Wednesday, 1 June 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 these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That cuts in funding to the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra would cause irreparable damage to the culture life of Tasmania and the development of music nationally. That the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with their only nationwide, independent radio and television service. That the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia. That the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources, would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship 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 Watson (from 12 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 their only nationwide, independent radio and television service. That the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia. That the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources, would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship 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 Watson (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That while having some reservations on individual aspects of the Constitutional Initiative (Electors Initiative) 1987 your petitioners wish to express our strong support for the concept of people's democracy implied in that Bill. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament will Refer the above mentioned Bill to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters and will examine the operation of direct democracy procedures overseas with the intention of passing legislation granting such facilities to your petitioners during the Bicentennial year. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McKiernan (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Canberra respectfully shows: The ACT Schools Authority has acted in an unfair and improper manner in rejecting without notice or justification, the Planning Criteria of its Draft Plan ``Community Schools for Canberra 1989-2000'', in which context it had invited communities to respond, and in reaching decisions that conflict completely with those criteria. The ACT Schools Authority, by acting in this way, has set a precedent for arbitrary school reorganization throughout the whole of Canberra, in which schools can be closed at any time without prior notice or consultation, and without effective justification. The Page Community has been denied natural justice by the decision to close its neighbourhood school, because that decision was made without warning, without consultation, and without right of appeal. The Page Community is the only one in Canberra that has been given no opportunity to respond to a specific draft proposal for closure of its school. Your petitioners therefore pray that: The Senate note our strong and united protest at the ACT Schools Authority's decision to close Page Primary School. Noting that, the ACT Schools Authority identified only two options for school reorganization in the South Belconnen area, and that it has chosen to implement neither, and that the people of the ACT are shortly to be given the possibility of self government; the Senate resolve that no South Belconnen schools be closed until the ACT Schools Authority has: (a) developed a complete and integrated plan for the educational needs of the South Belconnen area; (b) developed and publicized educational and social criteria for maintaining, relocating, reorganizing or closing schools; (c) assessed all schools against these criteria; (d) presented these results for public review, with a full range of options; and (e) allowed reasonable time for community consultation prior to decisions being taken and implemented. by Senator Jenkins (from 1,767 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we express grave concern about the public release of confidential medical information by the Government, sufficient to enable the public identification of doctors and their patients and calls upon the Parliament to censure all those involved in this gross abuse of the Privacy of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 26 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 Senators Durack (from 165 citizens) and Watson (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and senators assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out that aged and disabled people who require accommodation and support in nursing homes are entitled to the highest possible standard and quality of nursing care. We, the petitioners, request the Government to ensure that provision of funds for nursing homes in Victoria is sustained at least at a level sufficient to maintain the high standard of care now available in nursing homes in this State. by Senators Alston (from 16 citizens), Cooney (from 72 citizens) and McKiernan (from 120 citizens). To the Honourable President and senators in the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia wish to express their opposition to the privatization and de-regulation of the Australian telecommunications system and to the proposed implementation of timed local calls and directory assistance charging. Your petitioners pray that the Australian Government will take the necessary action to prevent any such privatization, de-regulation, timed local calls, and directory assistance charging. And we, your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cooney (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the imposition of sales tax, import duties and other financial constraints on Telecom Australia will have the effects of: Increasing local and SDT call charges. Increasing telephone rental charges. Increasing delays in providing services to new, rural, most small business and domestic subscribers. Decreasing service standards generally. Leading to the destruction of the Australian telecommunications manufacturing industry. Increasing the internal and external pressures for the deregulation and/or privatisation of Telecom Australia. Leading to the abandonment of the ``service to all Australians'' principle on which Telecom Australia has always operated if deregulation and/or privatisation continues further. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government revokes its recent decisions applying extra financial burdens on Telecom Australia and takes appropriate steps to ensure that Telecom Australia has the legal, and financial ability to discharge its statutory obligations to provide universal service under its present monopoly status as the national telecommunications provider. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cooney (from eight citizens). The humble petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia wish to express their opposition to the privatization and de-regulation of the Australian telecommunications system and to the proposed implementation of timed local calls and directory assistance charging. Your petitioners pray that the Australian Government will take the necessary action to prevent any such privatization, de-regulation, timed local calls, and directory assistance charging. And we, your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 74 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are concerned that the Judeo-Christian moral values which have been fundamental in our laws and education systems since the foundation of the country are now being undermined in the current practice of law making, and we are concerned that the values of the secular-humanistic philosophy have taken their place therefore jeopardizing the moral climate of our society and contributing towards immorality and violence in our society. Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate for the restoration of Judeo-Christian laws and moral values. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 33 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the proposal for the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra or the Australian Capital Territory. (2) That a casino in Canberra would detract from the unique character and status of our National Capital. Your petitioners therefore most humbly request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to reject any proposal or legislation which would permit the establishment of a casino in the Australian Capital Territory. And your humble petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 519 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, 10 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Pharmaceutical Benefits Information Provision Incentive Payment Rules made on 23 March 1988 under section 99aaa of the National Health Act 1953 be disallowed. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short statement about the interest of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances in these rules. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- These Rules provide for incentive payments to approved suppliers of pharmaceutical benefits who have used a preferred method to make a claim from the Government. Rule 24 contains an apparently unreviewable discretion to determine that a pharmaceutical benefits supplier's computer software system is compatible with that of the Department of Community Services and Health. The Committee has asked the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, the Honourable Peter Staples, M.P. for his advice on how an unjustifiably adverse decision might be remedied. Rule 13 makes reference to the way in which the approved supplier of pharmaceutical benefits is to record each concessional prescription. The Committee has asked the Minister for further information on how the system will operate. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short statement about the scrutiny of certain Telecom by-laws by the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The Committee has recently examined the effects of the non-tabling in the Senate of certain Telecom By-Laws. The extra week during which the Senate sat last December resulted in a miscalculation of the period in which these By-laws should have been tabled. The Committee has corresponded with the Chairman of the Australian Telecommunications Commission (Mr R. W. Brack, AO) and advised the Commission that it should seek advice from the federal Attorney-General's Department on whether validating legislation is needed to validate telephone charges levied during the period when the untabled By-laws were inoperative because they had not been tabled. In this particular instance it was not the Committee's wish to suggest to the Commission what course of action it should follow. Although there is no motion of disallowance on the Notice Paper regarding this matter, the Committee at its meeting on 26 May 1988 agreed that the Committee's correspondence should be tabled for the information of Honourable Senators. 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 for disallowance of Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Order MS12/88. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances sought advice from the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation about avenues of appeal against certain decisions made under the Corporation's orders and about the legal validity of part of the orders which appeared inappropriately to subdelegate legislative power. The Committee accepted the Corporation's view that in a fluctuating international export meat market review of the discretions concerned was not appropriate. The Committee also persuaded the Corporation that part of its orders were legally uncertain and they will be redrafted. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard two letters which describe the Committee's scrutiny. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- 31 May 1988 Mr Peter O'Keeffe Secretary The Standing Standing Committee on Regulation and Ordinances...By Fax: 062 73 1380 Dear Mr O'Keeffe AMLC Order No MS 12/88 dated 26 February 1988 I refer to Senator Collins' letter to the Chairman of this Corporation received by facsimile today. I confirm that the words ``or otherwise notified by the Corporation by Notice published in the Gazette'' contained in paragraph 3 (a) of the Order were intended to accommodate variations from time to time due to changes in the currency adjustment factor (CAF) and the Bunker Adjustment Factor (BAF). CAF and BAF adjustments occur at three monthly intervals to reflect changes in the exchange rate and in the price of ships bunkers respectively. It was hoped to avoid having to seek the Minister's approval and issue a new Order every time such changes occurred. I should point out that the Corporation has already undertaken to the Minister not to amend the maximum freight rates as set out in the Schedule, other than for variations to the CAF and BAF, without first obtaining the Minister's approval. We now believe that we can achieve the desired result by deleting from the Order the words to which your Committee objects and inserting in the Schedule to the Order a formula for variation of the CAF and BAF. All persons subject to the Order will be notified each time such a variation occurs. Our Shipping Department has been instructed to prepare the appropriate formula for incorporation into the Schedule and we would propose to shortly seek the Minister's approval to vary the Order in the manner outlined above. Yours sincerely IAN J. HARMAN General Counsel Mr R. O. Austen, a.o. Chairman Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Aetna Life Tower Hyde Park Square SYDNEY N.S.W. 2001 Dear Mr Austen, At meetings on 26 and 30 May 1988 the Committee considered the letter of 25 May 1988 sent on your behalf by Mr I. J. Harman, General Counsel, concerning AMLC Order No. MS 12/88. On the question of review rights the Committee noted the force of the Corporation's comments about the need for commercial flexibility in an unpredictable international market and how this factor lies behind the unreviewable and unstructured nature of the exemption discretion contained in paragraph 4 of the Order. Having taken account of the objects set out in section 4 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Act 1977 (the Act) under which Orders are made, the Committee decided not to pursue further the question of review rights. The Committee thanks you for advising it on this matter. The Committee remains unhappy, however, about the legality and implications of the apparent sub-delegation, by the Corporation acting in its legislative capacity, to itself when acting in its executive capacity, of what seems to be a quasi-legislative or prescriptive power to amend the Order by an executive instrument, being an instrument which will by-pass the scrutiny of Parliament. The Committee's general concern is made up of a number of themes impinging in matters both of law and of principle. Firstly, the Committee is inclined to the view that the Corporation's power to promulgate changes of shipping rates by means of notice published in the Gazette is a legislative and not merely an administrative power. An executive notice will change the law by making a new law; it will not merely change the way an existing law is applied. For an exporter to act contrary to the new law as changed by Gazette notice is to risk losing the right to continue to export. Thus, a legislative notice issued by an executive organ can in effect amend or repeal the law. Paragraph 3 (a) would appear, therefore, to be in the nature of a ``Henry VIII clause'' and since such a device is not expressly authorised in the enabling Act paragraph 3 (a) is objectionable on this ground. (See generally Report on the Delegation of Parliamentary Authority, Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, P.P. 331/78, Chapter 4; and The Operation of the Australian Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, P.P. 317/85, para. 3.29). Secondly, the Gazette notice as such will not be subject to any parliamentary scrutiny. It is not required to be tabled in Parliament and it does not fall within the scope of any of the existing statutory disallowance schemes. It is contrary to general parliamentary principles as well as the Committee's scrutiny principles, for a subordinate law-maker to make subordinate legislation which is not subject to tabling and disallowance in Parliament. (Committee's Eightieth Report, P.P. 241/86, para. 3.9; and Eighty-third Report, April 1988, para. 4.15). Since the Committee is inclined to the view that the prospective Gazette notices will be legislative in character, paragraph 3 (a) is objectionable also on this ground. Thirdly, it is argued that the power to make Orders, conferred by subsection 16k (2) of the Act, is wide enough to confer power to make an Order empowering someone else to do, in another way, what the Act, prima facie, enables the Order itself to do, namely, set maximum rates for the sea-carriage of meat. The power to make Orders is a power to make provision- ``with respect to any matter relating to or incidental to [sea-carriage, and] without limiting the generality of [that] [to] make provision for and in relation to . . . the charges payable for [sea-carriage]''. It is argued that since the power to make provision ``with respect to'' a specific subject matter is as wide a legislative power as can be created (per Latham C.J. in Bank of N.S.W. v Commonwealth, (1948) 76 C.L.R. 1 at 186) (quare: primary legislative, not delegated legislative power;) and since the compound proposition ``with respect to'' does not differ in effect from the corresponding phrase ``in relation to'' (per Windeyer J. in Victoria v Commonwealth (1970-71) 122 C.L.R. 353 at 399) the language of subsection 16k (2) is therefore, wide enough to authorise the delegation to an unsupervised executive organ of the legislative power to amend the Orders. If, through the juxtaposition of these dicta, the scope of the Order-making power in subsection 16k (2) is accurately stated, it might appear to authorise the making of a single Order empowering the Corporation henceforth to do all that it is necessary to do for the purposes of section 4 of the Act regarding sea-carriage, without the need for any further Orders to be made or presented to Parliament. The Committee does not accept that a court would adopt and apply the High Court dicta referred to above to such effect. Yet the Committee is being invited to accept that, with respect to one aspect of the Corporation's activities, namely prescribing sea-carriage rates, just such a delegation to an executive organ is lawful and acceptable. The Committee considers such an approach is fraught with potential uncertainty. It would tend to represent an unacceptable precedent that could inappropriately be followed in other delegated legislation and for this reason the Committee finds paragraph 3 (a) objectionable. Fourthly, if the expression ``for and in relation to'' is to have the same meaning as ``with respect to'' in subsection 16k (2), such an interpretation appears, on first sight, to be not only at variance with the distinction drawn between elements of these phrases in Paul v Munday (1976) 9 A.L.R. 245, at 251 and 259, but also contrary to the usual presumption that different words in a single provision will be taken to have different meanings. Such an interpretation would also tend to render otiose the expression in subsection 16k (2) ``and without limiting the generality of the foregoing'' since, at least in the matter of fixing sea-carriage charges, the specific power would be taken to be exactly coextensive with the general power. The Committee considers that such contradictions tend to make the interpretation advanced by the Corporation a possibly unreliable one and for this reason also the Committee finds paragraph 3 (a) objectionable. Finally, if the Corporation's argument is correct, the power to set rates by gazette notice is a power which might be exercised in a qualitatively different way to the way in which the power has been exercised in the Schedule of the Orders. It would appear to be possible for gazette notices to set different rates for different kinds of sea-carriage, both for individual exporters or for particular groups of exporters. There is, therefore, potential for unfairness or merely inappropriate administration of the Corporation's regulatory controls. The Committee does not, of course, suggest that this would happen, only that, under the paragraph as it currently stands, it could happen. Since there would be no right of appeal on the merits against such theoretically discriminatory notices it is proper that as a matter of principle Parliament should at least have power to oversee rate changes. It is difficult to see how this could be achieved other than by removal of the power to issue notices and reliance on the general power to make disallowable Orders. The Committee wishes to make it clear that it does not suggest that the legal advice the Corporation has received is, in any sense, less reliable than those views which the Committee is more inclined to accept. There is certainly in our scrutiny of the Orders no imputation whatsoever of any lack of care or good faith in the Corporation in setting about its task of regulating particular aspects of meat exportation. The Committee considers only that the legal position is not beyond doubt, that an exporter, if so minded, could at least mount a destabilising challenge to a notice at some time in the future, and that such a risk is not worth running if the legal arguments are nicely balanced. Given the fact that, where a protective notice of motion is to be withdrawn, the Committee's practice is to table in the Senate or incorporate in Hansard, all of its correspondence for the information of Senators and the community, the Committee considers that any such risk should be removed by a suitable amendment to paragraph 3 (a) of the Order. In the final analysis, however, setting legal questions to one side, the Committee considers that in the circumstances of the current legislative scheme for the regulation of meat exports, changes to the Schedule should, as a matter of principle, be by some periodic instrument (for example, an Order) subject to tabling and disallowance in Parliament. (See also the approach adopted by the Committee in Thirty-ninth Report, P.P. 24/72 para. 10.) The Committee would be grateful if the Corporation would reconsider its position on paragraph 3 (a) of the Order in the light of the foregoing points. We are concerned that the principle of parliamentary oversight be preserved without its application unduly affecting the work of the Corporation. Yours sincerely, Bob Collins Chairman Senator COLLINS —I also seek leave to table the Committee's correspondence regarding the Corporations Orders and the Telecom By-laws so that the details of the Committee's scrutiny are available to interested senators and others. Leave granted. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Government for its misleading claim that participants in superannuation schemes will not be disadvantaged by the new tax arrangements contained in the May economic statement; (b) notes that self-employed persons who have geared up private superannuation funds in the last few years and are seeking to retire in the next 12 to 18 months will be adversely affected by these changes; (c) notes that Australia's population is rapidly ageing, that by the year 2010 a very large percentage of the population will have reached retirement age, and, as a consequence, it is simply irresponsible to discourage private savings for retirement through superannuation funds; and (d) calls on the Government to review the superannuation changes introduced in the May statement and then clarify for members of superannuation funds their actual position in relation to final pay-outs. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Hawke Labor Government for its disregard of women's health issues; (b) urges the Government, in consultation with the States, to establish a uniform system of collecting data on the treatment and outcome of admissions to all hospitals for obstetric and gynaecological patients to enable monitoring of this specialty practice in Australia, which should be undertaken in the same way as is currently being done in Tasmania; (c) notes that the Hawke Government acknowledges that the University of Tasmania, with the encouragement of the Liberal Government in Tasmania, currently leads Australia and the world in the monitoring of women's health in relation to obstetrics and gynaecology, thereby enabling investigation in areas of need-- Senator Giles-That is not what Tasmanian women say. Senator Zakharov-That is certainly not what Tasmanian women say. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I wish that people who do not know or understand would not interject. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator WALTERS —My notice of motion continues: (d) notes that the Governments of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland do not collect any data in relation to births as a result of caesarean section and that of those States that do, percentages of live births delivered by caesarean section are as follows: South Australia (17.7 per cent), Western Australia (15.1 per cent) and Tasmania (11.4 per cent); (e) notes that only national figures which include all States are compiled by Medicare, relate only to the cases where Medicare benefits are claimed for caesarean deliveries, and that these rates vary alarmingly from South Australia (12.4 per cent), Victoria (11 per cent), New South Wales and Queensland (10.4 per cent), Western Australia (9.2 per cent) to Tasmania with only 7.3 per cent-- Senator Foreman-Why is that? Senator WALTERS —It is because they have very good and monitored women's health care. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator WALTERS —My notice of motion continues: (f) notes that statements made by Senator Giles, representing the Minister for Community Services and Health, Dr Blewett, to a women's health conference in Hobart on 12 December 1987, were misleading especially when she said that Australian estimates for this financial year for caesarean sections as a percentage of live births would reach 20 per cent- absolute rubbish!- (g) considers that statements from members of the Hawke Government that this problem will be looked at next year are not good enough and that such statements indicate that the Government does not have a real commitment to alleviate Australia's very real problems in the area of women's health. The PRESIDENT —Order! I point out to the Senate that there was really too much information in that notice of motion and, but for the fact that there are only two sitting days left, it could have been ruled out of order. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that, in the event of the success of the Government's referendum proposals, the Government would be able to dissolve the Senate in 1988 simply by calling an election for the House of Representatives and so have the equivalent of a double dissolution election in 1988 without needing of the trigger presently required by the Constitution for such a double dissolution; and (b) calls on the Prime Minister to give an unequivocal assurance, for what that is worth, that the Government will not have such an unjustifiably early double dissolution if the referendum is passed. Senator Michael Baume proceeding to give notice of a motion- The PRESIDENT —Order! That is unparliamentary. I am ruling it out of order. Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! I have sought advice. That is my ruling. Senator Chaney-Mr President, I raise a point of order. Is the fact, or the description of the fact, unparliamentary? I ask that question because there was no reference by the Chair or anybody else in Committee last night to the fact. I query why the fact is in order but the description of the fact is out of order. The PRESIDENT —The remark was an offensive remark against a senator. It has been consistently ruled that way in the past, and I am ruling that way now. Senator Michael Baume proceeding to give notice of a motion- Senator Gareth Evans-Mr President, I raise a point of order. I suggest that the same ruling would properly apply. Although the Cabinet Minister has not been named in the specific terms of the motion, the implication and the context in question are perfectly clear. I ask that you rule it out of order. Senator Michael Baume-Mr President, may I speak to the point of order? I remind you that, when an allegation was made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) that an Opposition senator was found drunk on the lawns of this place, that was not held to be out of order, and it was totally untrue. The Leader of the Government was subsequently required to recant that. Admittedly he did so very badly, but he did subsequently withdraw. If it was permissible for the Leader of the Government to make such a false statement, surely it is proper for me to make a correct and factual one. The PRESIDENT —There was no point of order taken last night on this matter. It is not up to me to determine whether a senator was drunk. Again, I have sought advice, and I am ruling the notice of motion out of order. Senator Walters-That is not true. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Walters to withdraw that remark. Senator Walters-I withdraw, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —I deliberately made the point that I had sought advice. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the latest Annual Report (1986-87) of the Merit Protection and Review Agency confirms the seriousness of the charge of being drunk on duty by Commonwealth public servants by rejecting appeals against penalties imposed by departments on public servants for this offence; and (b) requests that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) impose the same standards on Cabinet Ministers whilst on duty in the Senate, as the Government imposes on its employees. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented. In seeking to make a point tediously, if I might say so, Senator Michael Baume-- Senator Michael Baume —You did nothing to correct it until you came into this chamber a fortnight later. Senator BUTTON —The fact of the matter is that I did correct it and everybody understood what I meant. It is wrong-- Senator Michael Baume —You were disgraceful. You got national publicity and you loved it. Senator BUTTON —Well, it is something the honourable senator will never get. I can understand his bitterness about that. Senator Michael Baume —You are pathetic. Senator BUTTON —I may be pathetic but the honourable senator is very angry because he has been exposed for the fraud he is. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Button will withdraw that offensive remark. Senator BUTTON —I withdraw, Mr President. Senator Baume should not come in here and, for the purposes of advancing a specious argument, misrepresent what took place, as he did a few minutes ago, in respect of the incident following the Parliament House-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Government has sought leave of the Senate to make a personal explanation. He is instead indulging in an attack on Senator Michael Baume. I suggest, Mr President, that you should call him to order. If he wishes to correct some element of fact, of course he has the leave of the Senate to do so. The PRESIDENT —I asked the Leader of the Government to withdraw the remarks that I considered offensive, and he did so. Motion (by Senator Hill) agreed to: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to be considered in conjunction with that Committee's reference on the feasibility of a national identification scheme: (a) the taxation file numbering scheme announced by the Treasurer in the May Economic Statement, and, in particular, whether the scheme is likely to improve the efficiency of the taxation system and to eliminate fraud and abuses in the taxation and social security systems; and (b) the possibility of that scheme developing into a de facto national identification card system with unacceptable impositions being made upon privacy and civil liberties. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) put: That the following Sessional Order be adopted: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders: (1) When a division is called for or the attention of the Chair is drawn to the lack of a quorum, the bells shall be rung for 4 minutes. (2) This Order shall have effect in respect of sittings of the Senate in the new Parliament House. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Aulich, T. G. Haines, J.Baume, Peter Hamer, D. J.Beahan, M. E. Harradine, B.Black J. R. Jenkins, J. A.Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P.Burns, B. R. McLean, P. A.Button, J. N. McMullan, R. F.Chaney, F. M. Macklin, M. J.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R.Coates, J. Messner, A. J.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. (Teller) Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Puplick, C. J. G.Cooney, B. C. Ray, RobertCoulter, J. R. Reynolds, M.Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F.Devereux, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Devlin, A. R. Schacht, C. C.Durack, P. D. Sheil, G.Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Archer, B. R. Newman, J. M.Baume, Michael Panizza, J. H.Bishop, B. K. Parer, W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Patterson, K. C. L.Boswell, R. L. D. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Calvert, P. H. Short, J. R.Chapman, H. G. P. Stone, J. O.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Tambling, G. E. J.Hill, R. M. Teague, B. C.Knowles, S. C. Vanstone, A. E.Lewis, A. W. R. Walters, M. S.McGauran, J. J. Watson, J. O. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative Senator Michael Baume-Mr President, on a point of order: I seek your guidance. During the division, Senator Walsh entered the chamber, pointed a finger at me and said, threateningly, `You'll cop it later, Patrick'. I ask you, Mr President, to take whatever action is appropriate under the Standing Orders. The PRESIDENT —Order! I did not hear the interjection. I can take action only when something disorderly happens. I did not hear the interjection. Senator Newman-On a point of order, Mr President: A number of us on this side of the chamber saw and heard the incident that Senator Baume just reported. In view of that, we should also call for the Minister-I ask you to ask the Minister to do so-to acknowledge that he did make the gesture and say what Senator Baume said he said. He should retract. The PRESIDENT —Order! I have already ruled on this matter. Senator Walters, do you have a different point of order? Senator Walters-Will you allow me to speak to the point of order, Mr President? The PRESIDENT —I will allow you to speak to the point of order, but I have already ruled on it. Senator Walters-Mr President, you indicated, in ruling on the point of order, that you ruled only on disorderly conduct. Do you consider the threat of one member of this place against another disorderly conduct? The PRESIDENT —Order! I have ruled on the point of order. Senator Chaney-Mr President, on the point of order: there are new procedures for dealing with breaches of privilege in this place. Those procedures, as I understand it, were laid down by a motion of the Senate. I further understand that they involve the making of a complaint to you in writing. I seek your ruling on whether, in the event that Senator Michael Baume makes a complaint in writing that falls to be considered under the rules which have been approved by this place, you will respond in terms of those rules to any such complaint. Or, are you saying in your ruling that, because the matter occurred without your hearing it, it cannot be dealt with? Matters of privilege are not, as I understand it, matters which can be dealt with only by you or the Senate if they occur within the hearing of the President or the presiding officer present at the time. I think it might more satisfactorily deal with the point which has been raised by Senator Michael Baume if you could simply give some guidance to the Senate now whether this is a matter which should be dealt with within the formal rules which have been laid down and by raising the complaint with you in writing. The PRESIDENT —If I get a written complaint I will consider it and will give an answer in the Senate. Senate Selection Committee Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.29) —by leave-I move: (1) That a select committee be established to inquire into and report upon the provisions of the Industrial Relations Bill 1988 concerning the registration and amalgamation of organisations. (2) That, in considering the provisions of the Bill, the Committee give particular consideration to: (a) the desirability or otherwise of the restrictions on registration of organisations contained in the Bill; and (b) whether the provisions on registration and amalgamation contained in the Bill will produce a union structure that reduces demarcation disputes and is conducive to improved industrial relations. (3) That the Committee report to the Senate on the first sitting day in August 1988. (4) (a) That the Committee consist of 6 Senators, 3 being Government Senators, and 3 being Senators who are not Government Senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators. (4) (b) That the nominations of the Opposition or any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators be determined by agreement between the Opposition and any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators, and, in the absence of agreement duly notified to the President, the question as to the representation on the Committee be determined by the Senate. (5) That the Committee proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (6) That the Chairman of the Committee be appointed by and from the members of the Committee. (7) That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. (8) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote. (9) That the quorum of the Committee be 3 members. (10) That the Committee and any sub-committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, and to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives. (11) That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the Committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the Senators appointed to the sub-committee. (12) That the Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the Committee with the approval of the President. (13) That the Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. (14) That the foregoing provisions of the Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Because I have very limited time I deal only with the substantive part of the motion, which is for the establishment of a committee to inquire into and report upon the provisions of the Industrial Relations Bill 1988 concerning the registration and amalgamation of organisations, asking that the committee give particular consideration to the desirability or otherwise of the restrictions on registration of the organisations contained in the Bill and whether the provisions on registration and amalgamation contained in the Bill will produce a union structure that reduces demarcation disputes and is conducive to improved industrial relations. I seek this reference knowing that the Bill will not be dealt with in this session and, therefore, is not proposed to become law until next August or September or perhaps even later. In those circumstances the Senate has the opportunity, without in any way seeking to impede the passage of the legislation, to examine a very contentious area where I think there is a serious risk that the Government is taking the Australian industrial relations scene in the wrong direction. The area of the Bill to which I refer relates to the amalgamation of unions. It is quite clear that in this Bill the Government proposes to ease the passage of the proposal of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). I quote from the ACTU's recommendations in Australia Reconstructed: That the Australian trade union movement should plan to have no more than 20 union organisations within two years. The Government is proposing that an arbitrary limit should be placed upon the size of trade unions, that that limit should be 3,000, that a period of time should be allowed for amalgamations, but that, after a period of three years, the Commission will review the registration of all organisations with less than 3,000 members and will cancel their registration unless special circumstances exist. In other words, the Government is enthusiastically embracing in the legislation the proposition that large trade unions are to the benefit of Australia and that size, of itself, is a sufficient criterion for determining what is a suitable trade union structure. I do not believe that one could get a more contentious proposal or one that would be more hotly debated, including by important elements of the trade union movement. Hundreds of unions are likely to be caught up in this forced amalgamation project. Certainly, on the views which have been put to me, their contention is that their forced amalgamation will lead to more industrial disputes, rather than fewer. Quite apart from the question of whether it will be conducive to having more industrial disputes or fewer, an important breach of the principle of freedom of association is involved which is a matter of great concern to the Opposition. In the examination the Opposition has made of the desirable trade union structure for Australia, it seems to us that size is not the criterion that should determine the outcome of these matters. We can point to Germany, on the one hand, with a relatively small number of trade unions and a very good industrial record, and say, `That must prove something', but, on the other hand, we could look to Japan, with a very large number of trade unions, and say, `Perhaps that proves something'. It is not size which is important; what is important is the extent to which the trade union structure leads employers and employees to work together in a constructive and productive manner. We believe that any, even cursory, examination of the situation would suggest that size of itself is not the solution. We examined the statistics of a recent batch of demarcation disputes, for example-demarcation disputes are cited as the main reason for wanting a smaller number of unions in the community-and found that out of 32 demarcation disputes, only one involved a union which would be caught up by these enforced amalgamation provisions. A small union was involved in only one of those 32 disputes. Small unions have approached me on this matter. For example, members of a union composed of ambulance drivers told us of their experience. They had been members of a very large union involving a great range of workers and had found themselves continuously embroiled in industrial disputes and, indeed, were being used by that larger union as a form of industrial battering ram. Since that group of workers have been able to establish their own union they have been able to look after their own interests, and have not found it necessary to engage in industrial disputation. I cite that as but one example of the sort of situation which should be examined by this Parliament before we put into the hands of the ACTU and the Government the capacity to enforce the amalgamation of unions and to produce size for the sake of size. Our intention in this matter is to produce the best possible industrial relations climate, which means a climate in which people will work together, rather than against each other. If one consults trade unions, academics, employer organisations, employers, individual unionists and members of the work force who are not unionists one will find in all of those areas a strong resistance to the enforced production of large unions to which workers, in turn, will be forced to belong. We believe-as I say, on the grounds of efficiency, of reducing industrial disputation and having a more productive economy as well as on the defence of individuals' rights to associate together without being told by the Arbitration Commission or by large trade unions that they are not free to do so-that on all of those grounds there are issues that warrant careful examination. These points have been put to the Australian Democrats and the matter could not be put simply formally, Mr President, because as I understand the position, they are not prepared to support this reference. I think that is a matter for very great regret because I do not believe that it is possible for anyone in any honesty to deny that this is a most contentious issue. I believe that if, for example, one talks to a range of unions one will get widely differing assessments as to the worth or otherwise of these proposals. I believe that here is an opportunity for the Parliament, when we return for the Budget session, to make an informed decision on what is a very complex issue. The likelihood is that instead we will have a debate of the sort which occurs after the second reading, at the committee stage, which will be much more an exercise in bringing together the anecdotal evidence and experience of individual senators which will have been brought together within the respective parties to adopt a fixed position. I had always understood that it was the Australian Democrats' view that it was a worthwhile thing to examine these matters in committee where there is a totally different opportunity to hear, not just the views of the politicians, but also the views of the people who will be affected by this legislation. I remind the Senate that every time the Senate has taken an opportunity to avail itself of a careful committee examination of legislation, we have come forward with recommendations, usually on a unanimous or bipartisan or tripartisan basis, for changes to the legislation which it has been widely agreed will improve it. We have an opportunity here in approaching a system which is fundamental to economic recovery in Australia. The Treasurer, Mr Keating, said only late last week that one of the great remaining challenges for the Government in his view was the issue of the labour market. There is no dispute amongst any economic observers that our labour market is the critical impediment to getting the sort of productivity growth and the economic recovery which will enable Australians to resume a path of rising living standards. It is fundamentally important to the future health of our economy and I believe, Mr President, it is also fundamentally important to the sort of society that we have in the future. The fact of the matter is that once again we see the trade union movement, and indeed the Government, opting for a course which ignores the views of individual employees in this country and ignores the wishes of a large number of trade unionists who believe that they are far better off to be involved in a trade union, which is not necessarily large but which is genuinely dedicated to the interests of the group, than having a wider agenda which in many cases will not be a pro-community agenda but a pro-union agenda. Mr President, making speeches in this place when a decision has been made is always an exercise about which one might ask, `What is the point?'. The point about this speech is that it is important that the people of Australia know, that the employers of Australia know and the unions of Australia know that in the Opposition's case we believe there is very good reason to provide unions, employers and the public with an opportunity to tell the Parliament what the industrial relations reality out there is. It is a very good opportunity to tell the Parliament what sort of pattern of trade unions is likely to produce a more cooperative and productive trade union in this country. And this is an opportunity which should be taken now; it would not delay the Government's legislation in any time sense and therefore, Mr President, there is absolutely nothing to be lost. I commend the motion to the Senate and hope that, even at this late hour, it might obtain majority support. Debate interrupted. Senator Puplick-Mr President, I wish to raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that there is no Hansard reporter provided at the table for this morning's proceedings. I ask whether, in fact, this is a matter which has been properly drawn to your attention. Given that the Government is in control of these particular matters and was in control of the arranging of the program last night with the support of the Democrats, it therefore knew the consequences of the late sitting in terms of the industrial award which covers the Hansard writers. I ask whether in fact the Government consulted you about what arrangements should be made to provide additional staff from the House of Representatives or elsewhere in terms of discharging the responsibilities which we normally expect from Hansard reporters at the table, or whether as a result of the general incompetence in the way in which this chamber is being managed at the moment, no actions were taken to ensure that the Hansard coverage at the table was properly and adequately provided for. The PRESIDENT —Order! I speak to the point of order. The Principal Parliamentary Reporter, Mr Campbell, did come to see me late last night. The Hansard of today's proceedings until Question Time at 2 p.m. will be produced from tape recordings rather than by shorthand reporters. Reporters will be present in the chamber for the initial period, as they were this morning. The process is similar to that used by Hansard staff to cope with Senate sittings during the usual lunch break on Thursdays. This should not result in any undue delay in the production of the printed Daily Hansard. However, it will result in a delay in the distribution of `pinks' to Senators. I agreed to the adoption of this procedure on this occasion after the Principal Parliamentary Reporter informed me that, because of the current serious shortage of Hansard reporters, he did not have reporters who could be rostered off duty at a time in yesterday's sitting-for which the reporters were on duty continuously from 9.30 a.m. yesterday until 4 a.m. today-which would have enabled them to have a reasonable break before resuming duty for the commencement of today's sitting at 10 a.m. I believe that the award says that they should have nine hours off, but in fact they will all have had less than that by the time that they report here for this afternoon's session. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senate Select Committee Debate resumed. Senator Harradine-In speaking to the motion that the Leader of the Opposition-- The PRESIDENT —Order! You will need leave to speak to the motion. Senator Harradine-Mr President, I seek leave to speak very briefly to the motion that has been moved by Senator Chaney. Leave not granted. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.42) —Pursuant to contingent notice, I move: That so much of Standing Orders be suspended as will prevent Senator Harradine making a statement relating to the proposed select committee. In moving that motion, I believe it totally unfair for the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Gareth Evans, to deny me leave to make a very brief statement about a notice of motion which appeared on the Notice Paper, as I understand it, only this morning. It is about a matter which is very dear to my heart. I have had a lifetime of interest in this question of the trade union movement. Unless this motion of mine to suspend Standing Orders is adopted, I will not be able to speak on Senator Chaney's motion. I remind the Senate that I was elected as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation which was established by this Senate. It was formed to consider questions arising from the Viner proposals in the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill which, in fact, was submitted to the Parliament by the Fraser Government. It also had provisions relating to the amalgamation of unions. We received a large number of submissions from trade unions on that particular occasion. Senator Gareth Evans —I rise to a point of order. As I understand the Standing Orders, Senator Harradine can speak only as to the reasons why Standing Orders should be suspended in order to allow him to speak to the substantive issue. He cannot canvass the substantive issue. The PRESIDENT —Order! I remind Senator Harradine of the point raised by Senator Evans. Senator HARRADINE —Thank you, Mr President. Unless I am granted leave -- Senator Gareth Evans —On the understanding that Senator Harradine wishes to speak for no more than five minutes on the substantive question, leave is granted. Motion-by leave-withdrawn. Senator HARRADINE —I seek leave to speak for 7 1/2 minutes. Leave granted. Senator HARRADINE —I rise to support the motion that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney), but I do so from a different angle, certainly as to some of the last comments that Senator Chaney made about the Industrial Relations Bill as a framework for the trade union movement rather than for the people. I submit to the chamber that it is necessary to give organisations registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act the opportunity to present their views to this chamber. After all, that is what the committee system is for-to receive submissions, to hear evidence, to distil that evidence and to make a report to Parliament. Many honourable senators have wide-ranging interests. Many of them are not familiar with the rights and responsibilities of organisations registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. If a select committee on the Industrial Relations Bill is established by this chamber, those organisations will be able to make submissions. They will be able to be heard. The select committee will be able to distil that evidence and present it in readable, precis form. That will be important in preserving the rights of industrial organisations. Let us face it, the Industrial Relations Bill goes to the heart of the system of registration of organisations in this country. There are many old registered organisations which have less than 3,000 members, for example. Are we, at the stroke of the pen-without giving them the opportunity to be heard-to obliterate them? What is our commitment to the International Labour Organisation declaration on freedom of association? These workers have gathered themselves together over many years into their registered organisation, freely associated. Now, in one stroke of the pen, the amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are likely to abolish those organisations without giving the membership of those organisations the right to have their representations heard in this chamber. That is the first point. The second point is: on what basis are amalgamations to be effected? Are they to be on an industry basis? Are they to be on a craft basis? Are they to be on an enterprise basis? Is there to be one union, for example, for the vehicle industry? Is that union to be the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia or are other unions to be maintained? I suggest that there would be a great fight on if that were to be the case, but it is a possibility under the new legislation. I would like to hear-we heard some of this evidence from the unions when I was Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation-what the tradesmen's unions think. I would like to hear from the Electrical Trades Union of Australia (ETU), for example, as to what it thinks of the possible establishment of industry unions such as one union for the vehicle industry, or for the building industry. The Electrical Trades Union is a tradesmen's union. It has a long history. Are its members to be confined to the electricity generating and distributing industry? These are the sorts of detailed questions which are important, not only for the organisations themselves but also, I suggest, for the people as a whole. It is all very well to say that the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) is pushing for a certain line. The ACTU is not a registered industrial organisation. It is not registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. We are taking notice of what the ACTU says, or what the employers say, but are we taking notice of what the registered industrial organisations are saying? Are not the individual members of those organisations, are not their officials, entitled to have some say before they are obliterated, before they are amalgamated-forcibly-into some other organisation? We are talking about coercion. We are not talking about freedom of association. We are talking about a Bill which says, `You are a member of the ETU. Your section of that organisation has to resign and go over to another union'. Is that freedom of association? Are we not transgressing the rights of individual union members to that freedom of association by ignoring the valid suggestion that they should be given the opportunity to be heard? What does this motion say? It calls for a select committee to be established to inquire into and report upon the provisions of the Industrial Relations Bill concerning the registration and amalgamation of organisations, and for the committee in considering the provisions of the Bill to give particular consideration to a number of things. I can see no problem about a committee giving consideration to those matters, I simply appeal to the Senate to consider these questions carefully, to recognise that if they defeat this opportunity for persons to be heard who are going to be vitally affected by this measure in respect of their rights to freedom of association, then this chamber is denying the right of freedom and not upholding the right of freedom of association. Mr Deputy President, I asked for 7 1/2 minutes; 7 1/2 minutes is up. I hope that this proposition will be carried. I am sorry that it has come on so late. I did not know that it was coming on. Senator Chaney, of course, does not consult me about these matters. I am sorry to hear that the Australian Democrats, apparently, have found, in a very short time, that they are not able to uphold the right of freedom of association. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 2 —— Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E.Chapman, H. G. P. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J.Harradine, B. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. M. Vanstone, A. E.Jenkins, J. A. Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Watson, J. O. W.Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. G. Giles, P. J.Beahan, M. E. Haines, J.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P.Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Button, J. N. Macklin, M. J.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R.Coates, J. Morris, J. J.Collins, R. L. Powell, J. F.Colston, M. A. (Teller) Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M.Cooney, B. C. Richardson, G. F.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Crowley, R. A. Schacht, C. C.Devereux, J. R. Sibraa, K. W.Devlin, A. R. Tate. M. C.Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A.Foreman, D. J. Zakharov, A. O.Gietzelt, A. T. Brownhill, D. G. C. Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Motion (by Senator Sanders) agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act for preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons by regulating the exportation of nuclear material and certain associated items from Australia. Motion (by Senator Sanders) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(11.01) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Exports) Bill 1988 is designed for the Australian Labor Government. The Government is desperate to get foreign currency from uranium sales, but at the same time is under pressure to help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. This Bill is a compromise between those aims, which is much more defensible and effective than the current policy. This Bill does not reflect the policy of the Australian Democrats; we remain strongly opposed to the mining and export of uranium, full stop. Unlike the Government and the Opposition, we are opposed to nuclear power. More catastrophic nuclear accidents are inevitable, the problem of disposing of nuclear wastes has not been solved, and renewable energy sources are now economically competitive and ready to go. Instead, this Bill implements the spirit of the Australian Labor Party's policy on uranium exports. If the Labor Party and the Hawke Government are serious about making sure that Australian uranium exports don't drive the nuclear arms race, then they must at least enact the terms of this Bill. I emphasise the words `at least'-the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Exports) Bill 1988 sets out the minimum requirements of effective non-proliferation legislation. It has several weaknesses. It is not good enough, but it is better than the discredited safeguards system we now have. The Bill is an attempt to make sure that Australian uranium and nuclear technology does not go to any country which is producing nuclear weapons-grade material-plutonium and highly-enriched uranium-or which has nuclear trade links with countries that are producing such material. Specifically, the Bill allows either House of Parliament to exclude a country from receiving Australian uranium and nuclear technology if that country: is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); or has not signed and ratified, or has withdrawn from, a bilateral safeguards agreement with Australia; or does not accept safeguards on all its nuclear facilities; or is planning or continuing to test or build nuclear explosive devices; or is planning or continuing to produce or obtain weapons-grade or near weapons-grade material (reprocessed plutonium, or uranium enriched to 20% or more of the isotope U-235 or U-233); or is planning or continuing to use or export such material; or has not agreed not to prohibit the changing of the origin (including through origin-swaps) of shipments of nuclear material; or does not prohibit the export of nuclear materials or technology to any country which is in violation of any of these conditions; or does not prohibit uranium flag-swaps with any country which is in violation of any of these conditions. If a motion to exclude a country from receiving Australian uranium is not dealt with within 15 sitting days, the country automatically becomes excluded. If a country which was once eligible to buy Australian uranium is later excluded by either House, any export contract with that country is suspended. The approval of both Houses of Parliament is needed to remove a country from the excluded list, and before the export of nuclear material or technology to an eligible country can take place. The reason I have left these decisions to Parliament, rather than to the relevant Minister, is that the final judges of any Ministerial decision would be the courts. I am advised that the courts would find it difficult, if not impossible to prove that any country had breached the conditions laid out in the Bill, thus rendering it toothless. Parliament is better equipped to make such decisions. The Bill also requires that potential uranium customers must first agree to seek approval from the Australian Government for any flag swaps involving Australian uranium. It requires the Minister to report all flag-swaps annually to Parliament. This Bill puts the uranium debate squarely before the elected Parliament of Australia. Public concern about nuclear weapons is now very high, higher than it has ever been. It is no longer good enough for decisions about Australia's nuclear non-proliferation policy to be left to ALP National Conferences and to Cabinet. It is time Parliament had a say. Even before its introduction, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Exports) Bill has won substantial support. It has already received in principle endorsements from Jean Alexander (NSW), the Big Scrub Environmental Centre (Lismore, NSW), Diamond Valley People for Nuclear Disarmament, William Heath (SA), Janet and Nelson Kenny (NSW), People for Nuclear Disarmament (Victoria), Dr Peter Springell (Qld), Ian Thomas (Lecturer, Graduate School of Environmental Science, Monash University), Trees and People (Victoria), Union of Australian Women (Victoria), the Uniting Church Division of Social Justice (Victoria), the Victorian Baptist Social Justice Group: Ploughshares Taskforce, Jan de Voogd (NSW) and Michael Walsh (SA). Dr Anne-Marie Grisogono of Flinders University (SA) urged Australians to give careful consideration to the Bill in a recent ABC News Commentary. Many other groups are considering endorsement, and I expect the list to grow now that the Bill has been introduced. Of course, Australia already has a Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act, courtesy of the Hawke Government. But this Act only applies to the safeguarding of nuclear material and technology within Australia, where the risks of nuclear proliferation is relatively low. It is ironic that there are no laws governing the export of Australian uranium, which is actually contributing to the spread of nuclear weapons. The reason is obvious. The internal legislation gives the impression that the Government is doing something about nuclear proliferation, while giving Cabinet a free hand over uranium exports. The Government's reversal of the ban on uranium sales to France was a classic example of how uranium policy can be changed at whim by executive decree. There is an urgent need to enact Australia's non-proliferation commitments in law, so they cannot be weakened without Parliament's consent. Some people are sure to argue that this Bill is trying to regulate the activities of other countries through domestic legislation. This is of course nonsense. This Bill can't force any other country to do anything. It only requires them to meet certain conditions if they want our uranium. Our current safeguards agreements are based on the same principle. This Bill simply goes further. I should point out that the United States has had a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act since 1978, which allows the President or Congress to cut off uranium exports to countries which violate their non-proliferation commitments. The US Act is not as tough as this one, but the principle is the same. There are some aspects of the Bill which require further explanation. Firstly, on the issue of origin-swapping. Documents leaked from the Euratom Supply Agency and passed to me clearly show that private companies are swapping the certificates of origin on different batches of uranium in order to circumvent embargoes on South African and Namibian uranium. Apparently the US Department of Energy has cooperated in some origin-swaps, and Euratom itself has no power to stop them. Because origin-swaps don't involve the swapping of safeguard obligations, they are purely a commercial matter-privatised flag-swapping, in other words. In other cases, the origin of uranium is being changed to that of the last country in which it was processed. So Australian uranium enriched in France can then become French uranium. Documents leaked from the scandal-ridden German company Nukem show that Nukem, which had a batch of South African yellowcake, exchanged the origin on that batch with the Niger origin on some yellowcake owned by Nufcor, also a German firm. Nukem's yellowcake, which had been mined in South Africa but was now labelled `Niger', was sent to the USSR for enrichment, and then to Finland to be made into fuel rods for nuclear reactors. Neither Finland nor the USSR would have accepted the uranium from Nukem with its original South African origin certificate. Origin-swapping and origin changing has no redeeming features. Australian uranium customers must agree to ban those activities if they are to receive our uranium. The only form of swap which is allowable under the Bill is a conventional flag-swap, where the ownership of two batches of uranium changes hands, and safeguards and origin together are swapped between the batches. This form of flag-swap can be used to reduce the transport of nuclear material, and therefore reduces the risk of accident or theft involving that material. The form of swap which is legal under the Bill-between non-excluded countries only-is as follows. Before the exchange: Owner X has Batch 1 with safeguards code S and origin A, while owner Y has Batch 2 with safeguards code P and origin B; whereas after the exchange: Owner X has Batch 2 with safeguards code S and origin A, while owner Y has Batch 1 with safeguards code P and origin B. Even this form of swap can be abused to weaken safeguards. For example, Germany's Nukem wanted to enrich some Australian uranium to weapons-grade, but knew that the Australian Government would not allow it. So the Australian safeguards on Nukem's uranium were traded with American safeguards on some unenrichable uranium scraps, owned by the German electricity utility RWE. Our safeguards wound up on a batch of American scraps, and our uranium, with its less strict American safeguards, was sent away for enrichment to weapons-grade. Flag-swapping allows Australian safeguards obligations to be detached from a batch of Australian uranium and shuffled off to some other convenient uranium batch so that they won't hinder the production of bomb fuel. This is why swapping is only allowed between countries which meet the conditions of this Bill. That way, no country which poses a proliferation risk can obtain Australian uranium through flag-swapping. So what is the reasoning behind the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Exports) Bill? The problem the Bill addresses is that Australian uranium goes into one big world pool of uranium, which is used for both military and civilian purposes. The Government has acknowledged that Australian uranium is mixed in with uranium from other sources at the beginning of the nuclear fuel cycle, and thereafter becomes untraceable. The batches of `Australian' uranium which are tracked through the fuel cycle are only equivalent quantities to the batches mined in Australia. They do not contain the same atoms. This Bill accepts this so-called equivalence principle. It accepts that Australian uranium goes into a pool. But none of the uranium in that pool will be available for use in bombs, because none of it can be used to produce bomb fuel. Our current safeguards agreements already place restrictions on the enrichment and reprocessing of Australian origin nuclear material. But our safeguards are rendered almost useless because uranium mined in other countries doesn't carry the same restrictions. So France, Britain, and the United States are happy to accept Australian uranium which can't be turned into bomb fuel, because they have plentiful sources of uranium which can. France, for example, gets unsafeguarded uranium from Niger, Namibia-illegally-and from its own mines; easily enough to supply its bomb program. At present, Australian uranium earmarked for electricity production liberates uranium from other sources for use in bombs. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Exports) Bill will help ensure that this does not happen, because none of the countries receiving our uranium will be making bombs, or even bomb-grade fuel. Australian uranium will be added to a pool of uranium which can only be used for civilian purposes. It is often argued that Australian uranium shuts out suppliers with less strict safeguards, and thereby prevents the spread of nuclear weapons. On the contrary, our uranium offers importing countries more choices; if our safeguards are too restrictive for a particular customer, that customer can easily go elsewhere. Our uranium helps to create a buyer's market in which suppliers have little leverage over the way their uranium is used. This Bill attempts to give Australia more leverage in the medium term by creating a seller's market, as I'll explain later. Uranium flag-swapping has helped to degrade our safeguards even further, by creating a safeguards market in which different safeguards obligations are traded to minimise their restrictive effect on nuclear activities. The idea that civilian and military uses of uranium are completely separate is often peddled by the nuclear industry's apologists and profiteers. It has recently been peddled by Primary Industries and Energy Minister John Kerin. It is, of course, a myth. France has at least 16, perhaps 20, nuclear facilities with a dual military/civilian function. These include enrichment and reprocessing plants, as well as nuclear reactors. One of these, the Tricastin uranium enrichment plant, has done low- and medium-level enrichment for the Pierreatte enrichment plant, which produces weapons-grade uranium for French bombs. The Government is on record as saying that Australian uranium passes through Tricastin, and claims that Tricastin is used only for civilian purposes. The Government has misled Parliament on this last point, and knows it, but refuses to admit it publicly. The fact is that Australian uranium is likely to have gone into French bombs via Tricastin then Pierrelatte. Having said that, this Bill does not prevent Australian uranium from being enriched at the Tricastin plant, so long as the equivalent quantity of Australian uranium which comes out does not get used in French reactors, and therefore does not increase the amount of uranium available to France for any purpose. In the Soviet Union, where some Australian uranium is enriched, the civilian and military fuel cycles are not kept separate, so far as we know. In Britain, plutonium from the `civil' power program has been used in British nuclear weapons. Some has been sent to the United States under the US/UK Mutual Defense Agreement, and now forms part of the United States military plutonium stockpile. Britain and the US are both importers of Australian uranium. Israel has built up to 200 nuclear weapons using `civilian' nuclear technology supplied by France. India exploded a nuclear weapon in 1974 using `peaceful' technology supplied by Canada. In doing so, India also exploded the myth of the peaceful atom. Pakistan is ready to build bombs using technology stolen and imported from the West. South Africa has already done so, and many other countries, including Argentina, Brazil, Iran, Iraq, and Libya would dearly like to. The Bill is also based on the belief that banning the production of weapons-grade material is an important arms control measure, which will not substantially hinder civilian nuclear power programs. As I have explained, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Exports) Bill does not allow uranium exports to any country which is making nuclear weapons-grade material. It should be obvious that if we are going to ban outright the production of nuclear weapons at some time in the future, the best way to do this is to destroy existing nuclear weapons, and ban the production of fuel from which nuclear weapons can be made. Of all the necessary components of a bomb, the fuel is easiest to ban, because it has no important non-military uses, and because there is relatively little of it in the world at present. A ban on the production of weapons-grade nuclear material would be similar to the proposed Chemical Weapons Convention (the CWC), which bans the production of certain chemicals which can be used in chemical weapons. It could be verified using factory inspections, similar to the procedures for verifying the CWC. If the International Atomic Energy Agency was beefed up, and was released from having to promote nuclear energy, it might be able to do the job. Nuclear weapons-grade material is produced in two main ways; by reprocessing spent fuel rods to obtain plutonium, or by the high-enriching of uranium (to greater than 90% of the isotope U-235). The major uses of plutonium and high-enriched uranium are military: plutonium is used to make most weapons, while high-enriched uranium is used to make some weapons and is used as a fuel in the reactors of nuclear-powered submarines. Plutonium reprocessed from spent fuel rods is also added to uranium to fuel mixed-oxide civilian power reactors in Japan, France and some other Western European countries. But according to well-credentialled American scientists-Harold Feivcson, Professor Frank von Hippel and David Albright-writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in March 1986, mixed oxide fuels are not economic, because of the low cost of uranium and the high cost of reprocessing. In fact, the United States, Canada and Sweden have forgone reprocessing. Not only is it uneconomic, it does little to alleviate the disposal problems posed by high-level radioactive waste, contrary to earlier scientific opinion. According to the American scientists, ``the nuclear industry now generally agrees that the storage and final disposal of spent fuel are not intrinsically more difficult than disposal of the high-level wastes created by reprocessing the fuel''. Furthermore, the quantities of plutonium produced by power reactors are too small to significantly extend the life of the world's uranium reserves. Plutonium-producing fast breeder reactors, by contrast, are designed to greatly extend the life of world uranium reserves, and were once seen as the guarantors of the world's energy future. In 1976, Andre Giraud, the French Defence Minister who was then head of the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) predicted that 540 fast breeders would have been built by the year 2000, and 2766 by the year 2025. These days, fast breeder programs have ground to a virtual standstill. Fast breeders are uniquely dangerous. They are literally able to explode like a nuclear bomb. Because they use and produce large quantities of the deadly plutonium, they pose a severe pollution risk. The reprocessing technologies needed to extract plutonium from the reactor core have not been developed on a commercial scale, because of environmental and economic problems. Furthermore, an energy system based on fast breeders would require the transport of vast quantities of plutonium (the `plutonium economy'), which would have to be heavily guarded, leading to an erosion in civil liberties. France's only commercial-scale fast breeder has been shut down for a year with a sodium leak, while Germany's experimental fast breeder at Kalkar has been refused an operating licence. A handful of other fast breeders are in operation, but it is now generally agreed that fast breeders have little role to play in energy production. A three-year French study done for the 1986 World Energy Conference predicted that fast breeders would extend the life of the world's uranium reserves by only 17 years. In short, banning the reprocessing of nuclear wastes to produce plutonium would not have a significant effect on civilian energy programs. This also applies to the production of high-enriched uranium. High-enriched uranium has only one civilian use, which is as a fuel for some research reactors, such as the HIFAR reactor at Lucas Heights. But the US Department of Energy wants to convert research reactors from using high-enriched uranium to using uranium enriched to 20% of the isotope U-235. Scientists at the Argonne National Laboratory have developed a high-density fuel using 20% enriched uranium as part of the DOE's Reduced Enrichment in Research and Test Reactors (RERTR) program. The RERTR program has the same purpose as this Bill-to make it much harder to divert nuclear weapons-grade material for use in bombs, by limiting the production of that material. The importance of banning the production of bomb-grade fuel has been underscored by recent revelations. One is that, in 1986, there was a huge discrepancy between the amount of nuclear material on the International Atomic Energy Agency's books, and the amount of actual material the Agency found at nuclear plants around the world. To be precise, the IAEA failed to account for fissile material sufficient to make about 70 bombs. This does not mean that all that material was stolen or diverted to weapons. What it does mean is that if some of that material has been stolen or diverted, then the IAEA has no way of knowing, because its book records are not nearly accurate enough. This revelation was made by the German magazine `Der Spiegel'. I want to say a few words in defence of `Der Spiegel'. During the uranium flag-swaps controversy, Senator Cook claimed that `Der Spiegel' was a `tits and bums' magazine which had run the fake `Hitler diaries', and therefore could not be given any credence. In fact, Senator Cook got `Der Spiegel' confused with `Stern', which did run the Hitler diaries and does have a poor reputation. `Der Spiegel', by contrast, is a reputable journal. It seems that some plutonium has been diverted from under the IAEA's nose, according to a documentary called `The Plutonium Black Market', which was made by 20/20 Vision and screened on Britain's Channel Four in 1987. It has also screened on US cable television, and in New Zealand. ABC-TV's `Four Corners' is considering doing a story based in part on this documentary. `The Plutonium Black Market' claims that plutonium and high-enriched uranium has been stolen from civilian plants in Europe and auctioned in Sudan. The bidders have included Israel, Libya, South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, India and the PLO-a rogue's gallery of proliferation risks if ever there was one. According to a former US Government agent who posed as a merchant in this black market, 12 kilograms of plutonium were offered for sale in Khartoum in 1980. South Africa offered $5 million per kilo for it, but was outbid by Iraq. Other quantities have been offered at other times. The Sudanese Prime Minister, Mr al Mahdj, confirmed the existence of the black market in his country, and said that Sudanese police had seized a contraband shipment of enriched uranium in August of last year. It had been found in the house of a businessman. It seems that so-called `civilian' reprocessing plants such as Mol in Belgium, Sellafield in Britain and Cap la Hague in France are leaking plutonium like sieves, which is finding its way into the hands of would-be nuclear powers. It could also find its way into the hands of terrorists. The political committee of the North Atlantic Assembly, which is NATO's parliament, said in a 1987 report that it `cannot rule out the possibility of serious nuclear terrorism in our lifetime'. This view was endorsed by a 1987 Pentagon report which said that terrorists could easily hijack plutonium from commercial reprocessing facilities. The American scientists Feiveson, von Hippel and Albright recommend that the production of plutonium and high-enriched uranium be banned, and that existing stocks of those materials be placed under international control. The Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee of this Parliament also recommended in 1986 that the production of weapons-grade material be banned. Such a ban is not a new proposal, and is not even a radical proposal. It is not an anti-nuclear power proposal. It is a nuclear non-proliferation measure which is at the heart of this Bill. Finally, what would be the effect of the Bill, if it were to become law? It would ban uranium sales to most of Australia's current uranium customers, with the exception, subject to certain agreements, of Finland and maybe Sweden. Over the space of ten to fifteen years, this is likely to cause the uranium supply market to shrink, because Australia is sitting on thirty percent of the world's reserves, which are likely to be exhausted some time next century if the nuclear power industry continues. As alternative sources of uranium dried up, countries would be forced to make a choice: either produce nuclear bomb fuel and freeze in the dark, or forgo making bomb fuel in order to get Australian uranium for electricity production. Any sensible country would choose the latter option. The former would be politically stupid. This Bill would give Australia significant leverage with which to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. This leverage would not be immediate. Australia would have to forgo revenue from uranium sales to excluded countries until they cleaned up their acts. But if the goal of uranium mining is preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, as the Government claims it is, then this Bill is an essential measure. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory) -I move: (1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Administration of Aboriginal Affairs, be established to examine and report upon the Government's proposals for the re-organisation of the administration of Aboriginal affairs by the formation of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), including: (a) the terms of those proposals and the clauses of any legislation proposed for the establishment of ATSIC; (b) the effectiveness of the process of consultation undertaken by the Government with respect to the ATSIC proposal; (c) the proposal of the Aboriginal Development Commission for ``an alternative strategy of Aboriginal self-management''; (d) the Government's treatment of the Aboriginal Development Commission and the Commissioners, including the dismissal of 8 of the Commissioners. (2) That the Committee report to the Senate within 6 months of the publication of legislation or draft legislation. (3) That the Committee consist of 6 Senators, as follows: (a) 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate; (b) 2 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; (c) one to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats. (4) That the Committee proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (5) That the Chairman of the Committee be appointed by and from the members of the Committee. (6) That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. (7) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote. (8) That the quorum of the Committee be 3 members. (9) That the Committee and any sub-committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit. (10) That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the Committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the Senators appointed to the sub-committee. (11) That the Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the Committee with the approval of the President. (12) That the Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. (13) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Committee has completed its report, the Committee may provide the report to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy-President, and, in that event: (a) the report shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (b) the publication of the report is authorised by this Resolution; and (c) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the report; and (d) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, shall lay the report upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate. (14) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Senator TAMBLING —Speaking briefly to the motion, this matter arises from the urgency motion which was very properly presented in this place on 24 May by Senator Coulter on behalf of the Australian Democrats. That motion was very critical of the need for an urgent appraisal of matters relating to Aboriginal administration and, of course, the Government's proposal for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. The effectiveness of the Government's consultation was very seriously questioned in that urgency debate and many of the issues that were raised certainly highlighted the need for very adequate consultation with Aboriginal communities, particularly once the draft legislation or the legislation has been presented to the Parliament. It is most important that the accountability and scrutiny of any future Aboriginal administration be properly looked at and a select committee is a very appropriate way of doing that. I am pleased that the Democrats have given their support for the establishment of such a select committee which will go a long way to advancing issues relating to self-management and self-determination for Aboriginals in Australia. I commend the motion. Senator COULTER(South Australia) —by leave-As Senator Tambling has pointed out, his motion follows quite logically and naturally from the urgency motion which was debated in the Senate last week. It represents a balancing between the desirability on the part of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) to get the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (Atsic) or something approaching his ATSIC proposal up as quickly as possible and the need adequately to survey the precise legislation-which, as yet, nobody has seen-to allow Aboriginal groups to look at that legislation and ensure that it will properly fulfil their needs. The paragraph in the motion which relates to the timing of the report of the proposed Select Committee on the Administration of Aboriginal Affairs matches exactly the terms of the motion which was before the Senate last week. Therefore, the Australian Democrats have great pleasure in supporting Senator Tambling's motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Declaration of Urgency Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That Government Business Order of the Day No. 1 (Call of the Senate) be postponed till after consideration of Government Business Orders of the Day No. 2 Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) 1988 and No. 3 Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) 1988. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(11.04) —I declare that the following Bills contained in the list now circulated to honourable senators are urgent Bills: Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill 1988 Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill 1988 Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1988 Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill 1988 Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriations) Bill 1988 Migration Amendment Bill 1988 Departure Tax Amendment Bill 1988 Departure Tax Collection Amendment Bill 1988 Commonwealth Authorities Legislation (Pay-roll Tax) Amendment Bill 1988 Primary Industries (Recovery of Levy Collection Expenses) Bill 1988 National Health Amendment Bill 1988 Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988 Fertilisers Subsidy Amendment Bill 1988 Customs Tariff (Rate Alteration) Bill 1988 Civil Aviation Bill 1988 Social Security Amendment Bill 1988 Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988 States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988 Employment, Education and Training Bill 1988 Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill 1988 United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Bill 1988 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1988 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 Anti-Dumping Authority Bill 1988 Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1988 Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1988 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 1988 Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Superannuation Benefit (Interim Arrangement) Bill 1988 Defence (Superannuation Interim Arrangement) Amendment Bill 1988 Audit Amendment Bill 1988 Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill 1988 I move: That the Bills be considered urgent Bills. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.04) —Pursuant to the contingent notice of motion which is on the Notice Paper in my name, I move: That so much of Standing Order 407b be suspended as would prevent debate taking place on the motion. Mr President, the Government has within the last half hour or so advised the Opposition that it is proposing to guillotine the balance of what the Government regards as its essential program and it has the support of the Australian Democrats in that move. I suppose that a keen student of even recent political history would regard that as an impossibility. Of course, the views of the Australian Democrats on these matters are very clear. They ran on a platform of never supporting gags and guillotines. Indeed, I think Senator Colin Mason, who is no longer with us, actually filled in a declaration before he entered the Parliament that he would not indulge in such behaviour. In any event, notwithstanding the public expressions from the Australian Democrats that they will not support the limitation of debate, last night, and again today apparently, they committed themselves to a substantial limitation of debate on a major series of Bills. It is not for us to keep the Democrats honest. I suppose one might say that some sort of mini-Democrat Party needs to be formed, just to keep those who are here honest, to fulfil ex-Senator Chipp's desire to improve the operation of the system and, as Senator Chipp used to say, `To keep the bastards honest'. But that is a cry from the past. I do not intend to spend the limited time we have left for debate under the terms of the proposed guillotine discussing that matter. The Opposition strongly opposes this guillotine and believes that it is neither necessary nor reasonable. There is certainly no basis for the Democrats welshing on their traditional stance on these matters. This session has involved, to an extraordinary degree, the Government introducing matters which required attention. A succession of statements, for example, have used up a great deal of parliamentary time. To those who might think that a delay has been imposed by the Opposition, I can only say that, as recently as a couple of weeks ago, there was certainly no suggestion in any of the discussions I had with Senator Evans, the Manager of Government Business, that there had been any delay. Of the business conducted in the Senate from February to May of this year, that is, during the current session up to the time I was able to get statistics, about 54.2 per cent of the time had been spent on Government business-on legislation, ministerial statements, ministerial arrangements, Government-initiated motions, and so on-as against 56 per cent of the Budget session of last year, when it was certainly not found necessary to introduce such drastic proposals. Why is that? The Government has always had an impossible program. Those of us who have met frequently during the session with Senator Evans, who has given us forecasts of the Government's requirements, would know that at each of those meetings I have made the point that the Government has set a program which was not possible to achieve by any proper legislative means. Senator Gareth Evans —We have taken off 15 or 20 Bills. Senator CHANEY —The Minister makes the point that he has taken off some Bills, but let us consider the matters we are dealing with. We have referendum Bills, which came to the Senate only recently and which could not be dealt with until the Government had introduced them. Some time ago the Government was going to introduce amendments to them, but the Bills have got to the Senate and been dealt with only last week and this week. It was beyond the capacity of the Opposition to have a debate on them any earlier in the session. The Government said last week, for example, in its programming, `We will finish all these Bills on Monday'. I remind the Government, which believes that we should perhaps have finished the constitutional Bills on Monday, that on Monday it told us that it had found a defect in the Bills and that it was going to have to amend the so-called fair elections Bill. So the Government has scarcely put itself in a position to complete debate, even if the Opposition had not had important points to make on the Bills which were still to be dealt with. In these closing weeks of the sitting, the Government has introduced constitutional amendments although we had not seen the Bills prior to introduction. The Government introduced in the House of Representatives late last week a May statement, which required eight new Bills to be introduced in the Parliament and to pass through the Senate as part of this guillotine. Those Bills were seen by the Opposition for the first time when they were introduced at the time of the May statement, last Wednesday evening, and the Government forced them through the House of Representatives in less than 24 hours. That is the sort of legislative program the Government is imposing on the Senate. It is saying that these Bills, which have been before the Opposition for less than a week and which have not, therefore, even had the opportunity to go through the normal party processes of shadow Cabinet and party room discussion, are part of the essential legislation which is to be considered. It was the considered view of the Opposition that it was necessary to pass those Bills through the Parliament in this session because many of them involve expenditure changes and, consistent with the extraordinary degree of maintenance of principle that we have adopted with respect to the Government's Budget legislation, we were proposing to ensure that those May statement Bills were passed through the Senate during the course of this week. But that means that under the Government's program the Senate is required to deal with the May statement Bills in something less than four hours. That means dealing with 10 May statement Bills in something less than four hours. We then get a series of very brief times-an hour, an hour and a half and 30 minutes in some cases-to be allowed for a whole series of Bills, some of which are Bills of very great importance and complexity. For example, in the case of one of the Bills we are called upon to deal with in an hour and a half-the Bill relating to employment, education and training-the Opposition has 17 amendments and I am told that the Australian Democrats have 28 amendments. That is a total of 45 amendments on a Bill on which we have been allowed an hour and a half for debate. Last night I made the point about the contempt for the legislative process, and I can only say that we could get no clearer demonstration that there is to be no proper opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of that measure when, in the view of the Opposition, 17 amendments are required and, in the view of the Australian Democrats, 28 amendments are required; yet we are to have one and a half hours for debate. That is something like two minutes per amendment if we have no second reading debate. Quite clearly, that is an absurdity and it is reducing the procedures of this chamber to a farce. We have the Commonwealth Employees Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill. I would have thought that that was a Bill that even the public servants advising this Government might have thought warranted a little serious attention. That Bill involves removing the vested, existing compensation rights of some thousands of public servants-I think some 8,000 public servants. Senator Reid —Nine thousand. Senator CHANEY —Nine thousand public servants are involved. It involves removing the right of access to the common law. Access to the common law is a very untidy right for employers because it means that, if an employer is negligent and, as a result of the employer's negligence, the employee is injured, the employee is limited to statutory compensation and cannot recover his true losses if those losses exceed the statutory compensation. The Opposition has made it clear that we wish to amend that legislation to protect the existing rights of public servants. We accept that there is a need for amendments to the compensation legislation; but we do not believe that that need requires us to impose, effectively, retrospective provisions on people who have already suffered injury or disability in the course of their service for the Commonwealth. For the debate on that Bill we have one and a half hours, and that requires us to put quite significant propositions about the retention of common law rights, which I am sure the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans), who is at the table, will agree are very contentious matters. There are very strong arguments, some of which are raised, some would say, out of the self-interest of lawyers, and others, some would say, out of the civil liberties concerns. In fact, I think the need for a responsible community requires that we maintain some liability for negligence and so on. They are the sorts of issues which remain to be dealt with, and we have, for that Bill, one and a half hours. If one looks at the 9,000 public servants who will be directly involved by the retrospectivity, one could say that we have 0.1 of a minute for the concerns of each of them. That is a suitable measure of the concern that the Government has about this major matter. We have some quite important tariff legislation which affects the responsibilities of the Industries Assistance Commission and the role of the Government and the IAC with respect to the Government and the variation of tariffs. We have matters touching on superannuation, research and development, and so on. I simply want to make the point-I do not wish again to take up too much of the limited time we now have left under this motion-that we have consistently said that the Government's program was structured in a way which made it inevitable that, in this last period of sittings, there would not be an adequate opportunity to give these matters proper parliamentary consideration. That, I think, is the central concern that we have. If the Australian Democrats support this guillotine, the effect will be simply to add perhaps half a dozen of those Bills to the list of Bills which, we believe, would otherwise have been passed by Thursday evening. We believe that the cost of doing that is to destroy the prospect of giving proper scrutiny to some complex issues which will impact on the rights of many Australians. Is all this brought about by a lack of preparedness of the Parliament to sit? This Parliament has seen a gradual worsening of the sitting pattern which has been imposed. The Government-with my approbation, I must say-moved to a sitting pattern described as `two weeks on, two weeks off'. Parliament used to sit for three weeks in a row, three days a week with one week up. That seemed to be an inefficient use of time. I must confess to being one of those who argued for years that sitting two weeks with four-day-a-week sitting patterns would be more productive and efficient. Given the hours of work in this place, which are anything from 12 to 16 or 18 hours a day, we accepted that four-day sitting weeks impose a very significant strain. Two weeks on, two weeks off was meant to provide an opportunity for non-parliamentary party activities, parliamentary committees and so on during one of the weeks off, and some access to our electorates, which, in the case of many senators and members, are a long way from this Parliament-in my case Western Australia-in the other week off. We are now moving to a pattern of sitting three weeks on, one week off, four days a week. It is no surprise to any of us that one Government senator is away, having had heart trouble. The impact on both our health and efficiency, on the sensible working of this Parliament, on the sensible consideration of legislation and, indeed, on the civil treatment of each other, is obvious. It cannot be said that the sitting pattern is one where we have in any way sought to reduce the Government's capacity to have time in the chamber. We have consistently-usually over the objections of the Australian Democrats-agreed to additional sitting hours being added to days, and so on-- Senator Haines —In breach of the agreement. Senator CHANEY —I say to Senator Haines that, given the circumstances of the Government's very difficult-indeed, impossible-program, we have bent over backwards to provide additional time where possible. The Australian Democrats have gone from being unyielding on the question of not giving extensions of time to saying-as they did last night-that we could sit till 3.30 in an attempt to finish one Bill, and then today saying that, notwithstanding their professed concern for proper legislative processes, what we are to do now is give the Government, on a very limited timetable, any legislation which it has classified as being needed this week. The further options of sitting for extended weeks into June have certainly not been canvassed with us in any serious way by the Government. We know that the Government's conference next week is going to preclude it from sitting then, and I suspect that the shift from this Parliament House to the new Parliament House, which commences shortly thereafter, would make sittings here in June impractical. The Senate is being deprived of an opportunity properly to examine this legislation. We believe that it is an abuse of the processes of this Parliament and we call upon the Australian Democrats to stand by their professed principles, which require them to permit proper parliamentary scrutiny of these Bills and to reject this guillotine. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Mr Deputy President, in order to ensure maximum time for the debate on the constitutional Bills, I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the negative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Chaney for the suspension of Standing Orders be agreed to. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(11.24) —Of all the comments that Senator Chaney made in speaking for the suspension motion, the only valid one was that the Government is in a mess and that it is in this mess because of its own incompetence, because of its own making, it should be prepared to cop the consequences. That was certainly a view that we took. We have, as Senator Chaney said, been sitting here this year dealing with innumerable ministerial statements and committee reports of all sorts. Legislation has been slow coming to us from the other place. By and large, we have had precious little to do except sit around and gaze at our own, or someone else's, navel, in the case of Senator Amanda Vanstone. So we felt, certainly until last Thursday night, that the Opposition had a reasonable argument to put. We were certainly not prepared to facilitate any moves by the Government to improve its program by curtailing debates and ramming legislation through. The agreement was that there would be no additional sitting days; we would not come back next week; we would not come back on the week beginning 13 June; we would not sit any additional sitting hours, and there would be no gags and no guillotines. Essentially, the agreement on this side of the chamber was to let the Government stew in its own juice, and deservedly so. All this was fine until last Thursday night when-with no consultation with anybody except, I gather, Senator Evans-the Opposition, through Senator Chaney, did a deal to sit late on Thursday. We called a division on that because Senator Chaney said we were opposed to it. It was, after all, part of the agreement that we had made. If we, on this side, believed that the Government was being less than well organised in its program, there was no need for us to help the Government out. But, last Thursday night, the Opposition decided to extend the sitting times. We called a division and all Liberal Party and National Party senators who were present supported the Government in the move for a later sitting. I suspect from some comments that were made to me subsequent to last Thursday night that, not only did a number of Opposition backbenchers not know what that division was about, but neither did some of its junior frontbenchers. That is not particularly unusual. It seems to be a practice of the Opposition parties not to let their backbenchers know what is happening or they feed them a line that every time the Senate sits late it is because the Australian Democrats have agreed to it. That is consistent, I suppose, with what has been going on in the last few years. Increasingly, Opposition senators support legislation that they have argued passionately against in this place. We have seen them support all sorts of measures that they said were iniquitous in their speeches. Then, when we, supporting their vocal opposition to the legislation, have either moved amendments to legislation or opposed it, the Opposition has voted with the Government. It might be a salutary lesson to some backbenchers in the Liberal and National parties to consider how many Bills have gone through this place in the last four years because they have supported them, despite speaking out against them, and not because we have supported them. As I say, Thursday night rolled around and, despite the agreement, times had been extended. As they say, one slip of this sort can be seen as an accident, but when it happens several times it is sheer carelessness. I would have thought, it having happened the third time, that it had gone beyond simple carelessness and into the realm of hypocrisy. On Monday night, the Opposition, apparently, went to the Government with an offer that it was certainly not going to refuse; the Opposition offered to sit an extra hour. There was no consultation. I understand that Senator Harradine was left out of the discussion. Certainly I was not aware of it until 10.31 p.m. rolled around and we were still sitting. There was no explanation about why. When it suited the Opposition parties' convenience-again assuming that they all knew about it-the Senate was expected to sit longer, despite the previous agreement that there would be no change to proceedings. Senator Chaney —What has this to do with truncating debate? Senator HAINES —Agreements require more than one party to adhere to them, and the point is that we went into the last weeks of this session agreeing on this side, I thought, that there was to be no accommodating of the Government in its ham-fisted attempt to get its program dealt with. That agreement was breached, first of all, last Thursday night; and, secondly, on Monday night; and, despite the fact that I objected to it, the deal had already been done. Last night, I understand, the Opposition-again, courtesy of Senator Chaney-offered to sit on for an extra hour. By that stage, as far as the Democrats were concerned and certainly as far as I was concerned, all bets, all agreements, all arrangements were off. Senator Chaney —What has this to do with the proper scrutiny of legislation? Senator HAINES —Senator Chaney asks what this has to do with the scrutiny of legislation, and I think that is an extremely good question. I was about to come to that because I really wonder what the charade we went through last night had to do with the scrutiny of legislation. We in this place are supposed to be a House of review. We can be a House of review only if we actually do look at legislation and come up with some sort of reasonable analysis of it. Last night, I would have to say, we heard from some of the Opposition backbenchers some of the most appalling nonsense that it has been my misfortune to hear. I would have thought that no-one, by any stretch of any imagination, could possibly have described last night's debate as scrutinising legislation. There was not even an attempt to canvass the issues. In the main, Liberal Party and, even more apparently, National Party contributions to last night's debate consisted of rattling a whole lot of sabres and an assortment of phantoms that tortured imaginations had conjured up, presumably by a cursory look at the legislation. I think this has come perilously close to something that Lewis Carroll would have delighted in. It was certainly a long way past brillig last night when we got on to debating the Constitution Bills; but there was certainly no justification for the way the slithy toves on this side of the Senate gyred and gimbled their way through several hours of fairly meaningless contributions to a debate that should have been a review of the legislation. Yes, this House is supposed to be a place where legislation is reviewed. It is supposed to be a place where we scrutinise legislation. It was anything but that last night. Opposition senators interjecting- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections from the Opposition benches. Senator HAINES —For the benefit of those backbenchers who have just wandered in, presumably from a morning tea break, I will repeat that the agreement-- Senator Walters —On a point of order, Mr Deputy President: A couple of colleagues of mine had a meeting and we wandered in from a meeting-not from a morning tea break, as Senator Haines has said. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! What is the point of order? Senator Walters —That Senator Haines was making statements very offensive to the senators who had just come in. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! That is not a point of order. Senator HAINES —Apparently it is perfectly acceptable for Opposition senators to carry on about the absence from the chamber of all or any of us; but they simply cannot take it on the chin when it is dished up. However, whether they were at a morning tea break or whether they were at a meeting is irrelevant. They were not here and maybe it would be worthwhile filling them in-- Senator Harradine —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. I rarely raise a point of order and interrupt another senator; but I believe that we are supposed to be debating a motion to which Senator Haines's remarks are not at all relevant and we ought really to get on to the referendum Bills and enable others who have some substantive contributions to make to make them. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The motion before the Chair is for the suspension of Standing Orders. Traditionally, debate on such motions has been wide-ranging. Because Senator Chaney was allowed to range fairly widely over the issues I have allowed Senator Haines to do the same. However, I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that the motion before the Chair is for the suspension of Standing Orders. Senator HAINES —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I was answering some of the points that Senator Chaney had raised, pointing out that an agreement had been made on this side of the chamber that no changes at all to sitting days, to sitting times, to the procedures of the place, be engaged in simply because the Government had got itself into a mess of its own making, and that it deserved no assistance. That was certainly the view that we took and, I thought, that the Opposition took, until last Thursday night when the Opposition moved to sit until 10.30, instead of rising at 6.30. Senator Chaney —The Government moved. Senator HAINES —Senator Chaney had to support it or it would not have got through, and support it he did. Worse, on Monday night he, apparently, went to the Government with a proposal that we sit another hour. So the initiative this time came from him-and sit another hour on Monday night we did. That process, for the benefit of the Liberal Party backbenchers who were not here, was repeated last night. Senator Harradine —Mr Deputy President, I raise another point of order. My point of order is the relevance of this speech. We have till 12.30 to deal with all of these referendum Bills under a guillotine that is going to be supported by Senator Haines, yet she is taking up time which should properly be used by others on a substantive measure. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The question of the guillotine has not yet been determined by the Senate. Senator Haines is speaking to a motion to suspend Standing Orders. She has more time, but I think she has been given adequate opportunity to respond to Senator Chaney. She should now deal with the question of whether Standing Orders should or should not be suspended. Senator Walters —Did you or did you not promise not to support the guillotine? Senator HAINES —I will answer that question by asking my own. Did or did not the Opposition agree, until last Thursday night, that there would be no changes at all to the procedures in this place? Senator Walters —No. Senator HAINES —Senator Walters should go back and have a look at some of the comments. Senator Bishop —Go back and have another look. Senator HAINES —Senator Bishop over here, whose voice can usually bring down planes, does not like it when it is directed at her, but the agreement in this place to continue normal procedures was first breached by the Opposition. The second time it was breached it was breached by the Opposition and the third time it was breached it was breached by the Opposition. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I have given Senator Haines adequate opportunity to reply to the remarks made by Senator Chaney. If she wishes to continue she should concentrate on the issue of whether or not Standing Orders should be suspended. Senator HAINES —Mr Deputy President, I do not like curtailing debate. Nobody in this place likes curtailing debate. But clearly, the behaviour of some Opposition senators last night and the decision by their Leader to renege on his part of the agreement has released the rest of this chamber from their part of the agreement. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) put: That the question be now put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Aulich, T. G. Giles, P. J.Beahan, M. E. Haines, J.Black, J. R. Jenkins, J. A.Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Burns, B. R. McLean, P. A.Button, J. N. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E.Chapman, H. G. P. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Harradine, B. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. M. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W.PAIR Jones, G. N.Brownhill, D. G. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —The question now is that Senator Chaney's motion to suspend Standing Orders be agreed to. Senator Chaney —Mr President, because there is such a limited time for debate on the constitutional legislation, I will not call for a division on this motion. Question resolved in the negative. Original question put: That the motion (Senator Evans's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Aulich, T. G. Giles, P. J.Beahan, M. E. Haines, J.Black, J. R. Jenkins, J. A.Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Burns, B. R. McLean, P. A.Button, J. N. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E.Chapman, H. G. P. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Harradine, B. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. M. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W.PAIR Jones, G. N.Brownhill, D. G. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(10.49) —I move: That the times allotted for the consideration of these Bills be as follows: WEDNESDAY (1 JUNE 1988) Time allocated Thursday finish Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) 1988, Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) 1988, Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) 1988, Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 1988- Remaining stages up to and including adoption of reports from Committees and fixing time for 3rd reading 12.30 p.m. Third Reading Commencing, and Questions to be put, immediately after the Call of the Senate MAY STATEMENT BILLS Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriations) Bill 1988 Migration Amendment Bill 1988 Departure Tax Amendment Bill 1988 Departure Tax Collection Amendment Bill 1988 Commonwealth Authorities Legislation (Pay-roll Tax) Amendment Bill 1988 Primary Industries (Recovery of Levy Collection Expenses) Bill 1988 National Health Amendment Bill 1988 Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill 1988 Fertilisers Subsidy Amendment Bill 1988 Customs Tariff (Rate Alteration) Bill 1988 Commencing no later than 3.05 p.m. or immediately upon conclusion of consideration of the Constitution Alteration Bills, whichever is the later-Remaining stages to 7.00 p.m. Civil Aviation Bill 1988 Remaining stages to 8.00 p.m. THURSDAY (2 JUNE 1988) Total (hrs) Social Security Amendment Bill 1988 Commencing no later than 10.10 a.m. and, after Question Time, re-commencing no later than 3.05 p.m....1 Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 1 1/2 States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988 States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance Amendment Bill 1988 Employment, Education and Training Bill 1988 1 1/2 Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill 1988 United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Bill 1988 1 1/2 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1988 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 Anti-Dumping Authority Bill 1988 Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1988 Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1988 1 1/2 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 1 Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 30 minutes Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 1988 30 minutes Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 30 minutes Superannuation Benefit (Interim Arrangement) Bill 1988 Defence (Superannuation Interim Arrangement) Amendment Bill 1988 1 Audit Amendment Bill 1988 30 minutes Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill 1988 30 minutes I also move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT —Order! The question is that the question be now put. Senator Chaney —Mr President, for the same reason I do not propose to call a division. Clearly, the Australian Democrats will vote with the Government and we now have 40 minutes in which to complete this motion and the constitutional Bills. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —The question now is that the motion for the allotment of time be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 31 May. Title. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.50) —Mr Chairman, we are dealing with the title of the fourth referendum Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill 1988. That title states: 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. Mr Chairman, that title is misleading, it is deceptive and it is a fraud. It is important for honourable senators and, indeed, the public to realise the importance of the long title because the long title will be the basis of the question that will be on the ballot paper received by every elector in this Commonwealth. The electors will be asked, `Do you support the Bill to', amongst other things, `extend freedom of religion?'. The people of Australia will not know that that proposition has the potential, as has been admitted by the Government in this chamber, to abolish state aid for independent schools. That proposition even has the potential, because it goes not only to legislative acts but also to administrative acts, to cause a future President of the Senate or a future Speaker of the House of Representatives to say, `We cannot start the day with the Lord's Prayer'. Senator Zakharov —This is a secular society. Senator HARRADINE —Ah, Senator Zakharov says `secular society'. Now we have it. We know now the reason for this proposition coming forward. She says we are a secular society. We may indeed be a pluralist society, but it is clear from the type of statement made by Senator Zakharov that the Zakharovs of this world are behind this particular push. I am sure that Senator Zakharov will concede that because this amendment to the Constitution proposes that the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory shall not establish any religion or impose any religious observance, it not only deals with the laws of this country but also deals with executive and administrative acts. Senator Collins —You are profoundly wrong. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Collins was not here last night when we canvassed the issues relating to Murphy. The Minister at the table could not give a guarantee that this measure would not at some stage enable a sectarian attack to be mounted in a State to prevent that State from giving aid by way of funds to parochial schools. Senator Button —Oh, you are a straw man. You are a threat expert. You have survived on threats for many years. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Button has made certain statements. Senator Button should know what Mr Justice Murphy said. He said that it was appropriate for the plaintiffs in the Black case to use section 116 of the Constitution to abolish state aid for independent schools. If we did have a Bench of Murphys, for example, the same thing could, of course, occur. But in this case it could occur in respect of the funds utilised by States for educational purposes. Mr Chairman, I put to the Committee that in fact the long title of the Bill does not deal with the proper question. Where in the description of section 16 in the margin of the Constitution are the words `freedom of religion'? It says: Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion. Where, indeed, in this Bill does it say that this is a Bill to extend freedom of religion? It says, in the very part that we were dealing with last night, namely, clause 4: No establishment et cetera of religion. Last night Senator Crichton-Browne referred to the cases. He also referred to the discussions in the constitutional conventions, particularly by Higgins, to the effect that section 116 was not placed in the Constitution in order to establish a right to freedom of religion. That was not the primary purpose of it. The primary purpose of it was to prevent States from establishing a religion or legislating for the observance of a religion. I have submitted, and it has not been denied, that this measure is capable of erecting an impenetrable wall which has the potential of discriminating against and isolating adherents to various religions. To describe that as a measure to extend freedom of religion is to mislead the public and to act in a most improper way in a matter which is one of the most important matters that we can discuss, and that is alterations to the Constitution. Once it is in the Constitution, it is set in concrete and the decisions then are not capable of being made by the elected representatives of the people, either at State or Federal level; they are made by non-elected judges. I remind honourable senators again of what the former Chief Justice of Tasmania, Sir Stanley Burbury, said: 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. That is the crux of the matter. Here we are dealing with a question, the ramifications of which we do not know. The Government is not prepared to give a guarantee that what it is attempting to do here will not have the effect that I have suggested it may have. Under those circumstances I believe that the people of Australia should reject it. Indeed, under those circumstances I would have thought it more appropriate to delete the words `to extend freedom of religion' and insert in lieu thereof `to ensure that the Commonwealth a State or a Territory shall not legislate or take administrative measures in respect of religion'. I make that suggestion to the Government. I oppose that, of course; but at least it would be a true reflection of what this Bill does and it would enable the electors of Australia to truly see what this measure does and to vote on it accurately. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.00) —The Senate has had a good deal of debate in the committee stage of this legislation, but unfortunately very late at night. Therefore, the debate would substantially have escaped the attention of the Australian people. I rise to point out that we have half an hour to deal with the whole of the committee stage-- Senator McKiernan —You should have thought of that last night. Senator CHANEY —I do not need any advice from the Acting Government Whip, who dishonoured the arrangements I made with him. In any event, there was no intention by the Government to bring these other Bills on today. This title cannot, in my view, encompass the diversity of matters which are being put before the Australian people. I have a great deal of sympathy for the point of view that Senator Harradine has expressed, but the fundamental problem is that people are being asked to vote on three totally disparate proposals. I do not believe that the defect in the legislation can be cured. Because of the desire to have some committee debate on the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill, which makes another major constitutional change, I do not propose to prolong this committee debate further. I simply wish to express my great dissatisfaction that the sort of point made by Senator Harradine cannot be dealt with in an orderly and sensible way because of the restrictions imposed by the Government. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(12.01) —I rise to support, in precise terms, the views expressed by Senator Harradine. The proposed changes to the Constitution remove the words `for the making of a law'. They now refer to any Act of any parliament in Australia. That means that the right of the Senate to say prayers in the morning could be removed. Recently, at the opening of the new Parliament House-in spite of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who wanted no prayers-we managed to have prayers. We would no longer have that right on those occasions. In the States it would no longer be possible for school children to say prayers in the mornings. At no ceremonial function could we have a reference to God. It is not absurd to hypothesise that the singing of God Save the Queen could be prohibited. That is the practical, tangible effect of these proposals. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Bolkus) agreed to: That the third reading of the Bill be an Order of the Day for a later hour of the day. Debate resumed from 19 May, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Aulich, T. G. Haines, J.Beahan, M. E. Jenkins, J. A.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Michael Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E.Chapman, H. G. P. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J.Harradine, B. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. M. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W.McGauran, J. J. Jones, G. N. Brownhill, D. G. C.Button, J. N. Baume, Peter Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.04) —I move: Page 1, Title, leave out all words after `Constitution', insert `to provide that generally for parliamentary elections throughout Australia (but not the Senate and House of Representatives) the number of electors in electorates shall not vary by more than 20 per cent, to confer a Constitutional right to vote at all parliamentary elections within Australia, and to provide that each elector shall vote only once at an election'. I move this amendment on behalf of the Opposition because, as with other Bills brought forward by the Government, we believe that the long title of the Bill is seriously flawed. The questions which are going to be put to the Australian people do not represent the reality of the constitutional change which is being sought by the Government. In this case the Government has delivered a sugary pill indeed by asking the Australian people whether they approve an alteration of the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia. One would have thought that an untutored view, that is, a view based on not knowing what lay behind that question, what the substantial amendments to be made to the Constitution are, would result in a yes answer being given. This Bill is not going to be debated in any reasonable way in the committee stage because the time for the debate is now less than 20 minutes. In the second reading debate, on all of the constitutional amendments, a number of points were made clear which demonstrate that this Bill will not provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia but would impose quite a different set of standards upon State parliaments as against the standards which are imposed on the Senate and the House of Representatives and which would not be disturbed by the passage of this referendum. What this Bill alleges to do is to pay premier regard to the principle of one vote one value. It is dictating to the State parliaments and to the Territory legislatures. There are complications about that which we will not have time to debate this morning, which is a tragedy. The Australian Democrats are now putting up amendments, which we saw for the first time in the last half hour, which supplant amendments that were circulated by the Minister at the table yesterday, amendments which were supported by an explanatory memorandum that the Minister could not release to me because the Government thought that it needed to produce a tighter document. We are to be called upon, no doubt, to vote on a series of amendments which will have had no proper examination, by the Opposition or by anybody else. The farcical nature of the present procedures with respect to constitutional change is becoming increasingly apparent. To return to my amendment, this Bill imposes the condition of one vote one value on legislatures other than the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Bill represents an attempt to impose, through the Constitution, restrictions and limitations on State electoral systems which do not and could not be applied to the Federal Parliament. The discrepancies, the variations, which exist in the House of Representatives go beyond the limits imposed on State parliaments. Because of the special arrangements made for Tasmania, the one vote one value principle as it will be applied to the States does not apply to the House of Representatives. But even more sharply, when one looks at the variations from one vote one value in the Senate, one finds, as I said in the second reading debate, that New South Wales is 117 per cent over quota, that is, over the average which is imposed if one took an Australia-wide average for the Senate, with Tasmania 81 per cent below quota. So we say to the State parliaments, `Your upper Houses must be within a tolerance of 10 per cent either way. You cannot have a variation of any more than 20 per cent between any electorates'. Yet in the Senate we allow a variation of a couple of hundred per cent on that basis. It is a farce. It is claimed that this Bill will impose a uniform democratic standard upon Australia, whereas the reality is that the present Government, the Democrats and the other supporters of this Bill are quite prepared for far more substantial variations to continue to apply in the Senate-in my view, democratically-than will apply in any State or Territory. I look at the Tasmanian Legislative Council, which has been subject to criticism, and I find that the largest percentage over quota is 31 per cent, as against 117 per cent for the Senate in New South Wales. That is the sort of contrast. If we look at the complained-of upper House arrangements in Western Australia, we find variations which are approximately half the variations that we intend to continue in the case of the Senate. This is just one of the examples that have led independent observers who have been much quoted in this debate-the head of the Morgan polling organisation, Mr Paddy McGuinness, and so on-to say that these are thoroughly dishonest questions, and that is what they are. A Tasmanian senator laughs. I ask him why it is that he can occupy a seat in this Senate with 80 per cent less than the quota that would be required if we had one vote one value in this place, yet he is prepared to attack the Tasmanian upper House which has half the variations that apply to him. What hypocrisy! The absolute hypocrisy of the honourable senator is almost unbelievable. We have a series of amendments. The amendment which we are putting before this chamber now quite specifically draws the attention of the people of Australia to the substance of what is proposed by the Government. It is a far clearer exposition of the actual changes to the Constitution which are proposed. What we are saying is that the long title should read that it is an Act to alter the Constitution `to provide that generally for parliamentary elections throughout Australia (but not the Senate and House of Representatives)'-and that is a fact-`the number of electors in electorates shall not vary by more than 20 per cent', and then the other matters which are dealt with in the Bill are also included in our long title. It is impossible to challenge the proposition that what we are putting forward as the long title which will go as the question to the people of Australia is a more accurate description than what is proposed by the Government in its present long title. What the present long title suggests is that the people are being asked to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia; yet what is proposed is, in fact, imposing totally differential standards according to whether one is dealing with a State or Federal parliament. There is a real problem for this Committee and for the Senate in dealing with this Bill on the basis of the timetable which is put forward. Let me remind the Committee that last Friday Senator Amanda Vanstone, who is the Opposition spokesman on matters dealing with the Australian Capital Territory, pointed out that the Bill, in its present form, was utterly inconsistent with the Government's own proposals for an electoral system for self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. Senator Robert Ray —Possibly. Senator CHANEY —The Minister at the table interjects `Possibly'. I would accept that, given the variations of judicial interpretation that apply, one perhaps should always put the word `possibly' in front of any comment made about proposed constitutional change. I say that very seriously. I think there is enough evidence of wide variations of interpretation of our own Constitution and of the United States Constitution by the High Court and the Supreme Court, respectively, to say that it would be a very bold senator who stood in his place and gave any guarantees about what the precise meaning of any proposal was. Suffice it to say that Senator Amanda Vanstone's point was backed by the opinion of counsel advising the Senate. A Queen's Counsel gave his view that there was an inconsistency; that change was required. Whilst I defer to the point made by Senator Robert Ray about `possibly', I remind him that on Monday we were advised by his colleague the Minister charged with the conduct of these Bills, Senator Tate, that the Government proposed to introduce amendments. Here we are facing a situation in which on Monday we returned to debate these Bills as we thought, only to find that the Government was proposing amendments to meet the point and some point additional to that raised by Senator Vanstone and in the opinion. We received in due course and the Minister circulated in a formal way under the heading of this Bill-the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill 1988-amendments to be moved on behalf of the Government. Senator Robert Ray —Not as an amendment; as a draft. Senator CHANEY —They were circulated to senators. They were not formally circulated in the chamber. We then, of course, sought advice. We had a very confused debate on this proposed amendment. Senator Macklin, when he rose in this place, said that the legal advice the Democrats had was that the Bill was in proper order and did not need amendment, and therefore they would not be supporting the amendment. We took advice and our advice was that the Government's proposal was defective. So we were left in this situation: firstly, our advice is that the original Bill is defective; secondly, our advice is that the amendment given to us by the Government is also defective. When, last night, in the course of that long and, for most of us, irksome, night, I went to the Minister-I checked through the Clerks and pursued the matter because there was reference to an explanatory memorandum-the Minister said in a very polite way, `I am sorry, I cannot give that to you because we are looking for a more tightly expressed document', or words to that effect. So we could not get the Government's explanation of what the document meant as late as last evening. Then today in the Senate we are hit with new amendments which are apparently to be put forward by the Australian Democrats and which of course we have had no opportunity to peruse in an orderly way or to seek advice on. Given the variety of legal advice that has already been given on the original Bill and the first set of proposed amendments, I can only say that for the Democrats in those circumstances to put us in the position where we are required to vote on those amendments in 10 minutes time is an absolute disgrace. The situation is that we are being asked to make major changes on the basis now of a third set of words which have been produced, as far as we are concerned, in the last half hour or so. On the face of it one can immediately see questions about precisely where the further amendments might fit in, whether those amendments will apply to the discrepancies which, as I have said, will be permitted to continue under the original legislation with respect to the House of Representatives and with respect to the Senate. I find it very hard to see precisely what ill or abuse of the process of electoral distribution is aimed at in the expressions which have now been put forward by the Australian Democrats. I simply say to the Committee that to suggest that in this way we should finalise today a proposition which is going to be put to the people of Australia for vote is an absurdity. I have no doubt that if the Senate does what apparently it is to be asked to do and adopts these changes virtually sight unseen, they will be subsequently subjected to the most searching scrutiny and criticism in the public debate. But are we to say that the responsibilities of this Parliament are such that we should run the risk of passing deficient legislation on the basis that we hope it might be picked up later and if there is something wrong it will be handled because the people of Australia will reject the referendum and defeat the proposed constitutional amendments? I do not believe there could be a more blatant or more apparently unsatisfactory situation with respect to dealing with constitutional amendments and nobody can blame that unsatisfactory situation on the fact that we have had a lengthy debate on the other Bills, because in fact that lengthy debate has extended the time available for the consideration of the defects in this legislation. If we had not had a lengthy debate, presumably this would have been put forward in some form or other now acknowledged by the Government and the Australian Democrats to be defective. That is the reality. Had we dealt with these Bills on Monday, we would have faced an amendment from the Government. Senator Macklin said it had the support of the Democrats. It would have been dealt with and it would have meant that we had, on the face of it, a deficient Bill passed through this House for submission to the people of Australia. The Government apparently abandoned its amendment in favour of that of the Democrats. There could be no clearer demonstration of the lack of responsibility in the approach to these matters, the lack of preparation, the lack of capacity for proper parliamentary scrutiny. This is a quite disgraceful and unacceptable situation. I do not believe that it can be supported conscientiously by either Government senators or the Australian Democrats senators. We are being asked to vote blind at the third go at getting this right-right in the sense of achieving what the Government and the Australian Democrats want to achieve and which we say in any event is wrong for Australia. I say to the Government that if there is any honesty of purpose, any sincerity of purpose at all in what it is putting forward, it will not maintain the extraordinary timetable that has been put down. We now have five minutes to consider this Bill and to vote on amendments which have not even been moved in this chamber. That is a disgrace, and I protest with the greatest possible force. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.25) —Mr Chairman, with regard to the Opposition's amendment, may I indicate that the Australian Democrats will not be supporting it. At a later stage when we have some time I intend to look at some other amendments which senators have before them. Since we are taking the Bill as a whole, I wish to refer to proposed section 29 (2) which, I believe, imposes an obligation upon the Federal Parliament that it does not impose upon the State Parliament. Since proposed section 124b actually refers to the same situation-124b places the onus on the States and also on the Commonwealth-there is no need for proposed section 29 (2). I would propose at a later stage to move an amendment to that effect. The second amendment with regard to items that I would certainly be looking at amending relates to proposed section 122a, which seeks to insert a new subsection. The reason for this particular item is to avoid the weighting exercise. This would be achieved by providing that votes may not be weighted according to different classes of electors, such as classes defined, for example, by social, economic, demographic or geographical factors. This provision does not affect the counting process involved in normal preferential or proportional voting. The last item that I would propose to move is one about which there was some debate about the Government moving an amendment. I think it was a very long and cumbersome way of dealing with this particular item. I think it would be dealt with much more succinctly and rapidly and certainly would avoid the problem, if there is any, with regard to the upper Houses in New South Wales and South Australia, which are democratically elected Houses. I believe the way of doing that is simply to leave out those words `as near as practicable the same as the method of choosing senators' and insert instead into that situation that `the method to be used is a system of proportional representation'. This original item, of course, came from my Bill but in my Bill it was not used in this type of context. In my Bill it was used with regard to a fallback situation. The Government here, however, has actually not only used the fallback but also used it with regard to any of those chambers in Australia which are actually elected as a single electorate. I believe that if we now take out that provision-which was perfectly all right if it was only a fallback situation, it is not all right if it refers to those chambers in New South Wales and South Australia-State parliaments under my provision would have far greater flexibility. Of course, it is still open to the States which do not have existing laws for the conduct of elections at large to adapt the Senate system to their own particular variations that they wish to achieve. It is worth noting, I think, that Australia has a long and honoured history with regard to proportional representation. Indeed, our unique contribution to that particular method was to insert into it the notion of preferences. That ought to be borne in mind when we look at any method of proportional representation. The item here is not, in fact, to define that. My amendment, as is consistent with the Bill that I drafted on this and which had some criticism from the committee that looked at it, is drafted as a constitutional item; it is not drafted as a legislative item. I believe that a drafting of those matters needs to be dealt with in quite different ways. One is a much more broad enunciation-indeed, Senator Alston last night enunciated this rather well-that, in fact, it is an exercise in the entrenchment of basic principles. Here I think the principle behind any notion of proportional representation is very clear. There is a whole variety of different methods but the essential element is that representation is done in regard to the proportion of votes that are received. That is the essential element that goes across all methods of proportional representation. It means that if one wishes then to look at derivative principles, fairly obviously one such derivative principle is that more than one member is elected within that single electorate. They are the types of amendments which I think will fix up any lingering problems that people may have had. I am still not at all sure that we needed to go into that exercise. Lawyers often operate with an abundance of caution. I have had the opportunity of checking with a whole series of lawyers with regard to this matter. All of the advice I have received is confident that these proposals will achieve what they seek to achieve. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 12.30 p.m., the time allotted for consideration of the Bill has expired. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Michael Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E.Chapman, H. G. P. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J.Harradine, B. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. M. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Walters, M. S.McGauran, J. J. Watson, J. O. W. Beahan, M. E. Jenkins, J. A.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Vallentine, J.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O.Haines, J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Jones, G. N.Baume, Peter Button, J. N.Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. G. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.36) —Pursuant to contingent notice of motion and on behalf of Senator Haines, I move: That so much of standing order 407b be suspended as would prevent the questions being put in respect of any amendments circulated by the Australian Democrats, the Opposition, or Independent Senators and that such questions be put accordingly. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.36) —It is important to note precisely what is being proposed by the Australian Democrats in moving for the suspension of standing orders. Honourable senators need soberly to assess what is going on here. We have had circulated by the Australian Democrats amendments which are totally new to this chamber. They have not been properly examined. They are not now going to be debated. Having had constitutional proposals before us, for a period of some weeks now, those proposals having been found last Friday to be deficient, the proposals to remedy the deficiency by the Government, in turn, having been found to be deficient, the Australian Democrats are now asking the Senate, presumably with the consent and support of the Government, to vote on amendments which have not received any consideration at all. The Australian people are going to be asked to vote in a referendum, which includes clauses-if this motion is carried-which have not received any proper consideration by the Parliament. They have been produced out of somebody's hat this morning. We are dealing with serious and significant issues. We are dealing with issues which will reconstitute many of the State parliaments. We are dealing with issues which will go to the operation of the democratic system in the States, although they leave untouched the operation of the system as it applies to the Commonwealth. We are suddenly being handed a sleeve option. I do not know whether Senator Tate is responsible for this, whether the officials are responsible for this, or who is responsible for this, but the political responsibility rests with Senator Tate and the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Lionel Bowen, and the Ministers at the table here today. Those people, having been confronted with the reality that they had produced a constitutional proposal that had technical legal difficulties for their other proposals for the Australian Capital Territory, went away and produced amendments which have now been found to be defective. They were not even able to give to the Committee an explanatory note of what they were doing because the document was not distributable. It was not of sufficient quality, apparently. I am not in a position, on behalf of the Opposition, to pass final judgment on any amendments which are put forward without our having an opportunity to consider them. It is an absurdity that this Parliament and this Opposition are now being asked to consider proposals which may well affect the operation of democracy in the States and which, on the face of it, will certainly affect the range of electoral choices which are open to a State government when it is constituting its parliament and determining a proper system of voting. I oppose this extension of Standing Orders because it is a flagrant abuse of the parliamentary process. It is-- Senator McLean —So is a filibuster. Senator CHANEY —Let me remind Senator McLean what we are talking about. These Bills came into the Senate for consideration last week and were not discovered to be defective until last Friday. The technical deficiency which everybody seems to agree was there, discovered by my colleague Senator Vanstone, was found after five days of the Bills being put before us in this place. We then have gone through a process where the Government has sought a solution to the deficiency and failed. This morning the Australian Democrats produced an alternative solution. The only reason that we in the Senate have had any opportunity to consider this third option is because of what Senator McLean calls a `filibuster'. I just want to say to Senator McLean: if it took five or six days to find two sets of defects in this legislation which is seeking to amend our Constitution, does he suggest that we should be apologising for providing the time to enable his party to form a view that changes were required? This is an absurdity. I remind Senator McLean that we did provide the time. These Bills would have been dealt with if we had not had a lengthy debate on rights. Presumably, consideration would have been completed before these further deficiencies were discovered. The legislation could have been passed in this deficient state. I therefore say that once again we have had demonstrated the need for careful parliamentary scrutiny which will at times be lengthy. I remind the Democrats that they joined with us in an exceedingly lengthy debate on the Bill of Rights. That might have been described as a filibuster. That was a debate which went on for days and weeks. Indeed, it was spread over some three months. I simply remind the Senate and the Australian Democrats of the impact of that debate that a person who was opposed to what we were doing would describe as a filibuster. The impact was quite simple. The people of Australia started thinking about and examining that proposition. They decided that they did not want it. We did not defeat the Bill of Rights in the Senate. The Government took it off the table because of the public reaction, because of the way in which it assessed the people of Australia would vote. Let us look at the identity card. Again, people could describe debate on this measure as a filibuster. We joined with the Australian Democrats, not once, not twice but three times, to really oppose the identity card. We did it in a way which, again, our opponents would describe as a filibuster. I remind honourable senators that we did it in the teeth of 70 per cent public support for the card. It was an unpopular thing to do politically. On that occasion I think we showed great courage and I acknowledge that we always had firm allies in the Australian Democrats in that exercise. Anyone who believed that the Bill of Rights or the identity card should be foisted on the Australian people without the chance for proper consideration would regard what we did in the Senate as wrong. Let me contrast the history of the ID card and the Bill of Rights with what is before us today. Today we have a third proposition. The Government has failed twice to give us a proposition that it is prepared to support with respect to the so-called fair elections referendum. We are now, like a bolt out of the blue, given something by the Australian Democrats which is totally contrary to what they told us was their position on Monday. On Monday, Senator Macklin, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, said that he thought the original Bill was satisfactory. He told us that he was acting on legal advice. Senator Macklin has effectively confirmed that position again in the Senate today. I remind the Senate of that because it simply demonstrates the enormous room for error in the field that we are dealing with today. We had a lengthy debate on the possibility that whatever care we took with the words the High Court could, in any event, make quite unpredictable findings. We have talked at great length about the disparity between the views of Mr Justice Murphy and all of his fellow judges on the present freedom of religion arrangements in the Constitution. That is not an unusual thing. Who could pick what a judge might decide because, after all, look at the disparate views on the right to trial by jury taken by Mr Justice Deane and Mr Justice Murphy. I am glad to de-Murphyise the argument, if you like, because variations in the way judges behave is not restricted to Senator Murphy who indeed, I think, showed a high degree of consistency in his judgments. Senator Stone —Consistently wrong. Senator CHANEY —The view is put forward by Senator Stone that he was consistently wrong. But my point is that we have had endless demonstration in this debate of the fact that the meaning that might be given to a constitutional change, even if we think in this Parliament we have got it right, is pretty hard to pick. Former Senator Rae, who was in the Chamber until very recently, conceded that we could say no more than possibly this is what the court would hold it to believe. The Democrats are now seeking to extend their right to move amendments in this ambush situation. I use `ambush' not in the sense that they have necessarily set out to ambush us, but because they have, over the course of the last two days, totally changed their position on this Bill. I am sure it was done in good faith, but they have totally changed their position. Why have they changed their position? Because further and more careful inquiry has told them that their position on Monday was wrong. They will not give us the time for further and careful inquiry. They will not give the Government time for further and careful inquiry. I assume they gave the Government enough time for the Attorney-General's Department to give an opinion on what the amendments mean, but I say to the Government that the opinion of the Attorney-General's Department on Monday was quite different. I assume that the Attorney-General's Department also had a chance to cast its eyes over the amendment that was circulated on Monday. It was then the Government's view of how this could be rectified and presumably the Attorney-General's Department was wrong, as the Attorney-General's Department was wrong with respect to the original Bill unless it is a fact that the Government took the drafting of the Bill and the advice on the Bill out of the hands of the Attorney-General's Department and relied upon Senator Tate and the Deputy Prime Minister and perhaps the previous Attorney-General, Senator Evans. Mr Chairman, this is a circumstance where I think we could not have a more clear breach of the functions, a more clear abuse of the functions of this chamber and this Parliament than we are seeing today. I reject any suggestion that the Opposition has contributed in the tiniest way to the predicament of the Government on this. The worst that can be said of the Opposition is that we have had a longer debate than some people would like on these vital constitutional amendments. That is the one complaint that an opponent of the Opposition would make. I remind the Senate again that it is only because we have taken, not the five days or the three days that the Government would have liked, but six days to deal with five Bills for constitutional amendment. All of six days, is that not disgraceful? The Senate actually spent six days debating five Bills for constitutional amendments including the one put forward by the Democrats with a totally radical new approach to the process of legislating in this country! How dare the House of review scrutinise those Bills for six days! Is that not a ridiculous proposition? To go back to it, I remind the Senate that without that six days of debate, we would not today be debating these amendments. We would two days ago or three days ago have seen amendments pushed through or the original Bill sustained if the Australian Democrats were of the view they were on Monday, which everybody now agrees is wrong-both were wrong. I know it is very hard to turn straw into gold; it is very hard to turn sand into gold except through possession. It is very hard to turn party politicians from a path once they have adopted it and it is nearly impossible to turn governments from a path, however wrong-headed, and however clearly wrong in principle, once the juggernaut has commenced to roll. I know that in making this debate there is scarcely any chance at all that any honourable senator opposite is listening in a sense that he is prepared to consider the reality of what I am talking about and to respond. I suspect that the Australian Democrats are as tightly bound, notwithstanding their claimed different approach where they would listen to the arguments on the merits and vote accordingly. I think, quite frankly, those days sadly have passed and any arguments that the Democrats had for being a genuine, middle-ground party have long since disappeared. I regret that, because I think it was at least a tolerable situation when one had people-and I think Senator Chipp in the main was off in this line-who were prepared to listen to arguments and to come to some conclusion. But the situation now is that the Democrats have come in here en masse, determined to force upon the Senate an amendment which has not received any proper consideration and which is not available for debate; which cannot be subjected to independent legal advice; which will result in a question being put to the Australian people; which we already know is going to be put dishonestly; which may also be, basically and sadly, flawed. I can only say that we have come to a very sorry pass in the Senate and I believe that we have seen a complete prostitution of the legislative process, a complete abuse of the process of constitutional change in this country and I record my disgust at the circumstance in which the Senate finds itself today. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) put: That the question be now put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Aulich, T. G. Haines, J.Beahan, M. E. Jenkins, J. A.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M.Cooney, B. C. Richardson, G. F.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Crowley, R. A. Schacht, C. C.Devereux, J. R. Sibraa, K. W.Devlin, A. R. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Vallentine, J.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Michael Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chapman, H. G. P. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J.Harradine, B. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. M. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S.McGauran, J. J. Watson, J. O. W. Jones, G. N. Brownhill, D. G. C.Ray, Robert Baume, PeterButton, J. N. Lewis, A. W. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The CHAIRMAN —I now put the question that the motion moved by Senator Macklin be agreed to. Senator Puplick —Mr Chairman-- The CHAIRMAN —Are you taking a point of order, Senator Puplick? I will take a point of order but I will not give you the call for any other reason. Senator Puplick —I am seeking your advice as to whether in fact it is competent to move a motion to suspend Standing Orders to prevent the Senate from debating the amendments proposed to be moved by Senator Macklin to this piece of legislation. The CHAIRMAN —No, not in view of the guillotine. I must put the questions without any further debate. I would hear a point of order but no motions. The question is that the three amendments circulated by Senator Macklin be agreed to. Senator Puplick —Mr Chairman, I take a point of order and draw your attention to proposed amendment No. 3, which proposes to leave out certain words and insert other words. I ask whether the amendment being moved is a direct negative. The proposal is to delete certain words from clause 9, namely, the words `as nearly as is practicable the same as the method of choosing senators' and to insert certain other words, namely, `a system of proportional representation'. I would put it to you that the system which is currently provided for in the Bill is not a system of proportional representation and would not have the effect of imposing proportional representation on other elections, but that the amendment moved by Senator Macklin is a direct negative of that and that, that amendment is out of order. The CHAIRMAN —The definition of a direct negative is if the same result could be achieved by voting against the motion and in that case the same result could not be achieved by that method. Do you have a point of order, Senator Chaney? Senator Chaney —We have dealt with the gag motion but not with Senator Macklin's motions. The CHAIRMAN —That is correct. Question put: That the motion (Senator Macklin's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Aulich, T. G. Haines, J.Beahan, M. E. Jenkins, J. A.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M.Cooney, B. C. Richardson, G. F.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Crowley, R. A. Schacht, C. C.Devereux, J. R. Sibraa, K. W.Devlin, A. R. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Vallentine, J.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Alston, R. K. R. Messner, A. J.Archer, B. R. Newman, J. M.Baume, Michael Panizza, J. H.Bishop, B. K. Parer, W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Patterson, K. C. L.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. M. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S.McGauran, J. J. Watson, J. O. W.MacGibbon, D. J. Jones, G. N. Brownhill, D. G. C.Ray, Robert Baume, PeterButton, J. N. Lewis, A. W. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Circulated amendments- Page 2, clause 5, proposed subsection 29 (2), lines 15 and 16, leave out the proposed subsection. Page 3, clause 9, after proposed section 124a, insert the following new section: Votes to have equal value `` `124aa. (1) In: (a) an election held in an electoral division; or (b) an election held in an electoral region that is one electorate; the method of voting shall be such that, with respect to the votes of all electors in the division, or in the electorate, as the case may be, votes shall not be weighted according to different classes of electors. `(2) In this section, ``election'' includes an election to choose senators.''. Page 5, clause 9, proposed subsection 124d (2), lines 6 and 7, leave out ``, as nearly as practicable, the same as the method of choosing senators'', insert ``a system of proportional representation''. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Macklin's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Aulich, T. G. Haines, J.Beahan, M. E. Jenkins, J. A.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M.Cooney, B. C. Richardson, G. F.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Crowley, R. A. Schacht, C. C.Devereaux, J. R. Sibraa, K. W.Devlin, A. R. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Vallentine, J.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Alston, R. K. R. Messner, A. J.Archer, B. R. Newman, J. M.Baume, Michael Panizza, J. H.Bishop, B. K. Parer, W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Patterson, , K. C. L.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E.Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. M. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Walters, M. S.McGauran, J. J. Watson, J. O. W.MacGibbon, D. J. Jones, G. N. Brownhill, D. G. C.Ray, Robert Baume, PeterButton, J. N. Lewis, A. W. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the third reading of the Bill be an Order of the Day for a later hour of the day. The PRESIDENT —Order! According to order, a call of the Senate will now be made. Ring the bells for three minutes. The bells having been rung- The PRESIDENT —Order! I inform honourable senators that their names will be called alphabetically by the Clerk. I request that they answer to their names. The Senate having been called by the Clerk- The PRESIDENT —Order! I have to inform the Senate that all senators with the exception of Senator Brownhill have answered their names. I direct that the name of the senator who has not answered be called again. The Clerk called the name of the senator not answering to his name. The PRESIDENT —Order! I have received a letter from Senator Brownhill relating to the call of the Senate. Senator Brownhill advises that he is absent overseas on parliamentary business as a guest of the Government of the People's Republic of China. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, in view of the fact that Senator Brownhill is absent on parliamentary business overseas, he be excused for failure to answer the call of the Senate. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Aulich, T. G. Haines, J.Beahan, M. E. Jenkins, J. A.Black, J. R. Jones, G. N.Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P.Burns, B. R. McLean, P. A.Button, J. N. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Vallentine, J.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Michael Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E.Chapman, H. G. P. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J.Harradine, B. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. M. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W.McGauran, J. J. The PRESIDENT-Order! There being 40 ayes and 33 noes, the question is resolved in the affirmative. I declare that the third reading of the Bill has been agreed to by an absolute majority, as required by the Constitution. Bill read a third time. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Aulich, T. G. Harradine, B.Beahan, M. E. Jenkins, J. A.Black, J. R. Jones, G. N.Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P.Burns, B. R. McLean, P. A.Button, J. N. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. (Teller) Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Vallentine, J.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O.Haines, J. Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Michael Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chapman, H. G. P. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J.Hill, R. M. Teague, B. C.Knowles, S. C. Vanstone, A. E.Lewis, A. W. R. Walters, M. S.McGauran, J. J. Watson, J. O. W. The PRESIDENT-Order! There being 41 ayes and 32 noes, the question is resolved in the affirmative. I declare that the third reading of this Bill has been agreed to by an absolute majority, as required by the Constitution. Bill read a third time. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Aulich, T. G. Haines, J.Beahan, M. E. Jenkins, J. A.Black, J. R. Jones, G. N.Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Burns, B. R. McLean, P. A.Button, J. N. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Vallentine, J.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Michael Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E.Chapman, H. G. P. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J.Harradine, B. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. M. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W.McGauran, J. J. The PRESIDENT-There being 40 ayes and 33 noes, the question is resolved in the affirmative. I declare that the third reading of this Bill has been agreed to by an absolute majority, as required by the Constitution. Bill read a third time. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Aulich, T. G. Haines, J.Beahan, M. E. Jenkins, J. A.Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P.Burns, B. R. McLean, P. A.Button, J. N. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Vallentine, J.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Michael Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chapman, H. G. P. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J.Harradine, B. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. M. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W.McGauran, J. J. The PRESIDENT-Order! There being 40 ayes and 33 noes, the question is resolved in the affirmative. I declare that the third reading of this Bill has been agreed to by an absolute majority, as required by the Constitution. Bill read a third time. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-In the belief that the propositions were going to be dealt with in the order in which they will be put to the people, I inadvertently sat in the `No' area for the second vote when I assumed that the division was in respect of elections-in fact, it was in respect of local government. I seek leave to have my name recorded for that proposition. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted for the voting lists to be altered accordingly? There being no objection, leave is granted. Sitting suspended from 1.37 to 2 p.m. Senator PARER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Can the Minister confirm that, because the Government will not allow uranium enrichment in this country, Australians are losing an estimated $1 billion in revenue each year? Does he accept that its farcical three-mine policy is depriving the Aborigines from the Koongarra region of the right to gain the maximum economic benefit from their land and costing them $250m? Does he further accept that it is playing into the hands of our competitors for uranium sales, namely, South Africa, Niger, Namibia and Canada, which will pick up the growing uranium market for peaceful purposes? Finally, can he confirm that these important decisions about uranium policies are to be made by a handful of people dominated by the left of the trade union movement at the Australian Labor Party (ALP) National Conference in Hobart and that we are once again seeing the faceless minority determining the policy of Australia rather than those elected by the people to represent them? Senator BUTTON —Even if that were true I think a faceless minority might be better than a brainless one, which is what we get with any Opposition conference on this issue. Senator Chaney —What a stupid statement. After the carry-on in your Party on that issue, that is a really pathetic statement. Senator BUTTON —I am referring to the carry-on in the Senate. Senator Reid —You let yourself down when you behave like that. Senator BUTTON —Is that right? Senator Chaney —Your own views are totally at odds with those in the Party. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator BUTTON —I am getting some sort of prefect-type coaching from members of the Opposition, but I appreciate it. There are three parts to the honourable senator's question. I do not believe for a moment that the decision not to allow uranium enrichment in Australia necessarily involves a loss of $1 billion in revenue or profit to the industry. I do not know what-- Senator Parer —Estimated. Senator BUTTON —That is estimated. Some of the estimates which have been put around by various sections of the industry are wild in the extreme. Certainly, if we add value to any mineral resource we get additional revenue from that process. I would have no idea about estimating the amount but it certainly would be substantial. In so far as the Koongarra mine is concerned, I have some doubts about the three mines policy but I also have doubts about a policy which would involve open slather in respect of uranium mining. It is not within the area of my ministerial responsibility to be able to give any definitive view on that either way. I have doubts about both views. It may be that what the honourable senator says about the Koongarra mine and the loss of revenue to a variety of people is an important issue. But I think it is not to the point to say that it is a loss of revenue to an Aboriginal community; it is a loss of revenue to the whole country if the figures that the honourable senator has suggested are correct. I was asked whether we are playing into the hands of our competitors. I believe that Canada has succeeded very well in the uranium market as a result of less competition from Australia and other countries in recent years. I have no knowledge of the other countries to which the honourable senator refers. Finally, I was asked whether the decision of the ALP Conference will be made by a handful of people, the handful to which the honourable senator referred being a group of left wing trade unionists. It has always been my personal view that one of the problems of the ALP National Conference-and like any body of that kind, it has problems-is that there are insufficient union representatives at it. Certainly, on this issue, I think there would be no handful of trade unionists, Left, Right or Centre, determining this issue. Senator Parer —Non-elected. Senator BUTTON —There are no people who vote or participate in the deliberations of an ALP Conference who are not elected. They are all elected delegates. Senator Chaney —They are not elected by the people. Senator BUTTON —It is exactly the same with the Liberal Party Conference. John Elliott tells Liberal parliamentarians what to do from time to time; he is not elected by the Australian people. He has been telling John Howard when to jump for months now. Mr Elliott is not elected, so what are honourable senators opposite talking about? Senator Chaney —Why not face up to the reality of the question? Senator BUTTON —I am facing up to the reality. It is a precise analogy. Senator Chaney —You know the constitutional differences between the parties. Senator BUTTON —I know that John Elliott tells Liberal parliamentarians what to do. That is the point: he is not elected. He is not elected even by the shareholders of Carlton and United, incidentally. So I do not think any decision will be made by anybody other than the 99 delegates who participate at the Conference. Senator BURNS —Can the Minister for Transport and Communications advise the Senate what actions are being taken to ensure that additional international air services are provided to Brisbane to cater for visitors to World Expo 88? Senator GARETH EVANS —That one has been around for a while and I will need a few moments to find it. I will come back to it at the end with some detailed figures. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I ask: Did the Minister note the Treasurer's comments on the recent Channel 9 Sunday program regarding the new superannuation taxes? Did the Treasurer say that the changes announced last Wednesday represented a `snapshot' of the financial circumstances of superannuation funds at that time? Did he also imply that beneficiaries would not lose one cent so long as fund managers shifted all funds into tax sheltered investments which attract tax credits from the dividend imputation system? Does this inevitably mean that, if all fund managers shift to tax exempt investments, this would logically lead to reduced Government revenues? Did the Government include in its net revenue estimate of the changes, supposed to be $925m, any reduction in tax revenues as a result of a shift by fund managers to investments which attract tax imputation credits? If so, what was that amount? Senator WALSH —The last part of the question is wrong. That is, the presumption that, as superannuation funds move into buying equities that pay franked dividends, they will in that way, of course, be shifting their present lending to reducing the level of lending or property investment that they have and that that will be transferred to other sectors of the economy and tax paid on it is wrong. In regard to what the Treasurer said, I do not have a transcript of it, but I am willing to accept what Senator Messner has said. Incidentally, I did see the Sunday program and I think that Senator Messner, with tolerable accuracy, has summarised what the Treasurer said on the program a few days ago. The term `snapshot', which I think was in fact used, is an appropriate term. The Opposition, of course, cannot conceive that other people will change their behaviour because the underlying realities have changed. Of course, now that the underlying realities have changed, fund managers will change their investment policies. That snapshot that was there last week will not be the snapshot that will exist six months hence or 12 months hence. I know that it is extremely difficult for those in the Opposition to grasp the fact since their ideas never pay any account to what goes on in the real world and all the changes that have taken place in the real world. Their ideas, unchangeable, immutable, are like the ideas of the Bourbons; it is hard for them to understand that behaviour will change. They are not like John Keynes, who, when asked what he would do if he were presented with evidence that showed decisively that his beliefs or theories were wrong, said, `I would change my mind. What would you do?'. That is what we do, that is what fund managers do; it is not what the Opposition does. Apparently Senator Messner is still asserting, falsely, that there will be a loss of revenue to the Government as the superannuation funds change their investment policies, their relative holdings of equities and their debt or rental property. I will quote from a Treasury minute that was prepared on this subject, amongst others. It is, of course, correct. It says: Any reductions in taxation revenue from superannuation funds arising from such portfolio shifts could be expected to be made up from those investors who acquire assets disposed of by the funds. As the return from those assets would generally be taxable in the hands of such investors, often at a higher rate, there would be no overall net loss to revenue. Senator McMULLAN —I direct my question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in yesterday's Australian which stated that in the May statement tax concessions for approved research and development had been reduced from 150 per cent to 100 per cent? Is the article correct? If not, can the Minister clarify the current position on the concession as it was announced last Wednesday? Further, if the article is not correct, is the Minister concerned that this type of article could create confusion and therefore have a detrimental effect on research and development in this country? Senator BUTTON —I have seen that article, and as far as I am concerned it is a case where ignorance is not bliss. Journalists who know something about this subject would have known what was announced in the May statement in fact represents an extension and not a curtailment of research and development concessions. The newspaper to which Senator McMullan referred is not alone. The 150 per cent tax concession for research and development was introduced with a life of five years. The Government never introduced this with the intention that it should go beyond 30 June 1991. In the May statement the fact that it would continue to 30 June 1991 was reaffirmed. In addition to that, it was announced that post-1991 the taxation treatment of research and development would involve a 100 per cent concession; it would be treated as a normal business expense. That decision has been made and announced because people who make investments in research and development want to know what the tax treatment will be in several years to come and beyond 1991. That is the tax treatment side. There is no inhibition on the Government, as a result of any decisions made, treating research and development expenditure in different ways in terms of Budget outlays or so on, or having more targeted schemes, than the 150 per cent tax concession after 30 June 1991. The other error which has appeared in newspapers relates to the management investment company scheme. That also was a scheme introduced last year with a sunset clause, again to run for a life of five years. Last year, following a report from the Bureau of Industry Economics on the management investment company scheme, it was announced that the scheme would continue to 30 June 1989. In the May statement it was announced that the scheme would now continue to 30 June 1991-again an extension of the scheme rather than a curtailment. I might say about all these things that it is no good putting them in place and saying that they will be there forever. It is essential that some environment of continuity be provided. I must say that both schemes were introduced when Australia had an appalling record on research and development. It was the lowest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries during the life of the Fraser Government. It went beyond the Fraser Government; during that decade. Senator MacGibbon —It was also very low under the Whitlam Government. Senator BUTTON —Yes, I said that, Senator-during that decade, which went beyond the period of that Government. The incentive was put there in order to try to redress the balance of that, and it really has had some success. I think a lot more can be done in the private sector in terms of research and development. Whether that incentive helps towards that in the remaining years remains to be seen. I believe it will. Senator SANDERS —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources. I shall speak slowly. I refer to the recent exploration agreement signed between Queensland Mines Ltd and the Northern Land Council which will allow Queensland Mines to exploit the second ore body at Nabarlek. I also refer to statements by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy that the Government would consider a second ore body at Nabarlek to be a new mine. I understand that Queensland Mines has an option until August to extend its existing uranium contracts with France for an additional two years. In the light of the above and of the Government's present position of not allowing any new contracts to France, I ask the Minister: Firstly, has the Government consented to the new exploration agreement? Secondly, does the Government still consider that a second ore body at Nabarlek would be a new mine? Thirdly, does the Government consider that an extension of Queensland Mines' contracts with France, which would allow supply from the new ore body, to be new contracts or existing contracts? Senator COOK —I shall have to answer this question in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. The first thing to say is that I do not know that it can be said that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has said that he would consider a second ore body as a new mine at Nabarlek. I think that inherent in the preface to the honourable senator's question was an assumption that that would be the case. The whole issue of mining at Nabarlek, in its present location where there is a mine or in some other location in the general Nabarlek area, is a matter that the Minister has before him presently and will decide on shortly. So I do not know whether the presumption is an accurate one. However, let me go to the first question, which was: Has the Government consented to the new exploration agreement? I have some difficulty with that question because it seems to me there is again confusion in terms of what are the jurisdictions of the Commonwealth and what are the jurisdictions of the Northern Territory Government. My understanding is that the Northern Territory Government is considering, or it may have recently made an announcement-and if it has, it would have done so very recently-whether it will conclude an exploration agreement with Queensland Mines. But my understanding is also that in terms of the Nabarlek area there is a mining lease, which is designated mining lease 94, and that is the site where mining takes place. There is also an exploration lease, designated exploration lease 2508. It seems to me that there is a presumption in the question that an exploration lease equates with a mining lease, and I do not think that that is a presumption that can be made either. That is all I can say about the first question at this stage. I intend to clarify that as soon as I possibly can, because obviously there is some information there that is different from the presumption the honourable senator has made, and I want to be certain that the answer I have given him is 100 per cent right. In terms of the second question-`Does the Government still consider that a second ore body at Nabarlek would be a new mine?'-as I have said before, that is a matter that the Minister has in front of him and will answer in due course. The answer to the third question, about contracts, is dependent on the answer to the second question and therefore must be hypothetical at this stage, given that the Minister has not answered the proposition the honourable senator entertains in his second question. Senator SANDERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister, Mr Kerin, make a decision before the Australian Labor Party National Conference? Senator COOK —The Minister will make a decision at the appropriate time. Senator DEVEREUX —I refer the Minister for Justice to his address yesterday to the Australian Institute of Criminology seminar on police resources and effectiveness. Can the Minister inform the Senate how the increased accountability he has called for from police will increase police effectiveness? Senator TATE —An address I was to give yesterday to the Australian Institute of Criminology seminar on police resources and effectiveness was delivered, but it was delivered on my behalf because of my duties in the chamber. The address dealt with the accountability of police forces for the use of their resources, which are voted to them by Parliament. I believe that a critical juncture has been reached in relation to Federal law enforcement in that regard. The Government has provided law enforcement agencies with many legislative weapons and new and innovative schemes to combat organised crime and, of course, has provided considerable financial resources. We are now in the process of assessing the overall performance of our agencies and how they should properly develop in the future. The law enforcement policy review which the Attorney-General and I initiated at the beginning of the year is examining a number of matters which are crucial to this assessment: for example, whether the total law enforcement effort is being co-ordinated as well as it can be to achieve clear goals; whether the present roles of agencies will continue to be appropriate into the next decades; and the proper relationship between the Commonwealth and the States in law enforcement. Many of those matters have already been touched on in the reports of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority that have been tabled recently in this chamber. That Committee has reported on both the National Crime Authority and its relationship with State law enforcement agencies and the question of witness protection, where once again coordination and cooperation between various jurisdictions is a key element. It is very important-I know Senator Hill shares this view-that law enforcement agencies have a line of accountability to the people through the Minister. It is important that police agencies, in particular the Australian Federal Police (AFP), be brought more clearly into a policy relationship with the Minister, which I believe would enhance their role. If the Minister is to get far-sighted advice from police, we need to have a more sophisticated dialogue with police, involving increased ministerial input into corporate planning, objectives and capabilities and rigorous scrutiny of police performance than has been the case in the past. I believe that the community is prepared to make considerable resources available to its law enforcement agencies but wants to know that it is getting value for its dollar. I believe that this closer scrutiny by the Minister concerned of the expenditure of moneys by law enforcement agencies will help the community in that regard. Police organisations and law enforcement agencies in general need to be tested further as to the use to which they put resources within general limits of policy set by the Government. Honourable senators will know that a general charter has been given to the Federal Police. However, it is important that we come to a clear understanding that the moneys and resources devoted to achieving the objectives of that charter are deployed to the best degree. I am greatly encouraged by the attitude to these issues of the AFP Commissioner, Mr McAulay. The Commissioner and his senior officers recognise that a number of past assumptions need to be questioned and tested. It is in the long term interests of the force to do so. The quality of the AFP's participation in the law enforcement policy review establishes a very good model for the sort of effective consultation to which I am looking. Senator BOSWELL —I refer the Minister for Transport and Communications to the recently commenced Queensland satellite television station that is offering rural Queensland a much awaited and excellent commercial channel. Is the Minister aware of an application lodged by the Townsville Aboriginal and Islander Media Association with the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal advocating an increase of Aboriginal programming from 80 hours a year to 600 hours a year and including a request to vary the present conditions of the Queensland satellite television licence which would prohibit NQTV from holding more than 50 per cent of the licence? In view of the fact that NQTV broadcasters have committed $2.8m of investors' funds already and that the Queensland Government has appropriated $2.5m a year of taxpayers' money to subsidise the service, will the Minister, on behalf of the Government, make a submission to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal rejecting the ambit claim of the Townsville Aboriginal and Islander Media Association? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of the application in question. I have discussed it with the senior management of the station involved. On the face of it, the claim by the group referred to can, to put it most charitably, be described as an ambit one. Beyond that I do not think it is appropriate for the Government to be making submissions on these matters to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is an independent authority that is acutely conscious of the statutory criteria that it is obliged to apply in terms of viability and the capacity of a station to provide an adequate and comprehensive service. Under those circumstances, I have taken the view that the Tribunal should be left to deal with the competing merits of the claim in question without any involvement by the Government. Senator HARRADINE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters. I refer to the fact that one in five young people in Australia cannot get work and that in the area of work for which the Minister now has responsibility-namely, the Public Service-the percentage of the work force represented by young people has declined dramatically, from around 22 per cent in 1966 to around 5 per cent now. In the last year for which I have been able to get figures there has been a further actual drop in the number of full time young employee in the Public Service. Bearing in mind the repeated questions that I have asked in the Senate about this matter and the stated commitment of the Government to give priority to young people, can the Minister advise what action the Government is now taking, first to reveal to the Senate the true picture of youth employment in the Public Service and, secondly, to ensure that youth get their fair share of Public Service jobs? Senator BUTTON —I certainly bear in mind the number of times Senator Harradine has asked this question. I also bear in mind the number of times I have answered it. It may be that the figures to which Senator Harradine referred today are slightly different from the ones he used in his questions of six months ago, 12 months ago, 18 months ago and so on. I will seek to obtain an answer about the figures and the Government's response to them. I imagine that the response will not have changed much in the sense that, as Senator Harradine will recall I have said on other occasions, the nature of the Public Service functions, training arrangements and so on has changed significantly, which has affected the percentage of young people recruited into the Public Service. But I will get the figures for Senator Harradine and give him an answer as soon as possible. Senator WATSON —Can the Minister representing the Treasurer confirm that the new superannuation taxation provisions will encourage fund managers to move into equity stocks providing fully franked dividends, thereby giving an unhealthy price rise to blue chip stocks at the expense of the more productive investments, including Commonwealth bonds? Will he also confirm that self-employed persons who have geared up a private superannuation arrangement in the last few years will not be worse off under the new arrangements if they seek to retire within the next 12 to 18 months? Senator WALSH —I do not know whether I remember all the parts of the question. In regard to those funds which are light on for equities which pay franked dividends and have a high dividend payout policy, there will be-and this is deliberate-an incentive for superannuation funds to move into them. I do not think that necessarily means moving into blue chip. The most attractive type of equity for such funds to move into is equity in a company which has a policy of either paying out dividends-high dividend payouts-or, alternatively franked bonus shares, which could also be used by the superannuation fund in order to adjust its tax liability. I cannot think of any reason in the changes-I will seek confirmation of this point-that would disadvantage self-employed people's superannuation arrangements having regard to their position prior to last week. I can think of two changes made last week which will advantage such people: firstly, the increase from $1,500 to $3,000 in the amount that they may pay into a fund on their own behalf; and, secondly, if a lump sum scheme is involved, even after the adjustment for the lower rate, there would be the threshold for the exempt area. What was the 15 per cent or 16 1/4 per cent rate has been lifted from $55,000 to $60,000. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I refer to reports this week that the Government of Mozambique requires food aid this year on a greater per capita basis than that needed in Ethiopia. Has the Australian Government been approached to help provide part of the 914,000 tonnes of cereal grains and other foods reportedly required? If so, what has been the response of the Australian Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —There have been reports in a number of papers this week continuing to draw attention to the emergency in Mozambique. Mozambique and Ethiopia are the largest recipients of Australian emergency assistance to African states. Economic and social conditions in Mozambique have led to severe food and other shortages and large scale displacement of people. It is estimated that 3.3 million people require emergency assistance. Mozambique's estimated 1988-89 food import requirement of approximately 900,000 tonnes will have to be met by donor food aid. On 31 March this year the United Nations Secretary-General launched a further appeal for humanitarian assistance to Mozambique, totalling $US380m. There has been a strong response by the international community, with over $US270m pledged to date. Australia provided $7.3m in aid to Mozambique in 1986-87, and in 1987-88 has committed approximately $11.4m, including assistance to Mozambican refugees in Malawi and Mozambican returnees. The break-up is as follows-$7m in emergency aid, of which $4.76m is in food aid, $1m is to the World Food Program, the United Nations Children's Fund and International Committee of the Red Cross relief operations, $500,000 is to a special appeal of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for assistance to Mozambican returnees and refugees in Malawi, as I mentioned a moment ago, $500,000 is to Austcare for the distribution of clothing to Mozambican refugees in Malawi, and $0.24m is provided through Australian non-government organisation projects. In addition, $4.4m is provided in rehabilitation and developmental aid. It is the case that further emergency assistance will be considered in 1988-89. Mozambique will also receive approximately a further $12.5m in development aid, including food aid, under the current Australian three-year program for southern Africa of $100m in toto, which extends to 1990-91. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. Without canvassing the merits or otherwise of the Labor proposal to impose an extra tax on many who receive tertiary education, when did the Government post material to 400,000 tertiary students, advising of the details of this matter? What was the material that was sent to them? Will the Minister make that material available to honourable senators? What did it cost to produce? What did it cost to post the material? How does the Government justify spending probably more than a quarter of a million dollars on this lobbying exercise at present? Senator WALSH —I cannot answer any of those questions. I did not know anything had been posted out, but I assume now that it has been. I was asked what was in it and whether it will be made available. If it has been posted out to 400,000 people I should not think there would be any problem in making the material available to the Senate. I will refer the other questions to Mr Dawkins. Senator BLACK —I address my question to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Given that the boobook owl of Norfolk Island is now represented by a sole surviving female, can the Minister inform us of the success of dalliance, if any, between this owl and two male New Zealand boobooks brought to the island last spring? Senator RICHARDSON —I thank Senator Black for giving me an opportunity to keep the Senate informed on this matter. I know that honourable senators have taken a real interest in it. Senator Puplick raised this question with me a couple of weeks ago and asked that, as soon as possible, I give a progress report. Unlike most of the things I say in the Senate, today's report will not be about a result of much substance. We are talking about delays and monitoring once again. We had hoped that after a whirlwind courtship there would have been a traditional happy event. The female, whose name is Miamiti, which is a Pitcairn Island word meaning sweetheart or lover, has not lived up to her name. The night of Tuesday, 24 May, was a big night on Norfolk Island. The highlight of the year was a boobook owl listening night. After listening, people heard two boobooks calling. We cannot be sure whether that meant much because it was still two months off breeding season. A check of the nesting box revealed a single feather. Senator Cook —You were arousing them. Senator RICHARDSON —This may not be Bill's Big Banana, but it is important. The male, who is called Fletcher after Fletcher Christian, the Bounty mutineer who sired a prolific line on Pitcairn Island, survived a courtship with another boobook. In New Zealand they call them moreporks. As Fletcher survived a courtship with a female who had eaten her previous mate and lived to breed prolifically with her, we hold out great hopes for the future. I hope we can report successfully on the boobook owl in September. I know that Senator Puplick will be anxious that I complete that report. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister for Home Affairs. Is it a fact, as reported in the Press, that Mr Hugh Hudson has handed to the Minister his report on coastal surveillance? Is it a fact that Mr Hudson has recommended that aerial surveillance of northern Australia be reduced? Is it a fact that Mr Hudson has further recommended that the coordination of coastal surveillance be given to the Australian Customs Service in lieu of the Australian Federal Police? In view of widespread concern as to the effectiveness of Australian coastal surveillance, which concern would not be lessened by such recommendations, will the Minister table the report? Would the Minister not agree, given the fact that the Department of Defence extends considerable air and sea support and carries over 60 per cent of coastal surveillance costs, that there is not a good case for this coordination function to be given to the Department of Defence? Senator ROBERT RAY —The answer to Senator Hill's first question is yes. The answers to questions 2, 3 and 4 is: wait until the Cabinet makes a decision and we will let him know. The answer to question 5 is no. The answer to question 6 is: refer to answers to questions 2, 3 and 4. Senator CROWLEY —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health been drawn to the report on economic issues and work-related child-care prepared by the Centre for Economic Policy Research at the Australian National University (ANU) and its evidence that the current child-care funding can have a net cost to the Budget far less than the gross cost of $222m in 1987-88? Is it possible that the Government's children's services program (CSP) could actually save taxpayers more than it costs? Do these figures support the Government's initiatives in its child-care programs? Senator COOK —The answers to those questions are yes, yes and yes. In anticipation that I may have been asked this question I have a brief from the relevant Minister, and I shall proceed to enlarge on these answers. On Monday the Minister for Community Services and Health released a report prepared by the Centre for Economic Policy Research at the ANU. The report was entitled, `Government Spending on Work Related Child Care-Some Economic Issues'. It effectively endorses the general direction of the Government's child-care policy. Preliminary results from the study commissioned by the Federal Government have shown that Commonwealth funding for child-care costs considerably less in real terms than it first appears and could indeed save taxpayers more than it costs. This financial year $190m will be spent on the provision of care for nought to four-year-old children of families where a sole parent or both parents are in the work force. In fact, the study concludes that the benefits of Government expenditure in child-care are obtained for a considerably lesser amount in real terms. Work force participation of parents whose children use government-funded services produces extra taxation revenue, savings in dependent spouse rebate and savings on income support payments to families. This fiscal benefit to government could be as high as $296m-$106m more than the $190m to be spent on work-related child-care in 1987-88. The actual amount of fiscal return and therefore the actual cost of CSP depends on the number of net additional jobs created in the work force as a result of child-care provision. It should be noted that in the last five years women have filled 570,000 new jobs. Less than 10 per cent of these jobs would have had to be created and filled as a result of child-care funding for the program to have no net cost to the Government. More than this, child-care funding facilitates the ability of employers to find workers in areas where women are concentrated and employment growth is strong; a consistent approach to the formation and maintenance of skills in the Australian work force, ensuring that Australia has the skills necessary for long term economic and employment growth; and-Senator Crowley will be interested to know-success in helping sole parent families and others dependent on income support to enter the work force and thus remove children from poverty. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I remind the Minister of the details I provided to him of an audit report on the Wangkatjurngka Aboriginal community during debate in committee on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) which indicated misappropriations of goods and services from that community by the project officer, Mr Peter Ross. What action has been taken in respect of this matter and against Mr Ross in particular? Is it a fact that Mr Ross is presently employed as a project officer at Christmas Creek and, accordingly, in receipt of taxpayers' money? Was concern expressed to the Department at Mr Ross's subsequent appointment at Christmas Creek? Senator TATE —I recall Senator Crichton-Browne raising the matter of several audit reports in relation to Aboriginal communities in Western Australia, including the Wangkatjurngka Aboriginal community. I apologise to that community for not being able immediately to correctly pronounce its name. I was given short notice of the possible question by Senator Crichton-Browne. I have received some information from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to which I will refer. The audit report referred to by Senator Crichton-Browne in that committee stage debate was for the 1985-86 financial year. I do not think that that was absolutely clear at the time of the debate-he may have made it clear but it certainly was not clear in the question. The community was requested to introduce controls to ensure that proper financial procedures were in place as a result of that very critical report. It is important to note that the audit report for 1986-87 made no reference to poor purchasing procedures. I think that was the essence of the complaint in the first report. The person referred to by Senator Crichton-Browne, Mr Ross, was advised, at the time of the review coming out of the audit concerns, to strictly adhere to proper purchasing procedures in any future purchases. I am advised by the Minister that no action was taken against Mr Ross at that time as it was doubtful that he had acted with intent to defraud the community. It is understood, I am advised, that the purchases referred to were not made using Commonwealth funds. So they are the matters that arose out of the audit report. I am further asked: Is it a fact that Mr Ross is presently employed as a project officer at Christmas Creek and accordingly received taxpayers' money by way of salary? The answer to that is no. Mr Ross is no longer employed at Christmas Creek. His employment was terminated by the community in mid-1987; that is almost a year ago. The third question was: Was concern expressed to the Department at Mr Ross's subsequent appointment to Christmas Creek? Obviously it is unclear exactly how to answer that, given the fact that question No. 2 has been answered as it has. But it is important to emphasise that Mr Ross was not appointed subsequent to the audit report of 1985-86, but was in fact an employee at the time of the report. As stated earlier, his employment was subsequently terminated. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The audit report was unqualified in its observations that goods and services had been taken by Mr Ross for his own personal benefit and gain and paid for by the community, not the least being 34 cartons of beer. He used aircraft without accounting for their use. The report also said that food was misappropriated. I ask: What action has been taken with respect to those goods, which ultimately are paid for by the taxpayers, because the community survives and exists on taxpayers' funds? Senator TATE —I can only repeat that the brief I have been provided with by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs states that it is understood that the purchases referred to were not made using Commonwealth funds. I do not have anything further to add, but I may be able to seek further information in relation to the matter. If the Minister is able to provide it, I am sure that he will make it available to Senator Crichton-Browne. But I think it needs to be emphasised, as it was in the committee stage debate, that it is important that in any community, including Aboriginal communities which are operating on the basis of appropriations of money, votes of money, by this Parliament-taxpayers' money-steps are taken to ensure that proper management practices are in place. This not only protects the taxpayer, but I think, as was made clear in that debate, also has the very positive social effect of protecting the reputation of the community in the country town that might be associated with it, because quite often these bad management practices can lead to a lot of ill will in those communities. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister for Consumer Affairs aware of the practice by some overseas telex directory suppliers of sending what appear to be invoices for unsolicited entries in their publications to Australian businesses? What is the Government doing to protect Australian businesses from this practice? Senator BOLKUS —Senator Zakharov raises a question which not only was raised here before but which, in the intervening period since it was raised, has had a number of interesting developments. The problem she refers to is one where demands for payment for a service which has never been ordered and never been met, especially to small business, have been made by companies, particularly those companies operating overseas and often in relation to telex directory assistance. In the last couple of months since the issue was raised in the Senate, there have been a couple of developments. For a start, the companies and the countries from which this blowing operation has been operating have expanded from countries such as Switzerland, Germany and Liechtenstein to now include the United Kingdom as well as Singapore. In the past, most people who have been approached have been in small businesses. I now know that Senator Cook and I have been approached-Senator Tate has also said that he has been approached-by companies sending bogus accounts. In my case I was sent an account for my subscription to Work and Patrol Boat World-which I had never known about-and in Senator Cook's case, he was sent an account for a world telex edition from London. The hidden factor in that, of course, is that not only was he sent an account but also he was told that if he does not stop renewal in 12 months time he will keep on getting accounts. Even though this sort of operation is covered by the Trade Practices Act, as I have mentioned before, the companies that operate these sorts of scams conduct all their operations and have all their assets overseas. Whereas we may be able to prosecute them theoretically, we have no real recourse, in terms of the action that we can take, to stop them from continuing their operations. However, we have approached the matter both diplomatically, externally, and domestically through an advertising campaign run by the Trade Practices Commission entitled `Don't be bitten by a blower'. That campaign is directed very much to small business and, from all accounts, has been quite effective. We have had some success in our diplomatic campaign. We have approached the matter through Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development channels but, more recently, the Swiss Government has approached us and it is looking at Trade Practices Act provision in Australia to see whether it can amend its legislation to ensure that protection can be made available in that country. It is a problem which is growing. From the number of members of parliament who have been approached in this matter, I think it is just as well that we are as aware of it in this place as small businesses in the wider Australian community are. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it not a fact that the introduction of a 15 per cent tax on net earnings of superannuation funds and approved deposit funds will have a catastrophic effect on small fund holders because of, first, the removal of the tax-free status of the pre-1983 content of superannuation funds, secondly, the removal of the tax-free threshold of superannuation payouts indirectly, and, thirdly, because many risk-conscious funds will not be able to switch from interest investments to equity investments? Senator WALSH —I do not know why they could not. If they are so totally risk averse, I suppose, they would not do anything other than buy Commonwealth Government bonds. I was asked whether it was a fact that all those things were going to happen. No, it is not a fact. Senator FOREMAN —Will the Minister for Justice inform the Senate of what measures any of the States have instigated to prevent further deaths of Aboriginals in custody? Is the Minister satisfied with current progress in this area? Senator TATE —The various jurisdictions around Australia, including the Commonwealth, have been involved in considerable consultation with interested groups-including Aboriginal groups, obviously-in relation to a proposal put forward by the Australian Police Ministers Council, known as a draft summary of practices and procedures, in order to try to combat the undoubted tragic incidence of deaths in custody, particularly those deaths amongst Aboriginals. At previous meetings the Council had put forward this summary for the purpose of engaging in consultation, which will continue. But it was pleasing to note that at the Council meeting only last week in Brisbane, the Council was able to look at its draft of measures to combat the incidence of Aboriginal deaths in custody and it found that, in many ways, its earliest thoughts took account of the sorts of matters which have commended themselves to bodies such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which itself has put out a document in that regard, and the recommendations of the Aboriginal police workshop, which I opened, held at the Australian Police Staff College in Manly in December 1987. The draft guidelines for the prevention of Aboriginal deaths in custody, issued by the Muirhead Royal Commission, are also broadly consistent with the guidelines that the Australian Police Ministers Council has commended to the various jurisdictions around Australia and I know that consultation is taking place in relation to those guidelines. As honourable senators would know, it is not simply a matter of trying to deal with the problem of an Aboriginal in custody perhaps being vulnerable to the possibility of death. What is required is a system of diversionary procedures, or facilities, so that Aboriginals are not detained or remanded in custody for intoxication or other minor offences unless the offender is violent or the offences are likely to continue. In conjunction with the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, the Police Ministers Council is taking the view that in relation to those offences where violence is not likely to be a feature, it would be wise to find some diversionary method rather than putting Aboriginals in detention, and, if detention is required, certainly bail or surety procedures should be instituted as soon as possible. It is also very important, obviously, that if an Aboriginal, or indeed any person, is in detention and shows any sign of mental or physical distress, a medical examination should take place at the earliest practicable opportunity. We believe that these matters, quite apart from the questions of the nature of the cell and the detention to which the Aboriginal is subject, are very important. I believe that the draft summary of practices and procedures, put out by the Australian Police Ministers Council and confirmed by it last week, will provide a very sound basis for further consultations with Aboriginal people. Senator HAMER —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Now that it has been decided by the Government that the War Crimes Amendment Bill be stood over until at least the Budget session, I ask: How much has been spent on the war crimes investigations in anticipation of the Bill being passed? In view of the cost and the very damaging and disruptive effects these investigations are having among the more than 500,000 post-war migrants from Germany and eastern Europe, will the Minister restrain any further investigative activity until this Parliament has decided whether it wants the Bill and, if so, in what form? Senator TATE —Obviously, the war crimes legislation cannot be passed in this session of the Parliament but it will be considered for passage at the time of the Budget session. The war crimes investigation being undertaken at the moment by Mr Greenwood and the special unit that has been set up for that purpose had its estimates reviewed by the Senate Estimates committee a matter of three or four weeks ago. I do not have the figures at my fingertips at the moment but I am sure that they are readily available and I will ensure that they are made available to Senator Hamer as soon as possible. The work of the special investigations unit, under Mr Greenwood, is intended to continue in order to be ready should the Parliament decide to pass the war crimes legislation. There will not be a cessation, a cutting off or a termination of its activity over the winter months as we await the Budget session. Senator COLSTON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. Is it correct that the Queensland State Government is the only government which has not endorsed the proposals outlined in the Commonwealth Schools Commission report entitled A National Policy for the Education of Girls in Australian Schools? If so, what reason has been given for the Queensland Government's failure to endorse the report? Has this meant that, once again, Queensland is falling behind in the implementation of effective policy for improving the education of girls in Queensland schools? Senator REYNOLDS —Yes, it is true that Queensland is the only State not to endorse the national policy for the education of girls in Australian schools, which of course was endorsed by the Australian Education Council in September last year. I remind honourable senators that the endorsement is shared by the National Council of Independent Schools and the National Catholic Education Commission. Of course, it has been welcomed by all teachers unions. Queensland does not recognise the national policy, although there is a report that indicates that it will implement such elements of it as fit with its philosophy. Knowing the philosophy of the Queensland Government in relation to education issues, I would not have any great confidence in relation to the implementation of any aspect of the policy. I quote an extract from the Queensland Teachers Union Journal, which stated: In reality the Education Department in Queensland is the only one which has not actively implemented strategies to ensure the provision of non-sexist education. I think Senator Walsh will be interested in this: In fact, the only Departmental project which developed resource material for use in schools was the Commonwealth funded `On Cue' project. Some $70,000 was expended on the project which developed a set of excellent resource booklets. I understand, however, that the Queensland Education Department has refused to distribute the booklet to schools. That indicates that not only is the Queensland Government not prepared to cooperate with the Commonwealth in relation to its policies for the education of girls, but also it is prepared to go to the lengths of expending money provided by the Commonwealth and then to have those booklets just sitting on shelves, which I am sure everyone would agree is quite disgraceful. Senator GARETH EVANS —Earlier in Question Time Senator Burns asked me a question about additional international air services to Brisbane to cater for visitors to World Expo 88. I am now in a position to answer that question with some up to date information. The provision of additional airline capacity to cater for the expected high demand into Brisbane during Expo is being facilitated through the approval of supplementary scheduled services and passenger charter flights. International passenger charter policy guidelines announced by me last October are well suited to facilitate the operation of charter flights for special events such as Expo. The Government gave prompt approval for Royal Brunei Airlines to operate three charters to Brisbane in May. We will give swift consideration to any other applications which are designed specifically to promote Expo. A number of schedule carriers such as British Airways, Air New Zealand and Air Caledonie will increase services to Brisbane to cater for tourists wishing to visit Expo. Qantas Airways Ltd alone will provide almost 3,500 extra seats per week to Brisbane in operating a total of 30 weekly flights from New Zealand, Japan and Singapore, as well as regular services from Manila, Port Moresby and Fiji. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 17 May Senator Bjelke-Petersen asked me a question about the Government's intentions concerning the commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of Charles Kingsford Smith's trans-Pacific flight. I would like to add to the very brief reply I gave on that occasion. As honourable senators no doubt will be aware, on the evening of 8 June 1928 the Southern Cross landed at Ballina following a flight of 83 hours and 11 minutes from California involving two stops, at Hawaii and Fiji. On board the aircraft were Charles Kingsford Smith as pilot, Charles Ulm as co-pilot and two United States organisers, Jim Warner and Harry Lyons, as navigator and radio operator respectively. The next morning the aircraft flew on to Brisbane's Eagle Farm. On 10 June it flew to Sydney's Mascot Airport. I am pleased to be able to advise Senator Bjelke-Petersen and other interested honourable senators that the Federal Government will assist in commemorating this historic flight. My colleague Peter Morris will be flying aboard a replica of the Southern Cross on Thursday morning, 9 June, from Ballina to Brisbane Airport. It is planned that the landing will take place at the precise anniversary time of 10.13 a.m. and that the replica aircraft will taxi to the point nearest the building housing and displaying the real Southern Cross. The Southern Cross Trust, builders and operators of the replica Southern Cross aircraft are receiving assistance from the Department of the Arts and Territories and my Department to recreate the arrival element of the trans-Pacific flight. Moreover, the Minister for the Arts and Territories, Mr Punch, plans to meet the aircraft on arrival at Mascot on Friday, 10 June. All Australians value the memory of the significant contribution that Charles Kingsford Smith, Charles Ulm and their colleagues made to world aviation. I believe that the recreation of the latter stages of that historic trans-Pacific flight on its sixtieth anniversary is a fitting way of commemorating the flight in question. I hope that it will receive the support of Senator Bjelke-Petersen and all Australians. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to my notice of intention given earlier today, I now withdraw Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, standing in my name for today, for disallowance of certain Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Orders. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I present the ninth report for 1988 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Bill 1988, the Audit Amendment Bill 1988, the Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill 1988 and the Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill 1988. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 9, dated 1 June 1988. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COONEY —I seek leave to incorporate a short statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The Committee has not commented in this week's Alert Digest on a number of Bills which may conveniently be described as the `corporations package' introduced into the Parliament last week by the Attorney-General. These Bills are lengthy, complex and far-reaching in their intended effect. The Committee has asked its legal adviser and the Committee Secretary to study the Bills during the winter break. The Committee will report on the Bills in the budget session. The Committee's Ninth Report for 1988, which I have just tabled, is the last report for the present sittings, and is the final report that the Committee will table for the consideration of the Senate in the provisional Parliament House. The present Committee, several of who are new members of the Committee, has striven over the last year to continue the record of careful, considered examination and comment on legislation which was the outstanding hallmark of the Committee under the chairmanship of my predecessors; the late Senator Alan Missen, the present Minister for Justice, Senator Michael Tate, and Senator Rosemary Crowley. As Honourable Senators are aware, the Committee examines every Bill introduced into the Parliament to ensure that provisions of proposed laws of the Commonwealth which may improperly affect or prejudice the individual rights of citizens, or seek to reduce the primary law-making role of Parliament, are drawn to Senators' attention. The Committee goes to some length to ensure, via its Alert Digests that, within a very short time frame, based on sound legal advice, comment is available to Senators to enable informed consideration of the import and effect of Bills before the Parliament. The Committee ensures that, following tabling of each week's Alert Digest, its comments are immediately communicated to responsible Ministers. It is disappointing to the Committee that the time taken by Ministers to respond to the Committee's comments has progressively increased over the last year. In the case of the majority of comments made so far in this year's Alert Digests, the Committee has yet to receive a reply from Ministers. The Committee is concerned at this development, as Committee members strongly believe that informed comment on legislation before the Parliament has been, and will continue to be, assisted and enhanced not only by the Committee's reports, but also by the willingness and readiness of Ministers to co-operate with the Committee by responding fully, and promptly, the Committee's comment. As a Committee we acknowledge that several Ministers have acted to amend a number of Bills this year, following comment on specific provisions by the Committee. I am pleased to note that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator John Button, and the Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Gareth Evans, have recently moved to amend clauses of Bills which have been the subject of comments by the Committee. As the chairman of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and as a former chairman of the Standing Committee for Regulations and Ordinances, I am proud of the constructive and genuinely bipartisan approach of the Senate's Legislative Scrutiny Committees. Careful avoidance of questions of policy or the relative merit of legislation that is examined by it, and an emphasis on technical scrutiny of particular clauses of Bills strongly underpins the Committee's concern that legislation is consistent, fair and above all gives primacy both to the rights and liberties of the individual, and to the law-making role of the Parliament. I will not take up the time of the Senate further with a number of current areas of concern to the Committee and areas of legislative practice which it believes should be drawn to Senators' attention. The Committee will deal with these issues in detail in its 1987-88 Annual Report. I finally thank my fellow Committee members for their application (and occasional forbearance) over the last year and pay special tribute to all honourable senators, past and present, who have served as members of the Committee in this House. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 3.05 p.m., the Senate must proceed to consider the Bills subject to the allotment of time. [COGNATE BILLS: MIGRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1988 DEPARTURE TAX AMENDMENT BILL 1988 DEPARTURE TAX COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1988 COMMONWEALTH AUTHORITIES LEGISLATION (PAYROLL TAX) AMENDMENT BILL 1988 PRIMARY INDUSTRIES (RECOVERY OF LEVY COLLECTION EXPENSES) BILL 1988 NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL 1988 LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1988 FERTILISERS SUBSIDY AMENDMENT BILL 1988 CUSTOMS TARIFF (RATE ALTERATION) BILL 1988] Debate resumed from 30 May, on motion by Senator Bolkus: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Mr President, I suggest that it might suit the convenience of the Senate if there were to be a cognate debate on the May economic statement package of Bills, that is to say, Orders of the Day Nos 6 to 13, the Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Bill 1988, the Migration Amendment Bill 1988, the Departure Tax Amendment Bill 1988, the Departure Tax Collection Amendment Bill 1988, the Commonwealth Authorities Legislation (Pay-roll Tax) Amendment Bill 1988, the Primary Industries (Recovery of Levy Collection Expenses) Bill 1988, the National Health Amendment Bill 1988, the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988, the Fertilisers Subsidy Amendment Bill 1988 and the Customs Tariff (Rate Alteration) Bill 1988, as in effect was provided for in the guillotine motion. The PRESIDENT —There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.08) —As the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) has just indicated, we are debating 10 Bills-the Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Bill 1988 and cognate Bills, including a package of three departure tax Bills. Of course, we are doing so in the context of the economic statement brought down in the House of Representatives last Wednesday night by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). We are debating these Bills under guillotine-the guillotine motion approved and, indeed, made possible only by approval of the Australian Democrats. This will require us to complete the debate on these 10 Bills and the associated remarks on the economic statement itself by 7 o'clock this evening. Therefore, I want to begin my remarks on the Bills by making some comments about procedures. We should note that this economic statement was brought into the House of Representatives last Wednesday night, 25 May. The Government has been aware of the need for this statement, or some statement of this kind, for at least seven months, that is, shortly after the crash on the stock markets and the immediately following crash on the foreign exchange markets of last October. The Government has been aware that it would need to repair its failing and flawed economic policy by some such statement of this kind. It has delayed seven months in doing so. It had deliberately chosen-I emphasise the words `deliberately chosen'-to do so on the second last sitting night of the House of Representatives, with the Senate also having only a week further to go in its sittings and with a vast amount of legislation already on its timetable. Of course, there was no real opportunity-I repeat, no real opportunity-for the Treasurer's economic statement or these 10 Bills to be debated in the House of Representatives. That results directly from the Government's deliberate decision to delay their introduction until, I think, 30 hours before the House of Representatives rose for the winter recess. The reply in the other place by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) took place on the Thursday evening, the night following the statement by the Treasurer. Following the reply of the Leader of the Opposition at 8 o'clock that evening the 10 Bills were guillotined through the House of Representatives in the space of the following five hours. The House adjourned at 1.33 a.m. on Friday, 27 May. I cannot find words sufficiently forceful to describe my cynicism over the whole process of `government'-I put the word `government' in quotation marks-as operated by this present Government. I note in passing that that is also what this Government did in the week before, with its four referendum proposal Bills. It rammed them, too, through the House of Representatives. These are Bills to change the Constitution of this country, not just pieces of statute legislation. They are Bills designed to change the Constitution of this country, and if approved by the electorate they will do so. Those Bills were rammed through the House of Representatives in the space of a single day's debate. What, incidentally, did we in this place subsequently find? The Senate, prior to today at least, considers Bills thoroughly. My colleague Senator Vanstone found late last week a major flaw in one of those Bills, a Bill relating to so-called fair elections, which would have had unintended consequences. We should call Government members `the Cabinet for unintended consequences'. The Government then proposed to amend that Bill but found subsequently that there were flaws in its own amendment. It found this sometime between Monday of this week and today. This morning we witnessed that Bill also being guillotined through the Senate with the full support, indeed the essential connivance, of the Australian Democrats on the basis of amendments moved not by the Government of this country but by the Democrats. I return to the economic statement of last week, which is in two parts. The first part, the macro-economic one, deals with such issues as budgetary policy and the like. The other, the micro-economic part, deals with so-called structural adjustment aspects. I have a number of rather critical things to say about the Treasurer's statement but I will begin by saying that there is nevertheless much in it which I welcome. For example, I welcome the Treasurer's indication that in the coming financial year, 1988-89, he proposes to budget for a surplus which he has described as being in excess of $3,000m. I note in passing, however, that that will not be a supreme test for the Treasurer since at present, as he knows perfectly well, he is looking at a prospective Budget surplus in the next financial year of the order of $4,000m. I welcome the fact that prospective Budget outlays for 1988-89 do provide for a cut, on the Treasurer's estimates, of 1 1/2 per cent in real terms. But, as I will demonstrate later, that is not because of any cuts in the Commonwealth's own spending programs. I welcome without reservation the major cut in the corporate tax rate from 49 per cent at present to 39 per cent for the financial year 1988-89. I also welcome a number of other more detailed aspects of the statement, which I do not have time this afternoon to enumerate. Subject to that preamble my overall reaction to the statement is one of disappointment, at best, and much more than mere disappointment in certain major respects. In particular, the expenditure cuts which will bring about the Treasurer's estimated 1 1/2 per cent reduction in real Commonwealth budgetary outlays in 1988-89 are virtually wholly attributable to cuts that the Commonwealth has now imposed on the funds which it makes available to the States and to a minor degree to the local authorities in that year. There is an almost total absence of equivalent cuts in the Commonwealth's own spending programs, and I think that lies at the heart of the failure of the Treasurer's statement last Wednesday night. Of the total spending cuts of $982m in 1988-89, which are listed in last Wednesday's statement, no less than $920m is accounted for by cuts in the general revenue grants to the States, cuts in the equivalent general revenue grants to local authorities and cuts in Commonwealth funding to the States for roads. In net terms Commonwealth Ministers have barely touched, to the extent of only $62m net, their own spending programs. As we all know, the inevitable result of this limp-wristed approach by Commonwealth Ministers to their own empires, their own spending bureaucracies, has been that there will not be any cuts in personal income tax for Australians for another 13 months, at least until July 1989-if then. Since last Wednesday the Treasurer and Senator Walsh have been arguing that it would be wrong to cut taxes and thereby, as they argue, stimulate domestic demand and imports and therefore worsen the already extremely poor state of our balance of payments. So it would be wrong if that were all we were talking about. The Treasurer, by advancing such arguments and suggesting that is all we are talking about is, however, quite deliberately distorting the debate. Clearly it is not all we are talking about. On the contrary. We propose that the Government should start cutting its own spending and thereby provide itself with scope to cut taxes now while at the same time leaving its prospective surplus unchanged. As a matter of fact, that process of cutting Government spending and making an equivalent cut, and no more than an equivalent cut, in personal income taxes would produce on balance and in the first instance a slightly depressing effect upon total demand. That is exactly what the Treasurer has said in several public statements since that time-he thinks is now appropriate. While we wait another 13 months or perhaps more for our tax cuts, the usual forces of fiscal drag, as the economists call it, or bracket creep, as it is called as it becomes more a part of the everyday lexicon, inexorably push many Australians into higher tax brackets. For example a rise in wage and salary incomes of let us say 7 per cent in the next financial year, which seems at least likely, would through this income tax multiplier effect lead to a rise of around 12 per cent in pay as you earn tax receipts. The Treasurer has also told us that the size of the 1989-90 tax cuts will be determined by the size of the wage increases that occur next financial year, 1988-89. In other words the bigger the wage increases, the smaller the tax cuts. The truth is that the wage push by the trade unions is already up and running. Indeed the Government is already locked into supporting at least-I emphasise the words `at least'-an increase in money wages equal to inflation in the year ahead. The Government is also making some highly over blown claims in relation to inflation. It is claiming that in 1988-89 the consumer price index (CPI) will rise by only 5 per cent, taking the year as a whole, and by only 4 1/2 per cent between the June quarter of this year and the June quarter of 1989. Frankly I regard that as a pipe dream. The fact is that the CPI has risen by 6.9 per cent, almost 7 per cent, in the 12 months to the March quarter of this year. The only question is whether, when the June quarter CPI figures are released towards the end of July, the 12-month figure to the end of the June quarter will go up or down. It is as finely balanced as that. But let us be very optimistic and assume that the CPI does go down slightly so that the inflation rate for the year to the June quarter is, let us say, 6.5 per cent. What is going to reduce it further over the following 12 months by a further 2 percentage points to the Treasurer's 4.5 per cent theory? Is it the rise in interest rates that we have recently experienced, particularly since the economic statement was brought down? Will that reduce the CPI? Of course it will not. Will it be the rise in the various taxes and charges which the State governments are all going to be introducing in the next month or three as they in turn respond to the very sharp cut which the Commonwealth Government has imposed upon the funds available to them for their Budgets in 1988-89? I should not think so. I would not have thought that would help to reduce the rate of inflation in this country during the next 12 months. Will it be the reduction in tariffs which the Government has announced, and about which Senator Bolkus was uttering such utterly ridiculous remarks, or boasts I think they would be better called, last weekend, which he was forced to withdraw on Monday? Not at all. Will it be the rise in the exchange rate? It is certainly true that a further rise in the exchange rate would help to slow down the rate of increase in prices in this country. But is that what the Government is relying on? I can only say that if so, it had better start telling our exporters. In short, the figures for prospective inflation in the Treasurer's document are all simply dreamtime stuff. The truth is that we are facing inflation next financial year of at least 7 per cent, that is to say, about where we are now. We will be lucky to hold it at that level. Senator Button —Careful. You know your record on predictions. Senator STONE —My record on predictions, I am bound to say, is a great deal better than the honourable senator's in predicting the exchange rate. Senator Button —I concede that. Senator STONE —I am glad the Minister at the table, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, concedes that. It is generous and honest of him to do so. What will the Treasurer do by way of providing tax cuts? Of course, he will not say. Let me turn to the other side of the package, the package for which at least in part the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, is himself responsible. Here also there are several points to be welcomed, in particular of course, the abolition of the 2 per cent revenue duty on imports with an expected cost to the Budget next year of $240m. That has been a dubious impost, and I welcome its removal without reservation. But I can only say that this side of the package also can only be described as very disappointing, both in respect of what it contains and, even more importantly, in respect of what it does not contain. First of all, the reduction in protection comes not only at least two years too late. After all, our dollar started its downward plunge in February 1985, over two years ago, but even now the proposed reduction in tariff protection will take four full years to be finally achieved. It is extraordinary that even so the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), Mr Simon Crean, has been publicly protesting about this timid move by the Government to level the playing field on which our exporters have for so long been running uphill. Take another area, the area of public enterprise efficiency. This statement, which I suppose some months ago we had all hoped and expected would deliver a good deal-that was, after all, what the Government, through its spokesmen and its leaks to the media had been promising us-in the end has delivered so little in this area that it undoubtedly constitutes one of its most disappointing aspects. There will be no exposure of public enterprises such as Qantas Airways Ltd, Australian Airlines, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and so on to the pressures for enhanced efficiency which need to be imparted to them by rendering them truly accountable to real shareholders. One result of this failure on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Ministers such as Senator Evans and Senator Walsh to win the argument on privatisation, which they have been having both with their own parliamentary colleagues in the Caucus and with the trade union bosses more particularly, is that bodies such as those I have mentioned will continue to be starved of capital and they will gradually grow less competitive and less able to deliver their services efficiently to Australians who consume those services. But the real vacuum in last Wednesday's statement on this structural adjustment side of course lies in its total silence on anything to do with the deregulation of our most important market, namely, the market for labour. It is the greatest single market in this country, and indeed in most countries, and there is not a word about it. Most objective observers I believe would agree that today the single most important reform required for this economy, if we are to have a future in the 1990s and beyond, is to render our labour markets more flexible, more responsive to market pressures and more capable as a result of delivering jobs rather than unemployment. As I say, on this topic the statement is silent. It is silent because, among other things, and most particularly, the Government's associates in the trade union movement have refused point blank to countenance any progress in this area. As a matter of fact the Industrial Relations Bill, which was recently rammed through the House of Representatives and which is presently lying on the table here in the Senate, would have the effect of strengthening even further the already excessive power of the bosses of our major trade unions, a point to which Senator Harradine was drawing attention I think only this morning. Let me turn quickly to deal with a few points in more detail in the short time remaining to me. One of the most important aspects of last Wednesday's speech by the Treasurer was his statement that in the area of superannuation arrangements the changes now proposed: 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. In justification of that, on the face of it, apparently very large claim, the Treasurer tabled a 51-page document entitled Reform of the Taxation of Superannuation. One can only say that as time has gone on since last Wednesday night, more and more experts in this admittedly extremely complex field have been seriously questioning this characteristically exaggerated claim by the Treasurer. Others will no doubt speak on this matter and I therefore do not propose to do so any more on the specifics, but I do draw attention to a more general point in this area. It is a point which is best brought out by my referring to some passages on page 2 of the printed copy of the Treasurer's statement to which I have just referred. I will not read it in extenso but two or three sentences are worth quoting. He said: Similarly, it is not the Government's view that the tax concessions for superannuation are justified only if they result in reductions in age pension payments. Subsequently, he said: This consideration is also relevant to the question of whether superannuation should only be taken in the form of an income stream . . . rather than as a lump sum. In those and other associated passages in the document I believe that we have seen a volte-face by the Government in relation to the extremely important question of the relationship of our arrangements for taxing superannuation schemes and our retirement incomes policy. The rationale for providing the quite generous taxation concessions for superannuation has always been, to my knowledge, that it is an incentive and an encouragement to private citizens of this country to provide, by way of superannuation arrangements, for their own retirement income and thereby, as a consequence, wholly or at least partly removing themselves from the need to go onto the public rolls of the age pension and so on. As I have said, in those and other associated passages I believe that we have seen a remarkable volte-face by this Government from that previously generally received doctrine in this area. I do not have time to pursue that point. However, it is a very important and indeed fascinating matter. Finally, in the taxation law area, I will say something about the revision of depreciation allowances as announced by the Treasurer last Wednesday night. Without elaboration, one can say simply that the Treasurer has rendered those taxation arrangements much less `generous' than they were previously. The Treasurer has justified that-if the word is appropriate-by pointing to the fact that he has also cut the company tax rate, with almost immediate effect, from 49 per cent to 39 per cent. One can at least see the argument there, even though I still have some doubts as to whether this, of all times in our history, when private investment is as weak as it is, is the time to provide a further cloud of uncertainty over the whole investment climate and, in effect, to provide less incentive than there was before for companies to undertake the increased business investment which is desperately required. I note in passing that private business investment fell, in seasonally adjusted real terms, by 3 per cent in the March quarter of this year. I draw attention to the fact that while that may be an argument for companies it is no argument for partnerships or sole employers, all of whom may be conducting businesses which also undertake investments, who also have had access to the depreciation allowances under the tax law but do not necessarily have companies. Those people have not been similarly advantaged. Having in mind the speakers list and the fact that we are under a guillotine, I conclude my remarks. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.33) —In this cognate debate on almost more Bills than one can count-some 10 Bills are before us-I will be the only speaker on behalf of the Australian Democrats. It is worth pondering the fact that we have got into a pattern of having two Budgets a year. As Senator Stone said, this package of Bills arises from the economic statement of last week. We should realise that one of the major reasons we are blessed with this exercise of two Budgets a year is that the Government is clearly exploiting the absurd practice that the Opposition has established while in opposition of not opposing Budget measures. Therefore, the Government is in the happy position of being able to take any measure that it likes, in particular, any measure that it thinks the Opposition would oppose in normal circumstances, put it in as part of one or other of its Budget statements, either in May or in August, and be assured of its passage. For instance, one can think of a measure in last year's Budget package to impose a $250 administration charge on students. At that time only the Australian Democrats opposed the legislation. However, since then there have been letters in newspapers around the country and questions in this House from Opposition members opposing the fee. (Quorum formed) Having made those preliminary comments, I will address specific Bills and then make more general comments about the mini-Budget. I note that the Opposition intends to move a second reading amendment in relation to the Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Bill 1988. In this respect I am advised by my colleague Senator Sanders, who has expressed concerns similar to those expressed by the Opposition in its amendment, specifically the lack of funding in the legislation for the Civil Aviation Authority. Therefore, the Democrats will support the Opposition's amendment. The Democrats have a particular interest in the Migration Amendment Bill 1988, the Departure Tax Amendment Bill 1988 and the Departure Tax Collection Amendment Bill 1988. My colleague Senator Jenkins has put a great deal of time into this issue over past months. I remind the Senate that in September 1987 the then Minister, Mr Young, put out a Press release announcing a service fee of $5 to be applied to passengers over the age of 12 years who required immigration clearance on arrival in Australia. The fee was to be collected by airline operators and the Government was to collect it in bulk from them. At that time Senator Jenkins put a lot of effort into pointing out the shortcomings of the proposal. When the Migration Amendment Bill 1987 was debated in the Senate in November 1987, Senator Jenkins put up a strong protest and pointed out that the fee was ill-conceived, impractical and would not work. At that time the Opposition failed to support the Democrats in opposing the measure. Both the Government and the Opposition opposed Senator Jenkins's amendment, which would have delayed the imposition of this so-called service fee until 1 March. Our advice was that, if it were to be implemented, the airlines at least needed more time to put in place the necessary structures to collect the fee and then disburse it to the Government. The fee came into operation on 1 January 1988 and, as Senator Jenkins and the airlines had predicted, there was immediate chaos at airports. The airlines were unhappy and passengers were irritated. It certainly did nothing to enhance Australia's reputation with the travelling public around the world. At that time Senator Jenkins made the comment that the travelling public would resent the unexpected imposition of yet another cost and the airlines would be expected to make up the shortfall in money collected from unwilling return travellers or one-way immigrants. Even the passage of this legislation does not really solve the problems. Problems will arise. An article in the Canberra Times today points out that there will be immense confusion because the fee is paid on the outward journey rather than on the return journey to which it actually applies. The article states: Since it was introduced on January 1 . . . hundreds of thousands of airline passengers have refused to pay. They have been able to get away with it because, according to the Board of Airline Representatives of Australia, the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs refused to instruct its officers to check that travellers had paid the fee and to cancel the stamp. As we understand it, some frequent travellers have been able to make multiple use of a single stamp. As the Democrats predicted through Senator Jenkins, the fee has been a debacle. We will therefore support the passage of this group of related Bills. The next Bill in the package is the Commonwealth Authorities Legislation (Pay-roll Tax) Amendment Bill 1988, which implements that part of the May statement-and arising from the Premiers' Conference deliberations-which provides that Telecom Australia and Australia Post will be subject to payroll tax at the hands of the State governments. It must be recognised that, while we hear a great deal, in this place in particular, about the burden these Commonwealth authorities are on the public-as if they were some kind of enormous negative in the economy-we do not take sufficient account of the contribution that they make to the economy. I refer specifically to Telecom. Telecom makes a substantial contribution to Government revenues. In fact, it can be said, as the Telecom unions have pointed out, that the telephone network is part of a taxing medium. This legislation makes that even more so. At present 20c out of every telephone user's dollar goes to the Government. When this Government came to power in 1983 the figure was 13c in the dollar. This financial year Telecom will pay the Government $1.2 billion. When all these new charges are in place under the new capital structure which has recently been announced, the Government's take could easily exceed $1.8 billion. So, in the whole debate about whether our Commonwealth authorities are beneficial and whether the general public, as the owner of those enterprises, ought to offload them, issues such as these should definitely be taken into account. (Quorum formed) I now turn my attention to two of the Bills which relate directly to primary industry. I refer first to the Primary Industries (Recovery of Levy Collection Expenses) Bill 1988. This Bill enables the Government to recover from industry the administrative costs incurred in collecting and disbursing funds raised through the various agricultural industry levies. The levies and charges relate to the operation of various authorities and industry research programs. While extra charges-in this case totalling over $1m in a full year-represent an additional impost on primary industry, the Democrats believe that this method of cost recovery is consistent with the current economic trend towards eliminating subsidies and tariffs which is being promoted not only by the Government and the Opposition parties but also by Australia's rural leadership. Stressing that we understand the difficulties of the imposition of additional costs, we have discussed this with the industry. We understand that it is something of a problem but in light of the general economic thrust, particularly of rural leadership, the Democrats will not oppose this legislation. The Fertilisers Subsidy Amendment Bill 1988 is another primary industry related Bill emanating from the May economic statement. This Bill will terminate subsidies for phosphatic and nitrogenous fertilisers from 1 July 1988. We have been advised by the National Farmers Federation that that organisation indicated to the Government its support for the termination of this subsidy with the Government's agreement to do several things: to improve anti-dumping legislation as it applies to fertilisers, to consider the removal of tariffs on agricultural machinery and spare parts and to reintroduce tax-related income equalisation deposits (IEDs). The Australian Democrats are very pleased with the Government's decision to reintroduce tax-related income equalisation deposits, although we would have preferred the reintroduction to take place much earlier than the Government's proposed date of 1 July 1989, as would the National Farmers Federation, representing Australia's farmers. We strongly suggest to the government that it introduce its IED legislation earlier in the autumn session-it would be nice to have any legislation introduced early in the next autumn session so that we did not have to go through the present ridiculous exercise, as we always have to do-to ensure its passage in time for implementation by 1 July 1989, in recognition that the loss of the fertiliser subsidy is a significant one for primary industry. All along we have supported the reintroduction of a genuine tax-related IED scheme. My colleague Senator Macklin, in a speech in April 1986, when he held the primary industry portfolio for the Australian Democrats, expressed his understanding of a need for a genuine IED scheme so that-and I quote: firstly, the income equalisation deposits are deductible from taxation income in the year of deposit; secondly, interest rates are linked to a two year bond rate; thirdly, interest was payable on the investment component of the deposit where the investment component is equal to the balance of the deposit if tax was payable in the year of deposit; and, fourthly, safeguards were imposed to avoid IEDs as a tax avoidance measure. In that speech Senator Macklin also stressed that IEDs were destroyed by the Liberal and National parties voting with the Government, which had introduced that destructive legislation as a Budget measure, knowing that the Opposition would not act, in spite of its protestations. We make the point that we are pleased to see that negotiations have proceeded and that a suitable form of tax-related IEDs will be reintroduced. Again, we stress that the Government should ensure that that legislation is before us early in the next session. In regard to the removal of tariffs on machinery and spare parts, the Government has expressed an inclination in that direction. The farm organisations are promoting the need for a by-law stating that such tariffs should be removed in cases where actual manufacture does not take place in this country. As far as the anti-dumping laws are concerned, it looks as though that requirement will reasonably be met in other legislation. On that basis, the Australian Democrats will not oppose this legislation. Although it is a difficult time, particularly for the wheat industry, given recent developments in the United States, the farm organisations are taking a reasonable approach on this question. I turn to the National Health Amendment Bill 1988 and the question of pharmaceutical benefits. This portfolio is covered by my colleague Senator Coulter. I am advised by him that the Democrats want to make the point that in recent years the Government has progressively restricted the range of drugs under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. We have expressed concern about that process. Moreover, the more expensive drugs have been progressively shifted into the special uses category. As a consequence of those two things happening at the same time, many drugs that are ostensibly covered under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme can be purchased as over-the-counter drugs more cheaply than with a national health scheme prescription. This progressive removal of real pharmaceutical benefits is more significant than the increase in the NHS drug price from $10 to $11 per prescription. It merely means that more of those drugs which are listed as NHS drugs will be cheaper as over-the-counter drugs. That is our main comment with regard to that Bill. I turn to the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988 which implements, as a new part of the Act, a new base figure from which subsequent financial assistance provided to local government is to be calculated. I will move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill, on the advice of local government organisations, which are receiving quite considerable blows from one direction or another with regard to their funding. We believe that it is fair to move for the retention of the present formula during the transitional period. It is very difficult, given that other parts of the formula are changing, to deny local government consistent funding in real terms until 1991. The amendment which we will move is required constitutionally to be a request to the House of Representatives to have included in this Bill amendments which will maintain existing levels of funding in real terms until 1992. This will reduce the risk of local government authorities having their financial positions destabilised during the phasing-in period for the adoption of the per capita distribution arrangements which are taking place at the same time. I note that in 1986 we supported the original legislation but were concerned as to how the funds would be paid to the States. At that time we would have preferred payments to be made in the form of a lump sum, which was the case before that time. However, from 1 July 1987, as a result of the 1987 May statement, annual assistance to local government has been paid to the States in quarterly instalments. This was done to enable the Commonwealth to better match its outlays and receipts, resulting in savings to the Government of about $27m per annum in public debt interest payments because of a reduced within-the-year financing task. It has been pointed out to the Democrats that, if we do not take this step of making a request to the House of Representatives, many councils in several States-we have already been advised from New South Wales, Tasmania and Victoria-would have their funding very substantially cut. We are advised that this will be so in the case of 14 per cent of all councils in New South Wales and that 20 of the 46 member councils of the Municipal Association of Tasmania will face severe adjustment difficulties, as will a very high proportion of local councils in Victoria. We will move an amendment to try to retain some stability in funding for local government. I will make a couple of general points about the Customs Tariff (Rate Alteration) Bill 1988 and the moves which are being made by the Government. The cost to revenue of this measure-$460m in 1988-89 and up to $900m in 1992-93-needs to be considered. We are concerned at the lack of provision for retraining and relocation assistance for those who will, without doubt, lose their jobs. After the mini-Budget was brought down, Senator Button was on the record as estimating that the tariff cuts could cost 15,000 jobs over the next four years. We have to face the fact that this move will encourage imports during a time of balance of payments problems. The Government must look at these issues. We have noted the claim by Senator Bolkus in recent days about how much consumers would save as a result of the tariff cuts. The Confederation of Australian Industry and the Australian Retailers Association have contested this claim. The ARA said that prices for clothing, textiles and shoes would rise. There is some encouragement, perhaps, in Senator Bolkus's commitment to put the Prices Surveillance Authority on its toes. Nevertheless, it can scarcely be said with great confidence-particularly in regard to the lack of provision for retraining and relocation assistance-that the short term measure will be of great benefit to the Australian community. With regard to the mini-Budget in general-and further legislation, of course, will be before us in the months ahead-the Democrats have made several statements during the week since it was brought down. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has been boasting about his $3 billion-plus surplus. The Democrats say that that surplus has been achieved at the expense of the unemployed, migrants, the poor, pensioners and students, who have suffered expenditure cuts over the past two years and whose circumstances are not improved by the provisions of this mini-Budget. It does not contain the back-up for the Government's claims of a strong social justice orientation. The company tax rate has been reduced to 39c in the dollar, while at present the average amount of tax that is paid by companies is only 28 per cent. While one distinguished company in this nation could not even stagger up to 1c in the dollar in tax in the last financial year, it is almost obscene, the Democrats say, that at the same time the Government is planning to introduce a tuition tax for higher education students. It has failed to raise the lower tax threshold. While it has raised the rebate for pensioners-or will raise it by legislation further down the track, and we welcome that-a pensioner or beneficiaries can still earn only $10 a week over and above their pension before they are taxed, and low income families are falling into the tax bracket at a very early stage. At the same time, companies are not even meeting the new low level of tax. It is bad enough that the imposition of a gold tax has been delayed three years, but when we consider that half the shares in gold companies here are held by foreign interests and therefore half of the tax-free profits are leaving the country, it does not seem to be a very good economic decision. We are very concerned about the reduction in the home and community care program and the first home owners scheme. Having the responsibility for the social security area for the Australian Democrats, I express specific concern about the large savings which in this mini-Budget are anticipated from restricted eligibility and administrative crackdowns which we believe will not be able to be achieved without resort to unduly draconian and arbitrary measures. We say this on the basis of experience. This type of crackdown has been under way for the best part of 12 to 18 months. The stories that come to me, as the social security representative for the Democrats, and to others in this place are horrific. Sole parent women are landing themselves in gaol because the poverty traps-the tax threshold remaining where it is, and low levels of permissible incomes-are forcing them into a black economy. Every now and then they are not able to evade the web which surrounds them. While no-one would want benefits to go to those who are not eligible, it is disturbing that the Department of Social Security now has powers of what I call `search and destroy' which outdo those that are available to the crime busters in this country and to the Australian Taxation Office. Those powers are exercised over the poorest in our community. It is a major concern. It is essential for the Government to ensure that it consults fully and constructively the community sector and those people who speak and act in the interests of people on low incomes, that these abuses do not continue and that people are not guilty until proven innocent simply because they are on the welfare payrolls. In general, the Democrats are not happy with the thrust of this Budget. We do not believe that the Government's social justice claims are met by this Budget. We are appalled at the hypocrisy of the company tax rate going down and that people in the corporate sector are not yet paying their way. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.03) —The Senate is debating cognately a package of 10 Bills resulting from the microeconomic statement delivered last Wednesday by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Within my area of responsibility in this chamber are three very important Bills: the Primary Industries (Recovery of Levy Collection Expenses) Bill 1988, the Fertilisers Subsidy Amendment Bill 1988 and the Customs Tariff (Rate Alteration) Bill 1988. In view of the guillotine applied by the Government and supported by the Australian Democrats, I have to restrict my remarks to about 10 minutes. The Democrats have supported the Government in applying the guillotine to the discussion on the most important Constitution Alteration Bills, which were finalised before the Senate this morning as a result of that gag. They have gagged through the rest of the Government's program, a most important series of measures, including the May economic statement Bills, all of which will have to be completed by 10.30 tomorrow evening. The Primary Industries (Recovery of Levy Collection Expenses) Bill enables the Commonwealth Government to recover from agricultural industries the cost of collecting and disbursing funds raised through industry levies and charges. It is estimated that the levy and charge collections and disbursement costs amount to 0.2 per cent of total collections, or $1.193m in a full year. It is part of the $100m in extra charges and taxes that this Government has imposed on the rural sector in the May economic statement. As my colleague Senator Stone pointed out earlier, this Government claims that this May economic statement is a great exercise in cutting expenditure, but the truth of the matter is that the Government has cut the States' expenditure to ensure that extra funds come from other areas of the community-in this case, from the rural sector. While cost recovery generally is supported by the coalition parties, we point out that such recovery needs not only to be equitable but also to be seen to be equitable. This increasing cost-recovery burden being imposed on the rural sector does not appear to us to be equitable in that the same levels of cost recovery are not being imposed to anything like the same degree on other sectors of the community. Yet the rural sector is one of the major contributors to our balance of payments. It is essential that its recovery be achieved in the light of our present balance of payments problem. The Fertiliser Subsidy Amendment Bill terminates the phosphatic and nitrogenous fertiliser bounty from 1 July 1988. The saving to the Government in this case will be $37m this year and $50m in the following full year. Since January 1988 the subsidy has been applied only to locally produced fertiliser, and special compensation payments have been made to certain importers to offset the additional cost of dumping duties. Because of these distortions, because of the declining value of the bounty, and because of the negative image of the rural community with the non-farm community, the National Farmers Federation suggested a trade-off to the Government. It suggested firstly a removal of tariffs on agricultural machinery parts made in Australia-an estimated saving of $80m to $100m-to which the Government responded that it was prepared to consider the matter after it received the report of the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC). The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) said: The Government is disposed to grant duty-free entry on agricultural and mining equipment and parts not made in Australia. I point out that he used the words `disposed to grant' and not the word `implement'. The second proposal by the National Farmers Federation was to allow the Australian farmer to buy fertiliser at world prices. That requires the removal of anti-dumping duties. Unless this happens there will not be genuine access at world prices. The Government has made no response to that proposal. The third part of the deal was income equalisation deposits. The Treasurer used a clever piece of verbiage. He announced that the Government would reintroduce income equalisation deposits but that it would defer doing that until July 1989. That enables the Government to have a massive rake-off from people like the wool growers, who this year are finally receiving adequate recompense for their years of hard labour in carrying on their industry through difficult times. When the times have come good and they are in desperate need of the reintroduction of income equalisation deposits to try to balance out their income, the Government has said, `Yes, you can have that, but you cannot have it until next year'. That enables the Government to make very substantial recoveries of tax from these people at this stage. I have spoken to a number of them who have indicated that they simply cannot meet their tax bills out of their revenue for this current year. In our view, the deferment is quite a shabby trick. I now turn to the Customs Tariff (Rate Alteration) Bill 1988, which comes under my shadow portfolio. Our criticism of this Bill is that the Government's industry protection policy has not been timely: these tariff reductions could have and should have been made much earlier. Since the stock market crash of 19 October last year there has been speculation of tariff cuts and a clear acknowledgment of the necessity for change. But the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has delayed announcements in this area. He has delayed any changes until a very late stage. It was the beginning of this month before we had the passenger motor vehicle announcements and as late as the May economic statement before we received the rest of the announcements. The Government simply delayed these announcements so that the whole package could be included in the May economic statement. That is an absolute nonsense, because in the meantime industry has been damaged by the speculation and uncertainty fuelled by Government Ministers who have gone around talking about proposed tariff cuts and anticipating tariff cuts as they have endeavoured to persuade their colleagues in the union movement to accept the tariff cuts. Before Christmas of last year I started criticising the Government for fuelling the speculation about the changes, for example, to the textile, clothing and footwear plan, not because the changes were not necessary in this area, or in the other areas of the passenger motor vehicle and other industries, but because of the damage that was being done as restructuring plans and investments were delayed while industry and the Opposition waited for the Government to come clean and announce its intentions. Many industries may now think that they worried unnecessarily. Others may think that they should have known six months ago so that they could get on with the job of restructuring. There has been very bad timing in relation to these tariff cuts. The Australian economy-certainly since 19 October last year and I believe for some time before that-has been ready for some very substantial and drastic tariff cuts. There is some difficulty and pain in connection with tariff cuts but they are not difficult for governments. Mr Whitlam demonstrated this in 1974 when he introduced a 25 per cent across the board tariff cut. It is not the tariff cuts, but the maintaining of investment and employment in industries which are suffering the cuts which is difficult. The other difficulty is to gain some benefit from the cuts. To gain the benefit it is necessary to remove the rigidities which are currently inherent in our industrial structure and which have been built up over many years of protectionist policy for our industries. There is a desperate need to free up our system; there is a desperate need to deregulate the labour market; and there is a desperate need to overcome the rigidities and difficulties in matters such as the transport of goods, especially on our wharves. This Government has done nothing about that. There is nothing in this package of Bills and nothing in the May statement about freeing up the system. Unless the Government frees up the system, quite frankly the tariff cuts will simply wash out in unemployment and reduced investment. There is a need to have tariff cuts, but there is also a desperate need to remove the rigidities from the industrial structure. At long last the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has suddenly realised, after all these years in office, that this is the right way to go. After the May statement he announced that labour market flexibility would be his next great challenge. Mr Keating, having taken over the IAC from Senator Button, is now about to take over industrial relations from the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Willis. We welcome that they have at last realised the necessity to reform the labour market. We have been telling them that for five years. We point out that these tariff cuts which the Government has imposed by this Bill will not be of real value to people in Australia without the benefit of deregulation of our rigid industrial structures. I also point out to the people of Australia that they can totally ignore the nonsense spoken last weekend by the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Senator Bolkus, who talked about massive falls in prices for various goods as a result of these changes. He spoke of the possibility of falls in prices in regard to these matters at the end of the four-year term of these tariff cuts-in other words, not during 1988 but sometime in 1992. If that happens in 1992, there will be no-one more surprised in this community than the wives and husbands of Australia who have borne the burden of having the Australian Labor Party as the Federal Government. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(4.16) —As a result of the quite disgraceful behaviour of the Government and the abysmal incompetence of the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Senator Gareth Evans, we are now participating in a four-hour debate on a package of no less than 10 important Bills arising from the Government's May economic statement of last week and on a wide range of micro- and macro-economic measures announced in that statement. This type of performance by the Government is a total prostitution of the democratic parliamentary system. Perhaps we should not be too surprised about that. Already today we have seen the Government, with the totally unprincipled connivance of the Australian Democrats, bludgeon through this Senate four referendum Bills, one of which if passed by the Australian people would permanently and fundamentally weaken the role of the Senate as the watchdog on behalf of the Australian people of those very democratic parliamentary processes that the Government is today prostituting. In the pitifully short time available to me I will very briefly comment on some of the policy measures contained in the May economic statement, which is very rapidly becoming known as MES or mess. I will then touch, equally briefly, on the three Bills for which I have responsibility on behalf of the Opposition in the Senate; namely, the Migration Amendment Bill, the Departure Tax Amendment Bill and the Departure Tax Collection Amendment Bill. The Opposition agrees with several of the announcements in the May economic statement. In particular we support the announcements in relation to reduction in industry assistance, including tariff reductions, but with the very important qualifications just mentioned by my colleague, Senator Austin Lewis. However, at the same time we reject the absurd claims by Government spokesmen such as the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Senator Bolkus, about the extent of the immediate benefits to consumers. Nevertheless, the changes are in the right direction. We support the measures to put public sector business enterprises on a more commercial footing, though we stress that this is little more than a cop-out made necessary by the Government's abject failure to reach agreement within its ranks on a sensible program of privatisation. We support the reduction of the company tax rate to 39c in the dollar. We support the abolition of the 2 per cent revenue duty on imports. But there are other, and in many ways much more important, measures which we do not support. My colleague Senator Stone has already dealt with some of these in detail. We totally reject the assertion of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that the economic statement contains: . . . far-reaching economic reforms that will take our nation into the 21st century. Once again, cutbacks in government spending are a key element of those changes . . . These statements are quite simply false. The economic measures are not far-reaching. In many instances they exhibit a monumental lack of stomach by the Government to grasp the really difficult tasks it should have been tackling. Foremost among these is the need to reduce government spending by much more than the Treasurer has done. Ninety per cent of the planned reductions in spending of which the Treasurer boasts is a reduction in the Commonwealth's payments to the States, and both indirectly and directly through that to local government. Only about 10 per cent, or $112m, represents a cut in the Hawke Government's own spending. No wonder the State Premiers are so noisily angry about the unfairness of this treatment. Even taking into account the reductions in payments to the States, the fact is still that the Government remains the highest spending and highest taxing government in Australia's history, as well as the Government which has put Australia into debt with the rest of the world by an amount which would have been frankly inconceivable only five years ago-a debt which has tripled in the five years of the Hawke Government to a figure of $110 billion, equivalent to $6,700 for every man, woman and child in Australia. That debt would be much higher if it had not been for the good fortune of the unexpectedly high prices over the past couple of years for many of our exported commodities. This good fortune, which has had nothing to do one way or the other with the policies of the Government, may well not last much longer. There are clouds on the international, economic and trade horizons which could well presage a collapse in export prices and in export volumes later this year or early in 1989. Yet the Government appears to have framed its economic policy as if this threat did not exist. If it had taken the external situation properly into account, it would have had no option but to adopt a much tougher fiscal policy than it has. By being soft on its spending the Government has done several things. First, it has guaranteed a rise in interest rates because monetary policy is going to have to be the Government's key economic policy tool. By a soft fiscal policy and its inability to use its wages policy in an economic policy sense, it has thrown the whole weight of its policy adjustment measures on to monetary policy. This interest rate rise will have severe adverse implications for our external account. It will encourage greater capital inflow and therefore as well make more difficult the maintenance of an appropriate exchange rate. The soft fiscal policy has also prevented the Government from giving taxpayers a cut in income tax now. This would have been both achievable and desirable if only the Government had found the internal strength and discipline to take the hard decisions. Far from giving tax cuts in 1988-89, income tax will increase in the year ahead. The average rate of tax paid next year by wage and salary earners will be higher by something of the order of 1c in the dollar than in 1987-88, the current year. That arises because of the iniquitous effect of the tax bracket creep as incomes move into higher brackets due simply to the inflationary effect. The Government now has a quite huge dilemma on its hands. It has promised income tax cuts in 1989-90 and last Friday in Melbourne the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) implied that these cuts would do more than simply return to taxpayers the revenue windfall that has been reaped from bracket creep. But even simply to give back to taxpayers the bracket creep rip off of this current year and next year would cost the Government about $3 billion. The Government has to reduce its top marginal tax rate from 49 per cent, the existing rate, down to the new corporate rate of 39 per cent if it is going to be able to maintain the integrity of this new company tax rate structure. To reduce the top marginal tax rate from 49 per cent to 39 per cent and to adjust the other brackets accordingly is estimated to cost over $10 billion. So unless the Government can reduce spending in 1989-90 by a much greater amount than it has to date shown the capacity to deliver, it will be impossible for it to deliver on its tax promises without once again going into massive Budget deficit and blowing the Australian economy out of the water. Time prevents me from going into greater detail on these matters. To summarise what I have already said, the facts underlying the May economic statement are that the Government has thrown away a golden opportunity to put the Australian economy on the path of sustainable long term growth and, worse still, has sown the seeds of major economic difficulties later in 1988 and in 1989. Those difficulties will include, very importantly and significantly, rises in interest rates, as I have already mentioned, and without much doubt at all great pressure on costs and prices and a corresponding lift in the inflation rate. Let me also say without elaboration at this time that I believe the Treasurer has been less than honest with his statement that the proposed new superannuation tax arrangements will not harm one single superannuant or fund member. The Treasurer has said that not one person will be 1c worse off as a result of the superannuation changes that have been made. Quite frankly, that is simply wrong. Equally clearly, many will be disadvantaged. It is difficult at this stage to know where the burdens will fall and where the advantages will lie but, quite clearly, many superannuants and fund members will be disadvantaged. It is a very large and very complex issue which will require the most careful study between now and the Budget session. In conclusion, let me just say a couple of words about the three Bills I mentioned earlier-the Migration Amendment Bill, the Departure Tax Amendment Bill and the Departure Tax Collection Amendment Bill. The overall purport of that package of three Bills is to provide for the abolition of the arrival tax that the Government last year imposed on persons arriving in Australia from overseas, be they visitors from overseas or returning Australian citizens. At the time we said very strongly that that was a ridiculous tax. We did not vote against it because it was one of the Government's Budget measures, but we did consistently put to the Government and to the people the inequities of that tax. In that context I pay particular tribute to my colleague John Sharp in the House of Representatives. The Opposition does not oppose these Bills. They should never have been necessary in the first place because the original proposal should not have been introduced. We welcome the fact that the Government has at last seen sense in the face of a great deal of pressure from a variety of sources, not least the travelling public. In the first few months of the tax to the end of January, 38 per cent of the travelling public refused to pay the tax and by April this year the Government had been forced to backtrack on its revenue measures as a measure of the loathing of the tax. It has cost the Australian community dearly in terms of the loss of goodwill of overseas visitors, it has cost us tourist dollars, and it is high time it was removed. We welcome that removal. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(4.30) —In a great rush at the end of the session we are now pushing through 10 Bills-the Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Bill 1988, the Migration Amendment Bill 1988, the Departure Tax Amendment Bill 1988, the Departure Tax Collection Amendment Bill 1988, the Commonwealth Authorities Legislation (Pay-roll Tax) Amendment Bill 1988, the Primary Industries (Recovery of Levy Collection Expenses) Bill 1988, the National Health Amendment Bill 1988, the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988, the Fertilisers Subsidy Amendment Bill 1988, the Customs Tariff (Rate Alteration) Bill 1988-along with the debate on what was allegedly an important May economic statement. If that economic statement is so important I wonder why the Government has given us so little time to discuss it. If the time available bears any relationship to the significance of the statement, obviously this is an insignificant and insubstantial statement which apparently does not deserve a great deal of attention in this chamber. However, unfortunately this Government has developed a sort of inverse ratio relationship with matters of significance. If it is of major significance it is rammed through the Senate, using guillotine motions, as the constitutional referendum matters were rammed through the Senate in the early hours of this morning and as the May economic statement is being rammed through now. I believe that this Government stands condemned for the offensive and disgraceful way it has approached this Senate chamber and the Parliament as a whole by seeking to limit the amount of serious question and debate on these matters of immense significance. Senator Short was able, briefly, to deal with only a couple of Bills on the list. In the short time available to me I want to deal with the May economic statement as a whole and expose it for the sham that it is. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has come to the Parliament and pretended that he is cutting Government spending. That is simply false. He is not cutting Federal Government spending. Senator Short was particularly kind to him when he said that there was a very small amount of Federal Government cut. Senator Short —I did not list them. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Senator Short, in a very kindly and generous mood to the Treasurer, which I think is unjustified-I think he was too generous to the Treasurer-has omitted a very key element of that statement which involved massive changes in bookkeeping. The statement is a bookkeeper's dream; it is a set of fiddled accounts. When we adjust those fiddled accounts, when we write back the changes that are made and the manner in which things are being organised and when we get out of the accounts the fact that the States have carried such a substantial proportion of the burden-in fact, they have carried all the burden as the figures I will produce show-we see that the Commonwealth has not cut its own spending and this Treasurer is a sham for pretending that he has. It is an absolute disgrace that his word is taken at face value by people who, quite frankly, have the capacity to know better. I am interested to see that many of the media commentators, after mature reflection, are now criticising strongly the failure of this Treasurer to apply the appropriate cuts to Government spending that are absolutely vital if our economy is to emerge from its present crisis and if Australia's future is not to be jeopardised. As Senator Short has said, at the moment we have a temporary benefit from commodity prices which, for the time being, has assisted our balance of payments. But we are facing a real problem unless there is some serious cutting of Government spending. In a recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald Max Walsh mentioned that, if the Government gives up the option, as it appears to have done, of having genuine cuts in Government spending, it will have to rely on monetary policy. Mr Walsh said: A government that has monetary policy as its preferred tool of domestic management is a sitting duck. As soon as it tightens monetary supply to dampen demand, it puts up interest rates thereby attracting foreign funds- . . . . This inevitably increases the exchange rate-weakening export industries and funding increased imports. He also said: Recent interest rate movements have given the appreciation which we have had in recent times- added impetus- And the short-term reaction to last week's statement on changes in corporate tax and superannuation regulations must mean higher interest rates for the simple technical reason that the relative portfolio attraction of equities has been enhanced compared with fixed-interest investments. The reduced demand for fixed-interest instruments means that their yields have to be adjusted upwards to restore their relative position in the marketplace. So we see monetary policy being overused because of the incompetence of this Government in not cutting its own spending and pretending that it has. Let us adjust the bookkeeping fiddles. I am glad that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) is in the chamber because with his knowledge of finance he will be able to trace them and see exactly the way in which this Government has cooked the books. The manner in which it has done this is simple. Primary industry charges and levies and light dues and Navigation Act receipts, which were previously classified as offsets within outlays, have now been classified as revenue. Discounts and premiums on Treasury bonds have been reclassified from financing transactions to outlays. According to the text of this statement, these changes will add an estimated $974m to recorded outlays in 1987-88 and $783m in 1988-89. In other words, by increasing the previous year's expenditure figures the Government makes the present year's figures look not as bad. That is what this is about. It is a device to exaggerate last year's spending so that this year's spending looks smaller. When we write back those adjustments and fiddles we get a genuine comparison-a comparison that this Treasurer seeks to avoid. In addition, the Civil Aviation Authority will be shifted off-Budget from 1 July 1988 and this will reduce outlays in 1988-89 by about $270m. We have adjusted the estimated total outlays in the current year and next year to show exactly what the situation is. When we make those adjustments we find that total Government expenditure is claimed to fall by the ludicrously small amount of 0.8 per cent. That is a pathetic contribution. However, we get a far more accurate and realistic view of the Government's failure to reduce spending when we exclude the burden of the States. Let us face it: the Federal Government cannot claim that it is cutting its spending when all it is doing is reducing its grants to the States. When we exclude the savings of $870m in total outlays to the States we see that Federal Government spending, on its own account, has increased this year, not fallen. It is that sort of realisation, a week after the event, that is prompting so many of the commentators to criticise this Government for its failure to cut government spending and its failure to take the action that was appropriate in the May statement. The Treasurer could not take that action for a variety of reasons, particularly his own pretensions to becoming leader of the Australian Labor Party and his need to appeal to the various factional groups within the Labor Party if that pretension to leadership was to be fulfilled. Of course, we can now see just how excessive this level of Government spending and, as a result, the level of Government taxing really are. Let me deal with today's statement of Australia's national accounts. It reveals several things, if the figures are accurate, and I accept that in many instances the figures that the Government puts out are far from accurate. What do we find in today's seasonally adjusted accounts? We see that, over the last 12 months, private final consumption expenditure has gone up in real terms by only 2.8 per cent. But what has the Government done? Government consumption expenditure has gone up by 5.3 per cent. It has just doubled the rise of the private sector. The Government and governments around Australia are still spending up big, at double the rate of rise of the private sector. Even more serious, in the latest quarter we have a 2.3 per cent real fall in spending on equipment. This Government has been pretending that its policies are assisting the recovery in Australia by encouraging investment in new plant and equipment so that we can trade our way out of trouble. Not on your nelly! The figures dramatise what is happening. As I said, in the latest quarter spending on new plant and equipment has fallen 2.3 per cent. Over the last 12 months it has risen by a paltry 3.1 per cent, far less, of course, than the 5.3 per cent increase in Government consumption expenditure. In these figures we have evidence of this Government's gross incompetence and the risk to which it is putting the Australian economy by failing to take appropriate fiscal measures. When we look at the analysis of contributions to growth in gross domestic product (GDP), we see an extraordinarily revealing figure. We see that gross domestic product in the last quarter was up 1.8 per cent in real terms. What contributed to that? A growth in stocks and a growth in Government final consumption expenditure. It is the Government, not the private sector, that is leading the charge in growth. That is apart, of course, from the private sector increasing its stock levels. Where is the consumption led boom we have heard about? Of course, this has led to enormous increases in the inflation rate. The implicit price deflator on GDP expenditure is something like 8.2 per cent for the last 12 months. In the only area of the private sector in which we are getting any real activity, real estate, we see that the inflator is up by something like 23 per cent. This Government really stands indicted. These figures demonstrate how ludicrous its policies are. On top of all these inflationary factors we have had something like a 3.3 per cent increase in the growth of wages, salaries and supplements in the latest quarter. To pay for all this increased expenditure, what have we had? We have had continually rising taxes. I think that the latest Niemeyer statement put out by the Minister for Finance last week shows that net pay as you earn taxation collections have gone up 11.1 per cent so far this year. That is an increase of $2.7 billion; $2,700m more in taxes is being paid by the pay as you earn taxpayers of Australia. This is not being paid by the companies, the rich people, the people who live on investment income; but the workers of this nation have had to hit the can for that extra $2.7 billion to pay for this Government's massive expenditure rises. The total increase in taxes so far this year is $5.76 billion. We now know why this Government is capable of increasing its spending while budgeting for a surplus next year. We know why that surplus should have been $5 billion, not $3.5 billion. So far this year we have had the sneaky rise of 17.4 per cent in sales tax collections-the consumption tax the Government pretended it did not have when it was attacking everyone else about the prospect of a consumption tax. So far this year consumption tax collections by this Government have risen by 17.4 per cent or something like $1,000m, in one of the greatest secret assaults on the hip pockets of Australians that has ever taken place. This Government stands condemned for its incompetence. The May economic statement reveals the extent of that incompetence. More importantly, I believe, it probably reveals the extent of the Treasurer's desperation to appeal more to the people and to the factions within the Australian Labor Party, in view of his hopes and aspirations for leadership, rather than providing the sort of leadership he should be providing by giving the Australian economy and the Australian people a proper May economic statement. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(4.45) —It is a matter of great regret that I can speak very briefly on only one Bill, the Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Bill 1988, in the package before the Senate. There are many questions that I would like to ask of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) as to how the financing of the Department of Transport and Communications, at which the levy on aviation gasoline will be directed, is to take place. However, due to the collusion between the Australian Democrats and the far left of the Australian Labor Party, and the Australian Labor Party in general, we are denied the right to debate this legislation in the way we should. Perhaps later on in the afternoon when we debate the Civil Aviation Bill I will get a chance to ask a few more questions. The purpose of the Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Bill is to appropriate a set fraction, all but 2.393c per litre, of the excise duty raised on aviation gasoline. It is important to recognise that this is avgas and not avtur duty that is being transferred to the Civil Aviation Authority to provide some funds for it when the Authority is formed on 1 July this year. It is recognised that it costs money to run the aviation service in Australia. Traditionally, the fund raising has been done in a number of ways-by air navigation charges, individual charges based on the weight of the aircraft involved and various rentals that the Department can raise. In Budget Paper No. 3 for 1987-88 there is listed on page 365 the receipts offset within outlays for air navigation charges. Included are airport facilities, terminal navigation, rescue and fire fighting services, international en-route, international charters and special arrangements, general aviation, airport business concessions and facilities such as that for which the Commonwealth makes charges. They come to a total of $318m. What is a little obscure is how much the Commonwealth gets in excise payments for both avtur and avgas. Avtur would be a much greater aggregate figure than avgas, but one suspects that that is probably in the region of $250m to $400m a year. The Government has been rather coy in attributing that in the departmental estimates up to the present time. Against these traditional backgrounds, in recent years-starting from the time of the Whitlam Government-we have had the user pays doctrine. This has been applied very much to the aviation industry, principally on emotional grounds. It is thought that people who fly, whether they be pensioners going to see their children on the other side of the country, people flying on business or to service a tractor or a bulldozer somewhere in the country or even people flying at the weekends for pleasure, are loaded with money, that they are fat cows favoured by society and thus ought to be taxed in every way possible. The user pays doctrine has been applied by the Australian Labor Party more forcefully to the aviation industry than to any other section of the community. I have a personal objection to that. I happen to pay personal income tax. I pay company tax. I pay a lot of sales tax and excise duty on everything I buy. In other words, I am paying at least three different categories of tax to a central government to provide facilities such as airports to enable me to fly here to the Senate and do things such as that. I object very much to having a fourth level of taxation imposed on me. More importantly, I object to that taxation being imposed on me in a way which means that I have no say as to how it is imposed. I cannot go into a Myer store, buy several thousand dollars worth of clothing and book it up to Senator Walsh; yet this is precisely what is being done to me, an aircraft owner, by the Department. Services are provided for me but I have no say either in whether I need them or in whether their delivery is efficient. If the Government were serious about a user pays doctrine, it would certainly set up boards of management for the various areas of expenditure and the actual user could have a majority position on the boards and hold the chairmanship of the relevant committees. Over and above everything else, the user pays doctrine ignores the community benefit of something like aviation services. It is not only the person who flies between Sydney and Melbourne who gets a benefit from that airline service; the community at large benefits because it reduces the need for roads and rail services, it promotes trade, it brings in tourists. The whole level of commercial activity, profits earned and employment generated is related in a way to the provision of air services. In another sense there is a defence aspect as well because the aviation industry does provide the maintenance and support, reserve capability, including transport reserve capability, and a pool of skills that are nationally important-intangible though they may be. It is very wrong to see the provision of aviation services in this country as being restricted entirely to a user base. Traditionally those set fundraising measures that I mentioned earlier in my speech-aviation navigation charges, rentals facilities and excise-were the sole sources of revenue for the Department. About 18 months ago the Department of Transport and Communications went over to a new scheme under which it proposed that movement charges, or landing charges, would be levied on general aviation aircraft as a means of supplementing its income. It found out very smartly it was too costly to implement a scheme like that. Furthermore it was unworkable because it simply could not trace the number of movements with any degree of accuracy. So the aviation industry in consultation with the Department agreed to an extra 3.9c per litre levy on aviation gasoline to compensate for the air navigation and movement charges that were projected to be introduced. This provided, of course, many advantages for the Department because it meant that an extra levy on aviation gasoline was paid in cash. The Department had no collection charge. It did not have to chase its clients because the oil companies paid the charge, and it was paid on the spot each month. There was no delay in pursuing clients for payment. It was a very attractive scheme for the Government from an efficiency point of view. Recently the Government has tried to get out of any financial responsibility for the operation of the airway services. It has introduced a Federal Airports Corporation (FAC), which is tasked with looking after a number of airports in the country and being revenue self-supporting, and this afternoon it will introduce legislation for the Civil Aviation Authority, which will take over the functions of the old department with respect to navigation, air safety, legislation and the general administrative side of aviation. Again, that Authority will be largely self-funding. The relevance of that to this Bill is that a proportion of the excise raised from aviation gasoline, estimated to be about $22m a year, will go to the Civil Aviation Authority. I applaud the Government because in the past, if one looks at the history of aviation fuels, the excise has been lost to Consolidated Revenue. It has not gone specifically to the industry. It is wise, if we are going to work out actually what the industry costs us, to have offsetting figures. I support the move to do this. Not all of the funds from aviation gasoline will go to the Civil Aviation Authority. Something like 2.3c will go to the Federal Airports Corporation, in the fullness of time, for the airfield side of it. It will simply not be enough. It will have to be supplemented from other sources by the Government to provide for the airfield services that the Federal Airports Corporation is so inefficiently and disastrously running at present. I have never seen a public authority in such a short time-about five months-get into such a totally discredited position with its clients, namely, the aviation industry, as has the Federal Airports Corporation. Unless the FAC picks up its game and improves out of sight, the Government will have to disband it and come up with another solution. The Opposition supports this Bill. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.54) —In the short time available to me I want first to move the Opposition's amendment to the Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Bill, and so move: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate condemns the Government for: (a) the funding shortcomings of the proposed Civil Aviation Authority; and (b) its failure to include these revenue provisions in the Civil Aviation Bill 1988''. The amendment draws attention to the shortcomings of the proposed Civil Aviation Authority, which is a matter the Opposition will be discussing later. Senator MacGibbon has just pointed out the shortcomings of that operation and the difficulties with it. The second point of the amendment is the failure of the Government to include in any statement about the Civil Aviation Authority any revenue provisions as to how much the operation will cost, where the money is coming from or going to and any attempt to try to explain what the advantages of the Authority are. They have been totally omitted from the Government's contribution to date. I turn briefly to one part of the May economic statement which did not rate a mention amongst the Bills we are now discussing-the telecommunications area. There was a major contribution in the papers presented by the Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Gareth Evans, to the Senate last Wednesday night. I note the Opposition's extreme disappointment at the Government's contribution in this area. It simply has not gone far enough in deregulating the telecommunications authorities, that is, Telecom Australia, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (OTC) and Aussat Pty Ltd, and has rather settled for what obviously was the lowest common denominator-in other words, what the unions would allow the Government to do. Consequently the Government has not gone into the exercise with the idea that the consumer is king paramount in its mind. That has been left aside. The consumer will gain very little from the deregulation proposed. Consequently the Opposition stresses its great disappointment that the Government squibbed the issue and certainly took only a very small step forward. Without going into too much detail of the exact nature of the deregulatory moves, it is important to note that the Government failed very significantly in not removing Telecom's monopoly on the first phone. This is an area which is subsidised to the tune of something like $250m a year by the Australian taxpayer, and it is a monopoly which supports most inefficient work practices by the employees of Telecom. In one stroke the Government could have opened this area to competition and in that way generated more efficiency and incurred less cost to the consumer in the Australian community. It failed simply on that ground. Another failure emerged only a day or two before the detailed statements came out last Wednesday, which was an indication of the pressure experienced by the Labor Caucus. No doubt it was under pressure from the trade union movement, which prevented the Government from allowing an open market for cellular mobile phones. We all know how rapidly this area of the market is developing, for the benefit of consumers, businesses and industry generally in this country. Instead of allowing the market to grow rapidly and deregulating it to allow competition into the industry so that there could be a rapid expansion, with consequent benefits to the economy, the Government sat on its hands again and chose to take the easy road under pressure from the trade union movement. That means that area of consumer benefit will not grow as rapidly as it might have. As a result job and business opportunities will not be created as fast as they might. As a result the economy suffers. That was a direct failure by the Government in the light of the specific pressures coming upon it obviously from the trade union movement. We note with some pleasure that the Government has decided to deregulate small business systems and their installation, and the maintenance of some areas of the PABX telephone service. It is very welcome news that there will be a deregulated market for value added services for Telecom and OTC. These areas are exceptionally welcome even though they do represent relatively small steps forward. We note that, even with those relatively small steps, the Government is already being put under pressure by the trade union movement. We hear that the unions are meeting and discussing these questions, with the likelihood of taking industrial action to prevent Telecom and the Government proceeding down those lines. If the Government, in the way it has been wont to do lately, buckles under the pressure of the trade union movement, it will be a tragedy for this country. Whilst the steps are small and certainly disappointing in their magnitude and extent, the fact is that they are welcome in the sense that they are in the right direction. For the Government to give up the game now would be a tragedy for the nation, and I urge it not to buckle to the trade unions in this area. Another area of failure is the Government's lack of backbone in not going all the way to turning Telecom into a public company with the shares held by the Government. That is the policy of the Liberal and National parties in this area, but the Government has chosen to keep Telecom as a separate name. It has been called the Telecommunications Corporation rather than the Commission, but there is little difference from what it presently is. That is merely a cosmetic change to the name of Telecom, without any effective changes that might have been wrought had the operations been switched to a public company and Telecom in that way opened to more effective competition as to capital raisings, as to its handling of industrial relations and as to other practices which affect its operations and efficiency. The Opposition will be watching very closely and monitoring the operations of the new regulation agency called Austel which is to take over the role which Telecom had previously been managing itself. Telecom has been a major operator in the field of running a telecommunications business, not only regulating itself by law but also using the law to regulate everybody else, that is, its competitors in the marketplace, with the obvious inefficiencies that that brings. At least now the Government is going to remove that regulatory power of Telecom's by establishing the new agency, Austel. What we do not want to see happen is Austel merely becoming another branch of Telecom or of the Government in such a way that it seeks to protect Telecom from the marketplace, from competition and from efficiency, being used as just another means of achieving the same ends which Telecom achieved in former times. We put the Government on notice that we will be watching carefully to see that that does not happen. While we are talking about Telecom, we note a recent statement by Senator Walsh about the obvious opportunity for and possibility of the Government introducing timed local telephone calls. We see quite clearly from a speech of his a week or so ago that this is clearly on the Government's agenda. Consequently, we would like to see that matter cleared up or cast aside, in the light of the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) a month or two ago when he said this would definitely not occur. We note Senator Walsh's adherence to economic rationalisation, as he calls it, and as a result we would very much like to hear from him whether he is going to be using Telecom as a taxing medium in order to reintroduce those charges on the community. Regarding the superannuation changes that were brought down last Wednesday, we note again Senator Walsh's answer to my question today concerning what is clearly a bit of fast footwork on the Government's part. It said last Wednesday that some $900m was going to be taken out of the income of superannuation funds, but that somehow, by some magical stroke, this was not going to affect the final outcome of the beneficiaries receiving their benefit in due course. This is an amazing piece of work. In Senator Walsh's answer to my question on that point today, he admitted that the way in which the amount of tax to be saved by the Government, that is, $900m, is to be effected is by ensuring that investments in which those superannuation funds are currently involved and from which they remove themselves in order to take advantage of dividend imputation are picked up by some other parties outside the superannuation area which will consequently pay tax on that income. Apparently this is the way in which the Government has rationalised everything. If we narrow the argument down simply to the beneficiaries of superannuation funds and we look at the direct effects upon them of the reduced income of superannuation funds as a result of the tax, we see quite clearly that in individual cases there must be a detrimental effect upon the final benefits accruing to superannuation fund members. I think it is simply exposed by Senator Walsh's remarks today that in fact the Government did play a sleight of hand on us last Wednesday when Mr Keating was quoted as saying that not one cent of final benefit would be lost by individual members. I think that shows the lack of good faith of the Government in this area. It certainly has been very misleading over the last week or so. At last today we have got the clear statement from Senator Walsh that in fact it is all being done with mirrors and that there is going to be a detrimental impact upon the final benefit for superannuation fund members. I conclude by saying that the statement brought down last Wednesday night appears to me to be nothing more than a statement designed to build up the personal fortunes, if you like, of one Paul Keating, with the obvious objective of ensuring that he is the next leader of the Australian Labor Party. It is possible that this change of leadership will come sooner rather than later, and it may well be this year when we see the emergence of Prime Minister Keating. God forbid that that should happen! Nevertheless, it is something which is becoming clearer and clearer as a result of last Wednesday's exercise, which, when it boils down, amounts to little more than a public relations exercise. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.08) —Following the release of the May mini-Budget, the headlines in the newspapers ranged from `Markets show confidence in Keating's blueprint' to `Cunning sleight of hand by Scrooge McKeating'. And we had everything in between. But as Robert Haupt so very aptly put it, `the press gallery was ecstatic'. Mr Haupt said: as I heard the voters, they were worse than neutral-they hated it all. This journalist went on to explain some of the talk-back sessions he had listened to. He said that people saw the postponement of the gold tax as a concession to Alan Bond; saw in the lowering of company tax a failure to lower income tax; and saw in the superannuation measures a change in the rules. Behind the whole exercise, one caller said, was the image of `Keating and his clocks'. As that slowly sank in, by week's end the people realised that the Government had once again ignored the ordinary Australian family and, as John Howard put it, `They get a big fat zero'. Even worse, people knew that because of the changes to the arrangements for superannuation benefits, which they had been planning for all their working life, they would end up much worse off than they are at present. Mr Hawke had tried, by the weekend, to rally the troops, and headlines appeared such as `Prime Minister pledges rise in living standards'. We all remember very clearly his promise: `There will be no child living in poverty by the year 1990'. One newspaper article stated: Mr Hawke countered criticism of delays of personal tax cuts yesterday by saying living standards would rise immediately as a result of the mini-Budget. However, the following day we saw the headline `Home interest rates on the way up'. There is no way in the wide world, as bank after bank puts up its home loan interest rates, that the living standards of the ordinary Australian family will go up. Senator Button cited figures showing by how much the price of clothes and shoes would come down. When we took him to task on that, we were told by Ministers that the Prices Surveillance Authority will monitor the price rises. What teeth does that body have, and what will it do? The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who is at the table, certainly will not do anything. We are told that this mini-Budget is just one building block. I can assure the Australian people that this building block is being placed so very carefully on the top of the pile that it will result in the complete toppling of this Labor Government. The building block is a sleight of hand trick by Scrooge McKeating. The Government has been too smart by half. The Prime Minister has said, `We are giving our mates a reduction in company tax, but the ordinary Australian family will have to wait'. He said that income tax cuts would have to wait for about 12 months. But they will not take place then. We know that Mr Keating has said that they will occur in mid-1990. That is not 12 months away. It is in the next financial year. It is not a case of being told what the tax cuts will be. Rather, it is: `We might cut tax. The Government is not coming across with how much people will get. That all depends on the level of wage rises; that has to be established before we will tell you the size of the cuts'. Mr Keating has said, `If we cut your tax now, you will go out and spend the money irresponsibly on imported goods, and you will only send up our balance of payments deficit again'. The Government believes that it cannot let the Australian people have too much money and that it has to look after it for them. The Government says, `We will do the borrowing for you; we will increase our overseas debts; we will spend the money on how we see you want it spent, not on the way you decide to spend it'. The Government believes that, as a good socialist Government, it should tax the people to the hilt, because it fears that if it allows them to have money they will spend it irresponsibly. The Weekend Australian reported Mr Hawke admitting, in a flash of honesty, that the Government's reforms will cause industry dislocation and job losses. He said that there will be industry dislocation and job losses, but that it is all for our own good-`No tax cuts; people will lose their jobs; but this mini-Budget is all for your own good'. Not everybody will accept that. I am quite sure that Mr Hawke will realise that very soon. Let me come to the main differences in the philosophies of the Government and Opposition parties, because they are very great. I have already said that this Government wants to grab our money so that it can spend it in a better and wiser fashion than we can spend it. The editorial in the Weekend Australian pointed out that some of our social welfare policies, unfortunately, encourage long term dependency. If I had more time, I would be able to go into that matter in a much better way. There are large groups in our community-I do not want this to be misunderstood-that can never be independent, and it is the job of government to look after them. But there are other groups that should and can be helped and led to take responsibility for themselves. During a debate the other day on the family package, I said-the figures were brought to notice originally by Senator Chaney-that there are poverty traps that encourage people to remain on welfare programs. I gave the example of a single income earner on $330 a week, with a dependent spouse and two children, paying $40.39 in tax. That person receives $35 from this Government through the family package. This Government still rips the tax off him, but it gives him back $35. If that single income earner earns an additional $90 for 7 1/2 hours extra work-overtime-he loses, out of that $90, the family income supplement-the lot. Out of the $90, he gets only $8.59. Is there one bureaucrat sitting in this chamber at the moment who would work for another $90 and get only $8.59 out of it? Of course people will not do that; they will stay in the welfare system, putting out their hand and saying, `Give me the $35. I'm far better off than I am working overtime and getting only $8 1/2 for it'. That is the type of poverty trap which this Government is setting up. Its philosophy is, `We know what is best for the community; they need not bear responsibility; we will bear it; we will not give the community tax cuts; we know how to spend people's money'. The Government is too frightened to give people the freedom to earn overtime. It would rather tax them heavily and not allow them to spend their money on their own priorities. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.18) —Last Wednesday evening the nation witnessed the Treasurer (Mr Keating) waxing rather lyrical about what he called the economic reforms that will take our nation into the twenty-first century. He might more truthfully have prefaced his remarks with the comment that the May 1988 statement was the package that would take him to the top of the Australian Labor Party. Mr Keating's cards are now clearly on the table and the news headlines reflect this. Australians have read of `Keating's grand design' and `Prime Minister Keating builds up credit to play Santa Claus'. The May economic statement has compounded and highlighted the dominance of the Treasurer over his ministerial colleagues. While Mr Keating addressed the nation for 30 minutes on national television, revealing the so-called gems of his mini-Budget, it was left to other Ministers-Dawkins, Kerin, Senator Evans and Senator Button-to fill in the harder, less newsworthy details off-screen. We heard nothing from the Treasurer about the end of the first home owners scheme, the reduction in the overall level of road funding in the next financial year, a freeze on funding to non-governmental schools that will effectively lock them into current levels of funding, and the termination of subsidies for agricultural fertilisers. Instead, Mr Keating served up headline-grabbing news, interspersed with sweeping metaphors. We heard about the proud economic history of this Labor Government. I certainly would not be proud of a number of features-for example, the responsibility for a blow-out in foreign debt to a record high level of over $100 billion and going down in the history books as the highest taxing government, with the highest taxing Treasurer, in Australia's peacetime history-but, on balance, we have to acknowledge that the May economic statement contained a few welcome and overdue initiatives. Not the least among these was the recognition of the need to pay off some of the burgeoning overseas debt. Senator Walsh —Howard ran a $10 billion deficit; 5 per cent of GDP you had on the deficit. Senator WATSON —Perhaps Senator Walsh does not intend to honour those promises. I will take him up on those later. Cuts in the company tax rate have also been very much needed but it should not be forgotten that this Government put up the company tax rate to one of the highest rates in history. It put it up from 45c to 49c, and it wonders why there are problems with overseas money not flowing into companies in Australia. At last it has seen the light, but it took a long time. I ask Senator Walsh what this all means to the ordinary man in the street. He has lost touch with him. Let me canvass a couple of other principal areas. I want to look at the impact of the May economic statement on my State of Tasmania, which has been hard hit by this ruthless Hawke Government. What does the May statement contain for the average family in Australia? Let us look at the impact on a smaller State such as Tasmania. The burden of cuts in Government spending that Treasurer Keating has so self-righteously announced has fallen predominantly on the States, not on the Commonwealth. While accepting the praise for the forward-looking economic program, this Hawke Government has sought to evade the repercussions of its scheme essentially by passing the cuts on to the States. This has been done in the same way as a commanding officer might pass on distasteful orders to a subordinate. In net terms the May economic statement reduces the Forward Estimates by $982m. Of this saving the States have to contribute $870m. The States are not really getting a fair go. Tasmania's Budget was reduced by a total of $52.5m in real terms. This is on top of reductions to the tune of $330m in the two previous financial years. Following the May economic statement, Tasmania is set to lose a further $5m. It is pretty selective: $3.8m in road funding and $1.6m in funds to local government. So much for local government being recognised in the Constitution under the Government's referenda proposals, if they get through. That is how much charity this Federal Government has towards local government, in spite of all the claims made by the Prime Minister in his last, pre-election, visit to Tasmania in July last year. The Mercury of 8 July 1987 stated: After three years of an average 4% cut in the general revenue grants, Mr Hawke said there was no need for the knife to be put into the State's funds again. Either Mr Hawke was displaying a remarkable degree of economic naivety or he was blatantly lying to cadge votes for the upcoming Federal election. There is no end to the number of promises that this Government can make and then break without compunction. What is in the May economic statement for the average family man? Amongst the rhetoric that the Treasurer has been spouting in recent weeks has been the claim that the economy is overheating and that there is a need to keep a lid on demand. In effect, what Mr Keating means by this is that there is a need to keep the pockets of taxpayers empty of disposable income. There is nothing in the statement that will improve living standards. In fact, living standards are going down for the ordinary man. They have already declined significantly under this Government as it absorbs more and more of the tax revenue. The average family does not seem to figure in Paul Keating's grand plan. It is a selfish plan for himself and his Labor Party. The ordinary family man is simply forgotten by the men in their ivory towers, except when a titbit dispensed here and there can achieve some electoral advantage. Last week Senator Button went on record as describing the Government's expenditure review process as `terrible'. He is an honest man. It was his Department that fared the worst. The reality is that the average taxpayer must once again wait. He has to wait in a long queue-in fact, for 12 months-in order to get some promised tax relief, for no reason other than that it is electorally expedient for the Government to have tax cuts fresh in the minds of pay as you earn taxpayers when an election is on the horizon. That is what it is all about. What is going to happen in the interim? Bracket creep, as every wage earner knows, will continue to push the average family's income into higher and higher tax brackets. But there is no guarantee that by the end of next year these long promised tax cuts will eventuate for the ordinary person in the street. The Treasurer has said: 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. The ordinary man in the street will not have much control over that; he is going to be a pawn in the whole process. One might say that that is fair and reasonable, but there is a rub. The commitment is based on the assumption that commodity prices will also remain at current levels. Should international pressures force commodity prices down, Australia's external debt will once again begin to mount. So there will be problems. How will this Government stand on personal tax cuts in that event? Judging by its past record in honouring promises, I have some doubt that personal tax cuts of the magnitude foreshadowed and promised will be forthcoming. There are lots of ifs in this commitment, and all the while the average family man gets no relief, only a shadowy promise. While the Treasurer manipulates reform for political advantage the average Australian has to sit tight, cap in hand, for another 12 months. The Government has perpetrated one of its greatest con tricks ever in the area of superannuation. Despite the claims by the Treasurer that no-one presently contributing to a superannuation fund will be disadvantaged by the tax changes incorporated in the May statement, many people have every reason to feel a little cheated. I have a page of calculations relating to a person who is about to retire. Aged 64 years, he is a member of a section 23f non-taxable superannuation fund. This man came into the fund late. He contributed for 12 years prior to 1983 and has contributed for six years post 1983. He is an ex-serviceman. Because of that he started his family late and had to gear up his superannuation towards the end of his working life. This fund is administered privately. The trustees have never invested in shares and consider it dangerous for legislation to be introduced to compromise them into doing so. The answer that Senator Walsh continually gives us-and we have asked numerous questions on this matter-is, `Let them put their money in fully franked dividends so that they can get dividend imputation'. He is telling these trustees suddenly to move into higher risk areas. They have deliberately kept out of these areas because they want to play it safe. They cannot afford to gamble with their savings. They have done things the right way. These sorts of people have no problems. So much for Keating's unequivocal statement. The evidence is there daily that people in superannuation funds will be worse off. One has only to ask the superannuation fund managers. They know that they have problems. Unfortunately, because of the time constraints due to the gag that has been applied, this debate must be truncated. It is not surprising that the Government is embarrassed; it is a shemozzle and a disgrace on the part of a government that prides itself on being called a Labor government of Australia. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(5.30) —It is not surprising that each speaker who rises to put his view makes the point that this is a truncated debate. This Government is treating the Parliament like it treats the electorate-with contempt. The guillotining processes that are being applied to both the referendum proposals legislation and the May statement legislation are simply the result of mismanagement of our schedule by the Government. This has resulted in the quite improper and shortened debate that is taking place on these important issues. In this climate we are deliberating in a hasty, unseemly, hurried manner. Let us look at some of the statements that have been made recently by Government members. I begin with the famous one by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at the time of his policy speech before the last election, when he said that no child would live in poverty by 1990. I saw a snippet of a television program the other night in which Graham Kennedy made the logical rejoinder that, of course, the Prime Minister did not say anything about parents living in poverty. That is a statement which probably reflects much of the pea-and-thimble tricks the Government indulges in. The next statement was again made by the Prime Minister when he was doing his promotional television runs for the May statement we heard the other evening. He described it as the most important statement that had been made for a long time in this country, that Paul Keating in the Hawke-Keating Government would deliver the most extraordinary and far-reaching reforms-`reforms' was the word used; a nice euphemism for change-that would be hugely beneficial for this nation. Indeed, it sounded very much like the tablets coming down from the mount. The only problem was that this great statement fell far short of the promotional rhetoric that had gone before it. The third statement we heard recently was by Senator Bolkus. It concerned the immediate price reductions from which people would benefit since tariffs had been slashed. He said that the cost of goods would come down immediately and dramatically. He raised false hopes and expectations. Subsequently, he distanced himself from that statement. Again, the statement was made with excessive haste and showed a lack of planning-the same way in which the business of this chamber is being conducted. The fourth statement that was of significance was again made by the Prime Minister-that real incomes will improve, when in truth they will decline and have declined. The fifth statement has already been dealt with, but it should be pointed out again and again because it is typical of what characterises these five statements. The fifth statement was that no one person in receipt of superannuation will be 1c worse off. Those five statements quite clearly can be placed in the category, `They seemed a good idea at the time'. They are statements without foundation. Other speakers have clearly identified the problems with the so-called simple idea which, I read in an article by Laura Tingle, was dreamt up by a member of the Treasury staff, who woke up at 4 a.m. and said `Goodness me, we can bring all of that taxation that we collect from lump sum superannuation payments to the front end and therefore we will increase taxation collections'. As I said, it seemed like a good idea at the time. As to the statements that surrounded that superannuation proposal and package, one said that managers of funds can very simply overcome the additional taxation burden by taking advantage of fully franked dividends. I heard Senator Messner interject during Senator Watson's speech, `Are there enough franked dividends around to satisfy the increased demand?'. The answer, quite clearly, is that there are not. Another very interesting concept which has not received much attention concerns the requirement for a 15 per cent tax on employer contributions. Probably the fund itself cannot pay that 15 per cent and that amount will have to be found from sources other than the employer, which in itself will constitute a fringe benefit and will no doubt attract the full fringe benefits tax rate of 49c in the dollar, not the reduced rate of 39c in the dollar. Two good things did come out of this May statement, the first being that the corporate rate was reduced to 39c-a remarkable idea that came out of the Liberal Party's policies before the last election and which the Government said was impossible. The second good thing that came out of the statement was a reduction in tariffs. An important statement that was made was that personal income tax rates will be reduced at a future date. How interesting. Let us look at the timing and why that decision has been made. John Howard quite properly pointed out the simple explanation that, if one cuts personal tax rates closer to an election, it becomes part of an election inducement package. As well, in reality the Treasurer has a full 12-month period, to the year 1989-90, to bring down the personal tax rate to match the corporate rate without developing the gap which in turn leads to a distortion in the way in which people arrange their affairs-by utilising, perhaps, a private corporate structure and paying the lesser rate of 39c in the dollar rather than 49c in the dollar-before the 39c in the dollar corporate tax rate takes full effect. But there is only one year in which to avert that gap being created. Not only do people like me realise that, so do the unions. Already the unions have started to flex their muscles, as we heard on the radio and read in the Press this morning. The Public Service unions are starting to say, `The Treasurer is budgeting for a $3 billion surplus, therefore he can afford to pay us for our contribution to the raising of that additional revenue'. It is not very hard to figure out that that sort of reasoning will catch on in the trade union movement. When one realises that the Treasurer has only one year in which to fix that disparity between the corporate and the personal tax rates, it is not too hard to realise that the pressures on the Government from the trade unions, the people who really call the shots, will be excessive. I have said on many occasions in this chamber that this Government, which likes to be seen as hard, tough and sensible, is a government which tackles only soft options. When it looks at making Australia more competitive it cuts tariffs, it does not attack work practices. In the same way, in the taxation area this Government raises more taxes instead of cutting expenditure. It has been going on ever since this Government came to office in 1983. In this financial year, 1987-88, tax revenue collections will be $73.8 billion. The projection for 1988-89 is that $79.2 billion will be collected. For 1989-90 the projected figure is $84.5 billion and for 1990-91, $89.7 billion. Yet the bulk of the expenditure cuts are really being felt by the States. Tomorrow in New South Wales the new Greiner Government will bring down its first mini-Budget. We will then see whether it is the Labor Party or the Liberal Party that has the courage of its convictions. We will see a true comparison between Federal Labor and its soft options and Liberal New South Wales which will have to face the realities because again, the Labor Government took the soft options and cut State funding rather than put its own house in order. There are many other things that this question raises. In the minutes that remain to me I will mention the proposed new tax file number. On several occasions in this place I have raised the question of the proposed common identifying number, or CIN number, which first came to light in the public hearings of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in March 1988. It was during those hearings that Mr Boucher gave evidence. When asked whether he could introduce the CIN number straightaway without any legislation, he replied, `yes, but only for internal use'. In further evidence it was said on behalf of the Australian Taxation Office that its major activity for increasing the effectiveness of its taxation collections, its revenue collections, was the matching mechanisms between information supplied to it and taxpayers who it felt were understating income. At the moment the Office has a 60 per cent success rate. Evidence was given that unless it got an Australia Card or its equivalent it could not increase that success rate past 60 per cent. In the May statement we have had the thin end of the wedge. The new tax file number was introduced. Today in the Press it was announced that as from 1 November all new recipients of unemployment benefits, sickness benefits and job search benefits will be required to quote the new tax file number in order that they do not have tax deducted from their payments at the rate of 49c in the dollar. If the tax file number is to have external usage involving the social security recipients this ought to require and will require legislation. Hence I presume the date of 1 November for the introduction because it will be dealt with in the Budget sittings. It is fair to put the Government on notice, to put the Australian people on notice, that this coalition and the Democrats, provided they hang on to what they say this time, have said that we will not allow an Australia Card by another name to come into usage. As I have said before, a rose is a rose is a rose. A CIN number is an identity card is an Australia Card. It is up to the people to be vigilant to see that it is not slipped in in things such as the May statement which purports to be one thing and turns out to be another. The truncated debate that is taking place means that the electorate is less informed. It means that it is unable to hear more reasoned debate. The same complaint was made this morning concerning the referendums. But I think this Government underestimates the people. It has lost touch desperately with the people. That was demonstrated in New South Wales when Labor lost office to the Liberal and National Party coalition. I suspect that the wise Australian population will see this May statement for the farrago that it is. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(5.44) —In the short time that we have to deal with this package of 10 Bills relating to the May economic statement, we will be discussing a mini-Budget with mega consequences. I intend briefly to address a few of those Bills and how they affect the countryside and agriculture. Probably the best way to do this is to analyse the pros and cons of these proposals. We have lost the 5/3 depreciation rule which gives an immediate saving to the Government of some $196m across the board. I do not know how much of that amount will come from agriculture, but I am sure that it is a lot. We have returned to the old scheme. Instead of the 5/3 rule we have the old scheme which operates under a schedule. There are many items with specialist application that are used in modern agricultural production systems which do not appear to be specifically provided for in the existing schedule. For example, wool presses which have been around for 30 years, broadacre spray equipment and livestock scales. We are returning to a system which does not cover machinery that has been brought in for the last 30 years. That is all I will say about that except that this system of depreciation over the life of the machines does not take any account of the machines that will last and those that will not. It does not draw any distinction between an imported machine that will last 10 years or an Australian made machine that will last two years. The most salient point is that the longer write-off period leads operators to lose the incentive to keep up with the knife edge of technology. This leads to many other points but I will move on. I suppose one could say that this measure will have a similar effect to the effect that the fringe benefits tax had on the car industry. I will move on to an important aspect, the loss of the superphosphate fertiliser bounty. A few speakers have already mentioned this matter and how the situation came about. The bounty has been around since 1931 and its significance has been diminishing since 1970. In 1970 the subsidy represented 42 per cent of the cost of superphosphate; in 1974 it was 38 per cent; in 1979 it was 17.4 per cent; and in 1982 it was 11 per cent. Now it is 8.4 per cent and diminishing because the subsidy has remained at $12 a tonne. The subsidy having lost its significance, I believe, as has been stated here, the farmers were happy to lose it provided they were given alternatives. Senator Powell presented a screwed up idea of exactly what the National Farmers Federation (NFF) arranged with the Government. I will tell the Senate what the NFF tried to negotiate with the Government. Specifically, the NFF required the removal of various Government taxes and charges which directly or indirectly act as import tax on agriculture. It also sought the removal of tariffs on agricultural equipment and parts for equipment as outlined in the NFF's recent submission to the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC), removal of tariffs on imported chemicals in agriculture, especially where there is no local production, and the removal of sales tax where it applies to oils and greases. It was also sought to extend the exemption already available to miners, farmers and other business users. Reform of the anti-dumping system was also sought so that farmers can obtain fertilisers and other farm inputs at world prices by making certain revisions to the anti-dumping Act and its administration and, as an interim measure, removing fertilisers from the possibility of anti-dumping action. Those proposals were being negotiated with the NFF. However, something drastic happened on the way to the Senate, just as something happened to Caesar on the way to the Senate. Senator Crichton-Browne —On the way to the forum. Senator PANIZZA —Yes, on the way to the forum. The NFF was prepared to go like a lamb to the slaughter. It was idiotic of Senator Powell to claim that this matter was worked out with the NFF. It is a total lie. It is a pity that the honourable senator is not here to see her rubbish thrown back at her. The farmers are not happy with the alternatives they have been promised. There has been a monopoly of superphosphate manufacture in Australia with the help of tariffs. What the industry needs, and what the Government has not provided, is a slashing of tariffs and its anti-dumping measures. The Government has seen fit to cut down on wool promotion because the wool industry is showing some pretty good signs of recovery. It is well on the way to another boom. The $10.4m cut may not be insignificant because of the amount the industry puts in itself. The Government fails to recognise that. There has been a natural increase valuation. I suppose this is to be expected because the valuation has not changed since 1982. I would like the Government to index a few other things. We now have meat inspection charges. Not too long ago we were put on to working on a 50:50 basis. The Government was paying half the cost of inspection as an export incentive. However, the Government chose to raise the industry's input to 60 per cent and to reduce its own input. I now come to agricultural products underwriting, mainly as it affects the wheat industry. The statement merely told us that the industry would have to bear more of its own cost underwriting. I know that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin)-the non-farmer Minister for agriculture; the former agriculture spokesman for the Democrats, Senator Macklin, is also a non-farmer and he has a lot to say in these areas-has always had a mental block on this issue and has worked very hard to try to get rid of Government underwriting. I do not know what the final outcome will be. I hate to think, but it will be no joy for the farmer. The Government rammed through prescribed payments tax provisions but I will not mention these in detail because of time. Gold tax is another issue which affects the country greatly. The Government has finally had the courage to do what it wanted to do-get into it. Government members who made that decision obviously have not seen the areas of Australia where the gold industry has kept the economics of the countryside going when everything else has failed. It has opened up communities in places where no-one in this chamber would ever dare to go. Yet miners and their families have gone out there. In return, this Government has decided to slug them a bit further. I suppose the reinstatement of income equalisation deposits (IEDs) can be regarded-even though it is not for 12 months-as the great Walsh backdown. In 1984 Senator Walsh, as Minister for Finance, set out to wreck them because he said they were rorts. He has a fad that there is a rort under every bed. I welcome the return of the IEDs. The National Farmers Federation was sold a pup on this issue. This might compensate for the loss of other measures, but it will not be brought in until 1989-90, which is almost three financial years down the track. When Senator Walsh wrecked the IEDs he also brought down the Primary Industry Bank of Australia Ltd. This has never been mentioned. There are a few points in the mini-Budget which I applaud, such as the effect on the Rural Adjustment and Finance Corporation and those provisions concerning section 26aaa of the Income Tax Assessment Act, provisional tax and pensioners. The Government did not extend the provisions to our young people to give them an encouragement. If they save more than $6,000 the Government takes provisional tax. The Government has promised things in return which it may or may not deliver in years to come-if it is still in government. Before I finish I would like to mention the priorities of this chamber and of this Parliament in dealing with Bills which affect the great industries of Australia. On 18 December last year we belted through legislation on wheat, beef and horticulture within three hours in one night. About 11.5 per cent of the work force produces 84 per cent of Australia's export income. Mini-Budget legislation which affects the great industries that keep Australia going is to be belted through in about three hours this afternoon. The night before last we had to listen to a three-quarters of an hour lecture on condoms. At the end of that lecture we did not even know whether condoms were useful or whether they had a place. We dealt only with advertising. Last night we spent four hours on freedom of religion in Australia. We have had freedom of religion in Australia since Australia's inception but we had to listen to that debate and we came out none the wiser. This afternoon we have to belt all this legislation through in a matter of four hours. It is disgraceful that the managers of Government business allow this. The recognition of local government in the Constitution has been a big controversy in the last few days. It would be more relevant if local government representatives had discussions to decide whether they want to recognise us. Those who have been watching us in the last few days probably would not worry whether we recognised local government. If local government were run like this place it would soon be wound up by the ratepayers or by the State local government Ministers and it would be out the door. We can learn a lesson from local government-to manage the business of this chamber far better than it is now managed. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(5.56) —I find it highly offensive that this debate is to last but four hours. We have a package of 10 Bills. About 20 speakers have indicated that they wish to make a contribution but because of the incompetence of this Government, the mismanagement of government business by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans), and the conniving, contriving and conspiracy of the Australian Democrats we find ourselves subject to a guillotine, a gag. Such is the respect, such is the regard and such is the concern that the Government and the Australian Democrats have for the normal functioning and systems of this chamber! Last night and this morning we were gagged on four crucial pieces of legislations-four Bills designed to amend the Constitution; four Bills with quite separate and distinct characteristics. In fact, the fourth Bill in itself had three different proposals. Rather than debating these matters in an exhaustive full way, we were subjected to a guillotine. What happened at 12.30 today? We found that the Australian Democrats had proposed a further amendment. They used a contingent notice of motion to allow them to introduce their amendment without debate. A significant amendment to a Bill to amend the Constitution was put and voted upon in this chamber without debate. With whose help? Who are the conspirators? The Democrats. What did the Democrats say some time ago? That they would never gag. Don Chipp said that he was here to keep us all honest. His promise was that he was going to `keep the bastards honest'. To underpin that promise, he said that he would never have a gag or a guillotine in this chamber; he would never again allow a government to ram legislation through without proper, deliberate consideration. Yet the Democrats joined with the Government to deny us a proper chance to debate the legislation, notwithstanding the fact that the Government found that its drafting was defective. I notice this morning that when we had a motion to amend Standing Orders to provide for the ringing of the bells for four minutes for the calling of a quorum or a division the Democrats sat right where they are now, on our side of the chamber, while the bells rang. The Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate then went across and had words with them. Like wimps, they climbed out of their seats and cringed and crawled across to the other side of the chamber. So much for their independence; so much for their character! As somebody said yesterday, they are but running dogs of this miserable Government. What does this package of Bills do? Three or four minutes will not allow me even to start. Yesterday we were debating the intrinsic virtue of having local government recognised in the Constitution. What a fine step that was. What a magnificent recognition of local government. What a magnificent contribution it was going to make to its future welfare, finances and functioning. Allegedly it was not an idle statement but at the end of the day we found out from the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds), through questioning during the committee stage, that it is but a statement of principle. At the end of the day it delivers nothing. Today we are dealing with legislation that affects local government. We find that while the Government is giving it principles in one hand it is taking money in the other. Let us look at general purpose grants. For the period 1988-89 there was a decline in real terms of 2.9 per cent. Local government assistance declined by 13.2 per cent from 1983-84 to 1986-87, the period of the life of this Government. From 1983-84 to 1988-89, the level of Commonwealth funding for roads has declined in real terms by 29.4 per cent. While the Government is telling local government that local government is important, that it has a contribution to make and that it is a significant third tier in the system of government in Australia, the Government has just nipped local government for a lazy 30 per cent of its outlays for roads. That is what I call recognition. There is a 7.8 per cent decrease in real terms in the May statement alone. In the boring hour it took Senator Walsh to weave his wandering way through that statement he at one point took 7.8 per cent of the road funding away from local government as quick as a flash. That is the Government's concern for local government. What has the Government done previously? It had automatic indexation on fuel excise, the 2c a litre that the Fraser Government put aside for the bicentennial road fund. This Government had automatic indexation except it did not put the money into roads; it put the money in its pocket and ran. A total of $426.6m was put into Consolidated Revenue and not back into roads. I ask: Does this Government care about local government, more particularly the isolated areas of Australia where the pipeline to survival is the roads? Senator Boswell —They hate the farmers. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The Government promised the farmers that in four or five years it would reduce protection. In the meantime it has taken away the superphosphate bounty. What happened to the poor old gold miners? We hear now from Senator Walsh that the miners have always been crooks. They have always had a free ride and have always been on the gravy train because they did not pay tax on their gold. It has always been a rort and a racket. It has always been crook. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), with his slippery silver tongue, said as recently as 7 July 1987, with his shiny face staring at us, `There will be no tax on gold in the life of this Parliament'. Senator McKiernan —Will there be? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Is he saying that it is a rort now but it was not a rort on 7 July 1987, or was he part of this rort? Senator McKiernan —Will there be a tax on gold in the life of this Parliament? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The honourable senator is quite right. I am not denying that, but at the end of the day Senator Walsh is now saying that there always should have been a tax on gold and that it has always been a rort. Senator Walsh is saying that he was conspiring before to cheat the rest of the taxpayers. I am using his logic. Why did the Prime Minister not have the guts before the last election to say, `You people should be paying a tax on gold, but because there is an election coming up I am not going to put one on now; I will wait until the end of this Parliament and then I will put one on'? That is his regard for integrity and honesty. It is political expediency at its worst. It smells. That is the contribution this Prime Minister has made towards the welfare of farmers and miners. Regrettably time has overtaken me. In the modest period that we have to discuss 10 vital Bills we find this Government saying that it has care and compassion for the poor. This Government is presiding over 800,000 children who are living below the poverty line. What has it done to help them? Has it cut costs? Of course it has not. It is the biggest taxing, biggest spending government since Federation. Senator Messner —It is only creating more poor. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Quite right. The $3 billion surplus it has now forecast comes not from fiscal restraint; it comes from extra taxes. This year alone three-quarters of a million taxpayers will move into a higher tax bracket. In the next three years two million taxpayers will be paying more than they were before the last election. That is their reward for voting this Government into office. However, I have no doubt that come the next election they will realise what a fraud the Government is. Senator HILL(South Australia)(6.06) —As has been said by previous speakers, the guillotine imposed upon us by the Government and the Australian Democrats hardly gives time even to list the number of Bills that we are supposed to be debating tonight in this chamber, this House of review. Rather than spend the 10 minutes that I have doing that, I simply want to touch upon two matters that have come out of the May economic statement. They are two matters which I think we are going to hear a great deal more of in the months ahead and which will require very detailed consideration by us as legislators. The first relates to changes to be imposed upon the Australian people in relation to superannuation and the second is the Government's intention to introduce a new tax file number system which has so many similarities to the aborted ID card that the Government sought to impose on Australians. My concern with this Government's superannuation proposals is that it seems to me that they amount to a disincentive to Australians to invest for their future security in the form of superannuation. Let us reflect briefly on the changes that have occurred since this Government came into office. The taxation regime that had been in place as a result of the previous Government was a 5 per cent lump sum tax. That figure was increased by this Government to 30 per cent. Now we find from this May statement that the intention is to make a further substantial change, on the one hand, taxing at the rate of 15 per cent income that is derived by funds and, on the other hand, taxing at the rate of 15 per cent contributions that are made by employers to the fund. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) tells us that this change will be tax neutral but, as economic commentators are noting in the Press now, that simply assumes a number of things that should not be assumed. It assumes that trust managers will invest a very large percentage of their funds-perhaps around 50 per cent-in Australian equities that will produce fully franked dividends. This is not a normal practice. Fund managers wish to have a wider discretion than that and wish to vary their investments so that if we have share crashes, as we had last year, then the beneficiaries of such funds will have their benefits in a number of different areas of investment and consequently not suffer as they would in more narrowly based investments. Fund managers are not going to change their investment practices significantly when this tax settles down. Unfortunately the result for the beneficiaries will be greater taxation to be paid on their investment in superannuation which, in turn, will reflect in a smaller dividend at the time of their retirement. To this Government that is perhaps a matter of little consequence, but to those of us on this side of the chamber it is a matter of very significant consequence not only for the individuals concerned but in the interests of the national economy. We see in Australia significant demographic changes that will place an ever-growing burden upon the state to assist in supporting these people in their retirement. We on this side of the chamber would have thought that any support that could have been given to them to invest in their own futures would have been worthwhile. So why reduce the support-a short-sighted decision, one would have thought, in the least? Let us reflect very briefly that, in 1981, 5.6 people in Australia were supporting every person over the age of 65. By the year 2040, 3.1 persons will be supporting each person over the age of 65. There we find a change of almost 50 per cent. The number of people entitled to pensions will increase substantially over that period and the number of taxpayers supporting them proportionately will reduce. Why, in those circumstances, is this Government being so short-sighted as to impose a further disincentive on people saving for their retirement? Would this Government not have been better off concentrating on the real problems that exist in superannuation-problems of portability, problems of preservation investing and problems of coverage-thus bringing more people within the superannuation net? Still only a small percentage of Australians are in superannuation funds. We notice that people in the public sector are advantaged over people in the private sector. In 1968 some 67 per cent of the public sector was covered as opposed to only 38 per cent in the private sector. Of course, in the public sector there was more indexed superannuation-a great benefit. We find only minute numbers in part time employment covered by superannuation-some 7 per cent in 1986. We find that women and the poor have been traditionally disadvantaged in superannuation. Would this Government not have been doing better concentrating on some of these shortcomings rather than restructuring its tax on superannuation in such a way that it will be a disincentive for investment? The other subject that I said I wanted to touch upon in the very few minutes that I have been given is the Government's intentions in relation to its tax file number system. We are told in the statements that this will not amount to an ID card, but when we look at the skeleton that is being put to us as to what the Government intends we must have very great doubts. It will of course be compulsory. A person will have to get his tax number card and, if he is a taxpayer for the first time, he will have to prove his identity, at a post office it seems, in much the same way as if he were seeking a passport. I presume that that means he will have to produce his birth certificate to be given his tax file number and that that number will stay with him for life. When he opens a bank account he will quote his number. When he buys shares or securities he will be obliged to quote his number. If he invests in government bonds he must quote his number. In turn, his transactions, through that number, will be reported to the Commissioner of Taxation. It does not end there; it then links with other dealings that he has with government. If he has dealings with government in the area of social security-perhaps because he is getting some form of pension-or in the area of education because he is getting some government support as a student, again he must quote his number and that number will be reported to the Taxation Commissioner. There will not only be a report back to the Taxation Commissioner but also, we understand from the papers, the Taxation Commissioner will be reporting on that person's affairs to those government bodies, by virtue again of that person's number. It seems to me that at first blush that is certainly not greatly distinguishable from what the Government intended all along with regard to its ID system. Certainly, there is no suggestion that there will be an ID card that people carry away. Nevertheless, it means that in future people's total financial being will be recorded by means of a number that stays with them for life and that that number will be available to various government departments for them to act, hopefully within their responsibilities. Many questions are being left unanswered. For example, we understand that this will be the procedure in the Department of Social Security and the Department of Employment, Education and Training. What about the Department of Community Services and Health? Will it be advised of people's affairs and information of a private nature that people put to it in order to gain some benefit? Is that to be reported to the Taxation Commissioner by virtue of people's numbers? Similarly, will this apply in the Department of Veterans' Affairs, a department through which some members of the community gain benefits? The Government, in its statement, is silent in that regard. Will information that is provided by these government departments or by private sector institutions, pursuant to their obligations under the system, to the Australian Taxation Office then be given, under the special relationship with the Taxation Commissioner, to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the National Crime Authority? In other words, will information that we provide to the Department of Social Security go to the Australian Taxation Office, via our numbers, and then, in certain circumstances, be available to the National Crime Authority? That question is unanswered. What has happened to the Government's proposal for a comprehensive privacy Bill to give us some security? Has that lapsed under this new proposal? The Government is silent. Many problems immediately come to mind. Let me mention one other problem. If all our financial transactions are now to be recorded by one number, will that not provide greater ease for fraudulent activity? Does that mean that, if someone is able to obtain a person's number, he can break into the total of that person's financial being, including his financial transactions with government, his financial records that are provided to the Taxation Office and his financial transactions with the private sector, which under the legislation is obliged to record his number? Certainly, on the face of it, there are areas in this proposed change of great concern and those interested in preserving some personal privacy in this country would not be prepared to allow this Government system to go through without the most detailed and careful analysis. I am pleased that this morning the Senate agreed to refer the Government's planned new system to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which will advertise for public submissions, hold public inquiries on the matter, report to the Senate in due course and assure the Australian people that this will not be an ID card in disguise. The two matters I wanted to mention and to raise concerns about in this very preliminary way tonight are the Government's changes in relation to superannuation and what it proposes in relation to the new tax file number system. Both matters will be pursued in much greater detail in the time ahead. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(6.17) —Tonight I would also like to register my protest on behalf of the constituents of Queensland, who have sent me here to represent them. I have been given 10 minutes out of the whole day in which to debate 10 pieces of legislation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —Order! Senator Boswell, you have 30 minutes available to you. Senator BOSWELL —Because of the guillotine that has been brought down and so that all honourable senators on this side of politics can speak in this debate, we have made an agreement that each be restricted to 10 minutes. What I want to say is that when we come to power we will effectively correct the economy, but today we saw a blatant misuse of the Senate when the Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party coalesced and forced through legislation to alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia. No doubt it is meant to affect the elections in Queensland. Effectively, that legislation will deny State representation to the rural producers and the primary industry of Australia. If democracy is to be allowed to exist, it is essential that all sections of the community be given an adequate voice and vote to protect their interests and that a parliamentarian be given the ability to effectively service the people, the industries and the institutions in his or her electorate, taking into consideration ease of transport and distribution of population. Today we effectively lost that. If the referendum question were to be carried in my home state of Queensland-it will not be carried in Queensland-seven or eight State representatives would be removed from the outback areas of western Queensland. Their seats would be given to the south-east corner of Queensland, leaving about 22 representatives out of 89 to represent the major industries, the magnitude of Queensland industries, stretching from the Torres Strait Islands to Cairns and Bundaberg. Power would be centralised in the area between Noosa Heads, the Gold Coast and a little west of Toowoomba. There would be no representatives in the western areas further out from there. That would result in a loss of services in rural Queensland. It would result in a loss of industries and the loss of decentralisation of power. Areas would gradually be depopulated because the services provided would not support a decent way of living. I add that it is all to no avail because those eight or nine seats that would be lost from those areas would be placed in the north coast-south coast areas of Queensland. In normal circumstances, the National Party or the Liberal Party would win those seats. As a result of this Constitution Bill being passed today, all that we may have done is deprive the great rural industries-the great primary industries, the wealth creators of this nation-of representation. We did not get even 10 minutes to discuss that legislation when it was before the House. The Australian Democrats had got that covered. We came in here to represent the people who sent us to this place, but they did not get a run for their money at all on that legislation. They did not even get a voice to protest against this legislation, which is intended to deprive them of their parliamentary representation. Their parliamentary representation is to founder on a rock-a rock put there by the Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party. These people will have to protest like crazy against this referendum proposal. I say to every person in rural Australia that when the referendum questions are put to them they must say no; otherwise they will have no parliamentary representation. Senator Colston —Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I think this has probably gone on long enough. At the moment we are supposed to be debating the May economic statement Bills. There are quite a few of those on which Senator Boswell could choose to speak. However, he is debating a matter that finished around lunchtime today. I suppose that we could even say that he is reflecting on a vote of the Senate in the way in which he is going. I suggest that he be brought back to the subject under discussion at the moment. Senator Vanstone —Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: Given the difficult circumstances today and the arrangements which have been made for these Bills to be dealt with, I can only suggest that the Chair exercise leniency in terms of the wide-ranging discussion that Senator Boswell wants to engage in. What has been happening here in regard to this legislative package over the last week or so is that the Bills are all very much integrated, albeit that as legislation we can separate it out. I seek that you rule accordingly. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It seems to me that leniency has already been shown by Government senators and by me. Senator Lewis —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. With all due respect, if you are going to participate in this debate, I suggest that you leave the chair and sit in your seat over on the Government side. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I am ruling on a point of order. Leniency has been shown. Senator Lewis —Mr Acting Deputy President, I wish to take a point of order. My point of order is to ask whether you are entitled to enter into the debate when you are making a ruling? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I am making a ruling on a point of order. I have said that leniency has already been shown in this chamber by Government senators and by me as Acting Deputy President. Decisions have been made in the past from this chair which indicate that Senator Boswell should deal with the Bills which are before the House and not talk about decisions already made in this chamber today. Senator Tambling —Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a further point of order. You will recall that when the Minister, Senator Gareth Evans, asked for a cognate debate on these Bills he mentioned that they related to the May economic statement. I argue that the issues being canvassed by Senator Boswell certainly come within the parameters of the May economic statement, as was envisaged by Senator Evans. It was not intended that the debate would be restricted only to these particular pieces of legislation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I ask Senator Boswell to stick to the matters before the Chair. Senator BOSWELL —Mr Acting Deputy President, I can understand Senator Colston's embarrassment at Queenslanders possibly being deprived of their parliamentary representation. I know that Senator Colston sometimes braves the primary industry areas of western Queensland. I know that he will not be received very warmly when the people there know that they have no members to represent them in the State Parliament. The ethos of these people and their voice may well be lost in the State Parliament because of the combined weight of the Australian Democrats and the Labor Party today. Not only is this Government taxing them as a result of the May economic statement but it is also trying to deprive them of their parliamentary representation-something that is absolutely essential for people in rural areas. School bus routes will close. There is nothing in the May economic statement to support the continued provision of school bus routes. An amount of $50m is to be taken from local councils in rural areas. Government departments will close. There will be no departmental presence to support a decent standard of welfare, good living standards and health care for the rural people of Australia. I will now address the Bills, Mr Acting Deputy President, because I see that you are reaching for your copy of the Standing Orders. I do not want to transgress your good graces. In regard to this legislation before us tonight, I would like to pick up on some of the pluses of this Government. There are not too many, but let us take a few of them. The income equalisation deposit has always been National Party, Liberal Party and coalition policy. Not only was it coalition policy but it was a fact of life. Senator Tambling —When does it start again? Senator BOSWELL —It restarts in 1989-another year hence. Senator Panizza —It is not effective till 1 July 1990. Senator BOSWELL —I am informed by Senator Panizza, an authority on these matters, that it is not effective until 1 July 1990. We have had small reductions on the agricultural machinery tariffs, improvements on the rural adjustment scheme, and an increase in soil conservation expenditure. Of course, we must welcome all those things. However, only time will tell whether the Government's commitment in these areas will be fulfilled. On the one hand, this Government has given a few things. However, on the other hand it has increased export inspection charges-livestock tax-and has reduced the depreciation rates on plant machinery while further reducing desperately needed road funding and local government funding. That is what I alluded to in the earlier part of my speech. I would like to make some quick references to the wheat industry. The Government is proposing to review the current system whereby 95 per cent of estimated net returns for the current season and the lowest 2 per cent of the preceeding season is underwritten. This is to be changed so that producers will assume more of the responsibility of meeting the cost of price uncertainty. I see that my time has almost expired. As I finish this very small contribution I warn the Government not to walk away from its underwriting scheme. This underwriting scheme was pressed into effect for the 1986-87 crop. Prior to that the industry protection figure was around 2 to 4 per cent. If the Government walks away from that underwriting protection no-one on this side of the House will let it forget the commitment that Mr Kerin has made to the industry. The industry is happy with Mr Kerin's commitment to it. I hope that, unlike when he came to power on an underwriting scheme promise for the sugar industry, which he failed to fulfil for about four or five years, he will not walk away from the wheat industry underwriting scheme. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented? Senator COLSTON —I do. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —He may proceed. Senator COLSTON —During Senator Bos-well's speech I rose on a point of order and suggested that he was not speaking to the Bills before us. After Senator Boswell resumed he made some comment that I was embarrassed because of some Bills that had gone through this chamber earlier in the day. I wish to point out I am in no way embarrassed. I am pleased the Bills went through. The only embarrassment I have as a Queensland senator is that some people in Queensland were sufficiently misguided to send Senator Boswell into this place as well. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Colston, a personal explanation must not be used to attack another senator. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria)(6.33) —Senator Boswell, my National Party of Australia colleague, brought to the attention of the Senate the guillotining of the referenda debate today. Fancy a government, any self-respecting politician, guillotining any discussion on our Constitution in our bicentennial year. I commend Senator Boswell for his comments because they were factual; they were honest and true. Obviously the other side of the House had absolutely no interest in hearing them. That was evident this afternoon when it guillotined the whole debate. Senator Boswell clearly pointed out-he put his point very well-that the so-called one vote one value referendum question reduces the representation of country people. Country people should reject it outright, as they should reject all four proposed referendum questions because there is a plot behind every single one of them. I will not comment too much in the short time I have on the four referendum questions except to say that if one thing is clear about question No. 3, on one vote one value, it is that there is a difference between gerrymandering and malapportionment. The Government has failed to spell out this difference. It failed to spell it out to the public of Australia. I assure the Government that I will be campaigning very strongly. Senator Boswell —And very effectively, too, I might add. Senator McGAURAN —All the Opposition will be campaigning very effectively. The master of gerrymandering is the Government's own party. In New South Wales we see the gerrymander brought down by nifty Neville Wran, and in my own State of Victoria gerrymandering occurs in the seats of McEwen and Burke. It is a disgrace that the Australian Labor Party members for the seats of McEwen and Burke have even been elected, because at least 90 per cent of the land mass of those two seats is in the country. What sort of representatives are they? Australian Labor Party socialists representing country people is unheard of. We have seen today a government that just wants to get to its own Australian Labor Party Conference next week to slug it out over uranium and privatisation. Labor Party members want to get to Hobart and at all this expense sit in their luxury hotels and no doubt make a few phone calls to a few of their rich Western Australian business mates and ask them what policies should be brought forward and how they should handle this and that. But all that is further at the expense of this Parliament because this Government will shut it down, without having had any effective debate on our 1901 Constitution and without having had any effective debate on this May mini-Budget statement, the first Budget statement to be brought down since the 1987 October crash. If it thought it necessary to bring down a May mini-Budget following that crash, if it panicked enough to bring down that mini-Budget, and yet now expects this Parliament, the representatives of the people, to debate it in less than four hours, there is absolutely no doubt that the Government and the mini-Budget are shams. I have the firmest conviction that the people of Australia have reached a stage where they have utter contempt for this Government. They are contemptuous because of the lack of integrity and leadership it shows. Only last year four leading Ministers made major economic statements declaring that Australia was facing economic peril. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) declared that we faced the peacetime equivalent of war. Prior to that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) made a statement that if we did not make major changes we would become a banana republic. We had the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) declaring we were heading down the Argentinean road. We also had the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) declaring that the International Monetary Fund came perilously close to knocking on Australia's door. It was all due to the mounting foreign debt, the $112 billion debt. What has changed since then? Certainly not the $112 billion debt. Yet each one of those senior Ministers, Ministers who hold leading positions in this country, has attempted to sell this May mini-Budget to the people as if nothing is wrong, it is all over, there will be no more expenditure cuts and we will have tax cuts in the future. They declare that Australia is back on the tracks. We know it is not. We know the debt is still $112 billion by anyone's measurement. Obviously the ordinary family Australian is still suffering from low living standards. So what has changed since those four senior Ministers made those statements some 12 months ago? We know it is not the debt burden. What has changed is the nerve of the Prime Minister, the nerve of the Treasurer and the nerve of the Finance Minister. We saw how the Finance Minister lost his nerve last night. Probably the only person who has not lost his nerve is Senator Button, because he never had any. He is spineless. We really know when leadership in this country is lacking; it is when the ordinary Australian treats those who hold such senior positions as the ones I have mentioned with utter suspicion, when they consider that they have no integrity at all. This mini-Budget is simply tinkering with the economy. It is a non-event. Who believes there will be tax cuts in 12 months? Why should we believe that set of Ministers? Anyone who believes there will be substantial cuts in the next 12 months is gullible and I feel sorry for them because the Government already has its let-out clause. That let-out clause says that the tax cuts are conditional on an acceptable wages outcome in 1988-89. The Government's let-out clause simply means a decision will be based on whatever the political climate is at the time. That properly sums up this Government's economic management. It is devoid of vision and it is made up of political opportunists. As the other speakers have pointed out, our time in this debate is limited and each speaker must allow his colleagues to come on. But I simply wish to finish by making one guiding point about this mini-Budget. It is a point I will take up in the future, when given the opportunity, and that will undoubtedly be in the new Parliament House as tomorrow is our last sitting day in this House. This May mini-Budget discourages ordinary Australians from saving, and nothing exemplifies that more than the changes to superannuation. Senator CALVERT(Tasmania)(6.40) —As I wish to speak on that part of the May mini-Budget that deals with local government and financial assistance, I am pleased that the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) is in the chamber. I am also pleased to see that Senator Powell is here. Although I did not have the opportunity of hearing her speech, I know she has a lot of feeling for local government, and I hope she said something about the level of financial assistance to local government. Senator Powell —I have amendments about that. Senator CALVERT —I am pleased about that. The Treasurer, Mr Keating, has been described as all sorts of things-as a magician with economics, as Scrooge McKeating. If I had to describe Senator Reynolds, the Minister for Local Government, I think I would have to call her the great illusionist. I am speaking about the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill, and this is a time when local governments throughout Australia are being subjected to the biggest con job of all time. Members of the Government are crusading around the country speaking about the so-called manna from heaven which will flow from the token recognition of local government, but in the very next breath they turn their backs on local government, supporting unprecedented funding cuts which will not only cripple local government but also millions of ordinary Australian ratepayers. I said yesterday that there had been a lot of feeling at the local government conference in Canberra about recognition of local government. I am sure that when those council clerks, town clerks, wardens, mayors and shire presidents return to their respective municipalities and have to frame budgets for 1989-90 and discover the real effects of this Government's funding cutbacks they will forget about local government recognition and get down to the real work of trying to balance their budgets. I will be very surprised if they do not find themselves looking at rate increases of 15 to 20 per cent. I was very interested to hear mentioned tonight the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that there would be no child living in poverty by 1990. There may not be, and I hope there are not, but there will be a lot of local governments in poverty by 1990. If this Government's record on local government funding and road funding continues, local governments certainly will be in poverty. In fact, I have been told that some councils in northern Victoria have been talking about going to the wall because of their funding cuts. Senator Powell —What about Tasmania? Senator CALVERT —And in Tasmania. Senator Powell —I thought you would be supporting my amendments. Senator CALVERT —I hope so; I have not had a chance to read them yet. I read with interest the recent news report that the Prime Minister received a resounding reception when he attended the local government conference in Canberra. I too took the opportunity of spending half a day there, and whilst I did not receive a rousing reception-in fact I got a rather cool reception from some of my colleagues-many of those representatives of local government who are here in Canberra at the moment know only too well what is going on, and their numbers are growing all the time. They know that on the one hand they are receiving what appears to be something, while on the other hand things are being taken away. As I said earlier, when they strike their rates and do their budgets, they will find out how sincere this so-called friend of local government is. The Bill before us today is just another patch-up job. It is designed to amend the formula under which general purpose financial assistance for local government is determined. Previously this was to be calculated by changing the amount by the percentage change to Commonwealth general purpose payments to the States. In my time in local government there have been many different formulas. In fact, there have been so many different formulas that it has been a little like a new mother with a new baby. She does not know which formula to use to stop the baby getting sick. It seems to me that in this case the formula the Minister for Local Government and this Government are putting forward is an attempt to make local government feel better. As I said, at the end of the day when they have to strike their rates they will find out what has really happened. We know what has happened to the States. Senator Crichton-Browne said earlier today that the Commonwealth Government played a big part in cutting their budgets. There is some $982m in spending cuts in the mini-Budget and $870m, or nearly 90 per cent, is to come from the States and local government. That is disgraceful. Why can this Government not put its money where its mouth is and cut its own Budget rather than decimating the States? No doubt all honourable senators will see the effects of these cuts on our States. I was very disturbed to see what our Premier in Tasmania has had to do to try to balance his Budget after the tremendous cuts that have been made to the State. Almost $80m has been cut from road funding-$50m this year and a predicted $29m next year. I noticed with interest that the Minister for Local Government said, `But we are going to provide the same amount of money for local roads as we did last year'. That is terrific. That does not account for inflation, but even if it did, as I and many of the other people here who have been in local government know, the State governments will pass on the cuts. If they are not receiving any money for roads, the Minister cannot tell me that they are not going to say to local government, `You are getting a fair deal from the Minister for Local Government and the Commonwealth Government, so we are going to cut back our percentage to you'. We all know that although local government is the third tier of government and a very important tier, being closest to the people, it is the end of the road. It is always the end of the road. If funding cuts start at the top, it is always local governments that end up receiving the raw end of the deal. That is exactly what this is here today-the raw end of the deal. We have seen another con job that the great illusionist here, Senator Reynolds, has perpetrated on local government. I have been very disappointed that the local government bodies seem to have missed it. In the good old days of the Liberal Government, when we gave them a guaranteed 2 per cent of personal income tax collections, which has now been reduced to 1.66 per cent, we gave them the money for a full 12-months period. A lot of local government members have said to me, both today and yesterday, and I am sure to other members of the Senate, that they appreciated that. They got the money and they could invest it. It was another source of income to them and they knew exactly where they were. But the great illusionist over here has introduced quarterly payments. Local government let it happen and did not say much about it. I was very disappointed that it did that because that represents a great reduction of funds. We have only to look at some of the statements made prior to the mini-Budget to see that they back up what has been said in this chamber today. One article states: Forty government backbenchers have warned of grave political consequences if the Federal Government makes further cuts to road funding . . . Well, the Government has made those funding cuts. I wonder what the consequences will be. Are we going to see roads self-destruct? We have already seen sealed roads being ripped up, graded and put back to gravel. It is a retrograde step. Our road system is one of our national assets and all this Government has done is run it down. The Australian of Tuesday, 24 May, states, `Road funds cut ``puts 2500 jobs, 90 lives at risk'' '. That is what this Government thinks about the people of Australia. It is not particularly worried about the roads or the accident rate. I think it was Mr Larry King who pointed out the effect that lack of road funding will have on accident rates in this country. In conclusion, I believe that the formula this Government has come up with at short notice for a 2.5 per cent increase over local government's entitlement in 1978, which in real terms is a reduction of $20m, is just another example of the measures which this Government seems hell bent on initiating and will send local authorities bankrupt throughout Australia. Not only can we look forward to reduced road construction and maintenance, but also retrenchments and massive rate hikes. With those few comments I pass over to my colleague Senator Chapman. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(6.50) —The May economic statement to which these Bills relate was not so much a mini-Budget; it was more a meanie-Budget. It was a May statement all right-we may get a tax cut, we may not. The unions may do a deal on wages, they may not. Interest rates may be contained. Pigs may fly! No wonder the Government is jackbooting these Bills through the Senate with less than four hours debate, allowing us, by agreement, only 10 minutes per speaker. It is so ashamed of the reality and the consequences of this statement that it does not want it subjected to adequate parliamentary scrutiny. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) calls the concoction of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) a magic pudding. In its self-delusion and flights of fancy, it is more a magic mushroom. We know how mushrooms are grown. If time permits tonight, I will highlight three of a number of areas in which this document is dishonest. Those three areas are its accounting fiddles; the taxation of superannuation; and the imposts on the rural sector. Contrary to claims of expenditure restraint by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, under this statement real expenditure by the Hawke Labor Government on its own Federal Government programs will rise. The facade of restraint is achieved by accounting fiddles, by strangling the State governments and by an unusually optimistic economic forecast. The Treasurer claimed that real outlays are expected to fall by 1.5 per cent but, when adjustment is made for a number of accounting fiddles, it is clear that real Commonwealth expenditure on its own programs actually increases. There are several fiddles that achieve this: primary industry charges and levies and light dues and Navigation Act receipts which were previously classified as offsets within outlays have now been classified as revenue; discounts and premiums on Treasury bonds have been reclassified from financing transactions to outlays. According to page 26 of the document, these changes will add an estimated $974m to recorded outlays in 1987-88 and $783m in 1988-89. Further, the Civil Aviation Authority will be shifted off-Budget from 1 July 1988, reducing outlays in 1988-89 by about $270m. On this basis the Treasurer claims that outlays will fall in real terms in 1988-89 against 1987-88 as follows: estimated total outlays for 1987-88 of $78,577m and for 1988-89 an amount of $81,651m, giving a nominal increase of 3.9 per cent and a real decrease of 1.5 per cent. It may well be appropriate to reclassify these Budget transactions to align them more closely with international accounting procedures, but it is grossly dishonest to claim that mere accounting changes are expenditure restraint. If allowance is made for these accounting changes, the true situation is that in 1987-88 estimated total outlays will be $77,603m and, for 1988-89, $81,138m-a nominal increase of 4.6 per cent, being a real decrease of 0.8 per cent. As we know, State governments have been forced to bear the brunt of cuts to Forward Estimates-to the tune of some $870m, or 89 per cent of the total cuts of $982m in the Forward Estimates, and to the tune of some $1,740m less in State funding for 1988-89 compared with 1987-88. To get the real picture about the Commonwealth's own spending, we should exclude those grants to the States. On that basis, the Commonwealth's own spending rises from some $62,773m in 1987-88 to $68,048m in 1988-89-a nominal increase of 8.4 per cent, representing a real increase, after inflation, of 3 per cent. So much for the Treasurer's claims of expenditure restraint. What he claims to be a cut of 1.5 per cent is in fact a real increase of 3 per cent on the Commonwealth's own spending. Do we need any more demonstration of this Government's dishonesty? The Government is not only dishonest; it is also hypocritical. On Monday, in a speech to a national seminar organised by the Institute of Municipal Management, the Prime Minister said: I know some of you have been concerned about cuts to funding for local government in the May statement. Senator Stone —Another barber's cap performance. Senator CHAPMAN —It was not a very brilliant performance. The Prime Minister continued: If the same cut had been applied to local government's recurrent funding as to the State's the forward estimates would have been cut back by some $28 million. Of course, as we know, the cut to local government was $20m. What cant and hypocrisy! What is good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. If the Commonwealth had the guts to embrace the same restraint on its own spending as it has forced on the States, we would have seen a cut of 6.23 per cent, or $4,247m, on its Forward Estimates, allowing total outlays, including grants to the States, of $77,002m for 1988-89, or $63,912m on its own programs. That represents over $4,000m less than the actual spending will be in each case next year. More than that, if the Commonwealth embraced the restraint that it is imposing on the States, not just in relation to the Forward Estimates but in relation to 1988-89 compared with 1987-88, we would see a cut of 11.73 per cent. That is the cut which the Government has imposed on the States next year compared with the current year. That will represent a cut of some $7,365m in Commonwealth outlays, reducing total outlays to $68,498m next year, or $55,408m, on its own Commonwealth programs. How dare the Prime Minister and the Treasurer strut around claiming to be restraining expenditure. The fact is that if they took the same medicine that they are imposing on the States, spending on their own programs next year would be $55,408m instead of $68,048m-a real fall of 17.1 per cent instead of a real increase of 3 per cent. It is good enough for the States, which have exercised more restraint over the last half decade than this Hawke Labor Government, but apparently it is not good enough for this Government. Such savings would readily fund the tax cuts which have been advocated by the Opposition. The Government's dishonesty is also evident in relation to its treatment of superannuation. The Treasurer says that no-one will lose 1c under the new superannuation tax, but David Connolly has already proved how someone on a mere $15,000 a year will wind up $1,762 worse off. That is not much; $1,762 is less than 10 per cent of a Treasurer's travelling allowance. Further analysis proves that retirees will lose much more than that. Certainly, a tax of 15 per cent on employer contributions merely offsets the reduction of 15 per cent of the tax on lump sum payments. However, the 15 per cent tax on income of superannuation funds is a new and additional tax. In practice, it is simply not possible to offset that tax by using the imputed tax credits from fully franked dividends received by the funds from those Australian companies providing them. Senator Messner —It's a lie. Senator CHAPMAN —It is a lie. Of course, it is to be expected that some scheme thought up in the middle of the night by a Treasury boffin would be all theory and no practice. According to the Government's own document, superannuation funds currently have about 15 per cent of their total investment in equities offering franked dividends. But to have sufficient tax credits to offset the tax, they would have to lift that to about 60 per cent, given the much lower yield from dividends than from interest, rent or other incomes. A number of funds are precluded from such a high percentage of investments being in equities such as capital stable approved deposit funds and capital guaranteed funds. Of course, it would be most imprudent for the rest to invest such a high proportion of their total funds in equities. Quite simply, it is not possible for them to achieve those adequate tax offsets. Apart from being imprudent, it is also not possible, because there are simply not enough shares to go around. The total value of the current share market in industrial and commercial stocks is about $110,000m. To achieve the requisite percentage of franked equities, the superannuation funds would need to lift their current investment in equities from about $7,000m to between $25,000m and $30,000m. There are simply not enough shares to go around to achieve that. We see the Government committing the fallacy of composition, something that basic economics students know to avoid. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 7 p.m., the time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bills has expired. The question is that the amendment moved by the Opposition to the motion for the second reading of the Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Bill 1988 be agreed to. Senator Gareth Evans —I wish to indicate that, in the interests of giving people an opportunity to debate the legislation, we will not divide, but the Government is of course opposed to the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(7.02) —Pursuant to contingent notice and on behalf of Senator Haines, I move: That so much of Standing Order 407b be suspended as would prevent the questions being put in respect of any amendments circulated by the Australian Democrats, the Opposition, or Independent Senators and that such questions be put accordingly. Question resolved in the negative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bills included in the allotment of time be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriations) Bill 1988; Migration Amendment Bill 1988; Departure Tax Amendment Bill 1988; Departure Tax Collection Amendment Bill 1988; Commonwealth Authorities Legislation (Payroll Tax) Amendment Bill 1988; Primary Industries (Recovery of Levy Collection Expenses) Bill 1988; National Health Amendment Bill 1988; Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1988; Fertilisers Subsidy Amendment Bill 1988; and Customs Tariff (Rate Alteration) Bill 1988 read a third time. Debate resumed from 27 April, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(7.03) —The Civil Aviation Bill 1988 has been brought before the Parliament in order to establish the new Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The idea of this Authority was first floated by the Government when it announced its in-principle decision almost two years ago, on 22 October 1986. There was a further statement about a year later when the then Minister for aviation, Senator Evans, said in the Parliament that the Government would be proceeding with the establishment of the Authority and that we would see the appropriate legislation in the Autumn session. That has now happened but, of course, it is 18 months since the announcement was first made. The Authority will have operational authority and responsibility to cover air traffic control. It will handle and regulate flight advisory services. It will provide communications, navigation and surveillance systems at airports for the operation of airlines and will maintain and operate rescue and firefighting machinery and equipment at airports. In addition, it will provide aeronautical information services and organise where necessary-hopefully not very often-aviation search and rescue services. This Bill is an amazing piece of legislation. Nowhere in the second reading speech, in any other statement or in any utterance by any Minister can I find any justification for the Government's action. There is no reason set down for the establishment of the separate Authority, which will only take over the role of the department which is currently undertaking the work. There is no mention, no skerrick anywhere, of any evidence of the need for the establishment of the Authority and, as I said, there is no attempt by the Government to justify its action. There must be some motive that has not emerged in the public arena. Certainly, there has been no statement by the Government as to what its real intentions are, but I think we can conclude that the establishment of this Authority-we have just heard from Senator Chapman that the May economic statement announced reduced expenditures of some $250m as a result of its establishment-will somehow provide another means by which imposts can be made on the people. Quite clearly, it will provide another nefarious means of raising taxes. Clearly, it is another way of gaining for the Government the $250m which was previously met by direct subventions off the Budget. This means just further taxes. It is just another piece of the Government's chicanery in its mini-Budget, as it described it, brought down one week ago. The amount of $250m has been taken off the Budget by the simple means of establishing a new Authority to operate the services for the airline industry. This will allow the Authority to raise its charges to gather in the $250m that it would otherwise be getting from the Government. It is just another form of taxation. This is not mentioned in the second reading speech. There is no attempt to set out the cost benefits of setting up the Aviation Authority. There is no attempt to provide us with any kind of cost impact study as to who is going to bear the cost, what the costs will be and the real nature of the operation. However, one thing is for sure. From the words in the second reading speech we can garner a little information about what is intended. We read that the Aviation Authority will be required to revalue all its assets. We know what this means because we have seen that happen in respect of Telecom Australia and other Government authorities. Revaluing the assets-presumably that means upwards-and the Government requiring the Authority to get a certain return for it on the basis of the investment of those assets at a higher value is to justify the imposition of higher charges upon the public, in this case upon the airlines and the airline users. As a result of this measure we will see increased values being applied to the assets which were previously owned by the former Department of Aviation. That will lead to the Government requiring the Authority to return to it a dividend based upon that higher value of assets. In turn, the Authority-because it will have to pay that dividend to the Government-will be required to raise its charges on the people. This is just blackmail and another form of taxation. It is another example of the chicanery of the Hawke Labor Government. There has been much talk about the consultation that was to occur with the industry as to the establishment of this Authority. As far as I can understand it, there has been practically no consultation at all with the industry. As I have just mentioned, operators have no idea of what will happen as regards costs. What is going to happen with regard to staffing? I am sure that Senator MacGibbon, who is very well informed about the detailed operation of flight services, will be expanding on these matters in his remarks a little later. We note that the operations of the Authority will not have in-built biases in favour of efficiency. The staff of the CAA will remain covered by the Public Service Act. It will obviously be another branch of the Public Service. Certainly, one must be very sceptical about the commercial activity which might be generated as a result of the establishment of this Authority. Again, inefficient charges and costs are to be imposed on industry. Had the Government consulted more widely, it might have found industry in general very keen about seeing the promised review of airline regulations, air safety regulations, and so on, undertaken and completed before the new Authority was created. We have heard nothing of the results of an inquiry or review of such regulations. As we all know, there is a myriad of air navigation regulations that suffocate the aviation industry and build extra costs into the air fares that are charged to the travelling public. I am sure that Senator MacGibbon will expand on these matters in the course of his remarks. The Government ought to have taken the opportunity to deregulate the industry as much as possible. As we are noting in other areas of Government activity, the Government has backed off, because of union pressure, from deregulating industry and relieving the burden of costs from the back of unhappy consumers. As I mentioned earlier, revaluation of the assets will have very extensive implications for the industry in the future. We have no knowledge of what the costs will be. Obviously, they will rise. The Government is not telling us by how much the charges will increase as a result of the changes which it has in mind. Clearly, there will be confusion in the industry while these matters are being discussed. One matter of great concern is whether a staff ceiling will be imposed on the new Authority. We note that the limit imposed on the number of employees of the Federal Airports Corporation is now 1,600, compared with the limit of 1,200 that was first established. So the limit has gone up by about one-third since that Corporation was established only six or eight months ago. We hope that that will not happen in this new Authority, which presently has 7,000 employees across Australia. Quite clearly, there is room for the Government to give undertakings in this regard. I refer finally to the craven capitulation of this Government on the question of deregulation and privatisation generally. A little over a year ago, on 27 April 1987, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) stated: Some assets- presumably public assets- may be used more efficiently outside the public sector. Sales of some assets would certainly relieve the Budget of ongoing subventions and, of course, all asset (sales) produce a capital appropriation to the Budget which either retires debt or slows down the buildup of debt and hence relieves the Budget of its very high public debt interest commitment. The Treasurer, a little over a year ago, told the Australian people that privatisation was good for them and that the Hawke Government was heading in that direction because it believed that it would relieve the huge debt load on the public sector by paying off debt and thereby reducing interest payments, which, in turn, would lead to lower taxes on the Australian people. That was said a year ago, before the 1987 election. The Treasurer probably had that in mind at the time. Some similar remarks were made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in August, a month or so after the July 1987 election. He said: The question should be not: `Why should we sell a given enterprise?', but: `Why should we continue to tie up our resources in it?'. That was a fairly gung ho, Rambo approach to privatisation from the Prime Minister. One would have expected that we would be charging down the road, about to sell public enterprises as fast as possible, to the advantage of the Australian people. But no; we have observed over the last 12 months discussion-debate, as Senator Evans refers to it-within the Australian Labor Party (ALP) what has amounted to a big fat zero. There have been no moves of any great significance in the area of deregulation in the aviation industry. There has been some movement at the edges in the telecommunications industry. The Commonwealth Bank remains in public hands. There has been no attempt to move into the more peripheral areas of Commonwealth business undertakings. These matters represent a failure on the part of the Labor Government to face up to its responsibilities and meet the very criteria that were laid down by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, its two most senior Ministers a little over a year ago. This obvious capitulation to the trade union movement by the Government deserves condemnation. It means that in the long run the Australian people will have to pay higher prices for inefficient services being provided by public enterprises which, in the Prime Minister's own words, should be undertaken by private industry. We read only a week or so ago of further comments on this matter by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, in his speech to the seminar on privatisation convened by the economics policy committee of the Australian Capital Territory branch of the ALP on 8 May. He said: In short, I find it a little hard to understand why some people see intrinsic merit in using scarce resources to do something in the public sector which would otherwise be done in the private sector. That was what Senator Walsh said about a fortnight or three weeks ago. Yet this Government has not been able to get itself mobile on this matter. It has fallen into a morass over its privatisation and deregulation policy. It has been unable to assist or lift from the backs of the Australian people the burden which has been imposed by inefficient enterprises over a long period. It is the interests of the consumer which are at stake. Surely, it is the role of government to get out of inefficient enterprises and to encourage more efficient operations wherever possible in order to improve the standard of service to the community. The Government has failed miserably in that area in recent times. Obviously, its commitment to improve the standard of service to the community has not been raised by its latest move-the new Civil Aviation Authority which this legislation will create. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there is nothing in the second reading speech or in any other paper that is available that demonstrates why it is necessary to have such an authority. It has been created simply as a taxing device-another branch, if you like, of the Australian Taxation Office-to raise another $250m-plus from the Australian community in order to meet Mr Keating's demands for a reduction in Government expenditure. In other words, it is about replacing saved expenditures with higher taxes on the Australian people. It is not an efficient enterprise in the sense that was obviously intended by Senator Walsh's remarks at an earlier time. Clearly, the Government needs to address issues. It needs to explain in the Parliament tonight why it is necessary to establish a new authority of this kind. We in the Liberal and National parties simply do not believe that it is necessary and, for that reason, we will oppose the legislation. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(7.20) —The Australian Democrats support the Civil Aviation Bill 1988, but with reservations. We share the concern of the Opposition over this new organisation, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). I rang a number of people about this Bill, people who are involved in the general aviation industry. I rang Dick Smith, who has long been a critic of the Department responsible for aviation, now the Department of Transport and Communications, and the way it operates in this country to stifle the development of aviation. I rang Peter Petroni of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia. I rang a number of other people. They all said, `We suppose the Bill might as well be passed. It could not be any worse than the Department. Maybe-just maybe-it will be better'. Senator MacGibbon —They are optimists. Senator SANDERS —Yes, they are optimists. Something came to my mind as I talked to people about this matter, and that was the fact that these phone calls always develop into a swapping of horror stories about the Department. This happens in Australia any time two pilots, or two people in the industry, get together. I have flown in the United States of America. I was a fixed base operator there. I owned my own flying service. I am a flight instructor, commercial pilot, and all that stuff. In the United States when pilots get together they talk about aircraft and about the weather. They do not talk about the Federal Aeronautics Administration of the United States (FAA), because it operates in conjunction with the industry to help the industry. The FAA and the industry work together for the common good, for the common safety, for the common development of aviation. It does not happen in this country. That is the tragedy. Many people were sceptical about a private corporation staffed by public servants with security of tenure and all the lurks and perks of the Yes, Minister bureaucrat. I too am sceptical. I sincerely hope it works, but I am sceptical. There was some scepticism about another area of this Bill. That scepticism came from the Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills. It was afraid that some clauses of this Bill would trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. It specifically referred to clause 29 (3) and clause 30. We have looked at this concern and we foreshadow some amendments which we will move at the committee stage to make sure that civil liberties are not unduly trespassed upon and that people have the rights which they will be denied if this Bill goes to law unamended. There has been quite a bit of scepticism about this Bill. The Department and its failures are the reason that this Bill has been drafted ostensibly to try to revamp, revise and revitalise the Department so that it will operate in a more supportive manner to the industry. After all, who would want to fly on an airline run by the Department? Senator MacGibbon —Don't joke. Sometimes when they put a VIP on, we have to go on it. Senator SANDERS —Yes, we may have to. Who would want to run an airline flown by the Department? One would have to fill in forms in quadruplicate for tickets. One would have to wait months for confirmation of the tickets. One could probably board the aircraft and be told that the pilots would take off three hours after completing reams of paperwork. They would fly by the rules-we can be sure of that: there would be no flexibility in the Department's airline. Once in the air, one could be told in mid-flight that the plane was not going to Melbourne after all and that the passengers would be landing at Albury-Wodonga. No explanations would be given-none whatsoever. If one wanted to find out why, one would have to take the matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That is what the Department's airline would be like. And it would be unsafe. Senator MacGibbon —And it would cost you $200. Senator SANDERS —It would cost $200 and it would be unsafe-unless one was like the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans), who is at the table, who is a lawyer and who could afford to take the matter to the AAT to ensure that his ticket was properly discharged. Unfortunately, this is what happens. I would actually be frightened to fly on a Department airline because, unfortunately, the Department adds to the hazards of flying. It does not make flying safer. Flying is inherently safe as a means of transportation. We do not fight with traffic on a road; we are not worried about people coming out from intersections; and we do not worry about a lot of the hazards of ground transport. It can be made unsafe if the flexibility of the operators and the pilots is interfered with in a dangerous manner and if they are forced to fly in a dangerous manner. There are a number of ways in which the Department does this. For instance, the control zones take all of the available air space in a basin, leaving the area around the basins. Cities such as Melbourne, Sydney and Hobart are all in basins. The control zones take up the nice air space in the middle. The visual flight rules-VFR-corridors are around the outside, in the mountainous areas. People are afraid to fly into the control zones because of the penalties the Department can impose on them. If they do not say the right things on the radio or if they make a minor infraction, they are gone; they are history; their licence has gone. So they fly into mountain tops. The Aviation Safety Digest comes out every month with stories of people who have flown into mountain tops because they have been afraid to contact departmental personnel. We do not know why they died, but everybody has a fear of declaring an emergency to the Department because they know of the forms they will have to fill out. That is not safe. The fact is that pilots do not wish to kill themselves. Airline operators do not wish to crash. It is the safety consciousness of the operators and the pilots which gives aviation in Australia its great safety record. The Department is not adding to that. A number of very strange things have happened in the Department in terms of check pilots. I rang a number of people about this Bill. I rang a person who operates hot air balloons. It turns out that 80 per cent of hot air balloonists are actually commercial pilots, but that the Department has no-one with a commercial balloon pilot's licence. It has two private-rated balloon pilots and no-one to check out the commercial pilots in the ballooning industry. It goes on and on. Any pilot could give us several hours, I am sure, of such horror stories. The bottom line is that pilots themselves want to be safe. The old adage that there are old pilots and bold pilots but there are no old bold pilots still holds today, as it always did. The Department gets into some very petty arguments which cost the taxpayers and the litigants much money. One argument is about night flying and night colour blindness. I have here a letter from a Marcus Ryder in Templestowe, Victoria. He is 19 years old and is currently studying for his private pilot's licence. This man has passed tests which would allow him to fly jet aircraft in the Royal Australian Air Force. His night flying vision is that good-but the Department will not let him fly at night because he has not passed one antiquated test. A physician in Geelong, named Arthur Pape, has the same problem of night colour blindness. He has taken the matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and he has beaten the Department, but he spent thousands of dollars on it. The Department has spent thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money in fighting this case. One would think that, since he has won, the Department would give up. But no, there are 10 more cases coming up and the Department will fight each one at the taxpayers' expense. Why? Is it unsafe for these people to fly at night? No, it is not unsafe. It merely does not fit in with the regulations of the Department. I hope the CAA will change the situation. The Department needs flexibility. It needs to change the system. It needs flexibility to operate with commonsense rather than with the rigid bureaucratic structure which may guarantee jobs but which does not guarantee safety. One of the problems is that many of the Department's personnel are ex-military personnel. They fly by the book; they do not have to worry about the cost of anything. Who in the military worries about the cost of anything? Yet these people are now running a civilian outfit where cost should be an object but is not. What do we do? We hope that the CAA will not just be an old dog in the manger, with a new name. We need a flexible, responsive partnership between government, the industry and general aviation. This partnership could herald a new golden era in Australian aviation. A CAA which is merely a renamed Department of Aviation, DOA, would be the dead hand which would stifle Australian aviation forever. I intend to move a number of amendments in the committee stage. I will foreshadow them now to save some time. They have been agreed to by the Government and the Opposition. I hope that they will go some way towards relieving the apprehension of people towards the CAA. Amendment No. 1 corrects the omission of a rating from the list of items, a refusal to issue of which or the imposition of a condition upon which may give rise to an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In other words, if one is not allowed a rating, not just a licence, by the DOA one may take it to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. No. 2 addresses the concerns raised by the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills in its seventh report, on the invasion of personal liberties. No. 3 relates to the same topic, as do Nos 4 and 5. No. 6 restores the second element of the protection against surreptitious revenue raising found in paragraph 26 (2) (ca) of the Air Navigation Act 1920, upon which this clause is modelled. The DOA has long been known for sneaking around and figuring out ways of penalising the industry and pilots. Hopefully, this will close one door. The explanatory memorandum of No. 7 reads: This amendment makes reviewable the decision to take a statutory lien in respect of an aircraft. Without this decision being appellable the primary issue of whether there is a liability to pay cannot be tested until after an aircraft is deregistered. At present, after one's aircraft is taken off the roll one can then appeal. That amounts to confiscation; certainly lack of use of the machine. Once the aircraft has been taken and stricken from the rolls one can appeal. That is not a fair go. No. 8 reads: This amendment brings the regulation of air navigation safety under the same level of Parliamentary scrutiny as the regulation of marine navigation is under the Navigation Act 1912. This means that any order can be brought before the Senate and disallowed. If it turns out that it is discriminatory, if it is too expensive for the industry or somewhat frivolous in its nature, it can be disallowed. This brings Parliament into control over some aspects of the DOA, which I think is a very healthy thing. Parliament and the people should have far more say in what is happening in aviation in this country. I again say that the Australian Democrats will support the Bill with reservations and amendments. We hope that the DOA personnel who move into the CAA will take this as an opportunity to turn over a new leaf and operate with the aircraft industry, the general aviation industry, so that we can produce a viable industry in Australia which is cost-effective and which will answer the needs of the Australian flying public well into the twenty-first century. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! With the concurrence of Party leaders and Independents, I have arranged for archival video film to be taken of proceedings in the Senate tomorrow-the last day on which the Senate will sit in the provisional Parliament House. The filming proposed is as follows: at 10 a.m. for 15 minutes; Question Time; the passage of the last Bill through the Senate; and the valedictory speeches. Accordingly, honourable senators will notice the presence of television cameras and lights in the chamber tomorrow at the abovementioned times. Debate resumed. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(7.34) —The Opposition opposes the Civil Aviation Bill 1988. There simply has not been one valid reason advanced by the Government as to why the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) should be set up. The proposal is badly thought out. There has been minimal consultation with the aviation industry. The Opposition sees very clearly the urgent need to restore competence and efficiency to the aviation industry and aviation services in this country, but we do not see that this is the way to go about it. The Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Minister who once represented him in the other place, Mr Duncan, are the latest in a long line of Ministers who simply have no personal experience of the aviation industry. I say that in no unkind way at all, and certainly imply no personal criticism. As I have said on previous occasions here, aviation requires special aptitudes. It is different from most other forms of human activity. The lessons we have learnt in aviation over the last 80 or so years have been bought at a very high price. They have been bought at the highest price possible to pay-human lives. As Senator Sanders said, we can operate safely and predictably in the air but it takes a certain set of aptitudes to do it. I am not sure that the Civil Aviation Authority will necessarily enshrine those attitudes. When I say that one needs special aptitudes to operate in the aviation world I am not neglecting the commercial side, because it is a very difficult world to operate in commercially. Unless one is commercially successful one does not survive. In essence, the Bill provides that the functions that were discharged by the old Department of Aviation or of Civil Aviation be discharged by the new Authority with the exception of the maintenance of a number of airfields which have been transferred to the Federal Airports Corporation. Most of what Senator Sanders said is perfectly true. It might have been said in a more colourful way than I would have said it, but there are some real problems in the relationship between the Department and the aviation community. I am pleased that the amendments the Australian Democrats will move deal with the very real points raised in the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills criticisms of this Bill. I have always been concerned about the way in which the Department has operated in such a heavy-handed way of finding people guilty before they went to court insofar as it has summary powers to take someone's licence away before the evidence has been collected, let alone assessed. In the second reading speech of the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) on page 2 it states: It is the Government's view in the light of experience, that these functions- namely, the functions of the old Depart- ment- would now be better performed through a statutory authority . . . There is simply nothing advanced in the way of evidence to support that point of view. The Government proposes to set up a board to manage the Civil Aviation Authority. Without being harsh, all it is doing is increasing the administrative costs of aviation in the country by at least $2m in the first instance. It is taking over 7,000 staff from the old Department to operate under Public Service conditions. Presumably it will not have the right to hire and fire the way the Federal Airports Corporation claims it does not have the right to hire and fire the employees it took over from the Department. Presumably it will have to pick up the superannuation entitlements for those 7,000 people. That is in contrast with the statement on page 5 of the second reading speech that the commercial nature of the authority needs to be clearly understood. The second reading speech very clearly puts the point that the Government hopes the body will be a commercially effective unit. With the greatest of respect, public servants are not successful in the commercial world. That is no criticism of them, because their whole background is one of administration, not of the cut and thrust of the commercial world. There are no rewards and there are no censures for commercial operations built into the Public Service. It is really expecting too much for people with a lifetime in administration to go into the dog-eat-dog world of the commercial world and be successful. It just cannot happen. I will deal with a few of the Opposition's criticisms of the Bill. We believe that there has been very little consultation with the industry. Very few details have been made public as to how the new Authority will work. We have grave reservations about the picking up of 7,000 employees from the Public Service and placing them into a commercial operation. I observe that with 7,000 employees there will be more than one employee for every aircraft on the Australian register, which is really a Rolls-Royce service. I certainly do not want more than one person looking after my aeroplane; I can look after it very well by myself and just talk to someone occasionally. Senator Sanders —Perhaps they can polish them and take care of them. Senator MacGIBBON —Yes. We are concerned that the Government has failed to implement its promised regulatory review before the creation of the Civil Aviation Authority because we think that the whole of the aviation scene is over-regulated. This is more or less in line with what Senator Sanders said. But over and above everything else, the administration of the Department now is very inefficient. It is very run down, very expensive and over-regulated. I do know the Department very well. I have been flying for over 25 years and I have owned and operated aircraft in this country for over 20 years. I have had harmonious and close relationships with the Department for more than 20 years. I have seen a department that was arguably one of the best in the world 25 years ago-and it knew it was among the best in the world-go to what now is a stumbling bureaucracy. Morale in the Department is very low. Part of that has come from the change in the administration of the Department. In the last 15 years we have seen a Department of Civil Aviation which had its own ethos, its own esprit de corps, its own separate identity, changed in the Whitlam years to a Department of Transport, then back to a Department of Aviation in the Fraser years, and then to a Department of Transport again-mixing with the land, the sea and other forms of transport under the Hawke Administration-and now, since July last year, to the Department of Transport and Communications. This has had a great effect on the morale of the people involved, because to a certain degree they just do not know where they are going, they do not know who they are answerable to, and it has been reflected very much in their attitude to their work. The most telling criticism of the Department that has been made in public in recent years has been that great book by Dick Smith, Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom-something that led to a House of Representatives inquiry and something which has led to absolutely no response from the Government and no change in the way the Department does its business. Coupled with all these matters is the fact that the Government puts very low priority on aviation. The very first thing it did when it came into office in 1983 was to cut $20m out of the $70m budget that year for the Brisbane Airport that was being built. We have seen a great run-down in the expenditure on airways services-on communications, on navigation aids and, particularly, radar. Expenditure has not been met when it should have been met and we have got a long way behind the eight ball there. One of the other things that are annoying the Department of Aviation and contributing to bad morale is the way it has been split up and the way the Federal Airports Commission, which is intensely disliked by the old Department, has come into existence. The Government knows it has a mess on its hands and it wants to isolate itself from the mess. That is why it has set up this Civil Aviation Authority. It wants to create a statutory authority that can stand apart from ministerial and governmental responsibility. But the facts of life are that that will not work, and the Minister and the Government cannot evade their responsibility for the regulation of the airways services in Australia. I said before that it is not easy to survive in the aviation world. It is a very difficult world. We have got enormously high costs in this country, and it does not matter whether one is trying to operate a charter airline, flying passengers or freight, for hire and reward, or to operate in a maintenance facility as an engineering workshop-it is very difficult to survive. The costs that are borne by the industry-admittedly, a lot of them are generated overseas-have gone up astronomically. In the last five years the price of simple thrust bearings for propeller governors that probably cost $4.70 has risen to over $200. Five years ago magneto condensers cost $20; they are now over $100. Five years ago fuel pumps for modern twins cost about $800; today they are over $2,000. It is difficult to survive without being harassed and hamstrung by an over-regulated and intrusive system. I want to come back to the business of the Government's lack of concern for aviation and the way it has not been funding the airways services the way it should. I was very interested in recent times-I think it has been on three occasions-that the Minister has made a reply to Senator Sheil with respect to radar at Coolangatta. The Minister's explanation has been that even if radar had been provided at Coolangatta, the recent tragic accident would still have occurred. His reason for that is that the accident took place in the circuit area and that control of the circuit area is mediated visually by the controller in the tower and that radar would not have helped him. That happens to be true-but it is only less than half the truth. The truth of the matter is that there is a very busy zone at Coolangatta. Had there been an airfield radar there, there would have been a number of controllers on duty. There would have been one controller doing the approach control, looking at the traffic seeking an airways clearance into the zone and flying in the zone, which is probably 20 miles in diameter. There would have been another controller whose sole task, visually, would have been to watch the traffic and control it in the airfield circuit. Another very important point of the provision of radar in that circumstance would have been that the approach controller would have known the precise position of all the aircraft in the zone. As it happens at present, the controller asks the pilot to report where he is and he does that visually with reference to landmarks on the ground. People do not always fly in their own backyards. People genuinely make mistakes in unfamiliar areas identifying where they are. It puts an added strain on a controller if there is one controller looking after a busy zone such as Coolangatta and trying to control every aircraft in the 20-odd mile diameter of that zone. So I reject very much the Minister's argument that radar would not have helped at Coolangatta. More importantly than that, I have a great concern, as a Queenslander and as an airman, about Cairns Airport. Cairns Airport is one of the most dangerous airports in Australia. It has a number of high mountains very close to it. There is a mountain range to the west of the airfield and to the south-east there are hills. There is high ground right in the circuit area. Cairns has a typical wet tropical climate. When it rains in Cairns, people literally cannot see more than 20 yards ahead. It is quite different from the rain shadow area of Townsville. It is also a very busy airport. It is the third busiest airport in Australia. I flew into Cairns at the end of last year. I was a passenger in the front seat of an aircraft. I had a headset on. I was just staggered at the amount of radio traffic at 4 o'clock in the afternoon getting into Cairns. I am advised that within the recent past a regular public transport jet aircraft departed Cairns and the traffic was so intense that until the captain switched to the Townsville frequency he simply could not get his departure call in once he was airborne. This is a very busy airport. It also attracts a lot of charter operators-for the Gulf, the west, the inland, and up the Reef. They are often very low time pilots who are on their first commercial job. I can remember from when I was a student that the Queen wanted to fly into Cairns. She was not allowed to fly into Cairns because it was judged that Cairns Airport was too high a risk in 1953 for the Queen to go into. The conditions today are precisely the same. There is simply no radar there. Yet Cairns has been an international airport since March 1984. I am telling the Minister that he faces the certainty of an accident in that area. It may be an accident that involves a 747 or the like. Possibly 200 or 400 lives will be lost because the fundamentals are wrong. We know with certainty that we are going to have an accident there. What we do not know is when it will happen. The other thing we know is that it is a preventable accident. But the Department is doing nothing. There is a proposal to put a radar set on the field in 1990. I believe that tenders have already been called. But there is no reason why that cannot be installed more or less straight away. It is only a small cost of about $6m. It is a fraction of the cost of the whole value of the aircraft that will be involved in the accident, to say nothing of the human lives. The Opposition does not believe that the inaction of the Minister and the Department in the present situation will be alleviated one little bit by the creation of the Civil Aviation Authority. Before I close I want to refer to one final technical point. I regret that we do not have a committee stage on this Bill. Aircraft are very vulnerable to malicious damage and things such as that. I suppose that they are different from cars, where terrorists can put bombs in them, but that does not happen very frequently. If anyone interferes with a car people probably will walk away from it with a few scratches but if anyone interferes with an aircraft people lose their lives. In relation to interference with a crew or aircraft clause 24 of the Bill states: (2) A person shall not tamper with an aircraft or an aircraft component or item of equipment. Penalty: $5000 or imprisonment for 2 years, or both. Section 15 of the Crimes (Aircraft) Act 1963 provides: A person who does an act or thing capable of prejudicing the safe operation of an aircraft to which this Part applies- (a) with intent to prejudice the safe operation of that aircraft; and (b) with intent to cause the death of a person or with reckless indifference to the safety of the life of a person, is guilty of an indictable offence punishable by death. There is a vast difference between an indictable offence punishable by death, and a $5,000 fine or imprisonment for two years. I do not know which piece of legislation takes precedence in this circumstance. The Opposition does not believe that the creation of this body will do anything other than generate more paper work and higher costs for the industry. We argue that aviation is a specialised field, a field that can operate alone, stand alone, and be controlled and administered by government. Until we hear further arguments from this Government as to why it is necessary to go down this path we will not support the move. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(7.52) —I think the decision to establish the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as a separate statutory authority should be seen against the background of a general desire by the Government to reshape the Department of Transport and Communications essentially as a policy department and to spin off from it those very substantial operational areas of the Department which primarily hitherto have been concentrated in the aviation component of it. Thus we have established the Federal Airports Corporation and now the Civil Aviation Authority. Part of the reason for that spin-off of the respective operational arms is to create that very sense of esprit de corps and morale that Senator MacGibbon was so lyrical about identifying as a need in the aviation administration area. I think it has been acknowledged-I acknowledge it now-that there has probably been a loss of some of that spirit that was traditionally associated with the old Department of Civil Aviation as a result of the successive administrative changes it has been subjected to, for one good reason or another, by successive governments. It is important to recreate that sense of professionalism, pride and commitment to a particular complex interrelated set of tasks that we hope will be associated with the creation of these two strongly identified aviation bodies. The management of each of these bodies will be very important. The shape, structure, composition and dynamism of the boards that are responsible for their respective administration will be very important indeed. I am certainly conscious of the need to have not merely a representative membership but also a dynamic membership which reflects the sorts of wide-ranging concerns that have been expressed in the course of this debate, plus that hard-headed commercialism which I think is important if we are to be able to develop rational investment strategies of the kind that are so obviously necessary, both on the airport side and in the development of the airways infrastructure. Probably the central theme underlying the creation of the CAA is to create a body that is sensitive and responsible-using words that I think featured prominently in Senator Sanders's speech-to the industry's requirements and that is sensitive and responsible to industry's capacity and willingness to meet the costs that are associated with developing a decent aviation infrastructure. It is important to establish that nexus between the creation and development of an infrastructure and the role of the industry in paying for what it gets. The relationship is simply too indirect, to diffuse and too subject to too many other competing constraints when those investment decisions are being made essentially by government departments or by the combinations of government departments that are involved in doing that. The idea of creating a direct nexus between the cost recovery strategies and the actual infrastructure investment strategies is central to the underlying rationale, and I would have thought that that was a fairly attractive rationale so far as all the Opposition parties and the Australian Democrats are concerned. There is much more that could be said about the underlying philosophy of this, but I simply make that point in general terms. It is important that the body be subject to the discipline of cost containment and does not feel merely an open-ended kind of capacity to impose charges, increases of one kind or another, to pursue various investment whims and fancies. To that extent the Minister will have some ongoing role in terms of a power to disapprove charges which the Authority might wish to levy. Basically, the discipline will need to be imposed internally and, as I have said, it is important to develop the kind of broad structure which will ensure that there is that kind of close working relationship between the industry and the Authority that we are trying to establish. I do not think the continued application of the Public Service Act should be seen as a constraint in developing a more flexible and responsive approach-if you like, a less bureaucratic approach-to the staffing needs of the industry. An enormous amount has happened over the last 12 or 18 months in opening up Public Service administration to some of the disciplines, at least at the higher executive and managerial levels, that apply in the commercial sector. Certainly it is the case that under present Public Service legislation senior management appointments can be made on a contract basis. In fact, they can be made right through the executive structure, and it is certainly within the contemplation of the Government that a number of the senior executive posts should be put together on that basis rather than reflecting simply a holus-bolus translation of existing Public Service structures into a new notionally arms-length statutory authority which in practice might not be very different. We want it to be different, but we believe that under the Public Service Act as it now applies there is that degree of flexibility. There is a lot that I could say about other points that have been raised. Consultation is one that I think needs to be nailed quickly in the last minute or two that I have left. There has been a really quite extensive process of consultation with the industry on the establishment of the CAA. It was initiated by my predecessor, Mr Morris, in November 1986 at a meeting with the Aviation Industry Advisory Council (AVIAC). There has been a constant flow of consultation with staff associations and various industry parties and bodies in the subsequent period. Discussion papers were prepared on the basis of a quite detailed program of consultation run by the Department and that was the subject of the full scale consideration by AVIAC in April 1987. I then announced the decision to go ahead, not just in principle but also in practice, with the CAA in my major aviation statement on 7 October. Since then there has been a whole series of ongoing meetings with different segments of the industry to put flesh on the bones that were outlined on that occasion. Finally, there are investment strategies that need to be pursued as a matter of priority in the airways infrastructure area. I certainly acknowledge the force of the points that have been made about Coolangatta Airport by Senator MacGibbon and, indeed, another senator in recent days, and, in particular, the force of the points that have been made about Cairns. They are high priority areas for the installation of radar, but plans are well and truly in place and they will get priority under the new administration. The Bitmead review of aviation regulations is well and truly under way and there is a lot more I could say about that. I just make the point that it is not sensible to delay the establishment of this Authority in order to wait for that review to be completed. I indicate, on behalf of the Government, that the Democrat amendments are acceptable and one other formal Government amendment of an administrative kind I believe also ought to be acceptable. I commend the Bill to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Peter Baume) —Order! It being 8 p.m., the time allocated for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The first question to be put is that the amendment circulated by the Government be agreed to. Circulated amendment- Page 46, clause 100, at the end of the clause add the following subclause: ``(4) Where an instrument authorising the conduct of operations only within Australia, being a licence issued under Part XIII of the Air Navigation Regulations or an exemption and approval under regulation 203 of those Regulations, was in force immediately before the commencement of section 27: (a) the instrument continues in effect after that commencement, but shall be taken to be an Air Operator's Certificate issued under this Act; and (b) in the instrument as so continued in effect: (i) a reference to the Secretary to the Department shall be read as a reference to the Authority; (ii) a reference to the Department (other than a reference mentioned in subparagraph (i)) shall be read as a reference to the Authority; (iii) a reference to a provision of the Air Navigation Act 1920 shall be read as a reference to the corresponding provision of this Act; (iv) a reference to a provision of the Air Navigation Regulations shall be read as a reference to the corresponding provision of regulations made under this Act; and (v) a reference to an Air Navigation Order, within the meaning of the Air Navigation Regulations, shall be read as a reference to a Civil Aviation Order, within the meaning of regulations made under this Act.''. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(8.01) —Pursuant to contingent notice, and on behalf of Senator Haines, I move: That so much of Standing Order 407b be suspended as would prevent the questions being put in respect of any amendments circulated by the Australian Democrats, the Opposition, or Independent Senators and that such questions be put accordingly. Question resolved in the affirmative. Circulated amendments- (1) Page 4, subclause 3 (1), after the definition of ``flight'', insert the following definition: `` `licence', except in paragraph 26 (2) (b), includes a rating or other endorsement on a licence;''. (2) Page 16, subclause 29 (1), lines 28 to 34, leave out the subclause, insert the following subclause: ``(1) No owner, operator, hirer (not being the Crown) or pilot of an aircraft shall operate the aircraft or permit the aircraft to be operated so as to: (a) use an aerodrome in contravention of a condition specified under section 20; or (b) fly or be operated in contravention of a provision of this Part or a direction given, or condition imposed, under such a provision.''. (3) Page 16, subclause 29 (2), lines 35 and 36, leave out the subclause, insert the following subclause: ``(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable, upon conviction, by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2 years, or both.''. (4) Page 16, subclause 29 (3), leave out the subclause. (5) Page 17, clause 30, at end of clause, add the following new subclause: ``(2) Any defence established under subclause (1) need only be established on the balance of probabilities.''. (6) Page 34, clause 67, lines 27 and 28, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Limits on charges ``67. The amount or rate of a charge shall be reasonably related to the expenses incurred or to be incurred by the Authority in relation to the matters to which the charge relates and shall not be such as to amount to taxation.''. (7) Page 39, subclause 82 (1), definition of ``reviewable decision'', line 20, after ``subsection'', insert ``69 (1),''. (8) Page 45, after subclause 98 (4), insert the following new subclause: ``(4a) Where the regulations provide for a direction, instruction, notification, permission, approval or authority to be given or issued in the form of a Civil Aviation Order, an Order so given or issued after the commencement of this section is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46a of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.''. Amendments agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Peter Baume) —The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Senator MORRIS(New South Wales) —I present the report of the Select Committee on Animal Welfare entitled Kangaroos. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator MORRIS —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The report on kangaroos is the third report of the Select Committee on Animal Welfare. Earlier reports were on the export of live sheep from Australia and dolphins and whales in captivity. The Committee had been inquiring into kangaroos for some time. The taking of evidence and field inspections were completed in the last Parliament. Although the Committee has been expanded in size from four to six members in this Parliament, three of the previous four members were reappointed to the Committee. The former Chairman, George Georges, was not returned to the Senate at the last election. At this point, I want to give due recognition to the work of the Committee in the previous parliaments in this and other areas of inquiry, and particularly to the leadership of George Georges as Chairman of the Committee. It is obvious that the Committee has had a significant impact on animal welfare in many areas of animal use in Australia. In the course of its inquiry into matters which have been or will be reported on to the Senate, the Committee has stimulated a more informed public debate on many contentious and emotional animal welfare issues. Improvements to animal welfare have often flowed from the this debate even before the Committee has had a chance to report on those matters. I turn now to the report and the Committee's conclusions and recommendations. The size and continuing viability of kangaroo populations, particularly of red and grey kangaroos, was a contentious issue during the inquiry. After careful consideration of the evidence, the Committee concludes that none of the species subject to killing is presently threatened with extinction and there is no evidence to indicate that any will become extinct. However, the Committee sounds a note of caution: if there is a significant change in the habitat or the pattern or extent of killing of these species, further consideration will have to be given to their long term viability. Despite the fact that most killing of kangaroos is done to protect property, little work had been done to assess the extent of the damage caused by kangaroos. Damage to property includes the consumption of pasture, crops and water and damage to fences. Competition with livestock for pasture and water is mainly a problem in dry periods when food is scarce. It was only during the course of the inquiry that any broad-scale estimates of kangaroo damage were published. There is now enough information available to come to the conclusion that the level of damage is not inconsiderable, even though the published estimates of damage must be treated with some caution. Having come to the conclusion that species of kangaroos which are subjected to legal killing are not in danger of extinction and do cause damage to properties, the Committee then considered the status of kangaroos and their management. The kangaroo is thought of in affectionate terms by most Australians. It is also a national symbol, as part of Australia's crest and in many other ways. It is also a native animal unique to this part of the world. The Committee therefore recommends that, as a fundamental principle, the kangaroo remain a protected animal. However, the kangaroo does cause at times intolerable levels of damage to properties and other human land use. It is therefore necessary for the kangaroo to be managed to contain this damage. As a protected animal, the kangaroo has the right to be left alone except in the case of the protection of property, within the requirements of the law. Leaving aside the use of kangaroos in research, which is being considered in the Committee's examination of animal experimentation, the Committee believes that the kangaroo should not be killed for any other purpose. The management of kangaroos, with its welfare implications, is a national issue. As such, it should be treated in a national way. Although responsibility for kangaroo management resides with the States, that should not preclude cooperation among the Commonwealth and the States to pursue a national approach to kangaroo management. There is a national plan of management for kangaroos approved by the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers. However, a more comprehensive plan is needed to cover all species and all aspects of kangaroo management. It should cover kangaroo population size and dynamics, ecology, protection of habitat, programs to curb kangaroo damage to properties and commercial and non-commercial kill quotas. The plan would reflect the different environments and circumstances occurring in the different regions of Australia and take into account local as well as national needs. There would be, however, one set of objectives and a uniform approach to kangaroo management even if there are different practices to reflect the diversity of species and environments. Ideally, a comprehensive national kangaroo management plan should be administered federally rather than by the States and Territories individually. There are, of course, enormous constitutional and political problems associated with the transfer of State responsibilities to the Commonwealth. Although it has been suggested to the Committee that the Commonwealth should take over responsibility for wildlife, the Committee does not believe that such an approach is available. The Committee recommends a cooperative approach being taken over time whereby arrangements for national management of kangaroos would be worked out between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories. The Committee believes that the killing of kangaroos should not be resorted to as a reflex action. More investigation should be undertaken by the fauna authorities to determine the most effective way of containing kangaroo damage. In some areas, especially new crop areas, the shooting of kangaroos has not been the answer to the farmers' kangaroo problem. The killing of kangaroos should be a last resort, not the first option, in containing kangaroo damage. This will inevitably need greater resources being placed at the disposal of the State fauna authorities. The killing of kangaroos to contain damage was not really in question during the inquiry. Most of the debate on killing centred on the level of killing and the use of the commercial kangaroo industry to carry out the killing. Throughout the inquiry, the animal welfare organisations maintained an implacable opposition to the commercial shooting of kangaroos. They argued that the level of killing by the industry was determined by commercial factors and not by the need to protect property. This is largely true, although shooting is generally done within upper limits imposed by government. From the results of the two studies done by RSPCA Australia into cruelty to kangaroos, and from other information, it is unquestionable that professional shooters kill kangaroos more humanely than other shooters. Where kangaroos have to be killed, there is a strong argument for the use of professional shooters. Animal welfare organisations argued that where professional shooters are used to kill kangaroos, these shooters should be engaged by the government rather than by the industry. In this way, shooters would only shoot kangaroos which were causing a problem to landholders, and not simply for commercial reasons. The former Minister for Home Affairs and Environment told the Parliament that the cost of replacing the kangaroo industry with a government shooters' scheme would be about $50 million. Although the Committee believes that such a scheme would not cost that amount of money, it would still require significant government funding. Under the Constitution, management of fauna is a State responsibility and each State can manage kangaroos in its own way. However, because the industry depends on markets overseas, the Federal Government can impose conditions on the export of kangaroo products. Under the Kangaroo Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982, export permits will only be given for kangaroo products derived from kangaroos killed under a kangaroo management program which has been approved by the relevant Federal Minister. If the industry were disbanded, there would be no exports, and the moderating influence of the Federal Government would be gone. The slaughter of kangaroos in Queensland following the temporary export ban in 1986 is an example of the reaction of a State to the absence of the influence of the Federal Government, even for a short period. The Committee therefore recommends the continuation of the commercial killing of kangaroos for damage mitigation purposes. There is provision for non-commercial shooting of kangaroos by landholders or their agents in State legislation. It is clear from the evidence that these shooters have neither the marksmanship nor, in many cases, the firearms to kill kangaroos humanely. The Committee modified a proposal put forward by RSPCA Australia for the engagement of professional shooters by the government in non-commercial shooting areas. Adhering to the principle of keeping cruelty to a minimum, the Committee recommends a system whereby those landholders, who can demonstrate ownership of an appropriate firearm and who can satisfy fauna authorities of their marksmanship, may be issued with permits to kill kangaroos on their properties. However, for landholders who cannot meet these criteria, the government would pay travelling expenses to professional shooters to kill kangaroos on the landholders' properties. The landholders would pay a nominal fee to the shooters and the shooters would take the skins for sale to a fauna dealer or skin dealer. In this way, cruelty to kangaroos would be reduced and government would be faced with increased but still quite reasonable expenditure. This scheme does not involve `government shooters'. It is extending the commercial operation to areas where there is presently no commercial shooting. However, the arrangements for the professional shooter would be made by the fauna authority after the authority has satisfied itself that a bona fide kangaroo problem existed. This arrangement would only apply where a landholder was not equipped to do the job himself. Government must recognise that management of fauna cannot be relegated to the bottom of the list of priorities for funding. Native fauna are under the control of government and it is the responsibility of government to manage them properly and, where some need to be killed, for the killing to be done as humanely as possible. The Committee is aware of the need for financial restraint. However, for too long, funding restraint has perpetrated a system in which the level of cruelty is unacceptably high. It is incumbent on this Committee to strive to reduce the level of suffering to kangaroos and other animals in Australia. Despite the calls for more radical changes to the kangaroo management program from some quarters of the community, the Committee believes it has put forward responsible proposals, balancing both animal welfare concerns and the need to keep the funding of kangaroo management within reasonable proportions. A reduction in suffering in kangaroo management leads inescapably to a greater level of funding, which government must embrace. Finally, I want to thank the staff of the Committee for their work in relation to this report, particularly the Committee Secretary, Paul Barsdell; research officers, Bronwyn Winter, Jim Warner, Doug Hynd and Barbara Allan, and steno-secretaries, Lucinda Hunter, Doris Vidovic and Glenice Castles. I also want to thank all the witnesses and other people who contributed to this inquiry into kangaroos. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(8.02) —I will be very brief in my remarks. I point out that I made a minority report. I seek leave to have my minority report and also the comments of former Senator Georges included in Hansard. Leave not granted. Senator SANDERS —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senate adjourned at 8.03 p.m.