Tuesday, 24 May 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the proposed changes to taxation on superannuation will have a dramatic impact on the lives of the majority of working Australians. 2. That Australian citizens have traditionally been proud to be independent and self-reliant of government and the proposed changes will effectively remove incentive for citizens to provide for their own retirement. 3. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senators will oppose the introduction of any changes to the current tax arrangements for superannuation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Newman (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the imposition of sales tax, import duties and other financial constraints on Telecom Australia will have the effects of: Increasing local and STD call charges. Increasing telephone rental charges. Increasing delays in providing services to new, rural, most small business and domestic subscribers. Decreasing service standards generally. Leading to the destruction of the Australian telecommunications manufacturing industry. Increasing the internal and external pressures for the deregulation and/or privatisation of Telecom Australia. Leading to the abandonment of the ``service to all Australians'' principle on which Telecom Australia has always operated if deregulation and/or privatisation continues further. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government revokes its recent decisions applying extra financial burdens on Telecom Australia and takes appropriate steps to ensure that Telecom Australia has the legal, and financial ability to discharge its statutory obligations to provide universal service under its present monopoly status as the national telecommunications provider. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Powell (from 298 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the House assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we most strongly oppose the process of `food irradiation' by Cobalt 60, Caesium-137, Caesium-134 or any machine sources. That we oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process being permitted by State Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray the Federal Government ban the importation of any radio-active substances or machinery for the purpose of food irradiation, disallow regulations permitting the irradiation of food in Australia, and ban the irradiation of food in this country. We also call upon the Federal Government to withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sanders (from 210 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament assembled. The petition of these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia. Respectfully showeth that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with the only nation-wide, independent radio and television service. That the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia. That the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources, would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship or advertising material from commercial sources into the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Childs (from 100 citizens) and Cook (from 58 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled- The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-1986 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 204 citizens). Petitions received. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —At the request of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Senator Collins, I withdraw Business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 2, 3 and 6 standing in his name for four sitting days hence, pursuant to notice of intention to withdraw given on 23 May 1988. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the failure of the Government to give the Page community any warning that it would close Page Primary School, prior to the announcement that Page Primary School would be closed, as part of the ACT Schools Authority's final report on school planning; (b) notes that Page Primary was not a school which was targeted for closure in the draft `Community Schools for Canberra' Plan and, therefore, did not present a case to the Authority on its behalf, as did all the schools which were targeted for closure under the plan; and (c) calls upon the Government to annul its decision to close Page Primary School, and requires that the Government conduct a complete review of school planning in the South Belconnen region, which would give all schools involved, including parents of Page Primary School, an opportunity to respond to its proposals. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting- (a) the unsatisfactory answer given by the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Ray) in response to a question asked by Senator Patterson on 23 May 1988; (b) the response to Senator Michael Baume's question in Senate Estimates Committee hearings by the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Ray) that the Government was not aware of the extent to which properties it owns were vacant or underutilised, that it would be a `herculean' task to find out and that `we may have to make a judgment as to the amount of resources we would need to devote to answering that question'; and (c) that such basic information would be readily available to any private sector property manager and should be available to the Government, particularly in view of the multi-millions of dollars of waste, evidenced by the recent revelations of Australia Post, resulting from rent forgone on empty properties or cash proceeds not received from their disposal, calls on the Hawke Government to take immediate and appropriate measures to stop this multi-million dollar incompetence and waste involving property owned by the Commonwealth and its statutory bodies. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —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. Strengthening Australia's Schools: A Consideration of the Focus and Content of Schooling-Ministerial Paper. 2. The Australian-Japan Foundation-Annual Report 1986-87. 3. Australia New Zealand Foundation-Annual Report 1986-87. 4. First Report of the Constitutional Commission-Summary-May 1988. 5. Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statement of Expenditure for April 1988. The PRESIDENT —In the Senate on 20 May during the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) the question of arrangements for Commonwealth car drivers to have access to the new Parliament House was raised. The Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Robert Ray, has approached me on this issue and I am able to inform all honourable senators that access arrangements for Commonwealth car drivers to the new Parliament House will be on the same basis as for this building. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! The PRESIDENT —Another rumour gone. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Minister representing the Prime Minister to reports in the Melbourne Sun and the Canberra Times quoting the National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Bob Hogg, as telling the Victorian Parliamentary Press Gallery that there would be no savage cuts contained in tomorrow's mini-Budget, that the statement would deal with tariff levels, investment and `other inducements which will assist our own manufacturing base in this country'. In view of the understandable weight which would be attached to comments from someone in such a senior Party position, I ask the Minister: What access has Mr Hogg had to any of the detail of tomorrow night's statement? If no direct access has been allowed, has he been briefed on the general content of the mini-Budget, and by whom, and on whose authority was Mr Hogg given either access or briefing? Senator BUTTON —I have not seen the Press reports to which Senator Chaney has referred but over the last three months I have seen a wide range of other Press reports about the likely contents of the May statement to be released tomorrow. It could well be that Mr Hogg, being a more careful peruser of the newspapers than Opposition senators, would have reached some conclusions of his own about the content of the May statement as a result of reading newspapers. Senator Crichton-Browne —Is that where you find out what goes on in this Government? Senator BUTTON —If I said yes to that interjection, honourable senators would be better informed as a result of following the papers diligently-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Is it government by leaks? Senator BUTTON —No. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator BUTTON —Mr Hogg would have had no access to Government decisions or documents relating to the May statement. I believe he would have had discussions with Ministers such as me in which I talked to him about the general tenor of the May statement. I have done that, but on nothing specific about any details which will be released tomorrow night. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. From that answer it is not at all clear whether what Mr Hogg said was speculative or whether it was based on a series of briefings, one of which was from the Minister. Since the reports do not suggest that Mr Hogg is speculating on the contents, will the Minister ascertain specifically what access Mr Hogg has been given to either documents or briefings from his colleagues and advise the Senate of the position? Senator BUTTON —I have already answered that part of the question. I said that Mr Hogg had been given no access to documents or briefings in the strict sense of the term. As I said, I and undoubtedly other Ministers would have discussed with him, as we have discussed amongst ourselves and with others, the general contents of the May statement-in terms of what it will be about. That is all Mr Hogg's reported remarks really suggest. Senator Chaney —How do you know? You have not seen them. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator told me what they were in his initial question. Mr Hogg's remarks do not suggest any access. All they suggest is a general knowledge about the contents of the May statement. If I might say so, there are a number of people in industry who have, as a result of the consultative process which has been going on, a general understanding about the tariff issues in the May statement, but they do not know the details. There are two quite distinct questions. All Mr Hogg is really saying is that he has a general picture of what the May statement is about. Most people who have been studying the issue do. Senator SCHACHT —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to some comments made by Mr John Elliott, the Liberal Party President, at a conference in Sydney on the Pacific economy? Mr Elliott is reported to have said that Mr Keating cut off the economy at the knees in 1985 by raising interest rates.What in fact has been the growth in the level of economic activity in Australia since the Hawke Government took office? How does this compare with the period immediately preceding it? Are these figures compatible with the idea of the economy having been cut off at the knees in 1985? Senator WALSH —My attention has been drawn to statements by the Liberal Party President last week, or yesterday-I am not too sure. I do not know whether the statements should be attributed to a fundamental innumeracy, too much Fosters or a desire to consciously mislead the public. The best available indicator of the overall level of economic activity and growth is gross domestic product (GDP), even though Senator Coulter has some reservations about that. If he does, I trust he will put his ideas to the Australian Statistician, as I invited him to do before. Using that measure, between the March quarter of 1983 and the December quarter of 1987, the latest available figure in the period that covers the term of office of this Government, GDP in Australia went up by 22.7 per cent; that is, a compound rate of 4.4 per cent each year. March 1983 to December 1987 was a 4 3/4-year period. If we take the 4 3/4 years immediately preceding March 1983, GDP rose by 9.4 per cent, a compound rate of 1.9 per cent per year. So in the 4 3/4 years under Labor, GDP increased at a compound rate of 4.4 per cent. In the previous 4 3/4 years it increased at a compound rate of 1.9 per cent. In other words, the growth rate in GDP under the Labor Government is more than twice the growth rate recorded by the discredited Liberal Administration when John Howard was Treasurer. If we take a measure that some people would regard as more reliable, non-farm GDP, the figures are not quite so spectacular. Non-farm GDP under Labor grew at a 4.2 per cent compound annual rate and under the Liberal Party, over the same time period, it grew by 2.2 per cent. So it was more than twice as much by one measurement and almost twice as much by the other. If Mr Elliott thinks that is cutting the economy off at the knees, I wonder what he thinks Mr Howard did-presumably cut it off at the ankles. Senator LEWIS —Has the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce yet resolved his difficulties with Caucus in his efforts to win approval for a $30m cash injection for the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC)? If not, if he like Senator Evans has conceded the defeat of his attempt to get private capital into the AIDC, what alternatives is he considering to help overcome the Corporation's shortage of working funds? Senator BUTTON —I am glad that Senator Lewis, as a result of two good AIDC dinners in the last year or so, is espousing the Corporation's cause in this chamber-I thought Liberal policy was to sell it. Senator Lewis —That would inject private funds into it. Senator BUTTON —Would it? The answer to the first part of his question is no; the answer to the second part of the question is no; and the answer to the third part of the question relating to alternatives is that when the Government decides on that issue, it will advise him. Senator AULICH —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. In light of the death of Ms Cassandra Ogden some hours before she was due to reveal details of drug dealings to the National Crime Authority, will the Minister confirm that there is a regime in existence for the protection of witnesses giving evidence to that Authority? Senator TATE —I will come to the question of protection of witnesses in general in a moment. The very tragic death of Ms Cassandra Ogden is before the Coroner in Melbourne at the moment. Therefore, it would not be proper for me to comment on any aspect of the National Crime Authority's operations, including any possible protection which was either offered or might be thought to have been required in relation to that witness. But in relation to the National Crime Authority in general, the fact is that the National Crime Authority does have a regime in place which provides for the protection of key witnesses and it does so in conjunction with relevant police forces, such as the Australian Federal Police and the police forces in New South Wales and Victoria. As I understand it, the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Crime Authority is, if not tomorrow, certainly by the end of this week, hoping to table in the Parliament its report on the whole question of witness protection across all the jurisdictions of Australia and how this important aspect of crime fighting might best be addressed on a national scale. The fact is that the assurance that one can give to potential witnesses of their physical safety and the preservation of their anonymity in certain situations is obviously very crucial to the gathering of evidence and the proceedings which may lead to the successful conviction of criminals targeted by the National Crime Authority in its investigations, whether general or by way of special reference. But the Government awaits that report with keen interest. I hope to be able to respond to it very promptly. Senator McLEAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health. Is it the case that although funding for medical research through the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) was steadily increased in real terms between 1980 and 1986, funding has now plateaued and barely matches inflation? Is it the case that medical research done cheaply by postgraduate students has been, or is likely to be, reduced because of the Government's imposition of very high fees for overseas postgraduate students in the form of study visas, and because of the possible introduction by the Government of a graduate tax? Given all these indicators, has there been a change in the Government's attitude towards the funding of medical research and, if so, why? Senator COOK —Senator McLean was kind enough to give me advance notice of this question and I obtained an answer from Dr Blewett to the three parts of the question. It is pleasing to note that in the first part of the question Senator McLean acknowledges that under the Hawke Government funding for research through the National Health and Medical Research Council has increased. That in itself is an acknowledgment that I think ought to be mentioned in reply to the question. However, the answer is that funding through the NHMRC steadily increased in real terms from 1980 to 1987. In 1988, in the context of overall financial constraints faced by the Government, the funding level was maintained at the same level as 1987 in real terms. This cannot be taken to indicate that the Government has determined a policy of maintaining a plateau on future funding research. In addition to appropriations to the NHMRC, the Government has allocated an additional $3m for acquired immune deficiency syndrome research and $1.3m for public health research and development projects. I am informed that Dr Blewett will be arguing strenuously for a real increase in the appropriation to the medical research endowment fund in the forthcoming Budget. The second part of Senator McLean's question concerned whether our funding has been done cheaply by postgraduates and contained what I regard as a cheap political shot about the proposed introduction of a government graduate tax. The answer is: Funds for overseas postgraduate students have very little effect on the NHMRC as less than 6 per cent of the postgraduate training scholarships awarded by the NHMRC fall into this category. At this stage there is no indication that a graduate tax would necessarily deter people from pursuing postgraduate medical research training. The last part of the question was: Given all these indicators, will the Government's attitude towards funding research change and, if so, why? The answer to that question is no, it will not. Senator McLEAN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister did not address one element of my question; that is, the impact of the $5,000 visa charge on those coming into the country to undertake postgraduate studies, some of them in the area of medical research. Senator COOK —The answer I gave said that the fees for overseas postgraduate students have very little effect-- Senator McLean —A visa charge of $5,000. Senator COOK —One assumes that not only the fees in general terms but also the visa charge are considerations for postgraduate students, and the answer that there is very little effect seems to me to stand. If I need to supplement that answer, I will do so; but I will put it on notice in order to do that. Senator BEAHAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister aware of comments by the Liberal Party's President, Mr John Elliott, to the Pacific Basin Economic Council-and he makes good reading-reflecting adversely on Australia as a place in which to invest? He stated: Countries who do not perform in a competitive environment will cease to attract the capital of the major international companies. What action is the Government taking to improve Australia's competitiveness in the company tax area? Senator WALSH —In reply to the last part of the question, Senator Beahan and everybody else will have to wait until tomorrow to find out the major component of what the Government has done. Of course, the Government has already made Australia a more attractive place in which to invest in a number of ways-principally, as I said in reply to an earlier question, by sustaining or making possible a high rate of economic growth by steadily bringing inflation down, apart from the devaluation-induced blip of a couple of years ago, from the 11.5 per cent we inherited from John Howard, to currently a little under 8 per cent. We brought the unemployment rate down and we have had an effective wages policy for five years. Of course, all of those things have made Australia an attractive place in which to invest. It is not unusual, indeed, it is common- place, for Mr Elliott to be bucketing Australia to foreigners as it was for him up until a month ago to be advocating a consumption tax. It is something which he seems to be unable to resist. I suppose I should say in the context of a consumption tax that Mr Elliott has a record over several years of, essentially, trying to sabotage the Australian economy when he sets foot outside Australia, and now he has started doing it inside Australia as well. That is an attribute he has in common with the Liberal Party member of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly, Mr Ross Lightfoot, who, as we all know, wrote to George Shultz, the United States Secretary of State, last year begging the United States to resist any attempt to decontaminate or decorrupt, to use a term similar to that which Mr Kerin uses, international markets for agricultural products because, said Mr Lightfoot, he hoped the United States would depress prices for Australian agricultural exports as much as it possibly could in order to induce a recession or depression in Australia which he thought would then get rid of the Labor Government. So Mr Elliott and Mr Lightfoot have that much in common. They are both, essentially, economic saboteurs. In that light it is not at all surprising that Mr Lightfoot wrote to Mr Elliott on 12 April 1988 congratulating him on his advocacy of a consumption tax and so on, and adding later: I could not concede that the wider public appreciates the hollow chested, limp wristed mixture of wet Liberal socialism that some of our leaders offer, and with some alacrity, espouse. I will not quote the entire letter. I will just table that letter from Mr Lightfoot to Mr Elliott and put it in the context that, of course, they admire each other because they are both economic saboteurs. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —My question is to the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer for Prices. Has the Minister noted the warning from his colleague Senator Walsh about the inevitability of higher taxes if the Government is forced to provide further capital for Qantas Airways Ltd and Australian Airlines? Is the Minister concerned about the impact on consumers of rises in personal or indirect taxation, such as the already record level of sales tax which has already risen 110 per cent under the Hawke Government, as a result of the Government's defeat on the privatisation issue? If so, will he work within his own Left faction in an effort to overcome this blockage to plans which would benefit Australian taxpayers and consumers generally? Senator BOLKUS —The easy and quick answer to Senator Baume would be to say that in this Senate I have responsibility for the Bureau of Consumer Affairs and I do not have responsibility for my Left faction. However, that would be the easy way out. Senator Baume should understand that the whole question of privatisation, as has been expressed in debate in this place a number of times quite recently not only by myself but also by Senator Walsh and Senator Gareth Evans, is not one purely of ideology, which seems to be in the forefront of Senator Baume's mind. People understand that consumers can be protected both by regulation and by a degree of deregulation and co-regulation. All those particular components of the regulation debate and the privatisation debate are obviously at the forefront of the thinking of the Government and my thinking as Minister for Consumer Affairs when we are addressing issues such as the ones that the honourable senator raised. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his reply. However, it leaves me a little concerned. I could not gather from his reply whether we are to assume that this means that he is part of the Left faction sub-faction that is implacably opposed to any privatisation or whether he is part of the Left faction sub-faction that is now prepared to acknowledge the strength of the Evans-Walsh case for some degree of private ownership. Senator BOLKUS —I do not think there is anything more to answer to Senator Baume's question. Senator McKIERNAN —Has the Minister for Transport and Communications seen the comments of Senator Sheil as reported in this morning's edition of the Gold Coast Bulletin about the recent mid-air collision near Coolangatta Airport? Do the assertions contained in the article have any basis in fact? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen Senator Sheil's reported comments this morning. Indeed, I could hardly have missed them with the lurid banner headline saying, `You'll have blood on your hands', accusing me in the text of trying to sweep under the carpet last Friday's tragic accident in which four people were killed in a light plane crash near the Coolangatta Airport and accusing me further of callous disregard for the families of those killed in that tragic accident. If, as I can only assume, the reported comments of Senator Sheil are accurate, I have to say that they constitute one of the most irresponsible, ghoulish and despicable performances I have ever seen from any politician in this place or in this country. I say that with some regret because, despite all the obvious political and ideological differences that separate us, until now I have always regarded Senator Sheil as thoroughly decent and honourable in personal dealings I have had with him. I have spelt out the reality of this matter; I have spelt out the facts to Senator Sheil twice in this chamber in recent days. I explained yesterday, I think it was, that the recent tragedy at Coolangatta had nothing whatever to do with the question of radar facilities at that airport. I explained, and I say again, and it is a matter of fact, that all circuit and landing training at every Australian airport is visually monitored and that will continue for reasons of safety and efficiency to be the practice at Coolangatta, even after full radar coverage down to floor level is commissioned in the early 1990s, as it will be. Senator Sheil is suddenly an expert on air traffic control and safety procedures and was quoted this morning as saying that the simple fact of the matter is that the two planes would not have collided if Coolangatta had full radar coverage. He has chosen for what he doubtless hopes will be his own cheap political gain to completely ignore the facts and to cruelly cause further unnecessary torment and anguish to the families bereaved by last week's tragedy. He has chosen through inaccurate and near hysterical assertions-such as `blood on your hands' and all the rest of it-to risk creating needless concern to the Gold Coast community and to positively promote the quite erroneous belief that there is something inherently unsafe about the Coolangatta Airport. We had Senator Sheil waxing piously in the chamber yesterday about the importance of tourism to Coolangatta and the possible damage to that industry by any perception that Coolangatta Airport is unsafe, yet here he is again, if accurately reported in the newspaper this morning, doing everything conceivably possible to foster just such false fears. I will say just one more thing: he took the reckless approach to this issue one step further in this morning's lengthy report by accusing me of attempting to snow over the tragedy, as he put it, because yesterday I said in this place that I was unwilling to speculate on the cause of the collision at Coolangatta Airport. As I said yesterday and as I repeat now, this accident is currently the subject of investigation by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation. It would be simply quite inappropriate for me to comment on the specific circumstances of that accident until the Bureau has completed its investigation and report. Senator Sheil suggests that I should ignore proper practices and speculate as to who, if anyone, was responsible. Whether it was pilot error, an act of God or something to do with the visual observation procedures applied by the air traffic controllers, to ask, to require or to demand that I should be speculating who if anyone might have been at fault on this occasion when this has not been determined is typical of the blatant disregard for propriety that we have come to expect from the National Party in Queensland. Senator SHEIL —It is nice to respond to that tirade from the Minister. In fact, I have a question for him following the near miss yesterday involving a jet aircraft at Coolangatta Airport. I ask the Minister for Transport and Communications: On his visit to the Gold Coast last week-presumably to get his riding instructions from the Australian Council of Trade Unions executive on privatisation-was he not invited to visit the Coolangatta air traffic control and to see for himself first-hand the whole situation of an airport that does not have adequate radar cover? Is it a fact that the Minister refused that invitation and found it more convenient to go to Oscar's on the Beach to enjoy the company and entertainment there? I point out that the invitation was given to the Minister well before the fatal accident that occurred last Friday. That in itself demonstrates an appalling disregard for the safety of more than 930,000 passengers a year who use Coolangatta Airport, not to mention the people adjacent to the flight paths into and out of the airport. Is it a fact that since the tragic deaths of those four people last Friday the Minister is attempting now to make arrangements to visit air traffic control at Coolangatta Airport? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not aware of which particular garbage bin Senator Sheil rummages through to get his information but it is utterly false and contemptibly false as to at least part of what he said to me. I do not know whether I had any invitation to visit the air traffic control facility at Coolangatta Airport. Such an invitation may have been sent to my office. I do not know; I should be interested to find out. Obviously I am perfectly willing, capable, able and happy to visit that centre. Senator Walters —What did you do for lunch? Senator GARETH EVANS —I shall come to that in a moment. I am happy, willing and able to do so at an appropriate time. As it was, the other day I left at the crack of dawn on a VIP flight to get there. I left at the first available opportunity to get back here for Question Time. I had five minutes up my sleeve. I was due to take off at 11.30 a.m. and I arrived at Coolangatta Airport area around 11.25 a.m. I happened to ask the driver to divert in the five minutes available down to Greenmount Beach to have a look around to see whether that particular restaurant, which I remembered from a past visit, was still there. We had a look, walked out, came back into the car and drove back. The whole visit took 4 1/2 to 5 minutes. I do not know where Senator Sheil gets his information from but it is typical of the grandstanding nonsense that he has obviously demonstrated a willingness to engage in in this place. I note the absence of any apology for what he is obviously responsible for. I note by his silence, his obvious acquiescence, that he is responsible for every single contemptible and despicable quotation that appears in the Gold Coast Bulletin. He will be judged accordingly, not only by me but also by all Australian people who I hope have been listening to this exchange. Senator CROWLEY —I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health to claims by the Opposition in this place in a recent debate that hospital waiting lists are very long and are due to Medicare. This claim was also made loudly in the other place very recently by Mr Tuckey. Can the Minister, yet again, correct these appallingly wrong claims and, in particular, draw to the attention of the Senate the statements by the Liberal Minister for Health in New South Wales, Mr Collins, recently refuting these claims? Senator COOK —Of course, as everyone would know, the States are responsible for the administration and running of the public hospital system-not the Federal Government. Therefore, any accusations by Mr Tuckey about Medicare in that sense are ill directed. However, not only is that a statement which I am sure the Senate would understand but also, once again, it is an attempt by Mr Tuckey to confuse his health policy by attacking our healthy achievements and it is inaccurate because, as the honourable senator's question has indicated, the State Health Ministers are not in accord with what Mr Tuckey says. When I first heard the allegation about Medicare being the cause of waiting lists in public hospitals I thought that, prima facie, there may be something in this because Medicare has succeeded in achieving a major social reform for Australia by bringing health treatment into the ability of all Australians to pay and not having health treatment and health care limited to those who can afford health insurance or, of their own right, afford to go for treatment in hospitals. So at least in my view it stands to reason that if more Australians under this system of Hawke Government major reform are entitled to health care and health treatment there may be waiting lists because of that. But I am advised that that is not the reason for the waiting lists that are now identified and the State Health Ministers say that that is not the reason. Indeed, no less a person than the Premier of New South Wales, Nick Greiner, has repudiated the allegations made by Mr Tuckey and denied that Medicare is responsible and the Health Minister in New South Wales, Peter Collins, has explicitly refuted the allegation by Mr Tuckey. In an interview on 2GB on 11 March, Mr Collins said: Medicare has got nothing to do with the debate on (State) health. The primary issue in the health debate in this State is public hospital waiting lists . . . Waiting lists are attributable to poor management of the hospital system, to the fact that orthopaedic surgeons have not been available to operate on public patients in the numbers they are needed. Again last week Mr Collins attacked the orthopaedic and ophthalmic surgeons as being the major cause generating longer waiting lists in public hospitals in New South Wales. The honourable member for O'Connor should not need to be reminded of any of those things because particularly in elective surgery waiting lists have always been a feature of health care in Australia. About 250,000 patients receive treatment in Australia's public and private hospitals every month. So, quite naturally, hospitals book patients in advance and that is simply efficient management on their part. However, the concept of a waiting list is misleading. It includes patients who are frequently listed at more than one hospital; patients who, for convenience, choose to go into hospitals at a particular time; patients who have had an operation and are asked to return for a checkup at a later date; and pregnant women who cannot bring forward their hospitalisation. As well, the allocation of priorities within waiting lists is a matter of clinical judgment exercised by individual medical practitioners. The question that Senator Crowley has asked has invited me to draw that to the attention of Mr Tuckey. I do not think that, on one of his infrequent visits to the House of Representatives when he is obeying the Standing Orders, it would be necessary for me to do that because, as I have said, these factors have been pointed out by the Health Ministers themselves. Mr Tuckey is about as convincing as his attempts to forge a comprehensive or coherent policy on health care for the Opposition, which is not convincing at all. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health. It follows his answer to the question asked of him in which he essayed a statement about Medicare being a great reform for those Australians who could not afford private health cover. I ask the Minister: Is he aware of the statement that the Victorian Government is forcing public hospitals to give priority admittance to insured patients ahead of those who cannot afford any other hospital care? I ask the Minister whether he is aware of the report of a memorandum dated 23 February 1988 and circulated in a Melbourne public hospital which reads, in part: The financial position of the hospital has deteriorated throughout the month of January and the over-run is now in the order of $385,000. This amount has to be recovered before the end of the financial year . . . It is therefore necessary to adjust the number of public patients admitted for the balance of the financial year to the level budgeted for. In consequence, all future elective bookings of public patients- I interpolate that that means the people who do not have private health insurance- will be on the basis that any number in excess of one public patient per elective list will require approval from the Medical Director . . . The restriction will remain in place until future notice. Is it a fact that this directive means that one uninsured public patient for admission has to be supported by the admission of two insured patients and that the waiting time in public hospitals for insured elective bookings is no more than two weeks-in other words, those who can afford private insurance have to wait for only two weeks but for public patients it is many months? I ask the Minister: Is this an example of the fair deal being administered to the people of Australia by the shambles that this Government has brought upon the public health system? Does the Minister defend priority admission being given to private insured patients over public patients because they have no private insurance? Senator COOK —I am pleased to see that in Senator Chaney's sudden interest in health care and, in particular, in his question to me following Senator Crowley's question, he has not in any way sought to defend Mr Tuckey and the allegations Mr Tuckey has made. I am pleased that he has not done so because it proves that the answer that I gave to Senator Crowley is accepted by Senator Chaney. I ask him to pass on that acceptance to Mr Tuckey. Senator Michael Baume —He is too busy pinning you to the wall on Medicare. Senator COOK —If I were Senator Baume, I would not be talking about Medicare or health. The reason Senator Baume is sitting where he is is that he fumbled the ball in the last election. The first part of Senator Chaney's question was whether I was aware of a certain statement. He then proceeded to quote. I do not recall him sourcing that quotation, although he may have done. I was trying to take down notes at the time. If he did, I ask him to give me the source of the quotation. It is not familiar to me. Therefore, in answer to that part of the question, I cannot say that I am aware of it. However, I stand by what I said about Medicare being one of the most significant social reforms in Australia. It was a reform introduced by the Hawke Labor Government. It has brought within the reach of ordinary Australians access to medical and health treatment they would not otherwise have received. That is a substantial tribute to this Government. The people of Australia know that. The fact that there are problems in the hospital system and the health systems does not detract from the achievement of Medicare. Senator Vanstone —Answer the question. Senator COOK —I wish Senator Vanstone would stop harping. I cannot hear half the bleating she goes on with, and it is nonsense anyway. Let me go to the part of the question about waiting lists. In the answer I gave to Senator Crowley, I referred to a series of reasons as to why there are waiting lists for public hospitals. The reasons are obvious. They stand by themselves and do not need to be reiterated by me Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I do not know whether the Minister is capable of answering a simple question, but let me try. Does the Minister deny that public hospitals in Victoria are giving priority admittance to insured patients ahead of those who cannot afford other hospital care? Does he deny that that is occurring? Senator COOK —I do not know why Senator Chaney is waiting to sit down. I was wondering when he was going to finish the question. I thought that maybe he would want to ask a question that was supplementary to his supplementary question. I do not know the answer to the question, directly, but I do know that the administration of the State hospital system in Victoria is not a matter for this Government. Senator BLACK —I ask the Minister for Finance whether he is aware of this reported claim by the shadow Minister for Finance, Senator Stone: Road funding has decreased under Labor by more than 40 per cent in real terms over the last four years. Is Senator Stone's claim accurate? Senator WALSH —The short answer is yes and no to each of the questions. I have seen a report in the Sunshine Daily, which I believe is a Sunshine Coast publication. I am not sure whether it is a throwaway. It is headed `Ahern backs road bid, but toll to stay for 20 years'. It quotes Senator Stone as saying: Road funding has decreased under Labor- as Senator Black said that Senator Stone had said- by more than 40 per cent in real terms over the last four years. I have here a table and a bar graph-which I will table later-which show in constant 1987-88 dollars the level of Commonwealth government funding for road grants to the States from 1980-81 to 1987-88. If we go back four years from 1987-88, we find that the figure, which was a peak figure in 1983-84 because that was the peak bicentennial road program construction year, was $1,593m in 1987-88 dollars. It is true that in 1987-88 it is down to $1,244m, which is a reduction of just over 20 per cent, not the 40 per cent that Senator Stone claimed. If we go back to the last full year of the Fraser Government, we find that road grants to the States by the Commonwealth totalled $1,084m-again, in the same value in dollars-compared to $1,244m this year. There has been a 14 per cent increase in road grants to the States compared to the last year of the Fraser Government. So it is pretty clear that Senator Stone will not be much help to the Opposition when it tries to get its alternative Budget together again. Indeed, he is not much help to himself. Those who bother to look back at his alternative Budget of June last year will see that item 7, under the heading `Economic Services: Transport and Communication', reads: Among cuts in this area to be put forward in 1987-88 would be the following: Cut road grants to the States (and Northern Territory), estimated at $1,200 million in 1987-88, to save $120 million. So less than a year ago Senator Stone said that the proper amount of money to provide to the States for roads was $1,080m as against the $1,244m which this Government provided. In other words, Senator Stone was advocating a level of road funding 14 per cent lower, in round figures, than the level of funding which he now tells his constituents on the Sunshine Coast is much lower than it ought to be. I table the bar graph and the table. From all this, one can draw three possible conclusions, none of them flattering to Senator Stone. The first is that he is innumerate; the second is that he has taken to telling fibs just like all his redneck colleagues; and the third is that he is confused about what we have done, what he intended to do, and what he would do if he got a chance. Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. Quite clearly the Minister's penultimate sentence was unparliamentary and should be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to withdraw the reference. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. I have also finished the answer. Senator CALVERT —Has the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce been receiving indications of concern and disquiet over the effect of the harmonising of tariffs, particularly as these measures relate to a large number of leading fashion houses throughout Australia which have been forced to bear the brunt of tariff increases, from 2 to 40 per cent, on lightweight woollen cloths used in the manufacture of fashion garments? Is the Minister aware that the fashion industry provides direct employment opportunities for significant numbers of Australians and for many others in the distribution and retail areas? Further, given the fact that the Government is currently spending in excess of $34m on wool promotion and that it has taken the last five years to educate the retailers into accepting lightweight woollen cloths using the cool new wool theme, does the Minister agree that the 1 January tariff increase of 38 per cent in the short term at least is having a demoralising effect on our local manufacturers, to the point where they are now being forced to turn to the use of synthetics and thereby acting in direct contradiction to the main aims of wool promotion? Senator BUTTON —I have not received a large number of representations on this issue, as I understand it. I have received representations from some significant organisations, such as the Australian Wool Corporation, and I have responded to those representations. I just say that in the policy by-law reform the coverage of the by-laws for wool, cotton and synthetic fabrics was reduced from 51 to around 13. The total effect of this change, as has been noted by the Wool Corporation, was marginal. As I understand it, it had the effect of indicating to the Wool Corporation and others that the Government was concerned about adding value to Australian wool in Australia. I will certainly consult to see whether any further representations have been made to me; I do not believe they have been. As soon as I can I will provide the honourable senator with a more detailed answer on that issue. I am quite aware of the importance of the Australian fashion industry and that it plays a significant part in respect of the use of small quantities of wool. It is important that it does this effectively. Senator COULTER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. By way of preamble I point out that the genesis of this question lies in the very considerable concern which is being expressed over the Antarctic Treaty nations negotiations in relation to minerals prospecting and exploitation and, particularly, that liability in the case of environmental damage must extend to prospecting in the Antarctic. I ask the Minister: Are the Antarctic Treaty nations, including Australia, currently considering an Antarctic minerals convention at a meeting in Wellington, New Zealand? Are the considerations centred upon a draft document prepared for this meeting? Is it a fact that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has prevented release of this document to the Australian public, whilst the United States Government has made the document freely available? Finally, does the Government believe that the Australian public should be prevented from knowing what is being negotiated? If the answer is no, will it make the document available? If the answer is yes, why? Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the first question, yes, it is the case that the Antarctic Treaty consultative parties are meeting from 2 May to 2 June in Wellington in order to complete negotiations on a convention to govern possible mineral resources activity in Antarctica. There is currently an agreed moratorium amongst consultative parties on minerals activity in Antarctica. The adoption of such a convention does not mean that exploitation is imminent. I should perhaps say further in that respect that little is known of the commercial minerals potential of Antarctica and little, if any, activity apart from prospecting is likely to occur until well into the next century at the earliest. The convention is being concluded now to ensure that a system of regulation is available in case exploitation should ever become economically feasible and environmentally safe. Preparing in advance for problems has been a feature of the well-established Antarctic Treaty system. I am sure that Senator Coulter would wish that that approach continue. As to his second question-are the considerations centred upon a draft document prepared for this meeting?-yes, the draft to form the basis for a convention is an evolving document resulting from negotiations over six years and 12 separate sessions. Concerning the final parts of his question, in accordance with normal international practice, this type of document is regarded as confidential among the parties involved in the negotiations. While it may be informally discussed by governments with non-governmental groups this is done, by convention, on a confidential basis. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has adhered to this practice in making the document available to a number of non-governmental groups. The same practice would apply should Senator Coulter wish to see a copy. I do not know whether the American Government has taken the same line on this matter, but I can find out if the honourable senator wishes me to do so. As to the substance of the negotiations, Australia has been at the forefront in pressing for strong environmental protection measures in the convention-as no doubt Senator Richardson is acutely aware; and he has been in the forefront of that endeavour-and Australia's position is to ensure stringent environmental safeguards to protect its national interests should mining ever proceed. The Government's representatives at the negotiations have clear instructions to pursue these objectives. Their performance has been applauded by concerned environmental organisations. Senator COULTER —I ask a supplementary question. Is it Australia's position that liability in the event of environmental damage will extend to prospecting as well as the exploitation of minerals in the Antarctic? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will take that part of the question on notice. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business. I refer to bilateral agreements for space rockets to be launched from Woomera in South Australia by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) of the United States of America and by the West German Space Research Organisation. How many sounding rockets have been launched so far from Woomera to investigate and explore the supernova phenomenon? How many more rockets are to go up in this welcome reactivation of the Woomera space facility? Are there any prospects of further agreements being signed for the use of Woomera by foreign countries? What has been the impact on the local economy of the current agreements? Senator BUTTON —The launching of sounding rockets from Woomera has attracted some attention in recent months. The Government has concluded a 10-year agreement with the United States and a five-year agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany to permit the launch of sounding rockets from Woomera for scientific purposes. To date, NASA has launched six sounding rockets and the German Space Research Organisation has launched one. All of these missions have been to investigate supernova 1987. NASA has advised the Government that it intends to launch a further series of three rockets during February 1989. The German agency has no further launches scheduled. Funding for the launch activities of NASA and the German agency is provided through a trust fund managed by the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. Total expenditure on these activities to date has been $1.4m, primarily in reimbursement of the direct costs and overhead charges incurred by the Department of Defence in operating the Woomera range. There are currently no other proposals to launch sounding rockets from Australia to investigate the supernova. However, the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce has received preliminary approaches from a number of overseas companies wishing to explore the potential for the launch of sounding rockets for other scientific purposes such as microgravity experiments. Senator HILL —I remind the Minister representing the Minister for Defence of the recommendations of defence ministerial consultant Robert Cooksey 18 months ago that our currently very small defence export industry could be increased substantially-in the view of some officials up to $1 billion a year-and particularly that significant increases could be achieved simply `by certain modest changes to policy and administration without financial cost to government or impost on the economy'. Is it not the case that some of such recommendations concerning a reversal of the onus of proof placed on prospective exporters have been bogged down in Cabinet since February? Why have these matters not been dealt with? Is it the case that internal party differences have meant that these matters have been deferred to less sensitive times after the Australian Labor Party's Federal Conference, at a consequent cost to the nation? Senator ROBERT RAY —There is strong industry and union support for revising defence export controls to better balance Australia's defence, foreign policy and commercial interests. The customs regulations will be revised to restrict controls on those goods that are, firstly, specifically designed or adapted for military purposes and inherently lethal, incapacitating or destructive; and, secondly, of major military significance. Deciding whether or not to permit export of a particular military product to a particular customer will always be a sensitive matter. We will not export defence goods to certain states against which there are arms embargoes imposed by the United Nations Security Council or by any other international instruments to which Australia is a party. Also, we will not be exporting to those countries which threaten the strategic interests of Australia or its friends or allies. The Australian Government expressly reserves the right to prohibit the export of military goods to governments that seriously violate the human rights or constitutional rights of their citizens and also, in particular cases, where specified Australian foreign policy interests could outweigh the export benefits. Australia insists on firm assurances by any overseas suppliers that they will continue supporting equipment we buy from them. I could add even more information than I have, but the final point is that I do not believe there is a final Government decision on this matter. The honourable senator speculates as to the motives of that. I do not believe that those motives are true, but I do not have any compelling evidence at this stage to put them to rest in the honourable senator's mind. There have been many decisions and many emphases to make in the defence area. This one, though, still remains reasonably high up on the list of priorities. If I can add anything to the particular answer I have given the honourable senator, I will do so at a future time. Senator DEVLIN —Can the Minister for Transport and Communications advise the Senate of details of the preliminary 1987-88 financial results reported today by Qantas Airways Ltd? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, I can. I have a great deal of pleasure in doing so. Qantas continued its strong growth in 1987-88, with total revenue earned by the group reaching a record $3,085m, which is an increase of 20 per cent over the previous year. Of this amount, 65 per cent or nearly $2 billion was earned in foreign currencies. Qantas this year also returned its highest ever operating profit of $153.3m, which is an increase of 47 per cent over the previous year's record profit of $104.3m. This increase resulted mainly from an increase in seat utilisation from 67 per cent in 1986-87 to 70 per cent, and by restricting expenditure growth to 19 per cent over the previous year. The growth of inbound tourism has also contributed to the latest result. After including provision for income tax of $87.5m, and the proceeds from the sale of aircraft of $65.5m, Qantas returned a net profit of $131.1m for 1987-88 compared with just $63.8m in the previous year. There is just one further statistic: since 1984, Qantas's turnover has more than doubled, from $1,435m to this year's record of $3,085m that I have already mentioned. Over this period the company has returned $423m in profit on airline operations. That is over 80 per cent of total operating profits earned since the Government acquired all the shares of Qantas back in 1947. I believe that Qantas staff and management deserve very strong congratulations on these outstanding results. I should say finally, however, that while Qantas's latest results are a record profit, the result is in no way sufficient to fund the company's capital expansion internally. The issue of Qantas's capital basis is therefore an issue that still remains to be addressed. Senator ARCHER —Has the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories received representations from either the Tasmanian Government or the Tasmanian Opposition about the findings of the report of the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests on World Heritage listing? If so, what is the attitude of the Government and the Opposition in my State to the findings of the inquiry? Finally, I ask the Minister whether he fully agrees with his colleague the Minister for Resources, who was reported to have said on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio in Tasmania on Friday that the Government was `obliged to accept the Helsham inquiry report'? Senator Cook —That is not an accurate quote. If you are going to quote me, get it right, will you? Senator RICHARDSON —I will have the pleasure, I think along with Senator Cook, very shortly of seeing Mr Groom from Tasmania to find out his Government's attitude-within minutes, as they say. I suspect that I know what his attitude is, and what he will convey to me. I am meeting with some representatives of the Tasmanian Opposition in the next couple of days-I am not exactly sure when but it will be pretty soon-to discuss this matter with them and Senator Cook. The honourable senator alleged that Senator Cook used those words. Senator Cook has already denied having uttered them. In any event, as I have said before, I will not be commenting on the Helsham report until I have made some representations to the Government and the Government has made its decision. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Sheil requested from me a copy of the transcript of the conversation between the air traffic controller and the pilots of the two jetliners concerned in an incident at Coolangatta Airport with the pilot of another commercial aircraft on the ground at the same time. I have a full answer for him on this matter, and I seek leave to have that answer incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- I provide a record of relevant communications between the Coolangatta Tower Controller and the pilots of the two Australian Airlines aircraft involved in the reported incident. I have not provided a full transcript of the communications, as release of such transcripts is contrary to the provisions of Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention on Civil Aviation. Paragraph 5.12 of the Annex recommends that transcripts of communications between persons responsible for the safe operation of aircraft should not be made available other than to those persons charged with the responsibility for investigating for safety enhancement purposes. I am assured by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, however, that the following record is an accurate summary of the exchanges, and no relevant material has been excluded. The aircraft involved were a Douglas DC9, registered VH-TJS; and a Boeing 737, registered VH-TAZ. The Tower Controller was processing VH-TJS to land on runway 14, and intended that this aircraft would have landed and taxied off the runway prior to the landing of VH-TAZ on runway 32-that is, one aircraft was landing into the south-east, and the other into the north-west. At 2107 hours VH-TJS was cleared for a visual approach to a left base position in the circuit, and advised that it would be the third aircraft to land in a particular sequence. At this time VH-TAZ was 16 miles (about 30 kilometres) from the aerodrome. The pilot of VH-TAZ was informed that he would be tracking for a right base position for runway 32, and advised that the wind was less than 4 knots across the runway. The aircraft was progressively descended to ensure adequate vertical separation existed with VH-TJS. A few seconds before 2111 hours the Controller instructed VH-TJS to turn onto the base leg, and instructed VH-TAZ to make a visual approach to the right base position (for runway 32). At 2112 VH-TJS was cleared to land, and one minute later VH-TAZ was instructed to make the base leg turn. The pilot of VH-TJS requested confirmation of the fact that his aircraft had a landing clearance, and this was given by the Controller. In response to a query from the Controller, the pilot of VH-TAZ advised at 2114 and 22 seconds that the aircraft was 5 miles (about 10 kilometres) from the aerodrome. Some 18 seconds later, the pilot of VH-TJS asked what the light in front of the aircraft was, and was told there was nothing on the runway. The pilot replied that the light was ``heading straight at us'', and almost immediately the pilot of VH-TAZ reported that his aircraft was on final approach. Shortly afterwards the pilot of VH-TJS advised that he was going around, and the Controller indicated that VH-TAZ was 5 miles from the runway on final approach, and was ``well clear of you''. The pilot of VH-TAZ advised 9 seconds later that his aircraft was now 3 miles (about 6 kilometres) from the aerodrome, and was cleared to land. VH-TJS carried out a circuit and subsequently landed on runway 14. Senator Sheil also referred to another commercial aircraft on the ground at the time of the incident. This aircraft was taxiing prior to take-off, and there were no transmissions to or from this aircraft which were relevant to the particular incident. The information I have provided on this matter is purely a summary of radio communications. An investigation into the occurrence is presently being conducted by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, which will look at all aspects of the incident. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 24 May, from Senator Coulter: Dear Mr President Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move: `That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The necessity for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to: (a) allow the legislation which may bring [an] Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission into existence to lie before Parliament for at least six months; (b) more actively involve Aboriginal people and groups in consultation and in possible amendment of this legislation; and (c) reinstate the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) as it was constituted before the recent dismissal of commissioners, and continue and fund all current Federal Aboriginal bodies until ATSIC comes into operation, or until other proposals which have widespread Aboriginal support are implemented. Yours sincerely John Coulter Senator for South Australia Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator COULTER(South Australia)(3.08) —I move: ``That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The necessity for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to: (a) allow the legislation which may bring [an] Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) into existence to lie before Parliament for at least six months; (b) more actively involve Aboriginal people and groups in consultation and in possible amendment of this legislation; and (c) reinstate the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) as it was constituted before the recent dismissal of commissioners, and continue and fund all current Federal Aboriginal bodies until ATSIC comes into operation, or until other proposals which have widespread Aboriginal support are implemented.''. This is certainly an urgency motion because many of the facts which surround this development have become evident only in the last few days. Indeed, only last week we saw the sacking of the eight commissioners from the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) and their replacement by eight other appointees of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Gerry Hand. The term of the sacked commissioners of the ADC was due to expire on 30 June 1988; in other words, they had a term to run of only a further five to six weeks. It is well known that the ADC had been putting a view to Aboriginal people and groups which was different from that which the Minister had been putting in relation to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). Indeed, the ADC had been attempting to get to Mr Hand and to put these views to him but, as I understand it, quite unsuccessfully. This action by the Minister has undoubtedly galvanised Aboriginal people and groups into action. If they had any doubt before about the speed with which this proposal was developing, and if they had any concerns over whether Aboriginal people were to get more autonomy and independence under the ATSIC proposals, this has certainly made many of them very nervous about what lies in store for them. Clearly it has severely divided the Aboriginal community. Undoubtedly there are many in favour of the ATSIC proposals, but equally there are many who are unhappy about them, who believe that some of the present structures should be kept in place. But, particularly, there is now a large group in the middle which is really confused and needs more time to make up its mind as to which side it is really on and what sorts of proposals it would support. Continuing chronologically, yesterday, which was the first day on which the new commissioners could meet, those commissioners met, and they changed the policy of the Aboriginal Development Commission with respect to the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission to conform with the Minister's position, and a number of motions were put through. The new ADC has forced the chairwoman, Mrs Shirley McPherson, to ring the Minister and tell him that the Aboriginal Development Commission as now constituted supports the ATSIC proposal. Senators should not be surprised at that because the Minister has put in place on that Commission those people whom he knew would support his proposals. In other words, the Minister is getting extremely incestuous advice-advice which he knew he would get. There is little value in such advice going back to him. That type of procedure reminds one of some of the worst experiences of concentration camps during the Second World War, where Jews were lined up around large pits and shot and the Jews standing on the banks of those pits were asked to urinate on the bodies in the pits before they were shot and turned in. That sort of behaviour is not the sort of behaviour expected from a Minister who says that he is working towards greater autonomy, independence and dignity for Aboriginal people. The second decision that the new ADC made was that it would withdraw the current legal action against the Minister. That was over the Minister's right to carry out the sacking action and also the Minister's legal ability to give direction to the ADC. Again, one should not be at all surprised, if one puts onto a commission those who are in favour of what the Minister has proposed, that they take that sort of advice. Again, there is no objective value in the advice in this decision having been taken. I would like to make the point that I am in no way reflecting on the new commissioners. I am quite prepared to believe that all of them believe that they are doing the right thing. I am quite prepared to believe that all of them believe that ATSIC is the right way to go. Today, Mr Pat Dodson from the Central Land Council rang me and I have had a telegram from that body. Mr Frank Chulung from the Kimberley Land Council has also rung me and told me that he is personally in favour of ATSIC and would like to see it come into operation quite quickly. I know that Mrs Lois O'Donoghue, who was partly responsible for the move towards ATSIC, is also one of the new commissioners and is in favour of it. One is not in any way reflecting on the honesty of those people, but one is very much reflecting on the sincerity and behaviour of the Minister, who replaces a body that is expressing an alternative viewpoint with a body that meekly supports his position. In other words, the Minister has attempted to silence an alternative viewpoint which was a legitimate viewpoint of a sizable proportion of the Aboriginal people. The third decision which came out of yesterdays meeting related to the outgoing commissioners receiving no financial assistance if they continued to support the former ADC line. It is quite despicable that those people who have taken a line which they legitimately and rightly believe is the correct line should find themselves deprived of funds to move around the country and support that particular position. Presumably, an extension of that is that any person or group in receipt of Government funds that opposes the Minister's plan for ATSIC will similarly have their financial support withdrawn. I note in passing that the top headline of this morning's Canberra Times reads, `The Perils of Speaking Out: Hawke Warns West'. In this case the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) was simply speaking on privatisation in line with Australian Labor Party policy. Cabinet has not yet decided to overturn party policy; nonetheless, the Prime Minister is piqued by one of his Ministers. That indicates a repressive, authoritarian line being pursued in this Government and particularly by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. This is a matter of urgency. These events have occurred over the past week and some of the really important events have occurred as recently as yesterday. They vitally concern the ongoing welfare and the independence of indigenous people in Australia. As I have indicated in previous speeches in the Senate, those people have been in Australia for an incredibly long time, not 200 years but 200 times 200 years. In the short time Europeans have occupied this country, we have substantially deprived them of their dignity. Their dignity needs to be handed back to them and that is not achieved by treating them as the Minister has treated genuinely concerned Aborigines on the Aboriginal Development Commission until last week. Not surprisingly Aboriginal groups around Australia are now very concerned and divided. The history of the development of the concept of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission goes back to the Whitlam years when Dr Coombs, a man who has had a long interest in Aboriginal welfare, first proposed a body of this type. The concept was more recently updated by Mrs Lois O'Donoghue, the Chairman of Aboriginal Hostels Ltd and now a commissioner for the Aboriginal Development Commission. A giant difference exists between the concept which has been around for quite a long time and the detailed implementation of that concept. The detail will be as important as, if not more important than, the concept itself in determining whether the ATSIC concept and everything that goes with it will work. The first statement of the Minister on this was made during the dying stages of the pre-Christmas sitting. I remind honourable senators that the document Foundations for the Future was introduced on the second last or last day of that sitting and little time was provided to debate it properly. It was not legislation; it was a concept document that made certain propositions. Honourable senators might recall that at that time I expressed cautious optimism that, in practice, that proposal would be made to work. Early this year the Minister engaged in a five-week period of frenetic consultations, as he called them. As he said-I do not doubt his word-those consultations were the most far-reaching, comprehensive and detailed that have ever involved a Minister with Aboriginal groups. Telling people what efforts one has made to fulfil a particular function is no indication that that function has been adequately discharged. That the five-week period of consultations could be claimed as such an important new development reflects more on the lack of quality of previous ministerial consultations. Most people would be aware that Aboriginal groups would prefer to reach consensus by a slow process of discussion rather than by voting. One hears from Aboriginal group after Aboriginal group that during those five weeks the Minister would come in very quickly, tell the Aboriginal people who were present what would happen, and then quickly leave. There was little time for consultation, certainly no time for consensus and very often I hear approximately half the Aborigines present were so confused as to what was happening that they did not vote. So that the majority, taken on a vote, was no indication of the wish of the majority of people actually present at those meetings. The statement which the Minister made in late April indicates that the elections for ATSIC will be held over the months of October, November and December. It is clear that, with the Parliament resuming on 22 August, there will be as little as five weeks available for Aboriginal groups and others to see the final legislation, give consideration to it and make representations to the Government and to the Minister as to whether that adequately meets their needs. Again, given the way in which Aborigines consider these matters and given the way in which they would prefer to come to a consensus about matters like this, that is far too little time in which that process can occur. We should note also that between the December announcement and the announcement at the end of April considerable modification had already been made to the proposals. We see that the number of areas has been doubled-it was not a moderate increase; it was a substantial increase-one whole section of the zonal councils has been deleted; the size of ATSIC has been increased and there has been a change in the distribution between appointed and elected representatives. They are all ideas which very significantly change the structure which was originally put to Aboriginal people and on which, presumably, their considerations were then based. Furthermore, these ideas need to be got back to Aboriginal people and groups so that they can properly consider them. The history of the ADC is that it came in under a coalition government in 1980. Senator Bonner who, of course, was the only Aboriginal senator ever in the Senate, in speaking to that ADC legislation, very strongly praised the concept of the ADC. Like many other bodies drawn from disadvantaged groups it was not surprising that, in its early years, the ADC, along with a number of other Aboriginal groups, did not function as well as groups that would be drawn from the more literate, well-educated groups in society. Undoubtedly, there was a tendency in some areas towards nepotism and there was perhaps some inefficiency and non-professionalism in relation to the handling of funds. But it is quite clear that, over the intervening years, not only the ADC but also Aboriginal Hostels Ltd have very substantially lifted their game. I believe that the Minister has anticipated the sorts of legislation which we might see come forward by taking the action he has against the ADC. I commend the motion which is before the Senate to honourable senators. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(3.25) —The Government will be rejecting this urgency motion brought forward by Senator Coulter on behalf of the Australian Democrats to do with the Government's proposal to bring about a situation on 1 January 1989 whereby the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities around Australia will exercise executive and real authority in relation to their affairs. It is a remarkable proposal which, for the first time, will enable Aboriginal and Islander communities to exercise real authority and power by way of self-determination of matters of concern to them. They will do so as an elected body. The way Senator Coulter would take this Parliament and this Government, if his motion were adopted and acted upon by the Government would result in a great tragedy. The organisation whose life Senator Coulter would wish to see continue beyond 1 January 1989 is a non-elected body. The members of the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) are appointed by the Minister-they are there by sheer patronage-whereas 12 out of the 15 members of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) will be elected by the communities themselves. That is a tremendous expression of their right to self-determination in relation to their affairs. It would be extremely unfortunate if that day were put off, as Senator Coulter seems to suggest should be the case. The Aboriginal people are already telling Senator Coulter that they do not want that to happen. I received a telex today, for example, from Mr Wenten Rubuntja, the Chairman of the Central Land Council, which makes it very clear that on behalf of all executive and Council members of the Central Land Council he is making a plea to Senator Coulter-I am sure that he would have received the telex-not to be part of any tactic to delay the implementation of the legislation for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. It goes on to say: Our Council-made up of elected representatives- elected representatives, not through patronage, not appointed members, as with the ADC- of all major communities and cultural groups of the central region has spent a lot of time talking and thinking about the new Commission. There have also been many meetings of people with the Minister. Those elected representatives support the Commission in principle. To save time, I table the telex. A telex from the Chairman of the Northern Land Council, Galarrwuy Yunupingu, says: The 45th meeting of the Full Council of the NLC today resolved, in principle, to support the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the establishment of ATSIC by the 1st of January, 1989. And further resolved to strongly oppose any delays in the establishment of ATSIC by other political parties. The resolution was unanimous. So the Northern Land Council and the Central Land Council have made their point of view very clear. They wish to see the new Commission of elected representatives of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people put into place by 1 January 1989. The interesting thing is that Senator Coulter himself thinks it is a very good idea. In a letter addressed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Hon. Gerry Hand, dated 31 March 1988, Senator Coulter said: I am writing to express the concern of Democrat Senators at the extremely short timeframe allowed for consultation and for the necessary legislative processes to take place to enable the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (or the separate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commissions as we have proposed) to commence operations on 1 July 1988. We cannot see how this Bill can be dealt with in order for this deadline to be accommodated and suggest a more suitable commencement date would be 1 January 1989. This is a letter from Senator Coulter on behalf of all Democrat senators to the responsible Minister, written only a few weeks ago. It continues: If this longer period of consultation and debate is accepted then it will be necessary to extend the existence of those bodies and the employment of those people who work within the present structures. The uncertainty of employment for these people should be promptly removed. Thus we suggest that you make a decision as quickly as possible about extending the date for the commencement of the operations of ATSIC to 1 January 1989. The Minister responded on 29 April, saying: I refer to your letter dated 31 March in which you indicated certain concerns regarding the timetable relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). I have noted your comments and as you know the suggested date in your letter is just the date the government has chosen to start up this new Commission. I indicated the reasons for this in my speech on April 27. So there is complete harmony between the Minister and the Democrats in relation to the start-up date of 1 January 1989, which is completely at odds with the proposition that has now been put to the chamber. The Minister, in his letter to Senator Coulter, continued: Might I suggest that if you have any further queries please don't hesitate to contact either myself or Geoff Pryor in my office. I would be pleased to discuss this with you. There has been a deafening silence from the Democrats. They have made no approach either to the Minister, Mr Gerry Hand, or to Geoff Pryor, his Senior Private Secretary, to discuss their concerns about this matter since that letter was received by them at the end of April 1988, some three weeks ago. The motion that Senator Coulter has moved is a very artificial device and is absolutely at odds with the Democrats' preferred position that 1 January 1989 be the commencing date for the Commission. Indeed, it is the preferred position, as I say, of the Northern Land Council and of the Central Land Council. The other parts of the urgency motion brought forward by Senator Coulter are equally flimsy. I refer, for example, to the implied suggestion that sufficient consultation has not been taking place. I doubt whether I have ever seen such a program of consultation as has been undertaken by this Minister in relation to this matter. Certainly, I have never undertaken any such extensive consultation with bodies within my portfolio. I doubt whether any other Ministers have consulted so widely. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has conducted 46 meetings, involving an estimated 6,000 representatives of some 1,200 organisations and groups around Australia between 23 January and 10 March. In those consultations he found support in principle in all but a few areas for the ATSIC proposal. The consultations led to considerable change. In particular, I recall, as we all do, the fact that the Torres Strait Islanders felt that they were not given sufficient distinct recognition in the arrangements put forward by the Minister in those early rounds. Indeed, their wishes in relation to their concerns have now been accommodated. The consultations with representatives of all communities and organisations were real consultations. This was no public relations exercise. The Aboriginal and Islander communities were listened to, and changes were therefore made in relation to the Government's proposals. The major proposal-what has been so attractive and what gives an air of urgency to the implementation of these proposals-is that the majority of commissioners, 12 out of 15, will be selected by Aboriginal communities and organisations, as opposed to the present situation where the ADC is appointed by the Minister and subject to that process of gaining a guernsey in this important area. That is why it is so crucial that the matter be proceeded with as expeditiously as possible. Of course, there will be time for debate within this chamber in the Budget session, which will allow-- Senator Chaney —There will be lots of time. Senator TATE —There will be time for debate, of course. Senator Chaney —Six months, I would think. Senator TATE —Not necessarily. Senator Chaney may see some reason between now and the Budget session in relation to the passage of the legislation. In fact, over the winter recess, as both he-because of his well-regarded interest in Aboriginal affairs-and Senator Coulter move around Aboriginal communities, they may find that those communities plead with them to pass this legislation in a way which allows the Commission to come into operation on 1 January 1989. I am sure that Senator Chaney has not closed his mind to the possibility that his consultations with these communities may lead to that conclusion. Senator Chaney —I hope the Minister doesn't put pressure on these communities. He controls their grants, you know. Senator TATE —I suggest that it would be improper for the Minister to apply undue or untoward pressure. It would be very patronising to suggest that the Aboriginal and Islander communities would succumb to any such pressure. As far as I am concerned, there has been no suggestion-it would be improper; I notice that it does not directly fall from Senator Chaney's lips-that either the Northern Land Council or the Central Land Council is making its representations to this chamber today otherwise than in accordance with the unanimous view of those who have gathered to consider these matters as representatives of the members of those councils. I have a few minutes left to deal with the aspect of the urgency motion dealing with the Aboriginal Development Corporation. It is well known that the Federal Court of Australia, whilst lifting certain interlocutory injunctions, is yet finally to determine certain matters; nevertheless by lifting those injunctions it has allowed, by its action, a situation to develop so that the new Aboriginal Development Commission commissioners could meet. In fact, they did meet yesterday, with Mrs Shirley McPherson as the Chairperson of that Commission meeting and Mr Pat Dodson as the Deputy Chairman. The other members are Mr Charles Perkins, Miss Lois O'Donoghue, Mr Terence O'Shane, Mr Getano Lui, Mr Peter Yu, Miss Esther Carroll, Mrs Zona Martin-I think she was a member of the previous Commission-and Mr Robert Lee. We know that the commissioners agreed to cooperate on the establishment of ATSIC. The Aboriginal Development Commission, with its new membership, has met and is operating in accordance with the permission-that is probably the way to put it-of the Federal Court. It is acting in such a way that it is already fully exercising those powers which are vested in it, both to deal with the ordinary business that comes before it from time to time in the normal course of allocating moneys and funds and passing ordinary resolutions, and in relation to expressing, through its meeting, support for the establishment of ATSIC. The urgency motion brought forward by the Democrats runs counter to their own expectations and wishes in relation to the bringing into being of the new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. I believe that there is urgency involved, but the urgency is for this chamber to deal, not in a partial or rushed way, but in a considered way, during the Budget session, with the legislation that will be brought into the chamber. I believe that this chamber is well equipped and well able to give that legislation a fair, not unduly rushed, consideration during the Budget session in such a timely way that the Aboriginal and Islander people, by an Act of this Parliament, can exercise real executive authority and control over those matters of concern to them. That will be a great achievement by this Parliament on behalf of the Aboriginal and Islander people of Australia. I hope that the passage of this motion, which seems inevitable this afternoon, does not prevent members of this and the other side of the chamber from listening to Aboriginal and Islander communities over the winter recess in a way which may lead to the speedy passage of the legislation on behalf of the Aboriginal and Islander people. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(3.38) —In addressing the urgency motion relating to Aboriginal matters, I think it is very important to point out that Prime Minister Hawke, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Hand, and the Minister representing that Minister in this place-the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate-have in effect become peddlers of false hope. I think they are setting out in many instances to delude Aboriginals with a very artificial series of dates that are totally unachievable. They have been doing so for many months. We need to remind ourselves of the series of events that have taken place in this very important bicentennial year; the very important commitments that the Prime Minister initially gave to a compact-a treaty-to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, and to the formation of the new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Almost at the same time Minister Hand chose to boycott all bicentennial events for the year. He showed a very arrogant, hypocritical attitude at that time. Since then I admit that he has become involved in a very comprehensive consultation process on the first round, by putting out his document entitled Foundations for the Future last December. The motion that has been put forward today by Senator Coulter puts the Government on firm notice that it now has absolutely no prospect of forcing inadequate proposals for the creation of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission on the Aboriginal people or on the Australian community, in particular without referral to this Parliament. We do not want to see the Minister's cunning and guile just forcing an issue. The Prime Minister may have had a dream of a compact or treaty but because of the very devious actions that have gone on by a few ideologues the proposal is now harming the very people it was meant to help, the Aboriginal community. The Minister has had absolutely lousy timing throughout the year. The consultation process has been ineffective and it has, in effect, destroyed confidence throughout Australia. Let us look at the Minister's statement of last December, Foundations for the Future. I give a few quotes: We must ensure that Aboriginal and Islander people are properly involved at all levels of the decision making process in order that the right decisions are taken about their lives. He said further: The proposals which I will now describe will be circulated widely amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for discussion and consideration. He also said: The Government must be satisfied that the proposals have been endorsed by the people it will directly affect. He said further: The Government makes no claim to special wisdom in this matter. Nor would it be appropriate to seek to impose a particular set of propositions on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, for an imposed solution is unlikely to gain sufficient acceptance. I stress that last point. He continued: It is much too important a task to be rushed. No artificial deadlines will be set. No hasty drafting will be done. This time we must get it right. The Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, brought down in this place on 27 April a series of options and changes. He pointed out that there were very significant changes in the whole structure of the proposed organisation in areas such as land acquisition and voting arrangements-how they would be carried out and with regard to a whole series of things for elections to be held in October, November and December. Those issues have to go back to the very people who need to be consulted. The Minister's actions in the last weeks with regard to the Aboriginal Development Commission must create a precedent. Aboriginal people throughout Australia would be wondering about the spectre of authoritarianism which will now affect all future Aboriginal dealings and organisations. The Aboriginal Development Commission, as it was invited to do by the Minister last December, put forward alternative proposals, which were thrown out with scant regard. When the Minister made his statement on 27 April he did not even refer to the Aboriginal Development Commission's proposals and alternative propositions which it had canvassed from Aboriginal people throughout Australia. We have now seen a number of people sacked, whether commissioners of the ADC or consultants. A quote in today's Press by one of the sacked consultants, Mr John Newfong, puts it very well: Things have not changed since Aboriginal people were put in chains and other blacks were given a saddle or a portion of bully beef to bring them in . . . You don't survive unless you conform. What a damning quote on the attitudes of the Minister and the way in which he has chosen to ride right across this proposal. The Minister has certainly jackbooted his way through the ADC because it chose to show a different view. Minister Tate came into the House a few minutes ago and read from telegrams from the Central Land Council and the Northern Land Council. I could get just as many quotes from other organisations around the community. It is important to remind ourselves that Pat Dodson, the Director of the Central Land Council, whom the Minister just quoted, has just been appointed one of the new commissioners of the Aboriginal Development Commission. Warren Snowdon, a member of the House of Representatives, left the staff of the Central Land Council only just before coming to this place. A member of his staff has just been appointed to the Northern Land Council. So it is not surprising that the Minister can walk in here with trumped up new support for the proposal. I am concerned about the Aboriginals out there in the general community and the fact that the Minister, last December, said, `Our kick start date will be 1 July 1988'. On 27 April he changed it to 1 January 1989. We know that the legislation cannot be presented to this Parliament until late August at the earliest. Therefore, it will not be properly processed until September or October-and, by the Government's legislative program, it will probably be November or December. The Aboriginal people are desperately crying out to see the legislation in its final form-not the changes, the options, the preambles and the early statements. They then want to talk about the legislation, as do many other people in the community. Mrs McPherson, the Chairman of the Aboriginal Development Commission, whom the Minister was not able to sack because of a technicality, gave evidence to a Senate Estimates committee hearing on 14 April. She said: The majority of the responses that we- the ADC- have received have indicated that people would like more time to be made fully aware of the Government's option and for more time to put up any other options that they would like included in the proposal. She further 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. That is certainly true, because the cavalier attitude of this Government will see it bring in the legislation and jackboot it through this place. The other night in answer to a question on appropriations, Senator Tate was asked some questions about how the proposed elections would be conducted in the absence of any legislation and in the absence of any way of knowing what structures would finally be agreed upon by the Parliament. The Minister said that the intention would be that the legislation would validate the elections and the Commission could not operate except with the passage of the legislation. He said further that these elections would be conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission in the hope-I stress those words-that the legislation would be passed by this Parliament in the Budget session. How presumptuous of the Minister to say that the Aboriginal people and constituency will agree to the legislation when it comes in here. How presumptuous to think that the Government will force the Australian Electoral Commission to put some sort of guidelines instead of proper regulations into place to run such a form of elections. It is very interesting to look at the groups that give support right around Australia to Aboriginal affairs. They are very widespread. There is confidence in the electorate that Aboriginal people are coming to grips with self-management but when we get this sort of pious and hypocritical clandestine attitude of the Government to the project, how can we possibly expect that Aboriginal people can stand up with continuing dignity? There are implications in this legislation which are constitutional in their import-for example, land acquisition and antecedent native title. What about the business and commercial opportunities and situations that have to be faced up to? The new structures will require special consideration of State and Northern Territory governments. On 27 April, the Minister did not report on any of his consultations in this regard. He has not had the honesty to come in here and bring these points forward. What about the implications for the public servants, the thousands of employees of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the ADC, the Institute of Aboriginal Studies and the departments of education which will all have to be transferred? What about the agencies and the hundreds and hundreds of Aboriginal organisations which will have to adapt? There is no way that they can get their act together to implement such a proposal by 1 January 1989. Again, the Minister is setting unachievable targets and unachievable dates. He has not even had this matter passed by Cabinet or put through the Labor Caucus committees yet. There is no formulation. The Labor Party has not properly addressed it and we have been treated to the pious simple statements as to how this would be done. Warren Snowdon, the member for the Northern Territory in the House of Representatives, recently reported to the Labor Party's conference in the Northern Territory two paragraphs on this issue. He said: The fruits of those consultations have now paid dividends with the Minister announcing this week that the new Commission will commence operations on 1 January 1989. Significantly, several changes have now been made to the original proposal which accommodate concerns which were raised by Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders over the past few months. Those two paragraphs are his only report to the Labor conference in the Northern Territory. Sure, some of the Aboriginal issues have been picked up in the options paper, but a lot of other things have not. They have not been publicly put. Mr Snowdon did not have the honesty to report on any of them to his Labor Party conference or to his electorate. They have not been picked up and put in place in a proper way. What about the other members of parliament throughout Australia with significant Aboriginal representation in their electorates? I get the impression that they are a mob of silent dummies, particularly the politicians inside the Labor camp. We have not heard from Mr Campbell from Kalgoorlie. We have not heard from the inner suburban Sydney or Melbourne seats that will be vitally affected. Senator Chaney —Campbell will not say anything which offends his white constituents, I suspect. Senator TAMBLING —No, the only people those politicians tune to are people such as Mansell with his radicalism, because this whole proposal seems to be in this area. There has not been any response from the Government to the excellent document by the Aboriginal Development Commission which looked at alternative proposals. It was prepared by a group of very well qualified commissioners in the ADC who represented a very broad constituency. They did not do it without knowledge or understanding. All those proposals have been ridden over roughshod without any critical analysis publicly by the Government. What are we playing a tune to? Where is the degree of leadership and confidence that anyone should be able to expect, when the Aboriginal Development Commission is treated so disrespectfully? What about the so-called active and involved Aboriginal consultation? The Minister went out in early January, February and March and talked with the community. The mark 2 version of the options paper went out in April and we have not seen any further response to it. Obviously we will not be shown it. The legislation will be brought in and rammed through-and the Aboriginal people will not be given appropriate time to respond to it. It is also very interesting to look at a couple of people who have also spoken out on this issue. Ex-senator Neville Bonner has been referred to-a very eminent Aboriginal Australian. He has very severely criticised the Government. Ken Colbung, a leading Western Australian Aboriginal is another of these people who are very strong in the political area. We do not want people who are prepared to be patsies and stooges taking over the running of this issue. There is support in the community for changes to Aboriginal administration but we do not want that done in such a dreadful manner as the Government has done it. I am pleased to support the motion by Senator Coulter. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.53) —I too am very pleased, on behalf of the Opposition, to support the motion of urgency which has been brought forward by Senator Coulter. In the Senate in recent times we have heard a number of expressions of concern about the adequacy and effectiveness of the consultation which has been taking place about the proposal to terminate the role of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC), hostels and the Institute of Aboriginal Studies, and to combine them in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, commonly known as ATSIC. I thank the Australian Democrats for bringing forward this motion because it represents the clearest possible message that could be delivered to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) that he is not entitled simply to rush on with this proposal. He does not have the capacity to do so because the Opposition in the Senate, like the Australian Democrats, is determined to ensure that the Minister does not put in place new arrangements which are not the subject of a genuine consultation process which leads to a genuine understanding on the part of the Aboriginal people. The Minister not only has to satisfy the Aboriginal community that the changes he is making are for the better; he has to satisfy us that he has achieved that and that what he is doing is right. I must say that over recent months when I have been casting about in my mind as to how one delivers an effective message to Minister Hand, I had not thought of this procedure. That is why I am pleased that the matter has been brought forward in this way by Senator Coulter because the passage of this motion-and pass it will-is a clear message to the Minister that his legislation cannot simply be pushed through this chamber in the way he can push it through the House of Representatives, with a flick of the finger. What the Minister has to face up to is that there is a real problem for us-and by that I mean the Opposition and those others examining what he is doing-as to how we can be satisfied about the bona fides of the process he has undertaken and its effectiveness. I say that because I cannot recall any precedent for the sort of action that the Minister has undertaken in the sacking of eight of the ADC commissioners. I can recall numerous precedents when successive Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs, including me, have been embarrassed, put upon and rendered at times extremely cross at the opposition we have received from sections of the Aboriginal community. I cannot remember when we have engaged in the sort of action that Minister Hand has engaged in, when he silenced these people by dismissing them. It is suggested in the statement put out by Mrs McPherson that the only reason he did not dismiss her was that he could not. That is quite an extraordinary way for a Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to behave and puts me-and the Opposition-on inquiry as to what the Minister is up to. It does not impress me very much to get messages from Wenten Rubuntja and Galarrwuy Yunupingu-not because they are not very important and impressive men; they are. Both of them have had long-standing involvement in the land councils-in the central and northern land councils respectively. But the land councils have not been touched by this ATSIC proposal. The most constant complaints I have heard of the Minister's office is that the only people he listens to are those on the land councils. I have absolutely no doubt that the land councils, whatever the state of dissatisfaction of others, are perfectly satisfied with what is going on because they are calling the shots. I for one will need to be convinced that more than the land councils are being served by what the Government is proposing. I am sure that if Senator Coulter and I wanted to, we could engage in an exchanging message for message exercise with the Minister. I am sure that over the next few months we could collect lots of messages which said that people disagreed with what the Minister was doing and he could collect lots of messages saying that people agreed with what he was doing. Again I put the Government on notice that that is not the way this matter is going to be determined. Senator Jenkins and I received a common message today from people dubbing themselves the Aboriginal and Islander Women's Congress of Western Australia-people whom Senator Jenkins tells me she knows well and some of whom I know. They have asked us to take action in the Senate to condemn the action of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Hand, in sacking the eight Aboriginal commissioners for the Aboriginal Development Commission. Indeed, they asked for Mr Hand's dismissal. They also asked for more time. Senator Jenkins and I, and Senator Tambling who has just resumed his seat, have all said publicly, both outside this place and certainly, as far as Senator Tambling and I are concerned, in this place-and perhaps Senator Jenkins as well, I am not sure-that the impromptu consultations that we have undertaken with the Aboriginal community have given us a very different picture from that outlined by Government representatives. We get a picture of people badly needing more time to really comprehend what is being done. The simple message that I hope the Minister takes from the passage of this motion is that he has to adopt an approach which is different from the one he has adopted to this point. The Minister will have to be much more open and will have to be involved in discussion with the Opposition and the Australian Democrats on the basis that he ensures that we have a complete understanding of what he is doing. He needs to understand that we will not rubber stamp what he is doing; we will need to be satisfied that what he is doing is right. I do not intend to try to repeat the sorts of concerns I expressed in the Senate as recently as 19 May, just late last week, about my view as to the state of Aboriginal affairs in this country. I think it is pathetic. I think that if the Government is to be condemned for anything it should be condemned for the last five years. I regard the last five years as years of going backwards. I find very few voices in the Aboriginal community that quarrel with that and I find very few people who work with the Aboriginal community who quarrel with that. Indeed I cannot, as I stand here speaking to the Senate today, think of anybody who claims that the last five years have been years of advance. I cannot think of a single person who has tried to deliver that message to me over recent years. That is why I am so pleased to be in support of this motion-because the Government now can be left under no illusion that it is not entitled to just run along its present track. There is no future in its just running along its present track, sacking people who get in the way and who do not actually fit in with its little preconceived notions. It is not going to get through this Parliament legislation which does not satisfy us in this chamber as to its bona fides. I think that is the simple message for this afternoon. I said last Thursday and I wish to say again that I do not make a criticism in a personal sense of the Minister. I think that he is sincere and he is dedicated, but I do not think that he listens to all of those around him who are capable of giving him very useful and good advice. The shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Chris Miles, said in the House of Representatives on 27 April that he thought this legislation had to be delayed into next year. He said that he thought that more time was required for consultation. I refer to what he had to say on that date, 27 April, at page 2176 of Hansard. I mention that because the Minister cannot claim that he has been short of complaints, warnings or expressions of concern whether from within the Parliament or from outside the Parliament. I have come to the unhappy conclusion that the only way that the Opposition will have any influence on what the Minister does is not by argument but by the use of what powers we have in this chamber to require that the Minister meet the requirements of consultation which have been referred to by Senator Coulter in moving this motion. I believe that he cannot now escape the obligation to carry us with him if he wishes to make the sorts of changes that he is making. Again, I do not wish to go through in detail some of the doubts that I have about it-doubts, for example, about the incorporation of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, a relatively minor matter. It is something which I think in the long term is of importance to all Aboriginal people in Australia because it is a repository and a permanent store of things which would otherwise be lost and forgotten. I do not wish to delay the Senate further. I simply hope that the Minister will take this matter seriously and that he will look at the terms of this motion, including the reinstatement of the Aboriginal Development Commission commissioners that he chose to dismiss. I have the warmest of respect and regard for some of the people that he has appointed in lieu of the existing commissioners-people such as Lois O'Donoghue. There would be no finer person that I have ever worked with from the Aboriginal community or, indeed, from any part of the community. But I do not think that is the point; I think that for the Minister to have in place of the ADC, or running the ADC, what appears, and must now appear to every Aboriginal person in Australia, as his hand-picked stacked deck is scarcely the way to proceed to determine whether or not the ADC should be abolished. I think it is a very silly approach; in fact, I cannot think of a sillier approach for a Minister to adopt. Senator Tambling —Particularly after the motions yesterday. Senator CHANEY —Yes. As my colleague Senator Tambling points out, particularly after the motions yesterday. We had the quite extraordinary situation-extraordinary in terms of the history of these matters-where the ADC decided to withdraw from legal action, we are told, on behalf of the eight sacked commissioners and where we have Mrs McPherson being forced to take stances which are utterly at odds with the position she adopted a few weeks ago. She described the dismissal of her colleagues as an outrageous and intolerable political jack boot action. I must say that I am surprised that Mr Hand should dress himself up in some sort of Genghis Khan guise and adopt this high-handed and oppressive attitude which he appears to be adopting. I think it would be a great shame if, after his conscientious attempts to come to grips with this most difficult portfolio, he were to go down a path which would leave him, I think, alienated from a substantial section of the Aboriginal community, which must increase the deep divisions which exist in the Aboriginal community and if he is seen in the end as a prisoner of a section of the Aboriginal community and a section of his own political Party. I think that the Australian Democrat senator who brought this motion forward has performed a useful service in firing a clear shot across the Minister's bows. The Opposition supports the basis of this motion. We call upon the Minister to consider it very carefully indeed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(4.05) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is a paper in which the Government has outlined some of its proposals for the future on education. It is entitled Strengthening Australia's Schools: A Consideration of the Focus and Content of Schooling. In some ways there is not a great deal of depth to the paper, but in other respects it has got within it things that ought to be considered. It deals with the possibility of moving to a situation where there is more uniformity in education throughout the various States. The paper refers to local communities and their interest in education and, to a limited extent, to their role in education and certainly their expectations. Appendix A outlines quite extensively the reviews of schooling which have taken place in this country since 1981. It is certainly a very long list. It causes one to wonder whether or not anything really comes out of all these inquiries and reports. As I said, it is a quite lengthy list and refers to several reports which have taken place in the Australian Capital Territory. The most recent report, about which I have spoken on other occasions, Community schools for Canberra 1989-2000, was put out by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. This report started last year. It was first presented in October last year when we learned that some nine schools in Canberra were to close-one high school and eight primary schools. Consequent to that, the schools involved had certain things to do. Those that were closing were able to put in submissions and some 250 submissions were put in to the Schools Authority in relation to the closure of the nine schools. The other schools which were to be enlarged were told to get on with the job of preparing for enlargement. On 6 May this year the Government presented the final report dealing with the submissions that were put in. Of the nine schools that were to close, five are to remain open and four will still close. What surprised most people was that one school that it was announced would be closing-it had never been mentioned for annihilation and was to have proceeded as an enlarged school, according to the first report-was the Page Primary School. The parents of the other nine schools which were scheduled for closure had the opportunity to present their case to the Schools Authority as to why those schools should not close. Five schools presented cases which resulted in their remaining open. One was the Griffith school. I saw some of the parents of that school. They put in a most comprehensive statement. They pointed out some quite significant mistakes which had been made in the first decision that would close them; namely, electricity charges of the O'Connell Education Centre were charged against the Griffith school as were costs relating to the watering of an oval that was used only in part by the Griffith school, and other facts of that nature. The Holder Primary School put in a submission, which I also saw. It was a very comprehensive document that related to the distances children had to walk and other matters. They are two of the schools which will remain open. Scullin, which we might say was the school in competition with Page, will also stay open. The reasons that it put forward-on the grounds of safety-were very compelling indeed, and I have no quarrel with that school staying open. But I find it extraordinary that the parents in Page will just get wiped out, as I have indicated, without having any opportunity to put in submissions as to why the Page school should remain open. It is strange indeed that nearby there are three schools-Macquarie, Cook and Aranda, all in a row-which are to remain open. Forty per cent of the suburb of Page is now not covered by one of the circles which are supposed to cover the maximum distance beyond which children should not have to travel to go to a primary school. As I said, I have spoken on this before. I think these parents have been treated in an unprincipled way. I have called upon the Minister responsible for the Australian Capital Territory, the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch), to annul the whole of the proposals with respect to the South Belconnen area and to ask or direct the Schools Authority to look at the matter again. It may be that the Page school will still close, but at least the parents of that community will have had the opportunity to present their arguments and be heard. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.12) —We are looking today at the paper put down yesterday by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) entitled Strengthening Australia's Schools: A Consideration of the Focus and Content of Schooling. I am not at all sure of the reason for bringing down this paper at this time. If one goes through the paper and examines each section, one will see that it does not hang together. There is a vague wish, which I suppose one could agree with, that there be a national objective with regard to our schools. However, once one sought to go beyond that, I would suggest, the type of debate that would be entered into would be pretty horrific. Since I have only five minutes in which to speak, I wish to concentrate on only one point, and that is the section headed `Priorities for Improving the Training of Teachers' on page 5 of the printed copy of the statement. It starts off with the following statement, which is unexceptional: The quality of teaching is central to the quality of our schools. Teachers must be appropriately qualified to teach a curriculum attuned to current expectations held of schools. Qualifications which were once appropriate may no longer be in demand. I think that can be accepted. It is the next stage of the Government's current thinking which strikes me as quite extraordinary. It states: We must ensure that there are sufficient numbers of teachers in all subject areas. For example, increased participation and achievement in mathematics and science can only be realised if we have an adequate number of appropriately trained teachers. That is something we do not have in Australia. We have an appalling lack of appropriately trained teachers in science and mathematics. It seems that this Government is proposing, in terms of the ready adoption by the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of the report of the Wran Committee on Higher Education Funding, the creation of a situation in which maths and science teachers will earn less than history teachers. I do not by that comment wish to denigrate history teachers, but it so happens that we have a sufficient number of history teachers at the moment. History and English teachers-we have a shortage of English teachers-are certainly in demand, but maths and science teachers are very much in demand. The Government is proposing, under the structures coming out of the Wran Committee's report, to pay them less. Quite frankly, that is what I would call a massive disincentive that it wishes to build into the system. At the same time the Minister wishes to flourish this paper in which he says that we need to have increased participation and achievement in maths and sciences. I can but agree. We certainly do. We need incentives, not disincentives. It is extraordinary that these pieces of paper come out of the Minister's office, with no connection to one another, and we are expected to accept the statements on their face value when in fact they are basically in conflict. We have had difficulty in the past with the spreading of rumours which are unfounded and undifferentiated. For example, various State governments said a few years ago that we had too many teachers. That was never the case. We might have too many if we wish to keep some large numbers in the primary and secondary schools. In any event, we have never had enough maths and science teachers. We now have an alarming dearth of maths and science teachers, for a number of reasons. Most of our maths teachers had to go across and teach computer science, leaving a gap in the maths area which had to be filled by many of the science graduates, thereby leaving a gap in the science area which in my State of Queensland was filled by domestic science teachers-and why not, it has got `science' in the title! This is the way in which we believe we are building up the foundations of our education system. It is quite ludicrous. The Minister at the table, the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds), is herself an educator and she knows it is quite ludicrous. We really do need to have a thrust at the primary and secondary levels. Our tertiary system is firmly based upon the primary and secondary levels. If we are interested in having equity, participation or any of the other matters that the Government goes on to talk about in terms of keeping children in school, we have to have the teachers there. The teachers are the major resource upon which students draw for their learning. If we are not willing to put massive incentives into getting bright young graduates in maths and science into teaching, we are certainly not going to do the best that we can for the next generation. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.16) —I too wish to make some comments on the ministerial paper entitled Strengthening Australia's Schools: A Consideration of the Focus and Content of Schooling. In the introduction to this paper the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) makes the statement: From its inception public schooling has played a crucial role in the intellectual and social development of Australia's children. He goes on in the paper to refer to the expectation of parents and the community generally, and points to the central tradition of schools in the whole business of developing the nature of Australian society and the Australian economy. The paper talks quite a lot about making the most effective use of a whole range of resources which go to supporting and making up the school system. On page 2 of the printed copy of the report the Minister, quite rightly, points to the fact that the States have had, and will continue to have, primary responsibility for the education of our young people. As a senator for Victoria I would particularly like to take the opportunity here to comment on a Press report which I saw recently in the Melbourne Age, in which the spokesperson on education for the Liberal Opposition in Victoria was castigating the relatively new Minister for Education in Victoria, the Honourable Caroline Hogg, for requesting from, I believe, her departmental regional officers information, stories and anecdotes about good, productive and positive things that were going on in the schools in their region. Mr Haddon Storey, the shadow Minister, was quoted in this article. It said that he believed the Minister was in fact engaging in a party political exercise of government promotion by asking her departmental people to come up with information about positive things that were going on in the public school system in Victoria. I would like to place on record, as a former parent and community activist in the education field subsequent to a career in teaching, that I believe the Victorian Minister is in fact doing a great service to the public education sector. I say that because one of the things that we lack and that we need if we are going to strengthen Australia's schools is a correct public perception as against some of the myths and, in fact, misrepresentations that exist in the community about what does go on in Australia's public school system-a school system very much under seige all too often in recent years. It is a school system which bears the burden of the responsibility for educating Australia's children, and we must never forget that it is a system which cannot reject any student who comes through its doors, unlike the private school sector, which can pick and choose, and does, and which at the same time is quite heavily funded by government sources, at both State and Federal level. As a president of my own children's parents club and later as a co-convenor of a pilot community joint schools council, some decade ago in Victoria, one of the matters to which I gave priority and to which my committees gave priority was doing exactly at the local level what Minister Hogg is proposing to do at State level, which is to ensure that our communities are aware of the facts of what is going on in our community schools, such as the sorts of subjects undertaken, the work the students do, the contacts students have, the relationship between students and teachers, and the generally positive results that occurred in those schools. I commend Minister Hogg for her actions in support of the public school sector in Victoria. If anyone was playing party political opportunism in that exercise, it was the Liberal Party Opposition in Victoria. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(4.21) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to pass some remarks on the Australia-Japan Foundation annual report 1986-87. The Australia-Japan Foundation was formed by Act of Parliament in 1976 and the same Act also established the Australia-Japan Fund, which the Foundation administers. The objects of the Australia-Japan Foundation are to deepen and strengthen relations between Australia and Japan by fostering greater mutual awareness and understanding through people to people contact and by promoting study and other activities to elucidate to each other the society, culture, language and outlook of the two peoples. The functions of the Foundation are to be commended. They are to encourage a closer relationship between the peoples of Australia and Japan; to further the mutual knowledge and understanding of those peoples, in particular, to promote the study by the people of each of those countries of the language, culture and traditions, the social and political institutions and the economic and industrial organisation of the people of the other country; to promote the study by the people of each of those countries of the physical features, climate and ecology of the other country; to encourage people of each of those countries to visit the other country; and, of course, to administer the Fund. The Foundation is responsible to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. The report contains a list and brief description of all the Foundation's programs. These are many and varied and I would like to mention in particular the Japan Broadcasting Corporation-that is, the NHK-and its television series on Australia. The Japan Broadcasting Corporation produced in association with the Foundation a major television documentary and drama series featuring Australia. The programs have attracted a combined audience of 45 million people, and the broadcasts started going to air in October 1986. One element of the report gives rise to concern, and that is an operational problem. I quote from the report at page 11: The Foundation wishes to draw attention again to the severe problems experienced by small organisations when confronted with staff resignations. Existing Public Service procedures, combined with a variety of other restraints, do not allow for rapid action. Notwithstanding every effort made to obtain expeditious relief, positions can remain vacant for months leading to a substantial disruption of the activities of the organisation. In the Chairman's message at the start of the report, there is this plea: It is considered imperative that the Foundation be able as a matter of course to appoint permanent officers to fill gaps left by resignations. In conclusion, I would like to draw attention to another matter of concern. Notwithstanding Australia's invaluable educational and cultural links with Japan through the Foundation, the Government is urged strongly from a number of sides and through its Foreign Investment Review Board to compile a full register of all property held by overseas investors. I quote from today's Australian: The Japanese have bought more than $700m worth of real estate in Queensland in the past two years and are involved in more than $2.7 billion worth of development in the State. The total amount of overseas investment is not on register in Australia. Although, of course, it is close to all our hearts to maintain our cultural and educational links with Japan, it is not in the interests of Australians to have overseas investments of that amount not on record. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.26) —Frankly, I do not know how an Australia-Japan Foundation lecture series involving Dr Alan Trounson's visit to Japan to lecture on the medical and ethical aspects of invitro fertilisation (IVF) in Australia fits within the object or functions as described and well noted by Senator Jenkins and which are contained at page 8 of the report. It is a sick joke to suggest that Dr Alan Trounson should be able to lecture the Japanese or anyone else on the ethics of IVF. After all, it was he who admitted to the Senate Select Committee on Human Embryo Experimentation that he held views that would enable human embryo experimentation to take place. In answer to a question from Senator Walters, he said: `Well, if we could extend that to 28 days, there could well be an argument for that to occur'. He then went on to say, `We could go beyond 28 days'. In effect, Dr Trounson holds views on this matter that are diametrically opposed to the well established views that were outlined in the Helsinki Agreement; that is, of course, that any medical research involving human subjects must allow the well-being of the human subject to take precedence over the interests of science and society. Dr Trounson is involved in the commercialisation of IVF; so much so that, recently, a company known as the Infertility Medical Centre Pty Ltd was established in Victoria. Its shareholders are the Monash University, Dr Carl Wood and Dr Alan Trounson. It is important to note what Dr Robyn Rowlan said about that company. She said that when IVF Australia was established, objections were raised to publicly funded universities being associated with a private company. She said that the explanation was that any profits from the venture would go into general university funds and benefit the whole university. I am quoting from an article in the Herald of 31 March. She went on to say: It is different with this new company. Now the funds will go directly back to embryo experimentation. She said the doctors involved in the Epworth Hospital program were: trying to drain all the money off into their own research. It is another business which will hinge on women as a raw material. They are doing it for scientific kudos. The taxpayer-funded Australia-Japan Foundation is using taxpayers' money to send Dr Trounson to lecture the Japanese on the ethics of in vitro fertilisation-and has used $15,655 to do so. I do not know how much the air fare is and I do not know how much he was paid to do it. However, I would certainly like to know on whose recommendation this was done. If it was on the recommendation of, for example, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the recommendation is suspect since it is the organisation which recommended that $450,000 of medical research grants funds to go to the Monash Centre for Bioethics and Dr Peter Singer for the purposes of developing an ethical framework in which human embryo experimentation and foetal tissue transplantation can take place. He holds a utilitarian view that no human has an inherent right to life until well after birth. That is inconsistent with the general attitude of the community and certainly the Foundation should not be spending taxpayers' money on sending people to Japan to lecture when they have that sort of attitude. It certainly does not represent the view of the Senate Select Committee on Human Embryo Experimentation or the view of the majority of Australians. Senator HILL(South Australia)(4.31) —I have but a couple of minutes. I know not of the matter to which Senator Harradine referred but I commend the Australia-Japan Foundation for its work, which is known to me, in the year in question. Its work included the Japanese television series on Australia that I know to have been a great success; the work it sponsored at the Australian Studies Centre at Nanzan University in Japan; the Australian studies symposium it sponsors in Japan; the Japanese high school teachers' visit which the Foundation sponsored; its co-sponsorship of the Sydney Dance Company tour of Japan; and the office and library it provides in Tokyo. In the year in question, in excess of 8,800 visitors used this library on Australia. It is most worth while to have that centre available to Japanese in their capital city. I wanted to put into context that when one thinks of the Foundation, one must remember the Government's well-publicised attempt to get rid of the Australia-Japan Foundation. It was saved by public outcry, which was headed by its Chairman, Mr Sleigh. It is beyond my comprehension why the Government would want to bring an end to this body, which worked towards fostering a better understanding between Australia and Japan. Apparently the Foundation did not fit the bureaucratic model, because of its office being in Sydney, the greater independence that it had from our normal bureaucracy or the direct contact it had with the public. In any event and for whatever reason, obviously the Government wanted the Foundation disbanded. When the Government looked at how it wanted the Foundation disbanded it discovered that it had been set up by legislation and that it would not be able to get legislation to disband it through the Senate, so it had to abandon its attempt. Nevertheless the Government has done its best to limit the effectiveness of the Foundation. Now the Foundation has had to move office from a high profile centre of Sydney location to be absorbed in the Department in Canberra. It has had its staff reduced from seven to four and, while it had been headed by an officer from outside the Public Service, it will now be headed from within that bureaucracy with the level of the senior officer bearer being reduced. All the Government can say positively about all that is that it saves $67,000. That is a minute saving compared with the challenges that abound in a relationship with our principal trading partner, a relationship involving approximately $15 billion worth of trade a year. Everyone understands that if that is to be sustained and built upon, a better understanding is needed of the Japanese and the Japanese need a better understanding of Australians. There is no better way of achieving that than through cultural exchanges and through building a better understanding as is fostered by such bodies as the Australia-Japan Foundation. I condemn the attempt of the Government to downgrade this body. I wish it well in future. It has a major responsibility. It has my support and the support of the other members on this side of the chamber. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.35) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Since 1978 when the Australia New Zealand Foundation was set up it has proved to be a very good project. I commend the Foundation to everyone in both Australia and New Zealand. Australia is not nearly close enough to its New Zealand neighbour and as we lurch down the road of internationalism, finding the best relationship possible with neighbours of a similar culture is becoming more important all the time. Too often we concentrate on our differences and not enough on what we have in common. Concentrating on what we have in common is more necessary than ever now. Areas involving trade, commerce, defence and politics in general need to be discussed and discussed more regularly. In the past few years Australia has had good representation from New Zealand. The current High Commissioner, the Hon. Graham Ansell, and his predecessor, Sir Laurence Francis, and their staffs have been excellent in this regard. We are getting extremely good value for the mere $125,000 spent each year on the Foundation. I commend everyone to give the Foundation further consideration and to give it support from wherever possible. It will go from strength to strength. May our relationship with New Zealand grow and blossom in this regard. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The time for consideration of Government Papers has now expired. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the following reports of the Auditor-General: Efficiency Audit on the Department of Community Services and Health: Home and Community Care Program; Efficiency Audit on the Australian Postal Commission: Administration of philatelic services. Motion (by Senator Tate for Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders or other Orders of the Senate, the hours of meeting of the Senate on Wednesday, 25 May 1988, be as follows: 10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m. 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. 7.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bills may proceed without formalities, may be considered together and be now read a first time. Bills read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(4.37) —I table the revised explanatory memoranda relating to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988. I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1988 I seek leave to have the second reading speech for the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988 incorporated in Hansard. Leave not granted. Senator TATE —The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1987 was introduced and passed in the Parliament in the last session to provide grants to the States and the Northern Territory for universities, advanced education, institutes of tertiary education and technical and further education for 1988. The main purpose of this Bill is to amend that Act to adjust for cost movements in the tertiary education grants. It will also provide additional funds for superannuation in higher education to cater for the 3 per cent productivity claim and emerging costs for the States. Provision is also made for a program designed to provide interim additional funding for institutions providing higher education courses that will not be in a position to achieve immediately the productivity gains which are a condition of the second tier national wage decision. The Government's decision that bridging funds should be made available in the short-term is to provide assistance to institutions in meeting their obligations while productivity gains are achieved, and recognises the rights of workers to receive negotiated salary increases as early as possible. The amount to be provided under this program will be some $46.3m and institutions will need to be in a position to seek funds in sufficient time for determinations to be made and for payments to be finalised by 30 June 1988. As part of the Government's drug offensive it has been decided that funds should be made available for the coordination of drug and alcohol education in teaching hospitals. It is felt that an important means of combating drug and alcohol abuse is to ensure that the curriculum for undergraduate students in medical schools brings out the dangers and problems that arise from this abuse. Consequently provision is made in this Bill for funds to be made available under a new program for the 10 university teaching hospitals presently receiving recurrent funds from the Commonwealth Government. The funding for this new program is to be provided initially through the Department of Employment, Education and Training, and in 1988 will amount to some $560,000. In total the Bill will provide for additional Government expenditure of some $112.8m of which $42.9m will result from the Government's agreed procedures to make retrospective adjustment for cost variations, $23.0m will be provided in connection with superannuation in higher education institutions, $46.3m as assistance to the higher education sector to implement the second tier national wage decisions and $0.6m in the drug and alcohol offensive. In introducing this Bill we have also taken the opportunity to make a number of minor technical amendments. Non-government teachers colleges have been provided with grants under the special assistance for students program in line with other higher education institutions. They have not however been required to produce as a condition of this grant statistical and other information pertinent to this program. In line with the requirements for other higher education institutions we have now included this as a condition of grant under this program. We have also, consistent with grants for higher education institutions, made provision for grants under the States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Act 1985 to be offset in accounting procedures by institutes of tertiary education. In the tertiary and further education sector we have recognised that building work undertaken up to the end of a particular year and commitments entered into for the purchase of equipment during the year cannot necessarily be paid for within that year. Consequently grants for 1988 need not necessarily be expended in 1988 but may be carried over for later payment. It is to be stressed that this Bill is of a routine variety consistent with amending Acts made in previous years to legislation providing funds for tertiary education. I commend the Bill to the Senate. STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1988 I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the second reading speech for the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Education Legislation The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1984 to supplement for cost increases grants already appropriated for government and non-government schools programs in 1988. The Bill also modifies certain existing provisions in the Act relating to non-government schools which change their location. Under the new provisions, where the change is to a location adjacent to the school and where it does not involve a change in the level of education being provided by the school, the school or school system will no longer be required to notify the Minister of the change. These new provisions will apply to schools which are seeking approval this year to change their location in 1990. Further amendments include: extension of the provisional approval period to two years for new non-government schools or for a school undergoing a notifiable change; new non-government schools will now be eligible for establishment grants if they serve a developing area. Previously these schools were required to be situated in a developing area. The total amount of supplementation to be provided by this Bill is $21 million. I commend the Bill to the Senate Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a brief statement about the other Bills which the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) proposes to introduce. Leave granted. Senator PUPLICK —I understand that the Minister has a package of Bills covering nine separate areas which he now wishes to proceed to introduce. Normally, second reading speeches on these Bills would be read, or leave would be sought to have those second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Because the debate on the referendum proposals is an important debate we are anxious to allow it to proceed in good order. It is my intention, on behalf of the Opposition, to allow the Minister to incorporate the second reading speeches in regard to the package of nine Bills which he now proposes to introduce. I want to make a point to the Minister, to the Government's Acting Whip and Deputy Whip in regard to this matter quite simply as follows: the level of personal abuse and unpleasantness which the Opposition has put up with from certain members of the Government front bench has been noted. The Government has a heavy legislative program, in particular arising from the May economic statement to be made tomorrow night. A large number of Bills will be introduced as a result of that. Unless there is some substantial improvement in the behaviour of particular Ministers they will read all second reading speeches from here on until the end of the session and we will happily require them to stand by the requirements of the Standing Orders without giving leave. Because we are full of charity just at the moment, because a large number of people want to speak on the referendum Bills and because of the special pleadings of Senator Tate, whom we do not like picking on unnecessarily, although we will continue to pick on him as much as possible, we will give leave for the remainder of these Bills to be introduced without being read. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —by leave-We have listened very carefully to the words of Senator Puplick and it would help if there were some definition of what he terms `personal abuse'. We had the scenario here yesterday where an error was made by honourable senators on the other side of the chamber for which we, in turn, were punished as the Opposition made the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) read a very long second reading speech. It was not our fault but, nonetheless, we were the ones who were punished. We have been told that that will happen again. I hope that discussions can take place between the Government and the Opposition as to the definition of `personal abuse'. We are involved in politics and there is the old saying: If you do not like the heat you ought to get out of the kitchen. Let us just find out how much heat can be generated from each side in this very difficult period when we, as senators, want to get on with the business of the Senate and the business of governing this nation. 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)(4.45) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill amends the Audit Act 1901. The principal amendments are intended to enhance the Commonwealth's financial reporting, administration and audit and to bring certain penalty provisions into line with present day criminal law policy. Financial reporting will be facilitated through an amendment to section 49 which will enable the form of the Minister for Finance's monthly statement to be changed by regulation. This amendment accords with suggestions made during the debates on the statute law Bill in October 1987 that parliamentary control over the form should be retained. Amendments are proposed in relation to the preparation of annual financial statements and fall into two categories. The first concerns the financial statements for the financial year ending 30 June 1988. The proposed amendment will provide for departmental transactions on functions lost to another department through the administrative arrangements order of 24 July 1987 to be shown in the financial statements of the department gaining the functions. In this way the 1987-88 statements will be made more meaningful by removing the requirement that would otherwise exist for separate statements covering the period from 1 July to 23 July. The second category involves amendments which will enhance the accountability of departments. They will establish the responsibility of departmental secretaries to prepare annual financial statements of their departments and for those statements to be audited. The statements will be prepared in accordance with guidelines given by the Minister for Finance as to their form and content and will be included in departments' annual reports. Also, since a detailed level of information will be given in these departmental reports, the need for the present detailed reports by the Minister for Finance will disappear. The amendment provides instead that the Minister for Finance shall prepare a report showing aggregate totals only. These amendments were foreshadowed in the guidelines for the preparation of departmental annual reports tabled in Parliament in November 1987. Currently, the Auditor-General has a discretion not to report on immaterial breaches of establishing legislation by certain statutory bodies. One amendment, requested by the Auditor-General, will permit that discretion to apply to all statutory bodies. I mention here that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts has indicated that it does not support this amendment. However, I should point out that there is already a great degree of trust involved in relying upon the competence and integrity of the Auditor-General in the performance of the audit task. This extension is entirely consistent with that trust. Moreover, the amendment is in step with the statutory discretion which the Auditor-General already has not to report breaches which he considers too minor to mention. Such a discretion exists for audits of departments and a wide range of statutory bodies. Another amendment will repeal the general `catch-all' penalty provision currently contained in section 69 of the Audit Act and substitute specific penalties in the relevant sections of the Act. The amendment stems from advice from the Attorney-General's Department on the desirability for Audit Act penalties to be consistent with the Commonwealth's policy on criminal law, generally. Other amendments concern the creation of a specific offence for the misuse of credit cards issued to the Commonwealth, clarifying the Minister for Finance's powers to write-off irrecoverable revenue and debts that are uneconomic to pursue, and minor legislative tidying up. All proposed amendments have already been considered by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and, apart from the proposal concerning rounding off the Auditor-General's discretion not to have to report immaterial matters, the Committee has raised no objection to them. The proposed change to the future reporting requirements aimed at enhancing departmental accountability is likely to give rise to some additional resource costs, including to the Australian Audit Office. However, it is expected that the improved accountability will lead to greater efficiencies in departmental management. It is not possible, at this stage, to quantify in financial terms the costs or the benefits. The amendment concerning the preparation of annual statements for the 1987-88 financial year's report should reduce administrative effort and costs from the levels that would otherwise have been required, by permitting rationalisation of reports to reflect changed administrative arrangements effective from 24 July 1987. The other changes, including those effecting the penalty provisions, the duties of the Auditor-General and the write-off powers of the Minister for Finance, are not expected to have any significant financial impact on Commonwealth revenue or expenditure. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) 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)(4.46) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to make 3 small but important groups of amendments to Acts in the Defence portfolio. One group of amendments relates to the commutation of pensions by retiring members of the Defence Force under the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973. The Act enables retirees in receipt of retirement pay and some categories of recipients of invalidity pay to elect to commute a proportion of their entitlements to a lump sum. As the Act stands, the election cannot be made until after a person has retired, and it is not effective until it is received by the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority. There has been concern that if a retiree died before being able to make an election, no lump sum payment could be made. As a result, it is common for potential retirees, in order to protect the interests of their dependants, to take out short term insurance to provide a lump sum payment in the event of their death during the critical period. In more common cases, the time necessarily taken for the processing of an election and payment of a commutation amount can cause complications for retiring members in their adjustment from service to civilian life. These substantial payments are an important part of post-retirement financial planning. As an example, delay caused by the inability of retirees to make an election until after retirement may require retirees to take out short term bridging finance to cover house purchases. The Bill amends the Act to enable retiring members to make the election up to 3 months before retirement to be effective on retirement, thus eliminating the necessity for taking out insurance. Timely payment will also assist members in their resettlement arrangements. It should perhaps be added that, if a member dies or is retired on invalidity grounds before an election becomes effective, no commutation payment is made. Another group of amendments relates to the constitution of the Defence Housing Authority. Under section 12 of the Defence Housing Authority Act 1987, the Authority comprises 9 persons being the chairperson, the managing director, 3 members of the Defence Force, a member of the Public Service and 3 appointed members, the latter being persons with expertise in housing operations, property development or management, business management, etc. It was announced in October last that, in recognition of the need for service spouses, as the people most affected by decisions regarding service housing, to have a direct input into the making of those decisions, the Act would be amended so that a service spouse could be appointed to the Authority. The Bill amends the Act accordingly and also provides for an extra appointed member who will bring additional financial expertise to the Authority. Subject to passage of the Bill, an announcement will be made later regarding the persons to be appointed. The last group of amendments relates to the bringing into force of amendments made to the Defence Act 1903 and the Naval Defence Act 1910 by the Defence Legislation Amendment Act 1987. These amendments introduced the concept of open-ended or permanent enlistment to retiring age for soldiers and sailors as an alternative to the traditional system of successive fixed-term engagements and reengagements. Under the new system, permanent enlistees will be able to claim discharge short of retiring age by giving appropriate notice. This right is subject to certain constraints, particularly a return-of-service obligation where a member has successfully completed a course of training. Planning for the introduction of the new scheme in July this year has revealed the need to clarify the references to the courses concerned, and the Bill therefore amends these references. The Bill also includes similar amendments to corresponding provisions related to officers' resignations. To avoid possible misunderstanding, I should emphasise that these legislative changes do not foreshadow a more restrictive approach to voluntary separations from the Defence Force. So far as soldiers and sailors are concerned, the change is one of fine-tuning the new permanent enlistment scheme. This has been widely welcomed in the Defence Force for the greater certainty it gives to members in their career planning and the significant reduction it will bring in administrative effort. With regard to officers, the amendment will enable return of service obligations to be more clearly specified, particularly where initial training is concerned. Financial Impact Statement It is estimated that the fees and travelling expenses of the two additional members of the Defence Housing Authority will be $10,000 in the financial year 1988-89 and corresponding amounts in subsequent years. The other amendments have no direct financial implications. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bills may proceed without formalities, may be considered together and be now read a first time. Bills read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(4.47) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES' REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION BILL 1988 This Bill seeks to repeal the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 and to introduce a new scheme of compensation and rehabilitation for persons who are injured in the course of their employment by the Commonwealth. Between 1976 and 1986, the Commonwealth's expenditure on workers' compensation increased by over 700%, from $25.04m to $203.29m per annum. Clearly, Mr President, this situation could not be allowed to continue. Accordingly, the Government decided that the Compensation Act should be reviewed with the aim of establishing a more equitable and cost-effective compensation system, with particular emphasis on the rehabilitation of injured employees. The result is a Bill which, when it comes into operation, will provide for many important changes in the compensation system and the circumstances in which compensation will be payable. The Bill will minimise the human and financial cost of work-caused injury and disease while at the same time providing adequate compensation and support for long term incapacitated employees. The main aspects of the new scheme are the provision of a better range of benefits for injured employees and the establishment of a new body to administer the Act. The Bill will also provide incentives for injured employees to return to work as soon as possible and will provide greater powers in relation to rehabilitation. The Office of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation will be abolished and replaced by the new Commission for the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation of Commonwealth Employees. The new Commission will consist of three persons to be appointed by the Governor-General-a Chief Executive Officer and two part-time Commissioners-one to represent the Commonwealth and the other to represent the interests of employees. This structure will allow employees and employing agencies to participate directly in the administration of the compensation and rehabilitation system. Some specific functions of the Commission will be: to determine claims accurately and expeditiously; to minimise the duration of incapacity by arranging for the assessment of the rehabilitation needs and prospects of employees; to co-operate with other bodies with the aim of reducing the incidence of work-related injuries; and to conduct and promote research into the incidence and prevention of work-related injuries. Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation The Commission will be required to comply with directions of a general nature issued to it by the Minister. While the new scheme will be administered primarily by the Commission, the Bill makes provision for statutory authorities to be appointed in the future as self-administrators by Ministerial notice in the Gazette. Those authorities will have all the powers and functions of the Commission in relation to the determination of claims lodged by its employees but will also be required to comply with Ministerial directions. The Commission will be required to report on the operations of self-administrators under the legislation and the Chief Executive Officer will be empowered to require the provision of such information as is necessary for that purpose. Self-administration will help to instil an awareness in those authorities of the costs of compensation and the benefits to be derived from effective rehabilitation and occupational health and safety measures. Under the existing Act, the Commissioner determines the liability of the Commonwealth to pay compensation. This legislation will impose that liability to pay compensation on the Commission or self-administrator. In order to fund the system, the Commission will be required to calculate, on the basis of each organisation's claims record, the contributions to be made by Departments and statutory authorities to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. These contributions will act as a direct financial inducement to each department and statutory authority to reduce workers' compensation costs by effective rehabilitation and occupational health and safety measures. Mr President, I turn now to the benefit which will be payable under this legislation. The benefits package is aimed specifically at assisting those employees most in need-that is-long-term incapacitated workers. At the heart of the new scheme is the change from a system of fixed long-term benefits adjusted by regulation to one of weekly benefits calculated on the basis of the individual employee's Normal Weekly Earnings. An employee's Normal Weekly Earnings will be based on his or her pre-injury salary and will take into account certain allowances and regular rostered overtime which the employee is required to work as a condition of his or her employment. Employees who are incapacitated for work will receive weekly benefits equal to 100% of Normal Weekly Earnings for the equivalent of the first 45 weeks of that incapacity. Where appropriate, the Bill will encourage employees to return to work on a gradual basis by allowing their income to increase according to the number of hours worked. For example, an employee who returns to work for 50% of the number of hours he or she worked before the injury would be entitled to an amount of compensation which, combined with the income from that employment, would provide the employee with 85% of his or her Normal Weekly Earnings. There will be upper and lower limits on weekly payments so as to provide a measure of equality and a guaranteed minimum income for those who are on a low wage. The maximum amount payable will be an amount equal to 150% of Average Weekly Earnings for all Employees in the Australian work force. The minimum amount will be either $202 per week plus $50 for a dependent spouse and $25 for each dependent child, or 90% of the employee's Normal Weekly Earnings, whichever is the lower. These benefits will be indexed automatically in line with movements in the Consumer Price Index. The level of weekly benefits payable to an injured employee who is capable of returning to work will be calculated by subtracting the amount the employee is earning, or would be able to earn in suitable employment, from his or her Normal Weekly Earnings. ``Suitable employment'' for an employee who is permanently employed by the Commonwealth will mean employment by the Commonwealth or a statutory authority. In the case of a casual employee, suitable employment may include self-employment or employment in private industry. This distinction reflects the Government's commitment to maintaining the employer/employee relationship and reinforces the nexus between an employee's contract of employment and his or her rights to compensation. Given that benefits under the scheme have been set at levels which are fair and equitable, the Government has decided that it would no longer be appropriate for employees to be able to redeem weekly benefits for lump sums except where those weekly payments are below $50 per week. Weekly payments will cease at age 65. This Government does not consider it appropriate that employees should continue to receive workers' compensation benefits after the normal retirement age. Mr President, under the existing Act an employee was required to establish only that his or her employment was a contributing factor in the contraction of a disease. This test does not adequately reflect the rights and obligations of the Commonwealth and its employees in relation to work-related disease and frequently results in the Commonwealth being liable to pay compensation for diseases which have little, if any, connection with employment. This Bill seeks to remedy that situation by requiring an employee to show that his or her employment contributed in a material degree to the contraction of the disease. The Government believes that this is a test which is firm but fair and which properly reflects the balance between the interests of the Commonwealth as employer and its employees. An employee will not be required to show that his or her employment caused the disease, or even that it was the most important factor in the contraction of the disease. It is intended that the test will require an employee to demonstrate that his or her employment was more than a mere contributing factor in the contraction of the disease. Accordingly, it will be necessary for an employee to show that there is a close connection between the disease and the employment in which he or she was engaged. In determining whether employment contributed in a material degree to the contraction of a disease in a particular case, regard would be had to whether the employment in which the employee was engaged carried an inherent risk of the employee contracting the disease in question and whether some characteristic or feature of the employment tended to cause, aggravate or accelerate the disease. A disease which has been contributed to in a material degree by employment will be deemed to be an injury. Compensation will be payable if that injury results in the death, incapacity or permanent impairment of the employee. The Bill will also contain disease provisions, similar to those contained in the existing Act, under which an employee suffering a specified disease will automatically be entitled to compensation if he or she had been engaged in certain specified kinds of employment. The Bill will extend coverage to employees injured in ordinary recesses, such as lunch breaks, and by acts of violence arising as a result of their employment by the Commonwealth, for example, staff working overseas injured by warfare or terrorism. The journey provisions in the existing Act have been modified to require that journeys to or from the place of employment must commence or terminate at the employee's place of residence. Mr President, a significant factor in the escalation of compensation costs which I described earlier is the length of time that employees remain on compensation. It is obvious to this Government that the only way to reduce the period spent on compensation is by the effective rehabilitation of injured employees. To this end, the Bill will encourage the speedy rehabilitation of employees who are injured by enabling employing agencies or the Commission to arrange for the assessment of the rehabilitation needs of the employee and the type of work which that person could perform following appropriate retraining. Consistent with the goal of minimising incapacity and impairment, employing agencies and the Commission will have much broader powers in relation to the provision of rehabilitation programs than were previously available. The Commission will be able to approve persons and organisations as rehabilitation program providers and to arrange directly with them for the provision of rehabilitation programs tailored to the individual needs of employers. If an employee refuses to undertake a rehabilitation program, his or her rights to compensation will be suspended. On the other hand, employing agencies will be required to take all reasonable steps to provide suitable employment for employees who have undertaken rehabilitation programs. The Commission will also examine the introduction of a new system of ``work trials'' for injured employees to enable them to participate fully in the work force. The Commission will have the power to arrange for the provision of necessary aids and appliances and home, vehicle or workplace modifications. In conjunction with this, the Bill will provide for the payment of up to $200 per week in compensation if, after four weeks of incapacity, the employee reasonably requires another person to provide household services, such as cooking, cleaning and household maintenance. A further amount, up to a maximum of $200 per week, will be payable if he or she reasonably requires attendant care services, such as feeding, bathing, supply of medication or other services of a personal nature. In addition to the weekly benefits which I have already outlined, the Bill will provide for the payment of lump sums for permanent impairment and non-economic loss. These payments will replace awards of damages at common law for losses of a non-economic nature. A maximum of $80,000 will be payable for injuries which result in a permanent impairment and up to $30,000 for non-economic loss. Under the existing Act, lump sum payments are made on the basis of a table of maims, with the level of payment being determined having regard to the loss, or loss of the efficient use, of various parts of the body. That approach has been abandoned and the level of payments in future will be determined using a ``whole person'' approach, similar to that used under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The ``whole person'' approach allows the degree of impairment to be assessed on a more accurate basis and expressed as a percentage loss of the use of the ability of the person to undertake normal living activities. A Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment will be prepared by the Commission for the purposes of the Bill, subject to Ministerial approval. There will be a minimum threshold of 10% impairment under which compensation will not be payable, except where the impairment results from the loss of a finger or toe. In recognition that a permanent impairment may lead to considerable pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, up to $30,000 will also be payable for any non-economic loss suffered by an employee. The non-economic loss element of compensation will also be assessed in accordance with the approved Guide. Mr President, this Government recognises that special provision must be made for the dependants of an employee who has died as a result of a work-related injury. Accordingly, the death benefit payable under this legislation will be raised to $120,000, more than double that which was payable under the existing Act, and a further $40 per week will be payable for each dependent child of the employee. It is intended that, in administering the Act, the Commission will expedite the payment of death benefits in order to avoid creating hardship, particularly in cases where the surviving spouse and children were living in the same household as the deceased employee. Mr President, perhaps the most controversial aspect of the new legislation is that common law actions against the Commonwealth will be replaced by the comprehensive benefits which I have described. It is clear to this Government that the common law negligence action which bases its entitlement on proof of fault is a costly, inefficient and inappropriate mechanism for compensating injured workers. Delays in settling these actions act as a positive disincentive for employees to return to work and encourage them to maximise the extent and duration of their injuries. The provision of an adequate level of weekly income, substantially increased lump-sum payments on death or impairment, payments for additional expenses for medical costs, aids and appliances and household help, combined with a commitment to rehabilitation and the return to suitable employment, make redundant any need for redress to the courts. Accordingly, it will no longer be possible for an employee to sue the Commonwealth or a fellow employee. Actions against third parties will also be discouraged. Employees or their dependants who sue third parties will not be entitled to receive further benefits under the scheme and will be required to pay back any amount of compensation they have received. The Commission will pursue third parties if necessary by taking over an action in place of the employee. Mr President, there are some other matters which this Bill will address. For example, under the current system, an employee is deemed to be on unauthorised absence after two years absence from work as a result of an injury. This unjust situation will be remedied in this Bill. An employee who is incapacitated for work following a compensable injury will be considered to be on ``compensation leave''. Compensation leave is designed to continue the employer/employee relationship during the period of incapacity. This is a significant improvement on the current system. An employee on compensation leave will, for the first 45 weeks of incapacity, continue to accrue sick leave and annual leave entitlements. Long service leave entitlements will continue to accrue throughout the whole period of incapacity. Mr President, this Bill will also seek to reduce the unreasonable costs associated with work-related injuries by introducing measures to prevent ``double dipping'' by employees using sick leave payments or superannuation entitlements while on compensation. For example, many employees who have been retired on invalidity grounds under the current legislation enjoy benefits under both compensation and superannuation schemes at a rate considerably in excess of their previous income. Special transitional provisions relating to the combined superannuation and compensation benefits payable to employees who have been invalided out of employment are contained in the Bill. ``Top up'' of weekly benefits from sick leave entitlements will be prohibited. Payments by way of salary, wages or pay or under compensation schemes in force in the States will reduce compensation accordingly. No make-up pay or additional benefits under awards will be allowed where an employee receives benefits under this legislation. The review and appeal provisions contained in the Bill are significantly different from those contained in the existing Act, under which the Commonwealth is generally the respondent in proceedings for review of determinations made by the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. This Bill will provide for the Commission to be respondent in proceedings before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the courts, and will also introduce compulsory reconsideration by the Commission before application can be made to the Tribunal for review of a determination. Reconsideration will be an informal procedure under which the original determination of the Commission will be reviewed by an officer of the Commission not involved in the original decision. Parties will be encouraged to adduce all relevant evidence at the reconsideration stage so as to resolve as many disputes as possible before the matter is heard by the Tribunal. These measures will facilitate the settlement of many applications for review before a formal hearing is held and improve the quality of primary decision-making, thereby reducing the number of appeals to the Tribunal. In short, the Commission's direct involvement in review proceedings will be of mutual benefit to the Commission and the Tribunal. Mr President, the Government considers that this Bill will create a progressive compensation and rehabilitation system for Commonwealth employees which will result in fewer injuries, less suffering, lower costs and a better quality of life for those employees unfortunate enough to be injured in the course of their employment. I commend this Bill to the Senate and present the Explanatory Memorandum. UNITED STATES NAVAL COMMUNICATIONS STATION (CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES) BILL 1988 The purpose of this Bill is to apply the provisions of the proposed Commonwealth Employee's Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 to civilian employees of the Government of the United States at the naval communication station at North West Cape. These persons are currently covered by the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971, which is to be repealed. The proposals put forward in this Bill will have no impact on Government expenditure since, under the terms of the agreement between the Governments of Australia and the United States which establishes the station at North West Cape, the Government of the United States will reimburse the Commonwealth for any expenditure incurred under this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate and present the Explanatory Memorandum. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) 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)(4.48) —I table the revised explanatory memorandum and move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill is an important component of the Government's program of reform in employment, education and training. The Bill establishes the National Board of Employment, Education and Training; four Councils to deal with specialist advising related to schools, higher education, employment and skills formation, and research; and a Commonwealth/State Consultative Committee. The Bill also maintains the Government's commitment to a Commonwealth Employment Service within the Department of Employment, Education and Training consistent with Australia's obligations under ILO Convention 88; provides for Grants for Innovative Projects and for Curriculum Projects as well as for administrative support for the National Board and its Councils. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977, the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act 1973 and the Commonwealth Employment Service Act 1978, have until now provided for the statutory advisory structures in employment, education and training. These Acts are now to be repealed in this Bill. The central purpose of the Bill is to enhance and streamline advisory structures in employment, education and training in a manner consistent with the high economic and social priority placed on these activities by the Government. The provisions of the Bill enable the Government to obtain independent advice on employment, education, training and research policies and programs within a single co-ordinated framework. The functions of the following non-statutory bodies-the Australian Council for Employment and Training (ACET), the Marine Research Allocations Advisory Committee, the National Research Fellowships Advisory Committee, and the Australian Research Grants Committee (ARGC)-will also be subsumed under the new arrangements. Background Following the significant reorganisation of the Australian Government's administration in 1987 a task force was established under the chairmanship of Mr Charles Halton, to report on advisory arrangements for employment, education, training and research matters. The outcome of this review and the subsequent intensive consultations is the formation of a National Board of Employment, Education and Training supported by four Councils. The key features of this arrangement are that it provides for independent advice to Government, provides for specialist advice in four vital areas-schools, higher education, employment and skills formation and research, ensures that advice forthcoming will be co-ordinated, and provides a mechanism through which Board and Council members can bring the benefit of their expertise to assist the Department of Employment, Education and Training to administer its policies and programs. The new arrangements reflect the Government's determination to complement its commitment to restructure the Australian economy by revitalising education and training policies and programs to develop a highly adaptable and skilled work force. Equality of opportunity and the fulfilment of broad social goals are integral to this strategy. Effective and timely advice to Government are essential ingredients to ensure that these objectives are realised in the most effective way available. The work program for the Board will be a mix of formal references from the Minister and matters initiated by the Board itself within its area of responsibilities. The Councils will advise the Board on matters in their respective specialist fields. The work programs for the Councils will be based on formal references from the Minister and the Board. Councils may also initiate activities through the Board and through the Minister. The Government's intention is to make the reports of the Board and its Councils generally available for public scrutiny. Reports requested by the Minister, together with the annual report, must be tabled before Parliament. In addition, Councils can invite public comment or submissions on matters referred to them by the Board or Minister. The Councils may also consult with persons or authorities as considered necessary and prepare draft papers and reports for external comment. There has been extensive consultation with a wide variety of interest groups about possible nominees to serve on the Board and its Councils when established. Many groups consider they should be individually represented. Apart from the practical impossibility of accommodating all such requests, the Government's objective is to draw membership of the Board and its Councils from high calibre individuals who can bring extensive experience and expertise to the work of the Board and Councils. As well, other mechanisms have been provided to permit all interest groups ready access to the Board and its Councils. An important aspect of the new arrangements is the establishment of a Commonwealth/State Consultative Committee. The functions of this Committee are to inform and advise the Board or its Councils on matters relating to Commonwealth, State and Territory policies and priorities in the fields of employment, education and training and research. I turn now to the major features of the Bill. The Functions of the Advisory Structures The Bill establishes a National Board of Employment, Education and Training whose functions encompass advice on all matters currently within the Employment, Education and Training Ministry. It will inquire into and provide information and advice on matters relating to: education (other than migrant adult education); youth affairs; employment and training; and national research priorities and the co-ordination of research policy, as well as matters arising under the legislation within the Employment, Education and Training Ministry. The scope of the Board's responsibilities in these areas is defined in broad terms. The primary function of the Board is to provide advice and report on matters referred to it by the Minister. The Board may also initiate inquiries into other matters within its responsibilities and report its findings to the Minister. Its recommendations will take account of any directions or guidelines from the Minister on the Government's broad social, economic and budgetary priorities. The Minister is required to table in both Houses of Parliament a copy of such directions or guidelines provided to the Board as soon as practicable. The Board also is given power to do all things necessary for the performance of its functions. Councils There will be four Councils reporting to the National Board: Schools Council Higher Education Council Employment and Skills Formation Council Australian Research Council. The Schools Council will provide advice and information on any matter relating to schools, and primary and secondary education. The Council will frame its deliberations against such relevant matters as the need for improving primary and secondary educational facilities in Australia and providing increased equality of opportunity in both government and non-government schools. The Higher Education Council will advise on such matters as the general development of higher education in Australia, priorities and arrangements for the funding of higher education institutions and the overseas marketing of Australian higher education services. The Employment and Skills Formation Council will cover matters such as technical and further education, employment and skills formation policies, programs and services, and the promotion of effective training throughout business and industry. Provision is made in the Bill for the Minister to establish National, Regional and Local Committees to advise both the Council and the National Director on the operations of the Commonwealth Employment Service. These will be in place of the National Advisory Committee on the Commonwealth Employment Service which is being abolished. The functions of the Australian Research Council fall into two categories. The Council will provide information and advice to the Board on matters relating to national research priorities or the co-ordination of research policy. However, in respect of the distribution of resources allocated to research schemes referred to the Council by the Minister and the administrative and other costs of these schemes, the Council will make recommendations direct to the Minister. The Bill specifically provides that the Board may not direct or furnish guidelines to the Australian Research Council in respect of recommendations for particular grants of assistance. Membership of the Board, the Councils and the Commonwealth/State Consultative Committee Board members are to be appointed by virtue of their individual skills, expertise and relevant experience rather than as representatives of associations, States or Territories or other bodies which have particular interests. The Board will have up to five full-time members and a total membership of no more than 13 members. The Chairperson may be appointed either on a full-time or part-time basis. All members of the Board will be appointed by the Governor-General. Close co-operation between the Board and its Councils will be facilitated by interlocking membership between the Board and the Councils with two of the members of each Council being Board members. One of these will be the Council Chairperson. The composition of the Board provides for a broad spectrum of interests to be represented. The Bill provides that at least seven members of the Board have expertise in matters relating to education or training, two members have expertise relating to trade unions and two members have expertise relating to business or industry. Appointments to the remaining positions will provide for balanced advice from across interested sectors, including additional members from nominated areas of expertise. Gender and geographical balance will be further considerations. Membership of Councils will also be determined on the basis of expertise first and sectoral representation second. There have been suggestions that the consumers and providers of education and training will not be adequately represented on the Board. This will not be so. The Chairpersons of the Schools and the Higher Education Councils and the Australian Research Council are most likely to be drawn from among the Board members possessing specific expertise in education and training. Similarly, the membership of the relevant Councils will largely be drawn from the sectors the Councils represent. Added scope in this regard is also provided for by allowing Council membership to vary in size to a maximum of between nine and eleven members. Counsellors In addition, provision has been made for the appointment of up to four Counsellors whose skills will augment the experience and expertise of the Board and its Councils, giving them additional capacity to interact with client organisations in areas of focused interest. Examples of this might be the negotiation of educational profiles with higher education institutions and negotiations with unions and employers in industrial restructuring. These Counsellors may be part-time members of the Board or of a council. The Bill specifically requires consultation between the Minister and the Chairperson of the Board on appointments of Counsellors, their tasks and the reporting arrangements for each Counsellor. Commonwealth/State Consultative Committee This Committee will comprise nine members-the Secretary of the Department of Employment, Education and Training who will chair the Committee, and eight State and Territory ministerial nominees. The Committee will provide an important means of identifying broad State and Territory Government priorities in the field of employment, education, training and research and reflecting those priorities in the Board's deliberations. It will also provide the forum for early resolution of significant Commonwealth/State issues in relevant areas. It is anticipated that there will be a high degree of commonality in the agenda for the Committee and the Board. Board members will not be members of the Commonwealth/State Consultative Committee to avoid conflicts of interest and to ensure representation of the widest practicable spectrum of views. Reporting Responsibilities The Board will be required to provide an annual report to Parliament through the Minister. The report will include information on references from the Minister to the Board and reports prepared by the Board for the Minister during the previous twelve months. It will also include information about advice from the Commonwealth/State Consultative Committee, each of the four Councils, and details of the consultative processes used by the Board and Councils in the formation of their advice. The Board will also provide periodic reports as required on references from the Minister. These reports will also be tabled in Parliament. The Bill contains provisions allowing the Board to decide that some or all of a particular report should remain confidential. It is expected that this provision will be used only sparingly, for example, in cases where material would not have been provided to the Board had confidentiality not been guaranteed or where a reference relates to budgetary formulation. Committees The Bill enables the Minister to establish, where requested to do so by the Board, various Committees to assist the Board and Councils in their work. Based on the interim structures, it is expected that the Australian Research Council, through the Board, will request to be assisted by four Advisory Committees in: the Engineering, Earth and Applied Sciences; the Mathematical, Physical and Chemical Sciences; the Biomedical, Biological and Veterinary Sciences; and the Humanities and Social Sciences. The composition of these Committees may be established by the Minister on the recommendation of the Australian Research Council to the Board and in consultation with the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Reference has already been made to the provision for the establishment of Advisory Committees on the operations of the Commonwealth Employment Service. Arrangements outside of the NBEET structure will be made to assist in the development of specialist advice on topics such as women's issues and Aboriginal employment, education and training matters. Given the relevance of curriculum development to three of the four Councils and the program nature of the work, curriculum development functions (which were formerly with the Curriculum Development Council operating under the auspices of the Commonwealth Schools Commission) have been transferred to the Department of Employment, Education and Training. A Curriculum Development Centre has been established within the Department to carry out these functions and to provide support to the Board. The scope of activities undertaken by the Curriculum Development Centre will be enlarged to include developing curricula for use in higher and further education as well as in schools. It is anticipated that the Board will in due course recommend to the Minister that he establish a Curriculum Development Advisory Committee. Commonwealth Employment Service The Bill maintains the Government's commitment to a public employment agency by including provisions dealing with the Commonwealth Employment Service. The Bill provides mechanisms whereby advice to the Minister on the functioning of the Commonwealth Employment Service can be given within the broader framework of employment, education and training established by this Government. Grants for Innovative and Curriculum Projects The Bill makes provision for the Minister to approve grants for innovative and curriculum projects. An innovative project is one aimed at encouraging diversity or innovation or designed to test new approaches and techniques. A curriculum project could involve research in the development of curricula and educational materials and the publication of those educational materials. The Minister can delegate to the Board Chairperson powers to make grants. Secretariat Provision has been made for a small administrative support group, to be provided within the Department to service the Board, Councils and Committees. The Bill provides for the Director of the Secretariat to be appointed by the Secretary of the Department of Employment, Education and Training after consultation with the Chairperson of the Board. It is intended that the responsibility to make appointments to the Secretariat below the level of Director will be delegated to the Director, subject to normal departmental procedures and subject to the Director being required to consult with the Chairperson of the Board as appropriate, The Director and his staff will function as a link between the Board and the Department, to enable the Department's resources to be marshalled and sources of expertise to be utilised to assist the Board and its Councils in the most constructive way possible. Program Delivery All program delivery; some of which was undertaken by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and the Commonwealth Schools Commission, has now been transferred to the Department. As an integral part of the advisory role, the full-time Board members and Counsellors will be involved with the Department in the on-going process of assisting with program implementation through consultation and liaison with individual sectors, organisations and institutions on which programs impact. Working Relationships between the Board, its Councils, the Secretariat and the Department An integral part of the proposed new arrangements for the Employment, Education and Training portfolio is the maintenance of a clear distinction between responsibility for program delivery and management on the one hand and, on the other, formal advice on policy and resource allocation issues; and accordingly between the relevant lines of authority. This will provide a strong basis for teamwork and mutual trust within the portfolio. Under these arrangements the Department will serve as a resource to the Board and Councils, just as to the Minister. The Department will play a major role in ensuring that the Board and Councils have the best possible basis for their advice and in assisting them to make the maximum contribution to the activities of the portfolio generally, including in the delivery of its programs. Mr President, I seek leave to table the document ``Working Relationships between the National Board of Employment, Education and Training, its Councils and Secretariat, and the Department''. Financial Impact There will be resource savings over time resulting from rationalisation of the advisory arrangements. On the basis of the new statutory arrangements coming into operation on 1 July 1988, the net savings to the Commonwealth are estimated to be in the order of $500,000 in 1988-89. Funding in respect of curriculum and innovative projects will be decided in the Budget context. They are not expected to lead to any additional demands for resources, with the funds becoming available from the relocation of funding for existing programs such as curriculum development. The amount of $2,345,600 was appropriated in 1987-88 for curriculum development by the Commonwealth Schools Commission, and will be available for these purposes. Consequential Changes As the Bill incorporates provision for a Commonwealth Employment Service within the Department, it therefore repeals the separate Commonwealth Employment Service Act 1978. The Bill repeals the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act 1973 and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977. Consequential amendments as a result of those repeals are included in the Bill. Conclusion This opportunity must be taken to thank the former Chairmen and members of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, the Commonwealth Schools Commission and the Australian Council for Employment and Training. These people along with the many who served on the various committees have over the years been responsible for many innovations within the training, employment and education fields in dedicated pursuit of the goals reflected in the legislation under which they worked. While the passing of these institutions is a matter of regret to some, the new arrangements proposed in this Bill will provide a sure foundation for carrying on their work in the changed circumstances of the 1980s. The Government is determined that the education and training systems will play an active role in responding to the major economic challenges facing Australia. These challenges will make heavy demands on our human intellectual resources and labour force skills. This Bill by rationalising the advisory structures for employment, education, training and research will make a substantial contribution to that end. Like other successful economies in the world, Australia must give a high priority to education and skills formation and to improving the quality and flexibility of our education and training, employment and research systems. The Government has already signalled its strong commitment to the objectives of reform in the range of activities of the Employment, Education and Training Ministry. These improved advisory structures will ensure that the advice received by the Government will be timely and relevant, and will assist Australia in increasing its productivity in these years of challenging economic and social reform. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bills may proceed without formalities, may be considered together and be now read a first time. Bills read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(4.49) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- SUPERANNUATION BENEFIT (INTERIM ARRANGEMENT) BILL 1988 The propose of this Bill is to provide, under an interim arrangement, lump sum superannuation benefits for: Commonwealth civilian employees and employees of Commonwealth Authorities and bodies who are eligible employees under the Superannuation Act 1976; and Commonwealth civilian employees and employees of certain Commonwealth authorities and bodies who have no employer-sponsored superannuation. The major features of the interim arrangement are that: it is an interim arrangement; it provides a benefit for those without any superannuation cover and an additional benefit for those with superannuation cover. Existing superannuation arrangements are not affected by the interim arrangement; employees do not contribute; it is an `unfunded' arrangement. Rather than pay contributions on an on-going basis, employers will be required to pay benefits as they fall due; and the basis for calculation of the benefits simulates the benefits that would have accrued had the employer paid contributions to an invested accumulation fund earning interest. The rate of interest provided for in the calculation of the benefit is the long-term bond rate at the start of each year. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's June 1986 national wage case decision made provision for employers and unions to negotiate new and/or additional superannuation agreements costing up to 3 per cent of ordinary time wages. The Government agreed to a 3 per cent overall superannuation benefit for Commonwealth sector employees generally, with 1.5 per cent commencing on 1 January 1988 and the balance no later than 1 January 1989. This Bill gives effect to that agreement from 1 January 1988. For the benefit of honourable senators I highlight some of the major features of the arrangement. Time constraints and the Government's general review of superannuation precluded finalisation of the longer-term form of the benefits for the 325,000 eligible employees under the Superannuation Act 1976 or the 75,000 Commonwealth sector employees with no superannuation cover. Accordingly, the Bill sets up an interim arrangement which can be operated without the need for a central administrator. The arrangement is a simple one because the administration of the arrangement, including record-keeping and calculation of the benefit, has been devolved to each employer in respect of its employees. The simplicity of the arrangement and its factual nature have obviated the need for review powers. Longer-term arrangements for the benefit will be negotiated in 1988. The Government has already announced a comprehensive review of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme later this year. The benefit under the interim arrangement may be subsumed within any revised scheme. The Bill provides that certain regulations can be made with effect from 1 January 1988. One such power relates to the inclusion of certain groups of persons in the interim arrangement from 1 January 1988. This power has been provided so that authorities which provide superannuation benefits other than under the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme, could choose to cover their employees, particularly employees with no superannuation cover, under the interim arrangement until their separate longer-term arrangements are finalised. Another power is to exclude certain groups of persons from the interim arrangement with effect from 1 January 1988. This power has been provided so that, where longer-term arrangements with effect from 1 January 1988 are put in place for certain groups of employees initially covered by the interim arrangement, those groups can be excluded from the interim arrangement so that they do not become entitled to double benefits. The Government recognised that a substantial number of employees in the Commonwealth sector have no superannuation cover. In the main, these workers are at the lower end of the income scale. The Government considered it appropriate to arrange the benefit in a way that would favour these employees. The arrangement provides proportionately higher benefits for lower income earners than for higher income earners. This arrangement is a major step in the provision of superannuation for all Commonwealth employees. Lump sum benefits are payable on termination of employment with the Commonwealth or an authority that is an approved authority for the purpose of the Superannuation Act 1976. In accordance with the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner's requirements applicable to 3 per cent benefits provided under prescribed agreements or awards made by Commonwealth or State industrial authorities, benefits of $500 or more are required to be preserved in the approved fund of the person's choice until genuine retirement from the work force. Honourable Members will note that this Bill refers to, or uses, the provisions of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Act 1987 in several places. Where a benefit is less than $500, the benefit can be paid to the individual. The person has the option to roll-over all or part of the benefit to an approved preservation fund. There is a qualifying period of three months service, or its equivalent in part-time service, for eligibility for the benefit. If employers had to process very small amounts, the costs of doing so could exceed the amount of the benefit. Continuous service prior to 1 January 1988 counts towards this qualifying period but not for benefits. Once eligibility for the benefit is established, the calculation of the benefit takes into account service from 1 January 1988 or the date of commencement of service, whichever is the later. Finally, I would like to advise honourable senators of the financial implications of the 3 per cent superannuation benefit. The Bill provides for regulations to specify the basis for calculation of the benefits in 1989 and later years. The rates of employer contribution used in the calculation will result in an overall cost of 3 per cent of salaries for superannuation purposes in those years. The interim arrangement implies an accruing financial commitment by employers of 1.5 per cent of the salaries for superannuation purposes of the persons covered in the calendar year 1988 and 3 per cent in subsequent years. In 1987-88 prices, this accruing liability would be $130.5 million in 1988 and $271 million in later years. The benefits under the interim arrangement will not, however, be met by employers paying contributions to a fund or to a central body. Rather each employer will be required to finance only the benefits that become payable. This would be much less than the full accruing cost. Assuming the interim arrangement will continue unchanged, costs (in 1987-88 prices) are estimated to be: $1.6m in 1987-88; $14.4m in 1988-89; $37.5m in 1989-90; and $62.8m in 1990-91. I commend the Bill to the Senate. DEFENCE (SUPERANNUATION INTERIM ARRANGEMENT) AMENDMENT BILL 1988 The purpose of this Bill is to enable the application to members of the Defence Force of the 3 per cent productivity superannuation benefit. This benefit flows on from the June 1986 decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on this subject. Because there are complex superannuation issues involved in the application of the benefit to the Government employment area the final form of the benefit has not yet been decided. In applying the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's decision to the Public Service and to the Defence Force it was found that, because of factors peculiar to the Defence Force, there would need to be differences in matters of detail in the application of the scheme to the Defence Force and the Public Service. These differences include: There is only one `employer' (if I may use that expression) for the Defence Force as distinct from the many `employers' in the Public Service sector. The Defence Force scheme does not apply to part time service. The Defence Force scheme has to have regard to concepts in the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 which differ from those in the Superannuation Act 1976. The Defence Force scheme has to have regard to the conditions of service peculiar to the Defence Force. The Defence Force has a centralised pay system. As the scheme is an interim one and will shortly be replaced by a permanent scheme, it is proposed to empower the Minister for Defence to determine details of the scheme and to provide that any determinations made by him are to be subject to the usual tabling and disallowance provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The Bill sets out guidelines that the Minister will be required to have regard to in making a determination. These are: the decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the scheme for the Public Service as set out in the Superannuation Benefit (Interim Arrangement) Bill 1988, the terms and conditions of service of members of the Defence Force and the arrangements for the administration of the Defence Force. Financial Impact Statement It is estimated that the introduction of this benefit for the Defence Force will result in the following expenditure by the Commonwealth: Financial year Expenditure $m 1987-88 ... 0.470 1988-89 ... 4.550 Expenditure in subsequent years will depend upon the final form adopted for the benefit. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) 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)(4.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to provide national legislation for the clearance of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. This is an area of regulation of critical importance to Australia's primary industry, to our international trade in primary products, to the protection of Australia's unique environment and to the safeguarding of the health of all Australians. The availability of a wide range of agricultural and veterinary chemicals has been one of the more important factors in farm development throughout the world over the past 40 years. They rank with mechanisation of farms, the development of new varieties of plants and breeds of livestock and the improved storage of products as the more significant developments facilitating the bountiful supply of food and fibre we enjoy. The benefits have not been confined to farm production and their use for control of insect vectors of major diseases, such as malaria, or for control of domestic pests are well known. Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Bill These chemicals are however, by their very nature and purpose, biologically active. Misuse can result in unintended effects on plants, animals, non-target species, the users of chemicals, the consumers of plant or animal products or workers involved in their handling, transport or storage. Contaminants of formulated chemical products are cause for concern as is misrepresentation of the potential benefits or impact of chemical use. Consumers of food products are justifiably sensitive to residues of chemicals in food. There are some groups in our community who question the use of artificially formulated chemicals in food production at all. However, as with the motor car and the television set, the benefits of controlled use have more than justified their use. Honourable senators may be aware that since 1967 the Australian Government and the governments of the States and more recently of the Northern Territory have cooperated voluntarily in an administratively based system for the assessment and clearance of agricultural and veterinary chemicals prior to their registration for use in the individual States and Territories under separate State and Territory legislation. The increasing complexity of chemical products and the realities of international trade require that improvements be effected in the regulatory framework governing the clearance and registration of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. To bring about this improvement the Government believes that the most appropriate step is to provide a legislative foundation for natural assessment and clearance of these chemicals. The cooperation of State and Territory governments has enabled this approach to be adopted. A legislative approach has been recommended by the Australian Agricultural Council. The legislation I have introduced is based on the detailed considerations of a working party of that Council and on earlier recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy announced in October 1986 that legislation dealing with these chemical products would be developed and since that announcement the States, Territories, industry and consumer groups have been consulted on its development. The Government has four basic objectives in developing this legislation: (i) to ensure that agricultural and veterinary chemical products perform as intended, (ii) to minimise any possible hazard to the public, the environment, users or to agricultural produce and livestock from the use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals, (iii) to enhance the export market potential of our agricultural products, and (iv) to enhance the uniformity of assessment and registration of these products within Australia. The legislation will provide the basis of the clearance process which ensures that efficacy, toxicity and environmental impact are fully evaluated, to ensure that claims are made by manufacturers can be substantiated and that there are no unintended side effects from the use of agricultural and veterinary chemical products. Some newly developed chemicals are quite complex and designed to be specific in their action while others may have a broad spectrum of use. Assessment of chemicals already in use is ongoing and it is appropriate that the clearance authority have access to the results of such assessments. The Government has a clear role through the clearance system to ensure that chemical products perform as claimed, and do not jeopardise the quality, or indeed the very production of crops and livestock. The clearance process ensures that agricultural and veterinary chemicals approved for use within Australia perform in the manner intended, producing the expected performance when used according to recommendations. Of equal importance is the assessment of the potentially damaging effects of misuse of chemical products. A product which is perfectly safe at the correct dosage may be dangerous to the user or to plants or animals at a higher dosage. A product which works well on one crop may, if used on another crop, reduce the crop value to zero. The chemical user must be provided with practical information on the potential problems associated with use of these products outside the recommended parameters. Honourable senators will be well aware of the importance our major primary produce export markets place on purchase of high quality products. It is increasingly important to be able to demonstrate to foreign governments and their marketing agencies and to international corporations that Australia has coherent national standards for clearance of chemicals and control of undesirable residues. The Government believes that this legislation will further strengthen the international standing of Australia's clearance and registration processes, thereby enhancing the export market potential of our agricultural products. Corresponding benefits can also be expected in the domestic market, where the Commonwealth has a strong interest but for which the States have prime responsibility. Australia has taken a lead role in the development of international standards for the use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals through the Codex Alimentaris Commission, sponsored by the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. While international harmonisation will take many years to achieve, Australia will be in a better position with appropriate national legislation and a national clearance system. While there has been a high degree of cooperation between State and Commonwealth agencies in the clearance of new chemicals, for a small country such as Australia, the only cost effective way to assess these products is on a nationwide basis. This legislation will clarify the obligations and responsibilities of both individual proponents of new chemicals requiring clearance of their products and public officers evaluating applications for grants of clearance. Present processes for clearance and registration of agricultural and veterinary chemicals have evolved over many years. They now need to be clearly defined in federal legislation for the benefit of manufacturers, users, our overseas trading partners, domestic consumers and specific interest groups. It is important to note that the regulation of agricultural and veterinary chemicals described in the Bill is similar to that in other countries comparable to Australia, including those who share a federal system of government such as Canada and the USA. The legislation and supporting agreements with the States and Territories will enhance the uniformity of agricultural and veterinary chemical assessment within Australia. As might be expected, the present system with seven separate State and Territory registration authorities, has been required to cope with sometimes marked divergence in State requirements. Honourable senators may care to reflect on the difficulties of negotiating a path through the some 120 separate pieces of State and Territory legislation controlling the registration, sale and use of agricultural and veterinary chemical products in Australia. The inevitable result has been a lengthy and costly assessment process. In particular, chemical product manufacturers have been required to make separate applications to both the appropriate national coordinating secretariat and to State and Territory agencies to acquire all necessary approvals prior to marketing a product. The Government believes that a significantly more efficient system will result from a cooperative `one stop shop' for clearance of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. Enhanced uniformity, in tandem with the streamlined processing system minimising the instances of multiple submissions for approval will reduce both the cost in, and elapsed time of, the assessment and clearance process. To achieve these objectives the Bill provides for the establishment of an Australian Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Council. The Council will be responsible for coordinating the evaluation of chemicals proposed for registration in Australia, involving assessments of toxicology, human safety, environmental hazard and efficacy of manufacturers claims, and will grant certificates of clearance for those chemicals, the safety and effectiveness of which it is satisfied. To support the legislation, the Commonwealth proposes to enter into agreements with individual State and Territory governments along the lines of the draft agreement attached as a schedule to the Bill. For the Commonwealth's part, the essence of these agreements will be satisfied by the passage of this legislation and the implementation of an effective and efficient clearance system. Governments of the States and the Northern Territory are being asked to amend their laws to allow the automatic registration of cleared chemicals in participating States or Territories in all but exceptional circumstances. States and Territories represented at Australian Agricultural Council have agreed in principle with this approach. They will also continue to exercise control over the final registration process and maintain the responsibility for control and monitoring of the sale and actual use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals within their jurisdiction. I re-emphasise the cooperative nature of this venture between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories. The functions of the Council are detailed in part II of the Bill. These functions include the issuance, variation or withdrawal of clearances for the registration of agricultural and veterinary chemical products in Australia, the evaluation of the effects of the use of these products and the development of codes of practice, standards and guidelines for their use. Council is empowered to collect, interpret, disseminate and publish information relating to agricultural and veterinary chemicals and their use and may advise the Minister on any matter relating to them. All common agricultural and veterinary chemicals will fall within the scope of the Act including products for the control of insects, fungi, weeds, algae, bacteria, rodents, animal parasites and a wide variety of other agricultural pests. Also covered will be products promoting growth or affecting the reproductive cycle of animals. The legislation does not, however, aim to cover such products as fertilisers, non-medicated animal feeds or individual preparations prepared by veterinary surgeons. Aside from particular circumstances, to be defined in detail in the agreement with States and Territories, all new agricultural and veterinary chemicals must be cleared by the Council before they will be registered by State authorities. The same process will be required for variations in the use of already cleared and registered products although this requirement, which is now undertaken fully in each State and Territory, may require phased introduction. Council will be empowered to develop a `fast track' system for minor changes. Council will only issue certificates of clearance when it is satisfied that all necessary information has been placed before it, that the product is effective for its stated uses, poses no threat to persons using it or products containing its residues and that the product will have no unintended effects on animals, plants or any other objects. Chemicals presently in the marketplace will be treated as if cleared by the new system under conditions applying to their present State or Territory registration. Any requirement for change in their use or new information concerning their impact or efficiency will trigger Council consideration of such chemicals. Applicants for certificates of clearance will be required to provide full and factual information to Council for the purposes of its assessments and to inform Council of any change to information supplied subsequent to clearance of a product being granted. Failure to comply will result in the possible application of penalties. The Council is to comprise up to twelve part time members appointed by the Minister. The Chairperson, to be nominated by the Minister, is expected to be a senior officer of the Minister's Department. Each participating State or Territory, i.e. each State or Territory entering into an agreement with the Commonwealth, shall have the right to nominate a Council member. One member will represent both the Australian Environment Council and the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers. The remaining two members will represent the National Health and Medical Research Council and the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. All organisations represented in Council are participating parties in the clearance process. Appointments made by the Minister will be for periods up to three years, but members will be eligible for reappointment on the expiration of their appointments. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy will be writing to the appropriate Ministers as soon as possible to finalise the composition of the first Council. In undertaking its functions the Council will be administratively supported by the Department and the Bill makes specific provision for an officer within the Department, to be known as the Chemicals Coordinator, to undertake the duties of Executive Officer to the Council. The present critical roles played by the National Health and Medical Research Council and the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission in the evaluation and assessment of chemicals will continue undiminished, these bodies working closely and cooperatively with the new Council. The Council will delegate powers to the Chemicals Coordinator or to expert committees to facilitate expeditious clearance of products, especially where minor changes to chemicals clearance or to labels on chemical products are required. The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Council also will have the power to establish one, or a number, of expert committees to assist and facilitate its operations. I expect consultative committees with industry, consumer and environmental groups now operating under the Australian Agricultural Council sub-committee system to be re-established under this council. The legislation provides for fees to be levied in respect of the effort necessary to process applications. It is the Government's intention that Council operate at a cost recovery level of fifty per cent. As a corollary to the charging of fees the Government recognises that every effort must be made to reduce the elapsed time taken to process applications. The cost of additional administrative support necessary to meet Council requirements is estimated at $600,000 over the first three years of operation. This figure includes additional staff together with the costs of fares and travel allowances for members of Council. These additional resource requirements are presently being progressed through the normal budget processes. Consistent with the cooperative nature of this scheme the Department will be discussing with State and Territory departments the secondment of State and Territory officers on a rotational basis to the central secretariat. Some other administrative aspects of the Bill are also worthy of specific mention. First, applicants for, or holders of, clearance certificates will have the right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against decisions of the Council to reject applications for clearance, to impose conditions on clearance or to withdraw clearance for a chemical product. Users of agricultural and veterinary chemicals, and other persons with a direct interest in their use and safety, will also be able to raise technical evidence which disputes the manufacturers or distributors recommendations or claims direct with the Council under the legislation. Second, the Council is accountable to Parliament through the requirement to report on an annual basis to the Minister and for the Minister to table such reports. These reports will also be made available to State and Territory Ministers for the purpose of tabling in the State legislatures. Confidentiality of information will be enforced sensibly to protect sensitive commercial data. The definition of information deemed to be confidential is based on relevant provisions in the Freedom of Information Act. Finally, the Government expects further rationalisation in the regulation of primary and supporting industries during the next three to five years. This House has recently moved to establish a Select Committee on Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals in Australia, the terms of reference of which include review of the adequacy of this legislation I have now brought forward. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy will be writing to the incoming Chairperson of that Select Committee when it is established asking that attention be given in particular to industry concerns about proprietary rights to the data packages prepared and submitted with applications for clearance, confidentiality of data and the time taken to assess applications and also community concerns on right of access to data and adequate right of appeal on decisions under the legislation. A five year sunset clause has also been included within this legislation, thereby ensuring a comprehensive reconsideration of the processes of clearance and registration of agricultural and veterinary chemicals by 1992-93. Honourable senators, this Bill also provides another strong plank in the Government's platform to ensure that a significant environmental issue confronting society is managed effectively and safely. Chemicals in the environment do not generate the hype of some other environmental issues but the efficiency and accountability of the provisions contained in this Bill show that the Government is not ignoring this important issue. Honourable senators, I believe that this Bill represents a highly appropriate step in the rationalisation of an extremely complex regulatory area. I commend the Bill to the Senate and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Bill (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bills may proceed without formalities, may be considered together and be now read a first time. Bills read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(4.52) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL 1988 Introduction The Industrial Relations Bill 1988 represents the most substantial revision of Australia's federal industrial relations system undertaken since the system was established in 1904. It originates from the Hancock Committee of Review into Australia's Industrial Relations Law and Systems which the Hawke Labor Government established soon after we came to office. On receipt of the Committee's report, the Government instituted an extensive series of consultations with the major parties, each of which was broadly supportive of the report. The Industrial Relations Bill 1987, which came before the other place in May last year, but which subsequently lapsed, reflected a wide measure of agreement between the parties and the Government as to the changes that should be made. There were, however, some important areas of non-agreement, and that continues to be the case. The Industrial Relations Bill 1988 is very similar to the 1987 Bill albeit with a few major changes and a number of minor amendments. I will later spell out the important differences in this Bill together with the circumstances in which the 1987 Bill was withdrawn. The Government regards this Bill as a very important element in the process of industrial relations reform that has been instituted since the Hawke Government came to office in 1983. That reform process has placed great emphasis on consultation rather than confrontation and has resulted in spectacular improvements in industrial relations outcomes. Its principal mechanism has been the accord between the Government and the trade union movement. The cooperative spirit developed by the accord has been the genesis for a reduction in the level of time lost in industrial disputes to less than half the level that prevailed under the previous Government. The wages outcome also has been dramatically reduced, with the average annual level of increase in nominal earnings being about half the level that prevailed during the Fraser years. The ability of the wages system to adjust to the acute economic difficulties created by the terms of trade collapse in May 1984, without resort to severe recessionary policies to induce that outcome, has been a major success story of the Hawke Government's period of office. More importantly perhaps than either of these changes has been the attitudinal change of the parties. Although there are some spectacular exceptions on both sides, there is now, in general, a much more constructive, cooperative attitude by the parties than previously prevailed. Industrial Relations Legislation By and large, unions have recognised their need to be economically responsible; they have agreed to real wage declines, have accepted the need to develop participative, competitive enterprises, and therefore to increase productivity; they have agreed they have a positive role to play in that regard, and have accepted a wage system which, for the first time in our history, gives positive impetus to productivity improvement. These are very encouraging developments indeed and give real hope for long-term improvement in our industrial and economic outcomes. They have certainly provided a basis for cooperation between the parties at the national, industry and enterprise level that would have been unimaginable a few years ago. In the near future they seem certain to result in a highly desirable process of award restructuring and enhanced skill formation processes in many industries. As a consequence, we should develop, over the next few years, a more skilled, flexible and productive work force thus improving competitiveness, economic growth and our capacity to improve living standards. At the national level there have been a number of major agreements by the parties which are indicative of the extraordinary attitudinal change. The joint statement by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), the Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI) and the Business Council of Australia in September 1986 on restrictive work practices was a major recognition by the parties, and the unions in particular, of the need to eliminate restrictive work practices to improve productivity and competitiveness. This agreement was the forerunner of the current two-tier wages system which has, in turn, resulted in great progress in this area. Similarly, the tripartite report on labour market flexibility which was developed by the Government, the ACTU and the CAI through the national labour consultative council demonstrated a remarkable level of consensus in an area which has proved very divisive in many countries. The report strongly supports the need for increased flexibility and emphasises that this can be achieved within a system of conciliation and arbitration. Most recently the ACTU and the CAI produced a joint statement on participative practices. This statement provides, uniquely in Australia's history, a strong expression of support for increased worker participation in decision making at the enterprise level and an agreed set of principles to govern this development. Most encouragingly, support for this development was set strongly in the context of the need for productivity enhancement. The statement is hopefully the precursor to a major expansion of worker participation in our enterprises, a process which the Government will be seeking to encourage and assist. It is therefore a very positive encouraging industrial relations context in which the Industrial Relations Bill 1988 is being introduced. The Bill sits well with these developments. It is itself very largely agreed by the major parties, each of which recognises the need for the legislative framework which covers the system to be thoroughly overhauled and modernised. The Bill will consolidate the major achievements of the past few years and provide a firm basis on which the progress of the recent past can be continued in the years ahead. Key Elements I turn now to the Bill itself. Full details of the Bill are provided in the explanatory memorandum. Here I propose to mention its most significant features, including key areas where there have been changes from the earlier version. Although the legislation introduces sweeping changes in many of the most important areas of operation of our Federal industrial relations system, it retains the system of conciliation and arbitration as the means by which Australia's industrial relationships are regulated. Retention of the model of conciliation and arbitration is favoured not only by this Government but also by the major parties in the system. The Government does so because it recognises the immense social and industrial benefits which have stemmed from our system. Historically these arrangements have meant that all workers, whatever their industrial bargaining power, have enjoyed minimum standards of award entitlements which are protected by law. Protection of workers through the award system is one of the real achievements of the conciliation and arbitration machinery. Indeed, by the operation of this system we have, to a far greater extent than most other comparable industrialised countries, been able to prevent exploitation of the industrially weak. Further, the existing conciliation and arbitration framework has provided the opportunity for the development and delivery of a responsible national wages policy which has been utilised so effectively by this Government over the past five years. Both the constitutional constraints imposed on the Commonwealth at Federation and the need for consistency of operation between the Federal body and the State industrial relations tribunals, which work in parallel with the Federal system, are additional reasons why continuation of our conciliation and arbitration system is vital. Since the earlier version of the Bill lapsed last year, there have been some extremely important High Court of Australia decisions which have had significant consequences for our industrial relations legislation and which have allowed modifications to the previously proposed Bill. The Government has continued to consult with the industrial parties about the contents of the Bill. In certain areas the parties have revised their earlier attitudes and have been prepared to see this version of the Bill take additional positive steps towards achieving further progress. The first of the major changes involves unfair dismissals. In the recent Ranger uranium case the High Court decided that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has the power to hear and determine disputes involving claims concerning alleged unfair dismissals. This is clearly preferable to the processes involved in taking legal action before a court. It means that such disputes can be dealt with more speedily, more informally and more cheaply. Accordingly, the proposed Industrial Relations Commission will be able to deal with such matters and the express legislative prescription which vested reinstatement powers in the proposed labour court has been omitted from the Bill. Secondly, it will be remembered that when this Bill was introduced last year in its earlier form, it included a new and comprehensive sanctions package. The package had been developed to provide effective yet equitable measures to ensure that the Commission had complete authority to enforce adherence by the parties within the Federal industrial relations system to standards applying under that system. The proposed measures would have guaranteed a swift and workable response to deal with industrial misbehaviour. They comprised a new directions and injunction process, non-adherence to which could lead to the imposition of significantly increased monetary penalties or an array of non-monetary penalties. In view of this marked increase in the effectiveness of the compliance provisions under Federal industrial law, it was considered unnecessary and inappropriate to retain access to injunctive remedies under common law for industrial action. Accordingly, the Bill prevented access to such injunctions, whilst continuing to allow the pursuit of compensatory damages at common law. The Bill also proposed to transfer the jurisdiction to deal with contraventions by trade unions of sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act 1974 to the proposed labour court without amending the remedies available under that Act. Access to the Trade Practices Act for injunctions or damages for contraventions of sections 45d and 45e was prevented until conciliation of the underlying dispute had been attempted. The compliance provisions of the previous Bill thus represented a balanced and rational approach. They sought to provide enhanced compliance measures within the Federal industrial legislative code and to restrict, as far as reasonably possible, resort to legal avenues outside that statutory code. Not to do so was to place unions in a situation of serious double jeopardy. They would be open to large increased penalties under the Industrial Relations Act yet, for the same industrial action, could still be liable for severe penalties under the common law. Such a situation would have been, in the Government's view, grossly unfair and totally unnecessary. There was simply no need for employers to have access to common law injunctions once the enhanced compliance provisions including injunctions, were contained in Federal industrial law. Unfortunately, the new compliance measures received a hostile reception from employer groups. Whilst they welcomed the new directions and injunctions process, they adamantly demanded the retention of common law penalties and immediate access to actions under the Trade Practices Act. The Government considered that the employers' intransigent opposition to these provisions had the capacity to undermine the parties' commitment to, and the public's confidence in, the new industrial relations system. It therefore decided to remove the proposed compliance package from the legislation and to preserve the system which currently exists. Accordingly, this Bill retains the bans clause procedures under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which have been redrafted to make them more easily understood. Monetary penalty levels for award breaches and non-adherence to compliance provisions remain unchanged from those which currently prevail but a number of non-monetary penalties for industrial misconduct contained in the previous Bill have been retained. The third major change embodied in this Bill is the decision not to proceed with a separate labour court. The High Court's ruling on the Commission's ability to deal with alleged unfair dismissal disputes and the Government's decision not to retain the proposed compliance package diminished the need for such a court. Therefore the Industrial Division of the Federal Court will continue to deal with appropriate matters. The remaining two changes of substance in this Bill involve the registration and amalgamation of organisations. It is widely accepted that Australia has too many trade unions. Small, craft-based unions cannot effectively represent the interests of their members due to their limited human and financial resources. Further, as employers and employees work together to pursue the mandatory changes which are necessary to make their industry or enterprise as productive as possible, small unions can often be seen as an inhibiting factor to change. Accordingly, to address these problems this Bill provides for speedier amalgamations. In addition to the less onerous voting requirements proposed in the previous Bill, this legislation now reduces the opportunities for objections to amalgamations. Where the Commission determines that an amalgamation will not involve any extension in the overall coverage of participating unions, the current objection procedures will not apply. Whilst there has been considerable activity amongst the larger unions to achieve union restructuring through amalgamations, the smaller unions have lagged behind in their endeavours to seek suitable partners for amalgamation purposes. Accordingly, the Government has decided to increase the minimum number of members required for registration purposes to ensure sufficient encouragement for smaller unions to actively pursue amalgamation. Unions will now be required, except in special cases, to have 3,000 members before they can be registered. At present the threshold is 100 members, whilst the previous Bill provided for 1,000 members. Currently there are almost half of the 148 federally registered unions with memberships of less than 3,000. Yet the membership of these unions constitutes only 2.9 per cent of the total membership of all federally registered unions. To maintain the appropriate encouragement for amalgamations, the continued registration of a union with less than the minimum number will be reviewed after a period of three years, not five years as previously proposed. The designated presidential member will then decide if the union's registration should be cancelled. There are also a number of other more minor changes which have been made to the legislation to improve the drafting or to reflect further consideration by the Government and the parties themselves of certain provisions in the Bill. Other Key Features I turn now to deal with the key initiatives which were contained in the previous Bill and which are retained in this legislation. Institutional Framework and Jurisdiction The Bill provides for the establishment of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. It will replace the existing Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The change in title, which was recommended by the Hancock Committee of Review into the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, reflects the expanded activities of the new Commission and places less emphasis on a pro-active determinative role. The Office of the Industrial Registrar is to be established as a statutory authority. However, the power to register organisations or amend eligibility rules will now be decided by a deputy president of the Commission. The Bill also affords a general rationalisation of existing specialist Federal industrial tribunals and the special jurisdictions under the existing Conciliation and Arbitration Act, all of which it incorporates into the mainstream jurisdiction. The Academic Salaries Tribunal, the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal and the present arrangements concerning the Australian Federal Police will therefore be abolished. There will no longer be a separate division of the Act to cover Commonwealth and Territory employees. They will be dealt with within the general powers and functions of the division. In relation to the Coal Industry Tribunal, since its powers and functions are governed by both Federal and New South Wales State legislation, under an agreement between the two governments, all changes require the concurrence of the New South Wales Government. In view of the poor industrial relations performance of the coal industry, the Government believes that there is a strong case for change in, if not the complete abolition of, the Coal Industry Tribunal. The previous New South Wales Government did not favour any major changes to the Coal Industry Tribunal's operations. However, with the change in government in New South Wales, the Minister for Industrial Relations has written to his New South Wales counterpart seeking the New South Wales Government's view on the future of the Coal Industry Tribunal and to what changes the State Government would be prepared to agree. For its part, the Government believes that the rationalisation of tribunals should indeed extend to the State tribunals so that we would have a national integrated system of industrial relations. This we believe would be in the best interests of industrial regulation in Australia. Unfortunately, little progress towards this end was made in discussions with the States. Without the States' agreement or an amendment to the Constitution, the Government is unable to achieve the establishment of a unitary industrial relations system on a national basis. Nevertheless, the Bill contains specific proposals which are designed to facilitate greater cooperation between the Federal and State industrial tribunals and to promote greater uniformity of treatment of the parties between the systems. The Bill provides that members of State and Federal tribunals will be able to hold, concurrently, dual commissions which will enable them to exercise both State and Federal powers, once the States have enacted complementary legislation. Further, meetings of the heads of tribunals will be placed on a statutory footing. The jurisdiction of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission will be framed as broadly as possible within the limits of the conciliation and arbitration power, subject only to the requirement that disputes relate to matters concerning employers and employees. It is intended that disputes involving all such matters will be able to come before the Commission-thus removing existing constraints on Commission involvement. This does not mean, however, that the Commission will be arbitrating or interfering in matters which may be properly regarded as coming within managerial prerogative. Certainly, in its own area of employment, the Commonwealth will vigorously assert its right to exercise appropriate managerial prerogative without Commission interference. The Commission will have a range of additional powers to strengthen its hand in dealing with disputes. Whilst the Commission will still be precluded from dealing with claims for payment covering periods of industrial action, the Commission will be empowered to consider claims for lost time which are justified on the grounds that the employees had a reasonable concern about their health and safety. The Commission will also have additional obligations. In particular, the Commission will be required to take account of the economic consequences of its decisions in all proceedings, not just Full Bench matters. There are specific new powers to enable permanent solutions to be found to resolve demarcation disputes. The Bill gives the Commission the discretion to allow the ACTU to attempt to settle a dispute before it exercises its own powers. Where the trade union movement cannot effect a timely resolution of the dispute the Commission will be able to address both the immediate and the long term issues relating to the demarcation of specific work. It will be able to make orders as to coverage and to change union rules to give effect to its decisions, thereby ensuring lasting relief. There is a greater emphasis on the resolution of disputes on the shop-floor. The conciliation and arbitration power does not allow the Government to require the Commission to insert grievance procedures in all awards. But where such procedures exist in the workplace for resolving differences between parties, it is imperative that they be followed. To this end, the Commission is required to take into account the extent to which grievance procedures have been followed by the parties when deciding whether it will deal with a dispute. This will encourage employers and employees to seek the insertion of grievance procedures in their awards and to use those procedures. Model grievance procedures will be further developed through the National Labour Consultative Council to enable national union and employer organisations to encourage their members to adopt a uniform standard for inclusion in all awards. Many awards have already been varied to incorporate grievance procedures arising from negotiations under the second tier arrangements. Certified Agreements In order to allow the greatest possible flexibility, yet avoid the undesirable outcomes of a totally decentralised system, the Bill provides for both the currently available consent awards and for fixed-term, non-variable binding agreements which will be certified by the Commission. Such agreements differ from the current consent award provisions in that they will have a specified life, after which they will lapse, and will not be able to be varied during that period, except in special and compelling circumstances. Most importantly, the settlements embodied in such agreements may provide for outcomes which differ somewhat from those generally prevailing under the wages system, provided a Full Bench of the Commission is satisfied that to certify such terms in the agreement would not be contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, where a Full Bench of the Commission considers that an agreement is in the mutual best interests of the parties themselves and that its certification would not undermine the prevailing wage fixation principles or threaten the orderly operation of the wages system or other aspects of the industrial relations system, it is required to certify the agreement. Through such agreements, there is considerable scope for the development of arrangements designed to reflect the particular requirements of an individual employer or enterprise. The agreements will provide individual employers guaranteed certainty in relation to the labour costs which will apply during the period of the agreement and will enable them to take appropriate management decisions in the knowledge of such predetermined stable costs. Clearly such arrangements have considerable potential for enhancing workplace productivity. In the event that a party takes industrial action in relation to a matter embodied in the agreement, the other party will be permitted, upon the Commission's approval, to treat the agreement as terminated. Action to secure compliance, short of terminating the agreement, will also be available through access to a bans clause. Similarly an employer will be able to apply for the insertion of a stand-down clause covering employees who cannot perform their work due to external circumstances. The Bill also recognises the capacity of the parties to provide their own measures for securing compliance in certified agreements, for example, by providing for the suspension or termination of rights or obligations in specified circumstances. Where such measures are contained in an agreement, it will be possible to provide expressly for the exclusion or limiting of the Commission's powers to include a bans clause or a stand-down provision in the agreement. Where all parties consent and the Commission declares that it is in the public interest, it will be possible for the agreement to be terminated. There is provision in the legislation for the Minister to intervene in the public interest to seek to have the Commission review the operation of a certified agreement if the Minister considers such a review is warranted. Further, the Bill prevents any flow-on to other awards of the terms contained in a certified agreement. As all such agreements will require Commission certification before they take effect, the Commission will be able to ensure that they do not prejudice its wages system. Nevertheless certified agreements will still provide a substantial measure of flexibility currently lacking under present legislative provisions. Organisations In addition to the initiatives which I have already outlined in relation to the registration and amalgamation of unions, the Bill also incorporates the same voting requirements for amalgamation purposes which were introduced in the previous version. Thus, where unions satisfy the `community of interest' test, a simple majority of votes cast in favour will approve the amalgamation. Where no `community of interest' criterion applies, at least a quarter of eligible members of the organisations will be required to vote with a simple majority of these votes being necessary to approve the amalgamation. Special transitional arrangements will also be provided for existing office-holders in the amalgamating organisations. The Government recognises that legislative changes by themselves will not necessarily overcome all impediments to restructuring unions. The Minister for Industrial Relations is exploring possible arrangements for financial assistance on a needs basis to be made available to assist amalgamating organisations. The future registration of unions will again, in this Bill, be restricted to associations which are industry-based, thus precluding the future registration of craft or occupationally-based associations, except in special circumstances. These measures relating to registration requirements and amalgamations will lead to a reduction in the number of small unions and a number of important consequences: A fall in the incidence of demarcation disputes, a reduction in the number of unions with which employers are required to negotiate, a stronger union affinity with the welfare of the industry in which its members work, more efficient use of trade union resources, and less resistance to changes which might otherwise have meant workers moving from one union's area of coverage to that of another union. A reduction in the number of unions will also complement the Government's industrial strategy by facilitating workplace consultation and greater employee participation in decision-making. The Government recognises that for some enterprises and projects the continued or potential presence of a multiplicity of unions represents a major impediment to higher efficiency and a discouragement to future investment. Accordingly, in addition to promoting union amalgamations, the Government fully supports moves to rationalise arrangements for union coverage of workers on individual projects and work sites where necessary. The Government believes such rationalisation can be achieved under the provisions of this Industrial Relations Bill. But should any legislative obstacle to this process be identified, the Government will consider appropriate amendments. Registered trade unions are required to observe a wide range of provisions regulating their affairs. They must meet proper standards of internal administration and satisfy requirements for democratic control. The legislation contains many initiatives which will enhance the accountability and efficient operations of trade unions. There is a requirement that all elections for offices in organisations are to be officially conducted unless an exemption is granted by the registrar. All elections by a direct voting system for offices, other than for administrative offices, are to be by secret postal ballot except where an exemption is obtained. The individual rights that are presently contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are preserved by the Bill and in some instances have been enhanced. Thus the legislation includes more comprehensive procedures dealing with records that are to be kept by organisations and provides new measures to give further access to such records by their members. Provisions are included requiring organisations to issue a statement to a member about that person's membership and financial status. In addition the rights of a member to resign from an organisation are clarified in the legislation. The protection of non-members' rights is also strengthened. The tests to be applied for purposes of seeking a conscientious objection certificate have been eased and clarified. In addition the provision will now apply for purposes of individuals' membership of employer organisations as well as for employee organisations. The court's powers in relation to offences connected with conscientious objectors are to be extended to include the power to reinstate. Members' rights to participate actively in the affairs of their organisation are protected. They are entitled to challenge rules, to seek their enforcement, to initiate election inquiries and to seek a secret ballot on strike action. The scope of the current provisions protecting persons from discriminatory or industrial action has been broadened, in particular, to cover prospective employees. Likewise the provisions designed to protect independent contractors have been extended to apply to actions by an organisation to coerce an independent contractor to join that or any other organisation. Sanctions As I have already advised the Senate, the Government has decided not to proceed with its previous sanctions package, but instead is retaining the existing system of compliance. The Commission will still be able to conciliate in relation to secondary boycott disputes. It is also made clear that State legislation which is inconsistent with Federal law is overridden to the extent of the inconsistency. Hence, certain Federal remedies in relation to conduct by unions are, in specified circumstances, exclusive of remedies under state or territory legislation. The Trade Practices Act remedies for breaches of sections 45d and 45e will be exclusive of inconsistent State or Territory legislation in respect of both Federal and State registered organisations and no State or Territory legislation will apply to Federal unions in breach of a bans clause or orders relating to industrial action in the Federal public sector. However, these exemptions do not apply to breaches of criminal law or where a union is breaching an award or order of a state industrial tribunal. Penalty levels provided for offences against provisions of the new Bill have been rationalised, as the levels under the previous Act were set in an ad hoc manner over many years and lacked internal consistency. In most cases under the bill the penalty for an individual is set at $500 while a body corporate or an organisation committing the same offence will incur a penalty of $1,000. Daily or weekly penalties are provided for offences of a continuing nature. Finally, I wish to advise the Senate that the Government proposes to address a genuine area of concern regarding allegations of corrupt practices by or involving officers of federally registered unions. Whilst there are only rare incidences of such allegations, they have been mentioned in the reports of the Sweeney Royal Commission into Alleged Payments to Maritime Unions, the Winneke Royal Commission into the Activities of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation and the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. Criminal behaviour by union officials and employers is totally unacceptable and in complete breach of the spirit of the orderly operation of the federal industrial relations system. Accordingly, the Government intends later this year to amend the Crimes Act 1914 to provide for an anti-corruption provision which makes it an offence for an officer or employee of a union to corruptly misuse his position within the union to seek or to obtain a benefit for himself or someone else on the understanding that such benefit will influence him. Similarly an employer who dishonestly offers or gives such an official any benefit in order to influence that union official will also be guilty of an offence. Conclusion This Bill will consolidate the Government's achievements in the industrial relations arena and positively contribute towards the creation of a more productive Australian society. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill and I commend the Bill to the Senate. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1988 The Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1988 has three main purposes. The first is to repeal the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 which will be superseded by the Industrial Relations Bill 1988. As a result of the repeal of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, a number of other Acts will require amendment. The second purpose of the Consequential Provisions Bill is therefore to amend these Acts. The consequential amendments made to other Acts are generally of a technical nature and deal primarily with the substitution of references to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act with references to the Industrial Relations Act. Other consequential amendments deal with the repeal of provisions of Acts which will become redundant on the enactment of the Industrial Relations Bill. The third purpose of the Consequential Provisions Bill is to ensure that the transition from the system established under the previous Act to the system established by the Industrial Relations Bill is as smooth as possible. Most of the provisions contained in this Bill are designed to bring that about. For example, provision is made for the transfer of part-heard proceedings before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to the new Industrial Relations Commission on the commencement of the new Act. Registration obtained by organisations under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act will be maintained for purposes of the new Bill as will current awards and orders of the present Commission. The repeal of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act will not result in any disadvantage to parties in the Federal system. Two general provisions are included in this Bill to deal with any difficulties which might arise as a result of the transition from the previous system to the new regime. The President of the Industrial Relations Commission is to have the power to give directions and the Federal Court is to be able to make orders to resolve any problems which occur as a result of the transition. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bills may proceed without formalities, may be considered together and be now read a first time. Bills read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(4.53) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- Customs Tariff Legislation CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL 1988 The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1988, which is now before the Senate, contains a wide variety of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1987. Schedule 1 to the Bill, operative on and from 1 January 1988, contains a number of amendments. The first set of amendments relate to revised charging arrangements for general aviation aircraft at Essendon, Coolangatta and Launceston airports. Aircraft using aviation gasoline-Avgas-will now no longer be subject to terminal navigation, rescue and fire fighting charges for landings at these airports. The revenue forgone as a result of this change will be offset by a half a cent per litre increase in the excise and customs duty on aviation gasoline. These revised arrangements were introduced after consultation with the aviation industry had revealed that, under the previous charging arrangements which came into effect last July, general aviation avgas operators who used the three airports were disadvantaged compared with their competitors operating at the general aviation capital city secondary airports. The extent of the disparity was not foreseen by either the industry or the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce at the time the changes were made last July. The changes relating to customs duties on certain petroleum products are also included in this schedule and ensure that the rates became operative on and from 14 December 1987 are carried over to the principal Act. The next set of amendments relate to the Government's decisions on the Industries Assistance Commission's reports on the pulp, paper, paper products and printing industries, medical and scientific equipment and glass and glassware. The Government decided to accept the recommendations contained within the Commission's report on the pulp, paper, paper products and printing industries that tariffs assisting these industries be reduced over a two-year period on a `tops down' basis to a maximum of 15 per cent. Tariffs are generally 20 to 25 per cent, but many are at 10 per cent and below. All phasing of rates would commence from 1 January 1988. Some tariff anomalies will be corrected and concessional entry allowed on coated paper and on some other types of paper not produced locally. Tariff assistance for paper-making machinery will be reduced to minimum rates. Policy by-laws have been implemented to allow for paperboard used in cigarette packages and aseptic liquid containers to enter at minimum rates and for paperbacked textile wall coverings to enter at 15 per cent, the same rate as `paper' wallpaper. The Government rejected some of the Commission's recommendations and will not reintroduce the bounty on certain types of paper which expired last February. The pulp, paper, paper products and printing industries constitute a large and diverse sector of the Australian economy. These industries have specific areas with potential of developing into internationally competitive and technologically developed sectors of the economy. In its decision on the medical and scientific equipment industry the Government has accepted the thrust of the Industries Assistance Commission's recommendations for reduced tariff assistance. Tariffs will be phased down progressively over two years commencing on 1 January 1988 with the general rate of 15 per cent being reached on 1 January 1990. The bulk of imports will continue to enter at minimum rates. Following the receipt of the Industries Assistance Commission's report on glass and glassware the Government decided to adopt, with a few exceptions, an industry-wide tariff rate of 15 per cent for the glass and glassware industry. Tariffs above 15 per cent are to be reduced on a `Tops Down' basis over three years to reach 15 per cent on 1 January 1991. The Government was of the opinion that the decision would minimise tariff-induced distortions in trade and investment decisions thereby improving the international competitiveness of Australian industry. The Government also decided not to grant any short term assistance to users of glass fibre rovings who were required to pay higher prices for imports at a time of tight domestic supply. Amendments to implement certain changes in accordance with Australia's international trade agreements obligations are included. A series of amendments made in the context of the current textiles, clothing and footwear sectoral policy are also included. These cover- variations to the developing country exclusions from preference which are made annually; the insertion of the 1988 tender quota rates of duty following the settlement of the relevant premium tender quota rates; the extension of the validity of the 1987 quota allocations; and an increase in the customs value criterion which determines whether footwear is subject to tariff quota from $1.35 to $1.45. This schedule includes amendments to redress assistance anomalies which have become apparent following publication of the harmonised tariff. Six anomalies have been brought to notice which would have unacceptable consequences for the industries concerned. These, and the remedial actions proposed, are: polyethylene terephthalate-duties are reduced from 10 per cent to two per cent when used to make fibres and yarns. The change involves broadening the terms of a customs by-law; parts for leather coats, jackets, and the like-this amendment ensures these goods continue to be subject to tariff quota; hand-made rugs-the purpose of this amendment is to continue duty free entry of certain carpets until 30 June 1988. These rugs and carpets are made by powered machines that are held in the hand and were not to be eligible for concessional entry following the Government's review of the textiles, clothing and footwear handicraft arrangements. They were to be subject to the carpet duty rates of 40 per cent general and 30 per cent developing countries from 1 January 1988. However, after representations from importers a review of the decision resulted in a deferral of implementation until 1 July 1988 to ensure that undue hardship does not occur to importers' business operations; men's or boy's suits-an amendment to ensure that men's and boy's suits that consist of a jacket and a pair of shorts continue to be subject to quota; adjustable shoulder straps for brassieres-an amendment to correctly exclude these goods from quota and thus maintaining the arrangements that existed prior to the introduction of the harmonised tariff; paper sheeters, slitters, slitter-rewinders and rewinders-this amendment will restore tariff assistance to local production of paper sheeters, slitters, slitter-rewinders and rewinders. Producers of these goods suffered a substantial loss of tariff assistance on 1 January when the previous import duty of 15 per cent was reduced to minimum rates. When Cabinet approved the introduction of the harmonised tariff it gave authority to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, in consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and other relevant Ministers, to approve modifications on compelling industry grounds, before 1 January 1988. After receiving a submission on behalf of the bulk of the Australian industry and considering the arguments put forward it was concluded that this small industry could suffer serious injury, with consequent job losses, if tariff assistance were not restored. All Ministers consulted agreed that compelling industry grounds existed for restoration of the moderate 15 per cent tariff rate which applied prior to 1 January. Restoration of the Government's intended level of assistance will help to maintain the viability of the industry. Two further amendments through the restructuring of the tariff, correct existing inconsistencies in tariff drafting. These are- (a) blinds and fittings and mountings for curtain tracks of polymers of styrene or vinyl chloride were incorrectly classified; and (b) the tariff structure for therapeutic respiration apparatus could result in an incorrect rate of duty being collected. This change arose from the Government's consideration of the Industries Assistance Commission's report on medical and scientific equipment. The final group of amendments includes redrafting of a minor nature. Schedule two, operative on and from 3 February 1988, provides the basis for fulfilling the Prime Minister's commitment given at the Ruby Hutchison Memorial Address, of 13 March 1987, to limit the indexation increases for August 1987 and February 1988 to a total of around six per cent. The amendments decrease the rates of duty as applying immediately prior to indexation of the February 1988 adjustment date so that when the legislative provisions for indexation are applied (which require the use of the published consumer price index) the resultant indexation increase is 2.5 per cent. This increase, when combined with the August 1987 indexation adjustment (3.5 per cent), yields a total indexation adjustment of six per cent. Schedule three, which is operative seven days after the royal assent, contains a variety of amendments. The first set of amendments result from further Government decisions on the Industries Assistance Commission's reports on the chemicals and plastics industries, the pulp, paper, paper products and printing industries and glass and glassware. The amendments are: Pigments- The changes proposed for inorganic pigments will provide significant benefits to industries using these products. The current very complex structure will be substantially simplified. This will ensure that the intent of the Government's decision on the policy for chemicals and plastics is properly realised. It will also assist industry by permitting more accurate and efficient classification of imports of these pigments; Calendars- The general tariff rate for calendars of a kind other than paper and paperboard of heading 4910 will be phased from 25 per cent on implementation on 1 January 1988, to 20 per cent from 1 January 1989 and to 15 per cent on 1 January 1990 in line with the phasing arrangements for the general tariff rate for calendars of paper and paperboard. This will avoid the creation of an anomaly in assistance between paper and paperboard calendars and calendars of other materials; Tampons- The Government decided to set the general tariff rate for tampons at two per cent. An anomaly previously existed in that tampons entered under tariff item 59.01.000 were dutiable at two per cent whilst, if entered under sub-item 48.21.900, they were dutiable at 25 per cent. This proposal avoids the anomaly. All goods other than tampons of subheading 5601.10 are to be dutiable at 15 per cent in order to bring subheading 5601.10 into line with the long term industry rate under subheading 4818.40. Two further amendments to apply the correct rate of customs duty where the drafting of the tariff structure could result in incorrect rates of customs duty being collected. These amendments involve the duties applying to- Graduated rules and machine and hand scales; and Certain types of cords, cordage, braids and sleeving of glass, and arise from the Government's consideration of the Industries Assistance Commission's reports on medical and scientific equipment and glass and glassware. Finally this schedule includes an amendment to part II of schedule 4 where the government has decided to admit free of customs duty national or traditional costumes imported by recognised ethnic groups. This will facilitate imports of genuine ethnic items in non-commercial quantities. Financial Impact The decision on the pulp, paper, paper products and printing industries will result in an estimated decrease in revenue of $1.31m in 1987-88, $9.65m in 1988-89 and $21.79m in 1989-90. The impact of the decision on medical and scientific equipment is difficult to assess and the duty reductions are likely to stimulate import growth in this already fast growing market. Such growth may completely offset the lower duty rate to be applied. The decision on glass and glassware will result in an estimated decrease in revenue of $95,000 in 1987-88, $350,000 in 1988-89 and $700,000 in 1989-90. The decision on the hand-made rugs will result in revenue forgone during the period 1 January 1988 to 30 June 1988 of approximately $90,000. While it is difficult to estimate the impact in regard to the decision on pigments, it is considered that there will be a small increase in revenue. Whilst there may be an initial reduction in revenue in regard to the decision on polyethylene terephthalate, this will be offset, at least in part, by the stronger competitive position of the relevant manufacturers. The other changes in the Bill are expected to have minimal financial impact. Details of the amendments contained in the Bill have been included in an explanatory memorandum which has been circulated for the information of honourable senators. I commend the Bill. CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1988 The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988, which is now before the Senate, gives effect to part of a package of measures announced by the Government on 13 April 1988 aimed at reinforcing the strategy and objectives of the Government's passenger motor vehicle policy and continuing the process of structural change in the automotive industry. On 29 May 1984, when the Government announced the current motor vehicle policy, or the plan as it has become more commonly known, it was indicated that special consideration would be given in early 1988 to the state of the industry report for 1987 prepared by the automotive industry authority. The intent was to conduct a mid-term review of the plan to assess progress being made by manufacturers to model rationalisation and the success in achieving greater efficiencies in component production. That review formed the basis of the changes now being introduced by the Government. The plan, which was introduced in 1985 and runs through to the end of 1992, aims to: give the industry time to restructure and modernise; make it more efficient and internationally focused; hold down the price of cars; and reduce job losses in the short-term and provide long-term job stability. The strategy for pursuing these objectives involves the following integrated elements: Rationalisation of the assembly industry in terms of models and manufacturing groups; rationalisation of the components sector to reduce industry fragmentation and costs; increasing competitive pressure on the industry by gradually reducing barrier protection; and providing a stable policy framework which will allow adjustment to occur over a period of time with minimum disruption and cost. The Government believes that the plan has enjoyed substantial success in its first three years. To increase industry volumes and economies of scale, the Government set the industry a target of reducing, by 1992, the number of models from thirteen to six and the number of manufacturing groups from five to three. Through industry restructuring and rationalisation of companies and model lines, these objectives are well within reach. The automotive industry authority advises that it expects only eight models will be manufactured by the end of 1989, and following the December 1987 announcement of a joint manufacturing venture between AMI Toyota and Holden's, the number of manufacturing groups has now been reduced to four. Further co-operative manufacturing ventures are likely. Increased investment activity associated with new product development and upgrading plant and equipment has also been apparent as the industry prepares itself for the post-1992 period. The vehicle sector, for example, has increased its investment from $194m per annum in the period 1982-1984, prior to the introduction of the plan, to $503m per annum in the period 1985-1987. During the life of the plan we have also witnessed a dramatic increase in automotive exports. In 1987 automotive exports reached $755m, an increase of 63 per cent over the previous year and almost double the level of exports in 1984. While devaluation has clearly been an important element in this success, the export facilitation arrangements of the plan, together with a much stronger commitment to export by industry management, have also been important. Nevertheless, in spite of the undoubted successes of the plan so far, the Government recognises that there are changed circumstances which threaten the plan's objectives. The major unforeseeable change since 1984 has been the fall in the value of the Australian dollar. This has altered the relative competitiveness of locally produced and imported products to the extent that the competitive pressure now on the domestic industry is well below that envisaged in 1984. As evidence of the substantial erosion of importers' competitiveness: The importers' market share is now about 11.4 per cent compared to over 15.5 per cent only two years ago; 1987 and 1988 tender quotas attracted zero premiums; and Both 1986 and 1987 quota allocations were significantly underutilised. The depreciation has also had the effect of forcing price increases in the industry at a rate well above those occurring in the economy generally. In summary, the Government believes that the effects of the depreciation on relative competitiveness threaten to erode the benefits of industry rationalisation achieved to date, and by reducing competitive pressure on the industry, significantly blunt the effectiveness of a major element of the plan strategy. They have also seriously hindered progress towards the plan objective of lower real prices. Accordingly, following advice from the Automotive Industry Authority and the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, and after consultation with the industry and its unions, the Government has introduced changes considered necessary to ensure the plan remains an effective mechanism for transforming the industry into a competitive force in the 1990s. This Bill gives effect to the following changes being made to the tariff elements of the plan. The abolition of tariff quotas, and the reduction of the 57.5 per cent tariff on completely built-up (CBU) motor vehicles to 45 per cent with effect from 13 April 1988. From 1 January 1989 there will be further annual reductions leading to an end-rate of 35 per cent in 1992. Completely knocked down (CKD) packs and certain original equipment components will also now attract the CBU tariff rates. To retain competitive relativities, the tariff rates applying to CBU light commercial vehicles and those CBU four-wheel drive vehicles (including amphibious vehicles) not classified as passenger substitutes are to be reduced from 35 per cent and 25 per cent respectively to 20 per cent for the remainder of this year. This rate will be phased down in annual reductions to an end-rate of 15 per cent in 1992. The tariffs on CKD light commercial vehicles and CKD four-wheel drive vehicles (including amphibious vehicles) now become 10 per cent. Margins of preference applying to goods of developing country, Canadian and forum island country origin remain unchanged, and goods of Papua New Guinea origin remain free of duty. Tariffs on goods of New Zealand origin will be subject to the lower of the current rate or the rate applicable to Canadian goods. Discussions are, however, now under way between Australian and New Zealand officials in the context of the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations-Trade Agreement. Other elements of the Government's decision which are not covered by this Bill, but which are an integral part of the overall package of changes, involve certain amendments to the local content and export facilitation arrangements of the plan. Administrative action to give effect to these changes is occurring and does not require legislation. Briefly, the changes to the local content scheme involve the introduction of a simpler and less stringent system of penalties for non-achievement of the 85 per cent local content target. Beginning in 1989, the penalty will be the same as the duty rate applying to CBU passenger motor vehicles. This change will provide considerable additional flexibility to the vehicle manufacturers in their sourcing arrangements and, as such, increase competitive pressure on the components sector. The currency devaluation, through the local content scheme, has provided an unhealthy degree of protection to domestic component suppliers. In relation to export facilitation, each of the three schemes in operation has been extended in slightly different ways to ensure that they continue to play a significant role in promoting rationalisation and helping the industry gain a foothold in major export markets. They are an important adjunct to the other mechanisms of the plan and the Government wants to ensure that the momentum they have created is not lost. In conclusion, the changes outlined in this Bill form part of a package of measures introduced by the Government to reinforce the original plan framework and maintain progress towards the objectives agreed upon by industry and government in 1984. While considerable progress towards most of these objectives has occurred, the government believes the changes it has made are necessary and appropriate to accommodate the changed circumstances and build on the emerging strengths. Financial Impact Statement The revenue implications of the tariff changes cannot be estimated with any satisfactory degree of accuracy because of uncertainties about price and market response and the effects of other economic factors in consumer behaviour in this market. Nevertheless, it is suggested that in 1988-89, a net revenue gain will occur. The abolition of tariff quotas and the simplification of the local content provisions will reduce administration costs to Government and the vehicle industry. Details of the amendments contained in the Bill have been included in an explanatory memorandum which has been circulated for the information of honourable senators. I commend the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. [COGNATE BILLS: CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (FAIR ELECTIONS) BILL 1988 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (LOCAL GOVERNMENT) BILL 1988 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS) BILL 1988] Debate resumed from 23 May, on motions by Senator Tate and Senator Macklin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.54) —We have just experienced the biggest travesty of the freedom of Australia that I have ever seen. We have just had 14 Bills sent up from the House of Representatives, all pushed through on a guillotine last night. Yet this Government wants to put to the people of Australian freedoms that it believes form a democracy. Last night, before the debate was interrupted, I was pointing out the misleading way this Government has worded the questions for the constitutional referendum. I had pointed out that Mr Gary Morgan, the leading pollster in Australia, a man with great credibility, had said that any public opinion polling company `who asked questions as blatantly biased as the Government proposes would completely lose credibility'. He went on: It's appalling that on such a vital and serious issue as change to the Australian Constitution Labor should seek to mislead the people to get the result it wants. That is exactly what is happening with the wording of the referendum questions. I now come to the detail of the four questions which the people of Australia will be asked to vote on; we do not know when, but we are told some time perhaps in September. The first question is worded `to provide for four-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament'. What a sham. It asks whether we agree with four-year maximum terms. There are many people who would agree with four-year maximum terms, but what this question does not tell the people is that it will alter the composition of the Parliament completely. Once again the executive government is trying to strip the Senate of its powers. On this occasion it is not just simultaneous elections the Government is trying to put forward. It is attempting to strip power from the Senate altogether. Yesterday Senator Robert Ray misleadingly told us that it was really just simultaneous elections. I was surprised to see Paul Kelly in the Australian yesterday also talking about simultaneous elections. Obviously, he has not understood the question at all. Another thing the question does not tell the people is that in the four years four months that this Government has been in power it has called three separate elections. Yet the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) wants an extension of time. He has not even used the three years he has presently got. He could have had three elections in nine years, but he chose, because he thought it was a good idea and because he thought he could win the elections, to have three elections in four years four months. This question does not stop him doing exactly the same thing in the next four years four months. The Prime Minister has also asked, as well as four-year terms for the House of Representatives and the Senate, to be able to call them whenever he likes, in other words, that there be no fixed term. Let the people of Australia understand-no fixed term. He will be able to call an election of the House of Representatives and the whole of the Senate-not half the Senate which is usual, but the whole of the Senate-as often as he chooses. As I said, he could again have three elections in just over four years. It is because the Government recognises that a four-year term for the House of Representatives has general acceptance that it has used this vehicle to try to get rid of the powers of the Senate once and for all. I mention just two occasions in the recent history of this Government when the Senate has saved the people from radical legislation they did not want. One occasion was the ID card. The Australian people spoke very strongly, saying that they did not want it. The other occasion was the Bill of Rights. On both occasions it was the Senate-not the House of Representatives, but the Senate-that was able to save the people of Australia from the sort of radical legislation this Government is prepared to push through purely because it has the numbers, and for no other reason. At Federation the Premiers of the States got together and insisted upon two main things as regards the Senate. They said, `If we are going into this Federation, then the Senate must be independent of the executive or the government. It must be independent of the government of the day'. To make the Senate independent the founding fathers said that every State shall have equal numbers of senators. The founding fathers also said that only half the Senate, under normal circumstances, should go to the people at any one time. That was done deliberately to overcome the sort of government we have at the moment that introduces radical legislation which the people do not want. This referendum question takes that right away completely. On every occasion from now on, if this question is passed, the whole of the Senate-not half the Senate-will go to election whenever the Prime Minister wants. The Prime Minister will have his thumb completely on the Senate. He will have full control, against the wishes of the founding fathers who, in their wisdom, said that the Senate should be a House completely independent from the executive government of the day. Senator Ray told the Senate that no Prime Minister wants to hold a half Senate election separate from a House of Representatives election. He is quite right, but it is only because the Prime Minister does not see it as being good for him. He never thinks about the Australian people. He does not consider what is good for the people, just what is good for him. I agree with Senator Ray that Mr Hawke certainly does not want to hold a separate half Senate election. Let us look at what else the Prime Minister has done. At the moment the first date on which the Prime Minister can take the Senate to the people-he can take the House of Representatives whenever he likes-is 1 July 1989, which is in a couple of years' time, because the Senate has a fixed term and the Prime Minister cannot call a half Senate election under normal circumstances. He has to use the subterfuge that he used last time. He had to look around for Bills that will enable him to call a double dissolution, so that he can take the whole of the Senate, as well as the House of Representatives, to the people. Under normal circumstances he cannot do that. Yesterday Senator Ray said that it does not suit the Prime Minister to take half the Senate to the people at any time because, if he did, it would produce the same sort of result as the by-election for Mick Young's seat. The people would show the Government just what they think of it. The Prime Minister has decided that he would not like that sort of by-election result in a Senate election. He certainly would not like Mick Young's by-election result, and so he is choosing to go for a four-year term. It is a complete and utter fraud. I cannot explain it any better to the Australian people than to say that at the moment we have the most stable type of government in the world. We could have possibly a four-year term for the House of Representatives, if the Prime Minister wants to put that sort of question forward, but not a fixed term so that the whole of the Senate would go to the people at each election. Yesterday Senator Ray mentioned countries that have four-year terms. He tried to hoodwink the people by naming a few of our close allies as countries with four-year terms. What he did not mention are the countries that have different terms for the lower House and the upper House. I would like to mention a few of those. They include the United States of America, Austria, Canada and, of course, the United Kingdom, which we cannot count because it has an unelected House of Lords. What countries would we join that have the situation that this Government is proposing-that is, equal terms of four years or five years for the lower House and the upper House? We would join Bolivia, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Zimbabwe and Russia. Are they the sorts of countries that have equal terms for the lower House and the upper House that we would want to join? I do not believe that any Australian will vote for a government that wants to extend its term and destroy the concept of a fixed term for the Senate, which would stop the Prime Minister calling an election whenever he wants. The Government has held three elections in four years and four months. The people of Australia have already said that they do not trust the Prime Minister. That has been clearly established in the latest by-elections. They will not have a bar of sending any more power to Canberra. The people of Australia will not have a bar of giving any government in Canberra-not just this Government-more power. I turn to question No. 2, which I think is possibly the worst phrased question. It states: `Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia?' Who would disagree with that? The Government does not know the first thing about democracy, as I have just pointed out. It gagged debate on 14 Bills in the House of Representatives last night. There was no debate on those Bills, which have been sent to us today. Yet the Government says it believes in democracy. What on earth are Government members on about? If they are serious about one vote one value, they would say, `Right, we will take away a couple of House of Representatives members from Tasmania'. Senator Tate, who believes in one vote one value, would be willing to stand by that sort of shonky decision by this Government. The Government would also take away Tasmanian senators, so that we would end up with two senators-that is, if it sincerely believed in one vote one value. It does not believe in one vote one value. It is trying to fix the Queensland gerrymander. The Government has not said that the Queensland gerrymander is done by boundaries. There could be an equal number of voters in every electorate and, so long as the Government draws its boundaries properly, it can win office on 26 per cent of the vote. Let us look at what the percentages are. In Queensland the Labor Opposition has to get 51.4 per cent of the vote to win government. The Federal Opposition has to get 53 per cent of the vote to win. What is the Government talking about? Senator Robert Ray, who is the biggest schemer of all time, knows that he can fix things by changing the boundaries. That is the way the Government fixes gerrymanders. Senator Robert Ray —I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I ask Senator Walters to withdraw the comment that I can affect the boundaries of the Commonwealth. It is simply not true. It is done by an independent commission. The comment reflects on me. By the way, this is the first time in seven years that I have asked for a withdrawal. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —I ask you to withdraw that remark, Senator Walters. Senator WALTERS —I withdraw. Senator Ray is just taking up my time. I only have seven minutes left and I would like to use that seven minutes. Senator Knowles —I take a brief point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. You generally rule for the Opposition to keep quiet and not make incessant interjections. The Government side has interjected non-stop during Senator Walters's speech. We would like to hear what Senator Walters has to say. I would ask you to show impartiality and ask that the Government interjections cease. Senator Robert Ray —On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: During my speech yesterday Senator Walters must have made 100 interjections in the first five minutes. If she dishes it out, she must cop it. Senator Chaney was heard in silence during his one-hour speech. When people on the other side of the chamber accord that privilege on an important issue, it will be reciprocated. Senator Walters has not done so. It is a reflection on you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that you are failing to control the Senate. You always allow a degree of interjection. If it is excessive, I will be reprimanded along with everyone else. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Knowles, there is no point of order and I would ask you to withdraw the remarks suggesting that the Chair has shown any bias towards any one party. Senator Knowles —I withdraw. Senator WALTERS —It is rather flattering, because Senator Ray does not want-- Senator Knowles —Gutless wonder. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Knowles has just indicated that I am a `gutless wonder'. I ask her to withdraw that remark. Senator Knowles —I was not saying `gutless wonder' on air or anything else. I was talking here, in my seat. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Knowles, would you withdraw that remark. Senator Knowles —I will withdraw, Mr Acting Deputy President. I was not referring to you. Senator WALTERS —I now have five minutes left of my speech. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Do not blame me; blame Senator Knowles. Senator WALTERS —I find it very flattering that Senator Ray does not want me to get across to the public the true intention of this Government. Senator Robert Ray —If you dish it out you should take it. Senator WALTERS —I can take it. Senator Ray knows that better than most. Let us come to the question of local government. Let me explain to local government what the proposal is really all about. The Government wants to entrench forever the lack of autonomy that local government has. All the proposal says about local government is that it exists and it is under the control of the States-nothing else. The proposal does not give any protection to local government against dismissal by a State government. It does not give any guarantee of access to funding. It does not protect it from any forced amalgamations. All it does is state that local government exists. Local governments have accepted cuts in funding, accepted no guarantee of funding and accepted cuts in road funding. Local government has succumbed to the rhetoric of the mob opposite. I am staggered that local government would do so. Government senators do not even know the difference. Senator Burns even said, `Regional government is local government anyway.' That was a comment coming from the Government benches. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a comparison of Commonwealth funding in the Fraser years and in the Hawke years. I seek leave to do so. Senator Knowles —You have to wake him to know what to do next. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Knowles, would you please refrain from the remarks you are making. I ask you to withdraw those remarks. Senator Knowles —There is nothing to withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You have said that the Chair is sleeping and I ask you to withdraw that remark. Senator Knowles —There is nothing at all to withdraw. I am writing material here-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You said the Chair was asleep and I am asking you to withdraw. Senator Knowles —I withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Thank you very much. Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMPARISON OF COMMONWEALTH FUNDING TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT 1976-1988 Year Government Funding level as % of Previous year's Personal Income Tax Collections 1976-77 ... Fraser 1.52 1977-78 ... Fraser 1.52 1978-79 ... Fraser 1.52 1979-80 ... Fraser 1.75 1980-81 ... Fraser 2.00 1981-82 ... Fraser 2.00 1982-83 ... Fraser 2.00 1983-84 ... Hawke 2.00 1984-85 ... Hawke 2.00 1985-86 ... Hawke 1.90 1986-87 ... Hawke 1.85 1987-88 ... Hawke 1.75 1988-89 (a) ... Hawke 1.66 Source: Commonwealth Parliamentary Library. Figures for 1977-78 to 1984-85 reflect formulae adopted in Local Government tax sharing legislation. Figures for 1985-86 to 1987-88, calculated by Parliamentary Library, are based upon what the percentage would have been had the formula been applied. (a) Figure for 1988-89 has been estimated on the basis of an assumption of the inflation rate and assumes a cut of around 4% in real terms, in line with State cuts. These figures do not include grants to the Northern Territory. Senator WALTERS —I now come to question No. 14, which is on the rights of people. We are told that the government wants freedom of religion, trial by jury and fair compensation. People are concerned about their real freedoms. Will the Government give the people out there freedom not to join a union? It is not interested in that one. The people out there want real freedoms but the Government is just not interested. Our Constitution does not set out freedoms for people in this country; it restricts government action. I quote from the Constitution, which states: The Commonwealth shall not make laws for establishing any religion. (Extension of time granted) I thank the Senate. Our Constitution restricts Government action. It does not, as the American Constitution does, set out the people's rights. The American Constitution sets out the people's rights and it has a Bill of Rights. When it was in operation in the eighteenth century, although it set out the people's rights the American people were still able to treat the negroes in a disgraceful manner. It did not protect the rights of the people of America. It is the will of the people, not what is written about their rights in the Constitution, that is important. The Australian Constitution does not set out the individual rights of Australian people. This Government tried to get a Bill of Rights through. This proposed alteration of the Constitution sets out that we should have freedom of religion. Everyone knows that we have freedom of religion and trial by jury. We know who the Government is aiming the fair compensation question at. Under the Wran Government New South Wales failed to give fair compensation to people owning property in the coal deal. That has been overcome by the new Government. The people had their say and they threw out the Government that did not give them fair compensation. So we do not need the individual rights set out in our Constitution. There is a danger if that is done because automatically if one right is not set out it is presumed that Australians do not have such a right. Exactly the same situation existed with the Bill of Rights. The Government very clearly defined the rights to join an association or a union but the right not to join a union was deliberately left out-not by accident. When we wanted to amend the legislation and put in the right not to join a union the Government refused to allow us to do so. If the people of Australia accept just three freedoms being put in our Constitution they can presume that all their other rights are denied them. It is a very dangerous proposition for this Government to put to the people that they should have their rights clearly set out in the Constitution. We know that there are only a handful of countries-indeed, 19 individual countries in the world out of 167-that have the same political and individual freedoms as we have. Our Constitution is ideal. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. (Quorum formed) Senator McMULLAN(Australian Capital Territory)(5.20) —I support the four Constitution alteration Bills before the Parliament. In the brief comments I make I will speak particularly on the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill. Other senators from this side will cover the remainder of the Bills. Senator Robert Ray and others already have and other senators on the Government side will. I wish to concentrate on that Bill because it is also very important for the nature of Australian politics. Over the last two or three years I have been campaigning fairly publicly for this reform, the introduction of four-year terms, because it goes beyond the issues of individual parties and partisan politics. It is important for the nature of politics and government in Australia. In the spirit of the disclosure laws which this Government has introduced, I should declare my interest-territorial senators will have their term extended by the introduction of four-year terms for senators because at the moment we have a maximum three-year term, tied to the House of Representatives. But I believe that four-year terms are particularly important. It is a reform Australia needs and is entirely consistent with the micro-economic reform agenda which the Government is setting down as a priority for this term and into the 1990s. It is consistent with the principles which underpin the reforms that have taken place to date and which, on all public indications, will underpin the reforms to be outlined in tomorrow evening's economic statement. The economic circumstances faced in 1988 and those which we can foresee for the remainder of this century require a government willing and able to implement long term programs and to take the tough decisions that economic reform requires, without being confronted by perpetual elections. It is hard for people to realise that we are now only 10 months past the most recent election, yet speculation about the date for the next election has already started. We have had too many elections at all levels of government. That is expensive, wasteful and annoying. I sometimes think the Australian people's greatest objection to elections is all those advertisements that disrupt their otherwise good television programs. Elections are annoying to people but, more importantly, they are disruptive to the necessary process of economic reform. The four-year term proposal is entirely consistent with the trend of politics. At State level, we have had State Labor governments in Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales introduce four-year terms with the support of the people and, on many occasions, the support of the conservative parties. Most recently a proposal almost identical to that before us-that is, four-year terms for both Houses of Parliament-was introduced into the Western Australian Parliament, with the support of the National Party in Western Australia. That could not have been carried by the Australian Labor Party alone because of the gerrymander and malapportionment which means that we cannot achieve a Labor majority in the Legislative Council. In 98 years it has never had other than a conservative majority. It is approaching a hundred not out which, unfortunately, is somewhat more than the score I ever made at cricket. It indicates that in a State which has had nearly 50 per cent Labor government in the Legislative Assembly, despite malapportionment and gerrymander in that House, the Labor Party has never been able to achieve a majority. So that is a very effective case for the second reform. But in spite of that gerrymander and malapportionment, the four-year term proposal has passed the Western Australian Parliament. It now means that in five of the six States we have four-year terms. There is no proposal from any of the conservative parties in any of those States to do away with it. All the serious economic commentators and analysts from all sides of politics support the move to a four-year term. Dr Neville Norman wrote recently: No provision of the Constitution seems to be more limiting to the development of appropriate economic policies than the provisions . . . limiting parliamentary terms to three years . . . This short uncertain term militates against the development of bold but unpopular initiatives, most especially to the areas of tax and industrial relations. One of this Government's proudest achievements is the extent to which it has been prepared to take tough and unpopular economic decisions and go to the people to explain the circumstances for them. That underpinned the most recent and remarkable electoral victory of July last year when the people rejected the bribes of a fistful of dollars and voted for responsible economic policies. Nevertheless, since Federation, it has been and remains an unnecessary, unreasonable and effectively unworkable constraint upon proper economic and political management. This proposal has also been supported by such prominent economists as Will Buttrose, the economist for the Macquarie Bank Ltd, and most vociferously by the Business Council of Australia. I want to pay tribute to that body and, in particular, to Eric Mayer from National Mutual, who has chaired the committee on this matter and has campaigned effectively around Australia for it. I look forward to their support once again in this referendum campaign. The four-year term has not been opposed by anybody until now. Suddenly it is being opposed by the Opposition. The first thing to say is that what the Opposition in this Parliament is really opposed to is the people having the right to vote on whether we ought to have a four-year term. If this legislation is passed, it will not change the term of the Parliament. It proposes that the Australian people get a chance to vote on whether they want the term lengthened. It is a very strange thing to be opposed to-`in the interests of democracy we will not let the people have a vote'. Knowing full well that the proposal will go forward, this bit of grandstanding in the Parliament is really about trying to establish the grounds on which it can justify the unjustifiable, trying to establish the grounds on which it can oppose these four proposals, even though everybody knows that the shadow Cabinet wanted to support two of them and some people wanted to support all four, but they could not agree on any so they wound up opposing the lot. The actual basis for this goes back to what can be called TSBH politics: that is, too smart by half politics. The Opposition is really trying to find clever ways to sneak up on people and suddenly look like they have had a win. They say, `We will oppose these four good ideas because the people might not realise how hypocritical we are being and might not realise that these arguments are silly-so if we have a win we will look pretty smart and look like we are on a winning streak'. I will come back to that later-but they are definitely too smart by half. They know they are wrong. That can easily be seen by the distorted arguments coming forward in the Senate and the House of Representatives in apparent attempted justification of this extraordinary decision. It seems, after the preceding Opposition speech and other Opposition speeches, that I need to reiterate that this referendum Bill lengthens the term of the House of Representatives and makes the term of the Senate the same. It does not take away the powers of the Senate. Those extraordinary claims that somehow, if this referendum had been passed earlier, the Senate would not have been able to do what it did to the Australia Card, are absolutely unfounded. If ever there were a wrong example, that is it because that legislation could have brought about a joint sitting of the Parliament. The powers of the Senate there were exercised irrespective of the proposals about whether the Government could call another election. Other constitutional provisions overrode that proposal. It is an absolutely nonsensical proposal. It does not affect the powers of the Senate. The Opposition's proposal also means that senators would be able to be in this chamber for 24 years, having been elected only three times-they could be here for a quarter of a century for three elections. I am only 40 years old so that is not a bad proposal. I could go through three preselections and be here until retiring age. But it will not endear itself to the Australian people that, in the interests of accountability, we ought to have senators here for 24 years, being elected only three times. What a nonsense of a proposal. Then those opposite came up with the convoluted argument that somehow this was a sneaky proposal to lengthen the term of this Government-when of course it will not change this term of the House of Representatives at all. The problem is that their cover has been blown. Paul Kelly has told the people of Australia that Opposition members are either ignorant or deliberately misleading them. Some are one and some are probably the other. Paul Kelly stated: The `adjustment' provisions of the Government's first referendum question are hardly unique. In fact they are the same as that followed by the Fraser Government in its May 1977 simultaneous elections referendum. People might forget that Mr Howard, who thinks that this is such a terrible thing, was a member of that Government. They may forget that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia (Mr Peacock) was actually a senior Minister in the Cabinet in that Government. People with short memories think that others have short memories as well. Paul Kelly continued: Mr Howard, in his attack on Mr Hawke's referendum, is attacking the very device used by his own side . . . With his support-he voted for it in the Parliament in 1977. In the necessary recording of votes, Mr Howard voted for this proposal, but now he thinks it is a terrible outrage. Paul Kelly goes on: There is nothing remarkable or surprising or outrageous about this provision. It is absolutely standard and necessary and everybody knows it. It is a case of everybody is out of step but Johnny. There are other examples of the extraordinary arguments those opposite have had to come up with to try to justify opposing these proposals. One of the most extraordinary arguments-if I may divert to one of the other questions for a moment-is that we should not have the one vote one value proposal because it might fix up malapportionment but it does not fix up gerrymanders. On the basis of that logic we would reject the polio vaccine because it does not do anything about smallpox. The logic of that is absolutely incredible. I have been waiting with bated breath for an Opposition senator to say, `What you should have done is fix up the gerrymander'. The Opposition speaker after me, Senator Bjelke-Petersen, being a National Party senator from Queensland, would have great expertise on questions of gerrymander. Senator Bjelke-Petersen —You just wait until I tell you the answers. Senator McMULLAN —I await with bated breath the honourable senator's proposal. When she does work out how to resolve gerrymanders, I would be happy to be the second person she told. The Government of Queensland should be the first. I would like to conclude-at the request of my Whip I will not go for too long-with some general points. The Constitution is not and has never been a static document. It evolves by the decisions of judges. Quite rightly, necessarily and inevitably judges in their interpretations have interpreted and effectively changed the Constitution. It has been changed eight times by referendum. But it is not just for judges to change the Constitution; the people ought to get a go every now and again. Furthermore, it is not open to the High Court of Australia to proceed gradually to reform the Constitution by judicial interpretation to achieve four-year terms. That is not an option open to it; it is not open to it to read into the Constitution recognition of local government; and it is not open to it to read into the Constitution guarantees of freedom of religion, trial by jury or compensation on just terms. It is remotely possible that it could read into the Constitution one vote one value. I would welcome that, but I do not see that as being a drastic argument against the people getting a chance to have a say, because that is all this proposal does. At the moment the opinion polls about this proposal are essentially positive. I do not want to get carried away with that because I have seen over the last 15 years that opinion polls have often supported referendums that have subsequently been defeated. But the pathetic contortions of members of the Opposition and their too smart by half tactics which underestimate the intelligence of the Australian people may well bring them undone. If one or more of these referendum proposals are carried-I hope they all are, and there is a reasonable chance that some or all of them will be-it will be the greatest defeat for a Leader of the Opposition in recent Australian political history and it will be the most well deserved. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(5.34) —The Senate is debating this afternoon the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill which, if carried, will result in four seemingly innocent questions being put to the people of Australia in September this year-so we are given to understand in the media. I want to take this opportunity to determine just what the Government is trying to achieve by amending the Constitution in the manner proposed. I ask: Why the unseemly haste in rushing the Bills through the Parliament before even the final report of the Constitutional Commission and then rushing them to a special referendum? Why is there such a hurry? An amount of $37.3m will be spent. I cannot understand why we cannot wait until the next election. The first Bill deals with four-year terms. That seems unusual because the present Government, and probably some of the governments before, never seemed to be able to wait even for a three-year term before calling an election. Maybe the Government is talking about a four-year term so that we might be able to go for three years. That is one point I want to make. Then we come to the question of one vote one value which I believe is a matter for State governments and not for the Federal Parliament to determine. The third Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill, is a token gesture for local government. There is no money attached to it. The shire councils are not going to receive any money. The fourth Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill, is really, to my way of thinking, a mini-Bill of Rights. The people have already said in no uncertain terms that they do not want a Bill of Rights. I believe that this is a case where we could save $37.3m. We hear the Government crying poor all the time, saying that it needs more money, but it is spending $37m when it does not necessarily need to. It should be noted that the wording of each question to be put to the people is quite different from the wording which actually appears in the four referendum Bills. I was interested to read in a report in the Courier-Mail on 18 May where a leading pollster branded the Government's proposed referendum questions as blatantly biased. The managing director of the Roy Morgan Research Centre, Mr Gary Morgan, has apparently said that the questions did not honestly convey the issues being asked. He said that there was no doubt that the questions were biased in order to obtain a yes vote from the voters. Mr Morgan went on to say that `any public opinion polling company that asked questions as blatantly biased as the Government proposes would completely lose credibility'. That is the opinion of an independent person with a great deal of professional experience in this area. My great fear is that many Australian voters will quite innocently fall into the trap which the Government has set for them and take the questions at face value. After reading Mr Morgan's comments on the matter it seems that my fears could be well founded. It is our duty-indeed, it is our responsibility-to ensure that the voters of Australia fully understand the consequences of a Yes vote to any one of the four questions. They must be told just what the Government is attempting to achieve with its suggested changes to the Constitution. The first question asked: Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for four-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament? To the average Australian voter, this proposal would no doubt seem fairly innocuous. Some might think that it may even be a good idea. Many will interpret the question as a move towards a more stable system of government, an end to early elections. Senator Vanstone —Not with this Prime Minister. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —That is right. The wording of the question raises false hopes; in fact, the proposal could well lead to more elections rather than fewer elections and they would all be double dissolutions. Implementation of this proposal would effectively abandon the system of rotation of senators' terms while reducing the length of their term by two years. Some people might say, `That is a jolly good idea. We are here for too long anyway'. But I do not go along with that. I believe that it will mean the abolition of the fixed term for the Senate. The Government cannot refute the claim that the role of the Senate as a House of review will be severely undermined if this proposal is implemented. The Constitutional Commission actually recommended that parliamentary terms for senators be twice as long as those for members of the House of Representatives. But the Government has chosen to ignore that recommendation. The Commission further recommended that the term of the House of Representatives be extended to four years, with a minimum term of three years. This proposal has also been ignored by the Government. The proposal favoured by the Government effectively introduces permanent double dissolutions, so that every time a Prime Minister is confronted with a Senate which refuses to bow to his will he will be able to call an election for both Houses and require every senator to face an election. As I said earlier in my speech, I find it hard to understand why the Government has opted for four-year terms. In the seven years that I have been in the Senate there have been three elections. As I said, the Government has not even been able to complete a three-year term, and it is hypocritical in my opinion to suggest that we need four years. As I said, the Government probably wants four years in the hope that it may last three. If this proposal is accepted the independence of the Senate will be a thing of the past. There can be no doubt that this proposal, if adopted, will seriously jeopardise the Senate's ability to act against bad Government legislation. If it were not for the Senate we would now have the identity card and the infamous Bill of Rights. I now come to the second question. That will ask whether Australians approve of an amendment to the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia. Without a doubt every thinking voter would at first glance approve of fair and democratic elections. But one has to look beyond those words in order to discover just what the Government is attempting to achieve with this amendment. In effect this proposal will extend the principle of one vote one value to State parliaments. Surely the procedures and rules applicable to State elections are matters which should properly be dealt with by the individual State parliaments. Why is there a sudden lack of regard for the federal system of government? Since when has the Federal government had the right to dictate electoral terms and conditions for the States? The proposal represents yet another attempt by the Government to infringe the rights of the States. The bottom line is that the Government is attempting to force its will upon the State electoral systems. The Government claims that the proposal will apply a numerical equality in the number of electors in each electoral division for the House of Representatives and either House of the Parliament of a State or Territory assembly. However, such an equality will not apply in the House of Representatives. For example, Tasmania, despite its small population, is guaranteed five seats in the House of Representatives. How can the Government claim that the one vote one value system will provide for fair elections? Where is the fairness in concentrating the bulk of the electors in the south-east corner of Queensland if the one vote one value system goes ahead? If this referendum Bill is carried and becomes law, Queensland will end up with just a handful of rural electorates, some of which will be almost the size of the Federal electorates in Queensland. For instance, look at the electorates of Maranoa and Kennedy, both of which are nearly one-third the size of Queensland anyway. I believe the State electorates will look the same as Federal electorates if this goes ahead. Why does the Australian Labor Party refuse to acknowledge that there are certain hardships associated with living in isolated rural centres, hardships which city dwellers never really have to face? The State parliamentarians representing country areas already have a difficult job trying to service their electorates effectively. At times the distances involved make their tasks almost impossible. How can the Government justify such callous treatment of rural Australians when it considers that they are the people responsible for generating export earnings worth hundreds of millions of dollars for this country? Our political opponents and certain sections of the media take great delight in seizing every opportunity to condemn Queensland for its so-called gerrymander. At every election, and indeed when somebody wants a reason to criticise our State, there is much self-righteous rhetoric as they bemoan the dreadful electoral system which keeps the Labor Party in the political wilderness in that State. There are, however, a few hard facts which our critics should be made aware of, a few home truths which they should recall the next time they are tempted to blame the dreaded zonal system for Labor's abysmal electoral record in Queensland. They should recall that under the current electoral system in Queensland the Australian Labor Party would win office if it could attract 51.4 per cent of the vote, a percentage, I might add, which it has not even come close to achieving since 1957, and that was a long time ago. I was interested to read an article in the Weekend Australian stating that in 1986 the National Party of Australia gained government with a 56 per cent two-party preferred vote. Now anyone would think, from what the Opposition has been saying, that we got there with a vote of less than 50 per cent, and that is something I want to draw to the attention of the Senate. In the recent State election held in New South Wales the National and Liberal parties had to obtain almost 53 per cent of the two-party preferred vote to remove the Unsworth Government from office. Now that is a gerrymander if ever there was one, and Labor knows how to do that, because this gerrymander in Queensland that the people talk about was a zonal system put in place by the Labor Party in Queensland. That is something that nobody on the other side of the chamber ever mentions. Our critics should also be reminded that the Federal National and Liberal parties must win 52.3 per cent of the two-party preferred vote if they are ever to succeed in ridding this country of the services of the Hawke Government. That does make the Government's preoccupation with fair and democratic elections something of a laughing matter and it calls into question the motives behind the proposal. I also want to draw attention to the pure Senate vote in Queensland. There are no boundaries associated with the Senate vote. We are all equal; we all go in without these terrible zonal electorates people talk about. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that in the last Senate election the National Party gained four senators and the Liberal Party gained two. If honourable senators opposite have the same method of addition as mine, that makes six. How many did the Labor Party gain? It gained five, and the Democrats got one. Therefore, the coalition parties in Queensland were able to get six senators from our State. I believe that if we look at those numbers there is just no reason to mention a gerrymander as far as the Senate vote is concerned. No one can say there is any gerrymander. I believe the whole question is hypocritical and is based on a false premise. The Labor Party is very adept at causing diversions in order to detract from its own failings and problems. It never fails to grab the chance to raise a hue and cry about what it sees as the so-called unfairness of the Queensland system. I advise the Labor Party in general, and the Hawke Government in particular, to put its own house in order before condemning Queensland and seeking to impose conditions upon our State electoral system. The third question will ask whether voters approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to recognise local government. I was very concerned to read a recent Press release, put out by the Australian Local Government Association, which said that local government leaders around Australia were amazed and disappointed at the Federal Opposition's decision to oppose the referendum question concerning local government recognition. The President of the Association, Councillor Peter Kyle, said that the Federal Liberal Party had made a commitment that the next Liberal Government would examine appropriate constitutional recognition of local government in Australia. Councillor Kyle went on to say that the National Party had given unequivocal support to constitutional recognition of local government. I want to point out to Councillor Kyle that the proposed amendment to the Constitution makes no mention whatsoever of the Commonwealth Government recognising local government. While it has been coalition policy to recognise local government in the Constitution, it believes that the wording of the referendum question is nothing short of a gross misrepresentation. The question reads: Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to recognise local government? What is being proposed is the insertion of a new section, 119a, which provides that each State shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the State and empowered to administer and to make by-laws for their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State. There is no mention about any move by the Commonwealth to recognise local government, except, of course, in the question being put to voters. It is nothing short of deception and dishonesty on the part of the Government. All State governments support the system of local government. Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and New South Wales have all amended their Constitutions to recognise local government. The proposed amendment is nothing but an attempt by the Government to force Tasmania and Queensland to follow suit. I believe that is the crux of the matter. The proposal has nothing to benefit local government. It is just a thinly disguised example of the Labor Party attempting yet again to centralise power in Canberra. It represents an intrusion into State rights; it is an attempt to impose the will of the Federal Government upon the governments of Queensland and Tasmania. My concern is that the proposed amendment could be open to an unduly wide interpretation. It has been very broadly defined, and recent decisions of the High Court dealing with external affairs powers do little to allay my fears. The Federal Government currently enjoys unprecedented centralist powers over both State and local governments. If implemented, the proposal could mean the reintroduction of the concept of regionalism, so favoured by Mr Whitlam, and the use of funding arrangements to force amalgamations. It is interesting to note that the proposed law is to be confined to the States. It will not apply to the Government's own areas of responsibility-namely, the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, Christmas Island and Norfolk Island. That provides clear evidence of the fact that the Labor Party is trying to impose on the rights of the States. The Federal Government is currently proposing a form of Aboriginal compact that would create about 52 regional Aboriginal councils throughout Australia with local government-type functions. I find it disturbing to note that this proposal will not be examined in detail by Parliament until after the referendum has taken place. The proposed amendment contains nothing to allay the fears so often expressed by local government. It contains no provision to protect local councils from dismissal by State Governments and no provision to protect them from amalgamation. Primarily, local government has sought through constitutional recognition a guaranteed proportion of revenue, and no such guarantee has been given. On any interpretation of the clause, one point is absolutely clear: local government would receive no benefits whatsoever if the Bill became law. I want to mention what the Liberal-National coalition has done for local government over the years. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that it was a Liberal-National Government that first gave local government a fixed funding arrangement through personal income tax sharing. That Government provided for local government representation on the State Grants Commission and provided for the distribution of personal income tax sharing. When Ralph Hunt was Minister for Transport in that Government, he introduced the bicentennial road funding levy of 2c per litre on fuel to provide more funds for road works for local government. It was the Liberal and National parties that made a major submission to the Self inquiry in 1985 to review the Commonwealth-local government financial arrangements. That same Government set up a forum for local government in the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations. The coalition parties over many years in government have provided practical support and have shown empathy for local government. However, the Labor Party has done very little for local government. The road funding crisis is a perfect example of the Hawke Government's lack of commitment to the needs of local government. For example, Federal spending on roads has been at the same level since 1984-85, but when inflation is taken into account funding has declined in real terms by 25 per cent. That works out to a reduction of more than $300m. Only about a week ago I made a speech on this matter in the Senate. Local authorities are very concerned about the smaller amount of money given to them for road works in their areas. As I mentioned earlier, the Federal Liberal-National Government was instrumental in implementing personal income tax sharing for local government which guaranteed local government 2 per cent of total Commonwealth revenue from personal income tax. It should be noted that the level of funding has steadily declined since the Hawke Government came to power in 1983. The allocation for the 1988-89 financial year is 1.66 per cent of personal income tax. I now come to the fourth and final question, which will ask voters whether they approve of altering the Constitution to extend the right to trial by jury, to extend the freedom of religion and to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by the Government. I want to ask: Why should the people of Australia be asked if they want the right to freedom of religion which, under common law, they already have? What new freedom will we have that we do not already enjoy? All that this proposal means is that the Government has decided to have another attempt at bringing in a Bill of Rights, but this time it is trying to do it through the back door by using the Constitution. The Government has chosen to ignore the fact that the Bill of Rights concept has already been firmly rejected by the Australian people. The question has, of course, been cleverly worded. Who could possibly be against voting for the right to trial by jury, the right to freedom of religion and the right to fair compensation for property acquired by government? However, those rights already exist within the Constitution, and I believe that once one starts to clearly define such basic rights, carefully spelling each one out, those rights then become limited. They become open to misinterpretation, if not now at some time in the future; and that is my greatest concern. My concern is shared by the vast majority of Australians. I am not aware of any unrest in the community resulting from religious persecution or discrimination, and I have yet to receive a single complaint from any person who has been wrongly deprived of a trial by jury. The problem lies in delays in court hearings that cannot be alleviated by constitutional change but can be overcome through administrative change under existing powers. Landholders receive compensation when their properties are resumed by the Government. If they are not happy with the level of compensation, avenues of appeal are open to them. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that compensation will be greater if this proposal is implemented. I sincerely hope that the voters of this country will realise that referendum question No. 4, if carried, will provide us with a condensed form of a Bill of Rights which the Hawke Government tried unsuccessfully to force through some time ago. It contained seemingly innocent proposals to give us rights that we already possess. These rights already exist in the Constitution and to attempt to write in further human rights provisions can cause dangerous complications. For example, the section in the Bill relating to religion provides: . . . that the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory shall not establish any religion, impose any religious observance or prohibit the free exercise of any religion- Does this mean that state schools will be prohibited from providing religious studies or observance? Does this mean that religious administrators will be prevented from ministering to the sick in government-run hospitals? Does it mean that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will no longer be able to broadcast or televise religious services? My great fear is that if this referendum Bill becomes law, the day will arrive when the Bill of Rights clause of the Constitution will require clarification and interpretation. It is bound to happen one day. It could be 10 or 20 years from now but when it finally happens I fear that Australians will find their rights limited and their freedom restricted. I want no part in leaving such a dreadful legacy to our future countrymen and women. In conclusion, I must ask again why the Government is moving with such speed on this matter. Just four days after receiving only the first of two reports of the Constitutional Commission, the Government introduced its referenda proposals and is aiming for the referendum questions to be put in the first two weeks of September. None of the questions is of such gripping importance that it must be put to the people of Australia as a matter of urgency. The Government seems keen to put the referendum questions before voters have a chance to fully absorb, consider and understand the ramifications of each proposed amendment. The Government is acting as though it has something to hide. The proposed changes to the Constitution are unnecessary; they are fundamentally wrong. I urge all Australians to register their rejection by voting no to all four referenda questions. (Quorum formed) Senator COONEY(Victoria)(6.05) —It has been said that these Constitution alteration Bills have been brought on too quickly and more time should be given to consider them. The fact is that they are either needed or they are not. The changes to the Constitution are either needed or they are not. It is for the House of Representatives, the Senate and then, if the Bills are passed, the people to decide that. The Constitutional Commission has produced material which is now available to the people. If that is accepted and if the referenda find favour in the eyes of the people, they will be passed. The founding fathers, of whom we have heard much today, foresaw the need for constitutional change. That great figure of Henry Bournes Higgins had this to say at the Federal Convention held in Melbourne on 9 February 1898: . . . I want to have nothing absolutely rigid or unchangeable in the Constitution. From the point of view of ethics, I cannot see what right we have in this generation to dictate absolutely as to what future generations shall do. Later in the same speech he said: . . . I simply want to give the next generations which follow us the same liberty to control the Constitution as we have ourselves. Why should we say that all wisdom for the purpose of constructive federation is deposited in the present generation? These Bills give the Australian people the opportunity to do what their forebears so nobly did almost 100 years ago. When considering that, it is appropriate to look at the considerations they should take into account. Much has been made of States rights in this matter. Henry Bournes Higgins said the following about that: This Commonwealth has to make laws which are to operate upon persons, upon individuals, and which are not to operate upon States, and therefore the laws of the Commonwealth ought to be decided by persons, by individuals, and not by States. I turn to the question of four-year terms about which much has been made. It is instructive in that context to look at the making of the Constitution when considering the Bill. During the constitutional conventions, the debate about the relationship to be established between the Commonwealth and the States was intense but that about the relationship between the States was even more so. The powers of the Senate must be considered within that relationship. At the conventions important debate was directed to whether the Senate ought to be popularly elected rather than nominated by the various State legislatures. The draft Constitution discussed at the 1891 convention provided for the Senate to terminate on a fixed date. That was when the Senate was to be elected by the legislatures of the various colonies and it was pointed out that where a particular date had to be established the colonies had to be enabled to accommodate that position, to have their people elected, so that the Senate could sit on a specific day. It was in that context that fixed terms for the Senate were provided for. Later a change was made in the draft Constitution to provide for the Senate to be elected by the people. That is to be remembered now when this discussion is taking place. Fixed terms were to accommodate the colonies and not to set up the power of the Senate against the Executive. The most intense debate about the Senate was on whether equal representation should be given to all States in the Senate or whether representation in the Senate ought to be dependent upon the number of people in the various States. It was decided as part of the compact reached between the States that they would have equal representation in the Senate. That decision cannot be used as a precedent for having disparity between the number of people who are in the various electorates. An attempt has been made to do that in this debate. The question of equal representation of the States in the Senate is a special provision in a special compact. It is a special circumstance. The Federal conventions decided the States should have equal representation in the Senate. The legislation which is now before this chamber does nothing about disturbing the balance between the States. In other words, the essential thrust in the Constitution that the States should maintain equality in the Senate is maintained. It is wrong to say that the Senate's powers are diminished by the Bill now before us. The question arises as to whether we ought to have eight-year terms. None of the other federal conventions drawing up this Constitution ever suggested eight-year terms. Indeed, a four-year term was suggested by Henry Bournes Higgins, who said that it ought to be a four-year term because it would put the Senate `more in touch with the people, so that they may not have six years before they are called to account for voting against that on which the people may have expressed their will'. It is most pertinent to quote that in a situation where eight-year terms have become an issue. I have this to say about the proposed four-year term for the House of Representatives: The founding fathers, about whom we have heard much, allotted three-year terms to that House because the various colonial parliaments then had three-year terms. They wanted to reflect in the Federal Parliament what was going on in the States. On 21 April 1897, Mr Barton, later to be the first Prime Minister of Australia, moved for four-year terms, but Sir George Turner from Victoria argued against this on the grounds that `the people had got used to the period of three years'. In contemporary Australia in every State but Queensland the people have got used to a period of four years. In the spirit in which our Constitution was written, now that people have got used to four-year terms in the State legislatures they should be allowed to get used to four-year terms in the Commonwealth Parliament. The basis upon which our Constitution was written was that what was happening in the State parliaments ought to be reflected in the Federal Parliament. There are four-year terms in the State parliaments; that is the most efficient term to have. It has been argued that if senators are given identical terms to members in the House of Representatives the Prime Minister's power will be increased, unhappily, because he can advise a dissolution of parliament and the Senate will go to the people at the same time as the House of Representatives. Honourable senators might well ask, `Why should it not?'. What is so special about the Senate to entitle it to longer terms than the House of Representatives? If there were no Ministers in the Senate and if it were simply a House of review there might be an argument to make along those lines. The situation is different where Ministers of the Government are in the Senate. The Government goes to the people so that the people might pass judgment on the Government. Why should we have a position where nine Ministers of the Crown-and that is the number now in this Senate-do not have to face the electors at the next election simply because one House is given twice the term of the other? If we clear out the Ministers in the Senate and we make it a House of review there might be an argument for it. But while we have Ministers in the Senate it is proper that, when Ministers in the House of Representatives face the people, so should Ministers in the Senate. This means simultaneous elections for both Houses. Criticism has been made of the Prime Minister being able to advise on his own initiative as to when elections should be held. That is a convention that is in the British Constitution from which we draw so much of our own. The Prime Minister has the right to call elections. As I have said, that is the situation in the place which is the mother or father of parliamentary democracy. To complain that the Prime Minister in Australia has a particular power to call an election is beside the point because he simply exercises a power that every other Prime Minister has, in particular, the Prime Minister in the United Kingdom. To sum up, the four-year term is more efficient. It is proper that we should have four-year terms for both Houses to enable the whole of the Government to be adjudged by the people. This does not mean that the Senate will be the servant or the foot stool of either the Prime Minister or the House of Representatives. Earlier in the day Senator Walters said that the Senate had saved the people from the identity card and the Bill of Rights. That is evidence not for the proposition that she was putting forward, that the Senate ought to have twice the term of the House of Representatives, but for the contrary proposition. In respect of both those issues-the ID card and the Bill of Rights-the Senate which rejected them was a Senate which was elected at exactly the same time as the House of Representatives. Therefore, it is evidence which supports our proposition. I turn now to the question of fair elections. Many a statement has been made in this Senate that special provisions ought to be made for special people, whether they are in remote districts, or perhaps in the poorer parts of a city, or what have you. A series of cases were decided in the Supreme Court of the United States of America which dealt with that very question-great cases such as Baker v. Carr, Wesbury v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims. In Reynolds v. Sims the Chief Justice, Earl Warren, made some statements which put paid to the propositions which are before us now. In the short time that I have left to me I will not read those statements but, in summary, they say that legislatures and governments represent people. They do not represent trees, they do not represent sheep, they do not represent great houses of the merchants nor the poor houses of the downtrodden. They represent people. That is the proposition which is accepted in all the great democratic countries and that is the proposition that we should adopt here today. Let me quickly mention the legislation concerning local government. It is proper that local government be enshrined in our Constitution. Our Constitution is the blueprint, if you like, of the way we are governed. It provides for the separation of powers; it provides for a judiciary, for an executive and for a parliament; it provides for the States and it provides for the Commonwealth Government. In that context, is it not proper that it should provide for that other great arm of government-local government? Either we are in support of local government or we are not. If we are in support of local government we put it in the blueprint for the government of the people of this nation. The simple proposition which the people of Australia will have to decide is whether they want local government and whether they want the maintenance of local government provided for in the Constitution, which has all other arms of government provided for in it? I come now to the last Bill, which provides for trial by jury, freedom of religion and adequate compensation for land when it is acquired by any government. It has been said here today that the common law protects those rights. That is quite wrong. Any legislature other than the Commonwealth legislature can legislate away those rights. To use an example, ordinances in the Australian Capital Territory took away the right to juries in certain instances and it had to be restored. Those three provisions reflect what is already in the Constitution in so far as it governs the Commonwealth. Is it not proper that those protections which are given against the Commonwealth Government should also be given against the State governments? In conclusion, let me read from the Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth by John Quick, a member of the Victorian contingent to the National Australian Convention in 1897-98, and Robert Randolph Garran, who was at the New South Wales Bar at that time. This book was written in 1901, just as our Constitution was coming into operation. Talking about the amending power of the Constitution, they said: Nor is the scope of the amending power restricted to the structure and functions of the Federal Government; it extends to the structure and functions of the Governments of the States. Indeed, nearly every extension of powers and functions granted to the Federal Government would involve a consequential contraction of powers and functions in the Governments of the States; and if a constitutional amendment could so alter the powers and functions of the Government of the States, why should it not be capable of dealing, if necessary, with the Constitutions and political organization of the States? Each Australian has a responsibility to every other Australian, no matter what State he lives in. If in a State there is a maladjustment of the boundaries, if there is unequal representation in parliament, we should do something about it. If there are provisions protecting people's rights against the Commonwealth, whether in relation to freedom of religion, the right to trial by jury, or the right to fair compensation for the acquisition of property by the Commonwealth, why should we not extend these rights to every Australian, so they exist not only against the Federal Government but also against the States? Why would we go only half way? What would honourable senators opposite, who have got up here today and said that those rights should not be put in the Constitution, say if we said that the right to freedom of religion, to trial by jury, to fair compensation for the acquisition of property, all now existing against the Commonwealth, should be removed from the Constitution? If we proposed to remove those rights against the Commonwealth from the Constitution, what would any decent senator, any decent representative of the people, say? If protest is the probable reaction, why do those opposite refuse to extend those rights against the States, remembering, as Henry Bournes Higgins said, that what is of foremost importance in this country is not the States, and not the Commonwealth, but the individuals-the people who have to bear the burden of the laws they make? Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.23) —We are debating cognately today four referendum Bills proposed by the Government, namely, the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections)-I almost gag at the use of those words-Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms)-again, words which ought to be put in quotation marks-Bill. In addition, a fifth Bill is being debated cognately, that proposed by Senator Macklin of the Australian Democrats, namely, the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill. Proposals for altering the Constitution, it goes without saying, are among the most serious proposals ever to come before the Parliament. So it is worth while looking briefly at the manner in which the four Government Bills-they are the Bills to which I shall chiefly address my remarks-have been brought here so that we may judge whether this Government has sought to deal straightforwardly, frankly, openly and honestly with the Australian people in relation to these Bills. After all, we have in this country, in the various States particularly, consumer protection laws. I am beginning to think, when I look at these Bills and certain other legislation which the Government continues to bring before us, that we ought to have what might be called legislative protection laws, or legislation protection laws. If one goes to a second-hand car dealer in this country to purchase a car, one normally, if one is prudent, seeks some form of report on that second-hand vehicle. In this case, the Government set out to seek a report on the state of what it would regard as our second-hand vehicle, our second-hand Constitution, what it sometimes called our horse and buggy Constitution, from a body of its own devising-the Constitutional Commission. Having sought that report about the motor vehicle which we are buying, as a rule-again, if we are prudent-we like to take some time to think about the report once it has been received, to consider what it has to say about the state of the chassis or cylinder block, or whatever it might be. In particular, we like to think about what that report says and, indeed, what our own eyes might tell us about whether the vehicle we are considering purchasing, or which is being offered to us, is actually what it seems, whether perhaps the new, shiny coat of paint is covering up a lot of rust underneath, for example. If we actually buy it, as the Australian people are about to be asked to buy these four proposals from the Government in a few months time, and ride off in it, it is always as well to be aware in advance how far down the track we will get before we find that it does have a cracked cylinder head and we are in real trouble, having made our purchase and irrevocably committed ourselves to living with the consequences. As I said, the report on the car in this case was to be given at the Government's own behest by the Constitutional Commission, a body set up by the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, in December 1985, nearly 2 1/2 years ago. I say, without, I believe, fear of objective rebuttal, that the body in question is loaded with people of a certain political persuasion such as Mr Edward Gough Whitlam and one or two others, whose political views are clearly known, and, in the cases of some others, who are not of that same political persuasion, by people nevertheless with a clear commitment to what I might call centralist views as to the appropriate nature of our Constitution. There is a distinction between, let us say, Australian Labor Party affiliations on the one hand and centralist affiliation ideologically on the other. They usually coincide, but they are not what the mathematicians call conterminous. I say this without in any way reflecting upon the Chairman of the Commission, but I would put Sir Maurice Byers clearly in that category. He is entitled to his views but it is clear that in his role as Commonwealth Solicitor-General he was a constitutional centralist, and he has remained so to this day. I am not, as I say, going to do what the Labor Party always does when it comes into this chamber and does not like the arguments from the other side of the chamber, namely, play the man and not the ball. I am not going to pursue, so to speak, along those lines, the membership of the Constitutional Commission, but I do think it is always important to look at the people who are proposing the arguments, even while, more importantly-and I emphasise that-assessing the quality of the arguments they are proposing. Since its inception, the Constitutional Commission has spent over $6m of taxpayers' money. Again, I think it is fair and objective and accurate to say that a good deal of that expenditure has been on what can only be called public propaganda. I am not alleging that it is political party propaganda. What I am saying is that it has been propaganda designed to convince the Australian people that our Constitution is a rickety old document, drawn up in the horse and buggy days and that it badly-very badly-needs revision. I would be the first to concede, as all fair-minded people would, that there are some aspects of our Constitution which no doubt could be revised. Senator Collins, in a speech here a week or two ago, drew particular attention, I think, to section 25 of the Constitution in that respect. If I am recalling correctly and quoting him correctly, I agreed entirely with what he said about that section. Again, I am sure that most honourable senators on both sides of this chamber would do so. There are no doubt other sections of our Constitution which are in that category. That does not make the Constitution a horse and buggy affair or an outdated document, or one which badly and desperately and dramatically needs to be revised. It simply means that that is a particular section of the Constitution which has fallen into disuse and which, therefore, we do not need any longer. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator STONE —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was saying that we on the Opposition side would agree that some aspects of our Constitution no doubt could be revised and about which it would therefore almost certainly be possible quite readily to obtain a consensus among the Australian people about the need for revision, just as in 1967 an overwhelming majority of the Australian people readily agreed to amend our Constitution in respect of Aboriginal affairs matters. What I suggest is conspicuous about the four proposals which this Government is bringing before the Australian people in the next few months is that not one falls within that category of consensus proposals. The fact is that this Government is not about uniting Australians in consensus; it is about dividing us so as to produce the maximum acrimony, the maximum public fuss and bother, and therefore the maximum diversion from the real problems facing Australia today. It is not an accident, I suggest, that we are debating these Bills in the same week as that in which the Government will bring down its economic statement. Tomorrow night the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will bring down that statement in the other place. It is also less than two weeks before the next Labor Party biennial conference in Hobart. It is being held in the wake of a series of disastrous electoral defeats of the Labor Party, beginning in the Adelaide by-election and, I suppose, reaching a summit in the New South Wales State election. It also follows a confession by the Treasurer as recently ago as 12 May, in his statement to the State Premiers at the Loan Council and Premiers Conference meetings, that the recent improvements in Australia's balance of payments are all due to the improvement in our international terms of trade, in other words, in our export prices-a matter over which the Australian Government exercises no responsibility whatsoever and which, in the Treasurer's own word, is therefore confessed to be `fortuitous'. The dictionary defines that word as `due to chance'. The improvement in our economic situation so far as that is reflected in our balance of payments is, by the Treasurer's own confession, due to chance. It is because the Government knows that it is extremely vulnerable on this whole question of its policies towards the economy, and the fact that it has lost 10 months since it was returned to office after the election of last July, that it has sought to bring before the people of Australia in the next four months a great diversionary tactic in the form of these four referendum Bills. Viewed with the total cynicism which the Labor Party brings to these matters, that must be conceded to be a very clever piece of politics. But let us not have the kind of overblown rhetoric with which the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, introduced these Bills when he said that they were being introduced in the national interest and having in mind the need to revise and reform our Constitution. I suggest that before the Opposition is through with it, it may prove to have been a tactic too clever by half. Let me return to the report of the Australian Constitutional Commission. In my analogy in my remarks before dinner I compared it to the kind of report one obtains from the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland, my own State, on the second-hand car which one is about to consider purchasing. That report has not yet been received. The first report from the Commission was published on 6 May-a Friday. The Government produced these four Bills, all printed and ready to go, at the special sitting of the House of Representatives on 10 May, which it had called some weeks earlier. It had finally decided on what Bills would be presented to the Parliament at its Cabinet meeting a week earlier, before the first report of the Commission was even formally received, and certainly before it was read by anybody in this country, including anybody in the Government. One result of that-and I turn to the first of the Bills before us-is that the proposal for parliamentary terms is not the proposal put forward by the Constitutional Commission. The Constitutional Commission, having examined the second-hand vehicle which the Government is asking us to consider buying, has recommended against it. As we all know now, because we have had a chance to look at the report of the Commission-which, of course, the Government did not have when it made up its mind-it did not put forward that we should have what the Government has proposed, namely, four-year terms with a simultaneous dissolution of both the House of Representatives and the whole of the Senate. It recommended that senators should continue to serve for two terms of the House of Representatives. The Government has chosen to ignore those views. In arriving at those views the Constitutional Commission made it clear that the problems in instituting a four-year term for the House of Representatives-and there are considerable problems; I will come to those-can only be overcome either by extending the terms of senators from six years to eight-this is one possible alternative-or by providing that senators serve for two terms of the House of Representatives. The Opposition sought advice from a distinguished constitutional lawyer, a man who late last year came very much to the notice of the Australian people because of his role in the dismissal of the Government's fraudulent identity card proposals, namely, Mr Ewart Smith. At the date of his retirement he was a Deputy Secretary in the Attorney-General's Department and a very distinguished public servant. In commenting extremely adversely on all of these proposals, Mr Ewart Smith referred to this particular proposal as `the most sinister of all the proposals' being put forward by the Government. He went on to say that while `one can agree in principle that a four-year term has been readily accepted as a proper term for Australia', this will be a great attack and a `diminution of the influence of the Senate'. Why did he use the word `sinister'? It is a very good choice of word because we have in this proposal a purported concern by the Government about the need for a longer term of the House of Representatives. What utter hypocrisy from this Government, which has singularly failed to avail itself of the three-year term available to it for the House of Representatives. This Government was elected in March 1983. It chose to take Australia to the polls once again 21 months later, in December 1984-less than two years later. In July 1987 it took us to the polls again, even though in the course of doing so it was clearly breaking a promise by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) given only a few weeks earlier that he would do nothing of the kind. That is the kind of government which is now crying crocodile tears about the need to have longer terms of office for the House of Representatives in this country. Let us look at a second consideration which might underlie Mr Ewart Smith's description of this proposal as sinister. It is that if this referendum proposal were approved by the people later this year it would in practical terms result in extending the life of the present Government by almost six months. It would do so by extending the term of Senate for that time. Half of the Senate would have to go to an election not later than early June of 1990. Before the suspension of the sittings Senator McMullan in his remarks was very critical of the position of the Opposition in advancing the views I have just advanced. He argued that the Bill did nothing of the kind: it would not extend the life of the Government by six months because, as he said, it would merely extend the date by which otherwise a half Senate election must be held; that is, it would not extend the formal term of the House of Representatives. Technically, Senator McMullan is correct in that argument but I must say that I was rather surprised that he of all people should advance such an argument in this place. After all, he was Federal Secretary of the Australian Labor Party for many years. He is extremely knowledgeable about any matters touching upon when governments may or may not have elections. I am particularly surprised that Senator McMullan should have advanced the argument he did. He is not in the chamber at the moment but I take the opportunity of saying that I have previously thought that Senator McMullan would not advance such a sophistry, certainly not here in the Senate. He knows perfectly well, and all senators know perfectly well, that no Prime Minister is likely, firstly, to have a half Senate election in, let us say, early June 1990 under the present regime and then follow that almost six months later with a separate House of Representatives election in November 1990. That is technically possible. It is technically open to the Prime Minister of the day to do that. But no-one who knows anything about these matters, as Senator McMullan supremely does, would imagine for a moment a Prime Minister taking such a course. On the contrary, as Senator McMullan well knows, a Prime Minister would do one of two things. He would either, if he had not done so before, take both House of Representatives and half the Senate out in, say, late 1989 or he would take both Houses out some time in the period of February to May 1990, the early June date being governed by the last date on which half the Senate must go to the people. If this Bill were to be adopted by the Australian people at the referendum, the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, could comfortably take both chambers, which in that case would be the House of Representatives and the whole of the Senate-not half the Senate-out as late as November 1990. I hope that Senator McMullan will stop treating us in this chamber, and more importantly the Australian people who may have been listening to his remarks, as though we are a lot of mugs and that he will in future admit that the Opposition is correct when it argues that this proposal, if adopted, would in practice-I emphasise the key words `in practice'-as Senator McMullan well knows, give this Government another almost six months in office. Apart from those, what are the other objectives of the Government in bringing forward this Bill, which is not even recommended by its own Constitutional Commission? I suggest that there are two other objectives; indeed, these are in some senses the main objectives, apart from extending the possible life of the Government. First, it would give the Prime Minister and hence the Executive arm of government even more power than it already has-the power to intimidate the Senate, to reduce its power, by giving the Prime Minister the power to dismiss it, effectively at any time he chooses. The Australian Labor Party has always hated the Senate, even more so since 1975 when the Senate, in the extraordinary and totally reprehensible circumstances of that time, acted to refuse Supply to Mr Whitlam and his Government, thereby forcing the government of the day to render itself accountable to the electorate of Australia. The electorate at that time threw that Government out neck and crop. Mr Fraser was elected with a majority of I think 47 or 48 seats. It was the largest single majority received by any government in any Federal election in the history of this country. In other words, the electorate overwhelmingly endorsed the action of the Senate at that time. On that occasion, the Senate did its duty and so, I might add, did the Governor-General in exercising the powers reserved to him under the reserve powers of the Constitution for use in such extreme and extraordinary circumstances. The Senate again did its duty when the Bill of Rights was brought before the previous Parliament. I remind the Senate that that Bill was whipped through the House of Representatives in a day. It was guillotined through the House of Representatives to prevent substantive debate just as these referendum Bills were guillotined through the House of Representatives in a single day last week before being brought into this place. But when the Bill of Rights came before the Senate, it was properly debated over a lengthy period. Meanwhile the electorate-the people to whom we are in the end responsible-gradually became aware of the true import of the mischievous nonsense this Labor Government was attempting to put over it. It rose up in its righteous wrath and the Government was eventually forced to back down and withdraw the Bill ignominiously. Before dinner Senate Cooney argued on this point. He said that the Bill of Rights was rejected by the Senate which had been elected at the same time as the House of Representatives and therefore, he argued-making a complete non sequitur in the process of doing so-that this made nonsense of the argument of those who, like myself, point to, as I have just been doing, the importance of the role of the Senate in defeating obnoxious legislation of the Bill of Rights variety. Of course, that totally misses the point. I presume that it was a genuine gap in logic by Senator Cooney because I would not want in any way to suggest that he is guilty of seeking to mislead the electorate or the Senate. The real point is this: if the Senate had then been operating under the constitutional provisions which are now proposed-which of course it was not-and if the Senate had, in those circumstances, dared to thwart the Prime Minister of the day as the Senate then did, the Prime Minister could have sacked the Senate on the spot. He might not have dared to do so in those circumstances because it is possible that he would have feared that the electorate would have done to him what it did to Mr Whitlam in 1975, but I think he might have taken the chance and hoped that the Bill had had so little debate and there was so little public understanding of it that he might have got away with it. That is certainly a consideration which the Senate at the time would have had to have very much in mind when dealing with the Bill. My time is fast approaching expiry. This illustrates what a totally inadequate process we are now engaged in. We have three major and one minor Bill put before us by the Government and one, I think it is fair to say, major Bill put before us by Senator Macklin. I do not agree with a lot of what is in Senator Macklin's Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill-but it is a major Bill and ought to be given proper consideration. I will not have time to refer to that Bill in my remarks and will not have time to refer to two of the other major Bills. This is what passes for debate on these constitutional proposals tonight in the Senate. It is a travesty of the legislative process, a travesty for which this Government is totally responsible. I hope the people will hold it responsible when they come to vote upon these measures later this year. I want to devote the last two minutes of my time to dealing with what I can only call the exception to the major Bills description-that is, the Bill which is described as `An Act to alter the Constitution to recognise local government'. What a total fraud. Senator Reynolds —It is not a fraud. Senator STONE —I see that the Minister for Local Government is suggesting otherwise. I hope she will get up to defend the Bill and explain how it is not a total fraud. The Bill, for those who may not have seen it, consists of two clauses. The first clause cites the short title of the Bill-that is hardly contentious. The second clause states: The Constitution is altered by inserting after section 119 the following section: The whole gist of the section in question is as follows: Each State shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the State and empowered to administer, and to make by-laws for, their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State. That is what it says-nothing more than that. It is a total fraud. That section is already recognised in four States of the Commonwealth-only two States of the Commonwealth do not already do that. It does no more than that. It makes local authorities subject to the laws of the State because even this Government recognises that that cannot be otherwise. It is a total fraud. It is a piece of tokenism and window dressing so that the Minister for Local Government can go around the country and hoodwink local authorities by telling them that it recognises them-big deal. Senator Reynolds —I will send you copies of my speeches. Senator STONE —I do not have time to respond to the inane interjections from the Minister. I want to say only that this is in line with the attitude this Government brings to these matters. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(8.23) —The debate as I heard it from Senator Stone mirrors very much, and in places seems to me to be almost word for word, what Senator Chaney had to say and, I would imagine, one way or another what most Opposition spokespeople on this package of Bills will have to say. I simply refer people listening to the debate to speeches by members of the Government for a refutation of those claims by the Opposition. In particular, Senator Tate and Senator Ray, who spoke in this chamber yesterday, put to rest the very spurious claims by the Opposition. I support the four referendum Bills, the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1988, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill 1988, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill 1988 and the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill 1988. I want to confine my remarks principally to that Bill that talks about fairer elections. I say to Senator Stone, for the record, that to enable the Opposition to have time to debate, senators on this side are trying to be pithy and succinct and make our points within the time we have allotted ourselves. If he cannot make his points in half an hour, on his head be that problem. I support the Bills very strongly. I want to talk about what I think is the importance of the fairer elections Bill. I have heard it said by the Opposition that this piece of legislation jeopardises States rights. I would like to pick up a point made by Senator Ray in his speech, that to pass any referendum we must have not only a majority of the people but also a majority of the States-an in-built protection of States rights in the way our referendums have to be decided. That point needs to be made. There is, within the terms of how a referendum shall be decided, the very protections for States that the Opposition seems to suggest are under enormous jeopardy if we talk about the one vote one value principle being enshrined in legislation and applicable to all elections in this country. It is also true that Senator Chaney wanted to argue very strenuously that States rights were particularly under threat. I reiterate the point made by Senator Ray-I would like to make it again-that the determination of a referendum, that is, a majority of States as well as a majority of people, will certainly guarantee those States rights in determining any change to our Constitution. Some people opposite have argued that the fairer election Bill, one vote one value, is really a very subtle way of opposing the gerrymander in Queensland. I see absolutely no subtlety in it at all. It is quite clear; it is one of the things the Government is determined to look at-how appalling it is that within this country people in one of its States do not have the same right to a fair election as do people in the rest of the country. We should be ashamed. Often that is the word I would use. It is mortifying that this country with its claims of democracy still enshrines in this year-and we are not talking about 100 years ago-after all the tests and changes in other States, this appalling and unfair practice in one of our States. It is to the credit of the Queensland State Liberal leader, Mr Innes, that he has stated that he will support this referendum. I feel like saying that it is about time for the Liberal Party in Queensland but I also think it is proper to appreciate the courage of that decision by Mr Innes. I will just quote a comment that is attributed to him in the Queensland Courier-Mail of 20 May 1988: I call upon the people of Queensland and Australia to rely on their fundamental sense of justice and fairness to pass the referendum questions. I do not think it can be put more clearly than that. The Australian people's sense of justice and fairness is the principles or senses that are enshrined in this legislation. It would be very interesting to risk anticipating the outcome of this referendum. I cannot, I suppose, but I suspect that there will be very strong support in the States of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, going on past practice. I would have thought that if the Liberals and the Australian Labor Party in Queensland want to strongly get behind this referendum it may well be that we will get the majority of States necessary to pass this referendum and enshrine these principles in our Constitution. It is very heartening that the Liberal leader in Queensland has a position different-I think one would have to say he is in opposition to them-to his Federal colleagues. It is very curious to note that Senator Chaney said that if he were a Queenslander he would do it that way too. I find it difficult to understand why Senator Chaney would feel that he could vote that way only if he were a Queenslander. He claims he strongly believes in the principle of one vote one value but I am totally unpersuaded when listening to his reasons why he is not going to support it now. My Senate colleague Senator Vanstone and I were debating this very issue at a school in Adelaide last week. Senator Vanstone was arguing the point that States have the power to change the conditions of election within their States and they can do it. But apart from Steele Hall in South Australia, no conservative ever has. It is the Labor Party that has pursued democracy and fairer elections, not the conservatives. By their record and history, they are the party of privilege and their opposition to these referendum proposals shows that they are still the same. But this time they are using tactics of cheap, political opportunism. Just for the record, although Steele Hall made some steps towards altering the gerrymander in South Australia, he only modified it. He did not go all the way. It was not until the Dunstan Government was returned that we got one vote one value, fairer elections, in South Australia. The conservative Opposition in South Australia continued to frustrate the proposals for electoral reform under the Dunstan Labor Government. The history of how the proposals got through is also quite interesting. The principles of fairer elections are now in place in most States in Australia. I find it very hard to accept the specious, if not curious and tortuous, arguments of the Opposition in opposing these principles for our Federal Constitution. It is not as though they are novel, it is not as though the Federal Government would be leading the way and it is not as though the Federal arena would be suggesting these things for the first time. Whether it is the four-year terms or the one vote one value principle, they are not novelties for the Australian people. As I say, a majority of States are now already well down the path of both of those principles and in some ways the referendums would simply see reflected in the Federal Constitution those things that many people around the country have already endorsed and had the opportunity to talk about, to debate and to vote on. That is why I also find it difficult to understand why Senator Stone feels that sufficient debate has not happened on this legislation. People have been debating the fairness of elections for years; in fact, there is a consistent and considerable will for fair elections in this country. One point that Don Dunstan used constantly to make is that the right to fair elections is electorally attractive. People understand what the right to fair elections means and they want to support it at any opportunity they are given. This has been taken up particularly in the States. The Opposition also seems to argue that we are trying to run this as a kind of interference and that we ought to be doing more significant things. That is a very odd claim, given that we are doing the other things as well. For the record I will just take one example-they are Senator Chaney's words particularly when he was talking about the simultaneous elections proposal which is also being debated here tonight. Senator Chaney opposed simultaneous elections in 1974; he supported them in 1977 and he opposes them in 1988. If one looks for what possible explanation there might be for such a change in his views, it would seem that it depends on whether he is in government or in opposition. I find that totally indefensible. It is totally unimaginable what kind of consistency there is in Senator Chaney's head between being against, for, and against on the same issue over that period. The only difference, as I say, is that he was in government when he supported it and is out of government when he opposed it. I think that approach is very limited and indefensible. It will certainly be something that the people of Australia will appreciate. The Opposition's views about these questions change depending on whether it is in government or not. That is not a very principled stance and it is certainly something that a lot of the people in the country are appreciating more and more. That is why we will find considerable support in the community for these referendum proposals. One reason I wanted to speak on this package of Bills is that I have had a bit of an interest in the history of women and, in particular, the history of how women got the vote. Any reading of that history will show that it has been a quite extraordinary battle. As a woman in this Senate I acknowledge that battle and the heroic struggle of so many women and the men who supported them. I acknowledge too the importance of the struggle. No woman who has read that history can casually disregard those fiercely fought rights. I certainly do not, though I must say for me the rights for women and the rights for women to get the vote are really no different in kind from the rights for workers, the rights of underprivileged or the rights of non-discrimination for anybody, to name just a few areas. But I do not believe that we can read that history without being moved by it and certainly I am the beneficiary of it. I draw to the attention of honourable senators the banner in King's Hall painted by an Australian woman and part of the fight for women's suffrage in England. That banner urges Mother England to trust the women with the vote as Australia had trusted its women with it. I recall proudly that that battle for the rights of women to have a vote was first won in my State of South Australia in 1894, though the history shows that it did not happen in a short time. It was a debate well over a decade before that achievement happened in South Australia. The Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Third Session, held in Melbourne on 20 January to 17 March 1898 illustrates just how important the right for women to have the vote was in terms of the arguments prior to Federation. The problem was: How do we deal with people and what sort of franchise would they get in the establishment of the Federation? I will quote part of the debate. At page 1840 Mr Barton is recorded as saying: . . . I quite agree that any elector who, at the establishment of the Commonwealth or afterwards, has, under the law in force in any state at the establishment of the Commonwealth, the right to vote at elections should not be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from exercising that right. This centred around particularly the women who were franchised in South Australia and in 1895 in Western Australia. It was argued that women could not be denied the right to vote in any Commonwealth Parliament if they had that vote in any other parliament. So because they had the right to vote in their States, they could not be denied that right to vote in the new Commonwealth Parliament. This created a problem because women in other States-for example, Victoria and New South Wales-did not have a right to vote in their own States. But after much debate it was agreed that if women had the right to vote in two States and, therefore, the right to vote in the new Commonwealth, things could be tipped completely out of balance if the women in two States had the right to vote, but not the women in all other States. So Australia proceeded to legislate to give women the right to vote in, I believe, 1902. From very early Australia has given the right to vote to women, but not without some farcical debates. Because they entertained me, I thought I would entertain the Senate with them. I will quote from C. M. H. Clark's A History of Australia, volume V, subtitled `The People Make Laws, 1888-1915'. On page 192 it is stated: In September 1900 a newspaper to do battle for women appeared for the first time in Melbourne. It was called symbolically the Australian Woman's Sphere and was edited by Vida Goldstein. Women were arguing the importance of the vote for women. I will read a paragraph from this text, referring to women: Like Labor they were ballot box democrats. They therefore believed the victory of their cause would begin by winning votes for women. Believing the best way to discredit their opponents was to encourage them to reveal what was in their minds, they filled their columns with the speeches of men such as Sir John Madden, the Chief Justice of Victoria. He had declared in 1895 that women's suffrage would abolish soldiers, war, racing, hunting, football, cricket and all manly games. Sir John based his stand on the Bible: `Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee'. He spoke of the women's movement as a threat to conventional morality. `Women suffragists', he believed, `are the worst class of socialists. Their idea of freedom is polyandry, free love, lease marriages, and so on. Are those qualifications for the franchise? Are we going to allow women who would sap the very foundation of the nation to have votes?' The Australian Woman's Sphere replied with a list of the men who were not disqualified from voting: effeminate fops, drunkards, larrikins, drunken savages, opium-smoking Chinese, prize fighters, `Fat Man' politicians and wife kickers. I find it quite entertaining reading. I remind honourable senators that the Chief Justice of Victoria made those comments. Those were the sorts of arguments that shaped the debate then. Since Labor came to office we have heard in this place very similar arguments presented in opposition to the sex discrimination legislation, affirmative action legislation and so on. Much of the prejudice against rights for women still pertains. I have taken some time tonight to endorse strongly the fairer elections Bill, because I think it enshrines those rights so bitterly and harshly fought for and won by women. Clearly I do not argue the rightness of it only in terms of rights for women, but I think that illustrates the battle that has to be fought to enshrine those rights for all people. While it might be argued that women around Australia have the right to vote, in Queensland they have a right to vote that is not based on an equivalent principle. That is true for both women and men in Queensland. The rest of Australia has arrived at near enough to what I would call an equivalence of that principle of one vote one value. As the earlier debates argued, we have had the opportunity to legislate that principle into our Constitution once and for all. We have not really rushed things since the debates of the first convention. The period from 1898 to 1988 has been a thoughtful period for deliberation about actually legislating to enshrine in our Constitution the rights for everybody over 18 years of age-man, woman, whatever race, et cetera-to have the right to vote enshrined in this Constitution. I think it is a fearsomely fought for principle. It is the mark of democracy. It is something Australia has stood for and fought for. I do not think it is improper at all that we should consider and move to enshrine it in our Constitution. I endorse the referendum proposals in the other pieces of legislation. I do not want to take time to speak to them in the Senate tonight. I am just pleased to say a few words on behalf of the one vote one value or fairer election principle and I look forward to the day it is part of our Constitution. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.42) —I rise to oppose the Government proposals for four referendums which we are debating in the Senate this evening. I think the proposals have been well outlined in this debate and in earlier debates in another place and in the Press. I feel that the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, when he led the debate in the Senate yesterday afternoon, expressed very clearly and fully the objections which the Opposition has to each of these four proposals. In fact, there are more than four proposals. One of the cunning aspects of the Government's case is that it is rolling up into one question several different ideas; and people are being asked to answer yes or not to questions which are very complicated. Choices will have to be made, and they will be very difficult choices for many people. I want to confine my remarks tonight to addressing the Senate in relation to two major proposals. The first one seriously affects the role, status and powers of the Senate, and the second one seeks to incorporate into the Constitution a mini-Bill of Rights. It is not actually a Bill of Rights. If it is meant to be one, it is a totally inadequate one. I want to address that question in relation to the principle of Bills of Rights and the effect they would have on our federal system. However, before I deal specifically with those two aspects of these proposals, I would like to make some general remarks about the Government's whole approach to this question of reforming the Constitution. It seems quite clear to me that the Hawke Government has embarked upon a total fraud on the people of Australia. The proposals are fraudulent in two respects. First, they are not genuine or effective reforms of the Constitution. If adopted by referendum, they would not in any way improve the operation of the Federal Parliament or the Federal government; they would not expand in any effective way the liberties and freedoms of the people of Australia; and they do amount to a very clear case of window dressing by a government that has not got the intellectual and moral fortitude to come forward with some realistic and effective amendments to the Constitution if they are thought necessary. The Government embarked upon this fraudulent exercise, as it has turned out to be, some 2 1/2 years ago when it established a Constitutional Commission, with a great fanfare about the need to make major changes to the Constitution for the bicentennial year. The Commission was given the brief of doing that and reporting on 30 June 1988, which is a short time away. However, the Commission was more than an exercise in rational, sober and even legalistic analysis of a document which has been over 87 years in operation. It may be superficially thought to be in need of major change. The Opposition has never accepted that view. We have believed, and continue to believe, that the Constitution has served Australia very well. Although we do have some proposed changes for the Constitution, we have our own very clear agenda of what changes may be required. We certainly do not believe it requires the sort of root and branch review the Government has embarked upon. Let me assume for the moment that the proposal to have a root and branch examination of the Constitution with a view to coming up with, if not a new one, a radically different one was genuine. The Constitutional Commission embarked upon this task and it had the assistance of some five advisory committees which worked away and then made their reports in October last year. The Constitutional Commission itself, the peak body, then had the very difficult task of reviewing all those recommendations and coming up with its own final report by 30 June this year. However, early in January of this year the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, outlined what was until then very clearly the Government's hidden agenda for constitutional change. He did not wait for any interim report or first report of the Commission. He certainly did not wait until 30 June this year when the final report of the Commission would be made. He simply outlined what the Government wanted to achieve, and he even announced then that the Government was thinking about having a referendum to make all these Government changes to the Constitution by the middle of this year. Then the Government announced that there were going to be in this session of Parliament some changes to the Constitution. It did not specify whether they were the same as those outlined early in January by the Attorney-General, but it made it very clear that in this session we would be presented with the Government's proposals. It put its weight on the Constitutional Commission to come up with what we might call its interim report ahead of its final reporting date in order to give some sort of spurious cover for the Government's hidden agenda. The Constitutional Commission had in fact indicated towards the end of last year its own proposals for reform of the Parliament. That involved fairly complicated procedures in relation to fixed terms of three years for the House of Representatives and the Senate and a fourth year during which Parliament could be brought to an early end by either an election called by the Prime Minister or one forced by the Senate. It also proposed to greatly reduce the powers of the Senate. However, it did not suggest that the Senate's term should be reduced from effectively two terms of the House of Representatives to a period that was exactly conterminous with that of the House of Representatives. When the Government then decided under great pressure to bring forward its proposal, it entirely ignored those views of the Constitutional Commission in relation to the parliamentary terms and the powers of the Senate. As I said, the Government put the weights on the Commission to make a quick report to it on some further window-dressing proposals about what are now called rights and freedoms, local government and one vote one value. The Commission was put in the embarrassing and difficult position of having to give its views on these matters to the Government way ahead of its scheduled reporting date. It is quite clear that the Government's whole approach to constitutional reform has been one of complete fraud. All along, it had its own proposals, which it has now unveiled and which we are debating tonight. At the same time, in order to try to further hoodwink the electorate, the Government has given titles to these Bills that are further clear evidence of the Government's fraudulent approach, so much so that Mr Gary Morgan, who runs Morgan gallup polls, the most respected and accurate polling organisation in Australia, has already pointed out that if his organisation asked questions of the electorate in the way the Government is intending to ask questions of the electorate, his organisation would lose all its credibility as an opinion testing organisation. So much for this Government's honesty and integrity in relation to constitutional reform! So much for its respect for the Australian electorate that it is prepared to hoodwink and mislead it and ask it really loaded questions like the one about which Senator Crowley has just been talking, which is called `Fair Elections'! The electorate will be asked whether it believes in fair elections. Unless people are properly informed on the matter, of course everyone would say `Yes' to whether they want fair elections. The questions does not explain the details of it. It does not explain that it will not stop the sort of gerrymandering of electorates which State Labor governments have been so very good at over the years. In New South Wales, the Wran Government had a gerrymandered system of one vote one value which required the Liberal and National parties to get more than 52 per cent of the vote to win. The Labor Government in Western Australia has just come up with a gerrymandered electoral system which will make it extremely difficult for the Liberal and National parties Opposition to succeed in an election in Western Australia. Labor governments are very good at fixing electoral boundaries to suit themselves. Nothing in the so-called fair elections referendum will prevent the Labor Party, if it is in power, from carrying on in the same way that Labor governments, particularly State governments, have always carried on in Australia. So much for the bona fides of this Government's approach to constitutional reform in general and to the proposals it is putting forward in these Bills in particular. As I said before, I want to speak about the Government's proposals in relation to parliamentary terms. That is what the referendum is said to be about. The long title of the Bill says that it is `A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for 4-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament'. A number of people believe that a four-year term of the House of Representatives would be a good idea. At present, the term is three years. As we know, it is not a fixed term; it is a maximum term. The Government does not propose to change that essential character of it, but simply proposes to extend the maximum from three years to four years. I do not know how a Prime Minister with the record of Mr Bob Hawke has the gall to come forward saying `I want to do something about these early elections; it is very bad that governments in Australia do not last long because we cannot govern effectively without having a longer term'. That comes from a man who led a government that was elected in March 1983 for a maximum of three years. There did not need to be an election until March, or even later, in 1986. But he dissolved that Parliament when it suited his purpose and had an election on 1 December 1984. So much for his concerns about having fewer elections! The Prime Minister did one better than that. He was re-elected in December 1984. The term of that Parliament would have run at a maximum until early 1988. The Prime Minister claimed to have some excuse for having an election in December 1984, but without any excuse whatever he called an election last year, in July 1987, only 2 1/2 years into his term. During the period of five years in which the Labor Party has been in office, there have been two elections. The Prime Minister is the man who is saying that it is bad that there are so many elections in Australia, yet he has been the one who has probably had more elections and shorter parliaments than most other Prime Ministers. Where is the real honesty of purpose in the Prime Minister's proposals? There is no honesty of purpose about this. By having a four-year term, the Prime Minister is playing on the real concern of a number of Australians that parliamentary terms should be longer and that there should be fewer elections. The Prime Minister's real purpose, however, in this proposal has nothing to do with four-year terms for the House of Representatives. His real purpose in this proposal is to implement the long-standing policy of the Labor Party to destroy the Senate. The Senate is not destroyed by seeking to abolish it; the Labor Party gave that away some time ago. The Senate is destroyed by the steady erosion of its status and powers. In particular, one makes it more accountable and more a creature of the Prime Minister's own power. The one thing that annoys Prime Ministers-and I am not speaking only of Bob Hawke; I am speaking of any Prime Minister-and the one thing that has been a bugbear for them is the fact that the Senate is not a creature of their will. Prime Ministers love-this is one of the great features of their power-to be able to dissolve a Parliament, the House of Representatives, whenever they want to for whatever political reasons they may have. That is the basis of prime ministerial power. However, the Senate has been created by our Constitution to be as free as possible from such power. It has been given a fixed term of six years. As a House of review, it continues in a normal dissolution. Half the Senate retires every three years, but senators have a term of six years. That can be changed only if there is a double dissolution and that must be the result of a deadlock between the two Houses. You, Mr Deputy President, have been alert to the abuse of the power of the double dissolution. Prime Ministers, relying on some unfortunate legal advice, have explored the recesses of the Constitution and have discovered that they can have double dissolutions manufactured. They can store up grounds for a double dissolution and can bring the Senate within their power in that way. The real answer to that is to amend the Constitution. The Opposition agrees with you, Mr Deputy President. In fact, you have introduced a Bill to this effect. The Opposition has agreed that there should be a change made to the Constitution to prevent this abuse of power by Prime Ministers to manufacture grounds for a double dissolution, to store them up and to use them when they like. The present Prime Minister does not want that; he wants even to relieve himself of the need for creating grounds for a double dissolution. This proposal is the way he proposes to do it. He wants to make the Senate term equal to the term of the House of Representatives so that he does not have to worry about double dissolutions or about what happens to the Senate; if he wants an early election in the House of Representatives, he will have the most enormous accession of power that any Prime Minister has had in Australia or indeed in any other country because checks and balances are built into constitutions of democratic countries to put a real brake on government by upper Houses. If the Senate is reduced to exactly the same term as the House of Representatives, it can be dissolved whenever the Prime Minister wants an election. The fundamental pillar of the Senate's strength is cut away and destroyed. That is what the proposal seeks to achieve and what Prime Ministers have dreamt about as long as we have had a Constitution. This will be achieved by fooling the people of Australia into believing this is a simple proposal to have fewer elections to extend the life of Parliament from three years to four years. However, the Government does not state clearly that this whole proposal is designed to destroy the power and position of the Senate. I shall now deal with the other proposal entitled `Rights and Freedoms'. This proposal amends the Constitution to deal with three matters that are already addressed, to some extent, in the Constitution. The Government is proposing that there should be a guarantee of trial by jury for any person liable for imprisonment for more than two years or any form of corporal punishment. The present guarantee of trial by jury in the Constitution applies only to the Commonwealth laws and is probably not very effective. The proposal will guarantee trial by jury against State laws as well as Commonwealth laws. The second proposal extends the present guarantee of the acquisition of property on just terms but again it is only in relation to Commonwealth laws to State laws. The third proposal extends the guarantee of freedom of religion from Commonwealth to State laws and, according to the Government, tidies up the guarantee and makes it more effective. I wish to speak only generally about these proposals because they amount to a mini-Bill of Rights in Australia. As I said, although some reference is made to them in the existing Constitution, they are not particularly effective and not seriously pursued by the founders of the Australian Constitution who did not believe in Bills of Rights. This is not the case with the American Constitution. The proposal of the Government introduces into the Australian Constitution a limited Bill of Rights along the lines of the American Constitution. I shall quote as an example the famous first amendment of the American Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the Press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. That is a wider, more effective and important proposal than anything the Government has included in this question. If one believes in entrenching a Bill of Rights in a constitution, this is at least an attempt to cover that ground. If one is to have a Bill of Rights, many other rights ought to be included; there ought to be a right of freedom of association and a right not to join a union. One should not be compelled to join a union as the Government of this country compels people to join unions by one form or another. Why does a Bill of Rights for Australia not include a true freedom of association guaranteed to people? Why is there not a guarantee of freedom of speech, freedom of the Press or freedom of assembly? The Government does not tell us why not. It says that it will guarantee the freedom of religion; that is already guaranteed in part by the present Constitution. The Government wants to apply that to the States. If the Government wants to apply a Bill of Rights in this way, why does it not introduce an effective Bill of Rights? Why introduce a limited one? The Government wants to guarantee just terms for the acquisition of property but why does it not guarantee the right of private property? It is cool comfort to say that just compensation will be paid if one's property is taken away from one but it would be anathema to a socialist government to guarantee freedom to private property. The same applies to freedom of association; a right not to join a trade union is anathema to a government dominated by trade unions. The Government is just not fair dinkum about this so-called Bill of Rights. It is the most limited, pusillanimous and useless piece of window-dressing of a Bill of Rights that I have ever seen or heard of. Why has it been introduced? Why is the Government proposing it? Simply because the whole exercise is one of window-dressing. If one turns one's mind to consider what might be the result of guaranteeing freedom of religion, the Bill says very much the same as the Constitution in relation to Commonwealth powers in that: The Commonwealth, a State or a Territory shall not establish any religion, impose any religious observance or prohibit the free exercise of any religion or no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth, State or Territory. An enormous range of questions will arise as to the effect of that. There has been plenty of experience of this in the United States of America. Anyone who is interested should read a very valuable article, of which there are many, on how this guarantee of freedom of religion has operated in the United States. I have not the time left to me tonight to elaborate on this but it has led to an enormous number of cases in the courts of the United States, especially the Supreme Court. Just what it amounts to does not bear much relationship to what might be written down, what we might be agreeing to and what the people might be asked to agree to at a referendum. What it amounts to is simply what the judges of the High Court of Australia might at any time say it amounts to. They will change their minds, the same as judges in the Supreme Court of the United States of America have changed their minds, about what the content of this legislation might be. We have just had a very good example of the High Court of Australia which, for the last 40 years, has interpreted a provision in our Constitution about freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse, which are said to be absolutely free. For 40 years it has had one interpretation, more or less, of that guarantee. Two weeks ago the High Court stood that on its head. I am not saying that that is right or wrong; all I am saying is that what these freedoms amount to is not what we in this Parliament say they are and not what the people think they are voting for. They are simply what, from time to time, the judges of the High Court of Australia say they are. There may be a majority of four to three. In the United States the decisions of the Supreme Court are a majority of about five judges to four, and they are changed quite frequently. That is what all these so-called guarantees amount to and, as I have said, this legislation is simply a mini-Bill of Rights. By doing this we are not relying on the democratic process. We are not leaving these decisions to the elected people in this Parliament or State parliaments. We are simply handing over these great powers to unelected judges who, on the records of both the United States and Australia, may change their minds every decade or so as to what they actually mean. But the real objection about these so-called Bills of Rights is that they are not Bills of Rights at all and they are another example of the fraud on the people. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(9.12) —In case some people have just tuned in to listen to the debate I would like to indicate that tonight we are debating five proposed laws-the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1988, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill 1988, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill 1988, the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill 1988 and one order of the day which is the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill 1987. So we are actually debating four proposed alterations to the Constitution-in other words, four proposed laws. Of course, we have to pass these laws through both Houses of Parliament, as with any other proposed law, but we have the added obligation to take them to the people before the Constitution is altered. I do not intend to speak at any length tonight. In fact, I will probably speak for a very short time, but that is not to be taken as an indication that I do not support the first four of these proposed laws that I mentioned just a moment ago. I support each one. It seems to me that these four will be passed through this Senate some time this week, or perhaps early next week, and they will eventually go to the people for their consideration. This being the case, a lot will probably be said by most of us between now and September when these four proposals will be decided upon by the people of Australia. I will certainly be speaking in great detail in respect of one of these proposals throughout the length and breadth of Queensland and I will mention that proposal in a moment. This evening, the two Bills which I wish to speak about briefly are the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill. I wish to make a few comments about fair elections. I have spoken in this chamber of the need for one vote one value electoral systems on a number of occasions. I suppose that each year for the past three or four years I have probably spoken at least twice. I do not believe, therefore, that it is necessary for me to canvass the issue here again as my point of view is well known. On one occasion I actually drafted a Bill to ensure the existence of one vote one value electoral systems throughout Australia. This Bill never came before the chamber. I certainly took it before my Party and my Party considered that it should be looked at carefully in relation to the possibility of bringing down a constitutional alteration to achieve the same end. I was pleased that I was able to bring this forward because it kept the matter of one vote one value on the political agenda in Queensland. It gave some people an opportunity to bring forward their own Bills as well. Those Bills did not reach this Parliament but they were there for the purposes of discussion. I have been surprised that the Opposition, especially members of the National Party of Australia, does not want the people to be given the opportunity to vote on this matter. I suppose that when it comes to some proposals which are to be put before the people by way of referendum we could be violently opposed to them and think that it is not proper that they go before the people. I cannot remember that ever happening with any of the proposals that have been put forward by governments of either side while I have been in this place, but I suppose that some people could be so violently opposed to them that they do not want the people to make a decision. I cannot see why the people should not be able to make a decision on the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill-a Bill which would ensure that various electorates throughout Australia have a somewhat similar number of voters in them. I should mention that the Liberals in Queensland will be campaigning for the fair elections Bill or, as we term it in Queensland, the one vote one value Bill. The Liberals in Queensland want to see an end to the malapportionment in Queensland. A lot has been said about malapportionment and the word gerrymander has been used, but I think it has probably been overused in this debate. Malapportionment is the main problem that we have with regard to electorates in Queensland. Of course, this is not only in Queensland; there are also malapportioned boundaries in other areas. But as a senator for Queensland I am particularly interested in seeing that the malapportionments in the electorates in Queensland are removed. I suppose that one way of doing this is to have them removed by the State parliaments. But one gets into a bit of a catch 22 situation here. If malapportionment favours a particular political party and that party gains power because of those electorates it is very difficult for an opposing political party to gain power and then be able to change those electorates. We believe that it is one of the fundamental rights of Australians to be able to have an electoral system where one's vote counts the same as anybody else's vote, wherever he may live. The Liberals in Queensland see that there is a disadvantage to them, as a party, because of the way that the electorates are drawn. The small electorates, in terms of the number of electors, generally favour the National Party and not the Liberals. The Liberals feel that, if there were a fair electoral system, they would have a better chance of becoming the government, or perhaps a better chance of becoming the major party in a coalition government. Despite all of the protestations from the National Party, a one vote one value system would make a difference in Queensland. National Party members know that, if they remained in government, under a system of one vote one value they would be the junior party in a coalition government. I suppose that is why they do not want a constitutional requirement that forces their electoral system to be fair. A number of arguments have been put forward-even before we came to this Bill; I remember that a couple of weeks ago Senator Stone mentioned the subject-for special provisions for people in rural areas. Those arguments do not wash. Parliamentary representatives represent people. If geography demands it, representatives should be given better facilities, electors should not be given more representation. I heard some arguments here today about the electorates of Maranoa and Kennedy. There was a suggestion that the National Party members for those two areas, Mr Katter and Mr Cameron, were not able to service their electorates properly because their electorates are so large. I do not believe that is the case. Mr Bob Katter probably does service his electorate well, even though it is large. Those two areas, or any areas like them, should not have extra members of parliament. Their members of parliament should be given the facilities they need to service their electorates well. We could do a number of things for large electorates. We could provide extra electorate offices and extra staff for bigger electorates. We could provide better telephone facilities with, perhaps, 008 numbers so that people anywhere in the electorate could contact their member of parliament. We could provide better travel facilities for the members. This is the sort of thing we should be thinking of. There should not be extra members of parliament for areas vast in size. Senator Maguire —The members for Barker and Kalgoorlie have bigger seats and they haven't been making these complaints, have they? Senator COLSTON —I honestly do not think that Mr Ian Cameron and Mr Bob Katter were making many complaints that they could not service their electorates. But Senator Maguire is quite right. There are much larger electorates in Australia and complaints have not come from their members. The point I am trying to make is that, if a member has a large electorate, we give that member the facilities to service that electorate. We do not give it an extra member of parliament. One of the other Bills we have before us is the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill. Australia has a well developed, three-tier system of government-Federal, State and local. I include the Northern Territory in the State tier of government. The federal system developed from the desire to have a unified Australian government with specified powers. Its basis is the Australian Constitution, part of which the Senate is debating this week. The Federal Parliament has its powers well defined, mainly in section 51 of the Constitution. The Federal Parliament commenced on 1 January 1901 and the first elections were held shortly afterwards. The Federation has now survived for 87 years and, given good will, it should continue. The preamble to the Constitution talks about an `indissoluble Federal Commonwealth'. It says: WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland; and Tasmania . . . have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth . . . We would like to see that continue. The States began as colonies. From about the 1850s onwards each State was given responsible government. The colonies' continuation was assured by the Constitution under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, which states: The ``States'' shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand- we sometimes forget that New Zealand was included- Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia . . . as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth . . . So the States are actually recognised in the Constitution. Naturally, from time to time tension arises between the federal body and its constituent parts, but by and large the Federation has served us well. In general, a good partnership exists. Too often it is the leaders of the various constituent parts who create tension. So they are the first two parts of our three-tier system of government-the Federal system and the State system. The States began as colonies. Because of that, the Constitution defined the powers of the Commonwealth and of the States. The third tier, local government, is the closest to the people. There have been several stages in the history of local government in Australia. In the early stages British colonial authorities tried to set up trusts or corporations to share the burden of providing local services. They were concerned about the amount of money that was being spend and wanted to recoup some of it. The next stage was when colonial parliaments legislated for local authorities to be formed, but such formation was not mandatory. The effective development of local authorities took place only after Federation. Because of that, it is not unusual or unexpected to find no mention of local government in the Constitution. At the time the Constitution was being written local government was only in a fledgling condition. It has increased in stature since. There are now 836 local authorities throughout Australia, which range considerably in size. The Brisbane City Council, for example, has the responsibility for local government services for a city of almost three-quarters of a million people. Others are much smaller, like the Western Australian shire of Upper Gascoyne, which has a total population of fewer than 300. I can think of no valid reason why local government should not be recognised in the Constitution. The Queensland Liberal senators opposing this Bill should give clear reasons to people such as the Lord Mayor of Brisbane why they are opposing it. The Lord Mayor of Brisbane, a member of the Liberal Party, certainly wants local government to have constitutional recognition. She will be campaigning for that in the forthcoming referendums. I would like the National Party senators to tell the Senate the reasons they will give to the many National Party controlled shires in Queensland country areas as to why they oppose the recognition of local government in the Constitution. We are all waiting for some valid reasons to be given. So are the aldermen, councillors, mayors and shire chairmen. Throughout Queensland and, I expect, in other States, they will be campaigning for constitutional recognition. They will know that they have been dumped so that the Opposition can put forward four No proposals. By putting forward four No proposals when they believe that some proposals deserve support, they are treating the electorate very poorly. They are suggesting that the electorate will not be able to understand the arguments for and against the proposals. Mr Acting Deputy President, I have probably gone on even longer than I anticipated. I wanted to be brief. The earlier we can get these proposals to the vote, the better. I suggest to the people of Australia-I suppose that I direct my suggestions to the people of Queensland, the people whom I represent, more than to the remainder of Australia-that they look at all the proposals carefully between now and the day on which we vote on them, perhaps in September this year. I suggest that we should see a Yes vote for all. I hope that the people of Australia weigh the pros and cons of these proposals and make up their own minds, irrespective of some of the misleading arguments that will probably be put forward within the next six months. Senator HILL(South Australia)(9.30) —The Senate is tonight debating a number of proposed changes to the Constitution-the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1988, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill 1988, the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill 1988 and the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill 1988. The fifth Bill is not a Government initiative but was introduced by Senator Macklin-the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill 1987. I suggest that we all have different views on the state of the current Constitution. I think that the time is approaching for a major restructuring of our Constitution. The present Constitution, like all political documents, is a compromise-a compromise, I remind honourable senators, that was necessary to bring six separate sovereign colonies together into one nation. Thus it was all about what powers those separate political entities were prepared to give away to gain certain perceived advantages in nationhood-of course, the major advantage that was sought related to defence-and also what powers they were prepared, not to give away totally, but to share concurrently, what they wished to retain exclusively, and what securities they needed to enter such a compact. The fact that the nation grew out of the States colours the Australian Constitution from beginning to end. The protection for the States lay, I would suggest, in these methods of protection: firstly, in the limited powers that were given up to the Commonwealth; secondly, by the fact that the Constitution was to be so difficult to alter that it would require not only a majority of Australians but a majority of Australians in a majority of States; and thirdly, the security of a Senate with extraordinary powers based on equality of each State rather than equality of power to each Australian voter. How the Commonwealth would function vis-a-vis the States and vice versa was the preoccupation of the founding fathers, as reflected in that document. When we talk about the Australian Constitution we are talking about a bargain reached almost a century ago. In its objective of limiting the power of the new Commonwealth it has to some extent worked. It succeeded in limiting such power. However, as time has gone by I think more and more have looked at the Commonwealth not simply as something that has arisen out of the separate colonies but as a national perspective in itself. As years have gone by attempts have been made of an extra constitutional nature to turn that national perspective into a reality. Thus fictions have developed to extend the powers of the Constitution. A classic example is in relation to industrial relations where fictions had to develop to extend the power of the Commonwealth beyond that technically included, which is limited to interstate disputes. We have seen the Commonwealth come to use the power of the purse-its monetary powers-to require States to meet national economic objectives. It uses the power of controlling the majority of taxation in this country to guide the States in certain economic directions rather than rely upon constitutional powers that are included in the document we are debating tonight. Judges have largely been prepared to interpret the Constitution according to what they perceive to be contemporary standards and values. Thus we have experienced the most dramatic case of the Commonwealth using the external affairs power and, in particular, treaties that have been entered into under that power to allow the Commonwealth to regulate matters concerning the environment. Similarly, we had the example of Fraser Island. The Commonwealth was able to use the trade and commerce power to stop sand mining on Fraser Island-again to influence a matter concerning the environment. This is somewhat beyond a reasonable interpretation of the terms in which the Constitution was entered into almost a century ago. I suggest that this willingness of the High Court of Australia to interpret the Constitution according to contemporary standards and values has removed what might have been considerably more stress upon the document during the intervening period. That is not said in an attempt to evaluate the wisdom of either of those two examples, but I think it happens to be a fact. We should not, however, continually rely upon fictions, financial influence or passing the buck to the judges. There should be more cases in which we can turn to the Constitution to provide the correct answers in contemporary Australia. In my view there should be reflected in the new Constitution the relationship and form of government that can best take Australia into the next century. The founding fathers devised a formula of compromise that could bring the colonies together into a nation. That has lasted us for almost a century. We should now be vigorously debating the relationship that can best serve Australia's interests during the next century. It has been practically impossible to update the Constitution on a bit-by-bit basis. Too often changes have been motivated by political perceptions of the party in government. I suppose that that is not really surprising, but it has meant that too often they have been open to attack on that basis and the special majority that is required to pass the referendum simply has not been achieved. Rarely, on a similar basis, have we found that the constitutional conventions-and there have been six conventions between 1973 and 1987-have been able to reach a consensus that would sufficiently motivate change. That might not be solely the fault of those politicians-Federal, State and, in the later stages, local government-who debated at those conventions. There is an argument that they were not allowed sufficient resources and were not given sufficient priorities. At the two conventions that I attended, in Adelaide and Brisbane-although regrettably not as a delegate but because of an interest in the subject-I saw those conventions dominated by party-political, set piece speeches. I believe that debates in the preceding conventions went much the same way. Therefore, in light of what I think has been a failure of that process to lead to constructive reform, I do not condemn the Government for looking for an alternative method of bringing the subject matter to debate, another formula that would allow an increase in public awareness of the issues involved and a further opportunity for public consultation. The mechanism that was chosen by this Government to allow that community debate was the Constitutional Commission and a series of advisory committees on the Australian judicial system, distribution of powers, executive government, individual and democratic rights under the Constitution, trade and national economic management. In other words, the responsibility for raising the issues for public consideration and putting certain views was passed to a committee of experts rather than to the traditional conventions of politicians. As I said, I do not condemn it for doing so. It has cost a great deal of money-I think about $6m. Nevertheless, this subject is critical to the future of this country. If it had worked and if it had been accepted, it could have been a worthwhile exercise. I read the advisory committee reports. I have read the first report of the Commission. It is my assessment that the men and women who have contributed to these reports have made a significant contribution to the debate. I commend them for their work. I object to the way in which this Government has debased their work. This Government was not even prepared to wait for the second of its own Commission's reports. It determined a set of referendums that were to be put to the people and announced them only four days after the first report was put down. In other words, this Government decided what it wanted to do without any consideration of what the Commission would say. Those who contributed to that work must feel disappointed. They now realise that they have been simply used as tools by this Government in its political agenda. That they have been so cynically treated I think is a great disappointment. Having set up the structure and having expended very large sums of taxpayers money, the Government should have awaited the final reports and should have looked at ways of then letting there be a continuing public debate and at ways of arousing public debate. It could have referred some of the suggestions back to this Parliament in the same way that there was a Joint Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reform in 1959. It could have used these reports as a basis for further consideration within this Parliament and then hopefully the development of a public perception as we move towards the next century. Perhaps out of that could have developed the possibility of a new Constitution to deal, as I said earlier, with contemporary Australia and contemporary problems. But this Government has undermined the work of these people by its impatience, as is shown in the first of these amendments, and its continued bitterness at and preoccupation with the events of 1975. Obviously it has attempted to lock into the spirit of goodwill which has been engendered by the bicentennial celebrations but it has jumped the gun and largely destroyed what in my view could have been a really worthwhile exercise. The first of these proposals, which is designed to extend the term of the House of Representatives to a maximum of four years, is not so much that but an attempt by the Government to bring the Senate under the direct control of the Prime Minister; in other words, under the control of the government of the day. As I indicated, it refers back to this preoccupation that Labor has had since 1975. The other issues simply follow from that. The camouflage for an attempt by the Prime Minister to control the Senate in this instance is the opportunity for Australians to vote for a four-year term. I and my Party would be supporting a four-year term for the House of Representatives if it were not locked in with an attempt to control the Senate in this way to reduce the independence of the Senate. When we look at the events which are occurring elsewhere in the world we recognise that there are very few parliaments which have terms in the House of the people of three years or less: in fact, if we look at the report of the Government's own Commission it reminds us that there are only 12 such parliaments out of a total of 143 which are listed with the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Geneva. We find that all State legislatures in Australia except Queensland have changed to a four-year system. We would have been prepared to accept four-year terms per se for the lower House. I know I am on the record in this chamber as supporting fixed terms-a view not necessarily popular on my side-but I think we can now say the experiment in South Australia and Victoria for a maximum four-year term with the first three years fixed seems to be working satisfactorily. These are the sorts of sensible points which this Government could have raised for consideration if it had not been preoccupied with the destruction of the Senate. If the Senate simply became an imitation of the House of Representatives, it would soon founder. It is my very genuine belief, not only because I am here, that the nation would be the loser in such circumstances. I accept that party politics soon destroyed the founding fathers' notion of the Senate purely as a States House, particularly with the conform or perish discipline of the Australian Labor Party. But the role that this Senate has developed-pressing government accountability both in the financial field and in legislation through the Estimates and standing committee systems-I believe has given it an inestimable value to this nation. There are other answers to the problems of 1975. There are other ways perhaps to increase accountability-not satisfactory to this Government, I know. One way that I have accepted in constitutional debates before in this place is a reform that would require the Senate, in the event of blocking Supply, also to be obliged to go to the people; in other words, to have to account to the people for its action and not simply have the power, according to the timing, to be able to send the House to the people and not suffer their judgment as well. If this Government had put that constructive proposal to us today it might well have found support, but it chose not to. I regret to say that the balance of the proposals before us are simply there not to portray any great vision or to show leadership but purely for cynical political objectives. The second proposal, the notion of one vote one value, clearly has been designed in an attempt to split the coalition, particularly in relation to the Queensland situation. The objective of achieving a split does not relate to the second referendum: the Government thinks that if it can split the Opposition on that issue it has more chance of being successful on the first proposal, which relates to the destruction of the Senate. As a Liberal I of course support the principle of one vote one value. All Liberals support that. I am pleased that we are down to a reasonable tolerance in this chamber and in the lower House in my home State of South Australia. I hope that one day Queensland will be in the same position. But matters do not simply end at that stage of one vote one value. Even in this Bill a tolerance of 20 per cent is allowed. As we all know, even if there is not any tolerance at all, the location of the boundaries can determine which party will win the majority of seats, as we find in the lower House of South Australia. So, on the face of it, there may be no gerrymander. The Liberal Party, my Party, in South Australia has to achieve considerably more than 50 per cent of the vote-there is some argument about how much more-to be able to win, as I have argued, simply because of where the boundaries have been placed. So it is not as simple as the Government makes out. The hypocrisy is quite incredible. The Labor Party could simply reflect on how it preselects its candidates in South Australia, how it operates the card vote system, when approximately 250 delegates turn up-Senator Maguire will be able to confirm this-and are able to cast 160,000 votes because each union delegate comes in with an almighty wad of union member votes. The union members are not asked which way they wish to vote. They are simply recorded as voting according to the determination of the union. If that could be described in this place as one vote one value, or fair elections, I would be very surprised. I doubt that even Senator Maguire would say that that is democracy. So the Labor Party puts this matter forward in its hypocritical way. One can have little faith in its motives. Senator Tambling —Are they putting up one vote one value on the new Aboriginal councils? Senator HILL —I would not think so. Let me continue with this sad tale, before I run out of time. The third of the referendum proposals is the local government one, an amendment that can be described only as shallow, with shallow rhetoric. Shallow rhetoric is not the function of the Constitution. What is local government going to get from this amendment that it does not presently have? The answer, of course, is nothing. Local government was created out of the States; it exists out of the States and constitutionally is recognised in four of the States. What does it get from this referendum? It in fact gets nothing. Probably the time has come for a serious debate on where local government should fit into the total constitutional structure of Australia. Should it simply continue to be the child of the States? Perhaps the time has come for us to seriously look at a three-tiered system of government-but it will not get if from this amendment. It will still be accountable to and able to be dismissed by the States. That is not what local government was really seeking. This amendment, as I said, is purely one of shallow rhetoric attempting to dress up particularly the first of the amendments put before us. Senator Tambling —That excludes the Territories. Senator HILL —Yes, it does. The last of the Government's proposals before us relates to three basic freedoms. I can only repeat the criticism that was made in the speech before last by my colleague, Senator Durack. If this Government were serious about listing specified freedoms how did it happen to pick these three? Why did it not pick others such as freedom of association, the one Senator Durack mentioned? I remind this Government that it ought to look at the first report of the Commission it set up. What did it recommend? It recommended that if the Government is to start listing rights, it should list the freedom of association. But this Government would not list that because it would put in jeopardy compulsory unionism. The Government was not going to go down the path where it could be argued that the provision could be interpreted as allowing, providing, securing voluntary unionism. If I might be excused for being somewhat cynical, one need only briefly reflect on that to realise that the motives of this Government are purely political and not designed to provide a better constitutional framework for use into the next century. I say that as someone who thinks that perhaps the time is coming when either a package of basic freedoms should be incorporated-but it would need to be a fair package-or, as the Commission considered, guarantees within the Constitution of democratic processes. They are principally the reasons why I do not believe that these referendum proposals deserve support. In the last few minutes I want to look at a few of the areas that this Government would have brought to the people for consideration through any of the various methods available that need now seriously to be addressed in proper constitutional reform. Most of them have been raised in advisory committee reports and in the Constitutional Commission's first report. But, of course, they are not being put to the people. The first relates to this question of whether there should be constitutional limitations on excesses of power by governments. As I said, I have some sympathy with that position. I give an example of why I think there is a growing undermining of traditional freedoms. Let us look at the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, something we would accept as a basic freedom and security. There is no doubt that there is a growing tendency towards the reverse onus of proof, and other mechanisms that the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has brought to our attention. These things are undermining that basic presumption of innocence. Perhaps we should have stricture placed upon us so that we do not find it so easy for administrative reasons, however sound they might seem to be at the time, to act to the contrary. Perhaps there should also be a provision preventing the Commonwealth or States from compelling self-incrimination. It is so tempting, particularly if we are looking at the scourge of organised crime, to depart from traditional safeguards and, on a balance of evil, determine that the self-incrimination rule be waived. It has happened to some extent in relation to the National Crime Authority. Certainly one cannot directly incriminate oneself but one can be obliged to answer questions that indirectly will produce the evidence to incriminate one. Thirdly, a prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure might well now be worthy of consideration. The more one considers the evidence being put before the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, the more one is forced to concentrate one's mind on this issue. Constitutional safeguards would, as I indicated, be a formal restraint that perhaps we should now be considering. Time is running away but I wanted to mention a couple more possible areas of reform. Opinions may differ, but I would like to see the Commonwealth have a concurrent power with the States over industrial relations and employment matters generally. I remind the chamber that that was recommended by the advisory committee. It would get rid of all the fictions, settle unclear questions of how far the Commonwealth's power goes and allow the Commonwealth to face up to the matters of wages and conditions of work, questions critical to national economic management. Another area is that of treaties. I have spoken of the divisive conclusions in relation to Commonwealth power over treaties that we have seen in the courts in recent years. If we believe that the Constitution should include a power to implement treaties, we should say so. There are other methods of doing that, such as using a treaties council as recommended by the advisory committee. We could be using this exercise to look forward and put into place, as I said, structures for the next century. One area is in relation to the nuclear industry, which was also raised by this Commission's inquiry. Perhaps we should now be putting into place a power for the Commonwealth to regulate the nuclear industry of the future. That clearly should be a national responsibility. It was not thought of by the founding fathers nearly a century ago but we should be thinking about it now. In corporate law, the powers of the Commonwealth are arguable. This Senate, through one of its committees, has received an opinion from a leading silk that the Commonwealth could legislate for a national companies scheme, but it remains arguable. I am not going to enter into argument at the moment on the merits of such legislation, but the thought of the Commonwealth doing that, with everything that is involved, then having it founder before the courts, is crazy. Therefore, I would have thought there to be a good argument for the Commonwealth to be given specific powers, concurrent with the States, to make laws about all aspects of corporate activity and the securities industry. Similarly, the Commonwealth could cover all areas of trade practices questions, not only those that relate to corporations. Perhaps it is more arguable whether the Commonwealth should have power in relation to standard, uniform consumer protection laws. One can keep going on-but I have not time today-with other examples such as excise taxes. Should the States have power over excises? Is it time to again constitutionally restructure the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States? Should we look at the judicial system that has built up? Should it now become an integrated system? These are important debates that we ought to be considering in this chamber tonight. One could go on. The power to protect the environment and human rights should be debated. These are just a few examples that I wanted to sketch tonight as to what this Government could have been constructively doing in this debate. I regret that it has not been prepared to do so. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BEAHAN(Western Australia)(10.00) —At the outset of Senator Hill's speech I welcomed what I thought was going to be some sense and analysis in what hitherto has been a pretty messy and distorted debate. I thought from this urbane and sophisticated South Australian we might hear something a little better. Certainly he started out that way-in his recognition of the failure of the constitutional conventions to achieve anything, and his acceptance of the work of the Constitutional Commission, its establishment and the quality of the work that it has produced, although his criticism of the timing of the referendum proposals rang a little hollow. Does he seriously contend that had we changed the timing of those referendum proposals the Opposition would have rushed to support the Government? I think not, because he went on to suggest that unless the Opposition's conditions were met, it would not have supported the Government in any case. It is common knowledge that campaign committees had been established around the country well and truly before we had even introduced the referendum proposals. So that lends the lie to that. I was disappointed that what I thought was going to be a serious attempt at analysis quickly degenerated into the normal loose and sloppy argument which has characterised the Opposition's contribution to this debate since the beginning. Seldom have I heard such excessive, distorted nonsense about what is a moderate and sensible set of proposals, not only from Senator Hill, but from all those on the Opposition benches who have spoken in this debate. It says more about the sorry state of the Opposition than the substance of the arguments that it is purporting to present. It seems to be a desperate-- Senator Tambling —We are waiting for your substance. Senator BEAHAN —Honourable senators will hear it in due course. It seems to be a desperate attempt to hold together what is clearly a shaky Opposition coalition. Members of the Opposition are prepared to discard principle for what they see as short-term political gain. I will quote from an excellent article in the Weekend Australian of 14-15 May by Paul Kelly: The sad state of the Liberal and National parties will be paraded for the next four months in the sham campaign they will run against the Hawke Government's referendum package to be put to the voters in September. The fact is that the four referendum proposals are modest and in any other circumstances and with any other Opposition they would be unexceptional. The article continues: The Hawke Government's referendums are modest, simple and lack ulterior motives. This is no Labor Party political fix. Labor may even lose in the Senate in the short term if the main question is passed. The proposals are a bid to secure moderate constitutional reform around a set of propositions that should have wide support. Contrary to the claims of members of the Opposition none of the four referenda Bills delivers any more power to government. They do not concern the power of politicians or political parties; the concern guarantees for the rights of people. I want to focus on two of the Bills-the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill. Both are portrayed by the Opposition as some sort of heinous accretion of power by the Federal Government. I will take the second Bill first. The Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill was designed to put into practice a principle for which there has in the past been bipartisan support. That is the principle of one vote one value, a principle that one person's vote should not be more powerful than another's. It is a principle which is supported by the constitutional conventions referred to by Senator Hill, by the Constitutional Commission, also referred to by him, and by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters which delivered its report One Vote, One Value only last week. Senator Tambling —Why do you not apply it to the Aborigines? Senator BEAHAN —We are talking here about the Federal Constitution. I thought Senator Tambling realised that. It applies to the House of Representatives and it applies with bipartisan support to this House. It applies in the States of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia where variations from the average quota of 10 per cent are the case and it applies in the Northern Territory where a variation of 20 per cent still gets close to the concept of one vote one value. Yet in Western Australia, in Queensland and in the upper House in Tasmania, the situation is far removed from this principle. Since I come from Western Australia, let us have a look at the situation in that State. Despite reforms in 1987 which led to marginal improvements in the situation there, it still remains the case that the smallest electorate in Western Australia has an enrolment of 9,046 electors and the largest an enrolment of 21,937. By what stretch of the imagination can this be called fair or democratic? By what distortion of logic does one ever call that fair and democratic? A voter in one electorate has less than half the voting strength of a voter in the other. In the Legislative Council in that same State the situation is even worse. The smallest electorate has an enrolment of 11,989; the largest an enrolment of 39,786. A voter in the smaller electorate has over three times more voting power than a voter in the larger electorate. Both Mr Howard in the other House and Senator Chaney have made much of the point that the then Premier, Brian Burke, in 1985 asked the Federal Government to leave electoral reform to the State. They interpret that as being an argument for States rights. He did initially, but Senator Chaney and Mr Howard both conveniently failed to mention Mr Burke's change of view following successive attempts at electoral reform. I will quote from page 47 of the report, One Vote, One Value, tabled last week by the Joint Committee on Electoral Matters. Mr Burke makes these comments with regard to the new system: It does not bring me any pleasure to note that the general picture of enrolment imbalances in Western Australia's system remains the worst in Australia. That we are happy to call it reform might give some measure of the injustice inherent in the previous system. He concluded: Now that an improved structure has been adopted it is clear that the case for reform is different. The next step is to remove from the system the unacceptable malapportionment which remains. It is not easy, however, to see how further reforms may occur in the near future . . . It has been demonstrated that the present Western Australian Parliament is prepared to go no further towards the removal of malapportionment and that unless another major party accepts the fairness of equal enrolments per member, future Parliaments may also make little progress. In these circumstances, the Western Australian Government thanks the Commonwealth Government for the additional time in which every effort has been made at the State level to, `put our Houses in order'. Clearly from that Mr Burke had attempted on several occasions to achieve some form of reasonable electoral reform in Western Australia. He had got some moderate reform last year, but concluded that that could not be called reform and washed his hands of the Western Australian system and handed it over to us. Mr Howard and Senator Chaney are quite wrong and quite selective in their quotations. Senator Boswell —He did not appeal to the Federal Government to come in and help. Senator BEAHAN —He has made it quite clear what he means. If Senator Boswell cannot read that, I am not surprised. If Senator Boswell cannot see what Mr Burke is saying in that statement, then while I am not surprised, I suggest he read it again. There is no doubt that neither the Liberal Party of Australia nor the National Party of Australia in Western Australia has any intention of permitting any further reform. As they have, by the malapportionment that I have already referred to and by other democratic means over the years, controlled the Legislative Council since its establishment-in other words, the Australian Labor Party has never had control and is never likely to have control even under the reformed situation that currently exists-there is absolutely no likelihood of reform. A similar position pertains in Queensland where only 39 per cent of electors gave the National Party government in its own right. How do those opposite claim that that is fair and democratic? How can the Opposition parties justify this gross denial of democracy? Senator Boswell —Do you think a party which got 41 per cent of the vote should govern? That is what the Labor Party got last time. Senator BEAHAN —Did I say anything about the Labor Party gaining government the last time? What I said was that the National Party gained government in its own right with a vote of 39 per cent. Senator Boswell —But it got Liberal preferences. Senator BEAHAN —If that is democracy, then I will go he. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —Order! Senator Boswell, I ask you to refrain from interjecting and I ask Senator Beahan to address the Chair. Senator BEAHAN —It is not a question of States rights; it is a question of individual rights. Both the Constitutional Commission and the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters regarded the latter as more important and believe that the people should have a right to choose. That is what this referendum proposal is all about. Senator Chaney also makes much of the fact that the principle of one vote one value does not apply to the Senate. He therefore implies that it should not apply anywhere else. Whilst this is true, it needs to be remembered-and I indicated this in my address to this House last week-that this was an historical compromise. The Senate was set up as a States House and a number of compromises were made in order to gain acceptance by the States, or by the provinces before they became States, of the idea of Federation. So those compromises were part of that, but it was also clearly in the Constitution a States House. No such historical or constitutional justifications for malapportionment exist anywhere else in Australia. I turn now to the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) proposal. As with the one vote one value proposal, this one also has strong public support. It has the support of the business community and it had the support of the Liberal Party until some of its members, not all of them, saw some cynical advantage in opposing it at this time. I say `some of them' because there is a whole group of people who are making statements to the Press and who are making it quite clear around the lobbies here that they are a bit ashamed and embarrassed by what is happening. The advantages of four-year terms have been canvassed by other speakers, and also very eloquently by the Business Council of Australia. To summarise these advantages, they include, firstly, a reduction in the frequency of elections. I remind honourable senators that there have been 22 Federal elections since 1945. That makes an average term for each government of less than 2 1/2 years in that time. The second advantage that is referred to is the greater stability of government, which was addressed by a number of speakers and by Senator McMullan when I was in here earlier on. The comments made by economists in regard to that question of stability are I think a major argument in its favour. The third is the capacity for longer term planning, also referred to by economists, but referred to particularly by the Business Council of Australia, to which I would have thought the Opposition would have listened a little more carefully. Its analysis states: It can hardly be said that we have responsible government when important, even necessary, decisions are postponed because the Government has to consider their effects on forthcoming Federal and State elections . . . Governments have a dilemma in holding their economic nerve during a relatively short electoral cycle. The false and dangerous notion that what is good economics is not necessarily good politics is one directly related to the shortness of the Australian electoral cycle. As I have said, I am disappointed that the strong supporters of the Business Council of Australia that I know exist on the other side of this chamber have not listened more carefully to it. The fourth advantage is the reduction in costs. The 1987 double dissolution cost $47m. A half Senate election costs between $35m and $40m. So there is a cost saving in the reduction in elections. The fifth advantage is consistency with State and overseas patterns when it comes to terms of parliament. Again, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania all have four-year terms. Queensland remains as the one State standing out along with the Commonwealth as having three-year terms. Most overseas countries have four-year terms, and many have five-year terms. In fact quite a substantial number have five-year terms. Very few, in fact only two, I think Mexico and Sweden, have three-year terms. The Opposition's confused position in relation to eight-year terms is, I believe, a sham. It knows that a proposal for eight-year terms, either fixed or double the term of the House of Representatives-it has never made it clear which one it means-would be rejected by the people. Senator Ray drew attention to a long list of Opposition spokesmen who were on record as opposing an eight-year term for senators as simply too long. This is not an exhaustive list. I have not gone further but I understand there are many more people. Without reciting those people, let me go through the list once again. It includes Mr Sinclair, Senator Durack, Senator Chaney, Mr Spender, Mr Newman, Mr Anthony, Mr Hodgman, Mr Burr, Senator Lewis, Senator Withers and Senator Archer. It is quite interesting to see Senator Puplick in here because he is not on the speakers list, despite an espoused interest in this area on many previous occasions. I am wondering why that is the case. (Quorum formed) As that rather childish quorum was called in order to take the point that I was asking for more speakers from the Opposition, let me make it clear that I was simply calling attention to the selection of the Opposition's speakers. I will cut my speech short. There is nothing sacrosanct or immutable about the Constitution. As Thomas Jefferson said: ``Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the Ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment . . . We might as well require a man to wear the coat that fitted him as a boy, as civilised society to remain ever under the regime of their ancestors.'' The Opposition parties are positioning themselves, I believe, as constitutional troglodytes, milling around in bemused disarray while the world passes them by. Difficult as it is, I believe the people of Australia will see through the narrow self interest of the Opposition's arguments and carry these and the other two referenda proposals, to which I have not referred, to the continual shame and humiliation of the Opposition. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I do not know whether I am pleased or sorry that I heard only a part of Senator Beahan's speech. On balance, I think I am pleased, but the bit I heard contained a misrepresentation of the arguments I put to this place and, therefore, I wish to make a personal explanation. Senator Beahan, as I heard him when I was listening to the debate from my office, made a comment to the effect that I had said that no regard should be had for the principle of one vote one value. That is a gross misrepresentation of what I said in debate on the constitutional amendments yesterday. I said that it is an important principle in determining electoral redistribution, but that it is not an immutable, solo or single principle. It is one of the principles to which regard should be had. I made the point that when one looked at the composition of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, one found quite dramatic disparities between the weight and the number of votes that were available in the different electorates. I pointed out that in the House of Representatives, for example, the guaranteed representation of five seats for Tasmania-a guarantee which I and, so far as I know, all Opposition senators and I suspect all Government senators would also support-results in that State having a quota base below the magic figure of 10 per cent, which is specified in the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill and that, therefore, the principle of a tolerance of no greater than 10 per cent is not being imposed on the House of Representatives. In exactly the same way in the Senate, of course, there is a far more sharp discrepancy with some States being as much as 65 per cent above the average number of electors per senator as against other States which are 81 per cent below the average. That is an extraordinarily different situation. The point I was making is that in the judgment of both our historic forebears and of present members of Parliament and, indeed, of the Australian community, that sort of imbalance is not seen as something which requires correction by means of this constitutional amendment. The situation is, therefore, that this Government is choosing to impose a rule, which is the point I made, of one vote one value on the States which it is not prepared to apply to the Federal Parliament. That is the point I made, and I drew the parallel with Western Australia, which Senator Beahan is also supposed to represent. I made the point that if one had any comprehension of the geography and population of that State, to deny the right of the State of Western Australia to have any degree of regional representation in the upper House is absolutely pathetic and absurd. If one looks at the discrepancy between the Kimberley and the South West Land Division, and the South West Land Division and the metropolitan area, to argue that one can have nothing akin to a regional representation of the sort that Australia has for the whole of its nation is, in my view, not a tenable proposition. That is the point I made, which is not the point Senator Beahan chose to ascribe to me-- Senator Beahan —It is much worse. Senator CHANEY —In some future contribution, I would like Senator Beahan to make the point for the edification of the Senate whether he believes the Senate should be changed, whether one vote one value should be applied to the Senate, and whether he believes the representation of Tasmania should be reduced so that there is one vote one value in the House of Representatives, or whether he-- Senator Gareth Evans —You have just about exhausted a personal explanation. Senator CHANEY —I think Senator Evans is right but, on the other hand, Senator Beahan chose to debate my personal explanation and I was easily misled by the disorderly conduct of Senator Beahan. Senator Gareth Evans —Interjections are disorderly. Senator CHANEY —I am glad Senator Evans has reminded Senator Beahan that interjections are disorderly. Since Senator Evans is now engaged in disorderly conduct, I should bring the personal explanation to a close to avoid giving him further temptation. Debate (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bills may proceed without formalities, may be considered together and be now read a first time. Bills read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.26) —I move: That the Bills 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- These three Bills form a legislative package, amending Australia's anti-dumping legislation, by: establishing an Anti-Dumping Authority, to advise the Minister as to whether dumping or countervailing duties should be imposed on specified products exported from overseas and to review and make reports to the Government on anti-dumping matters; amending the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975, so as to restrict the life of dumping notices and undertakings made under the Act to a maximum of three years, and to clarify various technical provisions of the Act; amending the Customs Act 1901 by prescribing the manner in which the Australian Customs Service is to conduct the preliminary investigation of dumping complaints; and amending the IAC Act 1973 to remove that body as a body of review of dumping matters; that function will now be performed by the Anti-Dumping Authority. The Bill implements the Government's response to the 1986 Review of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 (the Gruen Report), prepared by Professor F. H. Gruen. Dumping occurs when the products of one country are exported to another country at less than their normal value in the country of export. Normal value is usually the price of like goods sold in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the country of export. Dumping is condemned internationally as unfair trading if it causes, or threatens, material injury to the industry producing like goods in the importing country. The remedy against dumping is the imposition of dumping duties which can be up to the difference between the export price and the normal value. Australia's anti-dumping system also deals with subsidisation. Where any subsidy, bounty, reduction or remission of freight or other financial assistance applies to the production, export or carriage of goods exported to Australia and those goods cause or threaten material injury to an Australian industry, countervailing duties, up to the amount of subsidy or other assistance received, may be levied. Effective anti-dumping and countervailing arrangements are necessary to protect Australian industry from clearly unfair trading practices. This is in accordance with Australia's rights and obligations as a signatory to the GATT anti-dumping code and the code on subsidies and countervailing duties. Other signatories to the codes such as Canada, the EEC and the United States employ similar practices. Consistent with the GATT codes, however, anti-dumping actions need to be balanced between providing a means for effective relief from the disruptive effects that dumped or subsidised goods may have on domestic producers and ensuring that the measures do not constitute an unjustifiable impediment to international trade. Upon this Government coming to office in 1983, a wide-ranging review was conducted, culminating early in 1984 in a number of significant legislative and administrative changes to the anti-dumping regime. Then in February 1986 the Government commissioned Professor F. H. Gruen of the Australian National University to conduct another review of the anti-dumping system to determine whether further improvements could be made and in particular to consider the inclusion of a national interest provision. After considering Professor Gruen's report, the Government has decided to: Establish an Anti-Dumping Authority to make recommendations to the Minister on anti-dumping or countervailing action; endorse Professor Gruen's view that there should be no `national interest' provision written into the legislation; retain section 5 (9) of the Anti-Dumping Act dealing with certain criteria for the determination of normal values; and introduce a mechanism under which anti-dumping and countervailing measures will cease after three years continuous application. The Australian Customs Service still has an important role to play in the determination of dumping and subsidisation complaints. The Australian customs service will examine each complaint made, and conduct preliminary investigations, the results of which will form the basis of information from which the Anti-Dumping Authority commences its own inquiry. I turn now to each Bill individually. ANTI-DUMPING AUTHORITY BILL 1988 This Bill establishes an independent authority, which will recommend to the Minister whether grounds exist as to whether dumping or countervailing duties should be imposed, and to provide the Minister with advice on anti-dumping issues in general. Anti-dumping decisions require judgments to be made involving a mix of economic and commercial considerations. The Government considers that these judgments can best be made by a small independent statutory authority whose staff will include commercial and economic specialists. The Government believes that the Authority will bring a broader perspective to the determination of such issues as material injury and causal link. The sensitivity of dumping complaints also requires a body operating at arm's length from the day to day administration of industry assistance by the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and the Australian Customs Service. Accordingly, an Anti-Dumping Authority is established. The Authority is to: advise the Minister as to whether or not dumping or countervailing duties should be imposed on goods (clause 7) recommend whether the Minister should revoke a notice issued under the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975, or release exporters from undertakings made pursuant to the Act (clause 7); review preliminary anti-dumping decisions of the comptroller (clause 8); and prepare and give reports to the Minister on anti-dumping matters (clause 9). In exercising these responsibilities, clause 10 requires the Authority to have regard to the Government's intention that anti-dumping duties are not used as a substitute means of providing assistance to import competing industry in Australia, nor to shield industry from the need to adjust to changing economic conditions. The Authority is also to have regard to Australia's obligations under the GATT codes. The Bill also provides for the responsible Minister to issue further directions to the Authority to assist it in its interpretation of the legislation where considered necessary. The aim is to ensure that the Authority is guided by the current industry policy objectives of the Government in its assessment of such issues. Any supplementary guidance will be developed by the responsible Minister in consultation with interested ministerial colleagues. Clause 12 provides that ministerial directions are to be gazetted and tabled in Parliament, and that such directions are to deal with general principles, and not with particular consignments of goods. Assessments of material injury and the causal link must be rigorous and anti-dumping measures should not be used as a de facto form of protection: it has to be seen as a set of measures to discourage unacceptable short term threats to knock out an industry in the importing country in order to increase longer term market share. The Authority will take into account the influence of factors other than dumping in causing injury, such as general economic conditions, production difficulties, domestic competition or undumped import competition when assessing whether a direct linkage exists between dumping and injury to an Australian industry. In this task, the Authority will have the benefit of additional comprehensive data since the preliminary finding stage, as well as the independent examination of all the evidence by its own staff which will have specialist qualifications, particularly in the economic field. The Government did not accept Professor Gruen's recommendation that section 5 (9) of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act be repealed. Section 5 (9) of the Act precludes `normal' values being based on domestic sales which have been, for an extended period, at prices which do not permit recovery of costs incurred in the production and sale of the goods; in other words, where domestic sales in the exporting country are being consistently made at a loss. The Government considers that the repeal of this section would put Australia out of step with other countries that use GATT anti-dumping mechanisms to counter unfair trading practices. Canada, the EEC and the United States all have and use sections equivalent to section 5 (9) in their legislation. The Government proposes, however, that aspects of the use of section 5 (9) will be tightened to ensure that wherever possible market based prices are used in normal value determinations and that the application of section 5 (9) is consistent with the rationale behind the new anti-dumping provisions. The Government expects that the Authority, when using section 5 (9), will use an appropriately wide time frame over which to weigh the prices and costs which are to be taken into account. In addition when using section 5 (9), unless there are strong reasons to the contrary, a zero profit is to be assumed by the Authority. Consistent with its intention that anti-dumping and countervailing measures do not become a substitute form of ongoing assistance, the Government has also decided that anti-dumping and countervailing measures will lapse after three years. This means that all measures in respect of a particular commodity will expire at the same three year time limit, irrespective of the duration of measures relating to individual countries of export. The sunset provision will also apply to voluntary undertakings which have been given by exporters or governments of the exporting countries so as to resolve satisfactorily dumping or countervailing complaints. Such undertakings are normally price related and are offered so as to remove the material injury caused without the imposition of a duty. This will maintain consistency within the system. The sunset clause will not prevent industry from seeking to renew anti-dumping or countervailing action. It will mean however that injury and other aspects required to justify such action will be fully retested after three years of continuous application before anti-dumping or countervailing measures can be re-imposed. The Bill provides for the Anti-Dumping Authority to commence operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation. For preliminary findings made subsequent to the proclamation date, the Authority will finalise the inquiry and recommend appropriate action to the Minister. For inquiries in progress beyond the preliminary finding stage at the date of proclamation, the Authority will if practicable advise the Minister on all matters where the ACS recommends the imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing measures. Part III of the Bill provides for the establishment and staffing of the Authority. The person who is to be appointed as the member of the Authority under clause 13 will be a person with economic and commercial skills and a knowledge of Australian industry. Clause 15 permits associate members to assist the member with specific inquiries, or for a specific period of time. There is also provision for the engagement of consultants with particular expertise. The Government concurs with Professor Gruen that the anti-dumping legislation should not contain a `national interest' provision. The Government considers that such a provision would add to the uncertainty of the proceedings, would lead to administrative complexity and would increase the costs to participants. The range of issues which could be regarded as relevant in each case could no doubt be broadened and the way would be open for parties with indirect interests to claim a right to present views to the Authority and have them taken into account by the Minister in making his decision. Proceedings could thus become unnecessarily complex and protracted. While it is not defined in the Bill, the Minister will take national interest criteria into account in exercising his discretion in considering the reports of the Anti-Dumping Authority. One problem which adds complexity to considering dumping in a context of national interest is that many of the imports complained of come from countries where Australia already has a large trade surplus. The issues of dumping have both economic and political significance and circumstances can change with disconcerting speed; hence the need to maintain or even enhance ministerial discretion. However, clause 23 of the Bill requires the Authority to widely advertise the fact that it is holding an inquiry into whether injurious dumping or subsidisation is occurring in a particular industry and invite submissions from the public. Subclause 7 (6) obliges the Authority to consider such submissions made in response to the invitation. The effect of these measures is to formalise for the first time the consideration of contributions from persons other than those directly interested in the dumping action, thus adding to the integrity and openness of the review process. I might also mention that clause 9 of the Bill will permit the Government or the Authority to initiate anti-dumping inquiries where facts produced by interests indirectly concerned with a dumping issue can justify such action. Clause 29 of the Bill requires an annual report of the Authority to be tabled in the Parliament. The report will include coverage of the Authority's operations during the year, the operation and development of guidelines, the Authority's approach to its assessments and important issues that have arisen in relation to anti-dumping action generally. This will introduce more openness to the consideration of anti-dumping issues. The Authority is being established for five years. However, a review of the effectiveness of the performance of the revised anti-dumping system will be undertaken after three years. I believe that the gathering together of specialists, under a person possessing particular expertise to give advice to the Government in an economically sensitive area like the imposition of dumping duties on exports from Australia's overseas trading partners is an efficient use of scarce government resources, as well as being an effective means of ensuring the Government receives quality advice in the anti-dumping field. This approach to the administration of anti-dumping legislation is similar to the procedures used by other signatories to the GATT anti-dumping codes such as Canada and the United States. CUSTOMS LEGISLATION (ANTI-DUMPING AMENDMENTS) BILL 1988 The Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill establishes the role in the dumping mechanism to be played by the Australian Customs Service, which, as I mentioned earlier, will be to examine each dumping complaint and conduct preliminary investigations, including overseas enquiries. The results of these investigations will then form the basis of information upon which the Anti-Dumping Authority may commence its inquiry. The Bill contains specific provisions (new section 269tb in particular) to make it clear that an application for imposition of dumping or countervailing duties i.e. a complaint, may be made by any person on behalf of the relevant Australian industry affected or likely to be affected by the dumping or subsidisation. For example, primary producers may lodge complaints in respect of injury being caused to processors and employees or their representatives might initiate action when the industry is inhibited from doing so. It will also be possible for complaints to be made before allegedly dumped or subsidised goods have arrived in Australia where there is adequate knowledge that imports of dumped or subsidised goods are to arrive in volumes which will cause injury to an Australian industry. The Bill also imposes for the first time statutory time limits within which the Customs Service must determine its investigations. Where a person complains that an act of injurious dumping or subsidisation has occurred or is likely to occur, the Bill provides in new section 269tc that the Customs Service will have a maximum of 70 days to determine whether the facts alleged in the application constitute sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant commencement of an investigation. If a prima facie case is established, the Customs Service then has a maximum of 180 days to make a preliminary finding as to whether dumping or countervailing duties should be imposed. Where such preliminary findings are positive, the Comptroller-General of Customs may decide to impose securities as provisional measures in respect of any dumping or countervailing duty that may become payable, and he then must refer the matter to the Anti-Dumping Authority within 7 days for its independent examination and report to the Minister. It should also be noted that decisions by the Comptroller-General of Customs that no prima facie case has been established, or a preliminary finding that duties should not be imposed, are subject to merit review by the independent Anti-Dumping Authority. CUSTOMS TARIFF (ANTI-DUMPING) AMENDMENT BILL 1988 Finally, the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill amends the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 by inserting a statutory definition of `like goods' (a Gruen recommendation which adopts the definition of the term as applied in the GATT), allowing for the publication of the normal value of goods in clauses 9 to 12. Further, clause 13 provides that duties and undertakings will only be current for a period of three years, adopting the Gruen recommendation that dumping measures and the like should only remain current for a limited period of time. An industry which has benefited from short term relief under this legislation must in future rejustify the necessity for continued relief. The Bill finally makes various amendments to existing provisions to ensure that the relief under the Act is only available if dumping or subsidisation damages an Australian industry producing like goods to the goods that have been dumped; not Australian industry generally. It should be noted however that there has been no change to section 13 of the Act, relating to the retrospective application of dumping duty on imported goods following the publication of a dumping notice. The Government is prepared, consistent with its international obligations, to make full use of that section to impose retrospective duties in critical circumstances to ensure that Australian industries are adequately protected against importers who knowingly cause material damage to an Australian industry through large scale imports of a product over a short period of time. In conclusion the Government believes that the new arrangements embodied in these three Bills will improve significantly Australia's anti-dumping and countervailing system and are consistent with Australia's rights and obligations under GATT and with the Government's industry policy. The system will provide a balanced approach to protecting Australian industry from clearly unfair trading practices while at the same time ensuring that the measures do not constitute an unjustifiable impediment to international trade. Financial Impact Statement The Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill have no direct financial implications. It is estimated that the establishment of the Anti-Dumping Authority will involve expenditure of $1.12m in the first year of operation and $0.92m in subsequent years. These figures include the salary costs of the statutory appointee and for a secretariat of up to 16 persons. These resources are to come from appropriations made to elements of the portfolio of the Minister of Industry, Technology and Commerce. I commend the Bills to the Senate and table each Bill's explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.27) —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 GARETH EVANS —This Bill will give effect to a number of the amendments to the 150 per cent tax concession for research and development foreshadowed in the joint news release issued on 20 November 1987 by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). The decisions announced then followed a technical review of the concession, which the Government promised when introducing the Income Tax Assessment (Research and Development) Bill 1986. The review was undertaken with the assistance of external consultants and sought to identify ways in which the concession might be exploited other than as intended; and how it might be made more effective in achieving its objectives of encouraging greater investment in research and development by industry in Australia. In the context of that review, decisions were taken to curtail eligibility to the 150 per cent research and development tax concession for expenditures incurred on buildings and to clarify the law in respect of claims to costs of developing computer software. These were introduced in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1987. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to all those decisions which will directly involve the Industry Research and Development Board. The remaining decisions arising from the technical review affect only the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and will be introduced during the Budget sittings. The powers of the Industry Research and Development Board are to be extended and legislation relating to the powers and functions of that Board are, by this Bill, to be included in the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 under which the Board is constituted. Importantly, the amendments will give additional discretionary powers to the Board. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The remainder of the speech read as follows- The more significant of these are: To reduce the incidence of companies being required to reimburse tax benefits, the Board will be empowered to refuse to register a company which, on the basis of information provided for registration purposes, is found to be ineligible for the concession. To increase access by smaller firms to expert R&D assistance, the benefits of exemption from the threshold of annual R&D expenditure and an opportunity to claim for advance payments for ``contracted research'' will be extended to Registered Research Agencies (RRAs). Registration will be provided by the IR&D Board in the field of competence of the applicant RRA. Unlike Approved Research Institutes (ARIs), RRAs may be privately owned and profit-making entities. To assist the financing of R&D ventures which are too costly or too risky to be advanced by those with the means to use the results themselves, the amendments provide that the Board may, if satisfied as to the bona fides of the venture, jointly register the participants. This is designed to give some surety of tax benefits to the participants. Joint registration will also enable them to claim in advance costs incurred in funding the venture. The details of this `dispensation' which were announced on 17 April 1988 are as follows: 150% TAX CONCESSION: CLAIMING CONTRACT EXPENDITURE AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO SYNDICATED R&D The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator John Button, today gave further details of amendments to the 150% tax concession scheme for R&D where it related to claiming for expenditure incurred for R&D performed under contract including that involving syndicated R&D. This follows the joint statement Senator Button and the Treasurer, Mr Paul Keating, made on 20 November 1987 covering amendments to the 150% tax concession provisions. ``It is taking longer to bring a Bill before the Parliament than had been expected, and it is necessary for industry to know the rules that are to apply to claims when companies incur expenditures for R&D that has not yet been performed,'' the Minister said. As the 20 November statement indicated, companies will no longer be able to claim expenditures on R&D until the R&D had been carried out. But where R&D is performed under contract, there may be legal and practical difficulties in the claimant ascertaining what expenditures have been incurred by the contractor. It is proposed, therefore, that claims for advanced payments will be apportioned over the specified term of the R&D contract. Companies other than those to which a ``dispensation'' is allowed, will be able to claim in each income year only the proportion of any advance payment that relates to the claim period. For example, a company for which the income year ends on 30 June that pays other company in April to undertake a three-year program of R&D on its behalf, will be able to claim only one twelfth (3/36) of the pre-payment in the first year (i.e. the pro-rated amount for the three months April to June), one-third (12/36) in each of the second and third years and a quarter(9/36) in the final year. However, in line with the earlier announcement, a ``dispensation'' will apply to eligible companies that: contract R&D to a Registered Research Agency (until the enactment of amending legislation, and Approved Research Institute); or invest in projects of R&D that have been given ``in principle'' approval by the Industry Research and Development Board to ``syndicate'' arrangements. Companies entitled to dispensations may, in the first year only for which a claim is made in respect of the project, claim in advance for the following 12 months. If the company given as an example above incurs expenditures under either of the circumstances in which a dispensation is allowed, it may claim 15/36 of the prepayment in the first year, 12/36 in the second and the balance (9/36) in the third year. Senator Button said that it was important to prevent companies engaging in artificial arrangements for tax planning purposes. The apportionment requirement, coupled with provisions to prevent mis-stating the term of a project, would achieve that end. The dispensation to companies incurring ``contracted expenditure'' and to companies investing in approved syndicated arrangements was also important. Those performing the R&D would not normally be able to work without advance payments. The Minister said that he looked to the dispensation to encourage closer collaboration in R&D and to assist those companies seeking funds for major projects the size and risk of which were too large for any one organisation to fund alone. ``It is intended that amendments to give effect to the changes announced in November 1987, including the provisions covering the matters announced today, will be introduced to the Parliament as soon as practicable,'' Senator Button said. In that context, he noted that some legislation had already been introduced. Further legislation relating to the powers of the IR&D Board would be introduced shortly. The remainder of the legislation will be introduced in the Budget sittings. The Minister said he hoped companies would invest in research and development that promised to increase their future international competitiveness. The amendments are also designed to better equip the IR&D Board to act against those exploiting the concession in a manner contrary to the intent of the tax concession. The Board will be able to move against companies which: claim for a project which has an insufficient Australian content; and fail, in any significant way, to exploit the results of revenue subsidised R&D in the required manner. The Government believes that, by virtue of its collective experience and the individual competence and integrity of its members, the Board is uniquely placed to reach decisions on the technical and commercial issues which it must decide. However, it also recognises that opinions are necessarily reached on the basis of evidence provided by companies and that this may sometimes be ill expressed or incomplete. Accordingly, this Bill provides that the Board will not be able to move against a company until it has given that company an opportunity to make a submission in response to the stated reasons for the Board's opinion. It is also important that companies not be able to frustrate the Board in the exercise of its functions in respect of the 150% tax concession. Where a company fails within a reasonable period to give the Board such information relating to its activities as the Board reasonably requires, the Board may, by notice in writing, require that information to be provided within 30 days. The Bill provides that, if the company fails to comply with the notice, the Board may issue a certificate to the Commissioner of Taxation with the effect that expenditure of the company in respect of the activities which are the subject of the notice is disallowed. The Board's responsibilities have increased significantly since it was established and it now has six Committees advising it. These cover the Taxation Concession, Discretionary grants, National Procurement Development grants, and each of the four declared generic technology fields for which grants are available. In these circumstances, it is considered appropriate to extend the maximum size of the Board by 3 members. Further, not only should the Board be able to delegate some of its functions to its Committees, but that the Committees should be able to delegate functions to individual members and support staff. Amendments introduced today will permit this. The Bill will also make certain consequential and complementary amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act. The principal effect of those amendments will be to recognise the creation under the Industry Research and Development Act of registered research agencies which are to replace approved research institutes for the purposes of the tax concession. The Government intends to prevent exploitation of the benefits of incurring contracted expenditure for tax minimisation purposes or as a substitute to obtaining joint registration for certain collaborative ventures. Companies will be unable to incur contracted expenditure to a registered research agency to whom they are related. In addition claimants will be required to have a plan to use the results in connection with an existing or proposed business. There is to be some modification by the Bill of the provisions which disallow deductions for expenditure claimed under the tax concession on receipt by the Commissioner of Taxation of various certificates by the Board. These amendments will take into account the additional powers which the Bill will confer on the Board to issue certificates. These have been outlined above. A decision of the Board, expressed in a certificate stipulating whether particular activities are research and development activities, is binding on the Commissioner of Taxation. However, if a certificate is subsequently revoked, the deduction is revived. The 150% tax concession has been available to companies for expenditures incurred since 1 July 1985. The Government has made it clear that the concession will remain in place until 30 June 1991. Companies have had the benefit of the concession for 3 years. They will have that benefit for a further 3 years. It is too soon to assess the effectiveness of the tax concession as an incentive in encouraging performance of R&D which would not otherwise have been undertaken. However, there is evidence, including that provided by the Australian Statistician's recent catalogue ``Research and Development, Business Enterprises, Australia, 1986-87, Preliminary'', that since 1985 there has been a welcome increase in real expenditure on R&D by private business enterprises in Australia. Anecdotal evidence indicates that much of the additional reported R&D would not have been undertaken but for the tax concession. This appears particularly true for smaller companies. The Bureau of Industry Economics has started to collect data against which to assess the effectiveness of the tax concession. This matter is to be considered by the Government in 1990. In particular, the Government will be looking closely at the return the Australian community stands to gain from the generous subsidy currently available to companies claiming the research and development tax concession. Ministers in this Government have repeatedly spoken of the need for growth in high technology based industries and the revitalisation of traditional Australian industries through innovation, training and application of new industrial management techniques. The world is less dependent on Australian commodities now than at any time this century. International trade is also becoming increasingly competitive. If Australian companies are to survive to the year 2000, they need to invest as much or more in researching, developing, targeting and marketing products as their overseas competitors. At present most are not. The latest statistics suggest that, typically, Australian companies invest in research and development only half that of world competitive companies. Before the introduction of the tax concession it was a third. The progress of the last three years is encouraging but not sufficient. It is important to recognise that potential competitors are also increasing their innovation and marketing efforts. Unless industry management recognises research and development as a necessary investment for corporate survival and that investment in new technology must at least increase with the pace of technological change, Australia's relative performance may well worsen despite any absolute growth in research and development performance. The Government's commitment to maintain the present tax concession arrangements until the end of June 1991 provides sufficient opportunity for industry to establish the technology base for new businesses in Australia. There is a goldmine of commercially exploitable research in government funded research organisations and academic institutions. There is no shortage of innovative ideas and enthusiasm in some of our smaller companies. Yet these companies often lack the funds, the development facilities, the production means and the marketing infrastructure to realise the potential of their ideas. The provisions of this Bill establish the means for garnering funds which would not otherwise be available for research and development. It is for this reason that the Government is seeking early passage of this Bill. Financial Impact Statement To the extent that the amendments are successful in stimulating research and development which would not otherwise have been undertaken during the deduction period (i.e. up to 30 June 1991), there will be some additional tax revenue costs in fiscal 1988/89 and the three following years. Offsetting this, there will be savings due to the tightening up of provisions to limit avenues by which the 150 per cent tax concession may be exploited other than as intended. It is estimated that the net funding impact of all the changes proposed as a result of the Technical Review will be broadly neutral. I present the Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.30) —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 GARETH EVANS —The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian Film Commission Act 1975 to enable the implementation of the Government's decision to establish Film Australia Pty Ltd as a wholly Commonwealth-owned company. It is the Government's intention that the new company should operate from 1 July this year. Honourable senators will know that Film Australia and its antecedents have a unique place in Australian cinematic history. In one form or another it has existed as the Commonwealth's film making body for three-quarters of a century. In this time it has set and maintained the high standards for Australian film makers that have made the local industry among the leaders in innovation and technical excellence. Indeed, many of the internationally acclaimed Australian film makers of today spent part of their training at Film Australia. I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate the rest of the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave not granted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Senator GARETH EVANS —In 1975 Film Australia became part of the Australian Film Commission, where it was responsible, as the Production Division, for the `special activities' of the Commission. These activities are defined in the Act as (i) programs that serve the purposes of a Department of State or an Authority of the Commonwealth; (ii) programs that deal with matters of national interest to Australia; and (iii) programs that are designed to illustrate or interpret aspects of Australia or of the life and activities of the Australian people. In its new form Film Australia will continue to carry out these functions. In May last year, after a comprehensive review, the Government decided that Film Australia should be removed from the umbrella of the Australian Film Commission and established as a wholly Commonwealth-owned company to operate along commercial lines as far as practicable. The Government is looking to a reorganised and revitalised Film Australia to reduce the cost of its productions, to achieve more effective dissemination of programs through cooperative arrangements with local and overseas networks, and to pursue more vigorously off-budget revenue sources. In other words, the Government expects the new organisation to be more attuned to the realities of the marketplace. Production of national interest programs dealing with cultural, social and other issues relevant to Australians will be met by contractual arrangements between the Commonwealth and the company. The company will be offered secure minimum funding over a fixed term, and to this end the Government has agreed to a total forward funding commitment of $15m, at 1987 prices, over the next three financial years to allow orderly production planning. I now turn to the provisions of the Bill. Once again I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate the remainder of the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave not granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —The Bill seeks to achieve three objectives. It removes from the Australian Film Commission the function of making films and television programs, which will become the responsibility of the new Film Australia Pty Ltd. Second, it provides for the transfer of assets, liabilities and contractual rights and obligations from the Commission to the new company. Third, it provides for the transfer of specified staff. There are also a number of consequential amendments to the Act. I would mention in this regard that the repeal of section 9 of the Act, that deals with the high standards of film making expected of the Commission under its now superseded power to make films, does not mean any diminution of the high standards expected of the Commission in general terms. Subparagraphs 5 (1a) (a) and (b), which are not affected by this Bill, adequately cover that point. There are no other implications for the residual functions of the Australian Film Commission. The Commission will retain the power to promote and distribute, but not to make programs. Film Australia Pty Ltd is now in the process of incorporation in the Australian Capital Territory in the normal way under the Companies Act 1981. A number of prominent Australians have been approached to become the directors of the new company, with backgrounds in the film industry, commerce, law, and entrepreneurial activity. The introduction of this Bill confirms the Government's commitment to a continuing role for Film Australia as a producer of films about Australians and for Australians. Incorporation of Film Australia under the Companies Act provides the opportunity for a fresh start. It will place the organisation in a strong position to capitalise on the success it has achieved in the past. I commend the Bill to the Senate. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Puplick) adjourned. Contingent Notice of Motion Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I give notice that, contingent on the Order of the Day for the resumption of the debate on the second reading of the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1988 being called on, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving the following motion: That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate of 14 April 1988, debate on the motion for the second reading of the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill 1987 be adjourned and be an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.34) —On the adjournment tonight I wish to refer to the Work Skill Australia Foundation competition which has again started for this year. Of the 30 competitions that will take place during the year, the first was held in Canberra last Saturday and Sunday. The occasion was most impressive with the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) participating in 18 of the categories for which competitions are run by Work Skill Australia. All honourable senators will remember the successful International Skills Olympics which were run in Australia in February this year during which Australia did particularly well coming third behind Korea and Taiwan. Canberra brought home two silver medals in plumbing and industrial electronics. The impressive feature of Work Skill Australia is that it is a voluntary organisation and particularly impressive was the number of local people on the regional committee chaired by Mr Chas Cook, the number of people who give their time for the whole of the weekend to participate as judges, the many people who sponsor the competition and the many people from the technical and further education colleges in Canberra who also participate. The competition will run throughout the year and will take place in 30 centres throughout Australia. Finally, the winners will be known and they will participate in the international competition that flows from it. I wish all those who participated well, especially those from the Australian Capital Territory who will now go on to the next stage. I trust that some at least will participate in the international competition which takes place at the end of this series of events. Many from the Australian Capital Territory who had previously been medal winners were there assisting and they made a fine contribution having had the benefit of being in the competition before. Tonight I particularly want to say to the benefactors, sponsors, organisers and all who participate in facilitating Work Skill Australia that I believe they are doing a great job giving the young people the opportunity of competing. I wish them and the Foundation well in the 1988 competition. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.38 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 237) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: Can the Minister provide details of how many employees of the Department are presently listed as unattached (to a substantive position within the Department). Senator Cook —The Minister for Community Services and Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There are 329 unattached employees in the Department by comparison with its approved average staffing level of 6,857. As staffing of the Department's new organisation proceeds, this number will reduce. (Question No. 261) Senator Jenkins asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, upon notice, on 16 March 1988: (1) What percentage of the Australian Defence Forces regular personnel are of ethnic origin and what percentage of regular officers are of ethnic origin. (2) What percentage of the Australian Defence Forces reserve personnel are of ethnic origin and what percentage of reserve officers are of ethnic origin. (3) Is there any significant difference between the percentages of ethnic personnel in the Army, Navy and Air Force. (4) Are people of ethnic origin encouraged to enlist in the Defence Forces. (5) Are people of ethnic origin encouraged to seek promotion to officer status within the Army, Navy and Air Force. (6) Does the Government intend to extend the Equal Opportunity legislation to the Defence Force; if not, why not. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2) and (3) Specific records are not kept which identify Defence Force members as belonging to any particular ethnic group. (4) People of ethnic origin are encouraged to enlist in the Defence Force but they are required to meet the same criteria as all other applicants. (5) The Defence Force does not make distinctions based on ethnic origins when considering personnel for promotion. (6) No. The Defence Force does not discriminate in any way on ethnic grounds. However, it exercises an exemption under the terms of the Sex Discrimination Act (1984) which allows for women to be excluded from positions involving combat and combat-related duties. (Question No. 264) Senator Calvert asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 16 March 1988: (1) Is the Minister aware of a report in the Hobart Mercury regarding overservicing allegations levelled against a Hobart skin specialist, Dr Michael Readett. (2) Does the Minister consider justice was done in the case of Dr Readett in that: (a) 99.84 per cent of his practice was not criticised; (b) only the profiles of 15 of over 10,000 new patients in the 5 year period were criticised (1 out of each 675); (c) ministerial reliance was placed on 4 Tasmanian doctors of whom 3 live in Hobart, each of which sent patients to Dr Readett both before and after the enquiry, because they did not have the expertise or the facilities to treat them. (3) What is the dermatological expertise of the members of the Committee that investigated the alleged overservicing. (4) Are doctors who are not dermatologists able to accurately investigate and report on a doctor who is a specialist in this field. (5) Is the Minister aware that the Chairman was on long term sick leave from his practice and another member had recently had long spells of sick leave and none of them had had any specialist dermatological experience to match Dr Readett's extensive experience. (6) Did a dermatologist attend some hearings but did not write a report, or offer any criticism of Dr Readett's work. (7) Were the documents seen by a senior dermatologist on the mainland who can see no sign of overservicing, particularly as many facilities for treating skin patients in Melbourne and Sydney are not available in Hobart. (8) Is the Committee's report inconsistent when it criticises some profiles, but accepts profiles of other patients with similar conditions seen at more frequent intervals and on more occasions. (9) Are all cases of a condition such as psoriasis similar. (10) Does the Minister believe that there is a limit-even in exceptionally severe chronic medical cases-on how many times a month or a year a patient with a particular condition can be treated, and whether such a figure is relevant to Hobart with poorer facilities as well as Melbourne, and whether this figure is to be enforced even in the 1 in 675 of the most severely affected patients; and if so, does not the Minister accept that the outlook for the chronic sick in Australia is grim. (11) Does the Minister still believe in bulk billing. (12) Is the Minister aware that Dr Readett never asked for more than the rebate, did not charge for many short visits or visits associated with minor operations and so saved Medicare well over 10 times the amount in question. (13) Is the Minister aware that bills for another $200,000 for the gap could have been issued, or even over $450,000 over the 5 year period if Dr Readett had charged the Australian Medical Association fees. (14) Does the Minister realise that expenses in a dermatological practice are high and that Dr Readett received in his pocket out of the $4,032 involved, less than $500 over the 5 year period, in fact just over 20 cents a day. (15) Does the Minister feel that Dr Readett has been properly and decently treated. (16) Will the Minister now consider referring the profiles to specialist dermatologists who would be competent to judge. (17) Is the Minister prepared to consider changing the Act so that true peers are appointed in such cases, or so that such problems can be sorted out in a court of law where evidence can be brought by both sides, with cross questioning, in the open, and where, in Dr Readett's case, all the patients whose portfolios have been criticised could substantiate their statutory declarations which state that they needed all the treatment, were not over-treated, came willingly (one person came over seventy miles) and resented the slur on Dr Readett and themselves as they feel they are not so naive as to come for treatment unnecessarily, especially as coming involves much time and money even if they were bulk billed. (18) Is the Minister aware that at the relative time, there were only 2 dermatologists in Hobart against the national average of 5 for the population involved. (19) Can the Minister justify the estimated $125 000 spent on the inquiry and does he feel that it is in keeping with common law, natural justice and the Australian Constitution, because once a profile has been selected by a computer as unusual, for whatever reason, the Doctor is guilty until and unless he can prove himself innocent. Senator Cook —The Minister for Community Services and Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) (a) and (b) As is normal, the Committee had referred to it only a small sample of patients from the particular practice. It is not a matter of 99.84% of his practice not being criticised. It is a matter of 99.84% of his practice not being reviewed by the Committee. The Committee considered 44 of Dr Readett's patients and found that excessive services had been provided to 15 patients. That is, 34% of the patients considered had received excessive services. (c) This bears no relevance to whether the services considered were excessive. (3) The dermatological expertise of individual Committee members is not relevant. However, the Committee as a whole must be satisfied that it has sufficient evidence before it to make a recommendation. The Committee may engage consultants and call witnesses. In Dr Readett's case, the Committee sought the advice of a specialist in dermatology who attended seven of the Committee's sittings. (4) Yes, given their general knowledge of medical practice and procedure and using appropriate specialist consultants. (5) No, however, these members must have considered themselves sufficiently well to continue with the inquiry. The latter part of this question is addressed in (3) and (4) above. (6) The Committee sought the assistance of a specialist in dermatology, nominated by the Royal Australian College of Dermatologists. The role of such an adviser is not to criticise the practitioner under inquiry; rather to provide advice to the Committee on accepted practice within a particular speciality or for a particular type of procedure. (7) The Committee, as previously stated, sought the assistance of a specialist in dermatology. That specialist came from Melbourne. I understand that Dr Readett has claimed that senior dermatologists had perused the documents and could find no case for any action. Presumably he made such documents available for their inspection. It was open to Dr Readett to call that evidence during the inquiry. (8) The Committee is not inconsistent if it finds that various patients with apparently similar complaints required differing medical management. The Committee reviews the treatment provided to each individual patient included in the inquiry and does not set some arbitrary figure which is to be applied across the whole of the doctor's practice. (9) I am unable to comment on the medical details of psoriasis. It is for that reason that an expert Committee has been appointed. (10) The notion of a limit on attendances for a particular condition fails to appreciate the individual treatment needs of each patient. Because Medical Services Committees of Inquiry have been established in each State, a particular State committee can take into account variations in treatment brought about by differing facilities. (11) Yes. (12) and (13) Medical practitioners are free to charge the amount they consider appropriate for medical services. In the context of whether a medical service is excessive, the charge for that service is of no interest to the Committee. (14) Dr Readett's practice expenses bear no relevance to the Committee's determination. (15) Yes. (16) No. (17) Under the present provisions of the Health Insurance Act 1973, the practitioner is already able to: (i) be represented; (ii) call witnesses; (iii) cross examine other witnesses; (iv) address the Committee; and (v) to give evidence. (18) Yes. However, the number of dermatologists in Hobart is not relevant. The Committee does not review the number of patients consulting the referred practitioner, but rather whether the services provided to the patients in the reference were medically necessary. (19) A significant deterrent effect is achieved by these cases. The estimated costs of the inquiry were: $ Fees and travel for Committee members...6,235.00 Members preparation time (for reports etc)...295.00 Consultant's fees, travel and accommodation...4,212.64 Total Costs of the inquiry excluding the secretariat...10,742.64 Medical practitioners appearing before a Medical Services Committee of Inquiry are requested to explain to other medical practitioners the reasons and basis for their past treatment of patients. I believe Committee inquiries are fair and comply with the requirements of natural justice.