Acting Chairman of the Higher Education Council and formerly Chairman of the Advanced Education Council, departed for an appointment in New South Wales, but it was not proceeded with and he has returned to an acting position in the Department. So, in effect, the former senior echelon of CTEC, both statutory and non-statutory, has been disbanded. Mr Lance Hennessy is another officer who has departed to be a Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University of Newcastle. It should also be taken into consideration that from the senior ranks of the former Commonwealth Department of Education, which had a major involvement in this area, Mr Charles Beltz, First Assistant Secretary, is no longer in the Department; John Wilson, First Assistant Secretary, at the age of 53 has retired early; Peter Bowler, another First Assistant Secretary aged 53, has retired early; Bob Allen, a First Assistant Secretary, is no longer there; John Burnett, an Assistant Secretary, has left at age 49; as has Ian Ward; and that is by no means all. I put to the Senate: how is it credible for the particular public servant involved, who was so evasive on the matter that I put seriously to him over a considerable period of the Estimates Committee proceedings, to then say to me in the clear light of day that he thought that two of his immediate colleagues-because he himself worked in CTEC-had left that organisation. However, there was a wide range; in fact, the whole of CTEC has blown apart and all the officers to whom I have referred have gone off to work in various institutions away form the Commonwealth Department of Education, Employment and Training. That expertise has been lost to the Commonwealth and to Australia, and we have a completely clean slate for the Department and for its apparent successor to CTEC, namely, the National Board of Employment, Education and Training. It gives me no cheer to question the veracity, or credibility at least, of a senior public servant who ought to know better and who ought to have given a clear, comprehensive and truthful answer during that Estimates Committee. As a senator attending an Estimates Committee I do not appreciate being misled, and I ask that a comprehensive written answer be provided by the time we consider this matter in committee. That same officer gave me inadequate answers with regard to the statistical collections of the Department. That officer is in fact in charge of the statistical collections of the Department. Does it give us here in the Senate any great sense of comfort that these serious matters are being so off-handedly described as being in safe custody, under good management, that confidentiality will not be breached and that the statistics are all being collected for good purposes? It certainly does not give me any comfort, and I will not be comforted until there is a law that describes the kind of information that can be gathered and the statutory or legal basis on which confidentiality of the material is kept. I also believe that there should be an advisory committee, made up of representatives of higher education institutions-registrars, vice-chancellors, and the like-whose advice would be given in regard to the type of information to be collected, how it would be used, and how it would be safeguarded. I am not convinced that the rather informal consultations with the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee and the Australian Committee of Directors and Principals in Advanced Education have been of any substance at all, and I continue to be concerned about that matter. In conclusion, I directly criticise the Government for its lax approach to these sensitive and important matters and for the fact that in a period of massive information gathering it has not seen fit to put in place the kinds of guarantees that I am calling for. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(6.05) —In speaking in the cognate debate on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1987-88, the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88, the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1987-88, the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88, the Supply Bill (No. 1) 1988-89, and the Supply Bill (No. 2) 1988-89, I want to raise a matter that is of great concern to the Australian Democrats. I refer to the $240 administrative fee which is charged to potential migrants who ask for a review of status. This new fee was included in the Budget last year, which was brought down on 15 September. The fee has been collected since 17 September, despite the fact that the relevant clause in the Migration Amendment Bill 1987 failed to pass through this place. The explanatory memorandum indicates: Subclause 9 (a) provides that a fee will be able to be prescribed for appeals against certain prescribed decisions taken under the Migration Act . . . The provision, and the first regulations made under the provision, are expressed (by clause 2) to come into effect on 16 September 1987. During my speech on the second reading of the Bill, which I made on 9 December, I distributed my amendment to that clause which, in fact, sought to delete the clause. The Democrats are against this fee for a number of reasons. For the most part, migration decisions are reviewed by panels, which are known as immigration review panels. These are, one might say, a disaster area. A recent report by the Administrative Review Council, the Review of Migration Decisions August 1986, has drawn attention to the many deficiencies and has proposed many changes to immigration review panels and the way that they operate. I shall briefly list some of the problems. Appellants have no right to appear before an immigration review panel and no right to be heard. Members of the immigration review panels are appointed by the Minister. They work to guidelines laid down by the Minister. They are only advisory; the Minister need pay no attention to their recommendations. There is an enormous backlog of appeals. In short, the international review panels are very poorly regarded by the ethnic communities and the social workers and the other professionals who work in the immigration area. By comparison, appeal procedures in respect of social security and veterans' entitlement decisions are regarded as being fair and efficient. They are undertaken by panels which are independent of the Minister and of the department involved, and appellants do not have to pay a fee to have their appeal heard. There are also problems with the migrant fee on equity grounds. For example, it will apply to residents seeking to nominate a relative whose application has been rejected and who wants to appeal against the decision. Because we are now accepting a lower number of refugees many refugee families now in Australia are seeking to sponsor relatives from refugee camps in South East Asia under family reunion provisions. Because they are recent arrivals themselves, many of these people are among the poorest of the poor. To sponsor the refugees they have to be ready to pay air fares and to put up maintenance guarantees and, inevitably, they are involved in other costs. For these people a fee of $240 is an enormous sum of money, and the effect is discriminatory. Well-off families will be able to lodge appeals while the poor will not. They are some of the reasons why the Australian Democrats sought to reject that fee. When the Migration Amendment Bill 1987 went through this chamber, the Opposition also opposed the $240 fee, but for different reasons-reasons related to the way in which the accompanying regulations had been drawn up. In fact, at the time the Opposition gave an undertaking that, when the Government reintroduced this provision with the accompanying regulations drawn up to the Opposition's satisfaction, the Opposition would vote for it. I have twice asked questions in this place about the collection of the $240 fee for review of migration decisions. I asked the first question on 15 December 1987 and another question on 24 April 1988. Thus, I asked the first question before the legislation had passed through this place and the second question after it had passed. In December I was told by the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, as Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Ethnic Affairs that about $400,000 had already been collected. Just a few weeks ago I was told that the sum collected is now $1m, despite the fact that the fee is regarded in some legal quarters as lacking legality. In answer to my most recent question, I was told by the Minister that the Government has in fact received the advice of Queen's Counsel. Nonetheless, there are legal opinions that say the fee is not legal. In effect, the situation is that since 17 September the Government has been collecting a fee for which there is no legislative justification. If legislation was not required, why did the Government include such a clause in the Migration Amendment Bill? If it is required, then surely the Government is showing contempt for the parliamentary process. I briefly refer to the fact that also included in the Migration Amendment Bill 1987 was another clause related to government funding. I refer to the $5 arrival fee. My amendment to reject that clause was opposed by both the Government and the Opposition, as was my second amendment to delay the implementation of the arrival fee until 1 March. I remind the Senate that this debate took place towards mid-December. Thus there are two fees as a result of the Migrant Amendment Bill. One is being collected, although the legislation has not been passed. In the other case, legislation did pass, but some people pay the $5 on arrival and some people do not. I believe that both these matters require urgent attention and I am pleased to have been able to bring them before the Senate. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(6.15) —One of the major items of expenditure in the Budget is the amount we spend on defence. This year it amounts to a little under 10 per cent of the total Budget, or about 2.8 per cent of the gross national product. I want to take this opportunity to speak about a very small component of the Budget which may or may not come out of the defence allocation but which has to come from somewhere. It concerns Australia's contribution to the verification of disarmament agreements and the potential for further developing our input as a middle ranking world power. Verification is topical at the moment, as the United States of America Senate debates ratification of the intermediate-range nuclear force agreement, and I am hoping that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Hayden, will speak further on the subject of verification when he addresses the United Nations special session on disarmament in New York on 31 May. Verification is absolutely vital towards the success of any disarmament agreement, and Australia has worked hard in two areas where I feel the Government should be commended. I refer to work towards a chemical weapons ban and on the seismic monitoring of nuclear testing. Our commitment to a comprehensive test ban is well known in the international community, but it has been totally blocked by the refusal of our great friend and ally the United States, which says that such a test ban is a long way off and can only follow deep cuts in strategic weapons, confidence building measures, a balance in conventional forces and improved verification procedures. So a lot of the good work done by our diligent Australian team at the conference on disarmament in Geneva is undermined by the United States Government, which clearly does not support a comprehensive test ban despite opposition to its policy from millions of its own citizens. In fact, more than 75 per cent of United States citizens support a comprehensive test ban. I am also critical of the totally inadequate safeguards attached to the export of Australian uranium, and I refer in particular to a recent article in the Weekend Australian on 7 May about a United States television documentary entitled `The Terror Trade-Buying the Bomb'. This program dealt with the blackmarket nuclear weapons trade that goes on in Khartoum, the capital of the Sudan, where sales of millions of dollars worth of nuclear weapons materials have occurred since 1980. Libya, South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, India and the Palestine Liberation Organisation reportedly were involved in the auction-style deals, with uranium and plutonium apparently filched from nuclear processing plants in Western Europe. One of the people interviewed in the program was former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Admiral Stansfield Turner, who confirmed that the source of the material for the black market is civilian nuclear power plants. Given that Australian uranium is sold to a number of countries in Western Europe, I must admit that I have even further doubts about our safeguards and the ability of the relevant agencies actually to trace nuclear materials around the total nuclear fuel cycle. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) spoke of the importance of verification when he opened the conference on Checking the Arms Race: Australia's Role in International Verification, which was held in Sydney from 13 to 15 May and which was organised by Scientists Against Nuclear Arms and People for Nuclear Disarmament in New South Wales. Mr Beazley pointed out that more verification would be needed for future agreements, for example, the strategic arms reduction talks agreement which is now a prospect on the horizon if the talks between the United States and the Soviet Union are successful. The lead speaker, Dr Jeremy Leggett, Director of the Verification Technology Information Centre in London, pointed out that the relentless march of nuclear weapons technology makes verification of warhead reduction treaties increasingly difficult. In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 17 May, Dr Leggett wrote: Events surrounding the ratification of December's treaty on intermediate-range nuclear forces are making it increasingly clear that not enough effort is being put into verification strategies to back up the proposals which are being tabled in the negotiations. For these reasons, there has never been a more opportune moment for non-nuclear-weapon states, like Australia, to carve a larger stake in arms control verification. In a paper given to the conference, Dr Leggett pointed out that three of the last six directors of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency have complained about the inadequacy of verification technology development. The select committee on intelligence report concluded that a verification agency should be set up and several hundred million dollars of extra funding should be diverted to the test ban verification research effort. At present some $US70m is directed to test ban verification research annually, of which up to $US40m is dedicated to seismology. Given that the total United States defence budget is well over $US300 billion, that is actually a very small amount. In both the United States and the United Kingdom little or no work is going into the non-seismological aspects of verifying a test ban. In the Soviet Union it is difficult to judge its preparedness on verification technology because of past obsessive secrecy, but we can hope that the situation will improve under the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev. Who would have foreseen even three years ago that the Soviet Union would allow American inspectors to wander around its nuclear test sites and missile plants? The improved position of the Soviet Union concerning on-site verification is indeed welcome. So we return to the question posed by Dr Leggett concerning the contribution that non-nuclear weapon states can make to this situation, bearing in mind the statement of the Minister for Defence on the vital necessity of verification for future agreements. Dr Leggett suggested that by ending the superpower monopoly on systematic surveillance from space, non-nuclear weapon states can begin to break down the secrecy which underpins competition between the superpowers and so constipates their efforts to achieve bilateral treaties. Further, he suggested that, by becoming more involved in basic verification research, such nations can encourage the superpowers to move more rapidly towards multilateral negotiations. One major proposal floated at the conference and discussed by a number of Australian and overseas speakers was for a multilateral satellite monitoring agency. Such an agency could use existing satellites or its own custom built system in a number of areas. None would allow the independent verification of an entire treaty but all would foster the prospects of current treaties being adhered to, or of future treaties being signed, and of their being verified satisfactorily after coming into force. The conference heard a number of proposals from Japan and Canada, as well as Australia, about satellite programs and also from Ken Muirhead of the Australian Seismological Centre in Canberra about Australia's work on seismological monitoring. Dr Peter Dunn, Superintendent of the Material Research Laboratories in the Department of Defence in Melbourne, also spoke of Australia's work on a chemical weapons ban and the possibilities and difficulties of verification in this area. We must bear in mind his warning of the likely proliferation of chemical weapons by poorer countries in the next 10 years. In fact, the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, referred to chemical weapons as the poor man's nuclear weapon. Money spent on verification that could lead to an agreement in this area would be well spent if it prevents casualties such as those in the Iran-Iraq war recently. I commend the Government on Australia's contribution to a chemical weapons ban. I am talking about the imbalance in the amount of money spent on preparing for war and the amount spend on preparing for peace and disarmament or, more specifically, preparing technologies for destruction of warheads that already exist and for developing technologies for the prevention of war. Given the amount that we are spending in Australia on defence and the little we seem to be spending on conflict resolution, training in negotiating skills, peace research and so on, I hope that we will see fit to follow up some of the proposals arising from the conference. I hope that Australia will choose to spend less on lethal hardware, which only seems to make us less secure. I certainly would welcome more work on disarmament verification, to which Australia could contribute, rather than heeding the calls for nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, for example, which are regularly trotted out by the Liberal-National Party spokespersons on defence. Having such extravagant military hardware will simply trigger off a regional arms race rather than reducing tension in the area. This conference, which brought together scientists from six middle ranking countries plus experts on international law and peace activists and so was very useful in that respect, had one overwhelming message. It was this: there is enormous potential for international verification to occur. In fact, there are few scientific impediments to thorough verification of any international disarmament treaty, particularly in the nuclear field. What is missing is the political will to ensure that the brain power of scientists internationally is directed towards devising such technically feasible verification measures. It was generally agreed that it is a continuing responsibility of participants in the conference to sell verification as a very important disarmament issue. From Australia's point of view, we are engaged in helping the United States with not only its national means of verification but also its tracking and targeting of Soviet military installations, warships and submarines and Soviet cities with nuclear weapons. When the suggestion of the internationalisation of the facilities at Pine Gap was raised-that is, the use of that technology to benefit the world community rather than just the United States-the Minister said quite clearly that the United States would not like it; the United States would feel insecure. That is a pathetic position for an Australian Minister for Defence-the United States would not like it, so Australia would not even bother suggesting it. In answer to another question, the Minister declined to answer on the grounds of national security-not our national security, of course, but United States national security. On alliance questions, the Australian Defence Minister time and again seems to put the needs of the United States Government ahead of the security needs of Australian people. The Australian people-indeed, the world's people-would be much better served by Australia participating in the verification of nuclear disarmament treaties from an international perspective rather than our country being used by one superpower to spy on the other. It is my hope that the Australian Government will not only continue its good work on a chemical weapons ban and nuclear testing verification, but also make available increased funding towards international nuclear disarmament verification measures. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(6.25) —in reply-I would like to respond to the many, many pages that have filled Hansard but I was not concentrating, so I will not. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) agreed to: That consideration of the Bill in Committee of the Whole be an Order of the Day for a later hour this day. Sitting suspended from 6.26 to 8 p.m. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia) —by leave-I withdraw Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 17 standing in my name for the disallowance of the Canberra Institute of the Arts Ordinance 1988, as contained in the Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 1 of 1988, and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. The Canberra Institute of the Arts Ordinance 1988 is intended to establish the Canberra Institute of the Arts as an independent educational institution to foster the achievement of excellence in the study at tertiary and other levels of music, visual arts and crafts and other fields of the arts. The creation of the institute involves the amalgamation of two long-established schools, the Canberra School of Music and the Canberra School of Arts. In the explanatory statement for the ordinance, the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) expressly states: . . . the Institute of the Arts is expected to be a more independent body similar to a university and is invested with greater freedom of action and powers of self-government. The institute is to award degrees, diplomas and certificates. The institute conducts courses at post-graduate level also. The institute attracts students from every State of Australia and from overseas. In the School of Music 40 per cent of the full-time undergraduate students and 80 per cent of the post-graduate students are from outside the Australian Capital Territory. All the people with whom I have discussed the new institute over the last several months agree that the establishment of the new institute is a sound move. These people-they include students, elected staff representatives of both schools, the executive chairperson and the Australian Capital Territory Teachers Federation-are also agreed that the mode of governance proposed for the new institute is totally unsatisfactory, and indeed some claim that it will be a disaster. Tertiary institutions throughout Australia, and indeed throughout the world, are normally governed by governing councils with wide representation. All those who have a stake in the institution have at least some say in its affairs. Meetings are essentially public so that those affected have some opportunity to know how, and on what grounds, decisions come to be made. However, the Canberra Institute of the Arts is to be governed by a tiny board of three persons, an executive chairperson and the directors of its two schools. This triumvirate is at once the governing body and the body for the hearing of appeals, and the management body also, and is to be supported by an advisory committee composed mainly of ministerial appointees. The beginnings of discontent are already in evidence at the institute in relation to the decisions of the board. Recently, for example, a dispute arose over the first combined graduation of the new institute-resulting in ill feeling between the schools and complaints by staff and students. Honourable senators may wonder how it has come about that we are discussing an ordinance to establish an institute, and I am talking as though that institute already exists. It must appear confusing to the Senate. In fact, it is the Government and the ACT Administration that are confused, for the institute has indeed already been set up without the authority of this Parliament, and the three-person board is already operating. If the Senate has the power to allow or disallow the making of ordinances, the Government must be condemned for implementing its decisions as if the decisions of the Senate were a foregone conclusion. I look forward to hearing what the Liberals have to say about the contemptuous way in which the Government is treating this chamber in regard to this ordinance and other ordinances. The situation that we confront today owes a great deal to a pattern set by the former Minister, Mr John Brown. His intention was to follow corporate models and to streamline and centralise power in educational institutions. This institute has been set up in such a way that will be easy for the ACT Administration to manipulate its affairs and to deny it the sort of independence, coordination and unity which would enable it to stand up for its independence when John Dawkins's vultures of amalgamation, rationalisation and economic realism gather. This impression is greatly heightened by events over the last 24 hours. Since it became clear that the Australian Democrats were prepared to stand up for the institute and press hard for a sensible and workable set of governance arrangements which would allow the institute to establish itself properly, the people concerned have been quite simply pressured into accepting the will of the Government. They have been told that, if this ordinance is disallowed, the arrangements will lapse altogether and the schools will revert to being managed by the ACT Administration, or that they may be amalgamated very shortly with the Canberra College of Advanced Education. The institute is therefore faced with a choice between an unworkable form of independence and no independence at all. Over the past several days I have discussed the governance arrangements with the Minister and have sought improvements. In these discussions I have done my best to represent the views and wishes of the people involved. The Minister agreed to expand the advisory committee and to provide for staff and student representation. This was a significant improvement. In an exchange of letters today he has made further undertakings which, while they leave us far short of a truly satisfactory outcome, nevertheless offer a few crumbs of comfort to the staff and students. The Minister has undertaken that if self-government does not supervene, he will ensure that a proper and thorough review of the governance arrangements will be made before 31 May 1989 and that careful consideration will be given to the recommendations which result from that review. In these circumstances I am prepared to withdraw my motion of disallowance. During the coming months I will carefully monitor developments at the institute. Senator McMULLAN(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-This discussion in so far as it relates to the arrangements for governance of the Canberra Institute of the Arts is not really about democracy in the institute or efficiency in its management. I regret to say that it is essentially about cheer-chasing. It is about the pursuit of every little interest group that might have the capacity to deliver one or more votes to the Australian Democrats. There are two very good reasons why this is the wrong time to be making a major review of the management arrangements for the Canberra Institute of the Arts. First is the impending, we hope, onset of self-government. It seems to me that what is taking place now proves exactly why this Senate and the Federal Government are inappropriate bodies to be making decisions about governance of Canberra-based tertiary institutions, as they were for making decisions about the structure of the Schools Authority or institutes of technical and further education. It is entirely inappropriate that we should be having this debate in this chamber at this time, but there is no other forum pending self-government. The first thing to do is to say that we should not be making such major institutional changes on what should be, with a reasonable level of cooperation, the eve of self-government. Secondly, we have the Green Paper on the structure of tertiary education in Australia, which at the moment is undergoing serious and important discussion, and that discussion should go ahead in a context in which the Canberra Institute of the Arts can properly be examined. I wish in a moment to come back to say something specific about the Institute of the Arts and its future. The Government and the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch)-I acknowledge that Senator Jenkins also referred quite properly to this-are not inflexible on the subject of governance. There are the changes to which Senator Jenkins correctly referred, in particular the undertaking that a review will take place within 12 months. I am happy to say also that the Minister, in response to approaches by other senators including me, is prepared to give a guarantee that he will ensure that the advisory council will include at least one member with qualifications and interest in music and one member with qualifications and interest in arts and crafts. I regard that as an appropriate guarantee. I suspect that without the guarantee that would have taken place anyway, but it is appropriate to make that clear. I have been to look at the institute. I have visited and spoken with the staff and the students. I value the institute. I think that it will make an outstanding contribution and will develop as a centre of excellence, but the point I want to make in addition to the general points I have made about its governance, is that at the moment it needs stability. It has just gone through the amalgamation process. The last thing we need is constant discussion about the process of review and change in the organisation. We do not want a discussion about it being amalgamated with the Australian National University or the Canberra College of Advanced Education or about changing its governing body every week, every month or every few months. I think it needs a bit of stability, and it does not need cheer chasing or a cast of thousands. It needs appropriate interim arrangements. In my view, in the long term the current management arrangements will not last and they will need to be changed. I have some views in relation to those long term modifications and I have expressed them to the Minister. At the moment the institute needs a period of stability and it is entirely appropriate that these interim arrangements should persist either until there is self-government or at least for a period of 12 months to provide the badly needed stability. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia) —by leave-The coalition is pleased with the development of the Canberra Institute of the Arts combining the Schools of Music and Arts and acknowledges that there were some problems. As a consequence of negotiations that we, I suppose like the Australian Democrats, have had with the Government, the Government has now given certain undertakings as mentioned by Senator McMullan, namely, that the matter will be reviewed within an acceptable period and, of the five members to be appointed to the Council by the Minister, at least one will have specific qualifications in the visual arts and crafts and at least one will have specific qualifications and/or expertise in the music area. This does not satisfy all the complaints of the Democrats but, with respect to those complaints, I agree with Senator McMullan that the position of the Democrats has been something akin to cheer chasing. I am surprised that Senator McMullan felt the need to mention that because even those of us who have not been in this chamber for very long-myself, for example, with only three years experience-take that as the status quo with respect to most proposals put forward by the Democrats. Therefore, it seems to me that it does not need to be mentioned on every occasion. Suffice to say that we agree that the Government's undertakings will improve the situation. We are satisfied with that and are therefore pleased that the Democrats have seen the error of their ways and are withdrawing their disallowance motion. Appropriation and Supply Bills Consideration resumed. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Richardson) read a third time. Debate resumed from 27 April, on motion by Senator Cook: That the Bill be now read a second time. Amendment (by Senator Stone) put: At end of motion, add: ``, but the Senate notes: (a) Australia's $86.77 billion net foreign debt at the end of December 1987 and its continuing balance of payments deficit on the current account which increased by $1185 million during March 1988; (b) the Government's inappropriate response, which has been to increase taxation revenue collections to the highest levels in post-war Australia; and (c) the urgent need to reduce public sector outlays as the major element of a Government policy response to our current economic difficulties''. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Bishop, B. K. Newman, J. M.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Panizza, J. H.Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R.Calvert, P. H. Patterson, K. C. L.Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chapman, H. G. P. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J.Hill, R. M. Teague, B. C.Knowles, S. C. Vanstone, A. E.Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. G. Haines, J.Beahan, M. E. Harradine, B.Black, J. R. Jenkins, J. A.Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Burns, B. R. McLean, P. A.Childs, B. K. McMullan, R. F.Coates, J. Macklin, M. J.Collins, R. L. Maguire, G. R.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Baume, Peter Button, J. N.Boswell, R. L. D. Evans, GarethPuplick, C. J. G. Jones, G. N.Walters, M. S. Morris, J. J.Watson, J. O. W. Walsh, P. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Motion (by Senator Richardson) agreed to: (1) That clauses 1 to 14 be postponed till after the consideration of the Schedule. (2) That, unless otherwise ordered, the votes in the Schedule be considered in the same groupings and order as the departmental estimates referred to the Estimates Committees A, B, C, D, E and F, respectively as follows. Page in Bill Division No. Department Amount $ Group A 25 380, 381, 384, 385, 387-389 Industry, Technology and Commerce 76,230,000 28 500, 513, 516, 517, 519, 520 Prime Minister and Cabinet 4,718,000 24 365, 367-370 Industrial Relations 1,524,000 Group B 30 660, 662-665 Transport and Communications 3,282,000 21 315-318 Foreign Affairs and Trade 9,280,000 Group C 20 304-306 Finance 1,900,000 31 670-673 Treasury 13,382,000 17 270, 272-276 Employment, Education and Training 30,587,000 Group D 23 360 Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs 6,080,000 27 490-494 Primary Industries and Energy 3,420,000 14 200, 201, 206 Community Services and Health 5,015,000 15 219-222 Veterans' Affairs 40,906,000 Group E 12 165-169, 171-173, 177-182 Attorney-General's 7,878,000 19 215, 216 Aboriginal Affairs 1,816,000 16 230, 241-245 Defence 250,568,000 7 115, 116, 118, 120 Administrative Services 13,591,000 Group F 9 135, 136, 144-146, 149, 150, 153-158 The Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories 16,854,000 29 560 Social Security 14,005,000 (3) That leave be given to senators to move motions expressing opinions or making recommendations based on the reports of the Estimates Committees; that such motions be moved when the appropriate vote is under consideration; that where more than one motion is proposed in relation to a particular vote, the motions may be debated together, but in all cases a motion or motions shall be disposed of before the question is put on the vote before the Chair; and that any resolutions be reported when the Chairman makes his report to the President at the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the Whole. GROUP A Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce Proposed expenditure, $76,230,000 (Quorum formed) Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Proposed expenditure-$4,718,000-agreed to. Department of Industrial Relations Proposed expenditure-$1,524,000-agreed to. GROUP B Department of Transport and Communications Proposed expenditure-$3,282,000-agreed to. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Proposed expenditure-$9,280,000-agreed to. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(8.27) —Madam Temporary Chairman, I draw your attention to page A71 of the Senate Estimates Committee A Hansard for 19 April. This relates to the activities of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet but is under the heading of Estimates Committee E. Even though the matter clearly relates to Group A, the fact is that I was certainly misled by the Hansard heading which led me to expect that we would deal with this matter under consideration of Group E. I move: That the Estimates of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet be recommitted. Question resolved in the affirmative. GROUP A Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Proposed expenditure, $4,718,000 Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(8.28) —Thank you, Madam Temporary Chairman. The Senate will have noticed that I have taken some interest in the matter of Kirribilli House, where over the last two years large amounts of money have been spent. This was discussed at some length at the Estimates Committee A meeting. Of course, the matter has been raised in the Senate on some occasions. However, as a result of a question by Senator Bishop supplementary information has been provided by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet relating to the very serious matter of who actually has been using Kirribilli House and what has been the purpose of spending $750,000 on it. The Senate will recall that $500,000 of that expenditure related to structural changes. That took place in the last financial year. This resulted from reports on the need for structural changes dating back, I think, to 1978 but which were eventually undertaken by the Hawke Government when, in fact, Mr Hawke as I understand it declared the work to be a matter of urgency. Despite the belt tightening that everyone else was undertaking the work had to be done on Kirribilli House. Coincidentally as I recall, this corresponded with the cost for work that was being done on the Lodge. Everyone else's belt got tightened except the Prime Minister's. We were told originally that $250,000 to be spent on refurbishing Kirribilli House in the current financial year was because it would be needed for use by guests of government during the bicentennial celebrations. Senator Sheil —They have Caucus meetings there. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The point has been made very well by the distinguished senator from Queensland that Caucus meetings are held there. The response that Kirribilli House was needed for the use of guests of government during the bicentennial year was total bunkum. No guests of government at all have stayed there. Senator Collins —You are just upset because you don't get invited there any more. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —That is a nice point by the honourable senator from the Northern Territory. I hope that he enjoys the comfort of visiting Kirribilli House. Senator Collins —We did. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —He says that he did, which appears to put the lie to the proposition that it is not capable of being occupied because it is under reconstruction. Maybe it is the visits by the honourable senator from the Northern Territory that have rendered the place uninhabitable. That may be so. The reality that disturbs me is this: the $250,000 worth of refurbishing that has gone on in Kirribilli House, we discovered, related to only five rooms; five downstairs rooms were redecorated in Kirribilli House. That represents about $50,000 a room which is about as much as most Australians would spend on building a house. The simple proposition that emerges, apart from the self-indulgence involved, is this: Let us examine the uses to which Kirribilli House has been put under the Hawke Government. This is the essential point: under the previous Government, Kirribilli House was used substantially as a place of accommodation for visiting guests of government. In the last five years of the Fraser Government, 54 visiting guests of government occupied Kirribilli House at one stage or another. Those guests included President Karamanlis of Greece; Mr Gerald Ford, a former President of the United States, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester; Mr Muldoon; Princess Anne; the Governor-General of Fiji and Mr Gundelach of the European Communities-a whole host of very impressive foreign visitors. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of those who have been guests of government in Kirribilli House over the last 10 years. I am sorry that I did not have an opportunity to clear this with the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson), who is at the table, beforehand because of the confusion that seemed to emerge about what was happening. Leave granted. The list read as follows- KIRRIBILLI HOUSE-GUESTS OF GOVERNMENT 1978/79 Duke and Duchess of Gloucester Mr A. Foschi, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Italy President Bongo, Gabon Mr Mochta, Foreign Minister, Indonesia H. E. Brigadier General Hla Tun, Minister for Construction, Burma Duke and Duchess of Gloucester Princess Alice Hon. G. Valesco, Minister for Energy, Philippines H. E. Choi Kyu Hah, Prime Minister of South Korea Hon. G. Valesco, Minister for Energy, Philippines Mr F. Gundelach, Vice President European Communities 1979/80 Princess Anne Mr Muldoon, Prime Minister of New Zealand Mr C. Conger, Curator of the White House, USA Mr Muldoon, Prime Minister of New Zealand Mr Tengku Ahmad Rithauddeen, Foreign Minister, Malaysia Hon. A. Barbara, Minister for Labour, Culture and Welfare, Malta Professor Zain, Minister for Manpower and Transmigration, Indonesia Air Marshall Rusmin Nurydin, Minister for Communications, Indonesia Mr G. Zorreguita, Minister for Agriculture, Argentina Governor-General of Fiji Hon. Dr. G. P. Sicat, National Economic Planning and Development Authority, Philippines Dr Goh Keng Swee, Deputy Prime Minister, Singapore 1980/81 Prime Minister of Western Samoa Mr F. Gundelach, Vice President, European Communities Governor-General of Fiji Rt. Hon. R. Prentice, Minister for Health and Social Security, United Kingdom Mr Lee Khoon Choy, Special Minister of State, Singapore Sir Julius Chan, Prime Minister of Papua and New Guinea Sheikh Yamani, Minister for Petroleum and Mineral Resources, Saudi Arabia Rt. Hon. J. Callaghan, United Kingdom Professor Willem Albeda, Minister for Social Affairs, Netherlands Rt. Hon. James Callaghan, United Kingdom Mr J. Coors, United States of America 1981/82 Governor-General of Solomon Islands Dr Hamm Brucher, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Germany Hon. K. St. Ange, Minister for Agriculture, Seychelles Mr E. Van Lennep, Secretary General OECD Prime Minister of Western Samoa President Banda, Malawi Mr G. Ford (Ex President), USA Mr P. Sternback, Finland Mr Chun, Minister for Health, South Korea Mr G. Thorn, President, European Communities President Karamalis, Greece H. M. King Carl Gustaf, Sweden Mr W. Birch, Minister for Energy, New Zealand Mr Tong Dalin, Vice Minister for Science and Technology, China Prime Minister of Fiji 1982/83 Hon. M. G. Westh, Minister for Agriculture, Denmark H.R.H. Prince Edward Prime Minister of Fiji 1983/84 Prime Minister of Solomon Islands 1984/85 Mr Abdurahman Jama Barre, Foreign Minister, Somalia Mr Perez de Cuellar, Secretary-General, United Nations H. E. Nguyen Ngoc Triu, Minister for Agriculture, Vietnam 1985/86 Mr Jean-Claude Paye, Secretary-General OECD Mr J. Bemananjara, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Madagascar 1986/87 Nil 1987/88 (to date) Nil Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the Minister and the Committee. The list has been submitted by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in response to a question by Senator Bronwyn Bishop. While I have said that there were 54 such visitors during the time of the Fraser Government, in the five years of the present Government there have been just six visitors. That is an average of 1.2 visiting guests of government per year as against an average of 11 in the last five years of the Fraser Government. We have a clear indication then of what this is all about, do we not? We have a clear indication that, under the Hawke empire, Kirribilli House is reserved for the near-exclusive use of the Prime Minister when he is in Sydney, as he has given up his place of residence in Melbourne. Senator Maguire —You are only jealous that you don't get invited. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the honourable senator for the interjection about my jealousy on this point, but I assure him that if this kind of self-indulgence proceeds, which it has for five years, and becomes more and more drawn to the attention of the Australian people, it will assist in the removal of the present Prime Minister and his cohorts who look on these places as something like the fruits of office to be rorted and misused for their own benefit. The figures on usage dramatise that at no stage was it the Government's genuine intention to spend three-quarters of a million dollars on Kirribilli House for the benefit of visiting guests of government during the Bicentennial. That was a fraud. This chamber was misled. The Parliament was treated with the usual contempt that the Government shows. The people of Australia were ripped off so that a comfortable and nicely decorated place of residence could be provided for the Prime Minister in Sydney. I believe that this is an absolute disgrace. I will be interested to see whether the Government has any plans for any visiting guests of government, during what remains of the bicentennial year, to spend any time whatsoever at Kirribilli House. I would be surprised if it did. I ask the Government, if it does have such plans, whether it would be prepared to share them with us, to let us know, to let the people of Australia know, whether or not the three-quarters of a million dollars spent on it will have any benefits or returns to anyone except the Prime Minister and his cronies, his rich mates who visit him when they are not doing deals like coming to extraordinary arrangements in Western Australia involving the State Government Insurance Corporation. I think that the people of Australia are sick and tired of this kind of self-indulgence. They certainly will not tolerate it at a time when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is insisting that everyone pulls in his belt and that sacrifices should be made. Sacrifices have to be made by everyone except the Prime Minister with Kirribilli House and the Treasurer with his travelling allowance. What an incredible double we have. I draw this matter, once again, to the attention of this chamber simply because in the past we have had an unsatisfactory round of explanations. I believe that we have been deceived about the purpose of this expenditure. I am grateful that Senator Bishop asked the appropriate question that received a very appropriate reply, and that was the list of those who actually stayed at Kirribilli House. I believe that that list demonstrates the utter hypocrisy of this Government. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(8.39) —I think it appropriate for me to respond to some of Senator Michael Baume's remarks. We have to look at this on a number of fronts. First off, there are pretty obvious obligations, indeed statutory obligations, on the part of the Government to look after buildings as significant as Kirribilli House. It is a building in which much of this nation's history is contained. I would have thought that any government that walked away from its duty to preserve it would be doing a grave disservice to the people of Australia. More importantly, one must look at what the building's role really is. In the past, great use has been made of Kirribilli House by former Prime Ministers-- Senator Michael Baume —And visiting guests of government. Senator RICHARDSON —That is quite true. However, once the conclusion is reached that a building is no longer safe, that parts of it are quite literally falling down, the days of having visiting guests of the government there are gone. One would hope that the days of having the Prime Minister there all the time are gone too. I would not like the roof falling on him either. The building had reached a pretty deplorable state. When that happens, it is the duty of the government of the day to take action. As for all of the figures about how many guests of government used to go to Kirribilli House and how many use it today, all that Senator Baume has to realise is that once one comes to the conclusion that a building is unsafe, one does not keep inviting important guests-one brings the Caucus. One has to make sure that the renovations are completed. Once they are completed-and I think July is still the date for that completion-we will again be in a position, where appropriate, again to have visiting guests of government at Kirribilli House and the Prime Minister and, hopefully, a great many more of us will again be able to enjoy the attributes of this very fine building. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(8.41) —It was interesting during the hearings of Estimates Committee A to see how reluctant the departmental people were to give the facts about how Kirribilli House was being treated. They went through a long rigmarole in answer to questions of trying to say that it was really all structural work that was being done and that just the odd bit of wallpaper was being hung. It took an enormous amount of close questioning to ascertain finally the name of the interior decorator and the fact that the $250,000 that was additional to the $500,000 was meant for interior decoration. The average Australian who thinks about decorating his or her home and purchasing curtains, furnishings or carpet does not have that sort of money to spend to live in an opulent manner. It is one thing if one is spending a lot of money on decorating formal reception rooms which are used for visiting heads of state or which are needed for formal functions. All along, the purpose of the departmental evidence was to try to persuade the Committee that that was indeed what was being done. The departmental officers were asked who was responsible for appointing Mr Spode, the interior decorator who was commissioned on the basis of a fixed contract of $8,800 for the period of 9 June 1987 to 2 September 1987. The scope of the work for interior design and decoration, report and estimate of cost was for the following: the refurbishment and decoration of the state areas, which include the drawing room, the dining room, the study hall and the entrance foyer on the ground floor, all of which are formal rooms of state and would be designed in the ordinary context for receptions for visiting heads of government or the like-certainly not as a rumpus room, as it were, for the Prime Minister and perhaps his family; secondly, bedrooms 1 and 2 and the powder room on the ground floor, including bathrooms; and, thirdly, bedrooms 3, 4 and 5, the sitting rooms and the stair hall on the first floor. We learned from evidence that, with the exception of the ground floor apartments, none of these areas have been completed. The excuse was that it was impossible for visitors to stay at Kirribilli House during the period of renovation and redecoration. The fact of the matter is that for the last two years there have been no guests there at all. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his family have been there on many occasions, including the magical spectacle of the bicentennial celebration on Australia Day. What a superb view that must have been, to be envied by many, I would have thought. Yet, we were told that these vast amounts of money were being spent for the sole reason that visiting guests of the government could stay there. As I said earlier today when I addressed this question, it is one thing to say that we are spending public moneys for diplomatic reasons; it is quite another to tart up the building as a second residence for the Prime Minister. It is interesting to note that whereas Mr Spode was appointed on the recommendation, without tender, of the Heritage Committee, it is actually the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet which has been responsible for engaging the workmen and tradesmen to carry out the work under the direction of Mr Spode. As I said, the top floors have not been completed. I will be interested to see whether or not in the next round of Estimates we will see a further allocation of funds. Some people might say that this is a trivial matter. Kirribilli House is a building of importance that graces the shores of Sydney Harbour. It has a prominence and a pre-eminence in the city landscape. For several decades it has traditionally been a place where we could honour people who visit our country shores instead of putting them up in a hotel where enormous amounts of money must be spent on accommodation. I would imagine that a head of government would require a hotel suite at least. With the sorts of rentals that are paid in the downtown Sydney area where there is competition for space and a tourist boom, it is not hard to realise that that would be an excessive demand upon the public purse. The point of raising this matter is that there was an aura of subterfuge around what was going on. Interior decoration was being disguised as renovation and work to make the building safe. Nobody has ever suffered from falling wallpaper. Nobody has ever been in danger because the curtains were not quite up to scratch. Nobody has ever been in danger because the furniture might not have been to the taste of the then incumbent. The point is that we need to be told the facts. The Estimates committees are designed to find out just that. If we do not take cognisance of the facts and we do not bring them to the attention of the Senate and the people as a whole, one extravagance can simply lead to another. We already have a punitive tax in place for fringe benefits. The Government has the holier-than-thou attitude that people who hitherto had fringe benefits somehow have to be penalised. It seems that that is fine for the goose but not for the gander. It seems that we are penalising private citizens but not the most eminent citizen of the day-the Prime Minister. I think this is a serious matter which requires addressing in this chamber. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(8.48) —I can only say that that was an extraordinary outburst from Senator Bishop. There is no validity whatsoever in a claim that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in any way tried to conceal anything about renovations at Kirribilli House. Every question put to the Estimates Committee was answered. Those that could not be answered on the spot were answered later in correspondence, as is the case with every other department. Senator Bishop is no Perry Mason, neither were any of the public servants from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on trial. They all behaved with honour. They did their job and they did it well. The reality is that Senator Bishop came up, as usual, with nothing. Senator Bishop is accustomed to that, and we are accustomed to hearing her bleating about it later. Nothing was done in relation to Kirribilli House of which this Government is ashamed. Nothing was done there that we tried to hide. There is the reality that if a major residence to be used by heads of government from all over the world as well as our own Prime Minister is to remain the sort of building that it is, it needs renovations. If they get put off for years and years, it is not going to be cheap to do it up. We cannot do up a residence by doing up one or two rooms. We have to try to do up all of those rooms where there is a problem if the building is ever again to be used by guests of government. That is what we undertook to do. That is exactly what the Government is doing. We will continue to do that, because that is the responsible way to behave. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Senator Michael Baume —Madam Temporary Chairman, I ask you to clarify a point of procedure. Is it proper to have proceeded to conclude the Committee's consideration of Group B, which includes the Department of Transport and Communications, when replies to questions on notice put to the Department and agencies for which the Minister is responsible, have not been received-although I understand they are being prepared by the Department? It seems to me improper to expect the Senate to deal with appropriations when there are questions, properly asked by senators, to which responses have not yet been submitted to the senators who asked the questions and therefore to the Committee. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Powell) —Senator Baume, I understand that you seek clarification of this point. In the committee stage at least we have proceeded completely in order. That is my clarification to you. I believe that proceedings to date are perfectly in order. Senator Michael Baume —Is there no requirement on any department to answer questions on notice before we deal in committee with that department's appropriations? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —That is correct. GROUP C Department of Finance Proposed expenditure-$1,900,000-agreed to. Department of the Treasury Proposed expenditure, $13,382,000 Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(8.52) —I wish to make a few brief remarks in relation to the votes for the Department of the Treasury. I do so on behalf of my colleague the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, who is absent temporarily from the chamber but who wished to have some remarks entered into the record on a related matter. These remarks derive from a very interesting survey conducted by the Toronto Stock Exchange on employee share ownership in Canada's public corporations. That matter has been very much at the forefront of the Opposition's concerns for some time in this place. I want to quote some passages from the report of the Toronto Stock Exchange on this matter. In particular, it says: . . . this report reveals the phenomenal growth in employee share ownership in Canada in the last three years alone, despite the general absence of governmental tax incentives currently available in the United States and Western Europe. The report goes on to say: This rising popularity of employee share ownership is undoubtedly tied to the positive experiences of employers and employees at Canada's public corporations. At companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange, both workers and managers are expressing strong satisfaction with their- employee share ownership plans; it is interesting to note that- . . . Quantitative analysis also indicates that employee share ownership companies are dramatically out performing their- Toronto Stock Exchange listed- competitors. . . . . The results of our- that is, the Toronto Stock Exchange- 1986 ``Canadian Shareowners'' report also indicate that a significant portion of share owners first enter the market through an- employee share ownership plan. The report goes on to state: As of July, 1986, 63 per cent of the companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange offered at least one form of employee share ownership plan to their employees. . . . . Overwhelmingly, Canadian employers and employees see employee share ownership plans as having had a strongly positive impact on their firms overall, and on their internal and external corporate images. . . . . Employees assert quite strongly that they are proud to own shares in their companies, that employee share ownership plans increase their interest in their companies and that they are in fact quite satisfied with the plans in effect at their firms. The report also states that quantitative analysis indicates that on average employee share ownership companies are `nearly 25 per cent more productive' than their Toronto Stock Exchange listed competitors. The report continues: Employers see a strong and positive relationship between employee share ownership and their firms' profitability. Quantitative analysis indicates that in fact these companies are dramatically outperforming their competitors in terms of profitability, return on equity and return on capital. Further, these companies exhibit significantly lower debt-levels compared to other- Toronto Stock Exchange-listed- firms in their sectors. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Employment, Education and Training Proposed expenditure-$30,587,000-agreed to. GROUP D Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Proposed expenditure, $6,080,000 Department of Primary Industries and Energy Proposed expenditure, $3,420,000 Department of Community Services and Health Proposed expenditure, $5,015,000 Department of Veterans' Affairs Proposed expenditure, $40,906,000 Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(8.57) —I want to ask a question about community services and health. Can the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) advise the Senate whether any agencies receiving funding under the disability services program are experiencing a delay in receiving the subsidies for the 1986-87 financial year, which was prior to the introduction of the Disability Services Act, and whether delays for subsidy funding for projects in the 1987-88 financial year are occurring? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(8.58) —I will have to ask for the Committee's indulgence. If we could proceed to the next question I will endeavour to find out, in the next few moments, the answer to Senator Patterson's question. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.58) —In the meantime, the Minister perhaps could tell me at what locations the Health Insurance Commission will open branches to replace agency services provided by local health funds. Perhaps we ought to wait for the Minister to get some departmental assistance because I do not expect the Minister responsible for the environment to be able to answer questions in the area of health. If he does not have departmental help we ought to report progress until the Minister gets that assistance. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Powell) —Is it the wish of the Committee that the consideration of the votes for Group D be postponed and that the Committee proceed to the next group of votes? Senator WALTERS —I point out that that could throw out the proceedings of the whole Committee. At the moment there are people in the chamber expecting to be able to ask questions about the other departments at a later stage tonight. The fact that the Government has not got its act together and got departmental advisers here to advise the Minister is not the problem of the Opposition. We ought to report progress until the departmental officers have arrived to give the Minister the assistance he justifiably needs. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(8.59) —The difficulty we are facing is that a number of votes have gone through this place at an extraordinary speed. I, for one, am not accustomed to seeing votes for the departments of Finance, Treasury, and Employment, Education and Training being passed in five minutes. Senator McKiernan —Don't knock it. Senator RICHARDSON —I am not discouraging it, but I point out to Senator Walters that it really is unusual and I think that everyone in the committee could acknowledge that that is the case. The normal procedures on the nights when we are considering the Estimates is that we start with Group A. Normally that gives us more than enough time to have people here when we reach Group C. On this occasion it is unfortunate that we have gone through so quickly. We have not been able to get the Health and Community Services people here and I am not able to answer the questions that have just been asked. However, every effort is being made. I hope that within a matter of minutes that situation will be rectified and I will be able to provide the answers which Senator Walters seeks. Accordingly I am really not asking for much of an indulgence-hopefully, only a matter of minutes. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.02) —Again, I point out that I think the Committee should report progress until officers of the Department arrive to assist the Minister in the provision of answers. Accordingly, I move: That progress be reported. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator Stone —Madam Temporary Chairman, the Committee has just approved a motion that you report progress. I know that you cannot report progress unless you have someone to report to, but I suggest that some action be taken to ensure that that can be done. Senator Walsh —I suggest that rather than reporting progress it would be more sensible to move on to Group E. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —A motion has been passed by the Committee that progress be reported, and progress will be reported in due course. Progress reported. Debate resumed from 20 April, on motion by Senator Robert Ray: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.05) —I want to take this opportunity to make a couple of comments about what I see as some very significant difficulties in the Government's administration of its Aboriginal affairs programs. I want to say something about what I see as being the enormous gap between the Government's rhetoric and its performance. The Government claims to believe in consultation with Aboriginal people, it claims to be responsive to Aboriginal people, and yet we have just seen the quite extraordinary circumstance of the Government either dismissing or purporting to dismiss eight of the commissioners of the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC). I will be very careful in what I say about this because I think the court is still mulling over some of the final details of that, although I gather that the court has already held today that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) was entitled to issue the first ever direction to the Aboriginal Development Commission-that which was issued in April and which was one of the forerunners of the subsequent dismissal or purported dismissal of the commissioners of the Aboriginal Development Commission. This does warrant comment when one recalls the acres of rhetoric that have been expended in this chamber from Labor spokesmen such as the late Jim Keefe, whose passing we all mourned a few days ago, through to Susan Ryan, and many people who have taken an interest in this area. It is hard to try to match that rhetoric against this reality. The fact of the matter is that the Minister has found it necessary-whether legally or not is irrelevant in terms of the comments that I want to make-to dismiss those people because they are putting views which he does not find satisfactory. In an earlier debate in this place, I indicated that my own brief attempt at consultation in the Kimberley region, where I visited a number of Aboriginal communities, had left me very concerned about the actual understanding of the Aboriginal people as to what the Government was proposing. For that reason I have a great deal of sympathy for the sort of position which was adopted by the Aboriginal Development Commission and which was represented by the statement that was put out recently by Shirley McPherson, the Chairman of the Aboriginal Development Commission. I shall quote from that statement. She was commenting on the fact that the Minister had announced on 27 April his intention to proceed with the establishment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) in a form somewhat modified from that announced on 10 December 1987. Mrs McPherson went on to say: These modifications do not adequately address the major concerns expressed by the Commission and a significant number of Aboriginal communities and organisations. These concerns have been drawn to the attention of the Minister and are included in the Commission's Alternative Strategy Discussion paper. They can be summarised as follows. Inadequacy of consultation with Aboriginal bodies and communities, in terms of: the time given for consultation failure to offer any alternatives complexity of issues to be addressed absence of a complete proposal lack of adequate replies to questions. If I could comment on that first series of objections that have been made by Mrs McPherson, the fact of the matter is that each of the Aboriginal communities that I met-and I had discussions with representatives of those communities-in the week before Easter certainly reflected some or all of these deficiencies raised by Mrs McPherson. The one thing that I would say in favour of what the Minister was doing is that there was among many of those Aboriginal people a view that they wanted change. That view flowed from their dissatisfaction with the status quo, the fact that they felt that what they were getting at the moment was not adequate, was not working properly, or was being delivered in a confused manner. Mostly, I think their complaints flowed from the fact that they thought that they were not getting sufficient assistance. However, it was quite clear that none of them had a very definite idea of what it was that the Minister was proposing, other than that he held out some hope to them that there might be greater grassroots or local control of programs. That was something that they certainly favoured. The second objection made by Mrs McPherson in her statement on behalf of the ADC is that there was an extension of ministerial authority at the expense of genuine Aboriginal control over their own affairs. Nothing could more clearly have demonstrated the correctness of that statement by the ADC than the actions of the Minister himself over recent weeks. The fact is that this Government has shown itself incapable of working with those Aboriginals who wish to put a strongly contrary view. Senators such as Senator Gietzelt have been in the chamber for a long time during which they have witnessed the conduct of Aboriginal affairs, sometimes in the hands of their colleagues, such as Senator Cavanagh. I ask Senator Gietzelt to look back at the difficult times we had, for example, with the National Aboriginal Conference and other Aboriginal bodies established by the previous Government or indeed by the Whitlam Government, which the honourable senator supported. I ask him to try to remember any occasion on which a government has responded as the Government he now supports has responded by sacking Aboriginal spokesmen who have dared to put a view seen by the Minister as obstructive. I must say that had I taken that attitude to the National Aboriginal Conference I would have been chased out of this chamber by irate members of the Australian Labor Party. I believe that there are gross double standards operating in this chamber, because I do not believe that honourable senators opposite impose the same tests on their own Government as they were prepared to impose so fully and freely on the Government of which I was a part. I say that without any real fear of contradiction. The reality is that this Government has deprived the Aboriginal people of any genuine national voice except to the extent that the Aboriginal Development Commission can make that claim. What the Government has done is expose the Aboriginal people to being spoken for by the Michael Mansells of this world. At least, when we were in government and we had the National Aboriginal Conference, there was a group of Aboriginal people, ranging from the most tribalised to the least tribalised. We had everything from the Fitzroy push and the Sydney push to the Arnhem Landers. Those people came together-not always a comfortable experience for them or for us-and a representative opinion was hammered out. Government could talk with that diverse group in a way that enabled it at last to achieve some sort of understanding of the broad Aboriginal viewpoint. Now we have people who are largely self-appointed. Michael Mansell is the high profile example of someone who is causing so many people to react against the Aboriginal people. Representatives of land councils are fulfilling their statutory function in their little bit of Australia, whether it is the Northern Land Council, the Tiwis, the Central Land Council or whatever. In Western Australia and Queensland there are self-appointed land councils, but there is no voice that can truly be said to represent the broad range of Aboriginal opinion. The Government has cost us that voice. It is all very well for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to talk about consultation, but in fact who does speak for the Aboriginal people? All I can say is that my recent visits to the Northern Territory and the north of my State of Western Australia have satisfied me that there is vast dissatisfaction with this Government's administration of Aboriginal affairs. That dissatisfaction falls broadly into two areas, and I am sorry to have to divide it on a racial basis. The white, non-Aboriginal community is thoroughly disgusted with what it sees as waste and ineffective delivery of services and as the negatives that have flowed from what it sees as throwing money at problems. I have already said in the Senate that all senators should be deeply concerned about the depth of feeling on this issue in the community. In a sense, the communities that are the closest to the concentration of Aboriginals feel it most strongly. That situation applies in the north but also, for example, in suburban Perth, in those suburbs where substantial Aboriginal minorities live cheek by jowl, often with relatively disadvantaged Australians. In such cases there is quite enormous resentment and ill feeling. In no sense do I say that that resentment and ill feeling are appropriate. However, I believe that we need to understand that a great deal of what is being done by governments has had a negative effect. I do not suggest that this trend started only when the Labor Party took office. There has been a cumulative effect, but the situation is far worse today than it was five years ago, as almost any Aboriginal or white person involved in this field will confirm. I suggest that honourable senators opposite ask a few people involved, because I am sure they will find almost universal confirmation of what I have said. In the non-Aboriginal community, I find an extraordinary number of people who are totally fed up with what is going on. There is therefore a great lack of sympathy with the efforts of so many good Aboriginal people to do something for themselves. There is tremendous dissatisfaction with government in general. Among Aboriginal people-and of course there is an enormous variety of views-I can only say that many of the Aboriginal people whom I know to be close supporters of the Labor Party and active in the Labor Party are greatly dissatisfied with the Government and its approach. I want to comment on the general reputation of the Minister's office. Minister Hand is properly and widely perceived as a decent and humane person. However, he is also widely perceived as living in a castle, not literally a castle but with walls around him that mean that he is not really accessible. I know that he has spent a lot of time on the road and in consulting. We have heard details of that and I thought that, in a recent debate in this chamber, Senator Collins put a very good case for the Minister in terms of the consultation there had been in relation to ATSIC. I simply want to put on the public record that the uniform reaction I get wherever I go around Australia-and sometimes it is from people who approach me and sometimes from people whom I approach-is to categorise the Minister's office as not reaching out or being responsive to the community and not being realistic. Thus I believe the Government has a real problem in this area. I am not sure what is the source of the problem. However, the Government should not ignore the growing community disenchantment that often spills over into resentment, and the widespread lack of confidence in the Government's administration of Aboriginal affairs, an attitude that I believe reaches deeply into the Department. I have reached the point at which I almost wish not to speak to a member of the Department because I am told that under this Government to be seen talking to me is regarded very suspiciously. I despise that attitude. I have never obtained any illicit information from a public servant from a department that I previously administered. I have a healthy respect for the professional approach of the bulk of the Aboriginal Affairs officers of my acquaintance. However, in passing I point out that I choose not to indulge that acquaintance, as I am told that contact with me is not seen positively by people in the Government. That indicates a pathetic siege mentality and lack of comprehension of what these problems are really all about. On the necessarily anecdotal and incidental evidence that I have been able to pick up, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is in a mess. Its morale is low, and that is an indictment of the Minister and his office. He is responsible for that; no-one else can be responsible for it. If there is a combination of a lack of realism at the Government level, a lack of involvement and of any positive sense in the Department, and an unrealistic approach to programs that leads to the white reaction I have described and to the black disillusionment I have described, then there is a formula for further disaster in this area. I turn now to the complaints of the Aboriginal Development Commission. The third complaint made by Mrs McPherson is: The proposed amalgamation of welfare and commercial business promoting functions, the latter to be administered in a public service environment. I have mixed feelings about that objection because I believe that one of the significant problems for Aboriginal communities is the diversity of administrations with which they have to deal. Earlier in debate in the Senate I made the point that, for example, at Red Hill outside Hall's Creek, I found contractors who had been retained from somewhere in the Northern Territory. They were carrying out quite expensive plumbing work on roofs, installing hot water systems. The taps to which the hot water systems were connected were broken. It was not part of the contract to fix them. That is a tiny example of the sort of thing that flows from divided administrations. That is why I simply put a question mark next to that element of Mrs McPherson's complaint. I think that in the main she is right to be concerned about mixing up welfare and commercial and business promoting functions. I can understand the Government's motivation in trying to find some more common administration which might ease some of the confusion which afflicts many Aboriginal communities because of the variety of agencies with which they have to deal. Within her summary of objections, she then points to the failure to demonstrate anywhere that ATSIC will better serve Aboriginal interests and needs. Again I can only say that, on the discussions I had with Aboriginal people, that failure seems to be borne out. The uncertainty that I found was in the fact that none of the Aboriginals to whom I spoke really seemed to know what these different bodies would actually have responsibility for and the power to make decisions about. Simple questions about just what authority would be given to the different levels of activity that have been described seemed to elicit no sensible response. The people freely confessed that they did not know the answers. Mrs McPherson goes on to put as another objection the dissipation of the ADC asset base and the destruction of the only portfolio organisation that has been able to meet its recurrent costs from internally generated revenue. If there are elements of the ADC that are working well, if from an economic point of view it is able to meet its recurrent costs from internally generated revenue, I would suggest that that is a sign of some progress at which the Government should look very carefully. It is always easy to look as if one is doing something in the area of Aboriginal Affairs by chucking out what is there and starting something new. That is a terrific thing to do because everyone is always dissatisfied with what is there, so the theory is that one will probably make some progress. But the reality is that, if one has something that is working, it is a pretty good idea to hang on to it. I believe that messing around with ATSIC and the absorption of the ADC is certainly unwise if it picks up operating, functioning bodies that are performing a useful role and doing so reasonably efficiently. That is an objection which the Government should be examining very carefully. The sixth objection is that the imposition of taxation of dividend payments to the Commonwealth on profits generated by the ADC will adversely affect the level of revenue funds returned to Aboriginal programs, as with the ADC at present. That is really just a double accounting matter and I will pass on beyond it. Mrs McPherson says: The more difficult and expensive administration of ATSIC compared to the ADC Alternative which is expected to be far more cost-effective with savings estimated at $5m. I have read from Mrs McPherson's Press release and her objections do not sound like ravings; they do not sound like ratbag comments and they certainly do not sound the sort of comments which should lead to the dismissal of the person who has made them and the group that put them forward. They seem to me to be quite challenging points which I would have thought that a government that was genuinely committed to consultation with Aboriginal people would be prepared to meet. I can only say that I wish that the National Aboriginal Conference had been quite as polite in the way in which it put its objections to me from time to time. I found the NAC fairly rude, tough and rough at times. But I never actually got to the point where I thought I should find out how to sack the members of it. I want to touch on another area which is up for grabs. I may be out of date-perhaps the Government has decided to back off on this-but the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies was one of the bodies to be absorbed. I suppose to most people the Government would say, `Well, why not bundle all these things up together; it should be neater'. It always seemed to me that the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies was a fairly good unit. The legislation was passed back in 1964-it is not exactly novel. It was passed back in the days when we were first trying to come to grips with this area and it authorised the Institute to promote Aboriginal studies, publish or support publication of the results of research, encourage and assist cooperation among universities, museums and other institutions concerned with Aboriginal studies, and assist these organisations to train research workers in Aboriginal studies. I merely wish to say that when I was Minister-some 14 years after the foundation of the Institute-I found it an absolute goldmine of information, of access to people. It was a superb resource. It had a detachment from government; it was essentially an academic institution although it would be fair to say that whilst Dr Peter Ucko was principal it was under the control of an extremely political man who certainly had an agenda of his own. I say that with respect, but I always regarded him as a person with very strong political-but not party political-inclinations. But the important thing was that there was a huge body of knowledge gathered together. It was a meeting place for scholars from the university and other institutes. Some of the work was intensely practical. Let me give a very quick example. I always remember believing that Aboriginal studies were probably the key to promoting better community attitudes-that all one had to do was better explain to the people of Australia what the Aboriginal people were like and all these difficult attitudes would disappear. That was my optimistic assessment in 1978. One might say that a 37-year-old who had that view showed a certain lack of sense, but it was my view. It was the institute which exposed me to some lines of thought which are important in determining how we get to this problem of adverse attitudes to Aboriginal people. Part of it is a problem of inefficiency, of promoting unreal expectations and of unreal demands by Aboriginals. We understand all that. But I think there are more difficult questions. I recall the work of Barbara Chambers, who had worked with student teachers and researched the impact of Aboriginal studies programs on trainee teachers. I probably do her research less than justice, but I sum it up by saying that it is suggested that some courses of Aboriginal studies actually increase negative attitudes. Max Kamien, who wrote The Dark People of Bourke, is now the Professor of Community Medicine in Perth. He draws a very similar conclusion. This is the sort of thing which I think well-meaning politicians from the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia are unlikely to access through their own unguided efforts. I just quote that as a simple example. In terms of access to Aboriginal people and people who gave one a chance to communicate with remote communities such as Aurukun, Mornington Island and others, the Institute was a really superb resource. Why muck it up? Why not leave it alone? I cannot understand why that body has to be interfered with at all. It should be left alone and under the chairmanship of Ken Colbung or whoever is selected under its constitution. It should be left as an independent body. It should continue to promote the studies of a people who are unique in their cultures and something which is a marvellous part of Australia. I really think that to mess it up and to involve it in these quite difficult and disparate problems of administration programs and so on is just nonsense. It may be that it can be shoved off in a corner of its own, but I make a plea for leaving the Institute of Aboriginal Studies as a free-standing institution. I ask honourable senators opposite to think of the contribution of people such as the late Jim Keeffe, who for many years served on that institute, as did people such as Senator Peter Baume, I for a very brief period and Senator Teague for a long period. There has been involvement at that level by a whole series of us and it is absurd that that body should be caught up in this sort of reorganisation. It is the triumph of some airy-fairy theory over any long term consideration of what we have been trying to achieve for 20 years. I wanted to talk on these matters because I do not, for a moment, suggest that there is any lack of goodwill on the part of the Government; I think there is a lack of sense. I believe that there are within the Government resources which, if utilised, could ensure that the Government approached this matter with greater sense. On the part of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs there needs to be a far greater preparedness to look over the walls, outside his office. He needs to listen in the sense of being prepared to comprehend that a view contrary to his own may indeed be right. He has to be prepared to listen to a great range of people, even if he starts off within his own Party and with members of his Party who, in the Northern Territory, have had simple and direct experience. In the last week I was able to have a brief conversation with Stan Tipiloura from Bathurst and Wesley Lanhupuy from Milingimbi. I would suggest that an honest listening to those two would be an advantage. I suggest that, if the Minister were to talk to his Labor Party colleagues who have so messed up Aboriginal affairs in Western Australia, he might learn something. The fact is that the Labor Party in Western Australia made a whole series of silly promises which were beyond its capacity to keep and which my Party fiercely fought and tried to prevent it from keeping, in terms of land rights, for example. If the Minister were to talk to people within the Western Australian Labor Party who have had constant contact with the Aboriginal people over the last five or more years and who have been active in the promotion of policies in that area, I suspect-and I can say no more than that I suspect it-that he would get some pretty conservative views about the approach that should be adopted. He would get careful views about concentrating on the practical needs that exist and on the desire of Aboriginal people to see the practical problems they have in their lives tackled-not with a lot of rhetoric, not with a whole lot of reorganisation, but simply with a devotion to detail on the ground and putting in place accountable administrations of the sorts that have been established in the Northern Territory. What is being done in the Northern Territory in the local government model is a real step forward. I am glad to see Senator Collins nodding in agreement. It is a transfer of power in a sensible and realistic way, with accountability both to the taxpayer and to the community that is being served. I conclude by saying to the Labor senators opposite that, in the apparent conflict between the role of community councils and the role of traditional land owners in the Northern Territory, they should stop to think about whether they believe in the feudal system. I think some Labor people are supporting what is essentially the feudal system. They are supporting the rights of land owners over the rights of the community. I am trying to put this in terms which will enable those opposite to see how ridiculous it is to support some of the things they do. They are denying people the right to run their communities in a sensible way in the interests of all. In my view, they are denying basic democracy. Labor members are hung up on arguments about theory which they do not relate to their general political beliefs in the rights of man. I think we waste a great deal of time, cause a great deal of misery and serve the Aboriginal people ill. I asked Wesley Lanhupuy a question on the way to Darwin. I said, `Twenty years ago there was a really good group of young Aboriginal people coming forward to do the job-people like you, Galarrwuy and Gagil. Where is the next generation?'. I am talking about the period in which I was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I take my share of the blame, but I say that this Government is going backwards. I am sick of it, the Australian people are sick of it and Labor members should wake up to themselves and stop messing around. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(9.35) —Like Senator Chaney, I am angry about the administration of Aboriginal affairs and the Government's ballsing up of what should be a very decent area of administration. The estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs were quite penetrating and revealing in the areas which Senator Chaney has just highlighted and as to some of the aspects he has brought into the debate today. The fact is that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) since his elevation to office has chosen basically to ignore the Aboriginal Development Commission. The document he presented to the Parliament last December entitled Foundations for the Future, comprising his initial proposals to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, is nothing but a document that seeks to nobble, to constrain and to put away the functions and role of the Aboriginal Development Commission, particularly in the areas of commerce, enterprise and participation in the general run of life by Aboriginals. The proposed new Commission raises as many problems as it will seek to solve. There have already been other debates on this subject in this place, but the fact that the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission is to embrace not only all the present functions of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs but also all the functions of the Aboriginal Development Commission, the Institute of Aboriginal Studies and many of the education functions of the other government departments does not augur well for the future development of Aboriginal policies throughout Australia. As Senator Chaney outlined, it seemed to be almost totally unnecessary that in the last week or so a body as eminently successful as the Aboriginal Development Commission had to take the Minister to court to seek to establish several things. Although a judgment has been handed down today relating to the Minister's direction to the Commission and whether or not that is lawful, it should not have been necessary. We know that before the court tomorrow will be addressed the issue of the Minister's sacking of eight out of 10 commissioners of the Aboriginal Development Commission and a proposal for him to appoint additional new temporary members. It smacks of blackmail and intimidation by a Minister who could not face up to decent, genuine and thorough criticism and the presentation of alternative policies in his own area of administration. Last December, at the time the Minister put forward the proposals, he invited everyone in the community-black, white, departmental representatives and so on-to participate in that debate. The fact that 10 commissioners, all Aboriginal, chose to put forward views that were contrary to some of those in the Minister's own document shows him in that instance to have been nothing but gutless. Let us look at the people sacked by the Minister. I wonder whether anyone in the Labor Party would dare to suggest in this place that the Reverend Ossie Cruse, John Atkinson, Andrew Thomas, Helen Williams, Ben Ward, Lena Passi, Marie Thompson and Phillip Yanner would have been other than competent and proper Aboriginal people to represent the communities in which they have an interest throughout Australia. I do not believe that any one of them would have been called into question either on this side of the Parliament or on the Government side. I believe that two members of the Commission from the Northern Territory were nominated by my colleague Senator Collins. His friend the Minister, Mr Hand, has sacked them. With whom does the Minister propose to replace these people? Let me read the new list of the proposed appointments which are up before the courts to see whether it can proceed: Mr Patrick Dodson, Director of the Central Land Council and Co-ordinator of the Federation of Land Councils; Lois O'Donoghue, Chairman of Aboriginal Hostels Ltd, one of the bodies proposed to be gobbled up; Terence O'Shane, Secretary of the Njiku Jowan Legal Service and Chairman of the Woobera Muralug Housing Co-operative in Cairns; Mr Getano Lui Jr, Chairman of the Island Co-ordinating Council of Torres Strait Islands; Charles Perkins, Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs; Peter Yu, Executive Director of Bunubba Productions, Broome; Esther Carroll, Director of Murrawina, Sydney; and Mr Robert Lee, Town Clerk, Barunga Wugulara Community, Barunga, Northern Territory. Every one of the proposed new appointments is in some way indebted to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for financial support for the organisations he or she represents-eight new stooges who will do nothing but the Minister's bidding in this new situation. Senator Crichton-Browne —And they don't represent the Aboriginal community. Senator TAMBLING —Some may not and probably would not. Let us look carefully at what the Chairperson of the Aboriginal Development Commission, Mrs Shirley McPherson, said with regard to the new proposals for the new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission when she appeared before the Senate Estimates Committee on 14 April. In response to questions about how she and the ADC were perceiving the Aboriginal reaction to that policy she said: The majority of the responses that we have received have indicated that people would like more time- I stress the words `more time'- to be made fully aware of the Government's option and for more time to put any other options that they would like included in the proposal. Later in her response Mrs McPherson said: They are indicating that they would like to have time to review the draft legislation. At this stage they are being given no indication that they will be able to view that before it is presented. The Minister for Justice (Senator Tate), who represents the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in this place, last week presented a table on the likely scenario of the proposals for the new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and he said that it would now be implemented not on 1 July, as was envisaged, but on 1 January 1989. He also said on that occasion that the next elections throughout the Aboriginal communities would take place in September, October and November 1988. How in heaven's name is Mr Hand going to get that legislation through this Parliament and operating before September 1988? Parliament does not even reconvene until 22 August, which would be the first opportunity he will have to present the legislation. Through Mrs McPherson, the Aboriginal people are asking for more time to consider the legislation when it is presented. It is not only an insult to this Parliament if the legislation is rammed through in about a week to enable the subsequent general elections to be held in September. It will also, quite coincidentally, be given consideration after the general constitutional referendum of 3 September. So I wonder why this issue has been withheld and considered in this way. I am particularly angry at the manner in which this has been presented. In our examination of the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in the past few weeks, I asked several questions about the use of consultants by the Department, including a number relating to the formation of the proposed new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. This included the payment of $30,000 to Coopers and Lybrand. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! We are dealing with the second reading debate of Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1987-88. Senator Tambling seems to be getting into what might be called the committee debate of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88, which will be considered shortly. Senator TAMBLING —I take your direction, sir, but you gave considerable licence to Senator Chaney in the previous debate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There were special circumstances which gave Senator Chaney some licence. Senator TAMBLING —I will abide by your ruling, sir. I will raise the matter again when the Committee of the Whole considers the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I might be able to extend my time limit quite considerably. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Tambling is entitled to speak in the committee stage as much as he likes. Senator TAMBLING —I conclude at this stage by saying that the issue of Aboriginal affairs certainly needs very close attention because the interests of Aborigines throughout Australia are certainly not being represented by this Government in the way that they should be considered addressed in the estimates for the coming year. Motion (by Senator Walsh) proposed: That the debate be now adjourned. Senator Short —Mr Deputy President, I am sorry. I thought I had risen to speak. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I called Senator Walsh because the call was on the Government side. Senator Walsh has moved that the debate be adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walsh, I imagine that you now want to move that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. Senator Walsh —No, we will not do it today. Senator Short will have an opportunity later on. It will come up in the committee stage. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The situation is that the Minister for Finance has adjourned debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1987-88 under sessional order, which means that it is adjourned until the next day of sitting, but I imagine that he wants it adjourned until a later hour this day. Senator Walsh —I had assumed that we would be going ahead with the committee stage. I am happy enough to oblige, but if Senator Short wants to say something he will have an opportunity later on. Senator Short —On a point of order, Mr Deputy President: I seek your guidance. Is the debate being adjourned until a later hour today? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —No, debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1987-88 has been adjourned by agreement of the Senate. The subsequent motion would be to adjourn debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1987-88 to the next day of sitting. If that motion is passed, which it has been, we will deal with Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88 in committee. Senator Short —But that motion was not carried. I wish to speak to Appropriation Bill (No. 4) The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That will come up again. The debate has already been adjourned. Senator Short —Until tomorrow? Senator Walsh —I have not moved to call on the next Bill, Mr Deputy President. I am quite happy to move that the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 4) be adjourned until a later hour this day. I am quite happy to move for that on the understanding that the committee stage of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) is completed. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question is that the motion moved by Senator Walsh for the resumption of the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 4) to be made an order of the day for a later hour this day be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed. GROUP D Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Proposed expenditure, $6,080,000 Department of Primary Industries and Energy Proposed expenditure, $3,420,000 Department of Community Services and Health Proposed expenditure, $5,015,000 Department of Veterans' Affairs Proposed expenditure, $40,906,000 Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.48) —Can the Minister say whether his advisers from the Department of Community Services and Health are available? Senator Tate —I believe they are. Senator WALTERS —At what locations will the Health Insurance Commission open branches to replace agency services provided by local health funds? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.48) —I understand that the officials will be able to provide a response in a few minutes. They are looking up the details. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(9.49) —Is someone available to answer a question I asked earlier? Are any agencies receiving funding under the disability services program experiencing a delay in receiving subsidies for the 1986-87 financial year, prior to the introduction of the Disability Services Act? Are there delays in subsidy funding for projects in the 1988-89 financial year? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.49) —My advice from the officers is that they are not aware that that has occurred, but I will have that checked as soon as possible and will ask the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) to reply by correspondence, if that is satisfactory. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(9.50) —I am prepared to advise the Minister of one such agency that claims that its subsidy for 1986-87 has been delayed and that it has not received an adequate explanation for this. I would be prepared to advise on which agency that is. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.51) —The officers of the Department of Community Services and Health do not have from their records information the names of new agencies. They will have to obtain the information from the Health Insurance Commission. I am quite happy to take that question on notice in the same way that I have taken Senator Patterson's question on notice. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.51) —Perhaps the Minister's advisers could take on notice a few other questions along the same line. I would like to know whether any of these locations have changed as a result of representations from members of parliament or the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett). If so, which locations have changed? What are the costs generated from these changes? Have the costs been higher as a result of the representation by those members of parliament or the Minister? What is the total cost to the Health Insurance Commission of operating the new branches? How will the costs be shared between Medibank Private and Medicare in the new branches? What commission is the Health Insurance Commission paying post office agencies in Tasmania for handling Medicare claims? Why did the Commission reject proposals that agency funds be placed on line and in dumb computer terminals? Is the real reason for the termination of agencies a result of a desire by the Government to force doctors to bulk bill? Do the senior management of the HIC move from Medibank Private activities to Medicare responsibilities and the reverse? If so, what safeguards are in place to ensure that the confidential information obtained from the administration of Medicare is not used for the commercial activities of Medibank Private? What instructions are provided to Medicare and Medibank Private staff to ensure members of parliament do not access Medicare information? What physical barriers are in place to guarantee that such exchanges cannot possibly take place? Which market research firms have been used by HIC in the last 12 months? What tasks were commissioned and what work was done for members of parliament, as well as Medicare? How much was paid? How was it allocated between the two organisations? Did the Health Insurance Commission ask Price Waterhouse to prepare a response to a paper prepared by Touche Ross Services Pty Ltd dealing with the Commission's cost structures? Finally, what was the cost of the public works report? How much was charged to Medicare and Medibank Private? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.55) —Those questions will be taken on notice. Senator Walters cannot expect to get answers now to 25 questions like that, or whatever the number was. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.55) —I have some other questions that are not as detailed as those which I have just asked which I am sure the Minister or his officers could answer for me. In a news release of 27 January last year, doctors and pharmacists were advised to monitor closely patients using any of the 33 generic prescription drugs available on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and to cease prescribing them for new patients until the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) approved such use. Two companies manufacturing the drugs, Protea Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd and Alphapharm Pty Ltd, were given 12 months to submit additional data on providing bio equivalents to the original drugs and if satisfactory data were not provided to the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee by that time the products were to be withdrawn. In April 1988 doctors were advised in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme book that 12 of these 33 products were still to be restricted to patients stabilised on them prior to January 1987. I ask: Will the Minister advise the chamber why these drugs have not been withdrawn following expiry in January this year of the 12-month grace period? Will the Minister also advise status of the other generic products originally restricted in order that doctors and patients can be satisfied as to the quality of the drugs they are using. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.56) —I must say I am not surprised that with no notice whatsoever the departmental advisers cannot provide answers to such fine detailed questions as those. I am quite happy to take those questions on notice too. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.56) —I am sorry, but those questions do not involve answers of fine detail. I have asked about the 33 generic prescription drugs which in January last year were set aside. Senator Walsh —If you wanted an answer, you should have given me notice before. Senator WALTERS —They are questions that if the senior officers of the Department of Community Services and Health cannot answer then I believe they are not being fully informed of the relevant activities. I inform the Minister that the system is one which his Government introduced in order to cut costs in the pharmaceutical area. There are 33 generic prescription drugs involved. Doctors were told that these drugs were restricted to patients who were presently using them and that they could not be prescribed for any new patients. Now in April 1988 doctors have been told in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme book that 12 of these 33 products are still restricted to patients who were stabilised on them prior to January 1987. I ask why those particular drugs have not been withdrawn following expiry in January this year of the 12-month grace period. Will the Minister also advise the status of the other generic products originally restricted in order that doctors and patients can be satisfied as to the quality of drugs they are using. That is not detailed. That is a very broad question. I would be most surprised if the officers could not supply the answer now. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.58) —I do have some information. I am advised that it was decided that the drugs in question would be re-evaluated because questions had been cast on the validity or accuracy of the initial tests that had been done by a laboratory overseas. However, they were left on the list for an interim period to give the supplying companies an opportunity to have a re-evaluation done. The officers do not know what the result of that re-evaluation is. I presume that it has not yet been completed. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.58) —Can the officers now please tell me of the status of the other generic products that were originally restricted so that the doctors and patients can know what was the quality of the drugs they were using? It seems to me that the officers must have been too lazy to answer the original question and just asked for it to be put on notice, because when the question was repeated they came up with an answer. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.59) —The officers do not know about the other drugs in question. These drugs have been submitted for re-evaluation too. They do not know whether the re-evaluations have been completed. I must say that I am not surprised that they do now know off the top of their heads whether 33 re-evaluations have been completed or not and what the results are for all 33. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.00) —I did not ask for a detailed description of 33 drugs. I divided them into two groupings-one with 12 and the other with the remainder. I think my not asking for a detailed description was probably a very wise move. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(10.00) —The answer to that question is the same as the one to the question asked earlier. The officers will undertake to find out the information that Senator Walters has requested tonight. It may shorten the proceedings if she is able to give us all her questions in one batch so we can address them as quickly as possible. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.01) —Perhaps the Department can tell me whether the drug androcur is one of those 33. I have a constituent who has been on that drug for a considerable time. It has now been taken off the list and the Department has told her that a new and cheaper alternative is currently on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) list and she should be satisfied with that drug. My main objection to that concerns the wording in a letter which she received from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. I will read only that paragraph which I find pretty objectionable: In making recommendations on which drugs should be available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the Committee looks at the medical needs of the community as a whole. It is not possible to list drugs to satisfy special needs of individual patients. I find it unacceptable that the PBAC says that it is not interested in the special needs of an individual patient and that it looks only at the health needs of the community as a whole. That is treating patients as numbers and not as individuals. The letter could have been worded in a far better fashion. That patient was told that she is not entitled, as a pensioner, to a tablet which she has been prescribed for quite some time, that she should get a cheaper alternative and that the Committee is not interested in her special needs. Can the Minister comment on that type of letter being sent out by the Advisory Committee? Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(10.03) —Once again, the advice is that what the Government puts on the list as being available to people such as the person whom Senator Walters mentioned is put on on the basis of expert advice. We presume, given the circumstances and the lack of identification, that that policy has been applied in this case. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.04) —That was not the question I asked. I asked the Minister whether he thought it was a well-worded letter. Does he think that that type of letter ought to be sent out by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee-a letter telling a pensioner that it is not interested in that patient's special needs, that it looks at the health care of the community as a whole and that the special needs of the individual are not taken into account? Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(10.04) —Since the matter has been raised by Senator Walters, I think that we can have another look at it to see whether there is a way of changing the correspondence. It should be stressed at this stage that the Government's priority is very much to the needs of the individual. If that has not been met in this case, we will reconsider it. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.05) —I thank the Minister. I will give him a copy of the letter that the patient received. I think that that patient's individual needs should not be shoved aside by the Advisory Committee in such an arbitrary fashion. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.05) —I draw the attention of honourable senators, the public and particularly the Department of Community Services and Health to the comments made by Estimates Committee D in its report to the Senate of April 1988. They are comments which I think the Committee must have arrived at after a good deal of frustration which, presumably, had been experienced by members of the Committee-certainly by me-after I had asked questions of the Department of Community Services and Health. I shall read the Committee's general comments: Following the recent hearings the Committee makes the following general comment concerning the evidence brought before it by the various departments. The Committee is concerned that the level and extent of information available during these hearings did not sometimes meet the standard expected of departments when appearing before Estimates Committees. While it is accepted that it is not always possible for departmental officers to have detailed knowledge about every matter in the Estimates, the Committee was concerned that in a number of specific instances the answer to the questions posed was `only the officer involved knows'. This response was too frequently accepted by departmental officials as a reasonable excuse for an inability to answer questions. The Committee does not accept this situation as satisfactory. It puts departments on notice that in future such an excuse will not be accepted when dealing with matters that specifically relate to items in the appropriations sought and that, if necessary, additional hearings will be held to ensure that the relevant information is provided. They are general comments about the departments which appeared before the Committee. The Secretary to the Department of Community Services and Health indicated to one member of the Committee that an answer to the particular question posed by that Committee member could not be given as the specific matter about which the question was asked was not the subject of an additional estimate. There was one subject about which there was an additional estimate and that was the international agreement-the Australia-Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) agreement on cooperation. An amount of money was set aside for that item. I asked a question about that item, as it is a very important matter. International treaties are quite important, given the possibility of the use of the external affairs power to implement them. I acknowledge that in this case the treaty said certain things which may not be mandatory on the parties. Article 1 of the treaty states: The parties shall develop and broaden mutually beneficial cooperation in the fields of medical science and public health. It then says: The parties shall direct their joint efforts to combat those diseases that pose the greatest threat to human health and in particular cardiovascular disease, cancer and AIDS. The parties also consider it appropriate to develop mutual co-operation in such fields of medical science and public health as maternal and child care, medical biotechnology and immunology. I was interested to know what the term `medical biotechnology' meant. I thought it would be appropriate for the Department to be able to provide that information because a specific amount of money was sought by it in respect of that agreement. There was no officer available at that hearing to give such an indication. I was particularly interested to know whether the term involved, for example, the consideration of human embryo experimentation. There is no law in the Commonwealth sphere about that subject. It is most important for the Parliament and the public to know precisely what is involved in the term `medical biotechnology'. As I said, there was no officer available. It was suggested that the relevant officer, Dr Cumming, was either overseas or going overseas and was not available. We have subsequently received a response which in itself is not adequate. I do not wish, and I do not think it is appropriate, for me to delay the Committee of the Whole in dealing with that response. But, so far as I am concerned, the question of medical biotechnology will need to be addressed when the Estimates Committee next meets. I expect that a senior official, if not the Chairman or the Secretary of the National Health and Medical Research Council, will be able to give some clear, unequivocal and full answers to questions on that very important matter. I simply wish to place on record what the Committee said: During the Committee's examination of the Department's- that is, the Department of Community Service and Health- additional estimates, members of the Committee asked questions concerning sub-program 1.4 `International Health'. The Department was requesting an additional $58,000 for the implementation of the Australian-USSR Agreement on Cooperation in the health and medical sciences fields. The Committee was concerned that the Department could not provide adequate information concerning the Agreement, the implementation of which was the cause of the additional funds being sought. In particular, the Department was unable to explain what was intended by the term `medical biotechnology', referred to in the Agreement. The Committee, once again, was concerned that only a single officer, who was unable to attend the Committee's hearing, was considered able to answer the question. The Committee recommended as follows: The Committee recommends and re-affirms previous resolutions of Estimates Committees that Departments ensure that officers are present who can explain to the Committee the full background to any item for which additional estimates are sought. The Committee further recommends that the Department re-examine its administrative procedures to ensure that it is able to explain the intent of important Agreements even when the officer directly involved may be unable to attend the Estimates Committee hearing. It has been my practice, as I recall-and my recollection is not always very good-to give the areas of interest about which questions would be asked. On this occasion I did not do that because the estimates of the Department included in one line a specific item for an international agreement with a particular amount of money. I assumed that there would be somebody at the Estimates hearing to answer my question, but there was not. The subsequent response is not satisfactory and does not go to the essence of the question in the fullest sense. I know that some comment has been made by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) in another place that Senate committees are not now adequately carrying out their functions to check the actions of the Executive. That is his view. That may well be the case if committees of this Parliament allow a situation where officers of departments do not answer questions, are not able to answer questions or send committee members off fishing in other pools. I certainly will not accept that. I intend in future to make it perfectly clear to the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) which officers attempt to make honourable senators fish in other pools. I happen to know that the information that has been given to the Minister by the Department of Community Services and Health on a very important issue is certainly not correct. The Department is on notice that I intend to pursue that matter in the next Estimates hearings. I commend the Committee. It is obvious that it is concerned to ensure that it carries out a proper function on behalf of the Senate to elicit full information at Committee hearings for the Senate and the public. This is not an easy task. It is not a task that any of us relish, and I suppose it is not a task that any of the officials relish. But that is our job in this sort of democracy. I congratulate the Committee on making it very clear that answers are expected and that the appropriate officers are expected to be in attendance. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(10.18) —The Government has taken notice of both Senator Harradine's objection and the point made by Estimates Committee D. As has been indicated in the past to both the Committee and Senator Harradine, the officer involved in this issue was about to leave Australia and in fact left the next day. However, an undertaking has been given that all steps will be taken to ensure that the relevant person will be present when the Committee next meets in order to address the problems that Senator Harradine has raised. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.19) —I have a further question in respect of community services. I still think of community services and health as two separate areas. Nursing homes throughout Australia have the resident classification pro forma of March 1988. They have been asked to check off the responses to 11 factors by each of the residents in their nursing homes. The Department of Community Services and Health will possibly know what I am referring to. I ask: Who on earth put the score beside these various 11 factors, and what qualifications have they for putting them? Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(10.20) —I am advised that the scores were evolved after consultation with something like 1,200 directors of nursing homes all over Australia who were involved in the process. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.20) —The Minister tells me that this score was evolved after consultation with 1,200 nursing homes all over Australia. That does not necessarily mean that the nursing homes approved of this. I have not found one nursing home that thinks the scoresheet makes any sense. Could the Minister say whether the 1,200 nursing homes were in full agreement with the score set-up? Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(10.21) —I thought I would just mention something in the report of Estimates Committee D. It is an interesting matter to raise and will give the Minister the opportunity to obtain some answers for Senator Walters. Senator Harradine mentioned that it was said in the report that the Committee was concerned that the level and extent of information available during the hearings sometimes did not meet the standard expected of departments appearing before Estimates committees. Senator Harradine was referring then to a particular inquiry that he was pursuing. It was a course of inquiry that I found quite interesting because, until we had the Estimates committee hearings, I did not know that we had made the type of treaty that Senator Harradine was referring to. Another part of the report deals with a similar matter. The Committee found it necessary to comment because it believed that the information that was not able to be supplied meant that the answers given by the officers present were severely lacking. More precisely, I suppose, because a certain officer was not present, the Committee was not able to obtain the information. This matter was raised by Senator Peter Baume and referred to an event which is rather topical at the moment and was even more topical then-the qualifications of Mr Robert Wood or, as we knew him then, Senator Robert Wood. The Minister probably has obtained his answers now so I might continue that story at a later date, if necessary. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(10.24) —I thank Senator Colston for his assistance in answering this question. In response to Senator Walters's question, it should be placed on the record that, although I do not think anyone ever gets total agreement, there was overwhelming agreement that the program the Government has introduced is a vast improvement over the pre-existing one. In fact, it could be said with a fair amount of accuracy that it has a 94 per cent accuracy in predicting needs as opposed to something like 9 per cent with the pre-existing system. It can also be said that there is a great deal of support for the Government in that there will be a consultative and review process ongoing under the new scheme. I see Senator Walters shaking her head but if she keeps going any longer, the rest of us will be doing so as well. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.25) —The Minister did not answer the question I asked. I asked: What was the qualification of the person who compiled the scoresheet? The Minister told me that the scoresheet was compiled after full consultation with 1,200 nursing homes. I said, `Could you tell me the name of any nursing home that was in agreement, because I have not found one?'. I thought the Minister might be able to tell me a nursing home that I could approach. Could he find out which nursing home agreed with the method of scoring? Would the Minister please tell me the qualification of the person who finally put that scoresheet together and put it to the Department for acceptance? Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(10.26) —The person involved was qualified in statistics and research. It should also be said that the statistics and the scoresheet were finally evolved after consultation, as I said earlier, with 1,200 directors of nursing homes. As to the other part of Senator Walters's question, even for her to ask that we go through a list of 1,200 nursing homes-- Senator Walters —I did not say that. Give me one name of a nursing home that is satisfied with the scoresheet. Senator BOLKUS —It might be a bit much at this stage to ask an officer of the Department to be dragged in to find that information for the honourable senator but I am sure we will try to find the information. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.27) —The Minister might be able to find one but I would be very grateful to have the name of that one nursing home when he finds it. Could he come back to me with the name of one nursing home that is satisfied with the scoresheet? I am staggered, but not surprised, that the qualifications of the person who put forward this scoresheet are those of statistician and researcher. I happen to be a nursing sister and I can assure the Minister that it is very difficult to nurse a pat- ient-and I will wait for the Minister to listen so he can understand what I am saying. Senator Newman —He is rude, isn't he? Senator WALTERS —No, he is finding out some information. That is all right. Senator Bolkus —I should say-- Senator WALTERS —Is the Minister correcting the previous question? Senator Bolkus —No, I am answering your subsequent question. Senator WALTERS —I had not finished but I will sit down. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(10.27) —In response to the question by Senator Walters, it should be stated that the scoresheet was formulated by this consultative process with the directors of the nursing homes. Three trials were involved. I do not think that Senator Walters should single out one person who, at the end of the day, may have compiled what was put together by these 1,200 directors in this consultative process. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.28) —I gather that the Minister will come back to me with the name of one nursing home that is happy about this matter. Senator Bolkus —I would love to. Senator WALTERS —That is good. As a trained sister, I can assure the Minister that it is very difficult to nurse a patient who is incontinent. With incontinence occurring more than once a day, this means that the patient is fully nursed more than once a day-bed fully changed, the whole bit. That patient gets a score of one. That patient would need to have pressure areas seen to at the same time. I am not suggesting for one moment that that patient would have just a score of one-- Senator Bolkus —I wonder whether at this stage I could provide the information you sought earlier? Senator WALTERS —Does the Minister want me to finish my question? This is the second time he has interrupted. A patient who is incontinent more than once daily has a score of one. That same patient would need care for the prevention of pressure areas on every occasion that the bed is changed. So there would be, let us say, attention one to three times a day. That gives that patient a score for that of 2.63. So if we add that score of one to the 2.63 we get a total score for that patient of 3.63. That is a patient who takes considerable nursing care. But a patient who is not incontinent but just needs full assistance to be transferred from the bed to sitting beside the bed, gets a score for that alone of 4.37. So a patient who is not incontinent and who only needs two people to help him out of bed and make him comfortable in a chair beside the bed has a score of 4.37 while a patient who is bedridden and incontinent more than once daily and needs a full bed change-full bed linen and the lot-who has pressure areas being cared for at least one to three times a day gets only a final score of 3.63. That does not make sense from the point of view of the nursing staff. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Zakharov) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Temporary Chairman having reported accordingly- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It being 10.30 p.m, under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(10.30) —On Tuesday I asked a question in relation to the purchase by non-Australians of residential property. My question read as follows: My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. It refers to an article in the Brisbane Sun newspaper on 5 May 1988 which indicated that a group of Japanese performers in Brisbane for World Expo 88 bought a house for $350,000. Do Treasury guidelines prevent the purchase of residential property by non-Australians except in special circumstances, and, if so, what are those circumstances? Have the details of this particular purchase been investigated and will it be allowed to proceed? If the sale is contrary to Government guidelines, will any action be taken against the real estate agent who arranged the sale? It is fairly common in the Senate that if a senator wants a considered reply on a specific matter he or she provides detail of a possible question to the Minister or to the Minister's staff. I left the question with the Minister's office on 10 May, seven days before I asked the question. I expected that I would receive a comprehensive answer. I did not. The last two parts of the question were not answered at all. The answer that was provided is as follows: Last September the foreign investment guidelines for the purchase of residential property by foreigners were changed. There are three special categories of exemption from that restriction. The first is for Australian citizens resident abroad, the second is for intending migrants who have received approval to take up permanent residence in Australia and the third category is for foreign companies seeking accommodation for their senior executives while they are resident in Australia. I had indicated in my question that there was a report that a group of Japanese performers in Brisbane for World Expo 88 had bought a house for $350,000. Let us consider the Treasury guidelines as to exemption from the restrictions that residential property cannot be bought by people from foreign countries. The first is for Australian citizens resident abroad. Obviously, these Japanese performers do not fit into that category. The second category of exemption is for intending migrants who have received approval to take up permanent residence in Australia. Again, that category does not fit these Japanese performers at World Expo 88. The third category is for foreign companies seeking accommodation for their senior executives while they are resident in Australia. I hold that that category does not fit these people who are reported to have bought the house. The article says that this group of Japanese performers bought the house themselves. That would hardly fit the category of foreign companies seeking accommodation for their senior executives while they are resident in Australia. The answer to my question continued as follows: I have seen the article to which Senator Colston refers and it seems to me that the particular purchase fits into the last of those three categories. I maintain that, on the evidence that is available so far, that is not correct, that it does not fit into that category of foreign companies seeking accommodation for their senior executives. The article seemed to indicate that these people banded together, pooled their money, and bought the house themselves. The answer continued: I will refer the article to the Treasurer's office for confirmation that this is indeed the case and for any other comments that the Treasurer wishes to make about Senator Colston's question. If one presents a possible question to a Minister's office seven days in advance of asking the question in the Senate, I think that the relevant office-in this case it was the Treasurer's office-should be contacted in that time. If it were perhaps one or two days one might say that there was not enough time, but in relation to my question there was a whole week. I think the answer that was provided was totally unsatisfactory, given that a whole week's notice was provided. I ask the Minister on duty tonight-the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Senator Bolkus)-whether he will use his good offices to obtain a comprehensive answer to my question. I would expect that it should not be beyond the resources of the Government to provide an answer by the time we first meet next week. The matter that I have raised is an important one. Many Queensland residents believe the Japanese in Australia are taking us for a bunch of suckers and are thumbing their nose at the Australian Government's foreign investment guidelines. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(10.36) —I begin by drawing the attention of the Senate to a letter published in the Canberra Times of Thursday, 19 May-that is, today-which reads: We, the undersigned, parents of Page Primary School children and concerned citizens of Page, wish to notify the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority that Eric Willmot has been targeted for closure as Chief Education Officer. Being fair, we give him two weeks to respond to the criteria for closure, but having learned our procedures from the Authority itself, we will most probably change the criteria once they have been addressed. This letter was signed by a group of Page parents, and, commented the Canberra Times, `many other letters from parents, students and citizens of Page have expressed similar sentiments'. In due course, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) will have self-government, and parents and concerned citizens will-if a democratic and representative form of government is in place-be able to make their views known to their own duly elected members of an ACT assembly. The present situation is quite other: when concerned parents at an ACT school have no recourse, and as a last hope have to depend on writing letters to the paper and appealing to a senator from Western Australia then that is a very sad state of affairs. The education system in Canberra was, not long ago, the admiration of educationists around Australia. Twenty years ago educationists and the ACT community together created an education system which allowed the democratic participation of parents and teachers at all levels, and ultimate authority was vested not in a Minister but in an authority comprising parents, educators, and ministerial nominees, with an independent chair. In 1978, Professor Grant Harman wrote: . . . the experiment has been an unqualified success. The essential goals of the community and teacher groups have been largely achieved, and the new ACT School Authority clearly provides public services at least equal to, and in my judgment better than, those previously supplied in Canberra by the New South Wales Department of Education, and that enjoyed by comparable urban communities throughout Australia. That was Professor Grant Harman; many other parents and academics are on record as being equally impressed by the lively, multifarious and academically respectable record of the ACT Schools Authority. Last year, then Minister John Brown abolished the Authority; that is, he abolished the Council and transferred all authority into the hands of one appointed man. This man, the Chief Education Officer, is head of the Department which he administers, and is himself answerable to the Minister-whoever that may be. Of course in the States which have this sort of traditional bureaucratic system, the Minister is at least elected from that State. Not so, in Canberra. Not, at least, until the ACT has self-government. I started by quoting a letter from the people of Page. As described by Senator Reid earlier today, one of the first acts of the Minister, through his one-man schools authority, was to announce the closure of a number of Canberra primary schools. But, one of the strengths of the development of junior education in the ACT was the emphasis on community schools, combined with a lack of compulsion; this meant that there was great diversity amongst the schools-which tended to specialise-and a genuine freedom of choice for parents. The Minister's decision caused dismay throughout the school communities. Eight schools were originally targeted for closure. Eight communities were given the chance to prepare a submission as to why their school should be allowed to survive. The response was impressive, with thousands of questionnaires distributed, petitions signed, letters written and meetings convened. Unhappily this also had the effect of setting community against community and school against school. Democracy depends on information; bureaucracy often depends on obfuscation. It was characteristic of a bureaucratic decision that the final report, Community Schools for Canberra, was issued at 5.30 p.m. on 6 May, and was embargoed for the media until 6.30 that evening. Honourable senators are unlikely to have forgotten that this was the weekend-it was a long weekend-of the opening by Her Majesty of the new Parliament House, so it is hardly surprising that the news of the closure of one small school in South Belconnen did not get banner headlines. The fact is that of the eight schools condemned to be closed, five were reprieved; three were to be closed as planned; and one new one, without any prior warning, had been added to the list. The people of Page are shocked. Page is an area of South Belconnen, which has a largely working-class population. House prices are relatively low and the residents tend to be lower income families, with many single-parent families. This is a scenario for trauma, hardship, and misery: many young children; few, if any, second cars; young mothers attempting to cope with public transport. Yet the local school is to be closed. It is clearly absurd that a senator from Western Australia is the one to be making a plea for people from a suburb of Canberra- Senator Vanstone —Senator Reid did a good job today, so it is not only you, Senator. Senator JENKINS —I agree-but this is a consequence of the absurd system which dominates the ACT today. Self-government will bring its own problems, no doubt. But it is inconceivable that a democratically elected assembly, elected by, from and for the ACT, would deal as insensitively with its own constituents, as has been the case under the present one-man-band administration. Senator Vanstone —Arrogant. Senator JENKINS —Indeed. The people of Page rallied quickly after hearing the news of the threat to their school. Almost 80 per cent of the families who have children at the school attended a public meeting on 11 May. The feeling of the meeting was unanimous-that Page school must remain open. I therefore ask the Government to defer the implementation of the Community Schools for Canberra final report, with respect to all schools in the ACT, until the administration of Canberra and the ACT is in the hands of the ACT, that is, until after self-government. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(10.45) —The topic about which I wish to speak this evening is the very necessary campaign to disarm the seas. While I rejoiced with the peace movement at the signing of the intermediate-range nuclear force (INF) agreement last December and I welcome the prospect of talks on removing land based long range missiles or intercontinental ballistic missiles, I also feel that Australia needs to pay far more attention to the arms race at sea. I am particularly concerned at the increasing momentum of the naval arms race in the Pacific. Coming from Western Australia, I have noted the increase in the number of visits by United States of America nuclear warships since 1980, since my State gets about two-thirds of these ship visits to Australia. However, the number of visits has declined in the past few years. What we are now getting represents largely the spin-off from the United States presence in the Persian Gulf which, in itself, is rather worrying because the actions in which the United States Navy engaged there are sometimes seen as provocative. It is now obvious that these port calls are really for rest and recreation of the crews involved and nothing to do with strategic importance, which is the argument the New Zealanders have always used in working towards a ban on nuclear warships visits. The world is no worse off because United States nuclear warships cannot visit New Zealand. Indeed New Zealand's move has given inspiration to many others around the world who believe that we can move beyond block thinking and that we do not have to choose between alliance partners in either Washington or Moscow. This is precisely what concerns the United States. It is concerned about the spread of what it has dubbed the kiwi disease. We now have the ironic spectacle of warheads being removed from Cruise missiles in Western Europe once the treaty is ratified and then put on sea launch cruise missiles that ultimately end in Australian ports. On 8 March an article on the front page of the Australian suggested that Australia could take the nuclear warheads being disposed of as a result of the INF agreement and bury them here. In that way, we could have a new multi-billion dollar industry and contribute towards disarmament at the same time, or so the proponents said. Fortunately this ludicrous proposition was immediately dismissed by various authorities, including the Australian Government, but it showed the ignorance of so many people that they did not realise that only the missiles are being dismantled-not the nuclear warheads. There were supposed to be 560 ground launch cruise missiles deployed in Western Europe, but the United States plans to deploy about 4,000 at sea made by the same company-General Dynamics-that made the Trident submarine. Of these, 758 will be the nuclear armed Tomahawk land attack missiles deployed on ships and submarines around the world. While the Europeans protested at the deployment of Cruise missiles in five countries there was a great silence here, as if we did not know that Cruise missiles were on board ships and submarines visiting our ports and harbours. They were on board the battleship USS Missouri which came to Fremantle and Sydney in 1986 and again in 1987. All we heard about was its role in September 1945-and it did have an important historic role-and all the girls entertaining the sailors in Kings Cross over Christmas. These Tomahawks are being deployed on other warships coming to Australia in the years ahead, unless we follow the brave example of the Labor Government across the Tasman and say that we will not entertain such warships visits any more. In other words, the warheads are coming to Australia, not to be buried but just to be redeployed in a very much alive, active, ready-to-go form. Of course, while the Government does not mind criticising the nuclear waste disposal proposal, it goes along with the ludicrous `neither confirm nor deny' policy of the United States Government. The Soviets obviously knows what is on board these ships and submarines. Indeed, people can find out for themselves just by going to the Parliamentary Library or any public library and looking it up in Janes Fighting Ships. But the public is not officially told that nuclear weapons are on board these warships. The whole relationship with the United States is characterised on our part by even declining to ask the questions in the first place. We thoroughly deserve our reputation of subservience. This point can best be illustrated by the reporter from the Sun-Herald who, when he rang up the Central Intelligence Agency in 1985 to ask why Pine Gap was code-named Merino, was told it was `because we built Pine Gap in a land of sheep'. I would, however, like to praise this Government for beginning to stir on the subject of security and arms control talks in the North Pacific, even if no interest has been shown by our great and powerful friend, the United States. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Hayden, made an important contribution at the Australian National University in Canberra on 12 August last year when he gave the opening address at the Conference on Security and Arms Control in the North Pacific organised by the Peace Research Centre, the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre and the International Relations Department. Mr Richard Woolcott, our Ambassador to the United Nations, followed this up for the Minister by reading his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on 8 October last year. He again referred to Australia's suggestion that there would be an advantage in the United States and the Soviet Union initiating a dialogue on their respective security perceptions and concerns in this area of the North Pacific. Although a great deal of work went into these speeches, I now note that there has been a general reshuffle in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. There seems some uncertainty on the level of expertise in the area of security and arms control. As this has come along at about the same time as the downgrading of the position of Ambassador for Disarmament, it leads me to question this Government's priorities after such a promising start. I speculate that there are elements in the Australian Labor Party that are really not the slightest bit supportive of the Minister's concern and would really feel far more at home with the Cold War warriors in the Opposition. Certainly, they would have felt more comfortable with Mr Howard's cold war speech on international affairs in Hobart on 2 March this year than with Mr Hayden's contribution at the Australian National University (ANU) or in New York. As for the lame excuse that the section is being run down after the International Year of Peace (IYP), that hardly makes sense in the light of the stated commitment to verification procedures, arms control in the North Pacific, disarmament and development and the United Nations special session on disarmament which starts on 31 May. IYP should have heralded a greater ongoing commitment in this area, not a smaller one. Considering that the Department of Defence is the largest department in Canberra, it does no speak much for our sense of priorities if we run down our tiny peace, arms control and disarmament section in Foreign Affairs in this way. What is the situation at sea around Australia? Through most of this century the Pacific has been what the United States of America's Seventh Fleet likes to refer to as `the American lake'. Around 1960 the Soviet Union decided to try to match the blue water navy of the United States and under Admiral Gorshkov, who finally retired in 1985 after 29 years, the Soviets built up a very large naval fleet in the Pacific. Indeed, the Red Banner Fleet is the largest of all the Soviet fleets, although the other three are part of the Atlantic fleet. Their rationale was partly to make sure that they were never humiliated again as they were during the Cuban crisis in 1962, partly because of the deteriorating relationship with China in the 1960s culminating in armed clashes in 1968-69, and partly because the United States decided in 1960 to deploy Polaris submarines in the North Pacific. Australia played its role in that decision when the North West Cape communications station was negotiated in 1963, one year before the Polaris submarine came on line. While it is perfectly true that the Soviet navy in the Pacific is far larger than the United States navy-and bean counting is a good way to distort strategic realities-the United States still has the upper hand. Basically, this is because the United States has around 350 bases and facilities in and around the Pacific away from its own west coast. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, is penned up in the inhospitable north-west corner of the ocean where much of the coast is icebound for the most part of the year and where the Red Banner Fleet can be bottled up in the Sea of Japan by the United States Navy and the Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force. This is because the United States and Japan control the choke points out of the sea leading to the ocean. From Alaska and the Aleutian Islands the United States comes very close to the Soviet coast and is able to monitor submarine movements and air force flights, much as it did on the night that the Soviet Air Force shot down the unfortunate Korean airliner, flight KAL-007. Having all these bases and facilities around the Pacific, the United States is able to keep 55 per cent of its ships and submarines at sea on a constant round of port calls and exercises, along with its many allies in the region. The Soviet Union has a sea-to-port ratio of about 15 per cent, and the only forward base between Vladivostok and Socotra in the north-west corner of the Indian Ocean has been at Cam Ranh Bay since 1979. However, there is no doubt that the Soviet Navy in the Pacific is excessively large and that it worries its neighbours, who are not inclined to view it as purely defensive. The Soviet Union would like the countries in the region to remain neutral in the event of a global conflict when the main battlefield might be in Europe, so it is hardly likely to block the sea lines of communication in an area where all the regional powers depend on trade for their survival. Nor has the Soviet Union the right to have any bases in Vietnam, such as Cam Ranh Bay, or those in the Indian Ocean at Aden and in the Red Sea. Even more ridiculous is the Soviet assertion that Cam Ranh Bay is not a base but a transit facility or marina. That ranks with the assertion that Pine Gap, Nurrungar and North West Cape are joint facilities in Australia because none of them would have been established by the host country. They are there simply to serve the global interests of the superpowers and the sooner they all go, the better. More recently the Soviet Union has deployed new Delta class submarines in the Sea of Okhotsk, which acts as a kind of strategic sanctuary for its submarines where they can avoid the anti-submarine warfare activities of the United States and Japan. Besides deploying the SSN-18 on Delta class submarines since 1979, the Soviets have started testing a new sea-launched ballistic missile, the SSNX-23. So far none of their new giant Typhoon submarines have appeared in the Pacific as they have all gone to the northern fleet. New attack submarines in the Pacific have included the Akula class and the diesel-electric Kilo class, while it is possible that one of the new Oscar class may join the Pacific fleet before long. Besides the two carriers-or more strictly, the tactical aircraft carrying cruisers-three new recent surface combatants to join the Pacific fleet in late 1985 were the nuclear powered guided missile cruiser Frunze, the Sovremenny class guided missile destroyer Osmotritel'nyu and the Kashin class destroyer Strogii. Three more guided missile destroyers of the Sovremenny and Udaloy class joined the Pacific fleet in December 1987 in addition to the two already stationed in Vladivostok. The SSNX-21 is also being tested as a more accurate sea-launched cruise missile along with the SSMX-24. The United States Trident submarine program was initiated way back in the early 1970s and the deployment began in the Pacific in 1982 with the USS Ohio. The United States Navy likes to boast that the Trident is the most expensive and destructive weapon ever made and we are meant to feel privileged that the first eight have now been fully deployed in the Pacific Ocean-or peaceful ocean, as it should be. After 1992 these submarines will be fitted with the Trident 2 or D5 missile system, giving them a first strike capability and raising further doubt about the status of the North West Cape communications base. The Los Angeles class attack submarine has been deployed since 1976 and after the mid-1990s the Seawolf class will replace it. The Reagan Administration, under former Navy Secretary John Lehman, set about acquiring a 600-ship navy by 1990, although that goal may be deferred with the recent defence cutbacks in Washington. Many of these new ships were deployed in the Pacific, including two of the revamped battleships armed with Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missiles. Pursuing the cult of the offensive, the United States Navy came up with the maritime strategy in the early years of the Reagan Administration, an offensive and destabilising approach which made nonsense of claims that sea power was the most effective form of deterrent. Provocative exercises, designated the `Fleetex' series, were held off the Soviet coast each year, along with old favourites like `Rimpac' and `Team Spirit', getting bigger each time they were held. Sea-launched cruise missiles are regarded as particularly destabilising because they are impossible to verify and there is no way of telling the difference between conventionally armed and nuclear armed versions. Of course, once they are on their way, the proof would be at the point of impact and it is a bit late by then. Faced with this escalation of the arms race at sea, it is easy to see why an agreement in the Asia-Pacific region will be much harder to achieve than the agreement in Europe on intermediate-range nuclear force missile systems. In the Pacific an obvious asymmetry occurs where a land power faces a maritime power. In Europe there are two clear blocs, while in the North Pacific there are several regional powers as well as the superpowers. The United States does not want an agreement in the Pacific, where it is clearly dominant, and Japan has shown no interest either. Nonetheless, if we are to pursue regional security there must be talks and Mr Hayden has outlined areas where agreement could be reached. In his ANU speech he suggested: They could aspire, for example, to put a ceiling on, reduce or eliminate strategic nuclear weapons from the region or substrategic nuclear weapons. Naval forces could be limited by numbers or tonnage either in the aggregate or by selected types of warship. Various naval disengagement arrangements can be imagined, again in aggregate, or confined to particular types of vessels such as submarines or aircraft carriers. One variant of naval disengagement that has endured in the literature and surfaced periodically in official proposals, is the idea of anti-submarine warfare sanctuaries for strategic ballistic missile submarines. The concept of a nuclear-free zone could be looked into. There are a variety of confidence building measures such as transparency, notification of manoeuvres and exercises and limits on their scale and/or location. Finally, one could list a straightforward dialogue on security perceptions and concerns, either as a step towards an agreed negotiating objective or simply in the hope of teasing out possible steps of benefit to all concerned. The Minister also noted: It is clear that the Soviet Union wants to address security concerns in the Asia-Pacific region. It is also clear that most of the security problems in the region cannot be constructively addressed without the positive involvement of the Soviet Union. It is in the interests of all of us to provide the room for these sentiments to be translated into concrete actions in a measured step-by-step fashion. The high seas are indeed a dangerous potential battleground. Many strategic analysts regard the possibility of nuclear war at sea as extremely grave, for several good reasons: First, the rapid build-up of nuclear weapons on board warships and submarines, to which I have already referred; secondly, the frequency of naval exercises involving the super-powers and their allies in dangerously close contact with their opponents; and, thirdly, the lack of visibility of nuclear weapons at sea, making public protest much less likely than against nuclear missile silos and stations on land. Fourthly, the mobility of nuclear weapons at sea gives the superpowers' naval planners a feeling of invulnerability, or a false sense of security. Fifthly, the high mobility also increases the accident possibility. Sixthly, distance from chain of command and possible breaks in chain of command could result in commanders of vessels launching their nuclear payloads in time of high stress. Seventhly, the relatively underpopulated oceans may give naval planners an excuse to test out their naval strengths against their adversaries. Non-government organisations have already taken up the challenge of addressing this enormous problem of the arms race at sea. I have mentioned the conference at the ANU last August and the follow-up work of the Peace Research Centre is planned for the rest of this year. In February this year there was another conference on the subject in Wellington, New Zealand, organised by the Pacific Institute of Resource Management and Greenpeace, and yet another in Japan. Greenpeace International has launched a nuclear free seas campaign and with the Institute of Policy Studies in the United States is preparing a series of 10 briefings to be known as the Neptune Papers. The first was published in October last year and was tabled in the Senate. I hope that this Parliament will take an increasing interest in this issue in the months ahead and that, instead of stale old rhetoric about the Soviet threat, we shall hear constructive discussions about security and arms control in the Pacific. Australia is a minor player and we need to work together with other middle-ranking powers in the region, encouraging countries like Japan and South Korea to join in and perhaps working more closely with countries similar to our own, such as Canada and New Zealand. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has indicated some initial steps forward, but his Government needs to back up those proposals by boosting its expertise in the disarmament section of his Department, not running it down. Finally, for those interested and in order for honourable senators to get a broader picture of the problems and prospects that lie ahead, I recommend a set of conference papers from the ANU conference. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(11.03) —This evening I wish to direct some remarks to the Report on the State of the Automotive Industry 1987, which was tabled earlier today but on which I was precluded from making remarks by the expiration of the time allowed for the discussion of Government papers. The tabling today of this report demonstrates the contempt which the Hawke Labor Government has for both Parliament and for the law. The fact is that, in tabling this report, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) is in breach of the law. More particularly, he is in breach of section 8 of the Automotive Industry Authority Act 1984. Section 8 (1) of that Act requires that: The Authority shall, not later than 31 March in each year after 1985, prepare and give to the Minister a report on the state of the automotive industry during the period of 12 months that ended on the preceding 31 December and on the prospects for the automotive industry during the year in which the report is furnished and during future years. It appears from the tabling of this report that the Authority has complied with this section of the legislation. That is evident from the letter which is incorporated on the first page of the report. It is addressed to Senator Button in the following terms: Dear Minister, In accordance with section 8 (1) of the Automotive Industry Authority Act 1984, we have pleasure in submitting to you the report on the State of the Automotive Industry for the year 1987. The letter is signed by members of the Authority, Mr Hunter as Chairman, Messrs Conron and Gietzelt and Mr Scales, Chief Executive and Associate member. That letter is dated 31 March 1988. However, clause 8 (3) of the legislation reads: The Minister shall cause a copy of the report given under sub-section (1) to be laid before each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister received the Report. Quite clearly, the Minister has not complied with this requirement of the legislation, because the report tabled today is not that which was presented to him on 31 March. Instead, it is the supplementary report of the Authority which was presented to the Minister on 13 April. That is referred to on the following page of the report in a letter from the Automotive Industry Authority dated 13 April 1988. This letter, as with the previous letter, is again addressed to the Minister, in the following terms: Dear Minister, In accordance with section 8 (1) of the Automotive Industry Authority Act 1984, we submitted to you the report on the State of the Automotive Industry for the year 1987 on 31 March 1988- as I previously mentioned that they had done. The letter continues: We now submit to you a supplementary report on the state of the Automotive Industry for 1987, in light of the Government's decision to revise the assistance arrangements under the Passenger Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Plan. That letter is again signed by the same four members of the Authority. Therefore, the Minister is not only failing to comply with the legislation by today tabling this report which was given to him on 13 April rather than the report of 31 March, but is misleading Parliament because he purports that this report of 13 April is that of 31 March. There can be no doubt that this report tabled today is the supplementary report and not the report of 31 March, as is required to be tabled under the Act. A perusal of the report demonstrates that quite clearly. Page 45 of the report refers to the lowering of assistance levels announced by the Minister on 13 April-clearly a decision that was taken after 31 March and contained in a report that was obviously written after 31 March. On page 51 the report again refers to the changes announced on 13 April. Between pages 53 and 54 the report discusses in detail the changes announced on 13 April. Between pages 157 and 166, in appendix 5 to the report, the complete ministerial statement of 13 April is reproduced. What further evidence is required that this document which was tabled today is a supplementary report-the report of 13 April-and not the report of 31 March, which is the one required to be tabled under the Act? Where is the report of 31 March referred to in the first letter attached to this report? Most importantly, this is the report that is required to be tabled under the Act. We may ask why the Minister has failed to table that report. Is it because what I raised as a possibility in a question to the Minister on 18 April-that the Government's decision in regard to the changes in protection for the automotive industry was not consistent with the recommendations of the Automotive Industry Authority report-is in fact the case? In answering that question the Minister said that the recommendations of the Authority with regard to assistance measures would probably be included in its report. He claimed that the Government decision was consistent with the recommendations in the report. In the light of the Government's failure to table the report of 31 March as required by the Act, suspicion must now be raised as to whether this is the case. What is the Government trying to hide by refusing to table that report, by indeed refusing to comply with the law, and by misleading the Parliament by purporting that the report of 13 April is the 31 March report? Unless the Minister is now prepared to comply with the law, a law initiated by his own Government and passed though this Parliament, and to table the report of 31 March, I believe that his only option is to resign. I call on the Minister either to comply with the law or to resign his portfolio. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(11.10) —It will come as no surprise to the Senate that I will not respond to Senator Vallentine's habitual payment of her dues to her controller in the Soviet Embassy. She reads words and phrases, the meaning of which she had no comprehension. I was present in the chamber when the adjournment debate began and I was very interested in what Senator Colston had to say because he made a very real point. Senator Colston went as far as any loyal member of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) could go in pointing out the dimensions of this problem. I will take a few minutes to amplify this point and make clear what he was saying because the inflation of prices in domestic dwellings from overseas buying is a real problem in southern Queensland. The first point I make is that it is not only the Japanese buyers because others operating in this market include Hong Kong Chinese, Malays and members of other Asian countries who come to this country and buy residences not for their own purposes necessarily but for investment or rental purposes. The second point I make relates to the total ineffectuality of the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) guidelines and controls on these purchases. Let us set aside for a moment whether or not it is wise to apply these controls. I simply do not know the answer to that, but the rules that were brought down by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) earlier this year are totally ineffectual. One can drive a horse and cart through them. There is no way of enforcing them, let alone policing them. I believe that a real case can be made to throw them out or at least revise them and introduce something that works, if it is at all possible to control the situation. As I say, I think it is a very complex area and I am not sure in my own mind what the answer is. However, I am sure that, as a legislator, to have rules and laws that can be so flagrantly and easily broken is bad for society, and that is why I am speaking tonight. My third point is that the influence of these overseas buyers is having an effect that runs through all residential accommodation in the region. It is true that they are operating in the upper end of the market and they are probably operating in an area where housing prices range from $350,000 up to $1m. It would be no exaggeration to say that in that bracket the presence of these overseas buyers is adding an extra third to the local value of these houses. People are still buying houses whether they are Australian citizens or residents of another country; so this is not operating as a barrier to people purchasing houses. However, the important point-and the point that I am sure Senator Colston is concerned about-is that there is a flow on from this right down to the lowest level of housing prices in the country and in this region. I do not know what the median price of a house would be in the Brisbane area, but I guess it would be between $55,000 and $65,000. That price is being inflated quite considerably as a result of buying at the upper end of the market and, as a result, I think that there are social consequences. Housing prices are high enough already but interest rates, despite some easing in mortgage rates over the past 12 months, are also very high. It is very hard for young people just starting out to buy their first home. It is also very difficult for families with children because as a family grows it must move into a larger house with extra room and study areas for children as they go into high school. A very real social problem is developing as a consequence of this intrusion into the local market by overseas buyers. I have no objection at all to the influx of overseas capital if it comes into this country to create jobs, to buy factories and generate an industrial base because the whole community will benefit, but I remain to be convinced that the purchase of residential accommodation by overseas buyers has any benefit at all for the Australian community. While I am on this theme I really wonder how advantageous it is for us to sell nearly all our tourist hotels and facilities to Japanese buyers. I am not sure that there is any long term benefit in that for the Australian community. However, I reinforce very much what Senator Colston has said. First, the foreign investment guidelines are absolutely unenforce- able and meaningless and as such must be changed if the Government is to preserve any respect for the law at all. Secondly, the Government must address the impact of overseas buying on the social life of the Australian community. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(11.15) —I will briefly respond to some of the points raised in this debate tonight. I refer first to Senator Colston, whose comments were reinforced by Senator MacGibbon. Senator Colston asked that his contribution be made known to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and a reply obtained. I undertake to do that. Senator Jenkins repeated a point made earlier today by Senator Reid in relation to the Page Primary School. Much of her speech was on the theme of self-government for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and the need for the community to be able to direct its resources. In response to Senator Jenkins, as the respon- sible Australian Democrat in this area, it is interesting that she has yet to commit herself to the Government's self-government proposal, which may go some way to addressing the principal objections raised in her contribution. Senator Vallentine's contribution will be passed on to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). I am sure that it will have a major impact and will influence his thinking as he works out the next phase of our foreign policy. Finally, Senator Chapman proved tonight that as a lawyer he would make a good senator and as a senator he should never try to be a lawyer. Section 8 (1) of the Automotive Industry Authority Act makes it quite clear that the responsibility is on the Authority. Even Senator Chapman acknowledged that pursuant to Section 8 (3) the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) had tabled the document within 15 days, so I do not think that one can maintain an allegation of a breach of law by the Minister. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.17 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Proposals 1988- No. 2-Quarterly Survey of Balance Sheet Information. No. 3-Survey of International Trade in Services. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 141) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 December 1987: (1) Is the Federal Government partly or wholly responsible for drawing up contingency plans in the event of a nuclear accident involving nuclear powered vessels in Queensland harbours. (2) For which Queensland harbours do such contingency plans exist. (3) Do such contingency plans exist for Royal Australian Navy ports, or commercial ports, or both. (4) Do such plans deal only with accidents involving nuclear powered vessels, or do they also cover accidents involving nuclear armed vessels. (5) Is the Minister aware that contingency plans involving nuclear accidents in the Western Australian ports of Fremantle and Cockburn Sound have been available to the public for about one year now. (6) In view of this, will the Minister make any such contingency plans for Queensland ports publicly available; if so, when; if not, why not. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Because authority for controlling the resources of State Government emergency services organizations is vested in the State Governments, the Commonwealth relies on each of the States to implement emergency plans and to participate in their development. With respect to plans for accidents involving the reactors of nuclear powered warships in Queensland harbours, the Commonwealth assists in the provision of overall guidelines, technical expertise and specialised equipment and co-ordinates through the Natural Disasters Organisation any additional Commonwealth support necessary. (2) and (3) There is a port safety plan for the Fisherman Island complex in Brisbane. It is the only berthing facility that would currently be used for nuclear powered warships in Queensland. It is a commercial port. (4) Under existing arrangements, accidents involving vessels which may be carrying nuclear weapons would be handled in accordance with the general emergency plan of the relevant port. (5) Yes. (6) Any decision to make Queensland's port safety plans public is a matter for the Queensland Government. Senator Walsh —On Monday, 18 April 1988 (Hansard, page 1618), Senator Macklin asked me a question without notice concerning an efficiency scrutiny review of some CES services, which allegedly proposed, amongst other things, the introduction by the CES of a fee for service for client groups, including disadvantaged groups. The Minister for Employment and Education Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: One of the efficiency scrutinies conducted by the Block review of the Australian Public Service, concerned CES involvement in temporary and professional placement services. That particular review reached its conclusions some twelve months ago. The findings of the review have not been presented to the Government for consideration. Initially the presentation of the review report was delayed because of last year's federal election. Subsequently the restructuring of Commonwealth Departments and changes to administrative arrangements, particularly the establishment of the Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET) further delayed the report. More recently the Government has agreed to a broad based review of organisational arrangements within DEET, for the delivery of services to all clients of the Department. The report of the Block examination of temporary and professional services has now been subsumed by the wider review. There are therefore no proposals before the Government concerning the introduction of fees for service by the CES, nor is the Government considering such a move. It is also relevant that Australia is a signatory to an international agreement to provide a free public employment service. The Government intends to honour its commitments under the agreement.