Wednesday, 25 May 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. the right of the people of a country to make law independent of politicians should be a basic and independent fight; 2. consequently there is an urgent need for constitutional reforms. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: support the Constitution Alteration (Electors Initiative) 1987 Bill to alter the constitution so as to vest in the electors power to propose laws and to approve or disapprove such proposed laws. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McLean (from 48 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That the Constitution of the Commonwealth has served Australia well, is not out of date, has proved to be flexible and should not be radically altered. 2. Our deep concern that the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission and its advisory committees which propose radical changes to the Constitution are threatening to reduce our rights as citizens of the Commonwealth. 3. Our strongest opposition to any referendum proposals of the Hawke Government which gives more power to the Government and less to the people and which concentrates that power in Canberra at the expense of the States and weakens the role of the Senate. by Senator Durack (from 116 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are strongly supportive of proposals for the establishment of electors' initiated referenda for the making of laws and alteration of the Constitution, in a form somewhat similar to that proposed in a Bill presented by Senator Macklin on 23rd September 1987. That electors' initiative proposals have widespread support within our community, and in every major political party, being an established aim of the Democrat Party, fifty-five years as endorsed Labor Party policy, recommended by the Queensland branch of the National Party, and raised recently in the Liberal Party's Law and Justice policy. That the evidence of their great value and popularity as a superior development of democratic government, by and for the people, has been amply demonstrated in several advanced democracies overseas. That the proposed legislation would be the greatest Bicentennial gift our Legislature could give to our people, the recognition that we have come of age. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McLean (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, note that a majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material has strongly opposed the pro- position that a new NVE category will contain that material as defined in the current `X' classification call upon the Senate to request the Government immediately to implement the recommendation of the majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material by introducing substantive legislation to ensure that X rated video material (and its R rated equivalent) is refused classification for the purpose of Commonwealth laws. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 1,278 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 Senator Beahan (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: The A.B.C. orchestras currently underfunded now find themselves under further threat due to proposals contained in the current position paper relative to the A.B.C. Your petitioners request that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: Exercise its powers to ensure that current funding is increased sufficiently to ensure the maintenance and growth of these fine cultural bodies by including the orchestras as a charter area. by Senator Devereux (from 1,682 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders, the times of sitting on Thursday, 26 May and Tuesday, 31 May 1988 be as follows: Thursday, 26 May 1988- 10 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. Tuesday, 31 May 1988- 10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m. 2 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs: The social and fiduciary duties and responsibilities of company directors. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to standing order 109a, I give notice that, immediately after Question Time this day, I shall withdraw Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in my name for this day of sitting for disallowance of the Schools Authority (Amendment) Ordinance 1987. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short explanation of the scrutiny by the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and the Committee's brief correspondence with the Minister for Arts and Territories. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- Statement The Committee sought and obtained an assurance from the Minister for the Arts and Territories, the Honourable Gary Punch, M.P., that fee determinations under the Schools Authority Ordinance were legally subject to tabling and disallowance in Parliament. The Committee also sought the Minister's advice about the absence of rights to seek review of the Minister's discretionary powers under the Ordinance to exempt individuals or classes of individuals from the requirement to pay fees. Having reconsidered the Ordinance, the Minister has agreed to make an amendment so that objective criteria for exemption decisions will be specified and to provide for AAT review of any allegedly unfair refusal to exempt. The Committee thanks the Minister for his agreement to make these changes which will underwrite the quality of the administration of the scheme and protect the rights of individuals. 8 March 1988 The Hon. Gary Punch, MP Minister for the Arts and Territories Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 25 February 1988 the Committee considered the Schools Authority (Amendment) Ordinance 1988 (being ACT Ordinance No. 2 of 1988, tabled in the Senate on 23 February 1988). There are two points on which the Committee seeks your advice concerning parliamentary tabling requirements and Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) review rights. Firstly, can you give the Committee your assurance that the Determinations of fees described in new subsection 7b (1) of the Ordinance will be legally subject to parliamentary supervision through tabling and disallowance? In earlier letters to you the Committee has set out its concern regarding the drafting of similar fee determination provisions in the Canberra Institute of the Arts Ordinance 1988 and the ACT Institute of Technical and Further Education Ordinance 1987. The same point arises here. Subsection 7b (1) provides that ``The Minister may, by notice published in the Gazette, determine fees in respect of the attendance by persons at pre-schools.''. This provision does not follow the language used in subsection 12 (10) of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910 (the Act) which may be interpreted as requiring that a disallowable determination is only one made by a Minister ``pursuant to a provision of an Ordinance'', which provision is to be expressed in empowering terms identical to those used in subsection 12 (10) of the Act namely ``to determine, by notice in writing published in the Gazette, fees [or charges] for the purposes of the Ordinance.''. Certainly for many years until now this precise formula appears to have been adopted in the provisions of a great many Ordinances conferring power to determine disallowable fees. Your clarification and assurance would be welcomed by the Committee. Secondly, section 7c of the Ordinance provides that: The Minister may, by instrument, exempt a specified person or a person included in a specified class of persons from the requirement to pay a fee determined under subsection 7b (1). This is an inherently problematic provision. If an instrument of exemption is legislative in nature the question arises of the need to provide for parliamentary control over such a species of subordinate lawmaking. On the other hand, if exemption decisions are administrative in character the question arises of the need to guarantee fairness through review of the exercise of what would amount to delegable discretionary powers to exempt. The Committee acknowledges that in its Eighth Annual Report, 1983-84 at page 13, the Administrative Review Council suggested that ``a discretion to grant exemption from normal administrative practice, e.g. the power to exempt from registration under the Aliens Act 1947 (Fourth Annual Report, para. 67)'' was not a decision appropriate for Administrative Appeals Tribunal review. The particular case study from which this suggestion was drawn by the Council was not perhaps sufficiently representative of exemption discretions for it to be regarded as a principle of general application in considering whether to create particular review rights. Neither the Committee nor the then Minister for Aviation, the Hon. Peter Morris, MP, thought so in October 1986 when the Committee was given the Minister's undertaking to amend regulation 2b of the Air Navigation (Charges) Regulations (appearing in Statutory Rules 1986, No. 169) to provide for AAT review of ministerial discretions to remit penalties or charges. In the case of section 7c of the Schools Authority (Amendment) Ordinance 1988 the absence of review rights or any kind of legislative criteria for granting exemptions may do little to reduce a sense of grievance among persons not exempted. The Committee would very much appreciate having your views and advice on both of the questions raised in this letter. Yours sincerely, Bob Collins Chairman Senator Bob Collins Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House Canberra, ACT 2600 Dear Senator Collins I refer to your letter received on 8 March 1988 concerning the Schools Authority (Amendment) Ordinance 1988 in which you sought my views and advice on two points of concern to the Committee. Firstly, the Committee has expressed concern regarding the Parliamentary tabling requirements of fee determinations made pursuant to subsection 7b (1) of the Ordinance. I am advised that determinations made under subsection 7b (1) fall within the definition of `determination' contained in subsection 12 (10) of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, notwithstanding that the phrasing of subsection 7b (1) is different from that used in other legislation. Accordingly, I consider that determinations made under subsection 7b (1) are subject to subsection 12 (9b) of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. I have requested that henceforth drafters adhere to a form of language which follows the words previously adopted when conferring power to determine disallowable fees. Secondly, in respect of section 7c of the Ordinance (as presently drafted) which provides that the Minister may exempt persons from the requirement to pay a fee determined by the Minister, it was originally intended that an exemption be made having regard to objective criteria only. In this case a decision to exempt would be taken on the facts of each case, and not on merits, which would make an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal unnecessary. However, in the interests of fairness, I have now decided that there should be a discretion to exempt so that `borderline cases' may be considered for exemption. I therefore undertake to amend the Ordinance to set out the criteria for exercising the discretion to exempt, and to provide for appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal from a decision not to exempt. I trust that these points are of assistance to the Committee. Yours sincerely GARY PUNCH 24 May 1988 Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I seek leave to make a short statement concerning the scrutiny by the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances of the Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) Ordinance 1985. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —The Blood Donation Ordinance originally gave the Red Cross Society a statutory defence if sued by a person who was infected with the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) as a result of a blood transfusion using donated blood that had been specially tested. At the request of the Committee the then Minister for Health, the Honourable Dr Neal Blewett, M.P., agreed to amend the Ordinance so that this statutory defence would not be available in an action by an AIDS victim for alleged negligence in the testing or transfusion of blood. Because the Committee regarded the Ordinance as being potentially very significant as far as the rights of individuals were concerned, the Minister also undertook to limit the operation of the Ordinance by means of a 12-month sunset clause so that a new instrument would be needed to keep the main provision in force. The intention was that the new Ordinance would enable Parliament to exercise some future continuing oversight of this sensitive matter. The Minister also agreed to supply the Committee with documents for tabling in the Senate, explaining legal, compensation and medical developments with AIDS. There has been some reluctance to carry out this undertaking in full. The Minister for the Arts and Territories, the Hon. Gary Punch, has now requested the Committee that he be released from the undertaking which he inherited from his predecessors. The Committee has agreed to this request in view of the fact that the Government will shortly table a Green Paper on AIDS which will address some of the legal and compensation issues which were of concern to the Committee when it scrutinised the original Blood Donation Ordinance. The Committee has agreed to release the Minister because it is satisfied that this Green Paper will preserve the focus of parliamentary attention on those aspects of medically acquired AIDS which were of concern to the Committee. The Committee's interest throughout its scrutiny of the Ordinance has been to ensure that Parliament and the public were kept informed of legal, compensation and medical developments regarding AIDS. Ministerial undertakings to sunset the Ordinance and supply the Committee with information for tabling in the Senate have not achieved these goals as effectively as the Committee had hoped they would. Part of the reason for this may have been inertia in the ACT Health Authority, which appears to have failed to assist Ministers to implement the undertaking the Committee had been given by two successive Ministers. The Committee is currently looking at ways in which ministerial undertakings will in future be closely monitored to ensure that they are implemented as soon as practicable. In any event, the imminence of the Government's Green Paper on AIDS now enables the Committee to finalise the scrutiny of this important Ordinance. As the Committee understands it, that paper will, among other things, address the question of how best to compensate and protect the rights of individuals with medically acquired AIDS. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a statement which describes the history of this matter. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) Ordinance 1985 The Ordinance originally provided that the Red Cross Society, doctors and hospitals could plead a statutory defence if they were sued by a person who had contracted AIDS from an infected blood donation. The Society would not be liable provided it had tested the donated and transfused blood in accordance with approved methods of testing for AIDS. At the time of its original scrutiny in 1985 and 1986 the Committee was concerned that this defence might have been so wide that it removed a right of action even for negligence in the testing or transfusing of donated blood. The then Minister for Health, the Hon. Dr Neal Blewett, M.P., agreed to amend the Ordinance expressly to exclude negligence from the scope of the defence. The Committee also asked, and the Minister agreed, that a sunset clause be placed in the Ordinance to terminate it within 12 months so that another Ordinance would be made and tabled to continue its operation. The Committee was concerned that Parliament should be kept informed of legal and medical developments with AIDS and the Ordinance was the major legislative point of contact which would have provided a vehicle in this regard. The sunsetting and remaking of the Ordinance would therefore have provided Parliament with a proper mechanism for periodic scrutiny of the matter, particularly in the light of information on legal rights, compensation schemes and medical developments, which the Minister agreed should be tabled regularly in the Senate. A sunset clause was put into the Ordinance in 1986, but in December 1986 this was repealed without consultations with the Committee. The then newly responsible Minister for Territories, the Hon. Gordon Scholes, M.P., agreed in May 1987 to renew the undertaking and place another sunset clause in the Ordinance and supply periodic tabling information for Senators on legal, compensation and medical developments. This undertaking has not been implemented. In its Eighty-third Report in April 1988 the Committee stated that it would report on this matter to the Senate and that is the purpose of this statement. The Committee has now received a letter from the new Minister for the Arts and Territories, the Hon. Gary Punch, M.P., seeking to be released from the undertaking to sunset the Ordinance, in view of the fact that the government's Green Paper on AIDS will soon be tabled and it will provide a new point of focus for parliamentary consideration of the AIDS problem including the question of the legal and compensation rights of medically acquired AIDS victims. The Committee has agreed to release the Minister from the undertaking he inherited but it has also asked him to continue periodically to supply Parliament with documentary information for tabling, by the Committee if necessary, on legal, compensation and medical developments. Up to this point the Committee has been seeking the agreement of successive Ministers to place repeating sunset clauses in the Ordinance to ensure that progress in looking at legal and compensation issues was expedited and to enable Parliament to exercise the option of being involved in that process by having available to it tabled information about legal and compensation rights, and by having a newly tabled Ordinance each year on which to base some measure of parliamentary scrutiny. The imminence of the government's Green Paper relieves the Committee of the need to continue to press for that as the means of directly involving the Parliament. However, it should be noted that a written undertaking to amend the Ordinance was given in May 1986 and was not honoured. The situation has now changed because of the expected Green Paper. The Committee is content therefore first, to release the new Minister, Mr Punch, from his inherited undertaking and second, to recognise that the unsatisfactory way in which the Committee's concerns have been addressed is not a matter for which he is deserving of criticism since he has only recently taken up the reins of a complex portfolio. Nevertheless responsibility for not bringing this matter to the attention of successive Ministers lies somewhere. Some officials within the A.C.T. Administration or the A.C.T. Health Authority are responsible for not acting promptly to ensure that a busy Minister's attention was drawn to the need to implement a written undertaking which had been given to a parliamentary committee in May 1987. The Committee hopes that any responsible officials can be properly counselled about the need to assist Ministers to implement undertakings to Parliament as quickly as practicable. Acting solely in the context of the Blood Donation Ordinance, the Committee's bipartisan concern has been that the rights of medically acquired AIDS victims should be carefully and quickly assessed and reasonably and humanely protected, and that the rights of Parliament to be involved in that process in order to underwrite an agreed outcome should be respected. As far as the Blood Donation Ordinance is concerned neither of these ends have been met as quickly or effectively as the Committee would have expected. As it relieves the Committee of its continuing obligations it is to be hoped that the Green Paper will, among other things, help to achieve these two vital aims. Senator COLLINS —I also seek leave to table, for the information of honourable senators and others, the Committee's correspondence, including documents which the Minister has sent to the Committee describing legal, compensation and medical developments regarding AIDS. This is important information of great significance to all who are concerned about the problems of AIDS generally and medically acquired AIDS in particular. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —I thank the Senate. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —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. Aboriginal Development Commission-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 40 of the Aboriginal Development Commission Act 1980-together with a statement of reasons and correspondence relating to the late tabling of the report-section 34C of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 2. Housing Assistance Act 1984-Annual Report 1986-87-section 16 of the Housing Assistance Act 1984. 3. Cocos (Keeling) Islands-Annual Report 1986-87. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.07) —Mr President, I seek leave to deal with Notices of Motion Nos 2 and 3 together. Leave granted. Senator PUPLICK —I move: That the World Heritage Properties Conservation Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1988 No. 47 and made under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983, be disallowed. That the Declaration in the Proclamation, made by the Governor-General under subsection 6 (3) of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 and published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S95 of 31 March 1988, be disapproved. The motions for disallowance and disapproval of certain proclamations and declarations made in relation to the World Heritage listed areas of north Queensland give the Government a last opportunity to reconsider what it is doing to the fabric of part of our nation and to the integrity of our polity. The Opposition is at one with the Government and indeed with all thinking Australians in wanting to preserve our environment and, in particular, our unique tropical rainforests. But in doing so this Government has reduced communities of decent hard-working Australians to a state of fear, uncertainty and hatred and has sought to promote political divisions and disharmony where none existed nor needed to exist. It has sought to use a conflict with a politically opposed State in order to advance its own political fortunes in Sydney and Melbourne and to make one section, one region and one small group of people pay more than their fair share of the genuine community cost of environment protection. In so doing this Government has lied about its purposes. It has lied about its methods. It has lied about its solutions, and it has lied about the very area which it claims to be seeking to preserve. Most reprehensibly of all, it has devalued the very concept of a World Heritage listing by using it not as a legitimate tool to protect the environment but as an illegitimate tool to subvert the Constitution, not to advance the cause and public support for environment protection but to set back that cause and in the process to put the fragile Australian environment at even greater risk. I want to deal first with the question of this Government's dishonesty in the way in which it deals with the States and to indicate the extent to which the word of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), conveyed in writing to the Premier of Queensland, is absolutely worthless. Let me start, however, with the agreement entered into between the Government of Queensland and the Commonwealth, through the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (CONCOM), in July 1984. At that CONCOM meeting an agreement was reached between the Commonwealth and the State which said in part: The Commonwealth Government has indicated that it will not take unilateral action to nominate areas for World Heritage Listing without the agreement of the State or Territory concerned. In other words, the Commonwealth agreed formally at a meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers not to nominate areas without the consent of the State concerned. That undertaking has been dishonoured. Mr Cohen, the then Minister, in an address to open the National Conference on Conservation and the Economy in September 1984 said: . . . that . . . would consult with the relevant state before it nominated new areas for inclusion on the World Heritage List. That consultation did not take place. This nomination proceeded in defiance of the Minister's clear assurance. On 12 September 1984, the Prime Minister wrote to the Premier of Queensland. I quote from the Prime Minister's letter: It is not the intention of my Government to take unilateral action to nominate the region for World Heritage Listing. That unequivocal commitment in writing from the Prime Minister was dishonoured. Senator Chaney —Unless he did it unintentionally. Senator PUPLICK —Yes, but as I propose to demonstrate, I believe it was done because it was never the intention of Senator Richardson to honour the commitment given by Mr Cohen on two occasions, or the commitment given by the Prime Minister. Again, Senator Ryan replied on notice to a question in this place on 11 February 1986. She said: The Government has made it clear that the wet tropic rainforests of north-east Queensland will only be nominated for inclusion on the World Heritage List with the agreement of the Queensland Government. Finally, on 12 November 1987 at a meeting of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers in Perth at which Senator Richardson was present, a resolution was adopted which said in part that the Council resolved to: Reaffirm the procedures established in Resolution 198 (1984 meeting of Council) that as a matter of principle nominations by the Commonwealth for World Heritage listing should be undertaken in consultation with the States and Territories. Here we have quite clearly set out a formal agreement between the Commonwealth and the States at the CONCOM meeting of 1984; a formal commitment given by the then Minister, Mr Cohen; a letter written by the Prime Minister to the Premier of Queensland; an answer given on notice by Senator Ryan in this chamber; and a resolution of November 1987. Each of these has been systematically dishonoured, repudiated, denied and lied about by this Government in its dealings on this matter. It is clear that the word of the Prime Minister, given in writing to the Government of Queensland, the resolutions of Commonwealth and State Ministers, the words of a Minister of the environment, the words of a senior Cabinet Minister in this chamber in relation to the way this Government would proceed, are meaningless. The Prime Minister's assurance in writing to a Premier of a State is not worth the paper it is written on, as far as this Government is concerned. It is interesting to see exactly the way this Government treats not just the governments of Australia, but other people in Australia. Senator Burns is, I believe, a senator representing the State of Queensland. In terms of what he has to say about people in that area working in the timber industry, let me quote what he said in this place on 17 February 1988: I would challenge anybody in this chamber or elsewhere to suggest that timber-getters and loggers in the past 100 years have given a damn about our environment or about the trees and conservation of any part of this country. All they were concerned about was cutting down logs and making a quid. They were not concerned about future generations or if there would be anything left. In other words, the timber workers, the hard-working people who depend for their livelihood on the preservation of the forest resources of Australia, are subject to the sort of abuse that we get from Senator Richardson, Senator Burns and representatives of the Australian Labor Party. It is no wonder that in Queensland Mr Peter Beattie, the Secretary of the Labor Party in that State, is reduced to making attacks upon Senator Richardson, saying that he has handled this whole matter in a crude way, that this is something more than a factional brawl in Sydney and that when it comes to dealing with peoples' livelihoods he is prepared to describe Senator Richardson, as he did in the AM transcript of 4 December 1987, as `a political coward'. That is precisely correct because as I have said, the assurances given by Prime Ministers, by Ministers and by Commonwealth-State agreements are worthless to this Government and it is left to somebody like Mr Peter Beattie in Queensland to have to try to stand up for people in the Labor Party in that State against Senator Richardson and his lackies. Senator Sanders —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I call your attention to standing order 438, which has to do with disorderly conduct. Senator Puplick habitually puts his feet on the furniture in this place. I think that is disorderly conduct. I hope that you will reprimand him for this act. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Zakharov) —There is no point of order. I ask Senator Puplick to respect the furniture. Senator PUPLICK —Madam Acting Deputy President-- Senator Sanders —Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: He is defying your ruling. Senator PUPLICK —Madam Acting Deputy President, you ruled that there was no point of order. I suggest that if Senator Sanders continues to disrupt the proceedings of this chamber by indicating that he challenges the ruling that you have given as to this particular matter it is he who ought to be dealt with. As I have said, the representatives of people in that particular part of Australia have made it clear that they do not go along with the way in which this Minister has acted in this matter. It is of great interest to know that just at the moment this Government is promoting a referendum to secure the recognition of local government, presumably because it believes that local government has some particular role to play in our legal and constitutional structures. Yet clearly the advice of local government in that part of Queensland is set against the course of action which this Minister has undertaken. The submission by the Douglas Shire Council on World Heritage nomination of the area for which it is responsible says, in part: The Council wishes to record its strong objection to the intransigent attitude of the Federal Government on this issue. If honourable senators look at the submission of October 1987, from the Shire of Hinchinbrook on this particular matter, they will see that it criticises Senator Richardson for his lack of consultation in the matter. It says of Senator Richardson's behaviour: This is not consultation but rather an overbearing dispassionate approach to the problem. The people affected are entitled to be heard but when questions asked of the Senator as was done at his `consultation' with local authorities in Cairns on 6th October 1987, the Senator was unable properly to appreciate the degree of affection the people and North Queensland would experience from the proposed listing and restricted himself to dogmatic assertions on behalf of his government. In other words, not only do we now see that ministerial assurances are worthless, but all of this nonsense that the Minister and his Government are going on with about the role and importance of local government is turned on its head when he does not get from local government the sort of advice that he wants to hear on this particular matter. This whole exercise has been undertaken by the Government, not for the protection of the rainforest resources of north Queensland but for the protection of certain marginal seats held by the Labor Party in Sydney and Melbourne. This has been quite clear. It goes back a long way. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of March 1986 headed `The greening of the ALP' indicated that Mr, now Senator, McMullan had been known to have put the point about that. The article states: . . . in a series of briefings with Ministers last month he stressed that the three major issues the Government should be tackling this year were improving the export position of farmers- what a laugh that is- youth unemployment- which goes backwards under this Government- and environmental issues. An article on 25 March 1987, headed `ALP cultivates the joys of nature in order to capture the green vote', states: The right-wing factional power broker, Senator Graham Richardson, is particularly concerned to head off any moves to form a green party in Australia, which he believes would be particularly damaging to the ALP support base. In June 1987 Senator McMullan, Mr McMullan as he then was, was quoted in Time magazine to exactly the same purport. In the end, of course, even that tactic will not save the Labor Party as far as this is concerned. By the time we had come to February 1988 we had the headings, `Richardson Betrayed Greenies' and `Wilderness Chief Warns Government'. Of course he did. We find that Mr Snow, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, Mr Kerin, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, and Senator Button, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, are all concerned about the lack of balance which Senator Richardson has brought to its environmental policies. We see constant stories about the extent to which this Minister is having to defend his position from his own Party colleagues, because they realise that the proper demands of balance in terms of environment protection and the protection of jobs are simply being ignored by Senator Richardson. We see situations developing in which Dr Klugman, the honourable member for Prospect in the House of Representatives, describes the various claims by the Wilderness Society on this matter as being claims from people whom he characterises as `absolute liars'. We have Mr Kerin saying that the Government should stop pandering to the greenie vote. We see him quoted as saying that in the newspapers and we hear him saying it in radio interviews. We hear Mr Carr, the unlamented former Minister for the Environment in New South Wales, saying that the environment movement was ungrateful for what that Government supposedly had done for it. In other words, a large part of this debate turns simply upon the Labor Party's political strategy directed towards Sydney and Melbourne, not something which is properly directed towards the preservation of the environment, so much so that we get a statement that this Government has now had to establish a series of interdepartmental committees on forest resource management and on conservation and land use policies in order to try to resolve the difficulties within this Government in terms of the extent to which Senator Richardson clearly does not have the support of senior Cabinet colleagues for the policy which he is putting forward. In putting forward that policy for his own particular factional preservation there are a large number of areas of the environment which he is putting particularly at risk. If one turns to the consultants' reports, which this Minister has made so much of in relation to north Queensland, one can get an idea of some of the problems which have been engendered for people in that region as a result of the Government's activities. If one looks at the report entitled World Heritage Listing of Queensland's Wet Tropical Rainforest: Assessment of Social Impact, undertaken by Dr Gibson and his colleagues, one will see these comments: The advent of World Heritage Listing has produced an environment of economic and financial uncertainty. This negative atmosphere has resulted in a number of quite concrete effects. For example, in the financial sphere, banks are discouraging investment in the area, advising against capital improvements and/or further business expansion and withdrawing monies from on-going business transactions that are deemed (by the bank) to be financially insecure. It seems that World Heritage listing has created not only specific impacts but also a tense atmosphere in which residents are fearful of becoming unemployed, perhaps being dependent upon welfare, and not being able to meet financial commitments, for example, mortgage repayments. The report continues: Since the advent of World Heritage Listing, however, community and family relations have become strained. So it goes on. I can fully understand why Senator Sanders is not in the least concerned about this. In the whole of his period in this chamber, Senator Sanders has never once demonstrated the slightest degree of concern about the rights and livelihoods of individual Australians. He has never once expressed in this chamber the slightest degree of concern for the welfare of individual Australians. It is, therefore, absolutely no surprise that he finds himself at one with Senator Richardson on this matter, and that the Minister and his Government have displayed the same degree of cavalier disregard for the rights and welfare of individual Australians in north Queensland. The whole of the area which has been nominated for World Heritage listing is, in itself, an interesting area to examine. It is not as if the whole area constitutes wet tropical rainforest. In fact, in an answer given to me at the Senate Estimates inquiry the other day, it was demonstrated that the rainforest proper comprised less than 80 per cent of the areas that are actually within the indicative boundaries. Within that 80 per cent, it is clear that there are enormous variations in areas which are of real sensitivity and quality, such as those at Bloomfield, Cape Tribulation and in the immediate Daintree region, and those which are environmentally, scientifically and aesthetically of far less worth. Anyone who is familiar with that part of the world knows from travelling through it that we are not talking about one area of uniform integrity and uniform values. In an area stretching, as it does, the same sort of distance as between this capital city and the city of Melbourne, it would be unrealistic if that were to be expected to be the case. Nevertheless, the land grab that the Government has undertaken with this listing pays no attention and no regard to those significant variations. Honourable senators interjecting- Senator Patterson —On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: I draw your attention to standing order 422, which states: No Senator shall interrupt another Senator whilst speaking, unless (1.) to request that his words be taken down; (2.) to call attention to a Point of Order or Privilege suddenly arising, or (3.) to call attention to the want of a Quorum. I ask that you draw the chamber to order since Senator Puplick has been interrupted on far too many occasions during his speech. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Zakharov) —Order! Senator Puplick has been interrupted from both sides of the House. I ask that senators moderate their interjections. Senator PUPLICK —I hope that you, Madam Acting Deputy President, will not characterise the Australian Democrats as `both sides of the House'. As the fourth organised faction of the Australian Labor Party, there is no reason they should be characterised as being on anything other than one side of the House. Senator Collins —Organised? You have to be joking. Senator PUPLICK —On the basis of Senator Collins's valid interjection, I withdraw the word `organised'. A number of responsible commentators, scientists and experts have made it quite clear that there are alternate ways in which this particular problem could have been addressed and in which the preservation of the most important parts of the tropical rainforests could have been secured. Of those, one of the most significant is the submission from the Institute of Foresters of Australia. That is a responsible group of people, who made a submission entitled `A case for practical ``wet tropics'' World Heritage listing', in which it was stated: The Institute of Foresters supports a World Heritage listing of North East Queensland tropical rainforests based on a practical land use plan which protects virgin rainforest while providing for limited resource utilisation, (eg recreation, mining, selective logging and forest plantations on relatively small zoned areas. Is Senator Schacht still laughing his fool head off about that comment? It is interesting that when one raises the name `Institute of Foresters', automatically those who know nothing, care about nothing and have been part of this Labor regime start laughing. If one were to ask about the quality of forest management in Senator Schacht's State of South Australia, one would get a series of odd answers. Once one says that here is a responsible group associated with the industry comprised of people with skill, ability and a long term commitment to preserving the forest resources, Senator Schacht starts laughing and carrying on because he is not prepared to listen to good scientific advice when it is put before him. His political prejudice will not allow him to be swayed by fact, evidence, science or argument. That is what this debate is all about; it is about the failure of the Government to be swayed by the evidence put clearly before it. One could continue to deal with a large number of matters relating to the cavalier approach of the Government to the whole problem in north Queensland. The Opposition has made abundantly clear its commitment to the protection of areas that are genuinely sensitive and genuinely worthy of protection. That is not in dispute. At pages 752 and 753 of Hansard of 15 March in this place the alternate approach the Opposition would have taken to this matter is set out in detail based upon the discussions that were held between Premier Ahern, Senator Stone, Mr Peacock and me. At that meeting we were able to put together a package which clearly would have achieved the objectives of environmental protection of those areas genuinely worthy of support. Senator Richardson —That is not what you said last year. Senator PUPLICK —That is precisely what I said last year because in a Press statement I issued last year I said: I have expressed the belief that the Queensland wet tropical forests are worthy of inclusion on the World Heritage list: they are unique; they are of international significance; they contain one of the greatest and scientifically most significant concentrations of unique flora and fauna in the world. Australia is the only industrialised country with remaining tropical rainforests and we have a responsibility to protect them. Last Friday I stated that `the ideal and proper solution would be for the Government of Queensland and the Commonwealth to support the World Heritage listing of agreed upon areas of significance'. I reject the Labor Party's unilateralist approach. I repeat that view today and I stress the word `agreed'. In my speech on 15 March I set out clearly and in detail exactly what the Opposition's alternative plan provided for. Perhaps having started the debate by quoting what Mr Cohen originally said, it would be only right and proper to come back to his views at the end of the debate. Writing in the Bulletin of 24 May 1988, Mr Cohen said the following about World Heritage listing: I was even more vigorously opposed to its misuse- that is, World Heritage listing- by adding areas as a means of blocking state governments' environmental vandalism. Those battles had to be fought through other methods. He concluded that article by saying: If the World Heritage Act falls into disrepute, it will have destroyed the most effective weapon we have to protect Australians' and some of the world's outstanding natural and cultural treasures. Senator Richardson is dragging the World Heritage Act into political disrepute in Queensland, Tasmania and throughout this country. The Opposition parties have made it clear that they are fully in support of the proper use of the World Heritage listing of areas of this country. Indeed, under the Fraser Government, significant parts of this country were entered on the World Heritage List without rancour and without acrimony. They were entered on that list, including the Great Barrier Reef, in consultation with the State governments concerned, together with plans of management and financial arrangements being devised which were appropriate in the circumstances. They included areas in Tasmania, New South Wales, the Northern Territory and Queensland and we, in government, made effective use of World Heritage listing for those unique areas without rancour, without public discord and without disregard for the rights of either the States, local government or the affected individuals. It is only under this Government that World Heritage listing has ceased to be a tool of environmental management and has become a tool of political weaponry, as far as this Government is concerned, in relation to States with whom it has disagreements. It will not do it when it comes to Shark Bay, for example, because the Minister has already made a deal with the Western Australian Government not to cause them political aggravation as far as that listing is concerned. That is the attitude that this Minister takes. He will do deals with his political friends and use World Heritage listing as an instrument against his political opponents. That is what the Opposition parties are primarily opposed to and it is the primary reason for moving for the disallowance of both the proclamation made by the Governor-General and the regulations made in relation to the wet tropical rainforests of north-east Queensland. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Zakharov) —Senator Puplick, before I call the next speaker I seek some clarification. In seeking leave for the two motions to be dealt with together did you intend that they be voted on together? Senator Puplick —I would be perfectly happy to do that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I call Senator Sanders. Senator Richardson —I bow. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(10.37) —I thank my colleague on the other side of the Senate for his enthusiastic welcome. We have just heard half an hour of the greatest hypocrisy that has ever besmirched the beautiful timbers of this chamber. Senator McGauran —Do you have a passport? Senator SANDERS —Is that an ethnic slur? We who are here by choice, rather than by accident of birth, take great pride in the Australian environment. I am afraid that the spokesperson for the environment for the Liberal Party of Australia, Senator Puplick, has no feeling at all for the environment. He talks pure politics. Senator Puplick has blown once and for all any chance that the Liberals have ever had of convincing anyone in this country that they have any environmental concern. If Senator Stone had made this speech I would have understood it. I would have understood where he was coming from and what he was on about and it would have been in line with his Opposition Party's policies. But Senator Puplick is the man who is supposed to re-establish the credentials of the Opposition in the environmental area. He has a long way to go. He may have convinced the mining companies of his loyalty, he may have pledged his fealty to the woodchippers and anyone else who would despoil the environment, but I am afraid that he will not win any sensible votes from people concerned about the future of Australia with that speech. Basically, what he is doing is what we have learned to recognise in Tasmania over the last 10 years as sheer demagoguery. He is doing the same as Robin Gray has done. He is using the people of northern Queensland as Robin Gray used the people of South West Tasmania, and Tasmania in general, as pawns in a purely political game-a cynical political ploy. The people in north Queensland and in Tasmania have nothing to fear from World Heritage listings. World Heritage listings are eagerly sought in the rest of the world. Why? Because a World Heritage listing is the key to prosperity in terms of tourism. Being on the World Heritage route means that people are aware of the area. They come to see it. North Queensland had no future in the timber industry. Everyone in north Queensland knows that. The timber industry was dying. Senator Richardson nods in agreement. If the Queensland Government, the Queensland National Party and people such as Senator Puplick had not continually stirred up the local people, and harped on the negative aspects of the World Heritage listing, but instead had talked about the positive aspects, there would be no disagreement now. The disagreement was not caused by the Federal Government. It was not caused by the World Heritage listing. It was caused by those who wanted to make political gain out of what they could stir up in the area. This happened in Tasmania. Robin Gray came to power on just such tactics and used them ever since. But what happened in Tasmania once the World Heritage listing was made and the system was in operation? Places like Strahan in Tasmania had been stirred into a fever pitch of hatred against the greenies. People were beaten up. Bob Brown was beaten up. Numbers of people were assaulted by the local people because Robin Gray had stirred them into such a fever pitch. What has happened now? They say that it is the best thing that ever happened to the place. It has caused a tourist industry to develop, which is employing far more people than any of the hydro projects ever could. This will happen in north Queensland, in spite of what Senator Puplick has said. It will happen because the Government is sticking to its guns and will not back down in the face of the threats of political violence and physical violence that come from north Queensland and from people like Senator Boswell, who will follow me in this debate and who, I am sure, will tell us the same- Senator Boswell —Madam Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I have been accused of inciting political and physical violence. I have never, at any stage, promoted violence. I ask the honourable senator to withdraw those words. I find them offensive and untrue. Senator SANDERS —Certainly, I withdraw `physical violence'. I have never encountered Senator Boswell in the field. I do not know whether he has been threatening physical violence. I sincerely hope that he has not. I have no proof of that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Zakharov) —I ask the honourable senator to withdraw. Senator SANDERS —I withdraw the term `physical violence', but `political violence' perhaps should stand. Political violence is a different matter. Senator Boswell —Madam Acting Deputy President, I take another point of order. I have never incited political violence, either. I have merely pointed out the injustices of this World Heritage listing. I ask you to call for a complete withdrawal. I ask that both the terms `physical violence' and `political violence' be withdrawn from Senator Sanders's contribution. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Sanders, are you prepared to withdraw? Senator SANDERS —I think it could be argued that we engage in political violence every time we stand up in this chamber. I feel that political violence is any violence done to the political system. Any time an opposition, for instance, wants to unseat a government, it would be political violence. Unless the Chair rules that `political violence' is an offensive term, I wish that it would stand. Senator Boswell —Madam Acting Deputy President, I call another point of order. I ask for your ruling on the words `political violence'. I do not accept that I have ever incited political violence. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It is a form of words which has no strict definition. As Senator Boswell finds it offensive, I ask Senator Sanders to withdraw it. Senator SANDERS —In the interests of senatorial camaraderie, and in the hope that all of us are working in the best interests of the people of Australia, I withdraw the comment, as the honourable senator finds it offensive. We have been listening to Senator Puplick saying, `Aha! This dreaded Government has been listening to the people, has been reacting to the voices of the people, and thus has gone ahead with this World Heritage listing'. What a terrible government it is that listens to the voice of the people and does what the people want! I suppose we could take it that if the Opposition came to power it would not listen to the voice of the people. It would simply steamroll the voice of the people. I think it is wonderful that Senator Richardson feels that he should listen to the people. Why should he not do so? That is why we are here. That is what we are supposed to do. Perhaps it is so unusual for a government to listen to the voice of the people that it was singled out by Senator Puplick. I find it a healthy thing. If the people of Melbourne, Sydney, Wagga, Hobart or anywhere want World Heritage listing of an area of Australia which, after all, belongs to all of us, why should that not occur? As far as I can see, the Government has always given the people of north Queensland great consideration; it has offered them compensation packages and made numerous trips to the area. Senator Richardson has made trips to the area to try to explain the Government package. I, too, have made statements about the people of north Queensland, the people of Tasmania and people anywhere who are affected by a World Heritage listing or any other environmental listing. It turns out generally that environmental considerations simply ensure that the people of an area will have a place to live and work in in the future. The way we are going now with all of our exploitation schemes, we will rip it out of the ground now and who cares what happens in five years time. It turns out that the conservationists are really the conservatives; they want to conserve society. It is the get-rich-quick artists like Senator Puplick who would have us destroy it immediately and let future generations take care of themselves. The conservationists want the future generations to be provided for. I believe that the World Heritage listing does such a thing. We hear emotive terms such as `land grab' as if Senator Richardson has grabbed this land, is going to put a fence around it and not let anybody else get in. That is not so at all. It is not a land grab. It merely outlines an area which is of world significance. The Government will do everything in its power to make sure that any developments in that area are commensurate with the World Heritage listing. It is not a land grab. It is not a Federal Government takeover of State land. It is simply a means of preserving something for the future. It is nowhere near as draconian, incidentally, as the United States national parks legislation. When Yellowstone-one of the first national parks to be established-came into being in the 1870s, it was managed for some years by a commissionaire who was selling, as Senator Puplick probably would, mineral rights, timber and trapping rights. The United States Congress heard about this and was so incensed that it removed him from his position and sent in the United States cavalry, which ruled Yellowstone National Park for 30 years with drawn sabres and guns. That is the way to protect an area. Senator Richardson, however, relies upon his sharp wit rather than a sharpened blade to preserve this area for pos- terity. The Australian Democrats do not support Senator Puplick's motion. We feel that the World Heritage listing is a great step forward. Future generations will admire the stand taken by this Government and will look back with some wonder at any opposition which could suggest that a World Heritage listing for the wet tropics was not an entirely good thing. Senator BLACK(Queensland)(10.49) —I thank Senator Sanders for his contribution. I am pleased that out of consideration to this side of the chamber he kept it reasonably brief. I listened with some sympathy to Senator Puplick's contribution. I am surprised, if he was so pleased to be identified with the National Party of Australia on this issue, that he did not actually debate it last week when it could have been broadcast to all his supporters in north Queensland. I am sure that the fact that this is not a broadcast day, as it normally would be, had absolutely nothing to do with it. Senator Richardson —It was deferred because I asked for it to be. Senator BLACK —Right. It has been established in this place many times already that the nomination of the World Heritage listing of the wet tropics was the only option that the Federal Government had left if these valuable rainforests were to be retained intact for future generations. On the other hand, all that we have heard from the Queensland Government is its record of neglect, mismanagement and political opportunism. There is no doubt that without the intervention of the Federal Government the Queensland Government's policy of development at whatever the cost would have eventually destroyed a region with universally recognised natural values. The decision to nominate the wet tropics for World Heritage listing was made in response to the Queensland Government's absolute determination to continue logging the north Queensland rainforests. This determination is despite the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources calling, as long ago as 1984, on both the Queensland and Federal governments to recognise the value of the area and nominate it for World Heritage listing. Last year, 65 per cent of the nominations before the World Heritage Committee were passed. The Federal Government is confident that the wet tropics will be approved for nomination when the Committee meets in November. Our best evidence suggests that the region meets all four of the criteria that have been set down for the establishment of outstanding universal value. Yet, even after the nomination, the Queensland Government made it absolutely clear it was not prepared to alter its normal forestry management practices. In the Federal Government's view, the planned recommencement of forestry operations with the start of the dry season in April-and the Queensland Government's refusal to police such operations adequately-would have posed a severe threat to the natural values of the area. This is the reason that we moved to provide the area with interim protection, by amending the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act. The World Heritage Committee is currently making its independent assessment of the area. If the Committee refuses to inscribe all, or even part, of the area nominated for World Heritage listing, protection under the amendments to the World Heritage Conservation Act will cease. But it must be agreed that we cannot allow the ridiculous situation to develop where this valuable area is irreparably damaged in the year of nomination. It is clear from Senator Puplick's motion that he is determined to assist those members of the National Party, the Queensland Government and the timber industry who wish to indulge in the wholesale destruction of the area while there is still a chance to do so. It is fairly simple, although obviously not for some members of the Opposition, to realise the Queensland Government's motives for opposing an important initiative such as the World Heritage listing of the wet tropical rainforests. I remind honourable senators that not only was the Australian Government willing to take on the Queensland Government over nomination of the wet tropics, but also it was prepared to meet its responsibilities to those workers and businesses affected by the listing. The Queensland Government has also been generating misinformation on this issue. Senator Richardson recently detailed a compensation package worth more that $75m that will ensure the future of both the workers affected by the World Heritage listing and the region itself. This package includes a sum of $50.9m which over a three-year period will be directed to job-creating private and community initiatives. A labour adjustment package will be funded by the Federal Government at a cost of $6.5m. This includes an immediate payout of a $2,500 dislocation allowance to all eligible workers. This package also includes redundancy payments of up to $30,000 for workers 55 years and older. I assure honourable senators that it is a damned sight better than they would ever receive from the timber industry. Wage subsidies of about $100 per week will be available to workers for a period of up to 26 weeks. A training allowance of $30 per week, plus unemployment benefits, will be made available for a period of up to 13 weeks. The Federal Government will also provide relocation assistance, including fares and removal expenses for workers taking up employment in other locations. The Government has allocated $24.4m in compensation for companies and businesses directly and substantially affected by the cessation of logging in the World Heritage area. Payments will be made to those businesses which had been logging within the World Heritage area and to other businesses, such as logging contractors, sleeper cutters, supplies and rainforest timber users. The continued operation of the Associated Plywood Sales mill at Ravenshoe has been assured, through a series of payments from the Federal Government to meet the cost of retooling the mill to enable it to process plantation timbers. The Federal Government is confident this will ensure the future of the town of Ravenshoe. As a result of all of these initiatives, 600 jobs will be created because of the World Heritage listing. A further 240 workers will take up adjustment measures provided by the Commonwealth. I make the point that the Federal Government's job creation initiatives and adjustment assistance will not ignore the 100 workers affected by a recent reduction in the Queensland Forestry Department's timber quota. While these jobs would have been lost irrespective of the World Heritage listing, those 100 workers will be entitled to take advantage of the initiatives that I have just outlined. The Queensland Government and the Opposition have both chosen to ignore the fact that some logging operations will continue in north Queensland, outside the World Heritage boundaries. Consultants have advised the Federal Government that the Associated Plywood Sales mill at Ravenshoe and another five mills could remain open. These mills employ about 200 workers and represent about one-quarter of the existing timber milling industry. Amid all its campaigning against the World Heritage nomination and the Federal Government's compensation package, the Queensland Government has consistently refused to acknowledge that the north Queensland timber industry has, in fact, been declining for the past decade. The Queensland Forestry Department claims that its Crown rainforest annual timber quota of 60,000 cubic metres can be sustained for all time. Yet since the 1960s the Department's sustained yield predictions have been reducing at an alarming rate. In 1960 the Department said that surveys proved that the forests could sustain the then annual production in north Queensland of between 240,000 and 270,000 cubic metres. By 1975 this estimate was reduced by about 30 per cent. Estimates of the long term sustainable yield then ranged from 160,000 to 200,000 cubic metres. Six years later, in 1981, this figure was cut in half, to 80,000 cubic metres. In 1986, the estimated yield was further reduced to the current figure of 60,000. Not only did the estimate reduce by 20,000 cubic metres, but the aggregate land base on which the estimate rests was expanded by 15,000 hectares. That is hardly a picture of a industry with a long term future. This planning procedure by the Queensland Forestry Department involved no public participation and, indeed, the Department is reluctant to divulge any significant details about how its final quota was arrived at. No-one even knows, for example, the details of the land base to which the calculations apply. So it is little wonder that there is widespread doubt, even among the Department's own staff, about the viability of forest management and the rainforest timber industry. I quote Mr Vic Stockwell, who worked as a ranger in the north Queensland rainforests for almost 30 years and in that time gained a pretty good idea about how the system really worked. Mr Stockwell said that forestry officers were often under enormous pressure from representatives of milling companies. He confirmed that the Queensland Forestry Department never had an effective rainforest management plan. In Mr Stockwell's experience-- Senator Boswell —Is that Stockwell or Stocker? Senator BLACK —Stockwell. I have the article here for Senator Boswell, if he is interested in reading it. I quote: The Department of Forestry had rules but no-one ever took any notice of them and there were enormous breaches of departmental rules. So much for the Queensland Government's forestry management plan. Up to 40 per cent of jobs in the north Queensland timber industry had been abolished prior to the World Heritage nomination. The State Government has made no effort to compensate these workers and neither have the employers. Rather, the Queensland Government has attempted to mislead the timber workers into thinking that had the World Heritage listing not gone ahead their jobs would have been assured, whereas in fact it would only have been a matter of time before economics would have forced the closure of the north Queensland mills and there would have been no compensation forthcoming from the National Party State Government. All that it has sought is someone to blame for something that was going to happen anyway. Senator Richardson has already stated that the Commonwealth requires only cooperation from the Queensland Government to ensure the economic prosperity of north Queensland following the World Heritage nomination. Yet recent events have confirmed that the Federal Government cannot depend on any such cooperation. I will give honourable senators a few examples. Take the case of Douglas Simms, a sawmiller, and William Quaid, a timber cutter, who will both appear in the Cairns Magistrates Court next month on charges of illegally removing rainforest trees from the Cape Tribulation National Park last year. If found guilty, they could be fined $1,000 under State laws. Yet the Queensland Government is considering buying the timber-valued at $100,000-that Simms and Quaid are alleged to have removed from the park. As my colleague the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) has pointed out, such an offer could prove the State Government guilty of receiving stolen goods. Senator Boswell —They are not going to buy the timber, they are taking it over. Senator BLACK —I understand why Senator Boswell is sticking up for them. Australian Electoral Commission records show that Simms donated $1,000 to the Queensland National Party. I applaud Senator Boswell's loyalty to the donor of $1,000 to the National Party last year. Consider also the Queensland Government's support for the construction of a road proposed by the developer George Quaid to be constructed through the proposed World Heritage boundaries. The road would run from Southedge Lake, between Mount Molloy and Mareeba, to Wangetta on the coast, 40 kilometres north of Cairns. This little atrocity has been welcomed by the Queensland Northern Development Minister, Mr Bob Katter, Jr, who has described the road as `a great thing' for north Queensland. My Queensland colleagues in this place will be familiar with the Queensland Government's approach to environmentally threatening development. Valuable areas of land, particularly along the Queensland coast, are constantly under threat from developments approved by the Queensland Government without any consideration for the environment. Much has been said about the procedures used by the Queensland Government to facilitate such developments, particularly controversial developments proposed by National Party members or their friends or relatives. These special ministerial rezonings were commonplace under the former Premier and they have been retained in principle by his successor, Mike Ahern, despite his `vision of excellence', as he terms it, which I and an increasing number of State National Party backbenchers, including Yvonne Chapman, have been anxiously waiting to arrive. A ministerial rezoning is an arrangement whereby the State Government intervenes in the rezoning applications of privileged developers. Applications are approved by the Queensland Executive Council. The objections of local authorities, interest groups or individuals are completely ignored. These select applicants are saved the considerable cost normally incurred in a rezoning application. Sadly, the people of Queensland have been led to believe that the `clean broom' Mike Ahern claimed he would be sweeping through the Queensland Government would see the end of this particular form of cronyism. In fact, the Queensland Local Government Minister, Mr Randell, ordered a freeze on applications for ministerial rezonings in December. But recent events have proved the freeze was no more than a publicity stunt. Had the Queensland Government not demonstrated such an appalling disregard for both the environment and the rights of ordinary Queenslanders, legislation such as we are debating here today would not have been necessary. I remind all honourable senators that the Federal Government's entire package of job creation, labour adjustment assistance and business compensation will require no funds from Queensland. That is probably fortunate. The Federal Government is well accustomed to the misdealings of the Queensland Government when it comes to matters involving Federal and State funds. The Queensland Government's notorious misuse of Federal funds, whether it be to assist National Party cronies or to prop up that State's pretty sick economy, has been well documented in this place by me and others. Take, for example, Federal funds for the community employment program (CEP). The Queensland Government constantly abused the CEP scheme by using funds to balance the State Budget and to fund projects normally covered by Queensland Government departmental activities. A number of my colleagues have expressed concern in this place that the Queensland Government had reduced the number of its own permanent employees by employing CEP participants to carry out duties such as clerical work within the Queensland Public Service. I have raised in the Senate several times the matter of the Queensland Government's use of Commonwealth funds, supplied under the natural disaster relief arrangements, to assist National Party favourites. Then there is the matter of the Queensland Public Service Board report last year which alleged the Queensland Government had deliberately overstated the number of homes built under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Another glaring example is the Queensland Government practice of siphoning into Consolidated Revenue Federal funds loaned to the State's Rural Reconstruction Board. The Queensland Government then loaned these funds out, at a higher interest rate, to sugar millers-and called it State Government assistance. Senator Boswell —Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The subject before the Senate is a disallowance motion on the World Heritage area. It is not a bash at the Queensland Government. All Senator Black seems to be able to do in this Senate is attack the Queensland Government. I suggest that you call him to order and make him address the point of relevance. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —I do not think there is any point of order, Senator Boswell, but I ask Senator Black to speak to the relevant disallowance motion. Senator BLACK —Yes, Madam Deputy President, I will be very conciliatory towards the former Queensland Government. I simply wanted to make the point that when it comes to co-operation with the Queensland Government we, as a Federal government, have to consider the cooperation we have received in the past-and we have not received any. Any money which has been handed over has been filched, siphoned off and loaned at a higher interest rate. The Queensland Government has then claimed the credit for it. That point needs to be made. The Queensland Government has been happy to use any of the funds we have made available in any way it sees fit. Yet when the Commonwealth honoured its commitment, such as protecting the north Queensland timber workers, the Queensland Government was the first to condemn the assistance package as inadequate. I ask: Is the Queensland Government prepared to assist these workers in any way? The answer of course is no. The current Queensland Premier has continued along the same reckless path that was exploited by his predecessor. In fact, in every substantial way he has proved to be simply a pale imitation of the former conservative Queensland Government Premier. The Queensland Government has shown no concern for the timber industry. That industry was declining and was destined to become bankrupt within a very short time. Mills were closing and would continue to close at a rapid rate. All the Federal Government has sought to do is conserve what is left of a very valuable international resource and to compensate fairly those workers who are going to be displaced in the short term and who would have been displaced at any event in the longer term. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(11.06) —We have just heard from an honourable senator who represents the Australian Workers Union faction in Queensland. I would have thought that the workers, unionists, who sent Senator Black to Canberra to protect their way of life and their interests would be terribly disappointed with the apology Senator Black has made. Instead of vigorously defending the timber industry and trying to protect the jobs of timber workers, he has sold out, as all the Australian Labor Party (ALP) members have sold out, to the greenie section of the constituency they are trying to attract. The further they go with the greenies, the further the greenies wipe their hands and say, `We are not interested; you are not giving enough'. That is the whole point of the disaster that is confronting the Labor Party members as they lose contact with their grassroots support in their heartland. They are trying to outflank the Australian Democrats and to achieve that 3 per cent or 4 per cent vote. They are trying to move to the left, if that is possible, of the Democrats. Where they are failing is that they are losing about 96 per cent of their support. If the truth were known, they would rue the day they ever heard of World Heritage listing. They would like to back out of it very quickly and not have a thing to do with it. I give some advice to members of the Labor Party: leave that minority 3 per cent or 4 per cent to the Democrats. They are already working for the Labor Party and vote with it on every occasion. Those opposite should leave the Democrats their bit of constituency and coalesce happily together forever. But what they are doing now is losing their grassroots support. We move this disallowance motion in a last ditch attempt to save a $33m industry and 2,500 workers' jobs and to protect 890,000-odd acres of the World Heritage listing area. Let that be in the hands of State and local governments that have been elected by the constituents of that area. I desperately wanted to lead in this debate today but I have yielded to my colleague Senator Puplick. As a senator from Queensland, I thought it would be wonderful if I could lead in the debate-but I yielded to Senator Puplick because he has done an excellent job on the World Heritage listing matter. In the 1987 election campaign the ALP made a concerted push to capture and attract that greenie vote. Senator Puplick has alluded to that in his contribution. We saw advertisements that depicted trees crashing to the ground to the roar of chainsaws. The advertisements were designed to attract the conservation vote. Those opposite were trying to attract the people in Sydney and Melbourne, people who live in their three-bedroom brick homes in the suburbs of those areas; but they did not attract them. The advertisements did not really get to the bottom of what World Heritage listing is all about. In the aftermath of the election we saw the Government rush in like a bull in a china shop to get its campaign geared up to World Heritage listing. The fact that this matter is before the Senate today really indicates that the future of north Queensland has been placed in the melting pot by the Federal Government's blind push for World Heritage listing. This Government has bungled and blustered its way through this World Heritage listing matter in its proposal to nominate the area. Instead of choosing to adopt a long term, calm, studied, rational approach, the Government has disenfranchised 2,500 workers and destroyed a $33m industry. People in north Queensland were scared when the listing was first mooted because, like the rest of Australians, they had no idea of the full extent of the proposal. Not even the Government had any real idea of how the proposal would be implemented. Anyone daring to question Senator Richardson on the reasons for listing was not met with facts and supporting evidence. Despite Senator Richardson and his Government spending $300,000 on environmental and social impact studies, those studies became available only two or three weeks ago. So what Senator Richardson was giving us was blind rhetoric. It was only after months of pressure from the Opposition, mounted in Question Time, in debates and in Estimates committee hearings, that the results have now become publicly available. I have continually asked questions in this chamber such as: Where are the $300,000-worth of environmental and social impact studies? I was told that they were not available. I even had to mount a freedom of information campaign. When Senator Richardson found that the game was up and he had to answer us, he issued those environmental impact studies. I have no doubt in my mind why Senator Richardson had to hide those environmental impact studies: they were all detrimental to his proposal for World Heritage listing. Let us look at some of the results of the studies. They all vindicate, to varying degrees, the concerns being expressed by the Opposition. The overall impression gained from the reports is that the listing will cause widespread damage to the people of north Queensland, that the Federal Government has rushed the listing proposal, that a viable timber industry could have existed without World Heritage listing and that the Federal Government cannot afford to compensate adequately those people directly affected by the proposals for the loss of their jobs and future. That is not my assessment or that of this side of the House. It is the assessment given by Senator Richardson's social and environmental impact studies, by people he and the Government commissioned to bring down reports. At the risk of repeating Senator Puplick, I will also refer in my speech to the paragraphs of the social impact assessment of World Heritage listing carried out by the Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of Queensland and the School of Australian Environmental Studies at Griffith University. It indicates the depth of feeling in the north Queensland local community. The study states that the people in the area considered for listing are overwhelmingly against the proposal. They are afraid, uncertain and frustrated by the Federal Government's lack of information. They do not wish to be forced into alternative employment and they doubt strongly the Government's ability to provide adequate retraining and compensation. In short, the people of north Queensland do not buy for one minute the Government's shallow promises. The report also outlines the immediate effect of listing the proposal on the local area. Families face dislocation, with declining housing value and possible loss of mortgages. There has been a severe decline in small business profits, with banks discouraging investment and with money withdrawn from ongoing business transactions. Sales of businesses within the area have quite simply stagnated until buyers see the long term effects of the listing proposal. Children are being affected with increasing family stress, potential dislocation and break-up of existing friendships and schooling patterns. The findings of the report mirror the concerns expressed to the Federal Government from day one. If Senator Richardson is proud of that report, I invite him to get up and say so because that is what the report has said. Senator Richardson is trying to defend the indefensible. The reports that he commissioned have attacked him vigorously. Let us put that report aside and pick up another one. More damaging is the finding by ACIL Australia Pty Ltd. It states that the rainforest based timber industry in north Queensland is an important and economically viable part of the regional economy. The Federal Government has consistently stressed that the north Queensland timber industry is on its last legs. We have just heard Senator Black say that it is on its last legs. Unfortunately the report commissioned by Senator Richardson, one of the front men in the Labor Party, disagrees with Senator Black. That is an independent report. It is not paid for by the National Party of Australia, the timber industry or the people who live in the World Heritage area. It is paid for by the Government. Where the Federal Government consistently stressed that the north Queensland timber industry is on its last legs, the report clearly indicates that the industry has an important contribution to make. In fact, the report went further in stating that the industry, given further rationalisation and modernisation, has a promising future. Either Senator Black should withdraw his contribution and say that it is based on misinformation, or he should demand his money back from ACIL. Both cannot be right; one is either right or wrong. I suggest that the independent people would be right and Senator Black would be totally wrong. Senator Black —Tell that to the workers who do not have jobs there any more; they know. Senator BOSWELL —The industry, workers and the people of Australia had a promising future before this Labor Party got elected. The irony of it is that the conservatives on this side of the House are protecting the workers and the sawmillers in the timber industry who probably never voted for us in their lives. They send their men, such as Senator Black, down here to represent their interests in this Parliament and Senator Black has written them off, wiped them off, as has everyone in the ALP. The Government's own members are becoming highly embarrassed about this. Senator Button, Mr Kerin-all the Ministers-and a number of backbenchers, such as Dr Klugman, are all walking away from it and I do not blame them. Senator Richardson's misinformation in this regard will be a constant reminder to people throughout Australia of the danger of this Government. Senator Richardson said that the logging industry in the World Heritage area was finished, that thousands of jobs had already been lost and that it was only a matter of time before the industry was closed. Senator Richardson obviously wrote Senator Black's speech. His own consultancy report prepared by ACIL Australia Pty Ltd outlines that the industry could have continued to exist on a quota of 60,000 cubic metres provided that this quota was sustainable. The fact is that the Queensland Government, following its own long term management plan for the area, has already taken steps to reduce the timber harvest in this area from 195,000 cubic metres to 60,000 cubic metres, bringing the harvest to a figure that could sustain the industry. That is what the Queensland Government has done. The timber harvest has been voluntarily reduced from 195,000 cubic metres to 65,000 cubic metres. ACIL maintains that the industry can be viable with that capacity. Perhaps it is time to address another piece of misinformation given to this House by Senator Black. Senator Black said-I take exception to his using this House to push this misinformation -that Quaid was fined for illegally taking-- Senator Richardson —He did not. Senator BOSWELL —What did he say? Senator Richardson —He said that it was coming up to court in a week's to two weeks time. Senator BOSWELL —The implication in his statement was that $100,000 worth of timber taken by Quaid was paid for by the Queensland Government, thus aiding and abetting someone who had done something that could have been construed as illegal. Let me put the true picture before this Senate. The $100,000 worth of timber was not bought by the Queensland Government; it was confiscated by the Queensland Government to be used in the restoration of old Queensland buildings. That is the type of misinformation we get day and night in this Senate. I say to Senator Black, `If you are not going to defend the people who elected you, if you are not going to represent the working class men and women of this nation, at least get your speech right', because the honourable senator is pushing misinformation in this Senate. Let me not get diverted on that. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) has been continually critical of the Queensland Government's management plan in the World Heritage area. Senator Richardson —Correct. Senator BOSWELL —I am glad to see that the Minister goes on record and says that that is correct. In the Estimates Committee on 22 October, the Minister asserted that `the State Government had mismanaged the rainforest resources'. Does Senator Richardson agree that he said that? Senator Richardson —I do not recall saying it, but if I did not, I should have. Senator BOSWELL —I will quote him. He stated: In the first instance one would say that the management plan for the forests is at fault. He then went on to blame the Queensland Forestry Department, stating that the overall results had been appalling. Those are his words. This statement was obviously prior to his receiving the ACIL consultancy report. What does this report have to say about the Queensland Forestry Department's performance and management? These are the Minister's people. He nominated them, not us. Despite the Minister posturing to the contrary, the report found: In more recent years, the Queensland Forestry Department's performance and sophistication in rainforest management have improved markedly to the point where it is generally agreed to be held in high regard by interstate and overseas public sector forestry organisations. The operations of logging and timber businesses are possibly the most tightly governed in the nation to ensure that public policies are adhered to at all times. That is Senator Richardson's report from his consultancy. I know that he did not like the report. I know that he did not want to accept it, but the facts stand for themselves. The Queensland Forestry Department and the State Government have acted in a responsible manner at all times. Senator Richardson has told this Parliament and this Senate time and time again that nothing is going to be swept under the carpet. He said that he was confident that the nomination would stand up to the most rigorous examination. They did not stand up to any examination; even his own consultancy reports would not even back him up. He has said that he has read the scientific evidence and that he knew where he was heading. He certainly may have known, but he kept us in the dark. He knew that the moment those consultancy reports hit the deck they would blow the whole World Heritage area apart. That is exactly what has happened. I say to the Minister that this nomination does not stand up to the evidence and that it will not stand up to rigorous examination. His own research reports indicate the true cost of the proposal and the baseless rhetoric of the Government's arguments. Senator Richardson ought to apologise for misleading the Senate. The people of north Queensland are the ones who are being caught in the Government's vice over this issue. They are being placed in a situation where they are being forced to second guess the decision made by an outside body, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). The people of north Queensland are sick of the Federal Government's interference, the State Government is sick of the Federal Government's interference and the IUCN is sick of being involved in the political squabbles of this nation. In December last year the Australian Ambassador to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) warned the Minister, in a confidential telex, to adopt a more open approach to solving Federal and State differences on World Heritage listing. In part, the telex warned-this is in inverted commas: `We are the only country that sends its internal difficulties to the Committee on an annual basis and to this extent appear to be gaining a bit of a reputation for eccentricity . . . Some members resent being placed in a position of having to react and to resolve matters that they think should be resolved in Australia'. That is from the telex the Government's Ambassador to UNESCO. The problem is clear. The Federal Government has bulldozed ahead with its listing proposal without any real regard for the people of north Queensland. It has placed the IUCN committee on an unenviable position, where it is now forced to adjudicate on what is basically an internal fight-a fight by the Queensland Government to preserve in a structured manner not only the ongoing viability of the north Queensland timber industry but also the States' forestry reserves and its right to administer this land. As all honourable senators would be aware, the IUCN evaluation team visited north Queensland in order to address the Commonwealth nomination. During the brief visit the team managed to meet not only with representatives of the States and Federal governments but also with other interested parties in north Queensland. From the information that we have received it is clear that the IUCN committee has seen through the Federal Government's shallow claims as to resource management by the Queensland State Government. I have here a letter that makes very interesting reading. It is from a member of the IUCN evaluation team, Lawrence S. Hamilton, and is directed to someone in the timber industry. The letter states that time constraints prevented the IUCN team from personally meeting with a representative of the group. It further states that the writer is in sympathy with many of the statements made by the Institute. However, the real crux of the letter is in the concluding paragraph, which I would like to quote: I would therefore like to assure you that the viewpoint you wished to present has been received and has been considered by the IUCN evaluation team. I hope that the recommendation which we make, which has many aspects of compromise, will have the support of your group. The fact is that the IUCN team has not swallowed the Federal Government's proposal hook, line and sinker. It is at least prepared to accept the need for compromise. Senator Richardson —That did not sound like great support. I am not quite sure why you quoted it. Senator BOSWELL —I have the letter. I will show it to the Minister. Here it is. The IUCN is saying that it is going to go for a compromise and it is not going to take any notice of what the Minister is suggesting. Does the Minister understand it now? Senator Richardson —No. Senator BOSWELL —There are none so blind as those who do not want to see. Far from being horrified at the timber industry's practices in north Queensland, the IUCN team acknowledged the Queensland State Government's responsible approach to rainforest management. The Federal Government does not have to believe me that the Queensland rainforests are being well looked after. It can choose to ignore the valid claims of the Queensland Government. But I suggest that it should take note of the IUCN. I have received information from the timber industry that the IUCN assessment team went on record at a public meeting in north Queensland as saying that it believed that the Queensland Government had the best logging and roading record in the world. The IUCN team said that the Queensland Government's approach to ongoing rainforest management in the State had resulted in foresting practices that were the least environmentally damaging of those anywhere in the world. Far from condemning the State Government as the wreckers of our national heritage, as the Federal Government has tried to say in this Parliament it is, the IUCN is on record as praising the efforts of the State Government in developing a sound management policy that permits minimal environmental damage. That is really the conclusion to which the IUCN has come. It is on record as acknowledging that the practices developed by the Queensland State Government have been sound. As I come to the final five minutes of my speech, I believe that it is time to reflect on what has been achieved over the last 12 months during which this debate has raged. It is time to examine the balance sheet of Labor's disastrous attempt to win a few votes in the inner suburban areas of Melbourne and Sydney. As I have indicated, the Labor Party has betrayed the unionists and the grass roots support of the Party, really at the altar of the greenie vote. But that support of 3 or 4 per cent is not really the constituency that should be looked after. Let the Democrats have it. They will vote with the Government anyhow. Our Constitution has been raped by this Government. It has been desecrated to the point where it now denies the Queensland Government the right to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The Government has done this in a backhanded manner through retrospective legislation, giving the final say on World Heritage matters to UNESCO-an unelected body that can now tell Australia what it can and cannot do. The Government has given UNESCO this power, despite the fact that no-one in Australia has ever voted for UNESCO. The ledger sheet on World Heritage also shows that the Government has now established another police force that can impose fines of $1,000 or gaol a person for 12 months without a warrant. Senator Richardson —Oh! Senator BOSWELL —That is a fact. That is in the legislation. It does not even need a warrant to do it. The Government has also moved ruthlessly to impose changes to the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act that make it legal to nominate areas of land for World Heritage listing without the need for prior environmental impact studies to be carried out. It has done this because, despite spending $300,000 on commissioned socioeconomic and environmental impact studies, there was not one report-apart from that tame cat biased report from Aila Keto-that could sustain an argument to support World Heritage listing. I suggest that her credibility has been shot to pieces; it is severely tainted. I believe that she has been bought lock, stock and barrel by this Government, which paid her $14,000 for a report, as President of the Rainforest Conservation Society of Queensland, recommending that logging cease. Of course she was going to recommend that logging cease. That has to be the most stupid waste of $14,000 I have ever seen. The Federal Government then gave her $3,835 to attend the IUCN meeting in Costa Rica, including $250 telex expenses for her to issue Press releases against the Queensland Government's stand. There is no doubt in my mind that she has sold out to this Government. During the debate this Government has constantly distorted and misled the people of Australia, and we have seen more evidence of that today. Senator Richardson said that he could not get consultation with the Queensland Government. But I put down in this House some time ago a telex from the Queensland Premier asking for an appointment. Of course, we never hear about those things. Well, the battle is really over now as far as we in this House are concerned. It has not all been one-sided, though. I will concede that the Government has managed to cause widespread havoc among the people of north Queensland. It has destroyed their jobs. In fact, the Labor Party has paid a very high price for the ground it has taken. The Labor Party lost the Adelaide by-election because people have come to realise that it does not represent them any more. Its precious jewel in its crown was lost in the New South Wales State election in a political rout, because the people, the grass roots, have realised that the Labor Party does not represent them any more, that it has lost touch with them. They are reacting against it in the ballot box. Senator Richardson —Ha, ha, ha! Senator BOSWELL —I am glad that Senator Richardson can laugh, because he did not have too big a smile on his face the night the New South Wales State election results came in. All he could say then was, `We do not understand the working class people any more'. The Minister has time to repent and vote for the disallowance motion. He may regain some credibility with his lost heartland and lost grassroots support-the working men and women of Australia. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.35) —All honourable senators will know the results of the evaluations and recommendations of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) within a fortnight. Unfortunately, the Senate will not be sitting at that time but, when it does resume, I will have great pride in pointing out to Senator Boswell how wrong he is about the way the IUCN feels about the wet tropics of north Queensland. So many foolhardy, wrong and ridiculous statements have been made today that I will not be able to cover them all. I will however, in the time available to me, not only attempt to go over the misinformation raised by Senator Puplick and Senator Boswell but also try to give some background as to why we are having this debate today and why the Government moved towards having the forests listed in the first place. I hope to explain the basis of the system. The basis of the system does need some explanation. Senator Puplick wrongly suggested that the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (CONCOM) agreement of 1984 had within its terms a requirement for agreement between the States and the Commonwealth. I can understand why he incorrectly did that, and I do not blame him for it. In 1986, I think, my Department put out an information paper in which it got the CONCOM agreement wrong. However, it corrected it thereafter so many times I cannot remember, and why the honourable senator would continue to use the wrong document is beyond me. Nonetheless, the 1984 CONCOM agreement has nothing in it about agreement and everything in it about consultation. It certainly suggested that there had to be consultation. I am happy to table the agreement if necessary, but it certainly has nothing in it about agreement between the Commonwealth and the States. The reality is that we spent three years trying to consult with the Queensland Government about the wet tropics. We have heard much today about scientific evidence. Both Senator Puplick and Senator Boswell seem to suggest that the Government simply does not have any. It is time to correct that impression. First of all, the forests were nominated in 1987 because they represent one of the most significant rainforest ecosystems in the world. There are unique species of birdlife and plants, exceptional coastal scenery where the tropical forest joins the sandy beaches and magnificent reefs just off the coast. It is the only remaining Aboriginal rainforest culture in the world. Scientists from all over the world have supported what the Government is doing, and I shall cite just a few of them: Professor Peter Ashton of Harvard University and the President of the International Association of Botanical Gardens; Professor Paul Richards of Oxford University; Sir Peter Scott of the World Wildlife Fund International; Professor Peter Endress of the University of Zurich; and Professor Schuster of the University of Massachusetts. As all honourable senators know, because it achieved some publicity, the Duke of Edinburgh, in his capacity as the President of the World Wildlife Fund, wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) congratulating him on the Australian Government's initiative in protecting the area. It is a bit difficult for a conservative opposition to criticise the Duke of Edinburgh, so I am on pretty safe ground. I will not hear too many interjections about the Duke. Members of the Opposition cannot say anything too nasty about him. Senator Collins —Did you just interject then, Ron? Senator RICHARDSON —He was thinking about it, but he backed off. Let us look at the question of selective logging because it has often been claimed that it is compatible with the World Heritage values in a rainforest, and that is the basis of the debate. Despite what some people may claim, one cannot compare logging with the natural disturbances of cyclones. There is nothing about logging in a rainforest. It represents a special man-made disturbance over and above those natural disturbances which occur from time to time as part of the normal life of the forest and its evolutionary process. Logging leads to serious disruption of the dynamic balance of a rainforest and, at times, it can be impossible to re-establish that. Short and long term changes in the composition of species result from logging. It also must be remembered that changes in the age classes of trees are present in the forest. As a result of logging, soil scarification, erosion, nutrient loss and the introduction of exotic species can occur. As part of the scientific evidence on the side of World Heritage listing, I want to quote Professor David Curtis, the President of the Australian Academy of Science: Arguments for continuation of current managed exploitation of the tropical rainforests, based on the suggestion that selective logging has few effects, are very superficial. Professor Daniel Janzen of the University of Pennsylvania studied the north Queensland rainforest with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, and he said: Despite all the noise to the contrary by the commercial exploitation interests, Australia's tropical rainforests have in fact been seriously damaged and are on the verge of much more serious loss. Against the weight of those eminent scientists from around the world and at home, Senator Puplick has quoted the Institute of Foresters of Australia. I suggest that the enormous weight of scientific opinion is on the side of World Heritage listing. Senator Boswell —What about the IUCN? Senator RICHARDSON —I will get to that; I will not miss that or Senator Boswell later on. I shall look at the claim that because areas have previously been logged they should not be included in a World Heritage area and, allegedly, the fact that we have must prove that logging does not degrade World Heritage values. The reality is that while some areas have been damaged by logging, it is still possible to protect their World Heritage values provided that logging does not continue. It must be remembered that current logging practices are very different from the practices of the past. It is no good saying, `We have logged there for 100 years and it has not done any harm.' The sort of logging that went on 100 years ago is very different from the logging of today. If honourable senators want to get into the mechanics of that, they need only look at the number of species that were able to be harvested to see what sort of damage can occur to the rainforest. In the early 1900s, only 10 rainforest species were allowed to be harvested from the forests. In the 1930s that had gone up to 26 species. In the 1940s, the figure was 36 and now, as we move into the 1990s, there is a compulsory list of 150 species that can be taken from the forests. The change has been dramatic in the last 100 years from the days when very few logs were taken from only a handful of species. Now, rainforest logging in north Queensland has become an open go. Some 150 species can now be taken. Of course, in the old days, bulldozers, tractors and trucks were not going into the forests. The damage they cause is enormous. We have heard much today about sustainable yield and that, again, is a central argument. The Queensland Department of Forestry, backed up by no less an authority on the subject than Senator Boswell, has told us that 60,000 cubic metres is the sustainable yield for all time, that it is the benchmark figure. That figure was first heard of in October 1986. At the time, there was a headline in the local paper at Ravenshoe, which said, `Ravenshoe under threat'. It was, of course, under threat not from World Heritage listing but the fact that, once again, the quota of timber that could be cut from the forest had been reduced dramatically. The reality is that the Queensland Forestry Department has to revise its predictions of what sustained yield is every few years because it does not have a clue what a sustained yield might be. Senator Boswell —I doubt that. Senator RICHARDSON —I will go through the figures and Senator Boswell can tell me whether any of the figures are wrong. Is it a fact that in 1960 the Queensland Forestry Department said that the sustained yield was 240,000 to 270,000 cubic metres, forever? The reality is that there is only one possible answer-`Yes, of course it is a fact'. By 1975, 15 years later, apparently it had been realised that 270,000 cubic metres of timber could not be taken from the forests every year. The new figure arrived at, which naturally would be right for all time, was 160,000 to 200,000 cubic metres. Of course the figure had been reduced, but it was decided that that much timber could be taken every year from the rainforests without any damage to the forests' sustained yield. In 1981 the Department revised the figure. The next line taken by the Queensland Forestry Department was that a further downward revision would have to be made and the new estimate, for every year and for all time, was 80,000 cubic metres. Is it a fact that those things happened? Senator Sheil —They were reducing the area. Senator RICHARDSON —No, the area increased by 10 per cent. The other nonsense that those opposite have touted is that the area was reduced. It was actually increased. But still the Queensland Department had to keep revising downward what it reckoned was the sustained yield. It did not finish in 1981. After all the changes that I have just mentioned, all the times the Queensland Forestry Department had to say `Whoops! We got it wrong; we have had another look', in 1986 another reduction was made in the sustainable yield, down to 60,000 cubic metres. When one considers the timetable for these reductions, one realises we are probably only two or three years away from another revised figure from the Queensland Forestry Department. If we allowed this to continue, the Department would say `Whoops', again. Are we just about allowing the Department to continue admitting its mistakes? Is that the only benchmark for forest management in Queensland? Those mistakes are so massive-for example, the difference between 270,000 and 60,000 cubic metres in less than 25 years is extraordinary. If those sorts of mistakes can be made, what trust can anyone put in forestry management by the Queensland Forestry Department? The truth is that no-one knows. I do not know; Senator Boswell does not know; and certainly the Queensland Forestry Department has no idea what sustained yield means to a rainforest. The fact that those figures are revised so regularly is sad. It is sad because each time the new figure is released the claim is that it will be the sustained yield forever and that it will not damage the forest. But usually within about five years someone from the Department says, `That was actually wrong. This time we will reduce it by 50 per cent or 40 per cent or whatever.' The reality is that downward revisions go on and on. They make the planning processes of the Queensland Forestry Department laughable. The public is given no opportunity of participating in those processes. Senator Boswell ought to try to find out how that figure of 60,000 cubic metres is arrived at. He should approach the Queensland Forestry Department and ask it to give him an idea of how it reached that figure. Senator Boswell knows what the answer would be: `There is no way we could tell you that. We will give you no information whatsoever'. The people of Queensland, for whom, allegedly, Senator Boswell speaks so passionately, are never told how the Department arrives at those figures. The Department is so afraid of its paucity of knowledge on the subject that it will not subject itself to any form of public examination. Why should it? It has been wrong so often that I can understand its fear. It is not only me who doubts the Queensland Forestry Department on the subject; the debate has been raging within the Department for years. I shall quote Mr Sam Dansie, an Atherton forestry district rainforest logging inspector. In 1980, he said: The problems are real, brought about by the over-removing of the productivity of such forests, blinding those involved to the realistic facts that rainforests the world over are, in general, one-cut, relatively low production forests and ours are no exception to the rule. I shall also quote Dr Ross Hynes. It will be hard for Senator Boswell to knock him, given the role he has played in NORMA-the Northern Rainforest Management Agency-in recent times. He would not like us to remember what he has had to say in the past when he was a real scientist, but I shall quote him anyway. In 1980, he said: The human demands on our rainforests over the last century have exploited the natural capacity of most accessible stands to the point where their potential to supply timber on a sustained yield basis is no longer viable. In these communities short cycle logging (for example every 30 years) leads to diminishing species richness. Thus the long-term result of typical logging operations is the destruction of rainforest community integrity. Rainforest is a renewable resource only in the most simplistic sense. That is Dr Ross Hynes, who is not known for his strong support of the Labor Party or of me. Most Australian and international foresters agree that nowhere in the world does sustained yield logging work in a rainforest. I shall quote another scientist, Dr Neil Byron, a lecturer at the Australian National University School of Forestry. His comment is worthy of note by everyone who is interested in the debate about sustained yield: The sustained yield model evolved in 18th century European conifer forests- that is from where it came-eighteenth century conifer forests of Europe- working with three or four types of tree. It has proved totally inappropriate to the tropical forests which are so much more complex. The Queensland Forestry Department has never been able to demonstrate that sustained yield will work. When quoting the report of ACIL Australia Pty Ltd, Senator Boswell neglected to say-as he so often does-that the qualifications on the prospects of the Queensland timber industry are that there be modernisation, that the industry restructure itself, and also, not unimportantly, that sustained yield can work. As I have just explained, the concept of sustained yield, even in the terms of the Queensland Forestry Department, is laughable. It always has been and will remain so. I hope it is noted from the consultant's report that we are not only talking about the sustained yield question; any suggestion that this industry will modernise or rationalise is pretty hard to imagine, so far as I am concerned. The industry has not done that in the past and there is no reason to suggest that it will in the future. The ACIL report also suggested the Queensland timber industry needed to better use its available resource if it were to have a future. In the past 10 years the use of north Queensland rainforest timber has been virtually static. It is 40 per cent for structural timber, 35 per cent for miscellaneous cabinet wood, and only 25 per cent for prime cabinet wood. That is how the industry has continued to use the resource. I do not know who could even suggest that it would start to change. This is an industry that has never been interested in change. However, changes have been forced upon it. If one is considering the future of the industry in Queensland, one of the benchmarks on which one can judge it is its past, and the timber industry has been in decline for a long time. In 1960 there were 80 sawmills and plywood mills using up to 270,000 cubic metres of timber-Senator Boswell would remember the sustainable yield figure that the Queensland Department talked about. Those mills then employed more than 2,000 people. In 1986, less than 30 mills were operating, using 77,000 cubic metres and employing 940 people. When I spoke with the industry last year prior to this decision being made, the number employed had declined to 750 and the new figure for sustainable yield was 60,000 cubic metres. That was the absolute latest figure. I wonder how many of the 1,250 workers who hit the fence in the Queensland timber industry during the past 25 years received redundancy packages from their employers. I should imagine it was very few, because employers in that industry were accustomed to treating their workers in that way. Only now, through Commonwealth intervention, are workers being presented with redundancy packages and alternatives for their future. Only now can they recognise that they have some sort of future. Although a change is called for, there is no doubt that their future will be assured. I wish to turn to some of Senator Puplick's remarks. Firstly, Senator Black did not know, when he remarked on why the debate was changed from last week to this week, that it had been changed at my request. Therefore, Senator Puplick had done nothing other than to reach agreement with me. Unfortunately, in the past 12 months that is the only agreement Senator Puplick and I have been able to reach on environment questions. I only wish we could get a little further, not from my point of view but from the point of view of the environment in Australia. When Senator Puplick became the shadow Minister for the environment he came to that position with something of a track record in the environment field. He had attempted to save seals in the Arctic and had a record which suggested to many people concerned about the environment in this country that he might bring the Liberal and National parties some new sense of reason and justice when it came to the rape of our environment. Unfortunately, they were disappointed. Anyone who really thought that Senator Puplick might bring about such a change no longer thinks this. I had wondered why there was so much silence on this issue. I note that Senator Boswell mentioned how the debate had raged. The debate has raged everywhere except in the Senate. This is the first time that I have stood up in this Senate to debate these questions other than when I introduced legislation. There has never been a matter of public importance on the question of World Heritage listing of the rainforests. Day after day in this place we have all the stupid, useless matters of public importance to which we all have to listen. Not once has Senator Puplick as the shadow Minister, or Senator Boswell, the alleged lion of the north, ever got up to debate a matter of public importance on this question. Senator McKiernan —Don't challenge them. Senator RICHARDSON —I do challenge them. I have waited a long time for this opportunity. But, of course, Senator Puplick would never do that. He had to walk away from this debate because he had to walk away from this question in his own Party. The reality is that the troglodyte end of his own Party and the Queensland Nationals ran over him. The bulldozers were out. This time the target was not trees; it was Senator Puplick, and they did not miss. They went straight over the top and down he went. That fact, which is now well and truly established by this debate, runs a bit contrary to some of the things that Senator Puplick and his Leader were saying earlier. Following the 11 July election last year a lot of people wondered whether the Opposition would adopt a more enlightened policy. No less a person than John Howard said on the Sunday program on Channel 9: Well I think one thing we have to look at is whether we aren't perhaps taking a slightly dementedly puristic view about States' rights when it comes to environmental issues. In the Age on 31 August Senator Puplick said: There have been two elections where the organised conservation vote has been against us. I don't want that a third time. We've got to get it right. Senator Sanders —He said that, did he? Senator RICHARDSON —He said that. He went on in a Press statement of 24 August: The Queensland wet tropical rainforests are worthy of inclusion on the World Heritage List: they are unique; they are of international significance; they contain one of the greatest and scientifically significant concentrations of unique flora and fauna in the world. Australia is the only industrialised country with remaining tropical rainforests and we have a responsibility to protect them. Senator Sanders —Strong words. Senator RICHARDSON —Strong words matched with no action. The only action we have seen from Senator Puplick on the question of his beliefs is that he has come here today and said, `Destroy the rainforests. Knock them over'. That is the policy of the Liberal Party of Australia. That has always been the policy of members of the National Party of Australia and they are stupid enough to be proud of it. But the Liberals went on with the pretence, at least for a while, that they might have had a different view. In the Courier-Mail Senator Puplick even suggested that the Queensland Government should stop posturing over the issue and get down to Canberra for talks. What happened to all those words? Where did he go wrong? He talked today about people in my Party having a different view. There have always been people in my Party who have had a different view from mine and the same applies to Senator Puplick's Party. However, the difference is that my view has continued to prevail and it will prevail in the future because we are more than happy with the stance that we have taken on the environment as we know that it is right. We will not walk away from our commitments on the environment and we certainly will not walk away from them in north Queensland. Having watched the decline of Senator Puplick's environmental views over the last 12 months it comes as no great surprise to me that he now runs a line in this debate that would have done Joh Bjelke-Petersen proud, and I am sure that he is proud of it. He has backed away entirely from any support of World Heritage listing. He is now compromised with the Queensland Government. Let me say that compromise with the Queensland Government is pretty difficult. For a start the Queensland Government will not talk. It adopts the attitude that only its view can prevail and there will be no discussion. When one goes up to north Queensland, in the words of the former Premier, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, `it is war'. People in north Queensland are urged to take the battle to me and, of course, they have done that. In the Age of 3 March Senator Puplick said: Nominations for listing should proceed only with the agreement of the State Government. That sort of abject crawling to members of the National Party is really sickening. It contradicts Senator Puplick's earlier statements and the statement made by his well and truly forgotten predecessor and colleague, Alexander Downer. Senator Black —Who? Senator RICHARDSON —I am not surprised that honourable senators ask that question. Mr Downer, in his declaration of the poll speech, said: The fact is the environmental credentials of the Queensland Government are perceived to be bad and by saying we would only act in concert with the States, we become damned with the reputation of that State Government. How right he was when he said that. No government in Australia's history has had environment credentials as bad as those of the Queensland Government. Now Senator Puplick is prepared to say, `If Queensland does not like it, it will not bat on. In fact, if I ever become a Minister'-God help Australia's environment-`I will delist these areas. I will not worry at all about saving anything. I will have the Queensland Government as the final arbiter of what ought to be protected in Australia. I will allow Geoff Muntz, Bob Katter and Ron Boswell to set the tone. If they tell me it is right, it is right'. This Government cannot and will not take up that attitude. Let us look at Senator Puplick's exact words on 14 April. He said: A coalition Federal government would consider taking the forests of north Queensland off the list. He wants to vandalise the forests. He has shown his true colours. He might have had an encouraging start and there might have been those in the environment movement who said, `Hello, there is finally a chance, a light at the end of the tunnel. Perhaps at the end of this tunnel we will find Senator Puplick and he will do something for us'. He has done no better than that eminently forgettable and equally pompous Alexander Downer. The reality is that the Liberal Party could not stand the heat from the Nationals. Senator Puplick, in failing to produce any sort of decent environment policy in north Queensland, has I think for all time killed the opportunity for the Liberal Party to be able to appeal to anything other than the narrow base from which it came. Before I finish, I must just quote some of Senator Puplick's sayings because I think they are worth quoting. When it comes to cliches there is no-one in the Senate-I will be adventurous and say no-one in Australia or the world-better at it than Senator Puplick. In a document that he produced to demonstrate what the Liberals stood for we were told: No man is an island. I wish I could have thought of that one. He said further: Man is not alone on the planet. That is a pretty good one. Even better, he said: The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Fantastic! And, wait for it, he said: Our nation occupies an entire continent. My God, this is heady stuff. But it requires more than that sort of rubbish to do anything to protect Australia's environment and its last remaining tropical rainforests. Senator Puplick has said that he would quit politics if he could not convince the coalition parties to embrace a greener environment policy. He said: I accept that it is my neck that's on the line if the whole thing falls in a heap. If I can't convince my colleagues that would be a mark of substantial personal failure as a politician. I don't think I'd be much use to the Liberal Party. I said earlier that Senator Puplick and I had reached agreement only once before, but I can agree with every word he said there. If he has any honour and any principles whatsoever he will live up to his own words. He will resign, he will get out of politics and he will go back to the cucumber sandwich set from where he and the Liberal Party came. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(12.05) —in reply-Madam Acting Deputy President-- Senator Collins —Make it a short speech-`I resign'. Senator PUPLICK —Your resignation is accepted, Senator. Senator Richardson, in his response to these motions for disallowance and disapproval, has raised a number of matters to which I propose to reply. In particular, I wish to deal with a number of the allegations he has made and to put squarely certain clear repudiations of the undertakings given by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) which have been central to Senator Richardson's presentation in the Senate this morning. I start, however, with the comments which he has made about the management of the wet tropical rainforests by the Queensland Department of Forestry. It is all very well for Senator Richardson to continue to blame the Queensland Forestry Department for all of the ills which he perceives in the industry. Again, the evidence simply does not support that proposition. The consultants' report to which Senator Boswell and others have made reference, entitled `The Forestry and Timber Industry of North Queensland-Impact of Proposed World Heritage Listing' and prepared by ACIL Australia Pty Ltd, says: In more recent years, the Queensland Forestry Department's performance and sophistication in rainforest management have improved markedly, to the point where it is generally agreed to be held in high regard by interstate and overseas public sector forestry organisations. The operations of logging and timber businesses are possibly the most tightly governed in the nation to ensure that public policies are adhered to at all times. Senator Richardson is simply wrong in his attacks on the Queensland Forestry Department. He is equally wrong in what he says about the timber industry. The report from which I have just quoted says: The principal issues and findings of the study are as follows: a smaller but viable industry could have existed without World Heritage listing. . . However, the report says elsewhere: The consultants believe that World Heritage listing would cause a medium term decline of the entire North Queensland timber industry to almost negligible levels. So the attacks Senator Richardson makes upon the timber industry, upon the economics of the timber industry, and upon the Queensland Forestry Department, are refuted by the evidence which is on the public record. Senator Richardson makes a great deal about job losses in the area. Yet his own consultants' report-and on this occasion I refer to a different consultants' report, namely, the one entitled `Alternative Employment Creation and Mitigation of Impacts of Listing the Queensland Wet Tropical Rainforests as a World Heritage Area' by the Institute of Applied Environmental Research at Griffith University-estimates that the introduction of World Heritage listing in north Queensland will lead to the loss of 1,074 jobs in the area. Mr Howard, speaking on 15 October 1987, said: I don't see why it can't be possible to preserve special areas of Australia's heritage and environment such as rainforests, and at the same time, stop the destruction of jobs and family livelihoods. That is the position which the Opposition has consistently taken-that environmental protection and the protection of jobs can take place at the same time. That is the position which Senator Richardson so cavalierly rejects. Senator Richardson makes a great deal about the wonderful areas that have been preserved, those wonderful areas he describes where the rainforest comes right down to the sandy beaches on the edge of the beautiful ocean. Those areas-the ones that feature on all of the Australian Conservation Foundation's (ACF) posters and elsewhere-are areas which Senator Richardson has specifically excluded from the boundaries of the World Heritage List. The monumental, crashing hypocrisy which is to be seen in this Government and in that nomination can be seen from the fact that the very areas which Senator Richardson cites as being the most unique, the most special, the most worthy of protection, the ones that are put on the ACF posters and are put on the front of the Government's reports, are areas specifically excluded from the boundaries which Senator Richardson has drawn in terms of World Heritage listing. If people want to blow up those areas, those trees, ride their dune buggies over the whole area, flatten them and put up a block of commercial flats, a whole series of tourist developments, a hostel or a municipal toilet block, Senator Richardson has no power to prevent that from being done because those are the areas which he has excluded from World Heritage listing. We come then to what Senator Sanders and all the others had to say about the Opposition attitude and what Senator Richardson was saying earlier about strong words being matched by no action. The action we have taken is what Senator Richardson has clearly failed to do. We have actually met with the Government of Queensland and come to an agreement about the way in which those unique areas would be specifically preserved. To save the time of the Senate, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the statement which I put down about that, which appeared in Hansard of 15 March 1988. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- I am in a position to say that the approach we would have made to the Queensland Government as the basis upon which those discussions would have proceeded-I believe they would have proceeded in a satisfactory fashion towards a satisfactory conclusion-would have been on the following premises: First, we would have proposed that the State of Queensland take steps to create a greater Daintree national park which would have been created within the laws and jurisdiction of that State. It would have been created in the area between Mount Molloy and Cooktown, based upon the existing national parks of the Daintree River, the Dagmar Range, Wonga, Cape Tribulation, Cedar Bay and Black Mountain. We believe that it would have been possible to identify clearly the absolutely unique characteristic of the Daintree-Cape Tribulation area and to give that area very special protection, because it is quite unique and undoubtedly worthy of very special protection, without in fact drawing the sort of extensive, ambit claim boundaries which have been drawn by Senator Richardson and his Government. We would have sought to have, in conjunction with the Queensland Government, a complete socioeconomic and environmental evaluation of the Queensland wet tropic rainforests. That inquiry would have been open and public and conducted along the lines of the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry so that everybody who was interested, everybody who wanted to present scientific evidence, to challenge scientific claims, to have evidence or claims independently, properly and publicly evaluated, would have had the chance to do. We would not have proceeded with World Heritage listing until that process had been completed and until we had secured the agreement of the Queensland State authorities to proceed with that World Heritage listing. We would have sought to develop a sensible multiple land use plan, using the sorts of zonal arrangements which have been applied successfully by the Commonwealth in Queensland to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. We would have ensured that the north Queensland timber industry would have been allowed to continue its operations and that there would have been an independent evaluation of the need to commence any logging activities in areas which are currently virgin. We would have expected that, as evidence of good faith on the part of the local industry, it would have agreed to a voluntary moratorium on that particular activity; and, indeed, there should be no variation in the current logging quotas set by the State Government. That, together with the proclamation by Queensland of the Greater Daintree National Park in which those activities destructive of the environment, including specifically logging and mining, would not have been allowed to proceed, would have been the basis for an intelligent discussion of these particular matters. We would have sought to bring an end sensibly and in an orderly fashion those activities which could be demonstrated to be sufficiently and significantly environmentally destructive in a way which clearly would have been incompatible with the maintenance of a good national park and significant heritage values. Senator PUPLICK —I thank the Senate. For all the quoting of comments about what was to be done, what steps were to be taken, the realistic step that Senator Richardson has not taken, has not sought to take, is to have a proper and civilised meeting with the Premier of Queensland and to sort out this matter in a proper and civilised fashion. There has been, on our part, no backing away from the concept of World Heritage listing in appropriate circumstances. That has been made clear by me, it has been made clear by Mr Howard and it remains the policy of the Opposition. What has been backed away from is the words of the Prime Minister. Let me quote them again to honourable senators: The Prime Minister's letter to the Premier of Queensland of 12 September 1984 stated: It is not the intention of my Government to take unilateral action to nominate the region for World Heritage listing. Let me quote the words of ex-Senator Ryan, a former Minister in the Cabinet of this Government: The Government has made it clear that the wet tropic rainforests of north east Queensland will only- I stress the word `only'- be nominated for inclusion on the World Heritage list with the agreement- I stress the words `with the agreement'- of the Queensland Government. That has been backed away from, and dishonoured, the written assurances of the Prime Minister and the assurances given in the Senate by Senator Ryan, a former senior Cabinet Minister. They are the promises that have been dishonoured-not what the Opposition has said. It is a question of why Senator Richardson can come in here and publicly repudiate his Prime Minister. That is the issue which is at stake. We know that the public repudiation of the Prime Minister on privatisation by Mr West, or by any of his Ministers at any time, without the Prime Minister having the strength of courage or the force of leadership to prevent that repudiation from taking place, is a feature of the way this Government operates. Therefore, one really should not be surprised in that regard. I will not respond to the personal attacks that Senator Richardson sought to mount. He will be answered in due course. He will be answered on this question not only when the Opposition's policy on this matter is published but also comprehensively at the ballot box, because that is where the ultimate answer to Senator Richardson will lie. All the vituperation, abuse and personal vilification he likes to indulge in have absolutely no impact upon me. As for quotations of one sort or another, Senator Richardson is fundamentally too thick to see a quotation from other sources when it is put in front of him and simply describes it as a cliche being used by somebody else. It is not of the least interest to me to respond to that sort of cheap and juvenile debating point. What we are dealing with is not a cheap and juvenile debate-at least it should not be. It is that only to the extent that Senator Richardson makes it that. It is important for a number of reasons. It is important for the livelihood of the people of north Queensland. It is important for the way in which governments go about dealing with each other in this country. It is important to the extent that the Prime Minister's word can or cannot be trusted. Those are important issues. They are issues which Senator Richardson clearly will not, does not and cannot address in this debate. The motions which have been moved on behalf of the Opposition for the disallowance of both a declaration in the Governor-General's proclamation and the regulations made under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act form the basis of an important debate. It is a great shame that Senator Richardson would not address the primary issues. It is a great shame that Senator Richardson would not tell us, first, why he has ignored a large weight of scientific evidence about what should or should not be included; secondly, why he is not prepared to meet in a civilised and proper fashion with the Government of Queensland to bring about a resolution of this matter which will protect the unique parts of our environment without causing distress, without causing harm and without causing the devaluation of public support for environment preservation; and thirdly, why it is that the word of the Prime Minister given to the Government of Queensland about the way in which this matter would be handled cannot be relied upon. Those are the issues. They remain unaddressed. For that reason I believe that the motions for disallowance moved by the Opposition ought to be supported. Question put: That the motions (Senator Puplick's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. JArcher, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M.Boswell, R. L. D. Panizza, J. H.Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R.Calvert, P. H. Patterson, K. C. L.Chapman, H. G. P. Puplick, C. J. G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G.Durack, P. D. Short, J. R.Hamer, D. J. Stone, J. O.Harradine, B. Tambling, G. E. J.Hill, R. M. Teague, B. C.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Vanstone, A. E. Black, J. R. Haines, J.Bolkus, N. Jenkins, J. A.Burns, B. R. McKiernan, J. P.Childs, B. K. McLean, P. A.Coates, J. McMullan, R. F.Collins, R. L. Macklin, M. J.Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Cook, P. F. S. Morris, J. J.Cooney, B. C. Powell, J. F.Coulter, J. R. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M.Devereux, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Devlin, A. R. Sanders, N. K.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P.A.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Watson, J. O. W. Jones, G. N.Bishop, B. K. Aulich, T. G.Baume, Michael Schacht, C. C.Walters, M. S. Sibraa, K. W.Reid, M. E. Button, J. N.Chaney, F. M. Beahan, M. E.Lewis, A. W. R. Evans, Gareth Question so resolved in the negative. [COGNATE BILLS: CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (FAIR ELECTIONS) BILL 1988 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (LOCAL GOVERNMENT) BILL 1988 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS) BILL 1988] Debate resumed from 24 May, on motions by Senator Tate and Senator Macklin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(12.23) —We are debating the Constitution Alteration Bills cognately. The four questions to be asked of the people relate to the provision of a four-year term for both Houses of Parliament, the extension of the principle of one vote one value in all elections, recognition of local government by States, and the extension of guarantees of trial by jury, freedom of religion and fair compensation for property acquired by any government. I want to put down my Party's very strong opposition and objections to all four questions contained in this legislation. I place on record my appreciation of Senator Chaney's very fine contribution the other day. He addressed the questions logically and gave the Opposition's arguments in a clear and concise manner, backed up by charts that proved beyond any doubt the the Opposition's stand on these four questions was right. Senator Robert Ray has achieved a reputation in this place as being an expert on all matters pertaining to elections. Senator Robert Ray tried, unsuccessfully I might add, to drive a wedge between the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia. We again saw Senator Richardson trying those tactics. Obviously, those tactics will now be adopted by the Government to try to divide and conquer, divide and rule. The National Party and the Liberal Party are both totally opposed to those four questions and will see them soundly defeated by the people when they go to the referendum around September. The first question is: Are you in favour of a four-year term of parliament? Many people would agree and say, `Yes, we have too many elections'. In Queensland we have a State Government election, a Federal Government election and very hotly contested local government elections in Brisbane with the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party (ALP) as the main participants. In Queensland we have elections at least once every year. Most people would agree that a four-year term of parliament would be a good thing. It certainly would be good for business and the people. But the question is wrong and misleading and it should be challenged in the High Court of Australia because this proposal does not guarantee a four-year term. In the last 43 years the Federal Parliament has been to the people 22 times. This legislation will do nothing to allow for fewer elections; it has the potential to allow for more elections. Under our present Constitution, the Senate is elected for twice the normal term of the House of Representatives. If the Senate refuses to pass legislation, the Government has the right to reintroduce that legislation to the Senate within a period of three months. If the Senate again refuses the legislation, the Prime Minister of the day can call on the Governor-General and ask for an election. All that would be finished under the proposed legislation we are now debating. It would enable the Government and the Prime Minister to go to an election at any time that it is politically opportune for them to do so. The Senate would have very little power to amend legislation as the Government could call an election at any given day if legislation was refused or amended. I would love to ask Senator Ray how this Bill would provide for fewer elections. At present, the Government has to go through quite a deal of drama to obtain a double dissolution but, with this proposal, we could go to a double dissolution at any time, at the drop of a hat. In my term in Parliament I have seen the Senate amend many pieces of legislation, some of which, if allowed to go through in their un- amended form, would have been very deleterious to the people of Australia. One piece of legislation we altered that comes to mind is the veterans' entitlements Bill. The Senate stopped in its tracks the introduction of an Australia Card. My colleague Senator Stone is here and he should take a great deal of credit for that. If it had not been for the Senate forcing the Government to reintroduce that legislation the Australia Card would now be a part of Australian legislation. The Bill of Rights was another proposal stopped by the Senate. I understand that if the Bill of Rights had not been pulled out from the Senate the Government would have been defeated at the next election, such was the opposition to this type of legislation. It was the Senate that acted as a brake on the excesses of the Government. We also saw the Industrial Relations Bill withdrawn because it was headed for defeat in this place. But we would not be able to have such a brake in future. The Senate rejected the Government's wish to abolish sections 45d and e of the Trade Practices Act. That is the only protection that small business and farmers have against the thuggery of unions and unfair union strikes. This Bill that calls on the people to vote for four-year terms has to be defeated. If it is not, the Senate as we have known it since Federation will have no teeth at all. It will not be a House of review; it will be merely a mirror image of the other place across King's Hall. It will be absolutely devastated and it will have no significant role to play, as it has had previously. It will not be a States rights House and it will not be Australia's insurance policy which has been relied upon for 61 years to curb any excesses of any government. It will be a toothless, meaningless House and a mere reflection of what happens in the other place. We should not really be surprised at the Government's attitude in introducing this legislation. It has always been Labor Party policy to abolish upper Houses in the State Parliaments and the Federal Parliament. It is Labor Party policy to have a one-chamber system in politics. So we should not be surprised. The Government knows that it cannot achieve that and that the people would not accept the abolition of the Senate or the upper Houses in the States. But the Government does not have to abolish the upper House. If this legislation is passed and put to the people and agreed to, the Senate will be totally emasculated. That is what this Government is all about. I say that with all the sincerity at my command. This Senate will not reflect what the people have expected of it over the last 61 years. It will not reflect what our founding fathers put in the Constitution. No-one can argue against that. Is is a clever Labor Party ploy to reduce the power of the Senate and emasculate it. It is doing this under the guise of asking people whether they want a four-year term for parliament. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with allowing for four-year terms. There has never been a time in the last 10 or 15 years that parliaments have served out their three-year term. Nothing in this Bill will ensure that parliaments serve out a full four-year term. It is diabolically clever and it is designed to emasculate the Senate. Another consequence of four-year terms is that the Senate quota would be permanently reduced from 14.28 per cent to 7.69 per cent. The outcome would be that no government would ever be able to gain a majority in the Senate-neither the Labor Party nor the Liberal Party-National Party coalition. We have seen the Australian Democrats control the Senate with 7 per cent of the vote. They want one vote one value. They have more power with their 7 per cent of the vote achieved throughout Australia than they deserve. We have now seen the peaceniks-the peace senators-be elected with a very minor vote. We will turn this chamber into a place for all sorts of odd bods and other remnants if we allow the requirement for election to be reduced to a 7.69 per cent quota. Any single issue person will be able to be elected and the Senate will never be able to represent the true ethos of the Australian people. It will be composed of the peace groups, the ultra right groups, the communists, all sorts of greenies, peaceniks and all types of other people. It will be reduced to a valueless exercise. Every one of us here today should take those consequences on board. The Government will be forced to do deals with these minorities to get its legislation through. We should ask why the Democrats suddenly supported the Government's resource rent tax when they had previously rejected the idea? Was it because the Government gave a commitment to the Democrats to set up a committee to investigate all chemicals used on farms so that the Democrats could have a platform on organically grown foods to impress their green constituents'. I suggest, without reflecting on a vote in the Senate, that that is exactly what happened. The Government is doing deals with the Democrats. I do not think that is good for democracy. We should not get into the position that a government of any persuasion has to do backroom deals with minority groups. That is not truly reflecting the democracy of this nation. Certainly in the last session of Parliament it has been very rare for the Democrats to support the National-Liberal conservative side in a division. If any party wants to have representation in this place, it should be able to achieve 14 per cent of the vote. Under this legislation, under what the Government is proposing, we will have quotas of 7 per cent at every election in Australia. Backroom deals are not in the best interests of this nation's political system. I now come to the question of the extension of the principle of one vote one value in State elections. Let me say at the outset of my contribution on this matter that boundaries in the States have absolutely nothing to do with the Federal Government. That is not only my view but a view shared by none other than the former Premier of Western Australia, the Hon. Brian Burke, when he told the Federal Government to keep its hands out of Western Australia and off the State boundaries. By putting this question to the electors of Australia the Government is once again centralising power in Canberra, removing the decision-making of the parliamentary representation closest to the people-the governments of the States. I do not believe that people want any more Big Brother control in Canberra. This question ultimately will be rejected, as will all the questions. This Bill is clearly designed to defeat the Queensland Government. Everyone on either side of the House would concede that point. After every election in Queensland we see the defeated Leader of the Opposition there calling foul. He bleats that the boundaries are against him. We have seen that time and time again, no matter which Leader of the Opposition it is. He appeals to his Federal colleagues to cover the Labor Party's lack of electoral appeal, asking the Federal Government for intervention on the boundaries. What generally happens is that the response from the Federal Labor Party is to send some heavies up to Queensland to try to sort out their State Queensland Labor Party colleagues, that faction-ridden party, to find out why the Labor Party did so badly. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was sent up after the last election defeat in 1986. He was dispatched to try to sort out the mess in Queensland. He was virtually told to get out of Queensland and mind his own business. He came out of Queensland in absolute shock and said, `I do not know what to do about it'. Senator Bolkus —Madam Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I believe we are currently discussing the Government's referendum proposal for one vote one value. I cannot understand how the Prime Minister's involvement in the Queensland Branch of the Labor Party-no matter what degree of cane toad juice Senator Boswell has been on-can somehow be related to this specific measure. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Zakharov) —I ask the honourable senator to direct his remarks to the legislation. Senator BOSWELL —The facts are very simple. We are debating one vote one value, and that certainly reflects on what is happening in Queensland. The ALP has not won an election in Queensland since 1957 because it has never achieved over 50 per cent of the vote. Between 1969 and 1986 the highest Labor vote was 46.75 per cent, when the Labor Party achieved a fairly significant number of representatives in the State Parliament. I do not want to bring up the matter-but I suppose I have to-of the very low point in 1974 when the Labor Party ranks were down to a cricket team of 11. The Leader of the Party was defeated and the vote achieved in 1974 was 36.03 per cent of the total vote. Senator Maguire —We are talking about 1988 at the moment. Senator BOSWELL —Let us get to 1988. We will talk about 1986, which was the time of the last election. In the last election the Labor Party achieved the remarkable score of 41.38 per cent of the vote. If any people on the Government side of the House are so stupid as to believe that a government should govern in a State with 41.38 per cent of the vote, with 56.14 per cent of the people not wanting a bar of its party, they should stand up and be identified. Senator Maguire —Sixty-three per cent didn't want you. Senator BOSWELL —I pick up the interjection. What did we get? The National Party got maybe 2 per cent less than the Labor Party. The honourable senator asks why we should form a government on 39.64 per cent of the vote. He calls himself some sort of economist. He should know that the Liberal Party got a significant vote and passed its preferences across to the National Party. That is called a two-party preferred vote and it meant that 55.64 per cent of people did not want a Labor Government and 41.35 per cent of people did. Therefore, the Labor Party was defeated. This Government is responding by trying to introduce legislation. Let us face it: the Labor Party can achieve government in Queensland if it achieves 51.4 per cent of the vote. It has Buckley's chance of getting it because the Queensland constituency is different from that of Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide. It is made up of small business people, farmers, graziers and miners, who do not want a bar of socialism-and they will never vote for the Labor Party. Let us compare the 51.4 per cent of the vote that the Labor Party had to achieve to gain government with what the National-Liberal parties had to achieve to win the recent New South Wales election. The coalition had to obtain close to 53 per cent of the vote. Federally, the coalition will have to obtain 52.3 per cent of the vote to beat a Labor government. I understand that in Western Australia and in South Australia a considerably higher vote than 50 per cent is required to remove the Labor Party. The interfering Federal Labor Government now has the audacity to talk about gerrymanders and malapportionments. It should hang its head in shame at the mention of a gerrymander or malapportionment because Queensland really has the fairest elections of any State, where the Labor Party has to get only 51.4 per cent to win government. That is a lot lower figure than in any other State. If the Government were serious about fair elections, it should put the question to the people of Australia: Do you want governments to govern with less than 50 per cent of the vote on a party-preferred basis? That would be a fair question. It is appropriate to examine the consequences of what would happen if this question were passed. The results in Queensland would be that no electorate would be larger than 20,551 people or less than 16,819 people. The consequences would be that the western and northern areas would lose 7 per cent of representatives to the south-east corner of Queensland. The area from the Sunshine Coast to the Gold Coast and to just beyond Toowoomba would contain 67 of Queensland's 89 seats. That would leave a total of 22 seats representing about 85 per cent of the total area of Queensland. Senator Maguire —What is unfair about that? Senator BOSWELL —What is unfair is that it denies representation for the rural people of Queensland, for the great wool, beef, grain and mining areas that contribute so much to Queensland's and Australia's wealth and prosperity. These export industries provide foreign exchange that allow us to meet our commitments to reduce our balance of trade figures. This Government never has cared for rural people. By introducing this legislation it shows that nothing has changed; it still treats rural Australia with absolute contempt. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. The PRESIDENT —Order! I inform honourable senators that I have received a number of congratulatory messages in relation to the opening of the new Parliament House from overseas legislatures, including messages from the Speaker of the British House of Commons, the Rt Hon. Bernard Weatherill, and the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Hon. Jim Wright, both of whom will be in Canberra for the first meeting of the Parliament in the new building. Senators who wish to read the messages may peruse them in my office. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. It concerns the circumstances surrounding a letter written to you, Mr President, in February by the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs advising the Senate of the citizenship status of then Senator Wood and particularly that part of the letter asserting that the Department was `obliged' to notify the Senate. Has it emerged that the Department did not seek any formal legal advice on its supposed obligation until the day after the matter was raised in the Estimates Committee? Did not the opinion when it was finally received advise that there had been no obligation on the Department, even though there was no prohibition on the Department taking the action it did? Does it not seem now that the Department has no legal basis for its claim that its actions in making known then Senator Wood's citizenship status rested on some obligation? Do not the events suggest that the Department seems to have very few scruples about making disclosures of details from applications for citizenship in circumstances where these disclosures are likely to be made public, as they were in this case? In view of the widespread concern that any public disclosures of details of applications for citizenship should be limited to those absolutely necessary, will the Minister ask her colleague to recommend to his officers that a more appropriate course of action would have been to encourage the person involved-that is, then Senator Wood-to have made known to Mr President for release any possible problems with his citizenship status? Senator REYNOLDS —Members of the Estimates Committee who were present during this matter when Senator Peter Baume raised it with us will recall the degree of frustration that we experienced in terms of getting the kind of response that the honourable senator was seeking. I do understand the frustration that he experienced in not being able to get an early response; in fact, it did take us some time. In regard to the second part of the question, I am not aware of the timing of that legal advice, but I will certainly ask Mr Clyde Holding to seek a response on that matter. In regard to the disclosures, I think the honourable senator will agree that when Mr Tony Harris appeared before the Committee subsequent to this matter being raised, he was at great pains to point out the exceptional circumstances and that it was not normal for him, or indeed any other officer of the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, to disclose lightly-I think that was the word used-information of such a personal nature. If the honourable senator refers to his direct quotes-I do not have them with me-he will see in the summing up in the last meeting of the Estimates Committee that Mr Harris assured us that the circumstances were very unusual and that it would not be normal practice. Nevertheless, all things considered, I do appreciate the concern that Senator Baume and, indeed, the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Mal Colston, expressed in the Estimates Committee. I will certainly refer the detail of the honourable senator's question to Mr Holding for a response. Senator DEVEREUX —My question is directed to the Minister for Home Affairs. With regard to the move to the new Parliament House, taking place between the autumn and Budget sessions of Parliament, is the Minister aware that when senators and members pack up their offices to move to the new Parliament House in the non-sitting period, many will not be able to bring a member of their electorate staff with them due to the fact that a significant number have fully extended their staff travel entitlement of 15 trips to Canberra and 100 days of travelling allowance? Does the Minister propose to take any action? Senator Macklin —Why not send us a letter? Senator ROBERT RAY —This is a measure to save on postage. I have had numerous representations, especially from backbenchers, pointing out that the actual task of moving from here to the top of the hill will be made much more difficult if they have to do it themselves without staff assistance. That means placing probably a lot more pressure on the staff of this Parliament House in attempting to assist them. So what we are saying is that on application to the Minister each senator and House of Representatives member will be granted one extra staff trip per year for this sole purpose and two days travel allowance. It is not really even a joking matter about moving offices because if one mislays vital files and if they are not supervised properly it will cause problems. Senator Puplick —You never know who might get into trouble. Senator ROBERT RAY —I will not get into trouble. I do not put much on paper, but others do. To facilitate that, on application to me we will grant one extra trip and a couple of days travel allowance to help members move. I am not sure of the Senate timetable in this regard. It may be in the next financial year, but it will still be approved. I think most of the House of Representatives members are moving in the next few weeks. Senator MESSNER —I refer the Minister for Transport and Communications to tonight's statement on the Government's policy regarding the telecommunications industry and the revised policy guidelines for government business enterprises, including Telecom Australia, as set out in correspondence with the Telecom Chairman which received some publicity this morning. Do these documents reveal the likelihood that the Government will incorporate Telecom under statute and that the Government is proposing to revalue Telecom's assets and require a new dividend payment for Telecom? Further, does it reveal that the Government is proposing to remove Telecom's exemption from paying income tax from 1 July 1990 in addition to all the new taxes and charges that were announced at the recent Premiers Conference? Does this mean that, far from removing the current restrictions on Telecom, the Government is merely using tonight's statement as an opportunity to treat Telecom as a milking cow for increased tax collections, hence resulting in significantly higher telephone charges? Senator GARETH EVANS —I would say at the outset that Senator Messner's question is based on a false premise. There was a draft letter to the Chairman of Telecom that found its way into the media but that draft letter was never sent because I was unhappy with the detail in it and the manner in which that was presented. I propose rather to discuss these matters with the Chairman in question. In particular there is no great occasion for mystery or secrecy of the kind that was implied by that newspaper story this morning, because I think every single matter dealt with in the newspaper story, or stories if one includes the Melbourne Age as well, will be the subject of quite explicit reference in the statement which is made tonight. I think under those circumstances Senator Mess- ner should endeavour to curb his impatience and wait to see what is in the statement, because the full context in which these various decisions have been made will there be set out. Finally, I will comment very briefly on the question of the tax liability of Telecom and indeed some of the other authorities. Some of that is already subject to public announcement in the context of the Premiers Conference so far as payroll tax is concerned. In that respect I refer the honourable senator to the response made by the Managing Director of Telecom, Mr Mel Ward, when the news of the payroll tax liability came out. I have not his exact statement in front of me, but he said it was not unreasonable that Telecom, engaged as it now was and as it hoped to be increasingly in competitive commercial endeavour in essentially a private sector environment, should be playing in that environment on a more level playing field so far as taxation liability is concerned than has been the case in the past. Equally, of course, it is the concern of these enterprises that the playing field be level so far as the removal of managerial and other constraints traditionally imposed by governments are concerned in order that the competition can be robust and genuine between them. Again I refer Senator Messner to what I will be saying in a lot of detail on this matter as well in the two statements to be made tonight. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to a report in yesterday's Courier-Mail which, amongst other things, stated that the former Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, `took the witness stand for the first time yesterday since he took the Taxation Office to court more than 25 years ago'. Could the Minister advise whether the results of Sir Joh's disagreement with the Commissioner of Taxation were made public and, if so, what was the outcome? Senator WALSH —In reply to the last part of the question, details were ultimately made public from the previous time when Mr Bjelke-Petersen, as he then was, appeared in conflict with the Federal Commissioner of Taxation, and that was in October 1962. I shall quote from page 21 of an extract of the High Court judgment, which states: In November 1958 the taxpayer- that is, Bjelke-Petersen- made application for an authority to prospect for petroleum in an area in north-western Queensland. At that time he was endeavouring to raise sufficient finance to carry out test drilling operations and the application was said to be made on behalf of a company to be formed. The application was approved and taxpayer paid the required deposit of #2000 and the first year's rental, #723. However, the authority was not immediately issued as the proposed company had not been incorporated. Taxpayer's attempts to raise finance were unsuccessful and finally, in April 1959, the authority was issued in taxpayer's own name. On 25 May taxpayer entered into an agreement with L Co. by which he undertook to form a company and to transfer the authority to it. The transfer was to be for a nominal consideration as it was the practice of the Department of Mines to refuse approval unless a transfer was for no more than nominal consideration. Under the agreement, L Co. undertook to purchase from taxpayer 51 per cent of the issued shares in the company to be formed for #12,650 and to pay him 51 per cent of the deposit and first year's rental paid by him. The company, A. Pty Ltd, was formed on the same day and the authority was sold to it for #2. The issued capital of A Pty Ltd Ltd consisted of two subscribers' shares held in trust for taxpayer. On the following day A Pty Ltd revalued the authority to #24,804 and on 4 June 1959 it declared a dividend of #24,802 wholly and exclusively out of the profit arising from the revaluation, which dividend was satisfied by the issue to taxpayer and his nominee of 24,802 shares of #1 each in the company credited as fully paid up. Taxpayer then sold 12,650 shares in A Pty Ltd to L Co. for #12,650. Of this amount, the Commissioner included #12,450 in taxpayer's assessable income for the year ended 30 June 1959. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. This is clearly not an answer to a question. It is no more than an attempt to read into the record material which is 30 years old, and it is obviously an abuse of Question Time. I hesitate to say that the Minister is debating the question, but it seems to me that he is simply not providing an answer at all; he is making a statement, which can be justified only as some attempt to get at the ex-Premier of Queensland. I think it is a pathetic matter. You ought to ask the Minister to complete his answer and allow Question Time to proceed. The PRESIDENT —Order! I must say that my first impression was that the question might have been out of order. I waited until Senator Walsh started his answer. He is representing the Treasurer and he was dealing with a taxation issue and, for that reason, I did not rule him out of order. But I would ask him to conclude his answer. Senator Michael Baume —Thirty-two years ago he was stealing oranges. Senator WALSH —Fifteen years ago the honourable senator was writing shonky prospectuses for Patrick Partners. Senator Button —Mr President, I raise a point of order. That interjection of Senator Michael Baume's is totally disorderly. Not only is it disorderly; it is offensive to the Minister for Finance. To suggest that 30 years ago the Minister was stealing oranges is a pretty small slight. If he were stealing something big, the interjection would have some point to it. It is most offensive. The PRESIDENT —Order! I think both Senator Michael Baume and Senator Walsh are fairly robust in their answers and questions. Senator WALSH —In regard to the relevance of the question, I was asked: What was the result of the last scuffle that Mr Bjelke-Petersen had with the Australian Tax Office? I am reading from the High Court judgment on it. So I fail to see how even Senator Chaney could argue that that is not answering the question and within Standing Orders. The sequence of fiddles outlined in that High Court judgment is very hard to follow, but the essential purpose of it is not at all hard to follow. The essential purpose was to evade taxation. Although it happened 32 years ago, the underlying ethos which drove Mr Bjelke-Petersen to do that still drives the National Party of Australia and drives the Federal Opposition. Senator MACKLIN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. Can the Minister confirm that the Government is already requesting higher education institutions to provide data for the development of educational profiles as a basis for funding each institution? The concept of education profiles was raised in the Government's Green Paper. If in fact the Department of Employment, Education and Training is now requesting this data, does this not represent a denial of the promised process of public consultation on the release of the Green Paper? If the development of these profiles has not begun, how can the Government justify such a step when debate on the Green Paper has not concluded, and the White Paper presenting Government policy on consideration of that debate has not yet appeared? Does the Government propose to make the negotiations on these profiles open to public scrutiny by having them undertaken by the Higher Education Council of the National Board of Employment, Education and Training, or does the Government itself plan to conduct negotiations with individual institutions behind closed doors? Senator WALSH —The answer will be shorter than the question. The procedures referred to in the question were discussed at some length at the Estimates Committee which I attended. To the best of my recollection, the essential answer coming from departmental officers is that this year the Department is extending slightly the information which it has procured from higher education institutions for a number of years. If there is anything more to add to that, I will present it at the appropriate time. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. Is the Minister aware of concern that, despite anti-discrimination legislation passed several years ago, women are still underrepresented in government appointments to boards, councils and committees? What action is the Government taking to redress this imbalance? Senator REYNOLDS —Overall, women are currently underrepresented on government advisory bodies. Obviously, that is of concern. Nevertheless, this Government has set as a priority the need for a register of women to detail many women throughout Australia who have the necessary skills and expertise to be considered when government appointments are being made to statutory boards and other instrumentalities. The National Agenda for Women aims to achieve equal representation of men and women on such boards wherever possible by the year 2000. At the time the agenda was launched in February, 16.5 per cent of Cabinet appointees to government boards were women. I would like to point out, however, that some departments have been able to achieve a much higher representation, and it is important to highlight these. For example, the Department of Social Security has been able to achieve a representation of women on its boards and instrumentalities of up to 50 per cent; the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has achieved 42 per cent and the Department of Employment, Education and Training is up to 28 per cent. Obviously, when the question of representation of women on government boards is concerned, one must look at the appropriate skills and the appropriate background. Of course, the Government knows that women are underrepresented in a number of fields, but it is good to know, as I am sure Senator Zakharov and other senators on this side of the chamber know anyway, that at least in three government departments we are close to achieving its aim. In fact, the Department of Social Security has reached equal representation. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs is not far behind, and the Department of Employment, Education and Training is certainly moving in the right direction. Senator TEAGUE —My question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce concerns computer software. What response has the Minister made to the representations he has received from the Australian Information Industry Association concerning the recent Australian Taxation Office ruling that has significantly widened the imposition of sales tax on the computer software industry? For example, is development work or adjustment on a software system carried out for a client rightly subject to the software sales tax? Is the recent tax ruling an unintended consequence arising from the Government's 1986 legislation? Will the Minister and the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, together with the Commissioner of Taxation, ensure that there is urgent clarification of the situation so that the uncertainty for this important industry, not least in my own State of South Australia, is ended? Senator BUTTON —Many members of parliament have received representations about this issue, as I have. Earlier this week or late last week-I cannot quite recall-I met with representatives of the Australian Information Industry Association and this issue was discussed again. Prior to that meeting, the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce had been having discussions with the industry and the Australian Taxation Office. A meeting is fixed for 7 June where representatives of my Department, the Treasury, the Taxation Office and the information industries will meet to seek clarification of some of these issues and, if appropriate, relief from anomalies that have clearly arisen. This issue has been about for some time and the particular problem, as I understand it, is that the intellectual content of software development has been subject to the tax which is appropriately a tax on goods as distinct from services. That is the essential issue that must be examined. After the meeting of 7 June, I am hopeful that the Government will be able to make an early response to the matter. Senator Black having addressed a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer- Senator Puplick-On a point of order, Mr President: standing order 99 provides that questions shall not contain any matter which is hypothetical and questions shall not ask for an expression of opinion. On the basis of whether the Minister representing the Treasurer knows of anything that may have arisen from what may be speculation and on which he would like to comment and speculate as to what might happen in the future in a hypothetical matter, namely, what might be in tonight's mini-Budget statement, I put it to you, sir, that the question is clearly out of order. The PRESIDENT —Order! I uphold the point of order. The question can be rewritten in a way that would be within the Standing Orders, but, at the moment, it is not. Senator SHORT —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer the Minister to the call by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) for the introduction of class actions in Australia. Has the Government considered this proposal; if so, what decision has it made? If not, when does it expect to make a decision? I also ask the Minister whether he agrees with the Commission's proposal that if class actions were introduced, there would be no restriction on lawyers asking whatever contingency fee they wished? Senator BOLKUS —I have some information on this issue as it relates to class actions and as it also relates to the whole question of consumer protection and call actions being intricately inter-related with that. The Australian Law Reform Commission has prepared a draft Federal Court group proceedings Bill and explanatory memorandum as part of its reference on access to the courts. The draft Bill proposes a framework for the institution of class actions in the Federal Court. I understand that the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Business Council of Australia have expressed concern over a number of aspects: firstly, the lack of industry consultation; secondly, potential for significant cost impact on industry; and, thirdly, the development of an over-litigious society similar to that of the United States. I am advised by the Law Reform Commission that the aim of the Bill is to improve access to the courts and to reduce costs of court administration. It seeks to address a problem referred to by a former United States Vice-President, Walter Mondale, when he said: Nothing is more destructive to a sense of justice than the widespread belief that it is much more risky for an ordinary citizen to take $5 from one person at the point of a gun that it is for a corporation to take $5 each from a million customers at the point of a pen. The underlying principle of the ALRC draft Bill is that corporations should not be allowed to escape liabilities simply because the damage inflicted on each individual is insufficient to warrant legal proceedings. In the context of this draft proposal, it should also be noted that the Government has recently amended section 87 of the Trade Practices Act and has allowed by the amendment the use of representative actions. One particular complaint about that proposal has been that those actions require the written consent of all persons for whom redress is sought. The ALRC proposal is intended to automatically cover all people in a relevant class. It does permit, from my understanding of it, that individuals will be able to opt out of proceedings if they so wish. I am also advised that the ALRC is of the opinion that potential for abuse of class actions can arise and the Bill provides for frivolous or vexatious actions to be dismissed. That is basically the proposition of the ALRC. In this case, the Government's position is that it believes all groups should be consulted and the ALRC, I understand, is embarking upon that process. The Government thinks that, in a course that may lead to legislative change, full consultation should take place. Of course the Government accepts the submissions from business groups on this particular proposal. It should be stated that the ALRC has not finalised its report. I am sure it will give due regard to the concerns raised by industry. Therefore, in brief, we are talking about an ALRC draft proposal, which has not been finalised, which has not yet come to the Government and which is not as yet settled or part of the Government's policy formulating process. Senator CHILDS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Is the Government balancing its need for skilled and business migrants with its commitment to family migration? Senator REYNOLDS —A sharper focus is being achieved by raising the skill level of the intake as well as targeting specific skills to meet the needs of the Australian economy. The skilled and business migration category is expected to comprise 25,000 places in the 1987-88 program of 132,000, that is, 19 per cent of the total program. In addition, about 30 per cent of migrants in the independent and concessional category are skilled workers. Independent applicants need to have recognised skills and qualifications to pass the points test. Sponsored non-dependent relatives such as nephews, nieces and siblings, gain concessions from sponsorship but are also assessed under the points test in terms of economic factors such as skills, education and employability. Thus, for the first nine months of the current intake, approximately 29 per cent of the settler arrivals are skilled or business migrants. This compares favourably with 25 per cent in 1985-86 and 28 per cent in 1986-87. Senator NEWMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. I remind the Minister that on 10 May he advised the Senate and also informed Dr Blewett that Dr Menon had not provided the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with a comprehensive list of doctors who have allegedly received bogus Medicare cheques. Was not a comprehensive list of doctors provided to the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts and was not that information passed on to the police late last year? Is it not also true that details of cheques dated after November 1987, namely in February to Dr Alan White for $10,700 and in March 1988 to Dr Evans for $90 and $636.90, have also been given to the police? Did Constable Warren Grey of the AFP advise Dr Menon in April that the only information which was still required by the police was the telephone numbers of the doctors involved? In light of the fact that on 4 May Constable Grey advised Dr Mackey that there was a need for a proper and fuller investigation of the allegations and that he planned to go to Hobart the following week to interview Dr Mackey and Dr Whyte and in that he has not yet done so, when Senator Tate told the Senate on 10 May that `the AFP will not at this stage be making inquiries' did he mean that he or alternatively Dr Blewett had called off the investigation of this very serious matter? Senator TATE —That is another ludicrous allegation. There is no truth whatsoever to be inferred from anything Senator Newman has said to the effect that either Dr Blewett or I-myself in particular as Minister responsible for the AFP-have required, requested or intimated to the AFP that the inquiry should be called off. In fact, day after day, knowing Senator Newman's interest in this matter, my office was in contact with the AFP seeking an answer for her. That was the answer provided by the AFP that I read into the Senate Hansard on 10 May 1988. It was absolutely without any influence, undue or otherwise, on my part or, I am confident, on the part of the Minister for Community Services and Health, that the AFP conducted its investigations according to its own independent processes. Senator NEWMAN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Senate to assume, in view of the dates which I gave the Minister, that the AFP is not choosing to keep the Minister fully briefed? Senator TATE —The AFP has provided me with an answer, which it provided in answer to Senator Newman's question. In providing that answer, I am confident that the AFP acted with the usual integrity. Nevertheless, given the fact that Senator Newman gave certain dates, obviously all of which I could not record during the question, I shall have them forwarded to the AFP for comment. Senator GILES —Is the Minister for Local Government and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women aware of criticisms from the community that the Government is not doing enough to increase significantly the participation of women in senior positions in the Australian Public Service? Can the Minister comment on these criticisms? Senator REYNOLDS —I am aware of the criticism and much of it is very unfair. Perhaps it is based on lack of information about what has been achieved under this Government in terms of women in the Public Service. We know that women have tended to be concentrated in the lower levels of the Public Service but in 1981 the Public Service Board introduced a voluntary equal employment opportunity (EEO) program. It was not until this Government's initiatives in 1984 that the program had a compulsory and statutory base. In 1986 the former Office of the Public Service Board conducted the largest EEO survey undertaken in Australia, covering all staff in agencies auspiced by the Public Service Act. The survey found that, whilst women occupied 43 per cent of Australian Public Service (APS) positions, a high proportion worked in traditional female occupations with relatively low pay and limited career prospects. In other areas representation was low although increasing. For example, women comprised 9 per cent of technical staff; 17 per cent of professional, science and engineering staff; and 4 per cent of trade staff. When this Government came to power in 1983, only 3 per cent of senior levels of the APS were women. By 1984, this had increased to 4 per cent and the latest figures show that 119 of the 1,635 Senior Executive Service officers are women. That is an increase from 3 per cent in 1983 to 7.3 per cent in 1988. As indicated in a response to an earlier question, when one is involved, as we are, in the process of social change, in many cases it is frustrating when the change is slow. Nevertheless, genuine progress has been made and will continue to be made under this Government. Senator PANIZZA —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy to an article in the Australian Financial Review of late headed `Meat inspectors urge Federal action'. Is the Minister aware that beef exports, which represent $464m annually, could be jeopardised by contamination caused by traces of an organic chemical, octyl diphenylethylhexyl phosphate, in other words, ODP, as used in plastic wraps? What action does the Minister intend to undertake to prevent any further damage to Australian beef exports as occurred with the pesticide problem? Senator COOK —I am aware of the Press reports referred to by Senator Panizza and that the Japanese are also concerned about them. The report referred to was carried by both the Japanese Press and the Australian media. They suggested that a potential harmful substance known, as Senator Panizza called it, as ODP-my description of it is similar to Senator Panizza's, 2-ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate or phosphoric diphenylethylhexyl-had been detected in Australian beef. Perhaps honourable senators would like me to read that again. Senator Chaney —It is like having Robyn Williams in the Senate. Senator COOK —I thank Senator Chaney for that implied compliment. The Japanese media based their reports on a presentation by a Japanese researcher to a public health conference held in Japan. This is an example-the Japanese say this themselves-of the media exaggerating a coincidental research finding. The researcher involved had detected the compound when unusual curved lines appeared on a graph while chemical reactions in meat were being tested and reported. It was presumed that the compound might have permeated into the meat from the plastic wrapping. There was no clear data on the toxicity of ODP-and I do not think the honourable senator wants me to define that term again. There was a need to monitor continuously and to research the possible sources of food contamination. ODP is approved as a plasticiser in the manufacture of plastic food wraps by the Standards Association of Australia and the United States Food and Drug Administration. The National Health and Medical Research Council has recommended the adoption of the standards developed by the Standards Association of Australia and, of course, these authorities would not approve the use of substances harmful to human health. No concern has been expressed either by the Japanese health authorities. I might add that I have a report from the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service which goes into detail about the matters raised in the honourable senator's question. The Japanese researcher, Mr Osatu, was reporting his research to an academic conference. He has indicated to Australian authorities that he regrets and apologises for the fact that his research has been misused and exaggerated by the media in the way in which it has. Those are his terms and this report identifies that. I will be happy to make a copy of the report available to the honourable senator. Senator FOREMAN —I draw the attention of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of today entitled `Scientist gagged on woodchip threat to Eden wildlife'. In that article a senior New South Wales Government scientist was prevented from delivering a paper to the ANZAAS conference on threats to wildlife because of woodchipping in the south coast area of New South Wales. The scientist, Mr Dan Lunney, is the head of the environmental survey and research branch of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and he has published much work on this topic already. Will the Minister assure the Senate that the Federal Government will do all in its power to ensure the survival of endangered wildlife species in that area and approach the New South Wales State Government and seek similar assurances? Senator RICHARDSON —I am aware of the article in today's Sydney Morning Herald. I note that the attempt by the new Government in New South Wales to suppress Dr Lunney's paper is but one- Senator Puplick —That is untrue and you know it. Senator RICHARDSON —On the contrary, Senator Puplick, I know it to be true. Senator Puplick —That is untrue. Senator RICHARDSON —If the honourable senator listens, he will learn. Senator Macklin —That won't happen. Senator RICHARDSON —The honourable senator reckons that that will not happen. All right; I withdraw that statement and say that even if Senator Puplick listens, he will not learn. Nonetheless, it is another attempt on the part of the new Government in New South Wales to ensure that as little information as possible flows through to the public for any informed debate on the future of the south-east forests. That is not surprising coming from a Greiner-Murray combination, because we all knew that, once the election had been decided, there would be a new turn in terms of the handling of our native forests in New South Wales. It did not take long for that to happen. The paper, which has indeed been suppressed, is the result of five years of research by Dr Lunney. We have seen the hypocrisy of the new Government, which, on the one hand, takes delight and relish in releasing all sorts of papers from the old Government where it seeks to gain a political advantage, but, on the other hand, wishes to suppress any information that might cause it some embarrassment when it comes to embarking on its new courses. As Senator Puplick demonstrated this morning, the Greiner Government in New South Wales has already abandoned even the pretence of any support for environmental causes. Already it has been bulldozed by the National Party of Australia and is sprouting its line. Of course, we have also heard that Mr Moore has gone further than just suppressing the paper. He has told the National Parks and Wildlife Service that it is to treat the south-east forests `as if they are part of Victoria'. So there can be no more research and no more information on those forests coming out of New South Wales. Last month, in another attempt to suppress information, the New South Wales Government refused to give permission-this is extraordinary-to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) delegation led by Mr Jim Thorsell to fly over the south-east forests of New South Wales. Senator Archer —`Biggles' will fix that for you. Senator RICHARDSON —The difficulty was that `Biggles' was not paying for the plane-Mr Greiner was. Neither Mr Greiner nor Mr Moore would let anyone from the IUCN even look at the south-east forests. So the fact that Mr Moore has suppressed a paper on the south-east forests is hardly surprising, given that he will not even let people look at them. We now have a farcical situation where an international delegation of very prominent people is forced to divert, after looking at our alpine region, around the New South Wales forests to ensure that they are not able to see what might be happening in them. The crudest example among a series of crude examples of what the New South Wales Government has in mind for forests came from the new Minister for Natural Resources, Mr Causley, who has announced that he intends to allow timber companies to log forests in New South Wales without so much as an environmental impact statement. That measure will open up all the national parks of New South Wales to the mates of the National Party. God knows what they might do. Senator Devlin —Senator Puplick would agree with that. Senator RICHARDSON —On the basis of what Senator Puplick said this morning, he probably would agree with that. Whatever Mr Lunney may have said in that paper, I am sure that he would have made it very clear that there are dangers in the logging programs suggested for those forests. What we all ought to be doing, and what I can undertake to do for Senator Foreman, is to make sure that the national Government talks both to the industry and to the New South Wales Government about the future of those south-east forests; to make sure that we water down the more extreme desires of the sillier elements of the New South Wales Government; and make sure that we can preserve some of the special areas and make special provision for those species, both animal and plant, in the south-east forests which are endangered. I think that Mr Moore, the new Minister, began his career along with Senator Puplick in a desperate attempt to save the pine forests in a national park from being logged. I think Senator Puplick referred to it as `devastatingly destructive clear felling' in one of his more lucid comments. I think we all know that the ignorance that has been demonstrated by the Liberal Party on the question is manifest. We hope that the tail of the timber industry does not continue to wag the New South Wales Liberal Government dog and that, over the next few weeks, we get from the New South Wales Government some indication of its desire to do the right thing by the environment and some indication of its desire to protect at least some of the south-east forests. Senator PUPLICK —Before I ask my question, I ask the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories to table the paper from which he has been reading. The PRESIDENT —Will the Minister table the paper? Senator Richardson —No. The PRESIDENT —The Minister will not table the paper. Senator PUPLICK —I note the Minister's commitment to freedom of information in this matter. I therefore ask him: Was the question that he just responded to initially based on a report which appeared on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Science Show on Saturday, broadcast by Mr Peter Hunt? Is he aware that on 23 May 1988 Mr Tim Moore, the Minister for the Environment in New South Wales, wrote to Mr Peter Hunt indicating to him that he, the Minister, had taken no steps to suppress Mr Lunney's paper and giving the full details of the way in which Mr Lunney's paper was dealt with by Mr Whitehouse, the Australian Labor Party's appointment as the permanent head of the Department of the Environment in New South Wales? I ask whether the Minister is aware that Mr Moore, in his letter, states: I had no knowledge of the paper (or its abstract) prior to having your remarks brought to my attention. That is, Mr Hunt's remarks. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a copy of Mr Moore's letter. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Mr Peter Hunt, A.B.C. Radio, 2nd Floor, 100 William Street, KINGS CROSS, N.S.W., 2011. 23 May 1988 Dear Mr Hunt, I have now read a transcript of a relevant portion of a broadcast by you on the ``Science Show'' last weekend concerning a paper which was to have been presented at the ANZAAS conference on the morning of Friday, 20th May 1988, by an officer of the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service. I had no knowledge of the paper (or its abstract) prior to having had your remarks brought to my attention. Had you made an inquiry of my office, prior to going to air, I would have informed you of this and I would have sought urgent advice from the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service on this matter-advice which I have now sought and which is to be furnished to me this day. I trust you would appreciate that, as the person who introduced the first legislative proposal for Freedom of Information in New South Wales, it is neither my philosophical credo nor my administrative style to ``muzzle'' public servants within my administration. Indeed, to the contrary, I had already refused one request to me for the withdrawal of a different ANZAAS paper. I am always ready and happy to speak to the media on the issues within my administration-whether it is likely that the person who is seeking the information will be in agreement with my views or those of the Government or not. Your programme also mentioned some earlier paper which had also allegedly been withdrawn. I specifically indicate to you that I have no knowledge of that matter and have also sought information from the National Parks and Wildlife Service on the subject. I wish to indicate to you, quite explicitly, that I concur in the remarks made by my colleague, the Hon. Ian Causley, on this matter. It may be that some breach of departmental administrative requirements has led to this occurring-as I indicated, I have sought urgent advice on this subject. I indicate to you, absolutely and specifically, that I had no knowledge of either incident and that there was no direction, request, instruction or any other action, comment or inference which could be so construed from me which led to this occurring. As you may gather from the tone of this letter, I am less than amused that the matter was put to air without me having the opportunity to comment on the allegation which has, inferentially, been made against me. I would appreciate you retracting any such inference and indicate that I assume that no further inferences of this nature, with respect to this matter, will be made in future broadcasts. Once I have information from the National Parks and Wildlife Service on the matter, I would be happy to discuss it with you. I would also indicate that I assume, for the future, that you would at least do me the courtesy of seeking to check with me before making such statements. Yours sincerely, TIM MOORE, Minister for the Environment Senator PUPLICK —Thirdly, will the Minister indicate why, in terms of the question he was asked, he failed to respond to the question about the protection of endangered species and, specifically, why he has dishonoured the promise made at the time of the last Budget and in the Governor-General's opening speech to this Parliament for the establishment of an endangered species unit within his own Department? Finally, seeing that he has actually misrepresented and told an untruth about the involvement of Mr Moore in this matter, as will be evident from the letter now incorporated in Hansard, is he game enough to apologise? Senator RICHARDSON —Am I game enough to apologise? I am not so foolhardy as to apologise. Everything that I said was the truth. It does not matter whether Mr Moore writes a letter and denies or attempts to slide out from under. The Liberal Party's attempts to slide out from under on the environment lately have been legion. Senator Puplick is the leader of that charge. But, just as he failed to slide out from under this morning, so will Mr Moore on this question. We did not base any question on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) program. We did not need to. It is based on information that we have received quite independently of the ABC. I am rarely in close contact with the ABC on this or any other matter. We have other sources. On the basis of those sources we have been able to verify what I have said in the Senate today. As far as apologising is concerned, not only do I not apologise but I condemn Mr Moore for his actions. If we want to look at the south-east forests, we ought to do so on the basis of saying, `Just whom do the forests belong to?'. They do not belong to me. They do not belong to Mr Moore. They do not belong to a few timber companies. They belong to all of Australia. It is our duty to make sure that our future generations have some of the native forests of their forebears to look at. I am also asked about dishonouring promises on endangered species. As Senator Puplick is well aware-at least he ought to be well aware of something on the environment-we have engaged a consultant to look at endangered species. When we have received and evaluated the report properly, we will act upon it. As is the custom with the Hawke Government, we will honour our promises. Senator PUPLICK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Seeing that the Minister is very keen that there should be full public disclosure on these matters, I ask him: What are `our other sources' other than the report from the ABC or the report in the newspaper to which reference has been made? Senator RICHARDSON —If I thought for a moment that anyone could get justice from the New South Wales Government in having the courage to speak up, I would name them; but, given that there is no hope of justice, only the rough kangaroo court justice for which the lot opposite are famed, I would not do them the disservice of naming them in this chamber. Senator POWELL —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. How many women pilots are employed by each of Qantas Airways Ltd, Australian Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia? Do any of these airlines have a specific policy regarding women pilots? If so, what is that policy? Finally, given Government policies on sex discrimination and affirmative action, is the Minister satisfied with progress within Qantas, Australian Airlines and Ansett with regard to women filling a whole range of positions within airlines? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Powell was kind enough to give my office very brief notice of this question, just before Question Time. I am afraid that in the time available I have been unable to get a full answer to her question. I will take on notice that part of it which I do not answer. I am advised that Qantas and Australian Airlines have developed equal opportunity policies and plans in accordance with the requirements of relevant Commonwealth legislation. Qantas currently has six women pilots and one in training. The airline is making efforts to attract more applications from women to be employed as pilots. I do not have available information on the number of women pilots employed by Australian Airlines and Ansett. I will obtain information on that and get back to Senator Powell. Senator McMULLAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Home Affairs. It relates to the recent and non-political storm here in Canberra. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the damage caused to the West Block offices during the storm last Monday night? What arrangements have been made to accommodate the occupants of the building while the repair work is undertaken? Senator ROBERT RAY —Most honourable senators, at least, would be aware of what I think the Canberra Times this morning called a `microburst', which came across the lake, went through West Block and then went by the other side of this building, and did a fair bit of damage. One of the buildings damaged was West Block. The full extent of the damage, which now appears to be confined to three floors of B Block, is being assessed. During the storm, a large section of the roof of B Block was blown off and dumped into the adjacent car park. Substantial flooding occurred throughout B Block, caused by both storm water and the fact that the sprinkler system was interfered with. There was also damage to nearby parked cars, landscaping and certain equipment. Some of the equipment in the building, such as the more vital computers, was, however, protected. Emergency action was taken to contain the damage and secure the building. The Australian Protective Services did a marvellous job in dealing with this emergency. The affected area of the building has now been isolated, temporary repairs to the roof completed and preliminary repair work begun. I am pleased to inform the Senate that, after minimum disruption, all occupants of the building are now operating in West Block, albeit in cramped conditions, and services have been restored. It is fortunate that the storm, whilst it was very severe, caused no major injury to any personnel at the time. My office was rung yesterday by the head of Australian Archives, who pointed out that 15 years ago a similar storm removed the roof of West Block and dumped it into the car park. I thought that was a marvellous piece of research by the Director-General of Australian Archives-the fact that he could press a computer button and ascertain this information-but I find that the final source of his information was that the last time the roof of West Block blew off it landed on his car. So he had a vivid memory of it. I say to Senator McGauran and Senator Black, who are not here at the moment, although they are the only ones who are likely to be here in 15 years time, that I would not go outside in the middle of winter in 15 years time. Senator ALSTON —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Does the Minister agree that one of the principal reasons for the Government increasing the corporate tax rate several years ago from 46c to 49c in the dollar was to bring it into line with the top personal tax rate and thereby avoid the distorted incentive structures which inevitably arise from any significant disparity between the personal and corporate tax rates? Has this approach been effective to date and is this policy prescription still valid? Would the Minister agree that any significant reduction in the corporate tax rate without a commensurate reduction in the personal rate will only encourage the widespread use of artificial corporate vehicles to reduce and avoid legitimate personal tax obligations? If there are sound economic reasons why the economy cannot presently afford any cuts in the personal tax rate, despite a significant Budget surplus, on what basis is the Government able to judge that the state of the economy in 15 months time will be such as to then be able to afford such cuts-apart from the proximity of the next Federal election? Senator WALSH —It has already been made clear that the question of personal tax rates will be addressed in the Budget and not in tonight's statement. That has been published probably 50 times. The increase in the corporate tax rate from 46 to 49 per cent in 1986-I think that was when it became active-was a move which, as a question of fact, almost brought the top personal and company tax rates together. However, it was also adopted to offset in large part the cost to revenue of abolishing the double taxation of company income, that is, paying it once in the company and paying it again when dividends were distributed. From memory, I think the increase in that rate recovered some 60 to 70 per cent of the cost of abolishing the second tax on dividends. In regard to whether having a company rate that is different from the maximum personal rate leads to tax evasion or avoidance, if there is a wide disparity it is inevitable that some people will attempt to use shonky corporate structures to avoid or evade personal income tax. Whether it is worth their while to try to do that is another matter. I remind Senator Alston and anybody else who is listening that the days when one could use shonky corporate arrangements to evade or avoid personal income tax went out the window when a capital gains tax was introduced. The mechanism that companies used to evade personal income tax was not to distribute company dividends, therefore pay tax at a lower rate and then, one way or another, arrange to reap the capital profits accumulating within the company, or the accumulated dividends in the company, so that they were taken as capital gains and not as income. That stunt finished on 15 September 1985. I say to Senator Alston that that is one of the reasons why the capital gains tax must be retained. If he is taking a serious interest in this matter-unlike some of his colleagues who are essentially interested in opening up rorts and ramps in the tax system-and if he wants to put an effective net under the personal tax system, a capital gains tax must be retained. Senator RICHARDSON —In replying to a question from Senator Reid last Friday, I undertook to respond further on a matter. The Minister for the Arts and Territories, Mr Punch, has written to the Treasurer seeking his agreement to changes to the Payroll Tax Ordinance 1987. These amendments will raise the tax exemption threshold in the Australian Capital Territory from $200,000 to $400,000, align the effective rates in the ACT with those in New South Wales and introduces an exemption for apprentices employed under approved group apprenticeship schemes. I am informed that instructions have been given to the Parliamentary Counsel to amend the Ordinance. Thus, if approval is given, and I expect it will be, the amendments would come into effect on 1 July 1988. It is not intended that these amendments be given retrospective operation. Senator BOLKUS —I provide some further information in respect of a question asked by Senator Childs during Question Time on Monday of this week. Senator Childs asked me whether I had seen allegations that a Melbourne company was advertising the availability of irradiation of food and to comment on the accuracy of the allegations and the Government's intended response. I indicated in my response that the Victorian Department of Health was currently investigating the allegations. Representatives from the Department of Health visited Cotter Food Services Pty Ltd yesterday. I take this opportunity to pass on their advice to me to the Senate. I am advised that it appears that the leaflet in question-the one which purported to advertise gas or gamma sterilisation on request-was, although undated, at least a year old and possibly older. I am further advised that it seems that it was an internal document distributed within the company to float the idea of providing this facility. It appears that this was circulated within the company before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment, Recreation and the Arts review of food irradiation was established. At the time of such distribution the National Health and Medical Research Council had endorsed a food standard for food irradiation, but the standard was not incorporated into the Food Standards Code. However, it seems that the company internally discussed its use of that process, given that at the time it seemed likely to be adopted. The Victorian Department of Health analysis of the situation indicates that Cotter Food does not have the facilities to undertake this process itself. While there is an irradiation facility in Dandenong, Victoria, which could provide this service, the Victorian Department of Health is satisfied that the company is not currently irradiating food and that this service is used for sterilisation of items such as medical equipment. In regard to Cotter Food Pty Ltd, the Victorian Department of Health is satisfied that firstly, it is not currently irradiating food on its premises; secondly, it is not engaged in providing the service in any way: and, thirdly, it is prepared to wait until a recommendation is handed down by the House of Representatives Committee and a final decision is made by the Federal Government. The Victorian Department of Health concludes that there is no evidence of any irradiation of foodstuffs in Victoria and that there is no evidence to substantiate any allegation made against Cotter Food Services that it is currently offering any food irradiation facility. Senator TATE —I wish to give a further answer to a question posed by Senator Knowles. In my capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs she asked me a question a few days ago concerning the purchase of two cattle stations in the Kimberley region of Western Australia owned by the Western Australian Minister for Water Resources, Mr Ernie Bridge, by the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) for a sum reportedly close to $200,000. The first part of the question was: Is it a fact that the stations were not advertised on the open market? The answer is: Yes, it is common practice for properties to be sold without being publicly advertised if a suitable buyer can be found. The second part of the question was: On what basis was the purchase price negotiated? The answer is: The purchase price was negotiated on the basis of three professional valuations. The third part of the question was: Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the Aboriginal community for whom the stations were bought has described the properties as broken down and claimed that the ADC paid $60,000 too much for the land? The answer is: Whatever claim might be made about the ADC purchase price, in the end the price was based on three professional valuations according to normal practice. The fourth part of the question was: Is it a fact that the community's chairman tried to persuade the Commission against purchasing the stations on the grounds that the cost of making them fully operational was prohibitive? The answer is: It is true that the community's chairman is particularly interested in purchasing an adjoining station because of traditional ties. However, the community's chairman and the community were involved in the purchase of the two properties. The fifth part of the question was: Has the ADC given any commitment to the community to assist it financially and, if so, how much public money is likely to be expended to turn Mr Bridge's broken-down properties into viable operating units? The answer is: The ADC is committed to assist development of these properties based on a three-year development plan prepared by a pastoral consultant in consultation with the community. In order to achieve viability the development plan is aimed at both pastoral activity on the properties and the community's mustering contract enterprise. The cost of the development plan is estimated to be in the order of $250,000. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to my notice given earlier today, I now withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in my name. Senator SHEIL(Queensland) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented. Yesterday in Question Time, in answer to a dorothy dixer from Senator McKiernan, Senator Evans answered a question concerning statements reported in the Gold Coast Bulletin that I made about him. He used most florid language. He said that the headline was lurid and that I had accused him of having blood on his hands because of the fatal air crash at Coolangatta Airport a few days ago. I took the trouble to get a copy of the front page of the Gold Coast Bulletin. I did not say that he had blood on his hands because of that, and I would never say that. I will seek leave to table a copy of the front page of the Gold Coast Bulletin. All I said was that if Senator Evans did not take steps to improve safety at Coolangatta Airport, he would have blood on his hands. Senator Peter Baume —That is not the way it came across. Senator SHEIL —That is not the way it came across from Senator Evans. Nevertheless, whether he did it or whether he had his own reporter here, the story has gone around today, and it has been reported widely, that I said he had blood on his hands because of that crash. That is wrong. Later, in answer to my question, `Did you have knowledge of an invitation to visit Coolangatta Airport?', he waxed even more lyrical and hysterical and wondered from what kind of garbage cans I got my evidence. I will seek leave to incorporate a letter from Mr Leo Gately, who was my source, which was faxed to the Minister on 11 May, a good nine days before the accident, and received and acknowledged by the Minister's office. I point out that such invitations have been issued for 18 months, trying to get some upgrading of Coolangatta Airport. I seek leave to table the Gold Coast Bulletin front page headline which reads `You'll have blood on your hands', not `You do have blood on your hands', and to incorporate in Hansard the letter from Mr Leo Gately. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 10 May 1988 Senator Hon. Gareth Evans Minister for Transport and Communications Room M48 Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Mr Minister, I have, since 1986, continually been confronted with information relating to the lack of radar and adequate safety equipment at Coolangatta Airport. The use of binoculars to bring aircraft into Coolangatta Airport in 1988 is NOT good enough! The latest information I have to hand, is contained in a statement from Mr Robert Davis, a Constituent of Currumbin who lives alongside Coolangatta Airport. In his statement he describes an aborted landing, made in order to avoid a collision with another aircraft, which he and his wife observed on Friday 6 May, 1988. A copy is enclosed for your perusal. I therefore respectfully request that you undertake a full investigation into this incident and make out a report to be made available to me at your earliest convenience and to include the following: Identification of the two aircraft involved in the aborted landing on Friday night 6 May, 1988 at about 9.15 p.m. at Coolangatta Airport. A written report from both the pilot and co-pilot of each of these aircraft. Identification of the aircraft which was on the ground and held in the holding area at the North Western end of the runway at the time of this incident. A written report from the pilot and co-pilot of the aircraft which had been held in the holding area at the North Western end of the airport during the incident. I am not prepared to wait until there is an accident similar to the one in Cairns before anything is done for Coolangatta. I do not need to remind you of the catastrophe that could have occurred if the two aircraft had continued approaching each other from opposite ends of the runway. It is my understanding that there has been for some seven years, a request for and approval given, for a new Air Traffic Control Tower to be installed at Coolangatta Airport. This situation has now become critical. From information available it appears that there is no definite date yet laid down for the commencement of building a new Air Traffic Control Tower. Through this letter I seek your urgent advice in this regard. In the past three years there has been an increase in excess of 57% of passengers entering and leaving Coolangatta Airport and in the last year alone, (period ending 31/12/87) there was an increase in passenger movements from 791,453 to 930,354, up 17.6%. Apart from Hamilton Island, which is a relatively new resort, and which shows a phenomenal increase in domestic airline movements, Coolangatta has experienced the third highest increase in domestic airline aircraft movements with a 22.8% increase in the period ending 31 December 1987. From a previous figure in 1986 of 10,295 it has increased to 12,640. I believe it is imperative that this matter be addressed as a matter of urgency and that your Government make money available forthwith for the provision of all the necessary safety equipment in the form of Radar, Curved Instrument Landing System as well as a new Control Tower, so as to minimise, as far as practicable, the likelihood of a mid air collision or other accident and or fatality resulting from any accident involving aircraft approaching or leaving Coolangatta. I am extremely concerned for the safety of the pilots flying the aircraft and the passengers travelling in them, as well as the residents living under and adjacent to the flight paths into and out of Coolangatta Airport. I am seeking to ensure the utmost safety for every person for whom I am making representations. I make no apology for demanding that the Federal Government make this equipment available urgently, in order to provide lasting and tangible benefits for the residents of Australia and in the interests of safety. If these items of safety are not given urgent attention, I will hold yourself as the Minister, and your Government, responsible for gross negligence. I make no apology for my strong statements to you in this letter and look forward to your urgent and positive response to my request. Yours faithfully LEO F. GATELY, mla Member for Currumbin Enc. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented. During Question Time yesterday, in response to a dorothy dix question from Senator Black, the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, referred to an article which appeared last Saturday, 21 May, in the Sunshine Coast Daily, an esteemed newspaper. This newspaper is published in the Sunshine Coast area of Queensland where I now have my home. The article in question referred to a Press release which had been issued in my name last Thursday by my electorate office in Mooloolaba, but for which of course I take responsibility, commenting upon a recent proposal by the Queensland Government to construct a toll road in the area. In that Press release it was stated that over the past four years the real level of Commonwealth funding for roads had fallen by more than 40 per cent. Senator Walsh made two comments of substance-I leave aside his many, unfortunately characteristic, comments of no substance-on that point; namely, first, that the extent of the real cut in Commonwealth funding for roads was just over 20 per cent, not the 40 per cent indicated in my Press statement and, second, that less than a year ago I had said that the proper amount of money to provide to the States for roads was some $164m less than the figure which the Government is now providing. Let me dispose of Senator Walsh's first point simply by agreeing that, as he has stated, since 1983-84 the real reduction in Commonwealth road funding payments to the States has been just over 20 per cent rather than the 40 per cent which the Press release issued by my electorate office had indicated. I note that Senator Walsh has now conceded that under this Government there has been a cut in road funding of some 20 per cent in real terms over the past four years, a concession which I think leaves the basic point essentially unchanged. As to Senator Walsh's second point, I regret to say that in making it he failed to inform the Senate that the proposal in question, in respect of road funding, was put forward not in isolation as one might have thought from his answer to Senator Black-- Senator Robert Ray —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I think what Senator Stone was saying was that Senator Walsh `failed to inform'. Senator Walsh can hardly misrepresent Senator Stone just because he fails to inform us of something. Personal explanations are usually best if they are concise, I would have thought. The PRESIDENT —Senator Stone, you have to point out where you have been personally misrepresented. Senator STONE —Mr President, I put it to you, in response to Senator Ray's point of order, that I can point out where I have been misrepresented only if I point out first the fact that the Minister did not present the full facts in putting his point, which is what I am in the process of doing. It was put forward not in isolation, as one might have thought from his answer to Senator Black, but as part of a total package of proposals for cutting Commonwealth spending in order to finance a reduction in the rates of both personal income tax and company tax to not more than 25 per cent. I say in conclusion that when Senator Walsh and his Government get within a bull's roar of that achievement they will be in a better position to criticise me and anyone else for suggesting ways of doing so. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications) —by leave-Senator Sheil, in the course of his personal explanation a few moments ago, repeated his statement that I had received and neglected to respond to an invitation to visit Coolangatta Airport to inspect air traffic control facilities and systems there. In answer to a question yesterday I said that I had no recollection of receiving any such invitation. Senator Sheil has now referred me to a letter from Mr Leo Gately, MLA, the member for Currumbin, couched in the offensive terms that one has come, regrettably, to expect from Queensland conservative members of parliament. It says no more than this: I therefore respectfully request- I think that is a lawyer's `respectfully' that has been put in there- that you undertake a full investigation into this incident- he was referring to the incident on 6 May- and make out a report to be made available to me at your earliest convenience and to include the following: There is then a series of detailed points in that respect. I recall receiving the letter in question. I certainly had not recalled any invitation to personally visit and talk to the air traffic controllers coming from anyone in a position of authority to issue such an invitation. It is self-evidently the case from the text of the letter which Senator Sheil has just had incorporated that there was no such invitation in any terms that could remotely be so construed. Before me there is simply a request that there be an investigation. There is of course an investigation of all such incidents. It occurs through appropriate departmental processes and that is the way in which I will be replying to the letter in question. I indicate that, of course, I remain willing to personally visit facilities of this kind when issues of the kind that are involved in the present discussion are alive and I would be happy to do that on some appropriate occasion. I do not find it helpful to the cause of public debate or political decency to be the subject of highly personalised allegations on a matter of this kind for which there is manifestly no foundation. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.15) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report of the Aboriginal Development Commission 1986-87 may report the last full year of the ADC as a functioning body working to advantage Aboriginal Australia. Senator Chaney —Perhaps not. Senator PETER BAUME —Perhaps not, if we have our way. The passing or alteration of the Commission, the corruption of the Commission by the Government, will be tragic for Aboriginal people. It was established during a period when my colleague Senator Chaney was the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Honourable senators will recall that the second reading speech introducing the Bill for establishing the Aboriginal Development Commission was made by then Senator Neville Bonner. The ADC has emerged through a difficult period of development. It has learned its administrative task not the easy way but by making mistakes and answering for them. It has emerged as an effective administrative body. It has learnt to say no to importunate demands as well as how to say yes to good demands. Its commissioners have learned to exercise independent judgment in circumstances where this has been very difficult because of other obligations. The question is: What does the Aboriginal Development Commission face today? The commissioners were properly appointed. Their photographs appear in this report. They are eminent Aboriginal Australians, many of whom were known to me and respected by me while I was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer to people such as Shirley McPherson, who is still the Chairman of the Commission. Mr Mick Miller, for all his radical politics, played fair by me a couple of times when, as Minister, I needed it. I put that on record. Getano Lui, Jr, Ossie Cruse and many other commissioners who have been involved in Aboriginal affairs and administration for years and who have proved themselves, have been sacked. Senator Chaney —Getano is back on. Senator BAUME —I am grateful for that. The commissioners who were party to this report have refused to accommodate themselves to Government proposals to abolish several independent bodies such as the Commission, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd, the Institute of Aboriginal Studies, et cetera and to incorporate them into a new proposed body, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Yesterday the Senate was very fortunate to debate and agree to a motion of urgency moved by Senator Coulter. That motion called upon the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) to allow any legislation to establish the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission to lie before the Parliament for at least six months. I hope that the Government will do that. The motion called for more active involvement of Aboriginal people and groups in consultation and for the possible amendment of legislation. I hope the Minister will do that. The motion also called for the reinstatement of the Aboriginal Development Commission as it was constituted before the recent dismissal of commissioners and for some other things. The Government has sacked the commissioners of the ADC. It has appointed its mates. Senator Coulter set out the issues. It worries us that this Minister is altering structures, rewarding his mates, getting rid of those who have exercised power responsibly and appointing those who he thinks might be more compliant to his wishes. In the process, like a dervish, he has been destroying Aboriginal structures which work-for example, Aboriginal Hostels Pty Ltd, which has worked well for Aboriginals. It is all an exercise in mad ideology by Minister Hand. It will promote discord and worse administrative practice and will aggravate community discord among the wider Australian community. The cause proposed in yesterday's urgency motion is the least we can do not only for Aboriginal people but also for the pursuit of the maintenance of what the Aboriginal Development Commission is and what it has stood for. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(3.20) —In light of what Senator Peter Baume said in his speech, I think I should say some things about the 1986-87 annual report of the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC). The honourable senator has, of course, a great record in this area. But I think it would be appropriate for him to look at what the situation really is at this time. The situation is-and through you, Mr Deputy President, I ask Senator Baume to take this on board-that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) is establishing a Commission which, to borrow a phrase coined by a great President of the United States of America, will be elected of the Aboriginal community, by the Aboriginal community, for the Aboriginal community. It is in those circumstances that the present situation of the Aboriginal Development Commission should be seen. The Minister wants the body elected by the Aboriginal people to have control over all their affairs, including those affairs that are presently handled by the Aboriginal Development Commission. Senator Peter Baume —Why sack the Commission? Senator COONEY —Because the Commission, for whatever reason, does not go along with what the Minister says. In an Aboriginal Development Commission media release of 17 December 1987, Mrs McPherson was quoted as stating that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission was to be nothing more than the old Department of Aboriginal Affairs under another name-`nothing more than an upstart crow dressed in parrot's plumes'. She went on to make two inaccurate statements. Firstly, she said that `all the decision-making power will rest with the Government'; secondly, she said `the ADC Act already provides for a majority of the commissioners to be elected'. In fact, the new Commission will have the same autonomy in relation to all the current responsibilities that the ADC enjoys plus a number of other functions. The plain fact is that the ADC Act provides for all the commissioners to be appointed by the Governor-General. What is the Minister who is responsible for Aboriginal affairs to do if he is unable to carry out a plan because of actions by the ADC? That is the situation in this case. Who is in charge of Aboriginal affairs? Who is the elected representative of the people with responsibility in Parliament to answer for Aboriginal affairs? It is not the ADC. Senator Tambling —They only gave him advice. Senator COONEY —It is not the ADC, I point out to Senator Tambling; it is the Minister. If the Minister is unable to carry out the plan for which he has a mandate because of attitudes and actions taken by the ADC, is he to resign or has the Commission got to give way? Senator Chaney —In this case, yes. Senator COONEY —Senator Chaney, of course, says yes. The reality of the matter is this: He is in opposition. He will remain in opposition if his approach to government is one where elected Ministers should give way to those who should properly listen to the policies of an elected government and carry them out. If they are not going to do that and if it becomes impossible for the Minister to carry out his policy, something simply has to give way. That is the reality of the matter. The action taken by the Minister in regard to the court case was in line with the position held by the legislative arm. Indeed, the result of the court case has vindicated what the Minister did. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.25) —Mr Deputy President, I know that a lot of senators want to speak on this paper, and that is hardly surprising when the Government has just dismissed the majority of the board members of the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC). Indeed, they have been dismissed since this report was prepared. I just want to make a couple of things clear in this debate. The Aboriginal Development Commission is under the chairmanship of Shirley McPherson. She is an Aboriginal woman and a qualified accountant-the sort of person who is doing things which the whole community would approve of. She is someone who has brought to this Commission a demand that Aboriginal people should receive money from it only when they are accountable for that money and are prepared to use that money for the reasons it was given. She is a person who has brought a strict approach to the administration of an element of Aboriginal affairs. She is a person who has run the Commission after it was inquired into and much criticised by various parliamentary committees. The Commission has met those criticisms. We are now in a situation where, in Senator Barney Cooney's immortal words, the commissioners have been dismissed because they have not done what the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) has told them. What an absolute, wonderful exposure of the basic Australian Labor Party attitudes to an independent commission! The Aboriginal Development Commission set out to ensure that there are commercially viable enterprises run only by Aboriginal people with proper accountability for the taxpayers' funds involved. There is a clear five-year plan for the building of houses, both for purchase and lease by Aboriginal people. The Commission has a clear approach to ensuring that the sorts of abuses of taxpayers' funds that have occurred in the past do not occur in the future. I want to make the point that the people who have been affected by this Government are people who have long been supporters of the Labor Party. The three consultants who were dismissed by the new board of the ADC included Kate George, who will be known to many people here as the first wife of Minister John Dawkins. She is someone I have worked with in Aboriginal affairs since the early 1970s when she and I were members of the Aboriginal Legal Service. She is one of the people who have been dismissed. She is not some Liberal stooge; she is not some opponent of the Government. She is somebody who has been trying to work with the Aboriginal people for virtually the whole of her adult life. She is somebody who was a great friend of the late Gloria Brennan, who would be known to Aboriginals throughout Australia as one of the people who are trying to get some order and sense into Aboriginal affairs. Ossie Cruse, who has been dismissed, is a splendid example of what people want to see in the Aboriginal community. He happens to be the President of the Aboriginal Evangelical Fellowship. Perhaps the fact that he is an active member of that organisation puts him on the nose to the Minister. But the truth is that he is an absolutely splendid, fine person. He is a man who has been in ill odour with the Minister because he got his Aboriginal organisation in Eden to join with the rest of the community in a bicentennial project. What a dreadfully offensive thing to do! Of course, Mr Hand has divorced himself from the bicentennial celebrations for some reason that he seems to connect with the advancement of Aboriginal people. I defy anyone in the Labor Party in this place to say a word against Mr Ossie Cruse, who is one of the finest Aboriginal people with whom I have ever worked. I would have to say that he gave me plenty of curry when I was Minister. As the Labor appointed Chairman of the Aboriginal Land Trust in New South Wales and as a member of the National Aboriginal Conference he was a fearless critic of government when we were in government. But fearless critics of government do not fare very well under Minister Hand. Next I refer to John Newfong. I do not think anyone would claim he is some sort of anti-Government stooge. This Aboriginal who has had a distinguished career as a writer and journalist has also been sacked. The fact of the matter is that this Commission, which is aiming to produce effective and efficient services by Aboriginals for Aboriginals without the waste which has excited so much political passion and public opposition over recent years, is being carved up. Let me put one caveat on the record. If this Government now tries to discredit the Aboriginal Development Commission by selective leaks, which I believe have already started, and by now starting to push our moneys through the Commission, particularly to projects which have not previously received the approval of the Commission because they have been doubtful from accounting and other points of view, we are going to see something that this Parliament is going to have to bring the Government to book for. I will be seeking the support of the Australian Democrats and I acknowledge their lead yesterday in bringing this matter before the Parliament to ensure that the Government does not get away with murder in its treatment of the Aboriginal Development Commission. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(3.30) —The report before us, the 1986-87 annual report of the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC), is, in fact, dated April. I believe that it has been available for some time. One wonders why it has been left until now before it has been brought forward. One is suspicious that it may have something to do with the events of the last week in relation to the dismissals that Senator Chaney has just referred to. The ADC was created in 1980. As Senator Peter Baume has pointed out, there was a very moving speech at that time by the only Aboriginal senator in this place, Senator Neville Bonner, in which he remarked on the fact that the ADC would be `placing the decision-making process in the hands of Aboriginal people, making them instruments of their own advancement'. The function of the Commission is defined as: . . . to further the economic and social development of people of the Aboriginal race of Australia and people who are descendants of indigenous inhabitants of the Torres Strait Islands, and, in particular, (as a recognition of past dispossession and dispersal of such people) to establish a Capital Account with the object of promoting their development, self-management and self-efficiency. It is a matter of clear record that the ADC legislation is the only legislation which recognises prior Aboriginal occupation and the responsibility which devolves upon the European community as a consequence of that. It is not surprising that this piece of legislation is, therefore, repugnant to the present Government. It is also interesting to note that no additions have been made to the capital fund in the life of the Labor Government; they ceased in 1982-83. As indicated by previous speakers, there was an inquiry into the ADC spanning 1984-85. A number of suggestions came out of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. It suggested that a corporate plan be developed and implemented. It suggested that there be a development of programs and procedures, and manuals which would outline those procedures; that there be a network of linking computers which would facilitate the devolution of power from the central ADC to regional offices; and that the loan functions also be centralised. The annual report before us indicates that every single one of those recommendations which were made in 1984-85 by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure has been implemented. As Senator Chaney has pointed out, we have in charge of the ADC now, in the position of Chairman, Mrs Shirley McPherson, who is an accountancy graduate of the Western Australian Institute of Technology. Senator Boswell —A lovely woman. Senator COULTER —As indicated, she is a lovely woman. She is also extremely competent and professional. As a consequence, the ADC has carried out the following intentions, and I quote from the previous annual report: higher priority shall be given to loan applications as against grant applications; loans shall be the method of funding where there is a capacity to repay. Not surprisingly, that action has meant that many Aboriginal individuals in relation to housing loans, and Aboriginal groups in relation to business loans, have found themselves denied funds, or, where loans have been made and those loans have not been properly serviced, then those loans have been foreclosed. By becoming a more professional and responsible organisation, the ADC has acquired some dissatisfied customers-those who still believe in welfare rather than independence and economic competence. Senator Chaney also referred to the spreading of misinformation. In the moment left to me I will point out that I believe-I have not yet seen the article-that the later editions of the Sydney Morning Herald this morning make a claim, which presumably is based on claims coming from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) or from people in his Department, that the ADC has spent $670,000 in its efforts to defeat the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission proposal. My understanding is that only 14 per cent of that amount of money was indeed spent in that way. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(3.35) —It is impossible in five minutes to canvass all the issues that are associated with the tabling of this annual report of the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) for 1986-87 which, under any other circumstances, would probably not have been perhaps as contentious as it is at the moment. That is probably the understatement of 1988. Some of the speakers in the debate I think have missed the point a little so far in that there is an assumption in what has been said that the functions of the ADC that have been carried out-in what I believe has been an efficient and beneficial manner to the Aboriginal community in Australia-will not be continued under the proposed new Commission. I want to make a number of matters quite clear. The commissioners who were dismissed by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) were not dismissed for any personal reasons in the sense that they had not discharged their functions correctly. Senator Short —It was just that they disagreed with the Minister. Senator COLLINS —That is correct; I will canvass that in a minute. They had discharged their proper functions under the ADC. I must make that point in the House because I certainly had a hand in the appointment of more than one of those commissioners in making recommendations to the former Minister for their appointment. On a personal level-I said this when I was interviewed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on the subject in the Northern Territory-I think it was unfortunate and regrettable that that action had to be taken, because of some feelings that may be held by some of the commissioners at least that they had personally behaved in a way which warranted their dismissal. That is not the case. The fact is that the ADC has had a difficult charter to fulfil. I just want to make one point in terms of how it has fulfilled the charter in reference to a comment that Senator Chaney made. If there were any stories about that perhaps the ADC did not succeed as well as it could in delivering its functions, I would have to make one obvious point in defence of the ADC. It is an extremely easy organisation to criticise and it is extremely easy to find critics of it, because anyone who has been knocked back for a loan from the ADC will, of course, criticise it. It is not a very easy matter to say no in the area of Aboriginal affairs. It is one of the more difficult portfolios to administer. The ADC had to say no on many occasions. Quite often there will be complaints about the ADC from people who, not unnaturally, have been aggrieved by the fact that their applications for loan funds were knocked back. They are not criticisms on which I personally place any weight because I think that, by and large, the ADC has carried out its functions quite well. But that same defence also applies to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Quite understandably in my view, the ADC said no to a policy decision that had been taken quite correctly and quite properly by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to establish the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). I said at the beginning of this short address that some of the people who have spoken in this debate have perhaps missed the point a little. There will be one substantial difference between the current ADC and the proposed ATSIC. The reason why the Minister was able to dismiss the former commissioners is that he was able to appoint them. The major difference between the current ADC and the proposed ATSIC is that the substantial majority of the commissioners on ATSIC will be elected by the Aboriginal community of Australia. That is a move forward which was supported by all honourable senators who spoke in the debate on Foundations for the Future. I fully understand and appreciate the reasons why the Minister had to take the action that he did. For the benefit of those aggrieved commissioners, I stress again that the action does not in any way reflect on them personally in regard to the way in which they carried out their functions as ADC commissioners. It is simply that the Government was elected to implement its policy. The particular policy now under discussion is the establishment of ATSIC. The ADC opposed that policy to the extent of taking legal action to prevent it. The Minister was perfectly entitled, therefore, to take the action that he did. When ATSIC commences, the functions that are currently administered by the ADC will then be administered by ATSIC under elected, rather than appointed, Aboriginal representatives. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(3.40) —It is very unusual for a Minister to intervene during the consideration of papers, but I wish to speak briefly. I guarantee that Senator Tambling will get his full five minutes to speak. Senator Coulter made an attack on the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) concerning the timing of the furnishing of this annual report to the chamber. I simply wish to point out that the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) was obliged to report by 31 December 1987, but the Commission informed the Minister that it could not meet the 31 December 1987 deadline because of delays in finalising the financial statements owing to new procedures. The ADC accordingly applied to the Minister on 13 November 1987 for an extension until 29 February 1988. On 8 February the ADC sought a second extension until 22 April because of delays in the Australian Audit Office. On 27 April the Audit Office provided financial statements signed by the Auditor-General, and on 4 May the ADC sought a third extension until 24 May to allow for printing time. I just want to make it very clear that the ADC was the body responsible for seeking to have the tabling of the annual report delayed. If I have caused anybody to miss out on a minute or two, I will grant leave for an extension of time. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(3.42) —The report before us today by the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) is a very commendable one because it looks, as other senators have said, at the story of an organisation that has grown through many growth pains to a position of success. It has certainly been successful in the development of people who are exercising considerable representation on behalf of Aboriginal groups throughout Australia. It has been very interesting to note the difference in the contributions of Senator Cooney and Senator Collins. Senator Cooney took an apologist line, whereas Senator Collins seemed to have a very real understanding of the performance of this Commission in the particular parts of Australia in which it has carried out its functions. I point out that the section in the report which outlines the functions of the Commission includes the statement that it is: to give advice and make recommendations to the Minister with respect to the furtherance of the economic and social development of Aboriginals; and such other functions in connection with the furtherance of the economic and social development of Aboriginals as the Minister determines by notice in writing to the Commission. The document Foundations for the Future certainly flagged that invitation and it was very mindful of the fact that the commissioners should undertake the role they did. The fact is that they were critical of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Hand, with regard to this matter and I believe he has shown his arrogance by riding across the advice they gave. In looking at this report we can see that it embraces a whole range of functions to do with finance corporate services, housing and in particular commercial and business enterprises. They are most important and are the success story of the Aboriginal Development Commission. If we look at the chapter entitled `Corporate Services' on page 7 we will see that the Commission dealt with an additional 640 submissions during the period under consideration. Forty-four per cent of them were for commercial development, 24 per cent were for housing loans, 15 per cent were for corporate services, 10 per cent were for housing grants, and 7 per cent were for management functions. The success of this Commission always stands on a document such as this, the annual report. As Senator Collins has said, the 10 commissioners named in this report can all stand proud, as can the other commissioners who were subsequently appointed and then sacked by the Minister. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever for sacking them on any grounds of personal incompetence and personal irresponsibility and in fact it was a very great slight to all of them by this Government. The area currently under consideration is the development of a new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. (Extension of time granted) The role proposed for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission is certainly intended to embrace the functions already given to the ADC. I have argued in this place, and I am sure many others would do the same, that because of the very success of the Aboriginal Development Commission as an appropriate and responsible commercial body carrying out delegated functions, there is no established or demonstrated need for the Commission to be put under an umbrella and gobbled up by various social security, education and welfare functions. It is the very amalgam proposed by the Government that will doom this great area of Aboriginal advancement to failure. That concerns me, because it is the Aboriginal people of Australia who will stand to lose. The wealth of experience and responsibility that has been demonstrated and built up by the Aboriginal Development Commission should be enhanced and certainly not put down. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —The time for the consideration of Government Papers has now expired. Debate resumed from 18 May, on motion by Senator Chaney. That the Senate take note of the report. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.47) —I would like the opportunity of saying a few words in relation to the report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material. I take the liberty of reminding the Senate that at the end of 1984 I moved for the establishment of a joint committee to examine the material that had been allowed to flood into Australia as a result of the activities of the then Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans. We had had a number of debates in the Senate about the effect of his decisions, particularly in relation to the new category of X-rated material which Senator Evans had been negotiating with his State colleagues responsible for censorship. It was clear that there was a great deal of community concern and controversy about this policy of the then Attorney-General, indeed of the Hawke Government. As a result of that concern which had been expressed over quite a period of time, on behalf of the Opposition I moved for the establishment of the committee. Unfortunately the Government then did not agree with the concept of having a joint committee or a parliamentary committee investigate this matter. Following the 1984 election and the advent of Mr Bowen as Attorney-General, the Government took a slightly more conciliatory and rational approach to this question and the Committee known as the Joint Committee on Video Material was set up, and early in 1985 it took over the work which had been begun by the Senate Committee. It has been working away at it ever since. It has only just reported, about three years after it was first set up. On the one hand, I must express some disappointment at the time it took the Committee to report. On the other hand, I must express my satisfaction about the views of the majority of that Committee. Unfortunately, it was a narrow majority. Six of the 11 members of that Committee have made a number of recommendations with which I agree and to which I would like to lend my support in the short time we have to discuss the report today. However, I hope there will be subsequent occasions when there will be more time fully to debate this matter. The Committee came to consider the question of what is generally referred to as pornographic material. In some places it is called video nasties, but generally speaking it is referred to as X-rated material, although in Australia, by virtue of some close consideration of this material and perhaps tighter administration of it by our own censorship board, X-rated material had been somewhat narrowed from the wider and even more offensive and more harmful material of that kind. Such material, largely depicting sexual violence in extreme and highly dangerous forms, has not been permitted in Australia. Nevertheless, a lot of that material does seem to slip through. The other unfortunate aspect is that, despite the establishment of the Committee to review and report on this material, the Hawke Government and even Attorney-General Bowen have permitted a classification of X-rated material in the Australian Capital Territory. Even though the Committee was looking at the material, the laws the Government introduced in 1984 are still on the statute book. That, coupled with the easing of the importation of such material, has enabled it-albeit a limited type of X-rated material-to continue to flood the whole of Australia. That has placed a considerable strain on State governments because, over this period of three years, all the State governments have banned X-rated material. It is interesting that despite the apparent agreement the then Attorney-General, Senator Evans, made with State governments in 1984, the State governments felt the pressure of public opinion much more immediately than the Federal Government seems to have done. State governments have banned that material. In Western Australia and one other State, I believe, the possession of such material has been banned because the banning of the commercial sale of the material was not effective when it was available through mail order from the Australian Capital Territory under the permissive laws that the then Attorney-General introduced even though his colleagues in State Labor governments as well as State Liberal governments had banned the material. Indeed, that material had always been banned in Australia prior to the libertarian permissiveness of the Hawke Government and its first Attorney-General, Senator Evans. An unfortunate aspect of the report has been the confusion about its findings. The majority of six members cuts across the party lines. They are: the honourable member for Fairfax, Mr Adermann, of the National Party, the honourable member for Isaacs, Mr David Charles, and the honourable member for Forde, Ms Mary Crawford, of the Labor Party; independent Senator Brian Harradine; and the honourable member for Fadden, Mr David Jull and Senator Walters of the Liberal Party. They are the six members who formed the majority view which is, in simple terms, that the X rating should be abandoned and that there should not be a new category which incorporates the X rating, although there is some difference of opinion about whether there should be an additional category to accommodate some of this material. However, they are all agreed that the X-rated material as it exists at the moment should be stopped from being imported into Australia or being sold in any part of Australia. That particularly involves a change of the law of the Australian Capital Territory. I commend the work that has been done, particularly in relation to scientific evidence that the Committee commissioned. The reports contain some very useful summaries of the wealth of scientific evidence. Opinion has differed between the majority of the Committee members and the minority about the significance of that material. But the fact of the matter is that the onus of proof that such material is not harmful or damaging to people and will not result in bizarre and criminal behaviour on the part of some people rests on those who want to make the material legal. That sort of scientific approach was never undertaken by the then Attorney-General, Senator Evans, or the Hawke Government. It allowed this material to flood into Australia in defiance of real concerns that some scientists have expressed. Senator Zakharov —Others have expressed differently. Senator DURACK —Admittedly, other scientists take a different view, but that is not good enough with this material. I know that Senator Zakharov also takes a libertarian view, but that is simply not good enough; it is totally irresponsible. When there is plenty of scientific evidence, as is the case, to say that the material could well pose a risk, we as legislators should take note of that and should not risk it being let loose on the Australian public. Therefore, I would like to call strongly on the Government to introduce legislation without delay to give effect to the view of the majority of members of the Committee. Debate (on motion by Senator Tambling) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 18 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Senate approves the changes to the Parliamentary administration contained in the 10th Report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 18 May, on motion by Senator Cook: That the following Sessional Order, contained in the Report, be adopted: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, in a debate on a motion for the suspension of any Standing or Sessional Order a senator shall not speak for more than 5 minutes, and if the debate is not concluded at the expiration of 30 minutes after the moving of the motion the question on the motion shall then be put. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.56) —Unless any other senators wish to speak on the report at this stage, the Opposition does not want the matter to come to a vote at this time. Therefore, I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Senator Colston —Could I ask whether the Opposition has any intention of bringing it on for debate before we rise? It has been around for quite a long time. Senator PUPLICK —My understanding is that it will not be brought on. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —I am led to understand that it will come up again next Wednesday. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present the eighth report of 1988 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, concerning Audit Amendment Bill 1988; Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1988; Employment, Education and Training Bill 1988; Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; and Taxation Laws Amendment (Employee Share Acquisitions) Bill 1988. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON —I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 8, dated 25 May 1988. [COGNATE BILLS: CONSTITUTION, ALTERATION (FAIR ELECTIONS) BILL 1988 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (LOCAL GOVERNMENT) BILL 1988 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS) BILL 1988] Debate resumed. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(3.59) —Before the luncheon break, I was pointing out to the Senate the reality of what a purely one vote one value system would do to the rural electors of Queensland and Australia. Before I continue in that vein, I seek leave to incorporate a table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- PERCENTAGE VOTE IN QUEENSLAND STATE ELECTIONS Year A.L.P. National Party Liberal Party 1969 ... 44.99 21.00 23.68 1972 ... 46.75 20.00 22.23 1974 ... 36.03 27.88 31.09 1977 ... 42.83 27.15 25.22 1980 ... 41.59 27.94 26.92 1983 ... 43.98 38.93 14.8 1986 ... 41.35 39.64 16.5 Senator BOSWELL —The reality is that if rural Queensland loses its State representation, the result will be a loss of State government services as the State members of parliament fight for their share of State government revenue around the south-east corner of Queensland. Rural Queensland will be neglected as health services run down; hospitals close; if possible, roads become worse than they are already after this Government's reduction in road funding; decentralisation as it is known now will be a thing of the past; small schools will close down; school bus routes will be removed; and government departments and depots will be gradually sent back to more populated areas. The outback of Queensland will be depopulated. That will happen if rural representation is removed. One must be prepared to take that into account when one moves a one vote one value Bill. No-one in the Senate would want that. Only a few intrepid graziers or farmers and miners will be left to provide the services to give a decent standard of living to rural Queensland and rural Australia. The Bill will deny electors the equality of their vote as they will have no access to their members of Parliament and there will be no community of interest. Rural Australia's ethos and voice could be lost forever; it will be lost in State governments and in the State upper Houses. Rural Australia's voice will be a lone cry in the wilderness. In any Westminster system of Parliament, a weightage system operates to compensate for distances and rural electorates. Senator Robert Ray —Not this one. Senator BOSWELL —I am glad Senator Ray is present to hear my speech. He may learn something. Great Britain allows four to one; the United States of America allows three to one; Canada allows 12 to one; and Queensland is running at three to one at present. The Government has never had any sympathy with rural Australia and nothing has changed as a result of the introduction of this Bill. Senator Ray should listen to this: the irony of the one vote one value legislation is that it will probably make the National Party stronger. The seats removed from the country will be placed in the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast. The two new seats in Brisbane will be won by either the Liberal Party or the National Party. The position in provincial cities will be improved by the expansion of voters to take in country dwellers who are traditionally National Party supporters. The whole question of one vote one value is a sham. It will not win government for the Labor Party because it will have to achieve 51 per cent of the vote to do so, and at present it is running at around 46 per cent of the vote, which is the best it has ever done, and at a worst approximately 36 per cent. The Bill will destroy rural Australia and will destroy rural Queensland. Senator Robert Ray —Ha, ha! Senator BOSWELL —Senator Ray laughs but I shall quote to him an article in the Sunday Mail editorial of 28 February 1988. If Senator Ray does not believe what I say, maybe he will believe the Sunday Mail. But one vote one value is a noble illusion; to adopt it as things stand would be an abrogation of responsibility, a decision to indulge ourselves forever along the coast, content with smooth roads, good plumbing and lots of telly. In Queensland's unique circumstances, stripped of its hyperbole, it means to hell with the bush, and to hell with development west of the Great Divide. The National Party is not saying that; that is a quote from the Sunday Mail, a Brisbane based newspaper. Senator Robert Ray —Who owns it? Senator BOSWELL —It is irrelevant who owns the newspaper; it is certainly not Queensland Country Life, if Senator Ray is applying that criterion to it. I do not have time to deal with the third question but I shall speak to the fourth question, which extends the guarantee of trial by jury, freedom of religion and fair compensation for property acquired by the Government. Those rights are implied; we have them at present. This legislation is no more than a Bill of Rights. The Labor Government proposed a Bill of Rights during the last Parliament but it had to retreat from that position when it became obvious that electors would have no bar of it. Australians do not want their rights written into the Constitution. Australia's system of law and order is based on British common law and not on the American type Bill of Rights. If rights are written into the Constitution, they will be open to interpretation by a centralised High Court and also become limited to what is precisely written. Any rights that are not included could be negated by their non-inclusion. That is not the Australian way. Australians are overwhelmingly against the danger of putting words on paper to define rights and freedoms which would place exorbitant amounts of interpretive power on the High Court. If the fourth Bill is carried, it may well be the end of religious education and prayers in government schools because a High Court may very well rule that a Christian prayer is offensive to atheists, agnostics or people of different faiths such as Buddhists or Moslems. Senator Robert Ray —That happens every day here. Senator BOSWELL —That has happened in America under its Constitution; no longer are prayers allowed to be offered and children are denied the right to religious education in American public schools despite the Christian stand of the American President, Mr Ronald Reagan. The first amendment of the American Constitution, which is also the beginning of its Bill of Rights states: Congress shall make no law reflecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . This has an amazing likeness to the Government's Bill; I suggest it is a direct take-off. The first amendment has been interpreted in the American courts as not allowing prayers or religious education in public schools where government expenditure would be seen to be aiding or making a law concerning the establishment of religion. These are the dangers and minefields that lie in waiting if we allow a Bill of Rights to be cemented in our Constitution. It would become a double-edged sword and would possibly achieve the reverse of the original intention. It is essential, if Australians are to continue to enjoy democratic rights and freedoms, that these not be stamped and sealed in a legal document which would be subject to legal interpretation for hundreds of years into the future. Who knows what the High Court of Australia will do in those times? I am not willing to see our present rights and those of future Australians destroyed over time. As senators, we should be the guardians of democracy, not the vehicles for its demise. I urge all Australians to reject the referenda. Nothing is to be gained by voting for any one of these questions. They do not allow for fewer elections; they do not provide for free and fair elections; they give nothing to local government but tokenism; and they do nothing for the freedom or rights of any Australian. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(4.07) —As a Liberal senator for South Australia, I believe the Labor Government's referendum package is a direct attack on the rights of the States and on the Senate and, as such, will seriously undermine the balance of our Federation and the effectiveness of our Parliament. Nowhere is this attack on the States more obvious than in the referendum proposal to neutralise the Senate. Australians relied on the Senate to save them from Labor's Bill of Rights and the identity card. They must now reject the latest attempt to reduce the power of the Senate. One essential point to be understood is this: the questions to be asked bear little relationship to the actual legislation involved. Mr Gary Morgan, Australia's leading polling consultant, has said that any public opinion polling company `who asked questions as blatantly biased as the Government proposes would completely lose credibility'. For the exercise, the first question, which is titled `four-year terms', could be titled instead-accurately based on the legislation-`to abolish fixed terms for senators and to ensure all senators alike face an election whenever there is a House of Representatives election'. The second question, the so-called fair and democratic elections question, could be alternatively titled, `to force the States to prohibit malapportionment in all State electorates'. Nothing in the legislation affects gerrymanders, which Senator Ray has already acknowledged. Senator Robert Ray —No, I haven't. That is untrue. Senator TEAGUE —By the legislation gerrymanders cannot be prohibited but they certainly can be by State legislation to prohibit malapportionment as is the case in South Australia, where it was introduced by a Liberal government. The third question, the so-called recognition of local government, could alternatively be titled, `to override the States by adding a vague reference to local government in the Federal Constitution'. The fourth question is made up of a package of three matters. Instead of being titled `to extend the right to trial by jury', `to extend freedom of religion' and `to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by any Government', they could be titled: firstly, `to provide that juries be of any number and reach conclusions by majority verdicts'; secondly, `to prevent governments not only from making laws to establish any religion but also from taking any executive action in this direction'; and, thirdly, instead of so positively asserting `just compensation', it could be `to override the States in matters of compensation for land acquisition'. I put it to the honourable senators that those titles are not much freer of bias than the titles the Government has chosen for its quite detailed proposed amendments. I assert that the questions to be asked bear little relationship to the actual legislation involved. This is important because the matters that have been described by the titles that the Government is proposing are all motherhood questions. Everybody I have ever spoken to in Australia is in favour of fair elections. Most people would like to see a sensible way of achieving four-year terms for government. Most people would like to see ensured freedom of religion, just compensation and the appropriate application of trial by jury. Most people in Australia want to see an appropriate place and powers for local government. So if we put it on those terms, on a superficial reading we would expect that the majority of Australians would like these vague and superficial references. But the point is that these references are wrongly chosen as a description of the actual amendments to the Constitution. For reasons which I will now outline-I will deal with the matters one at a time-I am opposed to each of the proposed amendments. I believe that the Constitution should be safeguarded by the people of Australia rejecting each of the referendum proposals. Let me also add that the referendum proposals are not politically neutral; they are enormously biased to advantage the objectives of the Australian Labor Party. Indeed, they even have the immediate short term effect of extending the life of the present Hawke Government by six months. The next half Senate election is due by June 1990. If constitutional amendment No. 1 is approved in September that will no longer be the case and the Senate will face election, at the furthest extremity, in November 1990 when the House of Representatives election is due. For the reasons Senator Stone outlined here very effectively yesterday against the incredible claims of Senator McMullan, any sensible political observer knows that that will be the effect of the first question with regard to the life of the present Hawke Government. If this question is passed, a subsequent parliament would have a four-year term-that is, four years from the first sitting of that parliament-and, presumably, that would take it into February, which is 4 1/4 years from the November 1990 election. So there would be ample latitude in a subsequent election for the government of the day to pick any day in November, or any day in December, or even to go to an election early in 1995. This will have enormous consequences in giving more latitude to the present Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, to work out his retirement in the light of what might then appear to be the certain defeat of the Labor Government and to make arrangements for Mr Keating, Mr Dawkins, Mr Beazley, or whoever else it may be in the other place, to succeed him and, at the same time as Mr Hawke steps down, for the author of this legislation-the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Lionel Bowen, to step down. That extra latitude gives time for such rearrangements and it also distances this Government from the predicted worldwide recession of 1989. On the Government's reckoning, the further away from 1989 that it chooses to have an election, the more likely it is to be successful. These measures are not politically neutral. They give an enormous advantage to the present Government to have an extended term of office. This is offensive to me and it ought to be offensive to the Australian people. One accusation that has been made by Paul Kelly of the Australian newspaper, which has been quoted by Government senators ad nauseam in the debate, is that the Opposition is only being negative; it does not have any actual arguments and is just being reactive. Indeed, some Government senators have even added that the Opposition is being opportunistic in opposing these referendum proposals. I want to make it quite clear that that biased article by Paul Kelly and the accusation that there is non substance to the decision by the Opposition are completely baseless. Let me quickly move on to give the sound reasons why the Opposition rejects all these proposals. I point out in passing that, for many years, the Opposition and I have advocated reforms to the Constitution-such well-known amendments as the Court proposal, the Rae proposal and the Hamer proposal. The first question concerns the abolition of the fixed term of the Senate and is described by the Government as four-year terms. A strong Senate is an important protection for smaller States such as South Australia. A strong Senate is vital to discouraging hasty or rash decisions, for example, the Bill of Rights, but also legislation which is now before us in the Senate on the National Board for Employment, Education and Training. I believe that legislation will be significantly amended in Senate debate over the coming seven days. This will be achieved in this place whereas it was not achieved in the House where the Government has an absolute majority. The Senate stopped the insidious Bill of Rights and Labor's identity card and, as a pay back, the Hawke Government is now trying to stop the Senate. This referendum proposal would reduce the term of senators from a fixed six years to a maximum of four years and increase the term of the House of Representatives from a maximum of three years to a maximum of four years. The 88-year-old practice of fixed terms for the Senate would be abolished. Equally, the practice of electing half the Senate at a different time from the government of the day would also be abolished. To elect the whole Senate at each election takes away the stability the Senate has always provided and gives nothing in return. This has never applied to any upper House in any of the State parliaments. In addition, the Senate would no longer be an effective House of review. The Senate would become a rubber stamp of the House of Representatives. They would always be elected simultaneously. The Government claims that this referendum proposal will lead to fewer elections. In fact, it is likely to cause more elections. This is because the abolition of the present six-year fixed term of senators would allow the Prime Minister to call a simultaneous election for both Houses at any time he likes. As I have said, it is not surprising that Mr Hawke wants the first question approved, since its immediate political impact would be significantly to advantage the Labor Party by effectively extending the tenure of office of the Hawke Government by six months. More precisely, the deadline for the next election could be put off from 2 June to 17 November 1990. The coalition supports an increase in the House of Representatives' term from three years to four years but it strongly believes that the Senate's term should be twice that of the House of Representatives. That has always been the case, and that system has served Australia well. Senator Robert Ray —Eight years? Senator TEAGUE —There are three alternative ways, Senator Ray, of doing what I have broadly described. The first of these I would call the simplest. The simplest way is to change the Constitution to allow the six-year fixed term of the Senate to become eight years. This would allow some ability to manage simultaneous elections for the House of Representatives and half the Senate in a similar pattern to that which we have now. This is all on the basis that the term of the House of Representatives would change from three years to four. The second alternative is what I would call the most convenient-at least for government-and that is to give the Senate two terms of the House of Representatives and have simultaneous elections, but this is not a secure and stable basis for the Senate. For example, a Prime Minister could, in the honeymoon of his recent election, six months later have an immediate simultaneous election in which he would wipe out that half of the Senate that was elected the time before and which he would reckon was at odds with the electoral mood that had put him in office. Therefore, I put forward the third and sensible compromise approach, which is to have two terms of the House of Representatives on the conditions that a minimum of six years has been served by senators. This is what I would otherwise call the South Australian model. It is exactly what happens in South Australia. I seriously put it forward in this debate as a constructive way, which I am confident would gain the assent of both sides-both major parties at least-in the Senate because there would be a guarantee of a minimum six-year term for senators, as there is now. There would be a four-year maximum term for the House of Representatives and there would be an ability for half of the Senate to miss a House of Representatives election if the Prime Minister opportunistically called a quick election. The South Australian model, I believe, has settled down well. In my own State it applies to the Legislative Council. It is a model that could be followed to achieve a four-year term for the House of Representatives, rather than the proposal that is before us in this referendum, question No. 1. I note in passing that the Government's proposal is not even the recommendation of the Constitutional Commission, which it set up at great expense and whose first report, the summary version, of May-that is, this month-says on page 16: We recommend that the Constitution be altered to provide that: (i) Senators chosen in the States shall hold their places for two terms of the House of Representatives except in the event of a double dissolution; Against the advice of its own Commission, the Government is proceeding with a maximum four-year term for the Senate in which all the Senate comes out on the occasion of every House of Representatives election. I predict that this referendum question will fail because it will not be supported by the people of Australia in the majorities that are required for changing the Constitution. Question No. 2 forces the States to prohibit malapportionment in all State electorates. The Government has described this proposal as one for `fair and democratic elections'. This question undermines the federalist nature of our system because it seeks to enforce on individual States the particular form of electoral arrangements that they should have. I believe that it should be left to each State to determine its own electoral system and not have it imposed by Canberra. It is my view that each State should determine by its own Act that there is a prohibition of malapportionment. Labor governments have often sought to override the States. Labor objectives are centralist, wanting more and more power for Canberra. The Hawke Labor Government forgets that sovereign States, including South Australia, my own State, created this Commonwealth. Despite the misleading title that the Government has given to this question, it does not provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections. Indeed, it does not even try to stop the rigging of electoral boundaries. There is no way anyone can guarantee a strict one vote one value election. This proposal has a tolerance figure of plus 10 per cent or minus 10 per cent, thus revealing its own inherent weakness. The question imposes a standard on the States that the Commonwealth does not and cannot impose on itself. My Leader, Senator Chaney, put this aptly in his own speech. Certainly, the Senate is specifically constructed to represent each State equally, regardless of population. Since 1901, Tasmania has had inflated numbers in the House of Representatives. The proposal may well increase the involvement of the High Court of Australia. In this highly controversial area, this would do nothing to enhance the smooth working of our political system. It should not be assumed that this referendum proposal would simply add another section to the Constitution. On the contrary-and this is a surprise for many-the proposed amendments are complex. They require 2,000 words. They add 2,000 new words to the Constitution. The amendments would abolish two sections, replace three sections and insert 10 completely new sections, including a whole new chapter, into the Constitution. I assent that there is a high danger of unintended consequences arising from such a wholesale set of changes, from such a large number of new words. I note that since 1901, there have been only eight successful amendments to the Constitution. I put it to the Senate that this question alone, question No. 2, changes more words than all of those eight amendments put together. However, I concede to this debate that the abolition of one section, section 25, is highly appropriate. I support the abolition of section 25. If that was the only matter in this question, I would be supporting it, but it is only one small item in a huge number of changes. Section 25 contains the offensive reference to exclusion of people of a race, of one race or several races, from voting in an Australian election. It is entirely out of date and should have no place in the Australian Constitution. The South Australian Constitution Act already entrenches a prohibition against malapportionment, although it does not prohibit a gerrymander for the reason that it is not possible to express in law such a prohibition-or, at least, it is very difficult. The second referendum proposal is, I believe, a fraud and should be rejected by the people of Australia. The third question concerns local government. This proposal is a crude attempt to trick those who have a deep concern, as we in the Opposition do, for the well-being of local government in this country. The Labor Government is only putting it up as a smokescreen to cover the defects in the other proposals. The words `recognition of local government' are dangerous tokenism. The proposal offers no guarantees against wrongful dismissal of councils, no guarantees against enforced amalgamations and no guarantees against the abolition of local government in parts of States. This referendum proposal offers one meaningless sentence to be added to the Constitution, to be titled section 119a, 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 States. Even if these words had been included from 1901, neither the practice nor the powers of local government would have been any different in all parts of Australia throughout the whole of this century. The inclusion of those words is not going to make the powers or practice of local government any different in the future of this country. The question is really an attempt to divert attention away from the failures of Labor's policy for local government, instanced by the Hawke Government's cutbacks in road funding, amounting over the past three years to a reduction of 25 per cent, of $300m, and the Hawke Government's cutbacks in local government's share of personal income tax collections. I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard a brief table setting out those shares for the years 1976 to 1988. Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMPARISON OF COMMONWEALTH FUNDING TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT 1976-1988 Year Government Funding level as per cent 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 TEAGUE —I thank the Senate. Another instance of failure in Labor's policy is the Hawke Government's abolition of the only national forum available to local government-that is, the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations, which was abolished in 1986. Another instance where the Commonwealth had direct authority in the local government area was in the territory of Christmas Island. The Hawke Government intervened in September last year and sacked the local government authority. Constitutional recognition of local government is rightly placed in the Constitutions of the States. This has already happened in four of the six States. In South Australia this was done by a State Liberal government in 1980, and it is still very much in place today. I will encourage the Australian people to reject this third referendum question, as it is a smokescreen and is worthless. The fourth question concerns trial by jury, freedom of religion and just compensation. This package purports to extend rights, but it is a three-in-one, or all or nothing, package. We cannot have one and leave the other two; we have to accept all or reject all. I reject all-each one for sound reasons. The proposal is a re-run of Labor's Bill of Rights which was rejected and not proceeded with because of the opposition expressed in this chamber. Instead of giving rights it actually limits and restricts those rights. By reducing our existing and unthreatened freedoms to a few short legal definitions, it makes those freedoms subject to the uncertainties and shifting legal philosophies of the courts. Thus, to go in this direction actually puts our existing freedoms in jeopardy. All three subquestions are completely unnecessary. Can anyone suggest that these freedoms are currently under serious threat in Australia? The first sub-question, on trial by jury, has serious drafting problems. There is no sound reason why the Federal Constitution should intrude in this new way in the running of the criminal justice systems of the States. The proposal also seriously redefines the term `jury'. It allows for any number of people to make up a jury and, contrary to all practice, it allows for majority verdicts rather than unanimous verdicts. The second sub-question is entitled `freedom of religion' but its main effect is the opposite. It provides that government at all levels `shall not establish any religion'. The proposed wording could lead to the High Court of Australia ruling to confine or prohibit prayer or religious observance within government institutions such as schools. Thus, existing practice regarding freedom of religion could be limited or removed. Reference has already been made to the United States and I add reference to India. In October last year India was in some constitutional turmoil about suttee, the burning of widows. Some Hindus were claiming that they had a right to follow that practice because of the guarantees of freedom of religion in India. The Government was saying that suttee was not to be allowed. This ill-founded proposal opens up the possibility of validating extreme practices of minorities. I am not saying that we are going to have a rash of suttee around Australia, but it gives the possibility of validating extreme practices of minorities conducted under the guise of religion. The third sub-question of just terms for the acquisition of property could also have unintended consequences because of inadequacies in drafting. It is yet another unjustified intrusion into the operation of States and an interference with State responsibilities. Justice, religion and property are complex matters which should not be subject to simplistic formulas, let alone putting the formulas in the inflexible terms of an entrenched Constitution. There are enormous dangers in the three sub-questions. The objectives of the proposals are so very important that to get them only half right is to get them wrong. The Constitution is not the appropriate place for these inadequate words. I will encourage the people of Australia to vote against these proposals. In the 30 minutes that have been available to me, of which two minutes are left, I have only been able to give a summary of what I believe are sound reasons for rejecting all of these referendum proposals. In due course, after we have voted on these matters, I look forward to participating in the writing of the No case and to having that No case go to every voter in Australia. That will have the capacity of setting out in more detail the convincing reasons why I believe the people of Australia should reject all of the referendum proposals. I conclude by noting again that there is a lack of unanimity in Australia for the referendum proposals. Only the Labor Government has indicated its assent. The Liberal and National parties are opposed to it; the Queensland Government will be opposed; the Tasmanian Government is opposed; the New South Wales Government is opposed; and many community groups are also opposed. There was no consultation with us prior to these matters being defined. Because there was no consultation and because there is so much dissent and opposition to them, there will not be any great surprise when they are rejected. If the Government withdraws these referenda proposals between now and September on the ground that it expects that rejection, then be it on its own head that it did not consult the Opposition or other parties in putting forward-quite unilaterally, and against the advice of the Constitutional Commission-these highly contentious matters that should be rejected by all Australians. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.37) —In September the people of Australia will be asked four questions contained in the short titles of the Constitution Alteration Bills that are before us. The questions in effect, are: Do you agree that the Constitution be altered to provide for four-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of Parliament; do you agree that the Constitution be changed to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia; do you agree that the Constitution extend the right to trial by jury, to extend freedom of religion and to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by any government; and, do you agree that the Constitution be altered to recognise local government. Those are the four questions that people are to be asked. But the real question to be answered is: What is the purpose of these being put before the people in the first place? Is there any real reason why the people, at great expense to the taxpayer, will cast votes on these issues? Where is the evidence of the need for these suggested changes to the Constitution and what is the hidden agenda behind these provisions? In the short time that is available to me I want to concentrate on the issue of the so-called extension of the right of freedom of religion. I agree with what Senator Teague has said. This is a very dangerous proposition and it is likely to have completely the reverse effect to that which appears on the face of it. I have a very grave reason for saying that. I believe that as time goes by it will be understood by the people. The people who adhere to various religions will become aware of the threat to them posed by this proposition. Let me deal very briefly with the other proposals, because I want to concentrate on that matter. I agree that most of the questions on all of the other issues have been raised and answered thus far in the second reading debate. The proposal relating to four-year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament was put more correctly by Senator Teague. This proposition really is to alter the Constitution to delete the fixed terms for senators provision which is currently in the Constitution and to provide for simultaneous double dissolution elections-not necessarily every four years but at the maximum every four years. Where is the evidence produced by the Government to suggest that the current provisions relating to the House of Representatives term of a maximum of three years is inadequate? I think Senator Boswell was the last person to draw attention to the fact that the majority of House of Representatives terms have not gone the three years. We should at least have three-year terms instead of placing into the Constitution a provision that is not needed. There would have been some cause or reason for us to be concerned if it had been seen that the three-year period was inadequate for a government to undertake the legislative program for which it had sought a mandate from the people but the Government has not produced such evidence. Rather, the evidence is to the contrary. Typically, governments have not gone their three years. So why is the Government seeking a maximum of four years? The problems associated with this proposal for simultaneous elections are compounded by the destruction of the basic principle of the rotation of senators. Let me remind honourable senators that the provisions in the Constitution for the rotation of senators were based on the provisions of the United States Constitution. I draw attention to a comment made by Professor Geoffrey Sawer in evidence to the Select Committee on the Constitution Alteration (Avoidance of Double Dissolution Deadlocks) Bill 1950. Professor Sawer said: There is no point in having a House of review unless you have some degree of difference between the points of view of the Houses, and you get that more with the staggered system of elections. It is almost a guarantee that under our structure at present there will be differences of opinion between the House of Representatives and the House of review, namely the Senate. But with a double dissolution election available to the Government at its pleasure there are no constitutional or practical constraints on a Prime Minister-whether it be the current Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the previous Prime Minister or any future Prime Minister-who wants an election at any time that it suits him. This is an attack on the rights of this Senate to review legislation without fear or favour and to do so in the interests of the people who have elected it. I have already spoken on the question of so-called fair and democratic elections. I do not want to belabour the point that has been made here previously that this issue is largely to do with malapportionment. But that is only one aspect for consideration in respect of fair elections. What about gerrymanders? In any event, what does the Government mean by one vote one value? A lot depends on the basis for the electoral division. Should it be on the basis of people in that division or voters in that division? At present, the basis for electoral divisions is the number of voters. Why should it not be people? Should members of the House of Representatives represent only the voters or should they represent all of the people in their electorate, including the children? How many schools are there? What is the expenditure on roads? What sort of child care facilities and the like are available? Are these not matters for consideration when the issue of fair voting and one vote one value comes up? If the electorates are to be based on voters instead of population districts, it changes the whole aspect of whether or not the vote is valuable. I will not go to the other extreme and suggest that the person who casts the vote should get a weight for every dependant that that person has. If that were the case, I suspect that there would be better family policy by various governments. But I do not want to argue that point here. That matter has gone through and been discussed in the Joint Committee on Electoral Matters, of which I am a member, and in this chamber. I come to the third question: an Act to alter the Constitution to extend the right to trial by jury, to extend freedom of religion and to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by any government. The question to be asked of the Government is: Why are these lumped together like this? What is the community of interest, as it were, between those rights? The issues about trial by jury have been raised. Of course, they will be raised again in the committee stage. I do not know whether the issues concerning property have been raised but what would the proposition entrench into the Constitution? It would entrench the right of governments to acquire property but under what terms and conditions? The proposal for ensuring fair treatment for persons whose property is acquired by any government does not address the issue of whether the property should have been acquired in the first place. Let us go to the question that I raised first; that is, the issue of freedom of religion. I will leave aside the question of recognising local government for the committee stage. This constitutional question attempts to extend the existing provisions under section 116 of the Constitution to the States. In effect, it would heighten the the potential problems of section 116. It would enlarge the minefield wherein unanticipated casualties could occur and exacerbate the potential for greater divisions in the community on the basis of the isolation of religion. It has the potential to erect an impenetrable wall to isolate and effectively discriminate against persons with religious beliefs. Its main object is the extension of the ill-conceived provisions of section 116 to apply directly to State legislation. Let me prove precisely what I have said. I refer to a very interesting paper which was written by Clifford L. Pannam, a legal researcher. It is entitled `Travelling Section 116 with a US Road Map', Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 4, June 1963, pages 41 to 90. Pannam wrote: (s. 116) is regarded by many as a curious historical oddity and by all as having little practical value. This is what was written 25 years ago. Pannam explained that the whole provision was taken as being necessary to prevent the `insidious threat' that the Commonwealth might have power to pass Sunday observance legislation. Section 116 of the Constitution states: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. Has the Government examined the discussions that took place on this subject during the constitutional conventions late last century? Pannam continued: By a vote of 25 to 16 this clause became section 116 of the Australian Constitution. It was an historical accident based on an incredible legal analysis by a man (Higgins) who was later to become a justice of the High Court of Australia. We really have to ask the question: Will this provision ultimately be interpreted in the same way as a similar provision was in the United States Constitution? We do not have to look too far to find the answer to this question. In the Defence of Government Schools case in 1980 section 116 was used by the opponents of state aid to non-government schools in an attempt to cut out the rights of parents to send their children to schools of their own choosing and to have some of their tax money allocated for that purpose. In other words, this was to cut off funds for non-government schools. Is section 116 a `curious historical oddity'? Well, this historical accident has great potential to cause previously unimagined mischief. It happened that the majority at the time ruled that certain laws relating to financial assistance for non-government schools were constitutional. But there was a significant dissenter, and that was Mr Justice Lionel Murphy. Had the previous Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans had his way, he would have had a Bench full of Lionel Murphys. What did Justice Murphy say? In his written dissent he used the expression `freedom from religion'. His view was clearly expressed in that dissent. It was clear that a court composed of a majority who followed his philosophy would interpret the section, to use his words, `with all the generality which the words admit'. As I said, Lionel Murphy used the expression `freedom from religion'. However, the question which will be based on the cleverly worded title of the Bill we are debating refers to a Bill `to extend freedom of religion'. Yet, here is a High Court judge who interpreted the section to mean freedom from religion. Further, he interpreted it really to mean the establishment of an impenetrable wall so as to isolate and effectively discriminate against persons with religious beliefs. That would have been the result of the Murphy decision. The new section 116, as proposed, will be capable of being used to attack those who seek to express their rights in the exercise of their faith and to isolate them from the general political milieu. A case has not been made by the Government for the extension of this provision to the States. Neither has consideration been given by the Government to removing section 116 or subjecting it to the greatest possible scrutiny. Only casual perusal was given to it by the Constitutional Commission. Detailed scrutiny of the provision should include the bizarre interpretations which are creeping into judicial determinations in other democracies. Again, I come back to the question: will this provision ultimately operate and be interpreted in the same way as has been done in the United States? Another interesting case has just come to my notice and I will raise it right now. I refer to an article headed `The separation of Church and child!' contained in the Catholic Weekly of 18 May 1988. This article is a review by Stephanie Overman of a book entitled Separation of Church and Child: The Constitution and Federal Aid to Religious Schools by Bruce Cooper and Thomas Vitullo-Martin of the Hudson Institute. The article states: In the United States over the past few years mobile vans have cropped up outside parochial schools. The reason-the Supreme Court ruled in the 1985 Aguilar vs Felton decision that public school teachers could not teach remedial classes in religiously affiliated schools! On what basis were these Christians who had some need for remedial classes segregated from school rooms and put into caravans? On the basis of the freedom of religion provisions in the United States Constitution, that is what. Can the Government guarantee that there will be no further attempts by the High Court of Australia to try to interpret the words, as was attempted by Mr Justice Murphy and, in fact, as has been done by the Supreme Court of the United States of America? One of the big problems of placing in the Constitution provisions in wide general terms is that it leaves the way open for the issues to be determined by non-elected judges rather than by the elected representatives of the people. Let me deal with a couple of other decisions by the supreme courts in other democracies in respect of rights-the right to freedom of religion, and we have dealt with that; the right to privacy; and the right to freedom of speech. What are the bizarre interpretations that have been made by non-elected judges; in other words, what judge-made laws have been imposed on the community? Abortion is very often the pivot on which these strange interpretations are developed. I will give the Senate a couple of examples. The abortion on demand situation in the United States has been approved by the United States Supreme Court-it is a judge-made law-not on the basis of the existence of any specific reference to abortion in the United States Constitution, but on the right to privacy which is found in the text of the Constitution. In a similar move a United States Federal Court judge in March this year ruled unconstitutional regulations prohibiting abortion activities by federally funded family planning clinics. They were knocked out by a ruling based on freedom of speech. In a similar fashion, the Canadian Supreme Court in a decision earlier this year struck down Canada's abortion law and thereby permitted an abortion on demand situation by utilising Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Canadian Court on that occasion found that the Canadian law infringed on a woman's right to life, liberty and security of person because of State interference with bodily integrity and serious State imposed psychological stress. It is this possibility of a converse interpretation in regard to freedom of religion which is of concern to many people. As was pointed out in Volume 2 of the first report of the Constitutional Commission: Section 116 is concerned with both the toleration of all religions and the toleration of absence of religion. But how does this apply in the non-government school area? This question becomes even more relevant when honourable senators realise that the main objective of the proposal is the extension of the concept to the States. Of course, the States have the main responsibility in the areas of education and health. These are indeed very serious questions. This concept fits in with the Evans-type concept of a Bill of Rights which would have entailed provisions in broad, loosely defined terms which could be interpreted by non-elected judges. I will conclude by referring to what a former Chief Justice of Tasmania said about this type of activity, this type of generalised provision. On 24 June 1978 at the Thomas More Quincentenary, a former Chief Justice of Tasmania, Sir Stanley Burbury, a very learned man, said: I do not wish to be misunderstood when I say that I do not think it possible to establish a Court which we could trust with such a solemn judicial task. He was referring to the interpretation of a Bill of Rights. He continued: The interpretation and application by any Court of fundamental laws necessarily expressed in wide general terms leaves an immense area for the exercise of judicial discretion and for sharp differences of opinion between judges . . . Nor can many decisions in this area be based on bare legal reasoning. The personal attributes of the judge will often be stronger factors in moulding his opinion-his social, religious, political, philosophical and cultural backgrounds and beliefs. Complete objectivity is impossible. Judges who are entrusted with the solemn task of judicial review of Acts of Parliament to determine whether they should be declared void as infringing fundamental laws inevitably become legislators; legislators who are beyond the control of democratic will . . . The Chief Justice went on to say: I would prefer the democratic control of legislation through the political sanction of the ballot box and a strong second Chamber of Parliament to handing over a substantial measure of control of legislation to a judicial tribunal of a few men-eminent in their profession and men of integrity and wisdom though they may be. Judges are but men and are as subject to subtle corruption by the exercise of great power as other men. What the Government is attempting to do here is to extend a provision which has the potential for great division in this community. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(5.07) —I congratulate Senator Harradine on his eloquence in putting his case forward and in warning the Australian people about the inherent dangers of this proposed referendum that the Australian Labor Party is trying to foist on the Australian people. I am the first to admit that our Constitution is most probably not the most perfect Constitution. I was enthusiastic at the prospect of some appropriate changes being put to the electorate. However this package that the Federal Government is to put to the Australian people at a referendum is inappropriate and misleading; in fact, some of the questions are so misleading that I would imagine that if somebody was advertising in the community in the way that this Government will advertise during the referendum campaign, he would be in a lot of trouble with some of the courts. I would like to address some remarks to all four questions, but the first question I wish to comment on is proposed question No. 3. That question is: Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to recognise local government? That looks to be a fairly naive sort of question. Of course, it begs an answer of yes. Local government ought to be recognised. The question is so innocently expressed-although I do not have any doubt that there is little innocence in the intent of the question-that one could be excused for wondering why anyone would want to oppose it. Inherent in that question is the assumption that approving this question will give something concrete to local government that it currently does not have. That definitely will not be the case. There is no denying that local government has, for a long time, been seeking constitutional recognition. About that aim the National Party of Australia has absolutely no qualms. In fact, we wholeheartedly endorse their desires. The difference that I and my fellow National and Liberal party colleagues have with the Federal Government is that we believe that local government should have meaningful constitutional recognition, and that means recognition within State government constitutions. What local government has been seeking through constitutional recognition is a guaranteed proportion of revenue and a guarantee of non-dismissal by State governments. Of course, the Labor Party is well known in this area, most recently for the dismissal of the Sydney City Council by the State Government. However, neither of these two desires of local government is guaranteed through this Government's constitutional proposals. In fact, the Attorney-General, Lionel Bowen, in his second reading speech in the other place said quite clearly that the changes would not provide for either guaranteed revenue or protection against dismissal by State governments. If the proposals do not satisfy the basic requests of the groups most affected, what do they do and why are they in the referendum? There is every indication that it is yet another attempt by this government to centralise power in Canberra. This suggestion in the referendum does not give local government autonomy. It has been suggested that it could be the thin end of the wedge, to allow for a system of regionalisation of local councils. Local government authorities are suspicious of the proposal, and with good reason. This Labor Party Government's record with local government is not a good one. I know that Senator Messner would agree with me on a few of the points I would make about what this Federal Government has done to local government. Commonwealth road funding has been frozen since 1983-84, which means a loss in real terms of about 25 per cent. General purpose assistance grants to local government have been maintained only in real terms; in other words, there has been no improvement. Having exposed the motives behind one of the referendum proposals, one must look with increasing suspicion at the other three. Again we see more examples of Labor's attempts to centralise power in Canberra and destroy the power and independence of the States. Of course, of even more concern to this chamber are the Government's continuing attempts to destroy the Senate. I believe that the Labor Party has never really forgiven the Senate for its role in the events of 1975. It also remembers that it was this House that stopped the identity card and it was this chamber that stopped the Bill of Rights legislation. Do not let anyone in the Australian community forget that. The first question to be put to the people in the referendums is: 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? Again, as with the question on local government, it appears simple enough. People are pretty fed up with elections and they probably believe that this change just might reduce the number of elections we have in this country. Of course, four-year terms might have an appeal, given that we have not had anything like a three-year term of parliament for some time now. This Government campaigned strongly, in its opposition days, for letting parliaments run their full term. What was always in parentheses was `provided it does not affect our ability to win'. That is what Senator Ray's function is-to make sure that the Labor Party always wins, regardless of what the Constitution says or the people really desire, by having a bit of a fiddle with, among other things, the Commonwealth Electoral Act. That is why we have had elections one after another, and double dissolutions-for no reason other than to try to fix the numbers in this place. This Government will keep on sending this chamber out until such time as it can fix the numbers and get a majority. That is precisely what it will be able to do if this referendum question is passed. The Constitutional Commission did not recommend this. It recommended that the terms of senators be twice as long as those of members of the House of Representatives, and that the House of Representatives be extended to four-year terms with a minimum sitting requirement of three years before an election can be called. The Government has thrown out that proposal and, instead, is suggesting that the Senate term be reduced to four years and that the Senate and the House of Representatives go to the polls at the same time. This, effectively, would castrate the Senate. At any future time a government that was having difficulty getting its legislation through the Senate would be able to call an election. So, there is every chance that elections will be called as frequently as now and each time it will be a double dissolution. If that is not usurping the rights of the Senate, I do not know what is. The second question is: Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia? Again the question is so framed as to induce an automatic `yes'. Here again it is false wording and it is not really telling the people what they will be voting on. Of course we want democratic elections and of course we want them to be fair. The alternative implies some sort of Third World dictatorship regime. Who could support that? That is what the average disinterested Australian will think. Those who think they know a bit about politics will say, `This is something to do with the gerrymanders; this is aimed at Queensland'. It is interesting that every time the world `gerrymander' is used it is used in relation to Queensland. It is true that the Labor Party does need to win about 51.4 per cent of the vote to win government in Queensland. What is less well known is that in New South Wales the Liberal and National parties needed over 52 per cent of the vote to win government. Who was responsible for the electoral laws there? Who set that up in New South Wales? It was set up by the Wran Labor Government. Federally, we need to capture over 52.3 per cent of the vote Australia-wide to win an election. Who set that up? So, if we talk of gerrymanders, we must talk of all the gerrymanders that exist in this country. There are imbalances in the system and it is likely, even inevitable, given the size of this country, that there always will be; but they will not be altered by voting `yes'. The Labor Government claims that it is intended to apply a numerical equality to the numbers of electors in the electoral divisions for the House of Representatives and either House of Parliament in the States and Territories. But that equality will not apply to the House of Representatives. For example, Tasmania has a small population, but under this proposal it will still have five House of Representatives seats. This proposal will affect the States in which there is an upper House. It is designed to get them also. So, let the New South Wales upper House beware. Providing for the one vote one value principle does not apply to this chamber either. Tasmania, Western Australia and Queensland will all have the same numbers of senators as the more populous States of New South Wales and Victoria. So, that representation also will not change. So, what is the point of the exercise? The last question we are to be asked is: Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to extend the right to trial by jury, to extend freedom of religion, and to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by government? Having been involved with the Land Acquisition Reform Committee in New South Wales, which has fought this Federal Government on the unfair seizure of land for Army bases and other issues and which has been campaigning for a long time to amend the present Lands Acquisition Act, I have some sympathy with the issue of opposing unfair seizure of land by governments, both State and Federal. But, of course, there is more to this simple question, which again is misrepresenting what is behind the very simple words of the question that will be on the referendum paper. It could be described as a watered down Bill of Rights, and that has already been alluded to very clearly by Senator Harradine. It is real mother's milk stuff. When it talks about freedom of religion, trial by jury and all those other phrases associated with modern democracy, one almost feels inclined to put one's hand across the heart and repeat the question. I am not entirely sure what intention the question has hidden behind it. I would have thought that religious freedom was pretty well established in this country. After all, we have religious schools of almost every conceivable denomination. We have churches, mosques, synagogues and temples in abundant numbers around the country. I am not denying that there is prejudice and criticism of various religions around Australia, but one cannot legislate against personal prejudices. The basic thrust of the question is already incorporated in the Constitution, so why change it? If it is changed, what are the chances of misrepresentation and interpretation? As I have said, I have sympathy for anyone trying to improve current legislation concerning compensation and the rights of government to seize land. But this proposal would not guarantee any justice; it guarantees nothing. I would hope that groups such as LARC-the Land Acquisition Reform Committee-continue to press for alterations to present legislation and are not fobbed off by this Clayton's Bill of Rights inherent in this question. Having come to the last of the four questions, one could ask: What is the point of it all? Why are we spending $40m on staging a referendum on these questions having just spent an estimated $6m on the Constitutional Commission, the advice from which the Government chose to ignore when it did not suit it politically. Senator Messner —Did you say $40m? Senator BROWNHILL —I said $40m, Senator Messner, which is the estimated cost of this referendum. Maybe the Australian people will think of this as a mid-term election charade campaign run by the Labor Government trying to bolster its position so that it might look better to the Australian people when the next election comes around. I think it is a trial run for an election that the Government will most probably want to have early next year anyway. As I have said, it is a shame. The people of Australia are not fools; the people of Australia are thinking people and they will vote `No' to all four questions and then we can get on with the business of government in this country. As a bicentennial diversion, the referendum is a flop. Fireworks might have been more entertaining and useful, and they certainly would have been far more honest. To finish, as this may be the last speech I will give in this Parliament House, I will quote a poem which is synonymous with saying goodbye to this place as well as to a Constitution-if it is fiddled with by the Government-that has served us well over many years. This verse was written by one of my constituents, the member for Gwydir, the Hon. Ralph Hunt. I happen to be one of his constituents. The poem is entitled `Farewell Old Provisional': Farewell to you old Provisional As we your spirits depart Spirits that are but transitional As some move on and others start. You've endured long hours of debate Some boring, some flamed with passion Fire, brimstone, gnawed with hate Others spoken in reasonable fashion You've listened to the eccentrics From the radical left and the right Confident they alone know the tricks That will solve the human plight. Farewell to you old Provisional As we your spirits depart Leaving our house so traditional Another era is about to start. We leave you as an empty shell, A host of memories to protect. No longer will you ring your bell Calling politicians to reflect Then vote to resolve the issues. You've listened to a million speeches Some as thin as paper tissues Others notable for their screeches. Farewell to you old Provisional As we your spirits depart Your future is only conditional Upon you playing your part Storing memories, the forgotten dreams Of those who practiced their art Flooding the Hansards by the ream Bearing testimonies of the wordy past. Now Burley Griffin's ambitious dream Stands as his monument at long last. The memories of war and depressions Supply Bills and legislation blocked Fulfilled hopes and failed ambitions History in your Chambers locked Farewell you old Provisional To another place our spirits depart. In quoting that verse, I hope that in saying farewell to the provisional Parliament House the Australian people do not say farewell to a Constitution that has served them well over many years. The Constitution has ensured a future and it does not need tampering with now for matters of political expediency for a mid-term election campaign. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(5.26) —I welcome the opportunity of speaking in support of 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. However, as the Minister for Local Government, I would like to take this opportunity of speaking about the importance of constitutional recognition to local government throughout Australia. It is most unfortunate that the Opposition has chosen to make this issue something of a political football. I have great sympathy with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr John Howard, who apparently originally sought to support the recognition of local government in the Constitution. Unfortunately for John Howard, he was not able to pursue that worthy goal of backing up statements he has made to local government that he was in support of constitutional recognition. Instead, he has been overruled by his Party room, and it places honourable members and senators of the Opposition in an invidious position. As I have said before in this place, I am well aware of honourable senators who have spoken to me of their support for constitutional recognition of local government. We are all aware that Mr Ian Wilson, the honourable member for Sturt, has gone on public record as being in support of it. The member for Kennedy, the Hon. Bob Katter, Snr, has spoken out in support of it. Even today in this chamber, Senator Brownhill said that local government ought to be recognised. Having said that, he then went on to say that he could not accept the terms under which the Government had put constitutional recognition. It is very unfortunate that this has become a partisan issue. Clearly, the recognition of local government should be fundamentally agreed to by all parties and, indeed, by all Australians. There is absolutely nothing controversial in this proposal. It absolutely amazes me to listen to some of the trumped up arguments that poor members of the Opposition have had to dream up to support their embarrassing situation. I would like to go into those in a few moments, but, firstly, for the record, I will quote what the Constitutional Commission has said and what it has recommended. It recommended a new section 119a to be added to the Constitution in the following terms: Each State shall provide for the establishment and continuance of local government bodies elected in accordance with its laws and empowered to administer and to make by-laws for their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State. That does not sound very controversial. Senator Michael Baume —What does it mean? Senator REYNOLDS —Let us see what this means in terms of local government. I should be surprised if Senator Michael Baume knows much about local government. In Australia local government consists of 836 individual bodies with about 8,000 elected members and approximately 170,000 employees. I wonder when Senator Michael Baume last had discussions with his local council about this issue? If he were really listening both to his local council and to the Australian Local Government Association, which represents all local government authorities throughout Australia, he would know how very disappointed local government is in members of the Opposition. I shall quote not from a party political statement but from a Press release of 11 May 1988 by the Australian Local Government Association: Local government leaders around Australia have expressed amazement and disappointment at the Federal Opposition's decision to oppose the local government recognition- in the Constitution. It continues: `Although there was strong support within the Coalition parties for the local government question, it appears that a deliberate strategy has been adopted to oppose the package of four questions regardless of their individual merits,' said Cr Peter Kyle, President of the Australian Local Government Association. `This attitude is an insult to the intelligence of the Australian voting public.' Issued in June 1987, the Federal Liberal Party's policy made a commitment that the next Liberal Government would: . . . examine, in conjunction with the States and local governments, appropriate constitutional recognition and protection of local government in Australia. The Press release of the Association continues: The National Party's policy at the same time unequivocally supported the constitutional recognition of local government. Cr Kyle challenged the National Party leader to reconcile the party's decision last night with his party's policy. Later the same Association said that the coalition party should be considering the following issue: There is overwhelming local government support for constitutional recognition of local government in the form proposed in the Bill. Local government rejects the charge that it is meaningless and mere tokenism. Senator Michael Baume —Give us the meaning. What is the meaning? Senator REYNOLDS —The meaning is very clear: local government, which is older than the Federal Parliament and which is older than Federation in many parts of Australia, is entitled to be recognised and to be mentioned in the Constitution. Senator Messner —So? What does that mean as far as you are concerned? Senator REYNOLDS —It means recognition of the status of local government. Senator Messner —What does that mean? What does it lead to? What is the next question? Senator REYNOLDS —It means that Federal, State and local governments should be working together for the benefit of all Australians. What is unfortunate about the Opposition is that it has simply adopted a partisan approach because it cannot agree to anything proposed by the Labor Party. The Opposition will find that the initial news poll, which showed that up to 69 per cent of Australians support constitutional recognition of local government, will ensure that this question is approved because the people of Australia know it is a commonsense question and it requires a commonsense answer. Everyone seems to recognise that except, unfortunately, members of the Opposition. I find it unfortunate that so many members of the Opposition secretly would like to agree with me but because of party bullying they are placed in this very invidious position. I shall not take up any more time of the chamber on this question. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.34) —I had not intended to start my contribution to tonight's debate by dealing with local government but having listened to the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) I can only say that all my concerns about this referendum proposal have been massively underlined. The Minister was consistently asked by way of interjections, which she heard because she responded to them, `What does recognition mean?'. The Minister had no reply. She said that it means recognition in the Constitution. The essence of the whole debate is this: is it an empty, phoney, nonsensical gesture or has it some substance? In her ludicrous 10-minute contribution, the Minister could provide us with no evidence of substance. Senator Gareth Evans —It is a gesture, but one of affection rather than contempt. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I do not know which gesture the Minister was referring to but I can think of a couple relating specifically to this legislation that one should not perform in this chamber. The Minister's 10 minute intervention lacked any substance. She was struggling to fill her 10 minutes, and that was her total contribution to this debate on whether local government should receive recognition in the Constitution. The whole issue depends on one simple matter: what does recognition in the Constitution mean both for local government and for the people of Australia? If and when the Minister for Local Government can get around to letting the people know the secret which is still locked in her heart-it did not come out here today-maybe we can have an effective debate. From what the Minister has said so far, we have no explanation, no justification for spending $30m on this referendum. No understanding about what this really does has been generated in the community. The Minister has failed dismally to generate any knowledge or understanding apart from waving the Constitution around, giving us a list of how many local government bodies there are and informing us about inconsequential detail but with no substance as to what this means to local government. Senator Messner —She is the Minister for Local Government. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Messner said, she is the Minister for Local Government. In a sense the Minister gave the game away when, in reading out part of the referendum proposal, she said, `according to the laws of the States'. Recognising local government in the Constitution does no more than simply recognise it within the framework of the laws of the States as they affect local government. Therefore, what additional elements emerge from that recognition? Does it change the status, power or anything else of local government? Senator Reynolds —Of course it does not change the status. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I am only too happy for the Minister to interject to tell me how this changes the status of local government because we did not hear it in her speech. If the Minister can explain it by way of interjection, I would be overjoyed. The people of Australia are waiting to hear it; they waited for 10 minutes and did not hear a damn thing! Senator Collins —It would be highly disorderly. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I would be overjoyed to move the suspension of so much of Standing Orders as would permit the Minister to tell the chamber how the question changes the role of local government. We have not heard. This seems to the the central element to the whole discussion: how does this change local government? As the Minister said, the proposal would only recognise local government within the framework of the laws of the States. In other words, if the laws of the State said that a State government can dismiss local government and that once being dismissed that local government can be replaced with an administrator and that administrator need not necessarily be replaced within a reasonable time-it could last for years depending on what the law of the State said because that is what the Minister admitted-it is bunkum for the Minister or anyone else to say that. I might say that the Minister did not even make this point-she did not make any points-but some people in local government have been saying that this recognition would mean that local governments would be protected against naughty State governments which sack them. Senator Messner —How are they going to do that? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Exactly. They cannot because, as the Minister said in the only essential bit of information she provided, which was by reading out the referendum proposal, it is within the terms of the laws of the State. Senator Gareth Evans —Why did John Howard think it was such a good idea when he rose as the member for Bennelong? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Honourable senators will notice that the other Minister's only defence of the proposition is not to say that there is substance in it. His intervention is a typical, cheap debating trick. Why did someone else at one stage say that it would be a good idea? Senator Gareth Evans —Not someone, your Leader. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Why did our Leader say that it was a good idea? I am asking the Minister for substance and, as is inevitable, whenever I ask the Minister for substance, all I get is the typical debating point. The reality is that, in the proposal of the Minister for Local Government, it is possible to have recognition of local government which provides some substance. For example, if recognition of local government in the Constitution involved a stated obligation to fund local government, that would be a meaningful contribution. There are many alternatives where by the Government could introduce recognition of local government in a meaningful way. The way this Government is doing it is total bunkum and is self-evidently so as we have seen from the Minister for Local Government. We know for a fact that local government is already recognised in the constitutions of various States around Australia-New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia. It is only in Queensland and Tasmania that there is no constitutional recognition of local government. Are this Government and the Minister saying-I have not heard them saying it but I am asking them-that even though there is constitutional recognition in those States it is only a sort of second class recognition and that to get grade A recognition the States would have to have Federal approval. Is the Government saying that it has to be in the Federal Constitution because a State constitution is not quite as zappy or impressive and does not carry as much weight? Senator Gareth Evans —That is very true. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The Minister said that that is very true. Did I hear him correctly? Senator Gareth Evans —That is a fair comment. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —This kind of sanctimonious nonsense that recognition constitutionally is only meaningful if it comes from the Federal Constitution I think probably reveals a set of attitudes within this Government which is clear and uncomplicated and relates to the destruction of State powers and the concentration of powers in central hands in Canberra. There is no justification otherwise unless, and maybe this is the explanation, the Government is saying, `You have to have Commonwealth recognition of local government because that is the only way you will get Tasmania and Queensland councils covered as their State governments have not done anything about having referendums to change their constitutions to get local government recognised in Queensland and Tasmania'. If that is so, we have a simple response to it. In other words, this Government believes that voters in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia have a right to dictate to the residents of Queensland and Tasmania how their local governments should be run. Quite frankly, it strikes me as absolutely appalling that we have this kind of authoritarian approach, `Let the people of New South Wales vote to dictate to the people of Queensland how their local government should be run'. I find that grossly undemocratic. If this is the reason the Government wants this constitutional amendment, I do not see why it should be a matter of concern. If that is the reason I cannot see the justification for asking the people of New South Wales to adjudicate on how local government in Tasmania or Queensland should be run. If the people of those two States only want constitutional recognition let them vote to have constitutional recognition within their State bodies. I cannot otherwise see a purpose-we certainly did not hear one from the Minister-for this proposed change. After all, it is quite clear that, within this proposal to change the Constitution, there is nothing that would prevent the wrongful dismissal of local councils, there is no proposal to prevent the abolition of local government in some part of a State and there is no proposal to prevent forced amalgamations of local government areas because, as the Minister said, it is all subject to State laws and State laws could and do provide for such situations. That is why it is extraordinary that the Government has been able, at this stage-I hope it will be put right sooner or later-to con some organisations, such as the Shires Association of New South Wales and the organisation that the Minister spoke about into believing that this is just a method of recognising local government and that this system, proposed by the Government, is meaningful and useful. Listen to this. I have received a letter from the Shires Association of New South Wales stating that we really ought to support this referendum because it would provide security of tenure. The Shires Association either does not really know what the words in the referendum are all about or the significance of them, or it has been conned by this Government and, presumably, by this Minister. I asked the Shires Association to explain to me how these referendum proposals would provide any security of tenure for any selected third sphere of government. I asked the Shires Association whether it has been conned-and, if so, by whom-into believing that the widely condemned dismissal of the elected Council of the City of Sydney on 26 March 1987 would have been impossible had such a section been in place. That is simply not so and the Minister obviously knows that that is not so. The proposal does not do anything of the sort, yet the Minister reads at great length-it was probably the substance of her speech-from letters from local government organisations condemning the Opposition's position. She knows perfectly well that those letters are based on a simple misunderstanding, as I have just demonstrated. Senator Messner —She is going to be laughed off the platforms when she tries to explain the position. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I hope that she is not laughed off the platforms as I have a personal regard for her and I hope that she is not embarrassed in that way. But she is risking being laughed off the platform if the sort of defence she presents at such meetings is the set of statements she made here tonight in what I understood to be an attempt to defend the referendum proposals. Senator Reynolds —Come with me. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The Minister has extended to me an invitation which is too good to refuse. If she were to allow me to share platforms with her throughout Australia on this issue I would be overjoyed to accept her kind invitation. I am grateful to the Minister. I will make myself available to be with her and, apart from the fact that I would enjoy her company, I would particularly enjoy being able to explain to the people of Australia just what utter bunkum the Minister has been spouting and what an utter lack of substance is involved. I have demonstrated that the two points so far made by the Shires Association in this letter are of no merit whatsoever. They are simply not true. Let us consider another point. The letter states that the section would add `an important degree of security' for local government which until now has been `conspicuously absent'. I would be most grateful if someone would tell me what is the added degree of security it would give to local government. Perhaps the Minister, when we are talking around Australia or having a cup of tea or coffee before or after our periods of verbal intercourse, could explain to me what this important degree of security would be. I am unaware of it, and so far the people of Australia are unaware of it. The next point the Shires Association makes is that constitutional recognition would mean a significant enhancement of local government in the eyes of the community. In other words, once we kiss local government on the forehead it will suddenly bloom, and blossom. This is arrant nonsense. Did recognition of local government in the constitutions of the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australian and South Australia provide significant enhancement of local government in the eyes of the community? Not on your nelly! In New South Wales, shortly after local government had been recognised, the Council of the City of Sydney was sacked. Recognition of local government does not bring any increased enhancement of local government in the eyes of the community, and certainly not necessarily in the eyes of the State governments. It is wishful thinking. There is no doubt in my mind that much of the response to this issue has been emotional and ridiculous. I have a high regard for the good work the Shires Association has done in non-political areas. But when its members venture into this sort of emotional suggestion, which is not backed by fact, they should go away and do their homework. The letter goes on that if local government received constitutional recognition: Local elected members would feel entitled to a greater degree of consultation from Federal and State politicians and administrators. I have heard of the politics of the warm inner glow. That verse comes frequently from the left wing of the Australian Labor Party to disrupt the plans of Senator Evans when he has those few lucid and rational moments in which he does things that fit in with Liberal Party policy. But the politics of the warm inner glow seem to me to be a little stretched when, in defence of changing the Constitution of 87 years, the reason given is that it would make aldermen feel better. I hope that they feel good anyway, because they are all doing a good job. But, in response to the suggestion that we should change the Constitution to make some aldermen feel better about their status and expect a greater degree of consultation, all I say to them is: Do they have a greater degree of consultation with their State colleagues as a result of local government being recognised in the constitutions of most States? The Shires Association says in its letter that constitutional recognition of local government would create new opportunities for local government to work in a genuine partnership with the Commonwealth and States. How? It is a simple, uncomplicated question. If the Shires Association of New South Wales and the Federal Government believe that these are sound reasons for the people of Australia to change their Constitution after 87 years they should tell us how it does those things, what the substance is. As I said, we did not get anything from this Minister. The letter goes on: It would ensure-- This I just cannot follow. I cannot follow most of it, I must admit, but this is even worse. The letter states that constitutional recognition would ensure: that government programs were streamlined and more cost-effective- I do not know how that is to happen. Recognition simply means, as I said, within the context of the State laws. I have no idea how constitutional recognition would ensure that government programs were streamlined and more cost-effective. I do not know in what way it would suddenly, magically, open the way for tripartite agreements. There are already tripartite agreements. The situation would not be altered, affected or influenced in any way. The letter says: If a council were to be dismissed under State legislation, fresh elections would be called with a reasonable period of time- That is arguable. I doubt whether that would be so. If State legislation specifically outlines a procedure to be followed, Federal recognition simply acknowledges the relationship of local government to the State law. So, on the one hand, we have from the Government a whole lot of baloney from a Minister who cannot explain the substance and, on the other, we have from the Shires Association a lack of understanding of the need to provide substance if its case is to be carried, if $30m is to be properly spent on this matter. Senator Alston has prepared a most interesting paper on the case against constitutional recognition of local government. He quotes from a submission by the Federal Department of Local Government and Administrative Services to the Constitutional Commission Advisory Committee on Distribution of Powers in March 1987. This departmental submission, I believe, as Senator Alston does, is a damning indictment of the case for making a change to the Constitution. The Department says: By our advocacy of the constitutional recognition of local government we do not propose extending the powers or entitlements of local government . . . That is the Federal Government speaking. The submission continues: We do not favour any enumeration of local government powers in an amended Constitution, for this would tamper with States rights, cause tension in intergovernmental relations, create rigidity rather than flexibility in the nation's system of public administration. Nor do we favour conferring general competence powers upon local government through the Australian Constitution because any such statement of powers would be rendered otiose by the limitations determined by State or Territory legislatures. We suggest merely a form of constitutional recognition which would be authorising and enabling in its effect. I repeat that the submission states: We do not propose extending the powers or entitlements of local government in this referendum proposal. That is absolutely damning. The Federal Department itself is revealing that this referendum proposal is a total sham-it does nothing. Otherwise, it says, it would tamper with States rights. We have heard so far during this debate plenty of reasons why we should not alter the Constitution to provide constitutional recognition of local government, why there should be no recognition in the Constitution of local government along these lines, because there is no quid pro quo, no requirement of the Federal Government to do anything to provide substance to it, and we have heard absolutely nothing from the Government to justify this procedure at all. It seems to me that, if we are going to change the Constitution, it should be a cardinal rule, as it should be with all new laws, that the changes should not be introduced unless there is a requirement to meet a significant community need or to cure an existing defect. Where is the significant community need? Where is the existing defect? No case so far has been presented on this vital issue by the Government. Madam Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 p.m. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —I seek leave to make a statement entitled `Economic Statement May 1988' and to move to take note of the statement. Leave granted. Senator WALSH —I table four documents: Economic Statement May 1988; the 1988 Business Tax Reform; Taxation of Foreign Source Income; and Reform of the Taxation of Superannuation. Mr President, tonight the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is announcing in the House of Representatives far reaching economic reforms that will take our nation into the twenty-first century. It is my privilege to outline these economic reforms to the Senate. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator WALSH —I know the Opposition would rather take us back to the nineteenth century. Once again, cutbacks in government spending are a key element of these changes, paving the way for a Budget surplus next financial year in excess of $3000 million. This surplus is the culmination of all the hard work done in reforming the tax system and cutting back the size of the public sector. As we make further progress in restructuring the Australian economy it will form the basis of genuine, ``paid for'' reductions in personal income tax. But this statement is about much more than our success in transforming the Budget. Tonight the Treasurer is announcing another comprehensive range of fundamental economic reforms. Senator Walters —I raise a point of order, Mr President. Do we have copies of the Minister's statement? The PRESIDENT —No copies have been supplied and there is no point of order. Senator WALSH —They rival anything this Government has undertaken before and easily surpass anything attempted by our predecessors-which would not be hard. They include a huge cut in one stroke to the company tax rate, from 49 cents to 39 cents, putting Australian companies at the leading edge of world business. At the same time we will further close the net on companies that have been better at exploiting tax breaks than at earning real profits. The Government's landmark imputation system of company tax, which ended the double taxation of dividends is to be extended to all Australian investors. The taxation of superannuation benefits is to be radically yet sympathetically changed, putting it on a more logical long term basis without reducing lump sum and pension entitlements. There are to be big cuts to industry protection through tariff reductions, which will lower costs and further encourage our manufacturers to look beyond Australian for market opportunities. Similarly, the high levels of government assistance provided to some pockets of primary industry will also be reduced. Public sector business enterprises are to be put on a more commercial footing and many day to day bureaucratic controls lifted. Mr President, shortly I will provide more details on these reforms and my ministerial colleagues will explain them fully in supplementary statements. But at the outset I want to make it clear why they are necessary. This Government is committed to getting all aspects of the economy right. For obvious reasons, our economic policy has had to focus on the broad issues, like the Budget deficit and Australia's balance of payments problems. The float of the dollar, the elimination of the huge budget deficits and the repair of the wage system had to be the founding elements of our strategy. But to develop and prosper in the long term we must harness these vast economy-wise changes and carry their benefits into the economic heart of the nation-to where individual firms and business operate. That is, the impetus for change must be transmitted to managements and workers who make the crucial decisions about where and when to invest, and how to go about their work. If we cannot get these things right, we will never really get the big picture right. This is why the Government has adopted such a complete and comprehensive strategy; big brush economic changes reinforced by sweeping strokes going to the micro or industry level. What we have been after is a full picture-not something half finished. GOVERNMENT SPENDING Mr President, I said at the outset that next financial year the Commonwealth Government will budget for a surplus in excess of $3000 million. In other words, we will be repaying debt, rather than adding to it. This is crucial to our future. Just as any individual might borrow money to get over a bad patch, the Australian nation has been borrowing heavily over the past decade. Now we have the opportunity, we must pay some of it back. If we do not, another commodity price collapse could cripple our economy. Government saving through surpluses helps our external accounts in three ways. First, it means the Commonwealth can repay some of its own foreign debt. Second, more private funds are available for investment in export and import competing industries without borrowing from abroad. And third, curbing government spending will help to hold down domestic demand and import growth while the new industrial capacity is given time to improve our trade balance. These are the reasons why the Commonwealth had to impose further substantial cuts in State grants and borrowings at the Premiers' Conference two weeks ago. Mr President, next financial year's strong budget surplus will be underpinned by the third consecutive annual cut in real spending by the Commonwealth Government. This outcome, unprecedented in Australia, has not been matched by any other industrial country. In the 1988-89 Budget, real outlays are expected to fall by 1.5 per cent, adding to cuts totalling more than 3 per cent in the previous two years. As a result, Commonwealth outlays as a share of the Australian economy will have fallen from 30 per cent to less than 26 per cent in just three Budgets. Again, this cannot be matched by any major industrial country. This third consecutive reduction in real outlays has been made possible by gross spending cuts of more than $1350 million. These decisions include cuts to defence, roads, pharmaceuticals, fertiliser subsidies, payments to the States and other changes detailed in the supporting documents. Once again we have made spending changes which build in their impact in later years to deliver a fourth consecutive cut in real outlays in 1989-90. TAXATION Mr President, the tax reforms the Treasurer is announcing tonight are as significant as those implemented by the Government in 1985. I remind you, that at that time, reforms like the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the abolition of business deductions for entertainment were the subject of much dispute. But this Government saw to it that those changes were successfully implemented. Now they are permanent features of the tax system, playing a proper role in funding lower tax rates and lower interest rates for all Australians. Tonight's changes represent a second major wave of reform. The Government is to cut the corporate tax rate in one step, from 49 cents to 39 cents, to give Australian companies a tax structure more than competitive with the rest of the world. The lower rate will first apply for the 1988-89 income year. In determining the appropriate company tax regime, the Government takes the view that when a potential investment is examined, the overall return should govern the decision, not the availability or timing of tax concessions. Accordingly, the Government has decided to lower the company tax rate by removing some tax concessions. That is, lowering the company tax rate by broadening the company tax base. So instead of tax breaks only being available to select businesses, with others shouldering the burden, all companies will now enjoy a lower tax rate. In other words, a better and fairer company tax system. The largest tax concession to be reduced is the accelerated depreciation system which allows companies to write off equipment over three or five years, even if its actual life is much longer. In future, deductions will be based on the effective life of the equipment, but with the bonus of a 20 per cent loading to stimulate new investment in all areas. Thus the tax system will no longer misallocate scarce national resources to projects which are tax driven by an artificial depreciation rate. From 1 July 1991 the special 150 per cent deduction for research and development expenditure will be reduced to 100 per cent and the Management and Investment Company Scheme will be discontinued. The unique position of gold mining as the only industry in Australia which does not pay income tax cannot be justified. Senator Boswell —What about the promise? Senator WALSH —Well I wonder why the Queensland Government taxes gold mining! In fully honouring the Government's 1987 commitments, that exemption will end from 1 January 1991. Reflecting the reduction in the company tax rate, tax concessions currently available to life offices will also be removed. The consessional tax rate applying to friendly societies will be increased from 20 to 30 per cent. Our landmark dividend imputation system of company tax credits is also to be extended to those institutions. Concessions available to the livestock producing industries will be reduced, but to assist primary producers subject to erratic fluctuations in incomes, the tax link to income equalisation deposits is to be re-established from 1 July 1989-although, I interpolate on a different basis of course from the rorted system which prevailed in the Fraser-Howard years. The existing 10BA film tax concession is to be replaced with a more effective, less costly and more visible budget outlay administered by a Film Finance Corporation. Funding of $70 million is to be provided in 1988-89. Tonight's statement also provides for assistance to employee share schemes. This will facilitate the legitimate interest of employees in getting a stake in the companies they work for. A range of measures are to be taken to prevent unjustified tax minimisation. These include the requirement that private companies pay tax on dividends where no company tax has been paid. The inter-corporate dividend rebate is also to be denied to dividends paid by tax exempt authorities, thereby closing off an opportunity for State governments to indulge in tax minimisation schemes. The standard rate of deduction under the prescribed payments system is to rise from 15 to 20 per cent to clamp down on evasion. Like most individual Australians, the great majority of our corporate citizens are honest taxpayers. But this Government will not tolerate any action by companies which rip-off the rest of the community. To that end, the Australian Tax Office is to be provided with more resources to investigate complex corporate tax affairs. The Commissioner of Taxation believes that these measures could return upwards of $800 million over the next five years. At the same time we will crack down on the use of international tax havens. A much more rigorous tax system is to be applied from 1 July 1989 to companies and individuals who used any of up to 60 designated overseas tax havens-that is, places like Bermuda, Monaco and the Cayman Islands. But at the same time we are providing a substantial benefit for genuine trading companies with the ambition to seek out new markets and opportunities abroad. Slicing 10 cents from the company tax rate enables a substantial modification of the Foreign Tax Credit System. From July 1989, dividends received by Australian companies from non tax haven countries will be exempt from Australian company tax. The Tax Office has been given the go ahead to develop a system for making greater use of tax file numbers in its normal administration, the same as it does now for the prescribed payments system. There will be no identity card and at no time will people be required to produce a tax file number as a form of personal identification. The only purpose of the file number will be to make it easier for the Tax Office to match information it receives about money earned and interest payments. This system is for the exclusive and limited use of the Tax Office-it will simply allow the better use of information the Tax Office already receives. PERSONAL TAX CUTS Mr President, as I indicated at the outset, the Government is committed to providing all Australians with personal income tax cuts in 1989-90. However, for the immediate future the full force of the nation's fiscal resources must be devoted to keeping domestic demand in check and dealing with our external debt problem. This task has been made all the more urgent by the recent evidence that demand has been running too strongly. Australia has made huge strides in recent years in cutting back our balance of payments deficit. After all this hard work, the very last thing we can afford now is to let excessive demand cause imports to run away from us. On top of that, the legacy of the massive commodity price collapse we have endured is an external debt burden which is far too big. Next financial year the Government must use its budget surplus to help prevent that debt burden mounting. To do otherwise would be to neglect our responsibilities to the nation. That is why personal income tax cuts cannot responsibly be afforded until 1989-90. It should also be understood that with company tax lagging income by one year, the company tax cuts I announced tonight will not impact on the Commonwealth's budget until July 1989. In other words, the personal and company tax cuts will be paid from the Budget in the same financial year. Until then revenue from both companies and personal income taxpayers must be devoted to combating our trade problem. A firm budget policy is only part of the answer to our balance of payments problem. Our overriding objective must also be to keep wages growth as close as possible to our trading partners so that we remain competitive on world markets. After the hard work and sacrifice of recent years, and with inflation now heading towards 5 per cent or lower, this objective is consistent with the overall maintenance of real wages in 1988-89. The personal tax cuts we have foreshadowed will provide Australia with a unique opportunity to bring our wages growth further into line with our trading partners. However, the size and timing of those cuts will depend upon the size and timing of future wage rises. That is, the Government is prepared to provide substantial tax cuts provided there is an acceptable wages outcome in 1988-89 and an appropriate wages/tax trade-off in 1989-90. The Government will stress this point in its discussions with the ACTU over the next twelve months. I am confident that an acceptable basis can be established for a sustainable rise in real after tax incomes. SUPERANNUATION AND RETIREMENT INCOMES This Government is the first since Federation to recognise the right of all Australian workers to superannuation. When we came to office in 1983, only four employees in ten received any form of superannuation benefit. By the end of this parliamentary term that level of coverage will have doubled due to our support for superannuation, and particularly for its spread through industry based schemes. We are totally committed to superannuation having a special and secure place in the Australian savings and retirement income system. It will continue to be supported by generous tax concessions. Tonight's announcements will enhance the integrity of the superannuation system without disturbing the end-benefits of contributors, other than those on exceptionally high incomes. In other words, the value of existing and future lump sums and pensions will not be reduced by these changes. The particular problem we are addressing is the exclusion of superannuation funds from receiving tax credits under the dividend imputation system of company tax. This means that they cannot fully share in the profits of Australia's major corporations. It also means that our public companies are denied the full investment support of our superannuation funds and their many contributors. This distortion has the harmful side effect of encouraging elaborate tax minimisation schemes. The Government has therefore decided to bring superannuation funds within the full ambit of the imputation system, giving them access to dividend tax credits. To achieve this a tax of 15 per cent will apply to fund earnings. But this 15 per cent tax can be neutralised or offset by the receipt of dividend tax credits. For most superannuation funds this will mean in practice no tax at all on investment earnings. For others the rate will be minimal, and can readily be adjusted to zero by including more Australian company shares in their investment portfolios. This will ensure no detriment to any lump sum or pension end-benefit. The second measure which the Treasurer is announcing tonight shifts the timing of the taxation of employer contributions for superannuation. Under the current arrangements, tax is paid by the employee on such benefits when they are taken out of a fund. The new system will mean that the tax is paid instead by the fund itself as contributions are made by employers. This change will not reduce the related end-benefits but will align the structure of superannuation taxation with other forms of savings. For most fund members, the lump-sum tax will be abolished completely. It also has the effect of bringing forward revenue to the Government that would otherwise have been collected many years in the future. That is, it will allow the Government to bring forward nearly $1 billion of its own tax money-now lying in superannuation funds-without diminishing any personal end-benefit by one cent. This money will contribute towards funding the personal tax cuts which we will make next year. As a further encouragement for people to provide for their retirement, the limit on tax deductions for contributions to small business and related superannuation funds will be doubled to $3,000 a year. Finally, we have acted to prevent these generous tax concessions being exploited by the very well-off through massive end-benefits. This tightening of the maximum benefit limits will diminish the tax advantages of excessive benefits for people on very high incomes. It will make the whole system more progressive. Together these changes complete the Government's review of superannuation tax arrangements. People can therefore plan for their retirement with complete certainty and confidence. PENSIONERS Mr President, during the last five years this Government has increased the real value of the pension by more than eight per cent and increased the amount pensioners can earn without losing part of their benefit. They will be further assisted by our decision to increase the pensioner tax rebate from $250 a year to $430. This means a single pensioner will now be able to earn over $10 per week free of tax, compared with $3.70 per week previously. Further, in a new measure, any pensioner in receipt of any part of the pensioner tax rebate will be exempt from paying provisional tax. These changes will release 255,000 pensioners from provisional taxation. STRUCTURAL REFORM Mr President, I described earlier how our economic reforms must extend to every business and workplace in the economy. In the past many of the so-called industry assistance arrangements introduced by successive governments have been anything but of assistance. Their legacy is a less flexible economy, too reliant on protection and regulation. The way forward for Australia is not to be closeted and sheltered, but to be open and dynamic, trading aggressively in the world. Only this kind of economy can provide the employment and rising living standards that Australians aspire to. This is the very point of the measures contained in this economic statement. Accordingly, the Government will peel away more of this protection. From 1 July tariffs in excess of 15 per cent will be progressively reduced to that level, while tariffs between 10 and 15 per cent will be reduced to 10 per cent. The changes will be phased in over a four year period. They are equivalent to a cut of around 20 per cent in average protection levels in manufacturing industry. The Government will be monitoring the impact of these measures, but I am confident that this gradual change can be absorbed without major disruption. Substantial reductions under the passenger motor vehicle plan have already been announced and further adjustments will be made to accelerate the textiles, clothing and footwear plan. The Government will also remove the two per cent revenue duty on imports, saving industry and consumers $240 million a year. Mr President, it is well known that our primary producers as a group do not receive nearly the same level of assistance as some of our manufacturers, but there are a few exceptions. Existing schemes which artificially prop up the domestic prices of farm products such as butter, sugar, tobacco and some fruit are to be phased down. Consumers stand to benefit by up to $100 million per annum when these changes are fully implemented. Competition in grain storage and transport is also to be increased. Some of the gains from reducing primary industry assistance are to be directed to funding for crucial soil conservation and disease eradication programs. The Government has also taken major steps to reform its business enterprises and to put them on a more commercial and efficient footing. Enterprises such as Qantas, Australian Airlines, Telecom and Australia Post have a key role to play in the development of this nation and it is absolutely essential that their performance be guided by commercial considerations. To this end they will be freed of many of their present day to day bureaucratic controls. They will be held more accountable for their own performance and their managements will be required to measure up. More competitive pressure will also be applied to the operations of Telecom and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission to provide better and cheaper services to business and consumers. CONCLUSION Mr President, the measures I have just outlined represent another milestone in the transformation of the Australian economy and another chapter in the proud economic history of this Government. No Australian government has ever presented such a comprehensive program of change in a single package. Spending cuts to deliver the largest budget surplus in our history. Tax changes to put our companies at the cutting edge of world commerce. Changes to industry protection to promote competitiveness and efficiency. And, at the same time, setting the stage for major personal tax cuts without diminishing the essential programs which provide much of the fairness in our society. Mr President, these policies are designed to further free up the dynamic forces within this economy, forces which if properly directed and harnessed will power our economy towards the 21st century. It is this strength which will sustain the aspirations of our people and secure their future. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —Mr President, on behalf of the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), I table a document entitled `A Changing Workforce'. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BUTTON —(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)-I seek leave to make a statement entitled `May Economic Statement, Supplementary Statement and Industry Measures' and to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Earlier this evening the Treasurer announced as part of a comprehensive program of micro-economic reforms a number of changes affecting industry, including a phased program of tariff reductions. The decisions announced tonight follow the strategy adopted by this government since 1983. This strategy has been directed at developing an internationally competitive, export oriented industrial structure through attitudinal change in industry and the community, revitalisation of mature industries and creating the conditions conducive to the growth of new industries. In 1983 we inherited a weak manufacturing sector. Many of Australia's largest industries were sacking workers and reducing output. Years of sheltering behind protective barriers had taken their toll on the productivity and dynamism of Australian industry. This, combined with an over-valued exchange rate had led to a dramatic slump in manufacturing output and employment in the early 1980s. In addition, Australia's performance in the newer high technology sectors was well below that of comparable countries. Other economies were adapting their industrial structures and supporting infrastructure to the realities of new products and activities while Australia was lagging behind. The tasks confronting the Government were threefold. First, the environment within which industry operated needed to be improved. Second, the government needed to take action to improve the performance of our existing industries to arrest Australia's industrial decline. Third, the government needed to set a framework for the growth of more efficient and vital industry in the longer term. The Treasurer has outlined the macro-economic achievements of this government. These have been a pre-requisite for improved industry performance. Industry competitiveness has also been improved by regulatory reform, including the deregulation of the financial sector. In relation to the second aspect industry plans were formulated for the steel, passenger motor vehicles, ship building, heavy engineering, and the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. They are transitional mechanisms through which critical problems specific to these sectors are addressed. They provide a stable environment to allow revitalisation and restructuring to take place. An important component is the phased reduction in government support, particularly through reductions in tariffs, and greater concentration on the underlying determinants of competitiveness. These plans have been successful. For example, in the steel industry, investment over the life of the plan has exceeded $1.5 billion, well above the $800 million originally planned by BHP. BHP is now one of the lowest cost producers of primary steel in the world, and is well placed to capitalise on Australia's natural resources. Last month I outlined the enormous progress that has been made under the passenger motor vehicle plan. This progress made possible the removal of quotas and significant further reductions in protection accorded this industry. Individual reviews were also conducted into assistance arrangements for many other industry sectors. These included chemicals and plastics, pulp, paper and paper products, glass and glassware, medical and scientific equipment, computer hardware and software and communications equipment. One result of this process of review was the `tops-down' reduction of protective barriers, through phased tariff reductions, to tariff rate ceilings of 15 per cent. Anomalies and distortions in assistance arrangements were also removed. The decisions announced tonight extend these established principles to those industries which were due for review in the near future. Having put in place a consistent and phased approach to tariff reductions industry was better able to concentrate on areas vital to the building of long term international competitive advantage. These areas include quality, design, marketing, and research and development. There has been a fundamental change in industry approach away from government assistance towards firms themselves addressing those factors so crucial to their success. Government policy has also concentrated on providing the conditions within which Australian industries generally can prosper and tap into the fastest growing areas of world activity. To this end initiatives aimed at improving research and development and industrial innovation, upgrading the internal efficiency of firms, increasing the availability of development finance and venture capital, strengthening international collaboration and cooperation, and promoting our products in the international market place have been introduced. One aspect of our policies to link Australian industry into the world economy is the civil offsets program. This program has undergone significant changes in scope and direction in recent years. The emphasis is now progressively shifting from the short-term and fragmented approach of the past, towards an approach based on long term collaborative opportunities by linking local and transnational companies. Offsets are now seen as a potent industry policy mechanism capable of catalysing export-oriented, competitive, high technology, industrial activity where opportunities had previously existed but remained dormant. Following the review of government business enterprises (GBE) it has been decided that offsets will continue to apply to Qantas purchases. In respect of purchases by other airlines the continued application of the policy will be reviewed. For other GBE's the continued application of the offsets policy to those aspects of their activities which directly compete with the private sector also will be reviewed. In addition, the Government has harnessed our considerable technological, research, education and training resources to the task of creating a world class manufacturing sector. Government funded research institutions, and particularly the CSIRO, are providing a better environment for commercial innovation and are seeking linkages with industry. All these initiatives have been designed to build on areas of underlying competitive strengths and have been framed to encourage innovation and self reliance within industry. Programs generally are designed to operate for set periods of time to avoid the risk of replacing one form of dependency by another. In developing its policies the Government has fostered a greater dialogue and recognition of mutual goals between the Government, industry and the unions. The Australian Manufacturing Council has been an important component of this dialogue. The Government has recently reviewed the AMC and the industry councils, and has decided to retain the industry councils system but with a reduced number of councils and more effective structure. This will enable the councils to continue with their work and will provide them with the flexibility and capacity to deal with the major issues concerning industry. The Government's policies have achieved significant success. For example manufacturing output has grown steadily since 1983 and most significantly, total employment in manufacturing has increased over this period. This reverses a long term decline in manufacturing employment. Our balance of payments difficulties highlighted the need for our manufacturing and traded services industries to make a greater contribution if our standards of living were to be maintained into the future. Under our policies manufacturing has responded. The value of exports of elaborately transformed manufactures has more than doubled since 1982-83. The success of the research and development programs is already manifest. In the early 1980's Australian industry's research and development performance was little short of abysmal. However, the latest information shows that research and development in Australian business in 1986-87 exceeded $1 billion and has increased in real terms by 85 per cent over the level of 1981-82. Business research and development as a percentage of GDP has risen from 0.24 per cent to 0.42 per cent. Despite this success more needs to be done to link our industry firmly into the world economy. The depreciation of the Australian dollar provided industry with a large boost to its competitiveness and has provided a springboard for many firms to enter the international market. Some people had argued for an immediate cut in protection following the depreciation. The Government, though, was concerned to allow industry time to reassess opportunities in the light of this new outlook and to build up productive capacity. It is now appropriate that we increase the pace of tariff reductions, but in a manner consistent with our past policies and in a way that will provide a predictable and stable environment into the future. This will ensure that we lock in the gains in competitiveness flowing from the depreciation. In addition we have taken other decisions to improve the environment within which industry operates. Industry Assistance Generally, tariff rates above 15 per cent are to be reduced to 15 per cent in five equal steps over the next 4 years. The first reduction will take place on 1 July 1988, and subsequent cuts will take effect on 1 July 1989, 1 July 1990, 1 July 1991 and 1 July 1992. Tariffs currently greater than 10 but not greater than 15 per cent will be reduced to 10 per cent over the same period. These changes will not affect tariff arrangements in the passenger motor vehicle industry, where the government has recently announced substantially reduced protection, or in the chemicals and plastics industry. In this industry tariffs are phasing to a ceiling of 15 per cent and changes now would recreate the anomalies corrected by the Government in its recent decision on assistance for that industry. The decision will not affect items which are currently phasing to 15 per cent or below. This covers the bulk of items in the pulp, paper and printing, medical and scientific equipment, and glass and glassware industries. Items in the communications industry, which are currently phasing to 20 per cent will now reach 15 per cent over the four year program. In the textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) area, the Government announced a new plan for these industries in June 1987. The plan was developed in close consultation with industry and unions and is to commence fully in March 1989. The TCF industries however, will benefit from general reductions in industry assistance and from the broader economic reforms outlined by the Treasurer. Accordingly, the TCF industries have been included in the ambit of the general reductions in assistance. The adjustments to the TCF plan have been made within the context of the plan. The changes reflect the benefits to the sector accruing from assistance and economic reform and help maintain the relativities in industry assistance between the TCF industries and manufacturing industry generally. The main changes are: A reduction of 5 percentage points for most of the higher tariff rates set for the new plan; A shortening of the new TCF plan so that it concludes on 30 June 1995; and No changes to the textile bounty arrangements except for the bounty on certain continuous filament yarn manufacture and for textile printing. In making these changes, the Government was particularly mindful of the previous agreement it had reached with industry and unions, and sought to maintain the spirit of those deliberations. The Government maintains its strong commitment to support the restructuring and revitalisation of the TCF industries. For its part the Government continues to stand by its assurances on the industry development strategy, the Labour adjustment mechanisms and the safety net features of the new plan. The TCF Development Authority has been established to implement these programs and it will commence operations formally from 1 June. A `tops down' approach has been adopted to general tariff reductions consistent with changes over the past few years. This approach is preferable to across the board options as it targets the most heavily protected industries and therefore reduced disparities in assistance between industries. This decision speeds up the existing tariff review process and provides a predictable environment into the future. It is consistent with the government's sustained efforts to reduce industry's reliance on inward looking barrier protection, and to create internationally competitive industries. As a result of the program, foreshadowed IAC inquiries into industries such as the fabricated metals, industrial machinery and whitegoods will not now be necessary for tariff review purposes. The IAC reports on mining, construction and agricultural equipment and precious metals, gems and jewellery are due to be considered by the Government. Because these industries will be affected by the general reductions in tariffs no additional action will be taken on tariff aspects of these reports. The Government is, however, disposed to extend concessional entry to certain items of mining, construction and agricultural equipment not manufactured in Australia, when the IAC report on these goods is considered. Apart from the bounties on fertilisers (which are referred to in the statement by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy) and on TCF, manufacturing bounty arrangements will not be altered. Generally these bounties provide relatively low levels of assistance and expire before the end of the tariff reduction program. In addition bounties were reduced by 20 per cent in the 1986 Budget. Any extension to existing bounties will require an IAC inquiry. And at that time the tariff changes will be taken into account. The current inquiry into the shipbuilding industry, which is assisted by bounties, will continue and the Government will make a decision on future arrangements for that industry once the IAC report has been received. Similarly the inquiry by the steel industry authority into the steel industry will continue and decisions on that industry made upon receipt of the report. The 2 per cent revenue duty, which imposed a large cost on industry will be abolished on 1 July 1988. Over 80 per cent of the duty was paid on intermediate or capital goods and was therefore a direct tax on production in Australia, handicapping our manufacturers facing international competition. The tax itself was not inconsiderable, revenue foregone by this decision is about $240 million per annum. The abolition of the 2 per cent revenue duty and the reduction in tariffs will reduce input costs for many industries and make them more competitive on international markets. To further improve the competitiveness of Australian industry the government has decided to simplify the duty drawback and by-law for export schemes and reduce their costs to users. By allowing relief from import duties on inputs into export production under these schemes, unwarranted costs will not be imposed on firms which compete in export markets. For similar reasons the government will modify the Commercial Tariff Concessions System (CTCS) to more closely align its operations with the government's industry and technology policy objectives. Greater use will be made of the policy by-laws in those cases where the CTCS criteria are not met but strong grounds for concessional entry exist. Policy by-laws will, however, only be granted following formal consideration of the issues by the IAC. Last year the Minister for Community Services and Health and I outlined new policies to encourage the development of the pharmaceutical industry. These proposals included the establishment of an independent authority to set prices for pharmaceutical products supplied under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The government has now agreed to the recommendation of the authority as to how Australian industry activity and development should be taken into account in the setting of prices in order to encourage industry development. The guidelines are complex and the government has recognised that the authority will need to refine them in consultation with the industry and develop them in the light of experience. The details of the guidelines that the authority will use are spelled out in a joint statement by myself and the Minister for Community Services and Health. In recognition of the length of time that it has taken to develop these guidelines, the government has decided to postpone the introduction of generic pricing arrangements until 1 December this year. These arrangements, which limit the price differential that can apply to alternate brands of the same drug to 20 cents, will generate some savings to partially offset the overall costs of the industry development initiatives. The government has reviewed the Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) scheme and will introduce changes to increase the cost effectiveness of the program while maintaining support for exporters. These changes include an increase in threshold expenditures to $10,000, retention of the maximum grant rate of 70 per cent, reduction in the maximum grant which can be claimed from the present $200,000 for recipients of more than eight grants, introduction of a group of corporations test, a requirement that new claimants submit an ``export market plan'' and tightening of the export earnings test. Expenditure on export market development in relation to New Zealand will no longer be eligible for grants. The government recognises the need for continued progress in developing the export orientation of Australian firms. There is scope for Austrade to enhance its role as a catalyst for export development, by supporting innovative undertakings, and with this in mind an additional $5m will be made available in each of the next two years for new discretionary export market development activities. This fund will be administered by Austrade in conjunction with the EMDG scheme. There will be a major review of export assistance arrangements prior to 30 June 1990 to ensure the continuing effectiveness of this assistance. For some time the government has been supporting Australian exporters under the Development Import Finance Facility (DIFF) within the Australian aid program. The scheme allows grant aid funds to be used in combination with commercial finance from EFIC to provide concessional finance to support Australian exporters. However, under the current arrangements there is insufficient flexibility to fund large and unpredictable payments within the annual aid budget. The government believes that these large, `showpiece' projects can be very important in establishing the credibility of Australian manufacturing industry and has therefore decided that where a proposed project is of such a size that funds would not be available under the existing DIFF allocation, the government will examine support for these proposals on a case-by-case basis. The tariff reductions will be phased over four years and take place at a time when Australian industry is competitive. In addition other initiatives announced tonight will improve the environment for industry. As a result the government does not anticipate that the reductions will lead to large-scale dislocation. However, the government will establish an office of labour market adjustment in the department of employment, education and training to monitor the impact of its decision on the work force. Discussions with industry and unions prior to this decision highlighted concerns about developing country preferences and anti-dumping arrangements. While existing tariff preference arrangements will remain unchanged at this time, the government has undertaken to keep the scheme under review as tariffs are reduced and in the light of other industrial countries' treatment of preferences. The Government recognises the need for fair trade, particularly at a time of accelerated tariff reductions, and is committed to effective and speedy anti-dumping arrangements. An independent Anti-Dumping Authority will be established to improve the operation and timeliness of anti-dumping procedures by: enhancing the commercial expertise and advice available to the Government on anti-dumping matters; setting maximum statutory time limits on each stage of the process; making provision for complaints to be made and investigations to begin before goods arrive in Australia; and enabling groups of people, such as employees, affected by dumped goods to initiate complaints. TAXATION CHANGES Innovation and entrepreneurship is at the heart of positioning Australian industry in the much more competitive world in which we now find ourselves. I mentioned earlier the initiatives the Government has taken to encourage private sector research and development. The 150 per cent taxation concession for eligible research and development expenditures will be continued until 30 June 1991. This will remove any uncertainty about this program and will enable industry to continue to lift its investment in research and development. After this date this concession will be replaced by 100 per cent tax deductibility for companies, partnerships, individuals and trusts. In addition, prior to 1991, the Government also will consider further Commonwealth expenditure support for industry research and development. While I am encouraged at the growth that has already occurred in private sector research and development, much must still be done to develop the new and innovative products needed on export markets. These announcements will provide the stable and supportive environment within which firms can undertake longer term research and development. The taxation concession for MIC Investments is to be extended and will now finish on 30 June 1991. In further extending this scheme, the Government recognised the continuing relevance of the program to the establishment of a viable venture capital market in Australia, particularly given the changed circumstances following the stock market collapse last year. This scheme has been particularly helpful to the development of small high tech firms, which are beginning to make their presence felt on world markets. The Government recognises that recent taxation rulings on wholesale sales tax on computer software have created uncertainty and anomalies. We wish to review these matters urgently with industry, and a meeting will be held in early June between industry representatives, my Department and the Treasury to examine this issue. Following that meeting the Government will consider the matter. The Government's decision on taxation treatment of employee share ownership schemes recognises that maximising the contribution of the work force can be a very powerful source of competitive advantage for a company. Successful implementation of modern manufacturing systems, technologies and quality improvement programs depends on positive work force attitudes. Employee share ownership schemes are an important means of encouraging greater employee commitment and this change to the taxation arrangements will stimulate their adoption. CONCLUSION The phased program of tariff reductions is an essential part of the internationalisation of the Australian economy. Australian industry, if it is to compete successfully internationally, must operate in a competitive environment. The taxation changes announced by the Treasurer, particularly the reduction in the corporate tax rate, assist in this respect. Similarly, improved efficiency in the operation of public enterprises, the reductions in tariffs, and the removal of the 2 per cent revenue duty, will bring input costs more into line with that of our major trading partners. Most importantly, the Government has established a predictable assistance environment for the next four years. Industry can now proceed with investment plans confident in the knowledge that their assistance levels are set for the foreseeable future. They will also be able to concentrate on the factors essential to international competitiveness such as quality, marketing, innovation and work practices. Real progress has already been made in manufacturing industry-some people are now starting to speak about a manufacturing renaissance. Whatever the truth of this judgment-one thing is clear. We do not have the luxury of shooting at a fixed target, therefore ongoing changes need to be made if we are to compete successfully in an increasingly competitive and integrated world economy. Senator BUTTON —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications) —I table a paper entitled `Reshaping the Transport and Communications Government Business Enterprises' and I seek leave to make a statement relating to that paper. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —The initiatives contained in the ministerial statement which I have just tabled are central to the Government's micro-economic reform agenda for the restructuring of the public sector. In the present difficult international environment, public sector efficiency is especially important because so many public business enterprises-particularly those in the Transport and Communications portfolio-produce not only final goods and services for the consumer, but intermediate inputs for the rest of the economy and thus influence the nation's overall cost structures. With this in mind, the Government has undertaken a fundamental review of the eight major transport and communications government business enterprises, namely Qantas Airways Ltd, Australian Airlines, Australian National Line (ANL), Australian National Railways (AN), Telecom Australia, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (OTC), Aussat Pty Ltd and Australia Post, and has decided on a package of reforms which are aimed at reshaping these enterprises and improving their efficiency. The package applies, and builds on, the principles laid down in the `Policy Guidelines for Commonwealth Statutory Authorities and Government Business Enterprises' tabled by the Minister for Finance, Senator Peter Walsh, on 4 November 1987. The detailed statement which should be circulated in a moment explains in detail the consideration given by the Government to these enterprises and the decisions taken to bring about reform. All the enterprises make an important direct contribution to the Australian economy as well as providing services to other industries and businesses. Between them they are responsible for 37.9 per cent of Commonwealth employment and 9.5 per cent of total public sector employment. In all, they account for 2.9 per cent of the Australian work force. They account for 17.5 per cent of Commonwealth revenue and 15.7 per cent of Commonwealth expenditure. Total assets at book values are almost $21 billion. Australians have an important investment in the enterprises. As at June 1987 the Commonwealth's investment, through equity and loan, in these eight businesses, was estimated at $9,400m or $1,900 for every Australian household. Transport and communications infrastructure forms the very fabric of our economy-without it industry could not function, our exports could not reach their markets, and we would be limited in our participation in global financial markets and the growing service industries such as tourism. It is clear, accordingly, that every improvement we can make in the way we deliver transport and communications services is economically vital. Fundamental improvement in the way the enterprises in question operate is not only desirable, but essential. The era of effortless post-war growth in a protected environment is over. World-wide trends are now towards: greater competition; a more hostile international trading environment; global corporations; more open, less regulated economies; a more integrated and sophisticated financial world; and massive technological development and innovation. The transport and communications enterprises need, more than ever before, flexibility and the ability to respond rapidly to changes in the market and to take up opportunities as they present themselves. Consequently, the Government has decided on a reform package for each enterprise covering the appropriate structure for each enterprise; the relationship, between government as owner/shareholder, enterprise boards and enterprise managers; new planning and accountability mechanisms; the modification of major strategic controls and removal of controls over day to day activities. In summary the new arrangements include: the implementation of new planning and accountability mechanisms which will include requirements for corporate plans and the setting of financial targets, and will allow the Government to focus on `bottom line' results rather than central, controls over managerial decision making; revised corporate and financial structures for most of the enterprises, which will better reflect the new economic and commercial environment in which they are operating: OTC and ANL are to be converted into companies incorporated under the Companies Act-100 per cent Commonwealth owned; the Telecom and Australia Post commissions to be renamed the Australia Telecommunications Corporation and the Australian Postal Corporation respectively, with new financial structures involving the conversion in each case of a quarter of existing Commonwealth loans to equity; ANL to be able to operate integrated transportation services for Australia overseas and domestic trades to sustain its shipping services; AN's legislation to be amended to enable AN to expand the scope of its business activities; and Australia Post to be allowed to undertake commercial development of its properties; significant modification of major `strategic' controls are involved which presently exist in relation to borrowings, industrial relations coordination, superannuation and executive remuneration; and the removal of virtually all day to day government operational controls from the enterprises, including contracts, the investment of temporary surplus funds, the establishment of bank accounts, the terms and conditions of individual borrowings, and, subject to prior advice to the Minister controls over the establishment of subsidiaries, joint ventures and share purchases. The Government expects that all these new arrangements will improve the way in which these enterprises conduct their business and will lead to marked efficiency gains which will mean better service delivery and improved productivity. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Debate (on motion by Senator Messner) adjourned. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications) —by leave-I table a paper entitled `Australian Telecommunications Services: A New Framework' and seek leave to make a statement relating to that paper. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —In describing the Government's third term agenda, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has given greatest emphasis to micro-economic policy: the structural adjustment of key industries, and the relationships between them, with a view to establishing and sustaining longer term growth. The Government's goal is to ensure that the manufacturing and service sectors, in particular, become more efficient and so improve our trade competitiveness, reduce our reliance on imports and ensure the Australian economy has the versatility, adaptability and resilience necessary to take advantage of the rapid changes this nation faces in the years ahead. The Australian telecommunications services industry is well placed to make a major contribution to these goals of efficiency and trade competitiveness in the information economy, while continuing to serve the important social objectives associated with the central role of the telephone in the Australian community. With this in mind, the Government initiated a fundamental review of telecommunications policy in September 1987. One lesson of the recent past has been that current industry and structural arrangements do not readily lend themselves to the satisfactory and efficient resolution of many of the problems facing the industry. The Government has decided to reform the basic structural and regulatory framework, with the objective of establishing a framework within which appropriate service and price adjustments can take place without undue government intervention, while ensuring that the fundamental objectives of efficiency and equity continue to be met within the Government's new overall policy objectives. The policy statement, which was referred to by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his speech earlier tonight, is directed to resolving five fundamental structural questions: the extent to which existing monopoly arrangements for the provision of the basic network need to be maintained; how the boundary lines between monopoly and competition should be drawn in the provision of value added services; how the boundary lines between monopoly and competition should be drawn in the supply, installation and maintenance of customer premises equipment; the need for a new independent body to carry out necessary new economic and technical regulatory functions; and the extent to which the telecommunications carriers should be relieved from government constraints to enable them to perform more effectively. The detailed statement which I have just tabled explains in very great detail the consideration given by the Government to the complex set of issues involved in reshaping arrangements for the telecommunications services industry. It sets out the decisions we have taken to bring about structural reform and the reasoning behind those decisions. The decisions taken by the Government mark the most significant change in arrangements for the telecommunications industry since those the Labor Government put in place in 1975, when it set up Telecom and separated telecommunications from postal functions. While the 1975 decisions have served Australia well, they have been overtaken by events. The decisions which have now been taken by the Government will bring much more certainty to regulatory policy and permit the continuing orderly adjustment to the dynamic pressures-and opportunities-of technological change and changing user needs. The Government has decided to restructure the regulatory environment of the telecommunications services industry to provide for: continuing authority for the existing carriers to be the sole providers of basic network facilities and services, subject to greater commercial and external regulatory discipline; full scope for competition in the provision and operation of value added services; increased scope for competition in the provision and maintenance of network terminal equipment for connection within customers' premises, in particular in relation to PABX maintenance and small business systems; and establishment of regulatory arrangements that are independent of the carriers and directed towards ensuring maintenance of minimum necessary standards, fair and efficient competition beyond the monopoly boundaries, and improved efficiency and accountability for the monopoly carriers. A central theme of the new arrangements is ensuring that the carriers, and in particular Telecom, are efficient, customer-oriented and fully responsive to both residential and business consumer needs. In developing the new arrangements, the Government has benefited greatly from the formal submissions it has received from users, unions, industry and State governments. The Government has also had the advantage of discussions with representatives of all sections of the telecommunications services industry and community groups affected by it. Those discussions have proved to be invaluable input to the decision-making process. This review has been carried out concurrently with the review of the major transport and communications government business enterprises, the results of which are also being announced today in the statement that I tabled earlier. Major changes have been announced in that statement relating to the managerial environment in which Telecom, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and Aussat will operate. The Government looks forward to the telecommunications services industry responding much more rapidly in future to pressing adjustment issues within the framework outlined in my statement. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Debate (on motion by Senator Messner) adjourned. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources) —I seek leave to make a statement on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) relating to the May economic statement, entitled `Industrial Development Review', and seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The creation of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy last year has provided a very timely opportunity to re-assess and re-align, where necessary, the policies and patterns of assistance of the Primary Industries and Resources sector. But the review itself does more than that. It also recognises the linkages with the economy. In particular it recognises the economic activity and Government policy in one area spread through the economy and affect the cost, the outlook and the performance of others. By doing so, it forms an important element in the Government's achievement of bringing a total perspective to its microeconomic reforms. As evident in the report tabled tonight, my review encompasses not only policies and expenditure programs, but also relevant tax measures, the effects of protection within the sector and within manufacturing, and the dependence of the sector on Transport and Infrastructure Industries. Before outlining the results of the review, let me say that our Rural and Mining sectors are already very efficient industries. In the face of the prolonged and continuing decline in their terms of Trade, not to mention the collapse of commodity prices, they have continued to play a crucial role in maintaining our economic well-being. Although there are still problems in cropping industries and the Coal Industry, by and large the Primary Industries and resources sector is showing signs of recovery and parts of it are thriving. This augurs well for our ability to overcome National Economic problems. But we cannot assume that the revival in commodity prices alone will solve our Economic problems. We must continue to improve our efficiency and thereby our trade competitiveness. As my colleague the Treasure has described, the Government will introduce a range of measures to further improve resource allocation and efficiency across the Economy. These include phased reductions in Industry assistance levels with a shift in emphasis away from border protection towards positive assistance to promote competitiveness and structural adjustment. They also include further improvements in the efficiency and neutrality of the tax system. These reforms, together with those contained in the Industry Development Review, will enable our trade goods sector, including Agricultural and resource industries, to become even more efficient and to compete more effectively in an Internationally Competitive Environment. The Industry Development review therefore reflects, at a sectoral level, the longer term objectives which are central to the Government's overall Microeconomic policy reforms. But of course achieving these objectives is only a means to an end. The Government's Fundamental Goals are greater and more equal opportunity, substantial improvements in living standards, an enhanced quality of life for the nation as a whole and care for our environment. In seeking greater Industry Efficiency and Competitiveness we are seeking a better standard of Living for all. Our long-term objectives can be grouped into three categories: Enhancing productive capacity; Developing a more responsive industry structure; and Influencing and responding to the external environment. Fundamental to enhancing our productive capacity is the protection of our natural resource base. The Government aims to manage our natural resources in a way that allows conservation together with sustainable development. We will provide funding of more than $47 million over the next three years for soil conservation and salinity mitigation within a co-ordinated natural resource management policy that will also include water management and reafforestation. A national resource information centre will be established to ensure that an adequate knowledge base on the extent, status and nature of our natural, mineral and energy resources is developed. Just as important is the development of our human resources. Additional funds will be provided to develop rural education and training initiatives and to improve the access of rural and remote communities to these services. Over $1 million will be spent to make non-metropolitan Australians as aware as their urban counterparts of Government services and programs. rural counselling and rural women's access grants will continue to improve the provision of information and advice. Research and development will be given even higher priority than before. An additional $10 million in all will be spent in coming years on research into alternative transport fuels and on renewable energy and conservation projects. Both government and industry contributions to rural research will be increased towards the funding goal for each of 0.5 per cent of gross value of production in agricultural industries. A further aspect of the protection of our resources is the spending of $33 million as the Government's share to see the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication program through to completion. We will seek industry support for a jointly funded exotic disease preparedness program. Quarantine policies will be reformed in the light of the Lindsay report. Developing a more responsive industry structure-my second set of objectives-is critical to improving our national economic performance. Specific action has been taken to encourage more responsiveness in a number of primary industries which have been more highly assisted than both other primary industries and industries in other sectors. This matches the action taken to reduce tariffs in the manufacturing sector. It is part of a fundamental shift towards a lower and more uniform pattern of industry assistance. Supplementary market support for milk will be reduced. The butter and butter oil levy rates will be phased out by 1 July 1989. The present specific duty rate on tobacco leaf imports will be converted to an ad valorem tariff of 25 per cent and reduced to 15 per cent by 1 July 1992. The sugar embargo will be replaced by an ad valorem tariff of 25 per cent on refined sugar and 35 per cent on raw sugar, which will be reduced to 15 per cent by 1 July 1992. Tariffs on citrus and dried vine fruit will be phased down to 15 per cent by 1 July 1992. These assistance reductions together with those in other sectors will benefit consumers and industries which use those goods as inputs. It is estimated that the reductions in manufacturing protection will increase returns in the agricultural sector by about $350 million, and by about the same amount in the mining and minerals processing sector. To further reduce costs on input prices the Government is disposed to grant duty-free entry on agricultural and mining equipment and parts not made in Australia. It will finalise its decision after the Industries Assistance Commission completes its report on this issue on 30 June 1988. While every effort is made to minimise input prices it is inconsistent with our broad economic approach to do this through subsidies, which distort a range of investment and production decisions. The agricultural fertiliser subsidies will therefore be abolished on 30 June 1988. The pricing of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is now being reviewed and a decision is expected to be taken in July this year. The agricultural price underwriting schemes for certain commodities can delay adjustment to market changes at considerable cost. Existing schemes will be reformed to ensure that the underwritten price deals only with extraordinary downwards price movements and that the industry concerned assumes increasing responsibility for meeting the costs of reducing price uncertainty. The net effect of all these changes will be primary industries which are considerably more responsive to market changes. As well as the benefits this will generate for these industries themselves, enhanced price responsiveness will open up a whole range of new opportunities throughout the economy. New activities and new investments will appear where previously they were not worthwhile. This is likely to generate new opportunities in value-adding to our primary commodities in particular, thereby improving the links between the primary industry and manufacturing sectors. A tax-linked income equalisation deposits scheme will be introduced from 1 July 1989. This subsidy is to encourage farmers to provide for income fluctuations. Implicit in these initiatives is considerable change. The Government is sensitive to the costs associated with change and is acting to ensure that the burden of change does not become unduly high for those who are most affected. A chief device for both encouraging change and ensuring that its cost is shared equitably in agriculture is the Rural Adjustment Scheme (RAS). The RAS will be reformed to improve its effectiveness in structural adjustment. Its objectives will be more precisely defined and the range of policy instruments available will be widened. Further, increased funding will be provided for RAS, including means tested rehabilitation grants of up to $28,000 to farmers leaving agriculture. Similarly, action is being taken to assist the coal industry which presently is also subject to very considerable adjustment pressures. $20 million is being provided on a dollar-for-dollar basis with the New South Wales government for reduced coal freight rates to assist in bringing forward rail freight reductions in the coal industry. Retraining and re-establishment grants are being provided for retrenched coal miners under the Relocation Assistance Scheme and the labour adjustment training arrangements. A long-term coal industry strategy announced on 5 May 1988 includes strengthened administration of export controls, contributions to coal promotion and establishment of an Australian coal industry development council. My final set of objectives relate to the external marketing and trading environment. We will continue our efforts to bring home to overseas countries the damage their domestic policies do to us and to themselves when they subsidise their industries and limit market access. Australia has a high profile in world forums-partly but not only through its prominent role in the Cairns group of agricultural fair traders. A successful outcome to the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations is vital to the continued growth and prosperity of the world economy. For this to occur it will be necessary for all participants to be prepared to review and reform their domestic industry policies. In implementing the measures I have just outlined, Australia will show its bona fides in the negotiations. Early results from the negotiations can be achieved in December this year if sufficient will exists. The measures we will implement will be a significant contribution to the agricultural liberalisation package which we wish to see agreed in December this year. To provide positive assistance, the Government will fund a $5 million series of courses in international primary industry marketing skills, and introduce a coal marketing program. Wool promotion funding will continue but at a reduced level of $25 million over each of the next three years. The government also contributes to our marketing effort through its provision of export inspection services. Since industry is the main beneficiary of these services, the Government will reduce its contribution from 50 per cent to 40 per cent. At the same time, however, it is improving efficiency and reducing costs through initiatives such as fee-for-service charging and approved quality assurance arrangements. Perhaps most importantly, the government believes that industries' marketing and export efforts will be improved by the development of more dynamic and outward looking attitudes within those industries themselves. The Government will work in partnership with industry, determined to be lean and flexible, to be ready for future opportunities as they arise, and to contribute more than ever to the welfare of all Australians. I move: Senator COOK —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Debate (on motion by Senator Lewis) adjourned. Debate resumed from 18 May, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(8.09) —The Senate is now debating the Cash Transaction Reports Bill 1987. Honourable senators will recall that it was referred to a committee of the Senate for consideration and report. That report has now been put down and the Government is now proceeding with the Bill. The primary object of the Bill is to facilitate the administration and enforcement of taxation laws. It is further intended to counter the underground cash economy and money laundering. The Bill obliges financial institutions and other bodies to report most transactions involving cash in excess of $10,000 and establishes the Cash Transaction Reports Agency. Moreover, transactions involving the transfer of large amounts of currency either into or out of Australia will also need to be reported. The proposed legislation reflects the concerns of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and other royal commissions about current difficulties in `following the money trail' generated by the profits of crime and is modelled on the United States Bank Secrecy Act. The Bill is a refinement of an earlier Bill that passed through the House of Representatives shortly before Parliament was dissolved for the 1987 general election. The Bill establishes the Cash Transaction Reports Agency with functions to receive and monitor reports, to ensure compliance with legislation and to provide advice and assistance to the Commissioner of Taxation in relation to cash transaction reports information. The major reporting requirements are as follows: `Cash dealers' are required to report cash transactions involving the transfer of currency in excess of $10,000. `Cash dealers' are defined to include financial institutions, insurers, securities dealers, futures brokers, unit trusts, dealers in traveller's cheques and bullion, bookmakers and casino operators. Provision is also made for such transactions, when related to normal business activities, to be exempted. Persons involved with transfer of currency in excess of $5,000 into or out of Australia are required to report the transaction. There are exemptions for commercial carriers such as airlines and shipping lines. Cash dealers are required to report suspect transactions relating to: tax evasion; investigation of crime; and enforcement of the Proceeds of Crime Act. Dealers are given immunity from defamation proceedings and protection against prosecution for money laundering. The other major provision is the requirement for verification of the identity of persons with access to accounts over $1,000 and safety deposit boxes. The onus of verification is on the client-not the financial institution. Unverified accounts are blocked with the consequence that funds cannot be withdrawn and are liable to forfeiture after three months notice. There are elaborate provisions to ensure privacy and secrecy of information contained in reports with rights of access limited to the taxation officers and law enforcement agencies. Differences from the earlier Bill are: no requirement for verification of pre-existing accounts; a revised system for verification of accounts; small accounts are exempted; the creation of an offence of opening or operating an account in a false name; and the requirement to report suspect transactions. The coalition parties have had widespread discussions with the Australian Bankers Association, the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies and the Australian Federation of Credit Unions. In each case they support the Bill in principle as an anti-crime measure. However, there has been widespread concern within the community about the burden of costs that the Bill might impose and some disquiet about privacy. Because of these concerns, on 15 December I moved, and the Senate resolved, that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report. That report was tabled on 28 April and recommended that: the operation of the . . . Bill . . . be reviewed after a suitable period of time, preferably not longer than 3 years, and that the review include the economic, taxation, privacy and law enforcement implications of the Bill. It also recommended that certain technical amendments be made. The Committee also referred to the concerns of firms engaged in armoured vehicle cash carrying operations. I am pleased to note that the Government intends to accept the recommendations of the Committee and address the problem of cash carrying operations in the committee stage of the Bill. The report of the Committee vindicates the coalition decision to refer the Bill to a committee and reveals a number of problems that had not been previously properly explored. The Committee received over 50 submissions, and I am pleased that the Government acknowledges that its consideration of the Bill has been greatly enhanced by the views put to the Committee. This Government should learn a valuable lesson from this exercise; that is, that it is essential that there is adequate consultation and time for debate before the introduction of such complex legislation, and the Government should learn not to attempt to push through such legislation in the dying days of a parliamentary session. That lesson is clearly to be well learned at this stage of this parliamentary session. Even with this extensive consultation it is clear that it is not possible to determine the full financial impact and cost effectiveness of these proposals, and quite properly this is reflected in the Committee's recommendation that the operation of the Bill be reviewed in three years to assess the economic, privacy and law enforcement implications. The area of organised crime and its financing were highlighted by both the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and the Costigan Royal Commission. Mr Costigan in delivering the Sir John Barry Memorial Lecture on 13 October, 1983 stated, `the most successful method of identifying and ultimately convicting major organised criminals is to follow the money trail'. That is the main purpose of this Bill. The Committee heard extensive evidence about the burdens of compliance costs but concluded that the extra costs associated with implementing the provisions of the Bill are not likely to be substantial. This conclusion was reached on the basis of the estimates supported by quantitative analysis that have been presented to it. I think that there are people with concerns about this Bill who forget that it deals with cash transactions and I ask them: When was the last time they had a transaction involving $10,000 or more in cash? I cannot recall one for myself, but those sorts of transactions will have to be reported under this Bill. The Opposition is not opposing the Bill because, however imperfect and uncertain the legislation may be, it does attempt to address the difficulties in tracing funds through a number of companies, banks and merchant banks, solicitors' trust accounts, property investment, overseas institutions and other methods used to disguise the illicit source of funds, or in the contemporary terms, the laundering of money and the underground cash economy. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.18) —The Cash Transaction Reports Bill has been described by the Government as a major weapon against tax avoidance and organised crime. In view of the growing problem of crime in this country it is something which I am plainly aware of as a member of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority-this has to be seen as a very important and worthy objective. It is certainly an objective which is fully supported by the Australian Democrats, as we have shown time and time again by our support for legislative measures introduced by this Government. In particular the Democrats are very much aware of the types of points raised by Senator Lewis, the problems posed by money laundering and the urgent need where possible to follow the money trail. This method has been supported by a number of authorities as an extremely important way of combating organised crime. It is, therefore, very disappointing that the Government has introduced a Bill which will fail to meet the objectives stated for it. In addition, it will give rise to serious concerns in other areas. I turn to look at the Bill itself. Let me deal with the main purposes of the legislation. The first is to require the reporting of certain domestic currency transactions in excess of $10,000 to the Cash Transaction Reports Agency (CTRA). The second is to establish a Cash Transaction Reports Agency to collect, retain, compile analyse and disseminate information relating to cash transactions reports (CTR), suspect transactions, accounts with cash dealers and to perform other functions set out under the legislation. The reporting to the CTRA of certain currency transfers to and from Australia in excess of $5,000 is required. That is the third purpose. Fourthly, it requires cash dealers to report suspect transactions. Fifthly, it imposes obligations on cash dealers in relation to the verification of identification of persons seeking to open accounts and to block withdrawals by unverified signatories to accounts which exceed certain credit or deposit limits. Lastly, it creates an offence of opening or operating a bank account with a cash dealer in a false name. As honourable senators are well aware, this Bill is a revised version of an earlier Bill by the same title which was withdrawn after strong opposition from a variety of sources, including financial institutions. The financial institutions were concerned in their submissions about the reporting and administrative burden which the bank's submission, for example, claimed to be some $180m in start-up costs and a further $75m a year. The major change between the two Bills centres on the shift in the administrative burden in executing the reporting functions of the Bill. Under the original Bill, the banks were required to bear responsibility for ensuring the identity of all of their account holders and to report all transactions in excess of $10,000 to the Cash Transaction Reports Agency which, in turn, would then supply that information to the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian Customs Service, the National Crime Authority and the Federal and State police. Under the new Bill, all customers who establish accounts after the Bill is proclaimed and whose cash balances exceed the limits set above must, within 24 hours, present proof of identity or they will not be able to withdraw money from their accounts. Cash dealers commit an offence if they have not made: reasonable efforts on or before that day to obtain a verification statement from the unverified signatory. Exactly what constitutes a reasonable effort is not defined in the legislation. The verification process involves the custom of providing to a cash dealer a reference from someone who specifies that he has known the person, and that reference must, in turn, be verified by a justice of the peace under the Statutory Declarations Act. The Cash Transaction Reports Bill will, of course, not be restricted to banking transactions in excess of $10,000 and involving banks and corporations; it will go beyond that to brokers, bookmakers, unit trust managers, bullion dealers and so on. A very large group of people deal in that way. It will apply to all accounts opened before and after the proclamation of the Bill with regard to those exercises. However, under clause 14, cash dealers who suspect account holders of engaging in illegal activities can report those transactions to the CTRA, even though they fall below the $10,000 limit. The Cash Transaction Reports Bill provides for the Agency to furnish information of transactions to the Taxation Office, the Australian Customs Service and so on. Exemptions will be granted to businesses that engage in frequent large cash transactions for payroll purposes, for example. Those firms will be listed in an exempt register which can be inspected by the CTRA. In addition to that, the Government has introduced amendments designed to meet concerns raised by cash carriers, and those items will be dealt with in the committee stage. I do not intend going into them at the moment. When one looks at the new Bill structure and compares it to the Bill referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for examination, it is very difficult to see any major improvements. The wide range of exempt transactions still apply and provide ample scope for criminal avoidance. The fact that no existing accounts will be affected also undermines the stated purpose of the Bill. The provision requiring new account holders to furnish a reference is absurd and will create major problems for the less capable in our society. It is entirely open to manipulation. The Government, of course, has not retreated from its decision to refuse citizens the right to redress against administrative malpractice under the judicial review. I wish to take up that matter in the committee stage because it is an extraordinary proposition. It is an outrageous proposition that, yet again, we are asked by the Government to have no review in those areas where administrative malpractice can be massively damaging to the individual. It has been expressly written out of the Act. When the committee stage is reached, I want to look at a number of those clauses, particularly with regard to the Director of the CTRA and others. Why this Government persists in writing out references with regard to administrative malpractice I have no idea, but the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has to draw this to the attention of the Senate time and again. Unfortunately, the Senate has acquiesced far too often in allowing the Government to run roughshod over this area time and again, as is done in this Bill. In cases where some bank branches have been more or less happy to accept cash deposits from clients who they suspect are engaging in questionable or probably criminal activity in order to generate additional cash balances, the Bill will probably be effective. However, beyond fines, there is no provision for the Government to ensure that the banks are complying. If one looks at the fines, one realises that there should not be much problem for the banks one way or the other. It is reasonable to anticipate that the most likely response of criminal figures will be to use the array of exemption categories that exists under the Bill in combination with the continued use of false identities to gain access to financial institutions. I do not want to detail one system detailed to me, but there are relatively simple ways of driving right through this Bill. In some ways it probably mirrors the notion in some avenues of government that crime and criminals remain stupid. I hoped that that attitude had disappeared a long time ago but, obviously, it has not. Another way is to move more money laundering operations into fringe money institutions that will not respect the reporting operations and will be very difficult to track down, even under this complicated and expensive arrangement. An important factor is that false identities remain a major problem, and that has not been addressed by this Bill. An additional concern of the Australian Democrats is that the threshold is only $10,000 which, because it is not indexed against inflation, means that within a number of years it will be virtually impossible to make even a relatively small transaction without that transaction being reported to the CTRA and relayed to the additional authorities. I can give an example of this: in five years, assuming the present inflation level of 8 per cent per annum, inflation would have reduced the effective or real threshold of the present limit to $6,061 and in 8 years to $4,719. As honourable senators know, the ability of this chamber to update any of those is woeful, and they are likely to remain. The Australian Bankers Association (ABA) is reported to have expressed concern that the United States Administration will possibly move the United States threshold which is currently $10,000 to $3,000. As demonstrated above, it is not necessary for the Australian Government to formally lower the limit. Yet again, without any fuss or bother, inflation will accomplish this particular objective over time. This is an interesting example of the bureaucracy again snowing the Government, because here the bureaucracy has the built-in incentive to gain more and more access to more and more transactions of individuals in this country, individuals who are not connected with crime and whose affairs are effectively scrutinised by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). The ABA has estimated that about 200,000 transactions will be affected by the threshold of $10,000, and one can reasonably expect that this figure will increase considerably as future movements in the consumer price index drag more and more transactions across that threshold. This has been seen in the area of tax and so many areas of government. It is relatively simple to avoid, but the Government chooses deliberately not to introduce that inflation mechanism with regard to the amount. The reason is simple and clear. On 12 June 1986 the Assistant Secretary of the United States Treasury Enforcement Task Force, Francis Keating, testified before a United States Senate Committee that the American equivalent of the CTRA, had in the space of three years, enabled the United States Treasury to initiate legal proceedings against 8,649 individuals. Keating also testified that of those 8,649 individuals, 4.971, or about 60 per cent, were not convicted. Therefore, it is possible that a sizeable number of those who were not convicted were innocent of any wrongdoing. In this respect I wish to be realistic because obviously a proportion of that 60 per cent could well have escaped conviction through the process of legal technicalities. Nevertheless, well over half of the people were harried by the Government because they carried out a number of apparently legal transactions which, when superimposed upon additional financial data, triggered investigation and indictment. For some of those reasons the Democrats are extremely unhappy about the establishment of this authority, the main objective of which is to keep tabs on how people earn and spend their money. Although the ATO has the power to carry out investigations that enable it to reconstruct people's transactions and their habits of spending, this sort of investigation is usually not initiated until a reasonable ground for suspicion exists. This Bill completely reverses this situation: no suspicion is required for this type of investigation to proceed in this country, and we have now heard that the Opposition will be supporting this exercise. If one reads the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, one discovers that in all of the matters that I have raised, the Committee's report is inconclusive. If the evidence on fighting crime is inconclusive, this legislation should not be passed. Rather than passing a clearly defective piece of legislation and giving it a three-year trial run, the legislation should be opposed and the Government should be asked to return with a re-written Bill that does not suffer from the types of defects that I have been outlining. In conclusion, I should like to say a few words about how the Government should address the problems of money laundering and tax avoidance. Obviously, the first involves the issue of the tax file number. I do not intend to canvas that subject too much tonight. Earlier tonight the Government made a statement about the tax file number. In the elements of the economic statement there was no discussion about raising the integrity of the tax file number. Let us hope in future discussions and amplifications of the Government's statement tonight, the integrity of the tax file number will be debated rather than what the Government discussed tonight concerning merely the extended use of the tax file number. I wish to deal with bank transactions and the tax file number. Obviously, one large area of tax avoidance in transactions between individuals and banks is that of interest earned on accounts. This can be dealt with relatively simply; that is, upon opening an account all problems of civil liberties can be avoided if an obligation is placed on the person who opens the account to notify the Tax Office. In other words, it should go the other way around. The Government and the Opposition are happy for the banks to know a person's tax file number now and presumably they will go down the line with the banks on a whole range of items. But there are other ways. Another way it ought to go is that an obligation should be placed on an individual to inform the Tax Office that he or she is opening an account and the number of the account, rather than the bank being notified of the person's tax file number. This mechanism can then be linked to a further mechanism. The Democrats would strongly support the notion of a withholding tax on interest paid on all accounts. That matter is relatively simple and has extremely low administrative costs according to the discussions we have had with the Australian Bankers Association. Essentially it would work on the basis of the maximum level of personal income tax, which is currently set at 49c in the dollar of interest earned. That would be withheld and remitted to the Tax Office unless an individual had an exemption. If an individual had an exemption, he would have received it from the Tax Office-on the basis of what? Clearly, on the basis of the fact that in the past that person has had a good record of declaring interest earned on accounts, or that the person is a child, or is starting to earn money, or has a good taxation record and, for example, is a retiree living on interest as income. The proposition is relatively simple: automatically 49c in every dollar of interest earned would go. What would happen then? If both items I have spoken about were in operation, every bank account would be linked to a tax account held by the Tax Office. But a group of accounts would be left over that are not linked to anything. That would be the first place that a tax task force would start investigations. A whole list of accounts would not attach to anyone paying tax and would not attach to anyone known to the Tax Office. One would do two things with that combination of items. Firstly, one would collect every dollar that should have been paid on interest, and more-because one would pick up every account that one did not know about-in other words, all the people who operate two, three, or four accounts in two, three or four different names who hold two, three or four jobs of which only one operates within the tax framework and the others are outside the tax framework. That means that every other taxpayer in the community must pay more. That is easily overcome. I refer honourable senators to the fact that the withholding tax, which was first passed by the Fraser Administration in relation to the building industry and which was upgraded by the Hawke Government, has been one of the most effective taxes applied in recent years in overcoming fraud, and in overcoming the problem of who in the income earning system is operating outside the tax system. We believe that, in those situations where a whole series of accounts are not connected to any tax file if, upon reasonable inquiry, nothing turns up all those accounts should be frozen. I believe that they should be frozen until the people who actually hold them are able to show why it is that they are outside the tax system, why it is that they have failed to declare previous interest earned and why it is that they have been avoiding their legal obligations to the community. We further believe that the National Crime Authority should certainly have the power to search tax files. At the moment, of course, it has power under its Act to go into tax files with regard to specific exercises. The Australian Taxation Office itself has the ability to engage in fishing expeditions. We would be happy to extend the range of operations of the National Crime Authority with regard to this area of tax. When we take all these things together we find ourselves in a very difficult situation. The last time the Government introduced legislation with regard to an identification card it also brought in a couple of other Bills. One related to privacy legislation and a Data Protection Agency. What do we see in this Bill? Absolutely nothing. The Government has abandoned entirely the notion of protecting privacy and the data that it collects. However, we find again in the economic statement tonight that the Government will extend the use of the tax file number. Again, there was absolutely no comment about the reintroduction of privacy legislation or data protection. So we have here the first step-the Opposition has expressed its willingness to support it-without any privacy or data protection. Yet last time round we heard loud cries from the Opposition. We have here an excessively flawed Bill, a Bill unaccompanied by any protections with regard to the information about to be collected, a Bill that will provide the basis for the extension of the identity card system, a Bill that will not work and upon which no evidence has been produced. The Committee which looked at it said that it was inconclusive in combating crime within the community. Fairly obviously, this legislation does not provide us with any reason to want to trust bureaucracies with that extensive amount of information. We could be induced to do that if the Government had been genuine about the protection of privacy and had brought back a privacy Bill in conjunction with this piece of legislation, if the Government had improved the integrity of the tax file number or if the Government had been able to produce some evidence that these types of excessively costly and intrusive arrangements into individuals' operations in the community would be successful in inhibiting crime and, hopefully, bringing criminals who operate in this area to justice. None of that has been presented to the chamber and none of that was presented to the Committee. We are operating with a complete leap of faith and the Government is saying, `Just follow us with regard to all these things. This is perfectly all right. Nothing will happen. Let us give it a trial'. I remind honourable senators that the idea of giving it a trial is one which really does not have a great deal of force. The reasons, fairly obviously, are that once these things are established and operating they become self-fulfilling prophesies, they have a reason to extend their own lives and they are able to present a rationale as to why they should extend their own lives. Anybody who has any notion of these types of organisations would know that after three years they just do not go out of existence. In fact, it would be a very bold Opposition that, at that stage, would seek to destroy these types of organisations because, fairly obviously, as in the United States of America, a government would be able to present a whole range of convictions. Of course, it would not know whether they were new or old convictions or convictions that would have been obtained in any event through the operation of the Tax Office, the National Crime Authority or any of the other agencies that had the power to operate upon this information. There will be a backup; the old boys network will be operating. Chums do not trust chums as we learned this week from Yes, Minister, and undoubtedly it will operate again in this area. Quite frankly, the notion of a trial period is absurd. Let me be very clear about the fact that, when we pass this legislation, it will be entrenched. We are not giving it a trial; in fact, we are establishing it and it will be around in this Parliament and in successive parliaments. It would be a nice thought if we went into the exercise of trialling things. I do not see this chamber, and certainly not the other place, giving any indication that they want to go down the track of a trialling operation in any genuine way. Indeed, later tonight, if we manage to get to other legislation, we can see this operating in another area. The upshot of all this is that the Government has failed to deal adequately with one of the most serious problems facing this country and the Democrats have no option other than to oppose this Bill. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(8.46) —The Cash Transaction Reports Bill 1987 has already had a tortuous passage through the Parliament and I think it was quite properly referred by this chamber to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. That Committee took the opportunity to consider it carefully, to call a body of evidence and to attempt as best it could to analyse the likely ramifications of it. I find it very difficult in many spheres to make judgments about the future. I think one could say in this instance that the best that one could do is weigh up the matter on the balance of probabilities. One simply cannot make bald statements that somehow all cash transactions will be significantly reduced, that the underground economy will largely evaporate and that organised crime will simply go offshore. But one can have a measured degree of confidence that this type of legislation will make it harder for those who have prospered to date to continue to undertake very large cash transactions. I find that a healthy approach. I always have suspicions when I see or hear of people who carry very fat wallets. I recall one instance where $10,000 was carried in the boot of a car of a supposedly prominent Melbourne solicitor not so many years ago. I would have thought that, in a situation like that-- Senator Hill —A prominent racing identity. Senator ALSTON —That is right. It is always a matter of just having driven back from the racecourse. I think in this instance the gentleman in question was just on his way back from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, where he had been representing some luminary. I would have thought that, in situations like that, there was a burden of proof to be discharged by persons who chose to carry around bags full of dollars. I find it passing strange, therefore, that with that sort of charitable inclination towards attempting to stamp out the cash economy and the methods of organised crime in dealing with large sums of ill gotten gains, the Australian Democrats should take the stance that they have. Their first argument essentially seemed to be that it is just more bureaucracy and we cannot be sure of the result. That is a small government ethos which a number of us in this chamber regard as perfectly proper but it is not one that we often hear fall from the lips of the Democrats. Their second principal objection seemed to be that it would offend notions of privacy, that somehow it was in breach of civil liberties and that this was all thoroughly undesirable. It is of interest to note that Senator Powell, who was on the Committee in question, is not listed to speak in this debate; whereas Senator Macklin, who was not on the Committee and did not have the opportunity to listen to some of the vacuous nonsense that was served up by some of the proponents of privacy, is prepared to get up and make the sorts of sweeping statements that he has made. To couple that with a suggestion that the National Crime Authority (NCA) should have limited fishing rights, presumably to go off and start investigating anyone who looks as though he has managed to obtain a fairly substantial degree of wealth over a short time, strikes me as a very chilling prospect. No doubt, if one took the money trail at its face value one could very easily mount a case that almost all of those in the top 100 listed in the Business Review Weekly should be automatically investigated on an annual basis and that surely the NCA would not be doing its job if it was not knocking on Mr Bond's door or Mr Packer's back garage and wanting to know where they got all the funds from. That is a thoroughly undesirable approach to take. If one has any concerns for civil liberties, the last thing one should do is give licence to roam to any outfit-not, in particular, the NCA, but a whole range of bodies that would be anxious to garner such broad-ranging powers. Therefore, I think it is rather odd when we look at the charitable approach that is being taken by the Government and the Opposition to this legislation and set it against the rather mean-spirited approach taken by the Democrats. One can only assume that somehow they see some political mileage in being able to claim that this could not possibly work, that it is not really going to achieve anything and that it is not worth giving it the benefit of the doubt. It is fair to say that we have all agonised honourably over the merits and demerits of this legislation. But the fact remains that there is a mischief that can be identified. There is a possible solution that can be adopted. I believe that the structure of the Bill has more benefits than defects. Admittedly, the United States experience is about the only precedent that one has to go on, but I do not find it disheartening to look at the statistics that are regularly paraded in support of the establishment of a similar regime in this country. Mr Keating, whom Senator Macklin referred to and who was the then Assistant Secretary of the Treasury enforcement section, said that the Bank Secrecy Act has proved beyond all doubt its effectiveness as a law enforcement tool against drug trafficking, organised crime and the illicit financial activity that supports it. They are all honourable motives. We would be delighted if we could say at the end of the day that the Cash Transaction Reports Agency had had similar success. The figures that he cited were that in approximately three years of full operation these task forces have initiated 1,350 cases and resulted in the indictment of 8,649 individuals, 3,678 of whom have been convicted. I do not find those results particularly disappointing. I recall Mick Miller, who is a very well regarded former Chief Commissioner of Police in Victoria, saying that he had some doubts about whether we should maintain the system of jury trials in this country because somehow the police were able to achieve only a 50 per cent success rate. I think that is a fairly healthy hit rate. It does not mean that juries regarded all of the other 50 per cent as thoroughly innocent and undeserving of ever having been prosecuted and able to make claims for malicious prosecution. It simply means that convictions are secured against only approximately half those on trial. Similarly, here I would have thought that even those who were acquitted, who may well have had a decent case to answer, serve a very valuable demonstration purpose to the rest of the community. As long as they are not frivolous prosecutions-and I assume good faith on the part of the law enforcement agency in the United States, as I would make similar assumptions here-those sorts of prosecutions and pursuits play a very valuable role in undermining the community view that a person should not be entitled to engage in illegal activities, to launder large sums of cash and money with impugnity. I hope that the Cash Transaction Reports Agency will be as diligent as the United States agency seems to have been. So, I think one can say that the motives of those who support this legislation are honourable, that there are some real causes for concern in the wider community and that, even if the net effect is simply to make these current transactions more difficult, less visible and more risky for those who participate in them, that is a worthwhile achievement in itself. Convictions are a rather blunt instrument for measuring success rates. I think we can say that the objects of the Bill are laudable. When it comes to the scheme, there are two distinct reporting schemes in relation to which certain obligations will be imposed on cash dealers. Under the first scheme, cash dealers will be required to report certain cash transactions in excess of a specified sum. Sure, in the United States the figure is about $US10,000, which is obviously somewhat higher than it is here, but marginally so. The comment that somehow in 10 years time the value will be less in real terms if there is no indexing is a rather trite point at best. It is not particularly valid. It ignores the recommendation of the Senate Committee that there be a three-year review. It ignores the overwhelming likelihood that members of a government intent on maintaining its credibility in the area would not simply-- Senator Macklin —They have never done so in other legislation; you know that. Senator ALSTON —Be it upon their heads if they do not. If they are stupid enough to allow such legislation to fall into disuse-- Senator Macklin —This chamber is supposed to review legislation, not the Government. Senator ALSTON —If the honourable senator wants to proceed on the basis that everyone has the same obtuse approach to this legislation as he does, if he wants to ignore the recommendation of the Committee, which included a colleague of his, that there should be a review in three years time, and if he wants to assume that somehow the Government is intent on a window-dressing exercise that will, over a period, become progressively less effective, then he can make those assumptions; but they seem to me to be not rationally based. They are designed to fit his preconceived prejudices that somehow this is a massive intrusion into civil liberties-- Senator Macklin —What about inflation? That is what you are talking about. Senator ALSTON —Precisely. It is not very difficult to keep pace with inflation if one is minded to do so. It is certainly not a very difficult task simply to increase the limit after a period of three years, as we would assume would follow from any significant review. I do not have any difficulty with $10,000 as a limit. I do not come across too many people carrying around those sums of money as things stand at present. Senator Macklin may well have many friends who he thinks deserve to be protected from the consequences of that sort of behaviour, but it seems to me that people in that situation should have to justify themselves. That is what the Bill sets out to do. The Bill sets out a regime for requiring reporting, for requiring monitoring and for the reporting of suspect transactions on the part of financial institutions and other authorities. I regard that as desirable, just as I regard the verification procedures for new accounts as thoroughly desirable, although the limit of $1,000 may be a little on the low side. Nonetheless, I think none of us rejoiced when we saw how easy it was for Norm Gallagher to open up accounts with impugnity. Certainly, there is a good case to be made for making it more difficult for people who choose to open a variety of accounts in different names for no good reason. There may well be explanations for that sort of behaviour; but, by and large, it is normally done for tax avoidance and evasion purposes. One matter I found of particular interest was an appearance before the Committee by the Law Council of Australia. It probably has got Senator Macklin in because its members worked themselves into a lather about the requirement that a cash dealer who has reasonable grounds to suspect that information the cash dealer has concerning the transaction may be relevant to investigation of an evasion or an attempted evasion, or to an investigation or prosecution, or may be of assistance to the enforcement of the Proceeds of Crime Act, should report as soon as practicable after forming the suspicion. The Council trotted out the line that somehow one could never be sure whether one had reasonable grounds for suspicion, as though Donoghue v. Stevenson had never been decided, as though the notion of reasonableness was alien to the common law and as though somehow every right-thinking citizen was going to be agonising over whether he fell on the right side of the reasonable doubt line. I regarded that as a load of nonsense. I was particularly unimpressed by the feeble efforts to prosecute the argument before the Committee. It may well be that it has appealed to the Australian Democrats. I do not see any legitimate basis for that type of concern. The burden of compliance costs is another grey area. It is very difficult to make any sensible judgment. It is regrettable that the Business Regulation Review Unit was not asked to do some sensible work in the area and, as a result, we got a vast range of fairly back-of-the-envelope estimates by a number of institutions-banks, building societies and the like. At the end of the day I think the most important factor was that banks and others did not particularly object-obviously because they will pass on the cost, but also because they regarded it as a safety measure for their own protection. In other words, they do not like the publicity accusing them of being in league with tax cheats and those other propagators of the underground economy. They often find it difficult to justify the need for verification procedures to little old ladies who might have found $1,000 in the gutter and who want to open a new account. It is much easier for them to say that the law henceforth requires it. I think that is a perfectly legitimate approach for the banks to take. It does not seem that the costs will be inordinate. We are probably talking about $2m or $3m a year. If we are not, in due course no doubt the squeals will be heard and that can be taken into account when the review takes place. Whilst the evidence on compliance costs was fairly fuzzy, ultimately if one attempts to make a social cost benefit analysis one can say that the benefits outweigh the detriments. There are several other matters of concern. One matter of particular concern to me was the likelihood of wholesale exemptions, or, alternatively, wholesale recording. In other words, there is an option as to whether a financial institution should seek the consent of the other party to the transaction who is then required to assert, by way of statutory declaration, that the matter is worthy of exemption. Those matters can then be entered on the financial institution's register and ultimately communicated to the Agency. Because that is optional it leaves open the prospect of financial institutions simply saying that it is not worth the effort, that they will simply report every transaction that comes within the limits and about which they believe there might be reasonable grounds for suspicion. Senator Tate —I think that is a problem. Senator ALSTON —Yes. One has to assume an element of bad faith on the part of the institutions. I do not presently see that emerging, because there was not a great reluctance on the part of banks and others to embrace the legislation. Therefore, it is unlikely that they would want to sabotage it in that manner. It is one of those risks that one has to take. I would be interested to hear the explanation of the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) as to why there were not more mandatory requirements in the area. Certainly, the Committee found it difficult to understand why there was such a large element of discretion. In the United States there have been a number of complaints of excess reporting-blanket reporting, as it is called. Again, that is a matter that will have to be very carefully reviewed at the expiration of the three-year period. There was also concern that the transactions of greatest interest would be those most likely to be built within class exemptions and therefore difficult to identify. There is also the possibility of the capture of presently legitimate organisations-building societies, credit unions and the like-by organised crime and undesirable elements so that they were then able to manipulate the legislation to, in effect, fiddle the books and to not report those matters which they were clearly aware were otherwise properly characterised as illegal transactions. Again, that is a bit of a scare scenario. It is certainly a possibility, but it is highly unlikely. There are a number of prudential and other safeguards that operate on building societies and credit unions that would make such capture very difficult. Nonetheless, I think the authorities would need to be vigilant to ensure that that sort of behaviour did not take place. The National Crime Authority is also worried about loopholes-in particular, `smurfing', which we all found a cute way of describing those transactions which individually would be just below the limit but collectively would exceed it. It was judged that clause 29 hopefully would be sufficient to meet those concerns. That clause makes it an offence to structure or conduct transactions in such a way as to avoid the reporting requirements. The most likely way of such a stratagem coming to light would be as a result of an investigation by the Australian Taxation Office which could then go over the transactions with a fine toothcomb. Reference to bank statements and the like would mean that it would not be too difficult a task to demonstrate that this has been a calculated scheme to ensure that each of the transactions was singularly below the limit. I have covered my areas of concern. I repeat that there is an element of a leap of faith in all of this. We do have legitimate worries. They are ones that hopefully can be better resolved after we have been prepared to give it a fair go. All in all, I support any moves that are aimed at and have a legitimate prospect of achieving a reduction in the growth of organised crime and the spread of illegal transactions. This legislation goes a considerable way to making life more difficult for those who are intent on those sorts of activities. With those caveats, as a member of the Committee, I am prepared to give it a go. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(9.07) —Before I speak on the Cash Transaction Reports Bill 1987 I make the confession that I am a director of a major financial organisation. Financial organisations are substantially affected by this Bill. I hasten to say that nothing that I am putting forward today will have any direct personal financial effect on me. One must face up to the fact that we have serious problems with money handling, organised crime and tax evasion. Our present arrangements are not adequately dealing with them. Whether this Bill will effectively deal with them remains to be seen. As other senators have said, the only precedence we have is the rather ambiguous one from the United States. Nevertheless, the problems are so serious that we must try any reasonable measures to deal with them. This Bill seems to me-with some exceptions that I will come to in a moment-to be a reasonable way to tackle the problem. It is important that it should be kept under review. If it is not working properly it must be amended, or if it does not work at all it must be repealed. I am prepared, as other Opposition senators are, to give this new measure a fair trial. There are a number of points to be made about the Bill. The first is that it was not referred to the Business Regulation Review Unit (BRRU). The reason given for that was rather bizarre. The Attorney-General's Department advised the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that the Bill was essentially a taxation and law enforcement measure and not within the provisions under which the Government would normally seek a report from the BRRU before Cabinet consideration. That may be the way in which the reference instructions are written; if so, they are very foolish instructions. This has major implications for financial institutions and in my view it most certainly should have been considered by the Business Regulation Review Unit before it was put into force. If it had been considered by that organisation I am sure substantial changes would have been made. The real problem with this Bill is that it is a legal and law enforcement Bill and has paid very little attention to the problems of the financial institutions which are directly affected by it. I am sure that with a little more cooperation, commonsense and involvement by the financial institutions in the drafting of the Bill we would have been able to get a Bill of equal effectiveness with greatly reduced onerous provisions for the financial institutions. There are very real problems for financial institutions. I would like to focus on one in particular; that is, the account opening procedures. This Bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I think it would be fair to say that that Committee has little financial institution expertise. In its report it said: On the evidence before it- that is, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee- it appears to the Committee that the identification procedures set out in the Bill are adequate. At the same time, the Committee is concerned that those procedures will be onerous for both cash dealers and their customers. The Committee has concluded that at this time the identification procedures can be left in place but it draws attention to its recommendations for review . . . Although the Committee recommended a review, that might be a review in not less than three years and by that stage some very great difficulties might have appeared for financial institutions. To give an example, I have a letter which I have received on the subject from the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies. It says that the main concerns are the proposed account opening procedures. It goes on to say: These procedures will expand the time taken for account openings and cause customer inconvenience and costs not currently incurred. The legislation introduces a bureaucratic reporting process to and from the Director of the Cash Transaction Reports Agency and an inflexible framework for the format of data storage which will be costly for all cash dealers to implement. It goes on to state: The whole financial system of Australia favours an alternative approach to account opening which gives flexibility and efficiency. We recommend that the legislation provide for the Director of the proposed Cash Transaction Reports Agency to determine by regulation, if need be, a `code of practice' for account openings to be followed by all cash dealers. It recommends-and I agree with it-that instead of the provisions for identification being inflexibly put in the proposed Act, it should be done by regulation and be made more flexible and altered more easily. I wish the Senate Committee had examined that more carefully than it appears to have done because I think it has very real merits. Despite that, one cannot deny that there are real problems in identification procedures at the moment. The $750,000 deposited perfectly legally by Mr Luigi Locarno on behalf of the Builders Labourers Federation is an example. One hears anecdotal tales-one I have bothered to verify-of accounts being opened with no difficulty at all by people in the name of Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. Banks accept savings bank deposits in such accounts with no identification required. I will not name the banks but I could if challenged. Quite clearly, that has to be tackled. The question is whether the inflexible procedures of putting identification requirements in the Act is the right way to handle what is, by common consent, novel legislation. I believe that it should have been done by regulation, which can be modified much more quickly than an Act can be amended. The Committee also recommended that there be a review of the legislation. In its report it stated: The Committee is of the opinion that the operation of legislation of this type-that is, novel legislation-should be reviewed after a suitable period of time. What is a suitable period of time will depend on the circumstances of each case . . . In the case of the Cash Transaction Reports Bill, if it is enacted the Committee considers three years from its commencement to be a suitable period of time. That might be appropriate for the basic thrust of the Bill because its effect on crime prevention and its effect on tax evasion will definitely not be clear for three years. But the problems which financial institutions have over identification and the costs involved will become clearer much earlier. I would like an assurance from the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) that if a report is given within six months or so of problems being encountered by financial institutions in dealing with this part of the Act and there are constructive suggestions on how the Act might be modified to make it as effective but less onerous on financial institutions, the Government will give sympathetic consideration to an early amendment to the Act. Senator HILL(South Australia)(9.15) —Tonight the Senate is debating the Cash Transaction Reports Bill 1987. As has been said, the Opposition supports the Bill. It is fair to say that it is a support not without some misgivings. As I said on the presentation of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs report on this Bill some little time ago, it is a difficult task to evaluate the benefits as against the deficits. It is very hard to weigh the benefits with any certainty and it is very difficult to weigh the costs. I will commence by trying to put this Bill in some historical context. I remind the Senate of a previous report some four years ago of the then Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs after an examination of the Government's proposed National Crime Authority Bill. The Committee made specific reference in that report to the lack of legislative tools in the fight against organised crime. A lack of appropriate offences existed at that time as well as an incapacity to effectively follow the money trail and insufficient capacity to seize proceeds of crime. We were not the only ones to point out these legislative shortcomings. A number of royal commissioners had called for stronger measures to deal with the abuse of the facilities of financial and other institutions in relation to tax evasion and money laundering. With the assistance of the submission of the Attorney-General's Department to the Senate Committee inquiring into this Bill, I remind honourable senators that the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs in 1980 recommended that law enforcement agencies should pay increased attention to the financial aspect of the illegal importation, production and trafficking in drugs. I further remind honourable senators that the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking echoed the Williams Royal Commission's recommendation for laws aimed at confiscating the proceeds of crime. The Stewart Royal Commission and the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and special prosecutors Giles and Redlich all recommended that there be legislation preserving financial records so that law enforcement investigators could follow the money trail. Even more recently, the National Crime Authority has highlighted the ease with which funds can be secreted by the use of false names. By and large, I think that it is fair to say that the Government has gone down the path of giving law enforcement bodies the capacity in legislative form to at least become competitive with organised crime. In our opinion it may not have been so generous in the provision of resources but at least there are now a number of Acts which have been passed by the Parliament and which give these bodies greater resources to meet the scourge of organised crime. Briefly, this is really the fourth of a series-the first being the Telecommunications Interception (Amendment) Act which extended existing interception powers which relate to certain narcotic offences to a wider range of serious offences and enable certain other law enforcement agencies in addition to the Australian Federal Police to seek interception warrants. There then followed the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act of 1987 which provides the legislative basis for Australia to enter into arrangements with other countries under which it can request and grant assistance relating to criminal investigation, prosecution and proceeds of crime. The third Act is the Proceeds of Crime Act. It provides for the freezing and confiscation of property used in and derived from the commission of an indictable offence. It creates a number of other offences, for example, the offence of money laundering, which is something that we have been urging for some time, and organised fraud. The Act requires financial institutions to preserve the money trail by restraining certain documents. This is something which had been specifically urged by the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and it gives police additional powers of access to such documents through production orders and search warrants. They are the three principal Bills that have been passed in recent times. The fourth of those Bills is in fact the one that is before the Senate tonight-the Cash Transaction Reports Bill. This is another Bill which has as its principal responsibility providing greater capacity for enforcement agencies to combat organised crime. It does so through a number of means. First, it requires the reporting of certain domestic currency transactions in excess of $10,000 to the Cash Transaction Reports Agency. Secondly, it requires the reporting of certain currency transactions in excess of $5,000 to and from Australia. I remind you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that when I spoke a few days ago on the report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs I made specific mention of the fact that the Government's changes in allowing ease of transfer of funds to and from Australia have, in fact, facilitated organised crime, as has been evidenced in a number of recent reports. This, to some extent, will answer that concern. This Bill, thirdly, requires cash dealers to report suspect transactions. This is something that we would prefer not to have been included in legislative form; but, as I will demonstrate in a few moments, it is something that seems, regrettably, to have become necessary. Fourthly, the legislation establishes a Cash Transaction Reports Agency to collect, retain, compile, analyse and disseminate information relating to cash transaction reports. The enforcement bodies have stressed in their submissions on this Bill that the whole effectiveness of this arrangement will depend on just how efficiently and promptly returns are in fact analysed and the information therefrom disseminated. Fifthly, the Bill imposes obligations on cash dealers in relation to the verification of identity of persons seeking to open accounts. I concede what Senator Macklin said-the legislation relates to future accounts and not to existing accounts. One might say that that is a shortcoming. But in all these matters, one has to try to find a balance. We on this side believe that to be a fair balance. Lastly, the legislation will create an offence of opening or operating a bank account or similar account with a cash dealer in a false name. As has been demonstrated by my colleague, Senator Hamer, when he spoke on this matter, that has happened all too often. Now there will be a disincentive to engage in such a course of action, which amounts to an offence. This Bill follows down much the same path as the United States Bank Secrecy Act. I also concede that there are differing views as to how successful that Act has been. Those in the United States who have the task of enforcing that legislation claim that it has been successful. But there are others in the financial industry who argue to the contrary. By accepting the compulsory concept, it then follows that we have rejected the United Kingdom and Canadian model of the provision of voluntary information. Certainly, on my analysis, it does not seem that the schemes in those countries have worked particularly well. There is no doubt that this Bill infringes upon one's financial privacy. There is no doubt also that the legislation will impose a financial cost on the total community. I say `the total community' because we will all financially bear the cost. The cost to financial institutions and banks will, in fact, be passed on to us. There is a deficit side to this Bill and, therefore, it is important that the Bill not be enacted without careful consideration being given to it. In those circumstances, the Senate, in its wisdom, referred the Bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for evaluation and report. As I indicated, the Senate Committee found that to be a difficult task, particularly on the cost side as evidenced by the number of conflicting submissions as to the likely financial and administrative costs. On balance, nevertheless, the Committee recommended that the Bill be enacted with the caution that it be reviewed preferably in three years time at the latest. The Committee reached that conclusion largely on the basis that it would only be after a period of practice that any accurate assessment could be made in respect of costs and deficits. The Committee, therefore, made that recommendation. The Committee recommended that there should be a wide review-a review that would include the economic, taxation, privacy and law enforcement implications of the Bill. I hope that the Government has accepted the Committee's recommendation in that regard. I do not seem to have seen a Government reply to the Committee's report. I hope that when the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) winds up the second reading debate, he will be able to indicate that the Government has in fact accepted the Committee's recommendation. Certainly, as I indicated, on that basis my Party is prepared to accept the Committee's recommendation. When one had the task of trying to balance both sides of this equation, I suppose that three examples that were put before the Committee weighed most heavily in my mind and forced me to come down on the side of this legislation being a necessary tool for law enforcement bodies. Two of those examples were put to the Committee by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the other was put by the National Crime Authority. Briefly, I want to being them to the Senate's attention because I think they demonstrate in a very vivid way the abuses that have taken place within our community by the use of cash dealings in organised crime. The first one was a matter that concerned an officer of a travel service company who notified the Australian Federal Police that United States travellers cheques to the value of $100,000 had been purchased by two persons using cash. The amount had made him suspicious. The Australian Federal Police conducted an investigation and discovered that a syndicate had imported a large consignment of drugs and was planning a further large importation. A number of people were arrested and charged under the Customs Act and assets worth well in excess of $1m were seized and secured. During the investigation-and this is the important part-it was discovered that the syndicate had, in a number of previous cash dealings involving several banks, purchased bank cheques to a total of $720,718. These transactions had not been reported. The second example was a case that was under investigation at the time that the submission was lodged. Australian Federal Police officers discovered that over a period of three months over $6m in cash was deposited in a bank and, within a short time, transferred to various overseas destinations as part of a money laundering scheme. The largest single deposit was more than $1.5m in $50, $20 and $10 notes. A further cause for suspicion was that on one occasion the money deposited had horse chaff and hay mixed with it. But notwithstanding these highly unusual aspects, the bank concerned-one of our respected banks-had not regarded this transaction of a sufficiently unusual nature to refer it to the Australian Federal Police. Of course, under this legislation it would have to do so. The last example I want to cite is one that was put to us by the National Crime Authority. This case followed from the well-known Operation Silo investigation, which the Authority claimed showed the difficulties involved in identifying cash laundered through the financial system. Cornwell and Bull, who were major targets in the investigation, received large amounts of cash from drug sales. They managed to transfer the proceeds overseas at little or no risk to themselves. They brought cash in amounts of $200,000 at a time to two branches of a particular bank. The cash was used to purchase telegraphic transfers to Swiss bank accounts controlled by Cornwell. A total of at least $1.2m was remitted to Switzerland in June 1985 by this method; in other words, buying bank transfers with huge sums of cash. In each case the transfers were purchased in false names-to reinforce Senator Hamer's point-by persons who had no legitimate accounts with the bank and who produced no identification. Furthermore, a large number of cash deposits of less than $10,000 were made at various banks in false names and the proceeds remitted to a bank account in England. Finally, on at least two occasions in 1985 associates of Cornwell and Bull purchased gold bars from a particular gold bullion dealer in Sydney for cash amounting to approximately $240,000 on each occasion. At a later time another associate resold 20 gold bars to the same bullion dealer in exchange for a cheque for $477,000. The cheque was used to purchase a bank draft for $US316,000, deposited in a Swiss bank account. Under legislation existing in 1985, these transactions were not brought to the attention of the authority by the relevant financial institutions. Had it not been for the chance discovery of documentation on an associate of Cornwell's arrested overseas, this evidence would not have become available and the confiscation of a large portion of the abovementioned funds would not have been possible. Those three examples were certainly sufficient in my mind, where the costs of the Bill had been difficult to assess and upon which there had been conflicting evidence, to determine that the Government should have this piece of legislation and that the law enforcement authorities which supported it-the National Crime Authority, the DPP and the Attorney-General's office-should be given this extra resource in law enforcement. I will briefly tell you, Madam Acting Deputy President, of the assessment of the NCA of the importance of following the money trail in combating organised crime because it does indicate how broad the scope of this matter becomes. It is the NCA's view that it is a valuable tool to deter persons from criminal activity, including money laundering; it is valuable in assisting the detection and investigation of a crime; it is useful to identify assets acquired as a result of that crime in order to enable forfeiture or pecuniary penalty and civil remedies proceedings to be undertaken; and it is helpful in identifying large amounts of undisclosed income or individuals involved in taxation evasion. As the NCA reminds us, more generally the existence of large amounts of black cash in society undermines the values and legitimate sources of power in that society. It facilitates corruption and undermines the safeguards that are so important to our way of life. I was persuaded, therefore, that this Bill was worth while. At the very least it would make life for the criminal more difficult. How to launder illegally obtained money is one major challenge that faces a criminal because the head of organised crime wants to get the criminally obtained funds to himself through some legitimate avenue. As the NCA reminds us, often it is just as easy to detect the criminal in his attempt to launder the funds as it is in relation to detecting the original crime. Finally, as the NCA reminds us, the most successful and common method of laundering illegally obtained cash is through legitimate financial institutions, particularly banks. As we all know, cash leaves little record of its movement or, indeed, of its very existence. In conclusion, in supporting the Bill those of us on this side of the House are, nevertheless, very conscious of our responsibility to ensure that legislation of this type does not go beyond that which is necessary; in other words, as much as possible to protect the financial privacy of the individual. We have seen the responsibility that has been placed on us in recent times, as honourable senators would be aware, in regard to this Government's ID card Bill where it was necessary to answer the Government's unnecessary intrusion upon personal liberties. There is no doubt that this Bill, although it does include some safeguards, is a further erosion of those personal liberties. That is one reason why in the Committee we believed that it was important that it be reassessed after only three years, but it also reminds us of the importance for broad-based privacy legislation in this country to ensure that governments and administrative bodies of government are not abusing their responsibility. I join with the comments that were made by Senator Macklin. I am disturbed that the Government's privacy Bill seems to have disappeared in the reference to the extended tax file numbers and methods in tonight's economic statement. I assure the Senate that the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that I mentioned earlier has a reference that includes the question of privacy in looking at what the Government intended in the ID card Bill. We are certainly going to look at the importance of national broad-based privacy legislation, even if the Government is not going to go on with it, in order that we can properly inform the Senate and hopefully the Senate can then make wise decisions that will protect the privacy of Australians to every extent that is reasonably possible. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(9.36) —This evening we are debating the Cash Transaction Reports Bill 1987. I wish to state quite clearly right at the beginning that the Opposition has always taken the attitude that we favour any action that will attack, curtail or prevent organised crime and its money laundering and also support any initiative that will make sure that people pay their just taxes. While it is alleged that that is exactly what this Bill is designed to do, I briefly wish to express some reservations. This Bill presupposes that all the big time crooks, drug dealers and so forth are going to have a colossal net thrown over their heads and that they will continue to deal in the ways in which they have supposedly dealt in the past. I really question that because I do not think that anyone who is cognisant of this type of legislation would continue to deal in the way in which he has in the past. Nonetheless, while this notion would be wonderful if it were true, there are a number of considerations that should be taken into account. This Bill seeks that all cash transactions exceeding $10,000 be reported to the Cash Transaction Reports Agency; that persons transferring more than $5,000 worth of foreign currency in or out of Australia are reported, and of course there are limited exceptions with that clause; and financial institutions will be obliged to verify all signatories of present and future accounts. In that respect there is an element of retrospectivity which many financial institutions are concerned about from the point of view that the retrospective element of getting people in to verify their accounts is going to not only to be time consuming but also very costly. The information reported to the Agency will then be made available to the Australian Taxation Office on an unrestricted basis. I suppose that is really where I have one of my major concerns. More reporting by agencies to government departments-in other words, an exchange of information-does worry me. In the knowledge that this Hawke Government would have had us all tagged with an ID card by now if it had its way, anyone would really need to be concerned about further exchanges of information from department to department. But there is an automatic presumption of guilt should anyone dare to withdraw $10,000 in cash from his account and that all cash transactions are illicit. I think that that automatic presumption of guilt is something that we must make sure is not a way of life. There are obviously many areas where cash is transferred in such amounts legally. I recognise that there are a few people who deal in such large amounts of cash. Nonetheless, the Bill creates an expanded bureaucracy that will have expanded surveillance powers. The concerns about the expanded bureaucracy and the expanded surveillance powers that this Bill creates are similar to the concerns that people had about the identity card and the surveillance powers that were going to be attached to that. I, too, share the concerns of my colleague Senator Robert Hill, who just mentioned the privacy legislation, which has somehow disappeared, in terms of making sure that there is absolute and utter privacy. It has been quite clearly stated that this Bill is modelled on the 1970 United States Bank Secrecy Act. Some people have said that this Act was highly successful, but the information I have received is that doubts have emerged as to the effectiveness of this Act. A report to Congress some 10 years after it was actually brought in suggested that law enforcement agencies were making little use of the reports. If the Act is that successful, why are they not making more use of those reports? Furthermore, some 16 years later the United States Treasury had not officially determined the effectiveness of the legislation. There were further problems of great backlogs, and the Customs and tax departments made greater use of the Act than the law enforcement agencies. I realise that this Bill is in fact a two-pronged attack and should be seen as such. But if it is being modelled on the US experience, why has not the US experience been better and more highly recommended than it has thus far? Whilst it is desirable to close off the flourishing top end of the cash economy and to ensure that people pay their taxes, it is to me equally vital that criminals be brought to justice and it will be only the lunatic criminal who will be caught by this legislation, as I mentioned before, as identities can be manufactured in a multitude of ways. The Bill also fails to recognise that dirty money will continue to be laundered through a variety of separate accounts, possibly using smaller amounts of money. They are all things that have to be considered. I do not think the Bill addresses those issues properly. It will be the people with the least resources who will be interrogated and nailed to the wall, because the big time criminal will have all the resources in the world. I think that is where we will be looking down the barrel as we will be creating a flourishing world of people designing new ways to get round the system. It worries me that this legislation will make criminals more creative and innovative and that it will actually increase the underground cash economy, not prevent it. If that does not eventuate, so be it. That would be desirable. But I do not see this Bill as really covering those basic areas of concern. To me the best way of locating criminals is to target them specifically. At best, the US Bank Secrecy Act provides corroborative rather than primary evidence. The obligation under this Bill is on the institutions, not on the users. Clause 24 of the Bill gives the police and/or Customs officers powers of confiscation and seizure based on suspicion rather than proof. To me this Bill should have corroborative evidence provisions rather than those of suspicion. There are, of course, concerns that under this legislation visitors could be heavily penalised if they are unaware of the provisions. Another area of concern is the largely unknown cost of compliance and whether those costs will be passed on to the consumer. I suppose we could bet London to a brick that they will. What will be the size and cost of the expanded bureaucracy and the cost of the ongoing reporting? It goes without saying that the business community needs less regulation, not more. There are many people in both the business community and the community in general who are very worried about the implications of this Bill. While the costs mentioned in this Bill include computer installation and the staffing of the Cash Transaction Reports Agency, the Government does not give any consideration to the costs borne by the administering banks and institutions, which have been estimated to be between $60m and $100m. While we are debating this Bill tonight, we must be aware that it applies only to cash transactions over $10,000. But who is to say that this Government, which was hell-bent, and I believe still is, on having a dossier collection for every citizen, will not attempt at a later date to decrease the amount, have it apply to cheques or extend the dossier collection generally. Many Australians are concerned about that. In summary, if this legislation achieves its goals, it may be commendable. However, if it is simply putting in place a strategy for inquiring into the cash transactions of any person at any time, there is cause for real concern. I am, however, relieved at the recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs about reviewing this legislation within three years. I note that in the report the Committee emphasises that the important thing is to establish the authority-this is, of course, in terms of reviewing it-with the correct type of data that will give the information sought. We would want to know about the flow of things, the existence of the information responsible for picking up the money laundering that was going on, how many transactions it actually produced and whether it was merely corroborative evidence-in other words, what weight could be given to its value? The Committee recommends that the operations of this Bill be reviewed after a suitable period, preferably not longer than three years, and that the review include the economic, taxation, privacy and law enforcement implications of the Bill. I guess that the only reason why I have a little bit of confidence that it may be able to do what it is setting out to do is that that review period will be set in place. If it did not have a review period, I would be most concerned. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.47) —We are tonight addressing the Cash Transaction Reports Bill. This Bill has had, as I think others have observed, a rather chequered history. It was originally introduced in the other place in May of last year by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). After the intervention of the general election it was revised, after consultation in particular with the Australian Bankers Association and with other financial institutions, particularly in respect of the verification procedures which are laid down in the Bill concerning so-called cash dealers. The revised Bill, the present one, was introduced into the Senate late last year by the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) and was referred, I think because of some doubts expressed on this side of the chamber, to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on 15 December last year. That Committee, of which I am a member, reported last month. I think it is fair to say that the Committee's report, which is a substantial document in terms of length and so on, is less substantial when it comes to its recommendations, which I think it is fair to say are relatively minor. There are only two recommendations and the only one which one could describe as possibly other than minor is the recommendation that the working of the Bill, if enacted-as it undoubtedly will be-should be reviewed within a period of roughly three years of its coming into force. Both of those recommendations have been accepted by the Government, and naturally I welcome that. The purpose of the Bill was set out by the Minister for Justice in his second reading speech in the Senate last year, when he said: This Bill will give law enforcement agencies the ability to monitor the movement of large amounts of cash, and thus to identify the recipients of proceeds of crime. It is, of course, those elements of society-namely, tax evaders and recipients of the proceeds of crime-against whom the provisions of the Bill are meant to be directed. Having sat through the evidence and through the proceedings of the Senate Committee and later, to some degree, over the preparation of its reports, I have to say that I think the claim on the Minister's part at that time is a considerable overstatement. The Bill will not give law enforcement agencies the ability to monitor the movement of large amounts of cash for reasons which I think are probably fairly obvious if one thinks about it for any length of time and which have already been referred to in the Senate tonight by some of the preceding speakers. As they have pointed out the very enactment of the Bill is undoubtedly going to produce a change in behaviour on the part of both criminal elements and tax evaders in the society. Much though we may wish otherwise, that is the reality, and we are blinkered in our vision if we do not understand that. It follows from that that it is unlikely that the Bill will be successful in identifying major-I underline that word-tax evaders and the recipients of the proceeds of major crime. I will have something more to say about that when I come to consider what in specific terms the Committee had to say in regard to the effectiveness of the Bill, if enacted. I want to underline that the real question that is being increasingly asked in my own mind and that of some others about the Bill is whether the purpose, as stated by the Minister in his second reading speech and as quoted a moment ago, is likely to be achieved. If one reads the Minister's second reading speech-and this is of course six months later-one has to confess to a feeling that a number of the claims in it are a bit overblown. Senator Macklin, I think, suggested earlier this evening that the Government, including the Minister, had been once again snowed by its public servants. I do not know whether that is true, but I must say that, having sat through all the hearings of the Senate Committee and listened, in particular, to witnesses from the Attorney-General's Department, I confess to some continuing personal unease along the same lines as Senator Macklin. Of course, part of that unease does stem from the magnitude of the claims made by the Minister last year. For example, he said, and I am quoting again from the second reading speech: This Bill represents one of the most significant initiatives to counter the underground cash economy, tax evasion and money laundering. I suppose, if one takes that statement literally, it may very well be true in so far as there have not been perhaps many other initiatives directed at those totally desirable objectives. I suppose, if one takes it literally, as I say, one could say, therefore, that this is one of the most significant of such initiatives. However, I think that there is a certain amount of rodomontade in that claim which, again, I have to say I think does not quite live up to specification when it comes to looking at how the Bill is likely to work in practice. Later the Minister in his speech went on to say: The Bill provides comprehensive measures for the control of the cash economy. That is a very large claim and I have to say that I do not think it is at all sustainable for reasons, again, which I hope to address briefly at a later stage in my remarks. The Minister went on to say, again at a later stage in his speech: The reporting and verification- that is to say, those procedures of the Bill- will be of great value in following the money trial in relation to proceeds of all criminal activities, including tax evasion, and in detecting financiers of criminal activity, such as drug trafficking. I only wish that were true because all of us in this place would share the view that, to achieve such objectives would be highly desirable. Again, I have to say that I think the claims are overstated and not inconsiderably overstated. One of the reasons perhaps which underlay the last claim of the Minister which I have just quoted-or perhaps that of whoever it was who may have drafted those passages of his speech for him-was the statement which followed immediately in his speech: The thrust of the scheme is broadly similar to the successful scheme in operation in the United States. That of course raised the question, which was a question that the Committee sought to address, not very successfully, namely, how successful has that United States legislation been. It is fair to say that the evidence on that matter was conflicting at best and I might go further and say disappointing at worst. Paragraph 8.10 of the concluding chapter of the report is where the Committee very much in summary form concluded: The United States of America is the only country to have enacted comparable measures- that is comparable to those now proposed in the Bill- The evidence of the American experience is inconsistent. For those who want to find further elaboration of that conclusion, they will, of course, find it in the Hansard transcripts of the evidence given before the Committee. I stress that there is probably no difference I suspect between any senator in this place when it comes to the desirability of the objectives of defeating organised crime in this country and cracking down on tax evasion. Where the doubts arise, therefore, is not in relation to those universally accepted objectives but in the attempt to weigh the costs of doing so, the cost which this Bill seems likely to impose. I am not speaking of financial costs. There will be some financial costs and they are addressed in the Committee's report. They need no further elaboration from me. I am speaking in terms of the cost which has underlaid the real concerns expressed by many people on being informed about this Bill, that is the cost in terms of possible intrusion into people's privacy. Those are the chief costs which have to be weighed against the asserted-and I underline that word-but as yet, as I think the Minister would agree, unproven benefits. The Committee did its best-it may not have been a very effective best-to assess such evidence as it could bring before it on that question of the effectiveness or the benefits from this legislation if enacted. Perhaps the passages of the report to which attention needs to be particularly directed in that respect are paragraphs 3.19 to 3.21 appearing at page 19 of the report. They address the whole topic of money laundering, which is what the Bill is concerned to deal with. It may be worth while quoting the three short paragraphs in question. Paragraph 3.19 of the report states: Money may be laundered in a variety of ways. Increasing resort to the unlawful cash economy in order to avoid dealing with the regular financial institutions is one simple and obvious technique of avoiding the provisions of the Bill. All that paragraph is saying is that in this area, as in some others, the act of enacting this legislation will itself almost certainly be bound to produce a change in the behaviour of those whom the Bill seeks to survey. A well-known law in the area of monetary economics is Goodhart's law, which says that any measure of the money supply which you seek to control immediately becomes useless as a control measure because it immediately changes once people know that you are seeking to control it. There is an obvious parallel in the area that we are talking about. I see the Minister nodding his head; I am glad to have his assent because it is a commonsense conclusion and no more than that. In paragraph 3.20 the Committee said: The Committee is concerned that the exemption provisions- that is, the exemption provisions of the Bill- may provide a means of avoiding the reporting provisions of the Bill. The exemption provisions leave it open to a person interested in laundering cash to `perhaps consider buying a retail business or one of those businesses which by its very nature, under this legislation is designed not to attract the attention of the authorities'. That is a passage from the evidence given before the Committee. Again, it is no more than a commonsense conclusion. We all know from our knowledge of the activities of criminal elements, particularly major and well-organised criminal elements in other societies and no doubt in this one as well-we may be less knowledgeable about it here, at least publicly less so-that such major criminal elements are very well-organised and perfectly capable of equipping themselves with businesses which, to quote the Committee, by their very nature, under this legislation, are designed not to attract the attention of the authorities. Finally, paragraph 3.21 of the report stated: The Committee considers also that under the provisions of the Bill it might be possible to take control of a cash dealer- that is, `cash dealer' as defined for the purposes of the Bill- such as a building society or credit union. The Committee notes the evidence that building societies are `co-operative organisations and are not for sale'- that is obviously true- but considers that control of a building society, as opposed to its purchase, may nevertheless be possible. The same could perhaps be true of a credit union. They were three key paragraphs in which the Committee sought to set down for the information of the Senate its doubts as to the possibilities which not a prolonged period of thought opens up to anyone who has thought about how one might go about evading the effective provisions of the Bill after it has been enacted. No doubt if one had one's livelihood at stake, so to speak, if one were personally involved in the matter, one could find a good many other possible such loopholes to exploit. The Committee concluded on this aspect, at paragraph 8.8 of its conclusions chapter: The Committee has formed the view that the Bill, if enacted, will, as part of a law enforcement package- it is important to emphasise that because the Government has made much of that point and it is perfectly fair and valid to emphasise it- probably yield additional information to law enforcement agencies. This information could be expected to concern, in the main, relatively unsophisticated operations designed to evade tax or launder money. I think the Committee is saying there, in perhaps less formal language, that the Bill, if enacted, is likely to provide the law enforcement authorities and taxation authorities with some information about what one might call the Mr Littles in society but is unlikely-I would say totally unlikely-to provide them with such information about the activities of the Mr Bigs, about whom we should be principally concerned. It is perfectly arguable that even to catch up with or to get further information about the Mr Littles is not an undesirable objective-and I would be the first to agree with that-but if we could know, as distinct from hypothesising or assuming, that is all the Bill is likely to achieve, one might have one's doubts rather strongly reinforced about whether the other costs of the legislation relating to intrusion of privacy and so on could really be justified. Paragraph 8.9 of the conclusions chapter of the report states: The Committee foresees a change in behaviour as criminal elements or tax evaders are forced to operate outside the regular financial system. It would expect an increase in the unlawful cash economy consequent upon the enactment of the Bill. The Bill needs to be evaluated in this context. I interpolate that at one point in the Committee's proceedings one member of the Committee was heard to remark that what the Government was really about in this piece of legislation was to produce a safe-led recovery with all our criminal elements buying safes in which they can hold large amounts of cash to conduct their future dealings. I do not proceed with that no doubt frivolous interpolation. In paragraph 8.10 the Committee was finally forced into concluding, the only conclusion that it could almost by definition arrive at or by hypothesis arrive at: The evidence available to the Committee was insufficient to enable it to reach a firm view on the effectiveness of the Bill, were it to become law. That conclusion is somewhat depressing in that in the almost totally unchartered waters of this kind it would have been wrong of the Committee to say flatly one way or the other, `Yes, the Bill will be very effective', or alternatively `totally ineffective'. The Committee has expressed the conclusion that it will probably be somewhat effective but almost certainly that effectiveness will be confined to dealing with the Mr Littles. Before concluding I wish to make only one other point. One of the aspects of the Bill that has attracted some attention relates to the verification procedures. We were told by both representatives of the banks and the building societies that the verification procedures that are to be laid down in the legislation do not now differ vastly, although perhaps in some of the mechanics they do, from those in respect of new accounts that both banks and building societies are now themselves insisting upon before they accept new accounts from customers. That differs from past practice in the case of both sets of financial institutions but both have realised in the light of some experience over recent years that their past somewhat cavalier procedures were not really good enough in circumstances of today and perhaps the changed society of today. In connection with the verification procedures I noted only this evening what the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has had to say in his economic statement, which he brought down at 7.30 tonight, about the new tax file number. In the time available to us this evening to try to assimilate this enormous mass of paper which the Government has produced, I will not pretend that I have fully absorbed all the government said on this matter. It strikes me that at least in some respects the Government's proposal for the tax file number may be in effect a kind of braces to the belt it is already applying through the cash transactions reporting procedures under this Bill. I simply leave that comment there without attempting to pursue it this evening. Perhaps at some stage the Government may want to look at the question of whether there is not a degree of double provision, so to speak, being made. Some of my colleagues have emphasised that when all is said both sides of the chamber have to arrive at judgments about this matter. It is fair to say that some of the more extreme alarms that have been raised about this Bill are unjustified in the sense that the Bill does not, for the most part, deal with what one normally thinks of as transactions; that is to say, dealing in cheques and matters of that kind but only with, at least in the major part of the Bill, cash transactions, that is, currency, notes of the realm or some other realm. As some other speakers have said, it is not normal, for many of us at least, to have as much as $10,000 in our hands in notes of the realm or notes of some other country. In that sense we are unlikely to find any of our transactions coming under the surveillance procedures of the Cash Transaction Reports Agency which is proposed to be set up under the Bill. However, I should say that there is one exception to that, and that is the so-called suspect transactions provisions of the Bill in clause 14. I think it might be better to reserve what I have to say on that until the committee stage because that is a provision of a very different kind from the Bill as a whole. It is almost as though it is a separate Bill built into the Cash Transaction Reports Bill because it deals with transactions of all kinds-not only in cash but also all other forms of exchange-and it also has to do with transactions of any magnitude, not necessarily magnitudes in excess of $10,000, or $5,000 in the case of overseas transactions. All that having been said, on balance a judgment has to be made about this Bill. The judgment that the Opposition has reached has been that it would not be possible for us to state with certainty that the costs of the legislation are excessive in terms of the benefits that it is asserted that it will bring, even though we may have doubts about the latter point. Therefore, the Opposition has decided not to oppose the legislation. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.13) —in reply-I thank all honourable senators who have contributed to the second reading debate on the Cash Transaction Reports Bill 1987, particularly those who sat on the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, whose deliberations I believe were useful and demonstrated, once again, the benefits that can be derived from Senate committee consideration of legislation-however irritating it was at the time to the Government that the Bill be sent off. But I believe that the report was valuable and it helped to allay many of the fears and misgivings which were abroad in the community concerning the possible impact of this legislation. Indeed, I think I can do almost no better in my summing up than to adopt most of what fell from the lips of Senator Alston, who I thought gave a very fine speech-except for the section where he said of Senator Macklin that he was surrounded by friends who carried large amounts of cash in brown paper bags. I am sure that that is not the case. Apart from that, I think Senator Alston's robust defence of the work of his Committee and of the Bill itself is something that I can certainly adopt. In that respect, I think what Senator Alston said probably characterises most of the debate this evening; that is, that what could be endorsed of this Bill could be put on the balance of probabilities. I think Senator Alston spoke of a measured degree of confidence in the operation of the Bill fulfilling its objectives, and I think that the objectives might be stated or achieved in a more modest way than was perhaps first thought. But I do not accept for a moment that the Government-including, certainly, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen)-has been swamped or snowed by bureaucrats in relation to this piece of legislation. Madam Acting Deputy President, it may be of interest to you to learn that the Attorney-General went to the United States of America and saw for himself and inquired for himself about the operation of the legislation upon which this Bill is modelled. It was his conviction that it was working in the United States, which gave him confidence in putting forward this measure as one part of a package of measures dealing with the assault on organised crime in this country. In that respect, I do not think any government could claim to have shown such an innovative approach to the legislative apparatus of government sanctioned by this Parliament which should be part of the armoury of any society in trying to defend itself against the depredations and the corruption of society which flow from the operations of organised criminal activity. I give to Senator Hamer, who has returned to the chamber, the assurance he sought in his remarks. The Committee thought that a substantial and comprehensive review of the legislation might be undertaken in some three years from the commencement of its operation. It would be only sensible. I give the assurance that should some particular difficulty arise in relation to the two matters which Senator Hamer raised-namely, the process of the opening of new accounts, the verification of identity process, and in relation to the burdens that might be put on the cash dealers concerned-the Government will undertake to review any such difficulty that emerges of a substantial kind which may warrant amendment. In relation to Senator Stone and Goodhart's law, which he mentioned in relation to some analogy with economics, I believe that this Bill will change the behaviour of those who, at the moment, are trying to evade tax or hide the ill-gotten gains of organised criminal activity by dealing in large amounts of cash-$10,000 or more. Obviously, they will seek other methods of laundering their funds, including the simple one of resorting to cash transactions of a lesser amount. But, of course, as with telephone interception, that leads to an environment of greater difficulty for criminals. They have to choose means other than simply the ones presently available to deal with the cash that is generated by their nefarious enterprises. In that situation their activities become more difficult to control, more complex and more easily detectable. So I think the analogy with what happens when criminals become aware that their telephones might be tapped and they have to resort to physical face to face meetings and so on, deals with Senator Stone's quite valid point. As I have said, I thank those honourable senators who have contributed to the debate. I believe that this legislation is extremely important. I accept the good faith of the Australian Democrats in their constant support of this Government, up to the point of this Bill, in combating organised crime, particularly in Senator Macklin's case. Senator Haines —Gee, thanks! Senator TATE —Senator Macklin, of course, was very good on the Joint Statutory Committee on the National Crime Authority. Senator Haines —I was on the Committee. Senator TATE —Senator Haines, as a predecessor, was most distinguished. But in this case I think they have failed to listen sufficiently closely to the experience of their colleague Senator Powell on the committee dealing with the Cash Transaction Reports Agency, whose hearings were conducted under the aegis of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Had they done so, they would have been joining the rest of the chamber-which I hope will be demonstrated in less than 20 seconds-in passing the second reading stage of this legislation. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Alston, R. K. A. Knowles, S. C.Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R.Aulich, T. G. McGauran, J. J.Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter McKiernan, J. P.Beahan, M. E. McMullan, R. F.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Maguire, G. R.Black, J. R. Messner, A. J.Bolkus, N. Morris, J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M.Brownhill, D. G. C. Panizza, J. H.Burns, B. R. Parer, W. R.Calvert, P. H. Patterson, K. C. L.Chapman, H. G. P. Ray, RobertChilds, B. K. Reid, M. E.Coates, J. Reynolds, M.Collins, R. L. Schacht, C. C.Colston, M. A. (Teller) Sheil, G.Cook, P. F. S. Short, J. R.Cooney, B. C. Sibraa, K. W.Crowley, R. A. Tambling, G. E. J.Devereux, J. R. Tate, M. C.Devlin, A. R. Teague, B. C.Foreman, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S.Hill, R. M. Zakharov, A. O. Coulter, J. R. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Haines, J. Powell, J. F.Jenkins, J. A. Sanders, N. K.McLean, P. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.25) —The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs received representations from firms engaged in armoured vehicle cash carrying operations seeking dispensation from the reporting requirements contained in clause 7 of the Bill. We have accommodated those requests and recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee. I seek leave to move amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 together. Leave granted. Senator TATE —I move: (1) Page 2, clause 3, after the definition of ``approved'' insert the following definition: `` `approved cash carrier' means a cash dealer declared by the Director to be an approved cash carrier under section 7a;''. (2) Page 9, clause 7, at the end of subclause (1) add the following word and paragraph: ``; or (e) the cash dealer is an approved cash carrier.''. (3) Page 9, after clause 7, insert the following new clause: Approved cash carriers ``7a. (1) The Director may, by notice published in the Gazette, declare a cash dealer, being a person referred to in paragraph (k) of the definition of `cash dealer' in subsection 3 (1), to be an approved cash carrier if the Director is satisfied that: (a) the cash dealer maintains records containing reportable details of significant cash transactions to which the cash dealer is a party; and (b) the declaration of the cash dealer as an approved cash carrier would not be inconsistent with the objects of this Act. ``(2) In this section: `reportable details' has the same meaning as in section 7.''. (4) Page 13, after clause 12, insert the following new clause: Director to have access to certain records ``12a. (1) The Director may, by written notice to an approved cash carrier, require the approved cash carrier to give an authorised officer specified in the notice access to such of those records as are specified in the notice (being records relating to significant cash transactions to which the approved cash carrier is a party) on the day and during the hours specified in the notice. ``(2) Where the Director gives an approved cash carrier notice under subsection (1), the approved cash carrier shall comply with the notice. ``(3) The hours specified in a notice under subsection (1) shall be during the normal business hours of the approved cash carrier to which the notice is given. ``(4) Where an authorised officer may inspect records of an approved cash carrier, the officer may also make copies of, or take extracts from, those records.''. Amendments agreed to. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.27) —Amendments Nos 5, 6 and 7 concern some minor drafting matters. I seek leave to move them together. Leave granted. Senator TATE —I move: (5) Page 19, clause 18, line 21, leave out ``the opening of''. (6) Page 19, clause 18, line 26, leave out ``18'', insert ``19''. (7) Page 21, clause 21, line 36, leave out ``the opening of''. Amendments agreed to. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.28) —The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills produced over time a number of reports with regard to this Bill, one on 27 May 1987, another on 9 December 1987 and the latest one after the Committee had delivered its report. The first item I wish to raise is subclause 3 (1), that is, the definition of `unit trust' where the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has pointed to inappropriate delegation of legislative power. I quote from the Committee's report: The entire content of such definitions is thus left to be formulated by the Minister and is to be declared by the Minister by notice in the Gazette only and not prescribed by regulation which would be subject to tabling and disallowance. On occasions in the past when these items have arisen we have had Opposition support to do something about them. There has been an indication that such support will not be forthcoming in terms of making sure that the Minister does not have this type of unfettered power. The response of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to the Committee's report was: It should be borne in mind that once an arrangement falls outside the prescription cash transactions conducted through the trust fall outside the reporting requirements and the trust can thus become an immediate and effective vehicle for money laundering. Certainly that proposition is accepted. However, it does not go to the heart of the point. The Committee, in its report, says the same, that is, that it is inappropriate that such matters be notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette instead of by regulation. Is the Minister able to give any further explanation as to why the Government has pressed on with this, despite the fact that it was willing to pick other amendments recommended by other committees? Quite deliberately it has ignored the recommendations of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which unfortunately it is increasingly becoming accustomed to doing. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.30) —It is not the intention of the Government simply to ignore the report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. It was thought in this instance that the explanation given by the Minister was appropriate. Indeed, the Committee did see merit in the Attorney's explanation as to why this provision was provided in the legislation. The provision that it be declared by the Minister only in the Australian Government Gazette is one that I understand might raise some queries from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I believe that the Government's reasoning can be accepted by the chamber. The CHAIRMAN —Order! it being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman do leave the Chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the negative. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.31) —The next item I wish to raise with regard to the report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills is one of the worst aspects that we have seen the Government becoming accustomed to including in its legislation. I refer to non-reviewable decisions. The Committee, in that part of its report relating to clause 10 (3), stated: . . . the Director may direct an institution to delete or amend such an entry in its exemption register. No provision has been made for the review of the Director's decision on its merits and clause 33- that is now clause 40- expressly excludes decisions under the Act from the application of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. A decision of the Director under subclause 10 (3) would therefore only be subject to review by the courts by way of the actions available at common law prior to the enactment of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. As a decision of the Director under subclause 10 (3) may impose quite onerous reporting requirements on financial institutions the Committee drew the subclause to the attention of Senators in that it may be considered to make rights, liberties and/or obligations unduly dependent upon non-reviewable decisions. The response of the Attorney to this proposition was as follows: . . . the principal purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the administrative of taxation laws. All agency functions must be performed in consultation with the Commissioner . . . However, the Committee's report continues: The Committee believes that, bearing these considerations in mind, there should at least be provision for review of Director's decisions under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. In other words, it has noted the comments of the Attorney and has decided that it still wishes to press the point. I wonder whether the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) may have any more information as to why the Government chose to ignore the Committee's report. Despite all the Attorney's blandishments of the committee, it still saw that the point that it made had merit and, indeed, what the Government was attempting to do was to take away rights of people to seek review for these types of administrative decisions. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.34) —It is important that administrative decisions be subject to review. In general, this Government would try to implement that principle. But there are occasions when it could lead to very unfortunate effects. In relation to various decisions taken by the Director, some matters which have been raised in debate are subject to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act-for example, the blocking mechanism in relation to accounts which can lead to the confiscation of a person's moneys. Those decisions are subject to review under the AD(JR) Act. It think that is very important because obviously one is dealing with the confiscation of a person's moneys that are held in an account. I turn to the decision about access to and decisions about the use of the exemption register, being subject to review. The fact is that under section 13 of the AD(JR) Act, as Senator Macklin will know, what becomes reviewable in this case are the reasons for the decision of the Director. In that situation one might create a situation where the Director would be required to give reasons which he has formed on the basis of intelligence made available to him from law enforcement agencies. He would exercise his discretion in relation to access to the register and whether persons or classes of transactions should be on it in light of intelligence from taxation of law enforcement bodies. For him to be required to disclose the evidence rather than the material or the reasons could require the disclosure of the information received from those law enforcement bodies. I believe that the disclosure of the intelligence in those cases would be unfortunate and, indeed, would prejudice not only the investigation but also, I suppose, the standing of that customer. The fact is that in giving those reasons, intelligence from taxation or law enforcement agencies would have to be revealed. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.36) —I take the point made by the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) with regard to the taxation case, although it seems to me to be a rather extra- ordinary proposition that it is perfectly all right to establish a principle whereby individuals can have their rights taken away because other problems may occur if one does not take away their rights. It seems to me that that was the substance of the Minister's response. Let us put aside the point he has just made with regard to those items. Why is it that clause 40 is all encompassing in terms of the decisions? It reads: The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 does not apply to decisions under this Act, other than a decision by the Director under subsection 17 (2) or (3). All other decisions are excluded. Why is this the case? Can the Minister give some examples of some of the other types of decisions not affecting those that he wishes to exclude? If that is not the case, why was clause 40 drafted in such a way as to exclude specifically the item that the Minister has just raised-in other words, it puts the onus in the other direction-and simply leave open the other types of decisions of the Director? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.37) —I believe, as is evident from the report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, that it is the decisions of the Director which are of concern and the ones which would normally attract the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act provisions. As I have already indicated, the Bill is drawn on the basis that whilst some decisions of the Director are reviewable, and properly so, because they involve the confiscation of the assets of persons in Australia, these decisions which are themselves the subject of review by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee concerning the register are, for the reasons I have outlined, not to be subject to such review. It is really the Director's powers which are the key ones in this area of concern in the Bill. That is the scope of clause 40. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments. Adoption of Report Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.39) —I thank the Senate for its indulgence in going beyond the usual adjournment time. I move: That the report be adopted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill (on motion by Senate Tate) read a third time. Assent to the following Bills reported: Admiralty Bill 1988 Student Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Motion (by Senator Tate) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(10.40) —Today the annual report of the Aboriginal Development Commission for 1986-87 was tabled. Unfortunately, as so many people wished to speak on the report we ran out of time in the debate on it. The Chairman of the Aboriginal Development Commission, Mrs Shirley McPherson of Geraldton, Western Australia, was formally appointed Chairman in a full time capacity on 29 July 1986 after serving as a part time Chairman since 7 March 1984. In her introduction to this report-in the circumstances I really must quote verbatim parts of it-she stated: The Aboriginal Development Commission Act 1980 which established the ADC in 1980 is a unique piece of legislation, visionary in outlook and clearly recognising Aboriginal needs. It was only enacted after extensive consultation with the Aboriginal people and with the bi-partisan support of Parliament. The Act is greatly valued by the Aboriginal people because it reflects their wishes and aspirations for genuine self-management, financial self-sufficiency and permits the Commission to promote these with a very real degree of autonomy for its Aboriginal Board. My fellow Commissioners and I have worked hard and responsibly to ensure that the trust placed in us by both the Aboriginal people and the Parliament is fully justified. Evidence of our success is provided by this Report and by our published Corporate Plan. Mrs McPherson also referred in her introduction to some of the results of decentralisation of some of the functions of the Commission. It is rather ironic that she said that one of the results of decentralisation is: a new structure offering staff an enhanced career path and better prospects for promotion. She went on to say: The Aboriginal Development Commission Act is the only piece of legislation which embodies in it legal recognition of prior Aboriginal ownership, dispossession from their land and traditional rights, their dispersal, and, as part of the communities' responsibility for a just settlement with the Aboriginal people, their right to be compensated. She concludes: 1986-87 has been my first year as full-time Chairman, a role both demanding and challenging, and one which will remain devoted to promoting the economic independence, self-determination and self-management of the Aboriginal people. The Commission will continue to provide leadership, particularly in the areas of economic and social development, through implementation of its policies and by voicing the concerns of Aboriginals. Over the past year, the Commission has made impressive advances both in terms of its program delivery and in gaining access for Aboriginals to the resources of other agencies and lending institutions. It has increased, and will continue to increase, its effectiveness with improvement to and refining of its Corporate Plan, strategies and programs so as to better meet its objectives. It is therefore ironic, this report having been tabled today, that yesterday Senator Coulter's urgency motion was agreed to. It proposed at least another six months of consideration of the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) legislation to allow for more consultation with the various Aboriginal communities. The motion also proposed the reinstatement of the Aboriginal Development Commission as it was constituted before the recent dismissal of commissioners. As stated by several speakers in yesterday's debate, opinion certainly is divided amongst the Aboriginal peoples. In my visit to the Kimberleys early this year I met with a number of communities. Some communities and individuals certainly were in favour of the new commission, ATSIC. Some were certainly against it but the majority felt absolutely rushed. They felt that they had not had time to consider properly the implications. It is true that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Hand, visited several communities. The visits have been classed by him as true consultations. I do not doubt the Minister's sincerity. However, people who have met with Aboriginal groups, Aboriginal elders and their council members know that the Aboriginal people prefer to take time to make their considerations. They conduct business in a rather different way and time certainly is needed by them to consider properly the implications of the proposed new Commission. The changes suggested may not necessarily be bad but it is important from the Government's point of view that the Aboriginal people really understand the proposed changes, if they are to take place, and that they do not feel that these changes are imposed upon them. The Aboriginal community has been served well by the present Commission and there is no need at all for any indecent haste. The Kimberleys communities that I visited are well on the way to total self-management. They have reached the stage of resenting visits by politicians and departmental bureaucrats, be they white or Aboriginal. They feel that these people speak at them and tell them what is good for them. This by no means can be regarded as true consultation. Yesterday, I received a telex from Laurel Winder, the chairperson of the Aboriginal and Islander Women's Congress of Western Australia. This is part of the telex: We would . . . appreciate your support in opposing the legislation to establish the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission in order to provide the Aboriginal and Islander women of this country with the opportunity to examine in depth the details and the implications of all that is proposed in the Government's `Foundations for the Future' package in which the Commission is proposed. The undue haste and speed in which the Minister is attempting to impose the Government's package on the Aboriginal community is highlighted by his failure to provide the Aboriginal community with the opportunity, adequate resources and the time necessary to examine and comment on whether or not the Government's package is appropriate or adequate to service and meet the needs of the Aboriginal community. That strikes me, as I am sure it strikes the honourable senators present, as being a request that is both sensible and sensitive. The hour is late but I would very briefly like to refer to the pages in the report which refer specifically to Western Australia to show that the work done by the present Aboriginal Development Commission in Western Australia has been applauded. As far as housing is concerned, a net total of 114 new dwellings were completed. As well, 250 emergency shelters were distributed to the most needy people in the remote locations through resource agencies. The region continued to support Aboriginal building teams and encourage Aboriginal employment wherever possible. While the continued development and support of sub-regional Aboriginal housing organisations in the south-west of the State involved a small intrusion of recurrent funding into the program, the benefits of wider Aboriginal representation, cost-effective administration and increased Aboriginal self-management were apparent. There is a similar situation as far as land and land enterprises are concerned. The report states: A total of sixteen pastoral and three farm loans and/or grants were disbursed. The Region has been successful in broadening its commercial enterprise assistance beyond the establishment of community stores. Of sixteen commercial loans and/or grants dispersed, three were for community stores, four for tourist developments and eight for a broad range of other businesses. The Region has identified a need for greater emphasis to be placed on commercial enterprise development to benefit a significant number of Aboriginal people who live in cities and towns. Specifically mentioned in the report is the fact that Cape Leveque was purchased under the land acquisition program for development as a tourist enterprise. I did visit Cape Leveque and I can assure the Senate that that development is a very sensitive tourist development. It by no means exploits the environment. Also, the development will make use of the resources that are provided by the local Aboriginal community who will show tourists how to fish in the Aboriginal way and how to make arts and crafts in the Aboriginal way. They will be given a taste of something that is entirely different and unique. The report of the Aboriginal Development Commission is dated April 1988. Between the finalising of the report and its tabling in the Parliament yesterday commissioners were sacked from their jobs and others were set up in their place. This certainly is a very heavy-handed way to deal with commissioners who had only a few weeks of their appointments left to run. After the airing of these matters, it is to be hoped that the Government will now deal with greater commonsense and sensitivity with any necessary consultations and changes in procedures that may need to take place. In conclusion, I point out that the May mini-Budget which was brought down this evening contains a section headed `Establish Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission'. The way in which this section is worded, one would presume that the legislation will go through without any alteration. The section states: The Government has decided, following extensive consultations with Aboriginal communities to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) which will assume the existing functions of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and incorporate a new Office of Torres Strait Islander Affairs and a new Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation. Over the page this very interesting statement is made: Under the aegis of the new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission the Government has decided to establish an Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation (AEDC). The AEDC is to undertake commercial activities of benefit to Aboriginals with the aim of furthering Aboriginal participation in enterprises operating on Aboriginal land or in areas which will have a significant impact on Aboriginal Communities. The AEDC will have a capital base, including existing assets, of $60 million of which $20 million new capital is to be injected in 1988-89 . . . What is interesting about that statement is that that capital fund has not to date received any further money since the last Budget of the Fraser Government in 1982-83. I feel that this whole aspect needs to be looked at further when one thinks of what has happened over recent weeks as far as the Aboriginal Development Commission is concerned. I commend this report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.53 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Act-Order 1988-No. L5-Livestock for slaughter or breeding purposes to the Socialist Republic of Romania, dated 5 May 1988. National Health Act-Declaration and Schedule made by the delegate of the Minister under section 85, dated 10 May 1988. Public Service Act-Determinations 1988 No. 69, 70, 74-77. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 195) Senator Colston asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 16 February 1988: (1) Does the Commonwealth Government provide any concessional rail travel for pensioners; if so, what are the details. (2) Does the Commonwealth Government provide any financial assistance to any State or Territory towards concessional rail travel for pensioners; if so, what are the details. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Commonwealth Government provides concessional rail travel to pensioners on railway services operated by the Australian National Railways Commission (AN) on South Australian lines, and extending to Kalgoorlie, Alice Springs and Broken Hill. Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers (TPIs) and their attendants, World War One (WWI) veterans and their wives and widows are also eligible for concessional rail travel by AN. The concessions depend to some extent on where the pensioner resides. All pensioners are eligible for half fare travel north of Port Pirie and on inter-system services. Pensioners residing in South Australia and Northern Territory are eligible for half fare travel on former South Australian Railways lines and either one free return journey or two single journeys a year. Pensioners residing in Broken Hill and Menindee also receive rail travel concessions over some AN lines. War pensioners and their eligible dependants are generally entitled to free travel on all AN lines. Concessions, however, do not extend to sleeping berths (except for incapacitated ex-service personnel) and meals, which must be paid for at the ordinary tariffs. (2) The Commonwealth Government does not provide any financial assistance to any State or Territory towards concessional rail travel for pensioners. (Question No. 259) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 15 March 1988: (1) What is the current pricing policy of Telecom concerning the leasing of Telex units. (2) Does Telecom offer a service to sell leased Telex units. (3) What does Telecom do with Telex machines that have been leased and the service cancelled by customers. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) Customers leasing teleprinters may do so through Telecom's leasing arrangements with Custom Credit or another finance company of their choice. Telex customers also have the options to purchase outright or rent teleprinters from Telecom. (2) No. Leased teleprinters are the property of the leasing company until the residual is paid at the end of the contracted period, when ownership passes to the customer. (3) Telecom has no interest in the teleprinter in such circumstances. It is a matter between the customer and the finance company. (Question No. 260) Senator Crichton-Browne asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 15 March 1988: (1) Which Federal Government departments occupy the Wellington Street, Perth, telephone exchange building apart from Telecom and for what purpose are they there. (2) Does the roof of the Wellington Street building contain satellite communication equipment; if so, is this equipment in any way related to data collection. (3) Is the Wellington Street building equipped with emergency stocks of food and stores for its staff which would enable them to survive a period of confinement; if so, what is the duration of this period. (4) What computer hardware is located within the building, what did it cost and who were the suppliers of the equipment. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from Telecom Australia, is as follows: (1) None. (2) There is a single satellite earth station on the roof of the Wellington building comprising a dish antenna and associated communication equipment. The station provides direct communication links to other capital city earth stations in Australia via the AUSSAT satellite. These links are provided for Telecom's customers and are not related to data collection. (3) No. (4) The Wellington building houses significant quantities of computer equipment which is either integrated into switching and transmission hardware; provided as peripheral facilities to help operate, manage and support the network; or in the form of personal computers used by operations and maintenance staff. Computer equipment has been supplied and installed in the Wellington building over a period of a number of years by numerous companies. These include: Altos, AWA, CASE, CMS, Digital Equipment Corporation, Ericsson, Hewlett Packard, Honeywell, IBM, ITT, MICA, NEC, Nova, Olivetti, Sanyo, SESA, Siemens, WICAT. The estimated cost of personal computers, computer terminals, mini computers and mainframes is $2.5 million. No cost figure is available for computer equipment which forms an integral part of network transmission and switching equipment. However, this could be in the order of several million dollars. (Question No. 282) Senator Colston asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 24 March 1988: For the month of February 1988, what were the travel details of directors of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation who travelled at Corporation expense, details to include the reason for travel, the cost of air, rail or coach travel, travelling allowances paid and the cost of motor vehicle travel. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question, based, in part, on information provided by the ABC, is as follows: Reason for Travel Mr R. Somervaille Chairman 17-18 February, Sydney to Orange, Kempsey and Grafton. Scheduled as part of the Chairman's regular inspection of ABC facilities Mr Neville Bonner 15 February, Brisbane to Townsville and return. Accompanying ABC Management personnel Mr Neville Bonner-22-24 February, Brisbane to Sydney, to attend ABC Board Meeting Mr Neville Bonner-25 February, Brisbane to Canberra, to meet with Parliamentarians Ms Joan Spiller 23-25 February 1988, Melbourne to Sydney, to attend ABC Board Meetings Mr Ken McLeod 23-26 February, Melbourne to Sydney, Sydney-Launceston-Melbourne, to attend ABC Board Meeting and a public meeting in Launceston organised by Advisory Council. Mr Len Amadio 24 February, Adelaide to Sydney, to attend ABC Board Meeting Cost of Air, Rail and Coach Travel $ Mr R Somervaille-airfares ... 403 Mr Neville Bonner-airfares: not applicable* Ms Joan Spiller-airfares ... 514 Mr Ken McLeod-airfares ... 814 Mr Len Amadio-airfares ... 538 Total ... 2,269 * Holder of Gold Pass. Cost of Travelling Allowance Paid $ Mr Somervaille-Accommodation and meals ... 55 Mr Neville Bonner 1 Day Brisbane to Townsville 15 February ... 115 1 Day Sydney to Canberra 25 February ... 180 3 Days 22-24 February 3 days Capital City Rate ... 540 835 Ms Joan Spiller 23 February-25 February 2 Days Capital City rates ... 360 Mr K. McLeod 2 Days Capital City rate ... 360 1 Day ... 115 475 Mr Len Amadio 1 Day Capital City rate ... 180 Total ... 1,850 Cost of Motor Vehicle Travel Mr Somervaille-Transport (rental car) ... 40