Thursday, 2 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. the right of the people of a country to make law independent of politicians should be a basic and independent right; 2. consequently there is an urgent need for constitutional reforms. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: support the Constitutional Alteration (Electors Initiative) 1987 Bill to alter the constitution so as to vest in the electors power to propose laws and to approve or disapprove such proposed laws. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 41 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The petition of these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with the only nation-wide independent radio and television service; that the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia; that the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the honourable senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship 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 Michael Baume (from 96 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 584 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Jenkins (from 503 citizens) and Reid (from 4,070 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the House assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we most strongly oppose the process of `food irradiation' by Cobalt 60, Caesium-137, Caesium-134 or any machine sources. That we oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process being permitted by State Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government ban the importation of any radioactive substances or machinery for the purpose of food irradiation, disallow regulations permitting the irradiation of food in Australia and ban the irradiation of food in this country. We also call upon the Federal Government to withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Coates (from 82 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: (1) Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia, and (2) Ban the import of cobalt-60 and caesium-137 and caesium-134 to be used to irradiate food products, And your petitioners as is duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 90 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap terminates on 19 October 1986. 2. In the event of war between the United States and the Soviet Union, access by the United States to Pine Gap's facilities makes it a probable nuclear target. 3. Access by all nations to Pine Gap's capacity to monitor and verify compliance with existing and future nuclear limitations treaties could contribute to world peace and security. 4. The people of Australia are entitled to be consulted, through their representatives in Parliament, on any extension or modification of the Agreement affecting their lives, security and welfare. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should decide that- 1. The Agreement between the United States and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap not be extended beyond October 1986. 2. Public discussion and inquiry be instituted into the feasibility of negotiating a new agreement with the United Nations during the International Year of Peace offering the verification facilities of the Pine Gap base to all nations. 3. Any agreement concerning the future use of Pine Gap be referred to Parliament for ratification. And your petitioners as is duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from seven citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, note that a majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material has strongly opposed the proposition that a new NVE category will contain that material as defined in the current `X' classification call upon the Senate to request the Government immediately to implement the recommendation of the majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material by introducing substantive legislation to ensure that X rated video material (and its R rated equivalent) is refused classification for the purpose of Commonwealth laws. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 149 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament The petition of the undersigned shows: That: The Australian Democrats were the only party to vote against tertiary fees in the Federal Parliament in 1986; The Students' Association at the Canberra College of Advanced Education resolved on 11 November 1986 to encourage students to vote against candidates from parties which have voted for fees (unless they give a commitment to vote against tertiary fees), and for candidates from parties which have voted against fees in the next Federal election; and That at present candidates from the Australian Democrats could be universally supported in accordance with this motion, unlike those from the ALP, Liberal, and National parties. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Note that many students will vote against candidates who support tertiary fees, and request any legislation imposing fees on tertiary students be rescinded. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from seven citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled- The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-1986 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 226 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Every citizen should have- 1. A constitutional guarantee of the right to vote and 2. A constitutional guarantee of the equality of votes. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should- Support the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) 1985 Bill And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from eight citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled people and families, and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. That accordingly the Senate and Parliament should reject any plans by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That hitherto the Government of Australia has neglected to accord the areas of Folklife in Australia the recognition, appreciation and support we consider to be due; and which are needed to safeguard the existing, prevent the loss of, and promote the development of the Australian Cultural Heritage. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament Assembled, should: Support the recommendations of the Executive Summary of the Committee of Inquiry into Folklife in Australia; namely the establishment of: an Australian Folklife Centre an Australian Folklife Grants Scheme to be administered by the Australian Folklife Centre a National Collection of Australian Folklife a Folk Arts Committee within the Australia Council a Folk Arts Grants Program under the control of the Folk Arts Committee. by Senator Maguire (from 134 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows that we have it on good authority that there is no intention of relocating the Cappuccino machine from the existing cafeteria to the new Staff cafeteria in the New and Permanent Parliament House. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should direct that said Cappuccino machine should be carefully restored to its former glory in the New and Permanent Parliament House. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 19 citizens). Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I seek leave to present a petition which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders, as it is not in the correct form. Leave not granted. Petitions received. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Community Affairs: The employment of disabled persons, with particular reference to- (a) current employment prospects of disabled persons and how this situation has changed over recent years; and (b) the effectiveness of Government and private programs to offer improved employment prospects to disabled persons and their impact on the provision of services to disabled persons. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate congratulates Kay Cottee on the near completion of her attempt to non-stop and solo circumnavigate the globe and wishes her every success in the final days of her journey. 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 Government consumption spending over the last 12 months has risen by twice as much as private consumption spending according to the latest national income figures issued by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on 1 June 1988, despite governmental undertakings to cut Government spending; and (b) condemns the Government for its failure in the May 1988 Statement to bring any real reduction in both Government spending and taxes which have increased by $5.8 billion in the first 10 months of the 1987-88 financial year. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) recognises that the Government's vague promise of tax cuts to PAYE taxpayers, some time closer to the next Federal election is a cynical attempt to defraud the people of Australia who need tax relief now; and (b) acknowledges the financial difficulties which lower and middle income families are experiencing and which are a direct result of the Government's high taxing and high spending policies, and notes that the increase in the patient contribution under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme announced in the May 1988 Statement will add to that financial burden. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, on this the first sitting day in the new Parliament House- (a) notes with concern: (i) attempts by the Executive Government to prevent certain major questions of public policy from being determined by Parliament, (ii) the failure of the Executive Government to adopt the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill that legislation be submitted to Parliament to outlaw any destructive experiments on a human embryo; (b) considers that destructive experiments on human embryos and human genetic engineering are major issues of public policy, are likely to pose grave problems for the whole of mankind and clearly are the province of elected parliaments and not the preserve of elites; and (c) declares that unless we, as elected representatives of the people, insist that these major matters of public policy are determined by Parliament we will have betrayed public trust and this new Parliament House building will become an expensive white elephant. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the changed climate between the United States and the Soviet Union following the visit of President Reagan to Moscow; (b) notes too the opening of the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament in New York and the presence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) and the participation of the Australian Coalition for Disarmament and Peace, which has been invited to address the plenary session; (c) commends the superpowers for realising that dialogue is more likely to lead to disarmament than a continuously escalating nuclear arms race and cold war rhetoric by both sides; (d) congratulates the Australian Government for its continued commitment to disarmament and in particular its work on seismic monitoring, a chemical weapons ban and a comprehensive test ban treaty; (e) expresses its concern at the continuing naval arms race in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, in particular, the deployment of sea launched cruise missiles by both the United States and the Soviet Union, and the growth of regional navies like those of China, Japan and India; (f) further notes that according to a nation-wide survey by People for Nuclear Disarmament 89 per cent of Australians would support a UN ban on all nuclear weapons; and (g) calls on the Australian Government to increase its commitment to disarmament by banning all nuclear warship port calls for rest and recreation, closing down foreign bases in Australia, ending the mining and export of uranium and doubling the percentage of the Budget on peace-related programs which would cost a tiny fraction of one FA 18 or a new submarine. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Government for its cynical attitude to the removal of political representation from rural Australia; and (b) notes that primary industry and mining industry will no longer have a voice in the State Governments and Parliaments of Australia if the referenda on elections are carried out. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) directs that the cappuccino machine be relocated from the existing staff cafeteria to the new staff cafeteria in the new and permanent Parliament House; and (b) notes that the Australian Democrats refused to allow a petition along these lines to be presented to the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Government response to the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment report on technological assessment in Australia. 2. Primary Industries and Resources-Policies for Growth-A Government Policy Statement. 3. Australian Canned Fruits Corporation-Annual Report 1987-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 48 of the Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979. 4. Commonwealth Schools Commission-Annual Report 1987-section 17a of the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act 1973. 5. Sport and Recreation Ministers Council-Summary Record of Proceedings-Seventeenth Meeting-Alice Springs-3 September 1987. 6. Central Land Council-Annual Report 1986-87-together with audited financial statements-section 37a of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. 7. Recombinant DNA Monitoring Committee-Report for the period 1 July 1986 to 30 November 1987. 8. National Tree Program-Progress Report 1982-87. 9. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission-including the former Human Rights Commission-Annual Report 1986-87-section 45 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. 10. Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal-Annual Report 1986-87-section 86 of the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981. 11. Arbitration in Family Law-Family Law Council Report. 12. Australian Tropical Marine Science and Technology-Current Status and Opportunities-Australian Marine Sciences and Technologies Committee Report. 13. Tasmanian World Heritage Area Council-Summary Record of the Fifth Meeting-Hobart-16 October 1987. Senator GARETH EVANS —I seek leave to have the Government's response to the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment report on technology assessment in Australia incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The response read as follows- GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT RECOMMENDATIONS-TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN AUSTRALIA The Government has examined the seven Recommendations put forward by the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment in its Report `Technology Assessment in Australia', tabled in this House on 29 April 1987. The Government commends the Committee on its detailed consideration of issues so pertinent to Australia's future. Changes in the emphasis in community and labour movement concerns, and the success of other measures introduced in recent years by the Government, have however to a large extent overtaken the specific recommendations for action given in the report. Technological change is not a single issue. Rather, it covers a number of issues including wealth generation, employment and job security, working and physical environment, investment, labour relations, education and equal opportunity issues. The Government has developed policies in each of these areas which are in accordance with the social aspirations of the community. Implementation of these policies has led, or is leading, to resolution of some of the concerns raised in the report, and to changes in the priorities of the Australian community. The Government's response to this report therefore has been framed within the following context: across all sectors technology is providing new challenges and opportunities; whether through improved management methods and ways of doing things, or through new products and inputs; technological change is essential if Australia is to increase its international competitiveness; there have been significant changes in the concept of technology assessment from a focus on `impacts', and thus a concept of technological change as a problem, to one of negotiated outcomes, where technology is seen as but one of many items of negotiation between employers and employees; finally, technological change is an important element in achieving a more productive culture-this will involve changes in many inter related areas such as education, training, industry award structures and general attitudes towards technology within the community. The major conclusions of the report fall into three areas. Firstly, the necessity to stimulate greater consultation in the workplace on the broader effects on the labour force of technological change. Elements of this include the timely provision of information on the effects of specific innovation, and consultation on the innovation which will enable those who are affected by the innovation to influence its introduction. In this way social costs are not borne by one sector of the community, and broader social costs and benefits are not overlooked by narrower private interests. The report recommends substantial new legislation of workplace consultation. The second area concerns the establishment of a data-bank on the implementation of technology and the resulting social effects, including possible alternatives that may better suit community needs. This data-bank would be available to the community, especially to those groups faced with extensive and rapid change, and would provide resources for a more balanced community educational program on technological change and its effects, and alternatives in implementing this innovation. The third area is the establishment of a body dedicated to undertaking assessments of particular technological changes and research into the social consequences of technological change. This would include studies at levels closer to specific industries and enterprises than previously, and ties in closely with the two areas outlined previously. Sections of the union movement, and its peak body the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), have on several occasions expressed concerns over the introduction of technology without consultation with the workforce. These concerns have to do with job loss, work design, health and safety, deskilling and training, and career structure. They are also associated with the unions' recognition that technological change is essential and that, given the opportunity, employees can make a very positive contribution. ACTU policy, expressed through its biennial congress, is to increase the level of consultation and effective participation of employee organisations in the process of technological change. Change often entails stress for those involved. Concern over the process of change, and the level of participation in decision making of those affected by that process, is understandable, particularly where there may be alternatives. Contemporary technological change is characterised by two major factors. Firstly, the change is pervasive, that is, it is affecting all sectors of the community to a greater or lesser extent. The nature of the change, largely through microelectronics and communications technology, is such that national economies can no longer effectively isolate themselves from international pressures for change. Secondly, the rate of change is rapid and increasing. Decision making must be equally rapid if opportunities are not to be lost. A lost opportunity, in the international context, may well represent a firm, if not, an industry which will not survive. The Government is aware of the benefits that may flow from legislation to regulate and increase the level of consultation which should take place prior to technological change, but is also mindful of the cost penalties which may be involved, both in direct costs and in time lost, which can result in lost opportunity. The Government encourages improved consultation and participative employment practices and would prefer to see these processes progressed on a voluntary basis, guided by agreement between the industrial parties. In this context legislation may become appropriate if such agreement has proved insufficient. The Government would not wish to be precipitate about introducing further regulation of the business sector, where a clear need has not been established and alternative means to achieve the purposes of the proposed legislation are available. Indeed, a major emphasis of Government policy throughout its last two terms has been to deregulation, an emphasis accepted and largely approved by the labour movement and the business community. An alternative approach, which has the marked advantage that it can be tailored to specific labour skills and, to a large extent, to specific industry conditions, is through establishment of Award conditions outlining the information, timing and consultation required in cases of technological change. It has the added advantage that these standards are agreed between employers and employee representatives, and can accordingly be varied as appropriate. The potential for conflict is thereby reduced as both parties have had input to the agreed standards. The ACTU, in its evidence to the Committee, expressed satisfaction with this approach to technological change consultation. The later report to the ACTU, `Australia Reconstructed', by the members of the ACTU/Trade Development Council Mission to Western Europe, expresses greater concern over the issue of promoting investment (including technological investment) by industry than with the issue of controlling the process of technological change. As indicated before, the nature of the debate has to some extent changed since the Committee took evidence and developed its findings. The necessity for technological change in order to enhance Australia's internationally competitive capability is more widely appreciated in the community, and the effects of technological change are becoming more clearly understood. Technology is seen as one of a range of factors in the strategy to achieve socially desirable outcomes from Australia's integration on a wider base than before in the world economy. The development of industry plans for appropriate sectors of the economy, with technological change as an integral part of these plans, has assisted in establishing the role of technology in the broader perspective. The plans are to provide more stable planning horizons for selected major industries, and to encourage employer/employee consultations to become more routine in these industries. Models have been developed for businesses to plan rational strategies for survival and growth-not least of these being the World Competitive Manufacturing program developed by the Commonwealth-State cooperative National Industry Extension Service (NIES). In parallel with this program is the Contribution of Labour Program, a strategic product being developed by NIES in recognition of the importance of human resources to the development of world class Australian firms. Encouraging employee consultations and participation are essential parts of these models. The debate over technological change has in fact largely shifted to the measures necessary to educate the community in the skills required to facilitate technological change and to make best use of technology. Concentration is now on the technologies which will provide the industry base of the future. The recent Government initiatives in the area of technical education are a part of the response to community perceptions of the role of technology in Australia's future. The data base on both the implementation of technology and its larger effects is expanding, although there is not at present a central repository of this information. The field is, however, so wide that it is sensible to look at coordinating those sources of information rather than attempting to gather them into one pool. They result from the activities of a diverse and growing range of bodies, which emphasise different aspects of technological change, undertaking studies on their own accounts. To centralise this process in a single body would risk the loss of the diverse perspective which is at present emerging. The Committee expressed the view that social impact assessment of technologies should be separate from technology innovation studies, which have as their aim facilitating technological change. On this basis it recommends the creation of a separate Technological Change Council from the Technological Change Committee of the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC). The Government perceives technology assessment as an integral part of technology promotion. The effective integration of new technologies requires a full understanding of their impact on those immediately concerned and the wider community. It is not convinced that the creation of a separate Council, further distancing technology assessment and promotion, is the appropriate means to facilitate necessary technological change. The Government recognises that the Technological Change Committee (TCC) of ASTEC has in its reports concentrated more on technology promotion than on the assessment of social impacts of change. Discussions will be pursued with ASTEC and the TCC to ensure their responsibilities are discharged with a broader viewpoint incorporating technology assessment. The Government believes that both ASTEC and the Commission for the Future should have continuing responsibilities in technological change. As set out in its latest annual report, the Commission for the Future was established to encourage Australians to become involved in the economic and social opportunities made possible by scientific and technological developments. By explaining the social impacts of science and technology and fostering the development of an innovative, productive culture the Commission demonstrates that all Australians can influence the future through informed choice. The Commission has successfully demonstrated its ability to undertake social assessment of specific technologies and of effects of technologies on disadvantaged groups. The impact of research into effects of technologies includes development of options for planning the introduction of technology into education and the workplace in order to avoid disadvantage. Further the Commission has already established a Clearing House on Future Issues which contains selected information on technological assessment issues from national and international sources. The Senate Standing Committee has also developed recommendations on the external evaluation of the Grants for Industry Research and Development (GIRD) Scheme and the National Industry Extension Service (NIES), and on expanding the role of women in the ASTEC and TCC structure. Evaluation of GIRD and NIES plays an important role in Government development of these measures. Careful consideration has indicated the minimum time which each will require for its effectiveness or otherwise to become apparent. Accordingly, it is intended to evaluate GIRD four years after its introduction (a year before its legislated life ends) and to evaluate NIES after three and a half years (1990). The role of women in the workforce, and particularly in areas where they can influence decisions which affect the whole community, has long been a concern of this Government. Indeed the Commission for the Future has undertaken some significant work in the areas of technological change and the impact on women. Affirmative action, equal opportunity policies and anti-discrimination legislation have all been directed towards ensuring that not only women but all groups in the community who are under-represented in the decision-making areas of the community achieve a more balanced representation. The Government has been particularly active in this concern in its own organisations and administrative structures. Accordingly the Government supports the Committee's recommendation to increase the representation of women on ASTEC, and will be acting to implement the recommendations when circumstances permit. The Report has highlighted many of the concerns of Government and the community in relation to technological change. Technological change is a diverse and dynamic field integral to many of the fundamental issues facing our society. Many of these issues are already being addressed or are achieving a consensus in the community. The Government believes that the Committee has identified many of the crucial issues facing the Government and the community, and will take account of the findings outlined in the report in further developing Government policy and the measures which effect them. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1: That the Senate review the operation of the Grants for Industrial Research and Development (GIRD) and the National Industry Extension Service (NIES) within two years of its commencing operations. Response: The enabling legislation for GIRD established the scheme for a five-year period only. Similarly, the Agreements with the States which established NIES are for five years, though with provision for extension, and require a review of NIES to commence after three and a half years operation. There are provisions that GIRD and NIES be reviewed for effectiveness and the programs will continue to exist only if their effectiveness can be demonstrated. To commence reviews of GIRD and NIES after two years of operation would, however, provide insufficient time for either to demonstrate its effectiveness, and to assess the strengths and weaknesses of each. Further, a principal element of Government industry strategy is to provide a stable, predictable environment within which enterprises can develop effective business plans. To introduce further reviews at an earlier stage would introduce an element of uncertainty which would itself be likely to prove more costly to Australia than the benefits to be gained by the reviews. Consequently the Government does not intend to change the established and agreed arrangements for reviews of GIRD and NIES. Recommendation 2: That priority be given to establishing within, or in association with NIES, a Clearing House for Information Material on the potential of new technological applications, and on the various problems that are faced in ensuring rapid adoption of these technologies. Response: NIES is not, of itself, a single organisation, but rather an arrangement between the Commonwealth and States to rationalise and coordinate the delivery of services to industry. While NIES provides a general information service to industry, establishing an effective Clearing House for Information Material is not seen by the Commonwealth or States as a high priority at this point. Furthermore, it would require considerable additional resources, at a time when Commonwealth and State, staff and financial resources are constrained. The NIES network may, however, prove suitable for the dissemination of social impact information generated by organisations active in that area. The Government does not, therefore propose to establish such a function for the NIES network, but in association with the States will continue to monitor and guide the evolution of NIES, particularly with respect to its Contribution of Labour Pilot Program and the development of its National Database of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies. The Government also notes the efforts of the Commission for the Future in establishing a Clearing House on Futures Issues. Recommendation 3: That a Technological Change (Sharing of Information) Act be introduced, requiring the provision of specific categories of information to employees and their unions in the course of consultation over technological change, and that such information also be lodged with a restructured `technological change council'. Response: The question of legislating to require the sharing of information to employees and their unions has been under consideration in the context of Government measures to facilitate participative practices. It should be noted that the Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI) and ACTU have recently released a joint statement on participative practices which will operate as a framework within which participation can be progressed on a largely voluntary basis. Guidelines and principles for information sharing on such matters as technological change are presented in that statement. The need for legislative intervention in this area will now be assessed by the Government against the experience over the next year or so of voluntary adherence to the principles of the Joint Statement. Recommendation 4: That the Government urgently implement the following recommendations made by the ASTEC/Technological Change Committee as a part of an educational campaign on consultation: That the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations consult with the union movement, employees and employers, to produce detailed proposals for the implementation of a voluntary scheme of firm-based consultation between management and workers on the introduction of new and improved technologies, to serve as a model from which other firms in fact develop more effective consultation mechanisms. The Committee adds the proviso that it believes that the information to be shared during consultations should be defined in legislation, and that the term `workers' should include their unions. Response: The main thrust of the recommendation is already being addressed by a number of agencies, including the Department of Industrial Relations (eg through the industrial democracy programs funded by the Work Organisation Branch of that Department) and the Commonwealth/State NIES Contribution of Labour Program, but also through detailed guidelines on information sharing issued by the National Labour Consultative Council, and through the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission determinations in 1984 in the Termination, Change and Redundancy Case which opened the way for insertion of consultation provisions in Awards. The Metal Trades Federation of Unions has developed a broad model for employer-employee agreement on introducing technological change, based in part on the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission decision of May 1987. As outlined in the response to recommendation 3, the question of legislating on such issues as information sharing as a means of further supporting the development of consultative processes will be kept under review. Recommendation 5: That a feasibility study into the establishment of an industry data bank be carried out as a matter of urgency. Response: In establishing NIES, the Commonwealth Government has moved away from the direct delivery of programs and services to industry (leaving this primarily to the State Governments). The policy is intended to coordinate and rationalise the separately developed programs and technology strategies of the States, each established in the light of specific conditions and considerations in that State. In the first instance, the establishment of data banks on industry are the responsibility of the State governments, based on their perceived priorities. However, the NIES structure is an appropriate mechanism for coordination and this includes the development of data bases pertinent to industry. Accordingly, the Government does not intend to establish a separate industry data base and will not, therefore, commission a feasibility study. Recommendation 6: That a Technological Change Council be established by restructuring the current ASTEC/Technological Change Committee to (a) carry out specifically impact-oriented assessments; and (b) manage a system of funding assistance to non-government organisations wishing to carry out technology assessments as a part of improving consultation in Australia. The Council should be provided with adequate resources. Response: The Government notes the Committee's finding that the Technological Change Committee has not been able to discharge its full responsibilities in the area of technology assessment. The Government intends to pursue with ASTEC and the TCC the most appropriate means to ensure that a broader viewpoint which incorporates technology assessment is brought to ASTEC/TCC studies. Recommendation 7: The membership of such a Council should ensure the representation of women's interests by women. Response: The Government strongly supports this recommendation and notes the measures already taken by Government in the area of equal opportunity, and positive measures to increase the representation of women in all areas, particularly those of vital concern to women. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That the next sitting of the Senate take place in the Senate Chamber of the new Parliament House. (2) That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Monday, 22 August 1988 at 4.00 p.m., or such other time as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy-President, and that the time of meeting so determined shall be notified to each Senator: Provided that the President, at the request of an absolute majority of the whole number of Senators that the Senate meet at a certain time, shall fix a time of meeting in accordance with such request, and such time of meeting shall be notified to each Senator. For these purposes a request by the Leader or Deputy-Leader of the Opposition in the Senate shall be deemed to be a request by every Opposition Senator and a request by the Leader or Deputy-Leader of the Australian Democrats shall be deemed to be a request by every Australian Democrat Senator: Provided further that a request may be made to the President by delivery to the Clerk of the Senate, who shall immediately notify the President. In the event of the President being unavailable, the Clerk shall notify the Deputy-President, or, should the Deputy-President be unavailable, any one of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees, who shall be required by the Senate to summon the Senate on behalf of the President, in accordance with this Resolution. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.10 a.m., pursuant to order the Senate will now proceed to Government Bills. Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Vanstone had moved by way of amendment: At end of motion, add: ``, but the Senate deplores the fact that: (a) the Hawke Government's economic and social policies continue to cause a fall in living standards for Australian families, and (b) the Prime Minister has refused to meet his 1987 election pledge that by 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty''. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs) —by leave-By making a short statement at the start of the debate on the Social Security Amendment Bill, I may help facilitate some understandings people have about the Bill. I refer specifically to two amendments that have been circulated-one in the name of Senator Vanstone and one in the name of Senator Powell-concerning German restitution payments for the purpose of the pension income test. The Government sees that it has the same objectives in achieving a final outcome in this matter. However, given the fact that there has been a lot of confusion and probably there still will be unless a very clear outcome is achieved, we are prepared to adopt and support the amendment of Senator Powell on behalf of the Australian Democrats. We do so on the basis, firstly, that it would achieve the same objective that the Government requires; secondly, that it does not involve the administrative problems that the other amendment would; and, thirdly, that it would clear up the matter once and for all. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.14) —Shortness of time requires each of us to confine our comments to the most important sections of each measure before the Senate today. The important section of the Social Security Amendment Bill which attracts me relates to restitution payments made by the Federal Republic of Germany. I am grateful for the statement just made by the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Senator Bolkus). I am just disappointed that he has not chosen to adopt Senator Vanstone's amendment-but, again, we are seeking a common objective. Victims of nazi persecution receive payments from the West German Government, and those payments are compensation for imprisonment, wrongful arrest, torture, loss of families and loss of livelihood. The problem here is that there has been continuing argument over the years as to whether those payments are income for the purposes of various income tests applied by the Department of Social Security in assessing entitlements to Australian pensions. There are theoretically three ways in which this matter could be fixed. The first would be by some executive action or by administrative instructions from the Department of Social Security. This has been tried and has not worked. I will set out the reasons for that in a moment. The second way is by subordinate legislation, by a regulation, and the third is by amendment to the statute. We believe as a result of long and bitter experience in this matter that only the last option will do the job. Only a statutory amendment will provide the protection to these people. The problem does not involve the stated intention of this Government or of governments that have preceded it. Governments have said that they want to ensure freedom of these payments from the income test. The trouble is that the Department of Social Security either has not been able or has not been willing to administer the rules to produce that effect. The history of the matter is as follows: Many people who suffered under the nazi regime in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s fled to Australia. After the war the West German Parliament passed the Federal Restitution Act to provide the victims of nazi persecutions with a pension in recognition of the grave injustices that had been perpetrated on them and their families. The pension is also payable to persons living abroad in countries with which West Germany has diplomatic relations. In the 1950s the Australian Federal Government wanted all those restitution moneys to be subject to income tax. The German Government threatened to stop paying restitution to Australian recipients on the grounds that the moneys paid were not intended and should not be used by the Australian Government for revenue raising purposes. In 1959 the Australian Government exempted restitution payments from income tax assessment by amending the definition of `income' in the various Acts and by introducing a new paragraph (kc) into the Income Tax Assessment Act. The exemption was further clarified in 1982 when a further paragraph (kca) was inserted in section 23 of the Act. But when the means and assets tests were introduced for the age pension in 1983 the situation altered. Problems arose as to whether the restitution moneys should be included in the assessments. It is quite apparent from the previous amendments that that was not the intention of governments. Originally the Department of Social Security wished to include all restitution payments in assessments of income for the old age pension. People objected and a number of applicants appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The watershed case was Artwinska v. Department of Social Security. In that case, mounted by Mrs Edwarda Artwinska, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal held that a pension paid to an applicant under the Federal Restitution Act should not be taken into account as income in determining her entitlement to benefits under the Social Security Act. That decision was supported later in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the case of Kolodziej v. Secretary of the Department of Social Security. However, the situation did not end there. Although Mrs Artwinska won her case, and although the later case was won, the Department of Social Security again decided to appeal and won a subsequent appeal. In Mrs Artwinska's case the Tribunal found: In short, the definition of `income' under S.6 of the Social Security Act 1947 does not comprehend or encompass restitution payments. The purpose of such payments is totally distinguishable from any other type of payments answering the description of `income'. The Tribunal determined that the Department of Social Security should pay the costs. On 9 October 1985 Senator Janine Haines of the Australian Democrats introduced a private senator's Bill to seek to exempt all restitution moneys from assessment. To the best of my knowledge that Bill has never been determined. Senator Powell says this amendment will determine the matter. So would our amendment have determined the matter, but we are grateful that some amendment will determine it. The Government's response at the time was to say that it would encompass the exemptions in a ministerial directive. In fact, there was a ministerial directive added to the departmental manual on 23 December 1985, in paragraph 5.295 and subsequent paragraphs. Problems arose within the Department as to how different branches handled applicants, and even how individual applicants were handled in a single branch. Further representations were made to the Minister because the departmental manual was not sufficient to ensure that all the people receiving restitution payments were treated in a similar fashion or that they were treated equitably. Some applicants were asked to bring all documents to be translated, which could have entailed suitcases of German documents, taking ages to translate. Others were asked to get specified information from the West German Government on the breakup of their payments, and the West German Government has refused to provide such details. In 1987 the situation was complicated still further because the Department of Social Security appealed against the principle of the Artwinska decision, and in fact the Department won that appeal. It was held in that judgment: . . . such payments to the applicant will continue to be regarded as `income' unless exemption is made in the Act in equivalent terms to that contained in Subs. 23(kc) inserted by the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act (No. 2) (1959) and Subs. 23(kca) inserted by the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (No. 4) Act (1982). In other words, the appeal judgment said that if we want to resolve the situation we have to insert in the Social Security Act the same provisions as we had in previous Acts. That is now what we wish to do. Since then the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) has introduced an amendment to the Social Security Amendment Bill, now before the Senate. The Government has done this to try to honour a promise to find an effective solution to the restitution payments problem. But the amendment the Government has introduced does not do what it purports to do. It does not resolve the problem. The Government's amendment goes round in a circle. It purports to add a new definition of `exempt income' with the proposed new subparagraph (ka), but it then adds a rider to that definition to exclude what it calls `an amount expressed to be paid for lost income'. In other words, this will put the matter right back into the Department for departmental interpretation, leading to the same unsatisfactory process we had before. Those who are in receipt of compensation for being incarcerated either in concentration camps or ghettos, or both, are assessed using a very complicated formula. This is why the Government's formula will not work. They are assessed on a percentage basis for loss of health, and a component of loss of health may be described nominally as a loss of earning capacity. The Government's proposed amendment could be interpreted by the Department, and on past experience might be interpreted by the Department, in such a way as to put this restitution payment back under the rubric of income. In other words, the purpose of the Government's amendment would then be defeated. There is a group of people who come under the Reichversicherung rules; that is, they would have been working in Germany between the years 1933 and 1939 and automatically under the then German legislation would have had sums deducted from their salaries, similar to compulsory superannuation payments. As a result of the nazi restitution laws in 1949, some of these people qualify for entitlements. Under the Government's proposed amendment these entitlements could still be interpreted as income for the purposes of the income test. Besides all this, I am not at all sure it is wise to have an interpretation built in, as the Government's amendment seeks to do, which again limits the application of the exemption by any amount defined as being income. For that reason it is necessary for us to proceed to look for another solution. We are grateful that the Government has produced some amendment: that at least is a token of its good faith in this matter. It is doing no more than seeking to put into the Social Security Act what already existed under income tax assessment procedures. It is a proper amendment but the amendment which the Government has introduced is not sufficient to achieve the purpose it set out to achieve; it is a defective amendment. Both the Opposition and the Australian Democrats have recognised that. Senator Vanstone has proposed an amendment which we believe would have put the matter beyond doubt. Senator Powell has produced an amendment, and we now learn from Senator Bolkus that it is the Government's intention to support the amendment produced by Senator Powell and the Australian Democrats. I must say that I am sorry that Senator Vanstone's amendment has not been chosen, but I do not really mind. At the end of the day I want the matter fixed. It is my hope that we will adopt an amendment-it looks as if it will be Senator Powell's amendment-acceptable to all parts of the Senate which will fix this matter once and for all and which will place beyond any doubt the status of restitution payments made to probably less than 1,000 old, sick people who were the victims of nazi persecution in a dark age almost half a century ago. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment which is being offered from the opposite side of the chamber in a spirit of compromise and in the pursuit of justice for the small group of aged people about whom we are speaking and for whom we are making these representations. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.26) —I rise in the second reading debate on the Social Security Amendment Bill 1988 with mixed feelings. The Australian Democrats are pleased to support this Bill, which is a straightforward machinery measure. It introduces amendments to the Social Security Act which in fact we sought from the Government last year. It also clears up some anomalies in the Social Security Act which, again, we identified during debate last year. The amendments which we had sought and which the Government is now introducing in this legislation include allowing sickness benefit recipients to receive benefit in arrears for a period in which they were too sick to lodge a claim for benefit. The previous time frame was impossible for some people, not necessarily a large number of people, and we are pleased to see that the Government is exercising some compassion in this area. The moves in terms of the restitution payments which Senator Peter Baume has referred to in his contribution were, we believe, an attempt to straighten out some administrative problems. The Government's subsequent expression of support for the Democrats' amendment makes it clear that, as the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Senator Bolkus) said at the beginning of today's debate, the Government's intention has been to do the right thing by those people who are receiving German restitution payments. We certainly welcome that outcome. Last year we moved amendments to extend eligibility to recipients of supporting parent's benefit and in this Bill the Government is extending eligibility to those parents whose child is eligible for the child disability allowance. We certainly welcome that. I have a further amendment along that line, which I will refer to in a moment, to extend further the eligibility for supporting parent's benefit to those supporting parents whose child is still in secondary education. As I said, the legislation also clears up some anomalies which we had been concerned about. They include the inconsistency in the application of assets testing of pensioners and beneficiaries, disadvantages caused to supporting parents unaware of their family allowance supplement entitlement until education payments were made and injustices caused to clients of the Department of Social Security by failure to allow for a large drop in income from a preceding period. The relevant dates are cleared up in this legislation, as are some anomalies caused by defining categories of the disabled in narrow and divisive ways. It gives me pleasure to see the Government amending the Social Security Act to ensure that all categories of disabled are referred to specifically. Since the International Year of Disabled Persons the physically, intellectually and psychiatrically disabled have been seen within the disabled community and support groups as distinct groups. It is good to see that the Government is now introducing its own amendments, following a process of Democrat amendments to reinstate the psychiatrically disabled in the legislation. This was the case when former Senator Grimes was Minister for Community Services, and was something that was supported by the Opposition. Last year the Government itself supported a Democrat amendment to include the psychiatrically disabled in some social security legislation. The Government is now finally accepting that it is in the interests of those people to be included in legislation. I would like to make some comments on the second reading speech and on general Government policy statements before I speak to my amendments. I find the Government's attitude to social justice, as expressed in its strong assertions, increasingly difficult to accept. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) assured us in his second reading speech that we can, on the one hand, continue to cut government spending and, on the other hand, meet the needs of Australians with income support. It was announced in the recent mini-Budget that measures would be taken to support and further advantage the business corporate sector. There was nothing in the mini-Budget of great significance, with the exception of the increase in the tax rebate for pensioners and beneficiaries. There is nothing of great significance for that large number of people in our community who are still dependent on the Government for income support and for services to reduce their dependency over time. As the Australian Council of Social Service, the peak welfare body, has pointed out in its response to the mini-Budget, the Government needs to recognise that with the reduction in the rate of tax on business and the failure to introduce a gold tax at this point, it has forgone revenue. The low income people and the dependent groups in our community will have to pay for that. This means that many social justice measures are still necessary. That is not to say that the Government has not introduced measures over time. The problems the Democrats continue to have with the protestations of strong social justice orientation is that these measures are applied slowly, they are applied grudgingly and they are applied in a manner which is too piecemeal. On the one hand, the Government's economic strategy seems to have a clear view-which is pushed on it by its corporate mates-of what business needs but, on the other hand, it does not seem to have a clear view of what is necessary for low income people. Two million Australians are still living in poverty. They are attempting to get out of that situation when the Government does not have an integrated approach to the problem. The business tax rate has been reduced from 49c to 39c, and personal income tax cuts are promised at the top level. It is significant that there is a difference of 10c in the dollar between business tax and the top personal tax. We will see what we have seen before-rorts. People will get into corporate setups and avoid their personal tax liabilities. Yet there has been no talk at all, not even a whisper, except from the Democrats in their mini-Budget proposals which were put the week before the mini-Budget, that the tax free threshold should rise for low income people. Certainly, the pensioners' rebate has been increased so that pensions will not be taxable, as they would have been if that had not happened, but there are still very many low income earners and pensioners who can earn only $10 a week above their pension level before they fall into the tax bracket. This is happening at the hands of a government which is reducing the tax liability for the corporate sector, which on average last year paid only 28c in the dollar. The Australian Democrats have said quite often that we would be happy if the corporate sector actually paid something like its tax threshold. As a group, its contribution to the tax base, the government revenue base, has gone down significantly in the past decade or so and the pay as you earn taxpayer is paying more. While the top rates go down, obviously the lower income earners will pay more. That squeeze is hurting. While the Government has introduced new payments for children and has increased some of its rent allowances and so on, it is still a very piecemeal approach when the basics are not handled. While we welcome many of the measures, we do not agree necessarily with the Minister when he claims in his second reading speech that social security policy is an area which shows a fundamental difference between the Government and the coalition. No-one should be fooled by this pretence that the Australian Labor Party and Liberal and National parties in the Parliament really have policies which are in fundamental opposition. The coalition continues to support Government legislation, particularly when it comes to Budget Bills, whatever happens. We heard Senator Stone in the mini-Budget Bills debate yesterday expressing considerable delight with the Government's moves and simply saying that perhaps the Government was not taking moves fast enough. What we have seen-and I am referring to the tax levels-is a move towards a much flatter tax base. Should the tax free threshold rise, obviously that will be the case even more so. The better off in the community are having their tax burden reduced significantly and the responsibility for the rest of the community has decreased. While we are talking about tax liabilities, the Government has an extraordinary proposal, which it intends to impose on the Labor Party, if it can, at the upcoming Labor Party Conference, to put an additional tax burden on another group of people in the community simply because they have undertaken tertiary education at some stage. This is totally against two principles. The first is that anybody who earns a high income has a responsibility to make a more significant contribution to the general revenue base; in other words, a progressive income tax system. The second is that education should be freely available to all with totally open access regardless of income either at the time of undertaking the education or at any future time. Thus, the Government is creating enormous anomalies and potential barriers for people making decisions about their further education. One of those principles relates to our future economic development, which governments should have at the front of their minds. This country needs to take further steps in the area of science and technology because it is lagging behind. We have a government which says that it wants young people to stay in education longer-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Powell, you are getting rather a long way from the Bill before us. I can understand your remarks on the availability of resources. This is rather off the subject of the Bill. Senator POWELL —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I am referring to remarks by the Minister in his second reading speech and to claims that his Party has a certain direction, which I think is called in question-and I will just conclude with this particular example-by the fact that one result will be that people will be less likely to become science teachers than history teachers since they will be paying more tax when the corporate sector is paying less. Specifically on the amendments which I will be moving, I want to refer very briefly to the German reparation payments. To the Democrats' delight the Government has seen that administratively the most efficient way to ensure that restitution payments are exempted is to exempt them purely from any income testing, which is what the Democrats' amendment does. It was proposed in the early private member's Bill in 1985 by Senator Haines. We are delighted with it. This is an important group of people. As the German Government has said, they should not be used in any way as a revenue-raising exercise for the Australian Government. We welcome the Government's support for the amendment and the Opposition's support for the same principle, as expressed by Senator Baume. Another one of my amendments seeks to reduce the difficulties which are experienced by people attempting to get the youth homeless allowance. The amendment reduces the qualifying period for eligibility and the administrative difficulties in assessing eligibility. I commend the amendment to the Senate. The efficiency and effectiveness of this allowance have been seriously undermined by unreasonably restrictive guidelines. A report by the Young Homeless Allowance Reform Group has shown that many young people are excluded from receiving the allowance because of the administrative problems and the strict criteria which apply. The Democrat amendment, to which I made a commitment in March, will make the allowance more accessible. Youth homelessness is a major problem. Mr Brian Burdekin, the Human Rights Commissioner, said in March that, although no one knows exactly how many, there are thousands of homeless young people in our society. In Melbourne alone it is estimated that there are more than 2,000 young people without housing on any given night. Yet only a handful, a hundred or so, are able to prove eligibility for the youth homeless allowance. The Democrats, therefore, commend the amendment to the Senate. The third amendment relates to increasing eligibility for the supporting parent's benefit, to make it available to all supporting parents whose children are still in secondary education. As I said, the Government has done something in this Bill for parents with disabled children. We commend to the Government the needs of supporting parents, particularly the needs of their children. The Government's proposals to have more young people stay at school and complete their secondary education are strongly supported by the Australian Democrats. The Government needs to realise that since the changes in eligibility for the supporting parent's benefit, evidence suggests that there has been considerable stress on many sole parent families whose older children want to stay in secondary education. Whilst the Government may say that other payments are available, the family dynamics-particularly the relationship between women and their teenage children-are often such that what the Government envisaged has not occurred. We believe that the best way to deal with this is to loosen eligibility for the benefit in line with the Government's policy to have children stay in secondary schooling. A good report by the Brotherhood of St Laurence entitled `Sole Parents and the 1987 Amendments to the Social Security Act', put together by Helen Morris and Jenny Threthewy, concludes: The mismatch of this policy change, its stated objective, and the kinds of sole parents affected was also noted. Sole parents reported new hardships as a result of the change. Women who have been out of the work force caring for children for many years, who have few educational qualifications and little work experience, require time, secure income support, and opportunities for further education and training if they are to return to work successfully. Sixteen years is too vulnerable an age for an adolescent child to be left unsupervised. It was thought more appropriate that the option of a supporting parent's pension remain open until the youngest child in the family had completed secondary school. . . I move this amendment in the spirit of that report, although my amendment was drafted before the report came out. I commend my amendments to the Senate. I support the measures the Government has introduced in this legislation and urge the Government to take these issues into serious consideration. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(10.45) —We are moving right along in this debate on the Social Security Amendment Bill 1988 in the shadow of a guillotine which was supported by the Australian Democrats. Now the Democrats are monopolising the time available for debate. Senator Walters —It is an absolute disgrace. Senator SHEIL —Yes, it is a disgrace. The Social Security Amendment Bill 1988 is a very wide-ranging Bill, as undoubtedly it has to be, because social security consumes 28 per cent of our Budget-billions and billions of dollars. As such it needs this fine tuning adjustment as we move along. The amendments contained in this Bill make me think that the Department of Social Security is in the grip of a boa constrictor. When the Department gets the coils off one limb it then has to fight because it finds the coils around another limb. The aims and objects of the Bill, as mentioned in the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), are: to ensure that every Australian resident obtains adequate income support as and when it is needed. to protect the revenue by ensuring that payments are not directed to those who do not require them. Those are very worthy goals which I am sure are shared by honourable senators on both sides of the House as well as by people in the Department of Social Security. However, the changes proposed in the Bill will hardly bring into effect the aims the Minister is talking about. I suppose that the whole problem results from the promising of huge welfare payments all the time. I think it is the old Confucian proverb gone wrong. Confucius said, `If you give a poor man a fish, he will eat for a day; but if you teach him to fish, he will eat forever'. The bleeding hearts of this world have changed that proverb to say, `That is no good. If you teach a man to fish, he will eat fish forever; you have to give him money so he can pick and choose what he eats'. Throwing money at poverty really is subsidising poverty. If the Government subsidises poverty it will get more of it. That is what is happening in Australia today. We need look only at the reports of all the committees that have inquired into poverty to see the enormous increase in problems. I think there are 400,000 children in Australia today existing below the poverty level. We are 160,000 housing units behind in the housing program. The problem is not getting better because the Government has attacked with promises of welfare. There is no mention anywhere that welfare should be temporary to get people over a rough spot. Instead, that welfare goes on and on, thus creating a welfare industry. It is not remarkable that there are many political advocacy groups that are utilising taxes. They have sprung up because various groups realise they can get their noses in the public trough. They are not as representative as they should be. They claim to have a huge membership and democratically elected executives. However, they really have not. Their memberships are low; they are in the grip of the executive. They are professional lobby groups that can drag money out of the Government. In regard to families, this legislation is supposed to be a family support package. It is not a family support package at all, it could be described more accurately as a family maintenance package. Ordinary families in Australia are starting off, as of today, $42 a week worse off than they were five years ago. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made that grandiose promise that no child in Australia would go hungry by, I think, the turn of the century. However, we have to look only at the increasing numbers of children whose position is worsening as a result of the present policies to see that this is not so. It is impossible to deal with every aspect of this Bill in the few minutes I have to speak. The restitution payments to the people who suffered under nazi Germany have had a checkered history. I am pleased to see that the problem is about to be fixed. I am also pleased that we have been able to come to some agreement on the amendments that have just been circulated. I know that the Opposition has one amendment and the Australian Democrats have two others. The Government has decided to accept the Democrats' amendment. We are reasonably happy about that because, generally, we are moving in the same direction. The Opposition is not opposed to the Bill, but I point out that if we keep subsidising poverty, we will get a lot more of it. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.51) —The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), in his second reading speech on the Social Security Amendment Bill 1988, stated very clearly-and I entirely agree with him-that no area more fundamentally shows the difference in approach between the Labor Government and the conservative Opposition than this area of social security. I agree with that statement wholeheartedly. The Opposition parties do not rely on the rhetoric of the Australian Labor Party. Let us look at some of the rhetoric that this Government has indulged in very recently, because it is important that people in the community understand exactly what that rhetoric is. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), prior to the last election, stated very clearly in a speech that no child will live in poverty by the year 1990. It was a ridiculous statement, and he has now backed away from that rhetoric. Indeed, none of the Government senators would agree with that rhetoric. Senator McKiernan —Ha, ha! Senator Reid —Senator McKiernan is laughing at the proposition. Senator WALTERS —Indeed, as the Opposition Whip says, the Acting Government Whip is laughing at the proposition that the Prime Minister could possibly try to hoodwink the community into believing that he is capable of fulfilling that undertaking. Last weekend, we saw the same sort of stupid headlines in the Weekend Australian, that this Government thinks will be believed by the community. It will not work because the Government has lost touch with the grass roots. The Prime Minister said that the delays in personal tax cuts-the Government refused to introduce them in the mini-Budget-would immediately raise living standards. Again, it is unsubstantiated rhetoric and it cannot occur because the banks, in response to that message, immediately put up their interest rates for home buyers. Let me turn to the problem that this socialist Government has. In the community there is a misconception that this is not a socialist government. Let people understand very clearly that this Government believes that it can spend public money, people's hard earned income, better than the families can. It has said, `We will take tax from you, we will not give you tax cuts, because we know that you may spend the money irresponsibly. We will give you back just as much as we think you should have'. Let me give the Senate a lovely example. The example I choose concerns legislation that was passed fairly recently, a few months ago, in regard to a family allowance supplement. In regard to this supplement the Government said, `There is a certain group of low income earners to whom we will give an additional amount of money'. That sounds very magnanimous, but let us look at what it is actually doing. For example, a single income earner with a dependent spouse and two children earning $330 a week gets $35 from the Government supplement. That is all very nice, but in point of fact he is taxed to the tune of $40.39. So this single income earner on $330 a week pays a tax of $40.39 and the Government gives him back $35 of it. It rips off the tax and then gives him back $35 of it because he is a low income earner. But what happens when that man decides that he wants to be responsible for his family and wants to earn a bit of overtime? If that man works 7 1/2 hours overtime, an extra day, he gets $90, but the Government takes off the handout, it takes off the $35 and taxes him in a higher bracket, and out of that $90 he gets $8.59. What man in Australia will work 7 1/2 hours to be given $8.59? What this Government does is make sure that that family stays on the welfare. It makes sure that that man says, `I am not going to work overtime, I am not going to take on the responsibility of looking after my family. I will stay on welfare and put out my hand for the $35'. Why does the Government not say to that low income family, `You have not got to pay the tax; we will cut your tax'? But no, it rips off the tax and then hands back $35. This means that that man has no incentive to work to look after his family responsibly and he then refuses to do any overtime. Let us look at the two different philosophies. The philosophy of this Government is, `We will keep people on social welfare. We will make them dependent on the Government'. Our philosophy is to introduce systems such as child endowment. Mr Menzies introduced that in 1941. When the Fraser Government realised that there were a number of families who were not entitled to the child endowment because it was given back as a tax rebate, it introduced a system whereby low income families did get their child endowment, and it was increased substantially, under the name of family allowance. So all the low income earners now get the family allowance. We did not tax them and give it back to them, but we gave it to them free of tax-a family allowance for all those low income families that did not earn enough to get a tax rebate. That is the basic difference. I agree with the Minister that there is a fundamental difference between the two parties. Recently the Weekend Australian had an editorial on just that situation. As honourable senators realise, I have spoken about this many times in the Senate. I spoke about it yesterday and I spoke about it last year- Senator McKiernan —You just go on and on and on. Senator WALTERS —And as the Acting Government Whip says, I go on and on and on about this. It is so important that we not destroy the incentive of the people of Australia. I do go on and on and on, and I will continue to go on and on and on about this issue. The Weekend Australian gave a rather tidy example of just how this Government is destroying incentive. It said that, unfortunately, some welfare programs encouraged long term dependency on social welfare. There are in our community some disadvantaged groups-well defined groups such as homeless youth-which can never look after themselves, and the Government must look after them. That is the Australian way and I would hate to see that position ever deteriorate. Let us look at an example that the Weekend Australian gave of how dependency can occur. Suppose a government decides that all people who smoke over 50 cigarettes a day put their lives unacceptably at risk. To combat this, that government decides to pay such people, who are duly certified by their doctor as cigarette addicts, $5,000 a year to quit smoking. Suppose a government said, `Everyone who smokes 50 cigarettes or more a day will be given $5,000 so long as they quit smoking'. Let us say that the program, in its first year, convinces 5,000 people to give up smoking. Its advocates can cite it as obviously very effective. However, the existence of the program has the unintended consequence of encouraging 10,000 more people to take up smoking 50 cigarettes a day to get $5,000 from the government to quit. Come the end of the day, those who had been smoking under 50 cigarettes a day are now smoking over 50 so they can get their $5,000 from the government, and we have 10,000 more people on welfare to get $5,000 by giving up smoking 50 cigarettes a day. The whole thing is just as simple example of how dependency can occur. When I was on the former Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, which looked into the illegal drug situation, we were given a very long term survey. Very few surveys of that nature have been done. The survey, which was taken over 30 years, was of two groups of delinquent children. One of the groups had had social welfare counselling for a number of years-I think for up to 10 years. Both groups were interviewed 30 years later. It was found that those in the group which had not had long term counselling by social workers had done very much better and were far happier with their lives than those in the group which had become dependent on long term counselling. I stress that the survey was done on two similar groups of youth and showed that those in the group that had had extensive long term counselling by social workers had become so dependent on social workers that they had not been able to cope as well when the counselling was taken away. That is exactly what this Government is doing to the people of Australia. It is forcing people to become dependent. Why does the Government not take its hand out of people's taxes? Why does it not say to them, `You don't have to pay the $40 tax'? Why does it not say, `We believe you need the $35 that we are giving you; therefore we will not touch your tax', thus allowing them to earn money and be responsible for their families? I believe that the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) was 100 per cent correct in his second reading speech: there is very definitely a fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition parties. Our whole philosophy is directed towards showing the people that they can be responsible for their families and towards creating incentive. The Government's socialist policy is to say to the people, `We'll tax you and we'll spend your money because we know how to do it a lot better than you do'. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.06) —Some people in the community are feeling great burdens of taxation and they feel left out by members of parliament and governments. Among those are the one-income earners with dependent spouses and children. As honourable senators will recall, in the 1970s I and a number of others developed a campaign on the question of families and family allowances. Some attempt was made to remedy the position, but it has now deteriorated to the extent that the overwhelming burden has been placed on those who earn wages and have a dependent spouse and some children. In particular, those in the middle income bracket, or the tradesman and above bracket, are feeling the pinch as has been indicated clearly by the taxation statistics which are available to honourable senators. In terms of average earnings the proportion paid in income taxation has increased significantly to an estimated level of three times that which existed in 1961-62. In other words, this year a taxpayer with a dependent spouse and two children is paying almost three times as much tax proportionately. The increase for single taxpayers has gone up by 60 per cent. What concerns me is that the Government has reduced corporate taxes but has ignored the most important business in Australia-that is, the business of bringing up families. Those with families are being discriminated against. They are being taxed blind and their family allowances have been frozen. That is a disgrace. Since 1976 these families have been robbed of more than $10 billion. They are the ones who will kick up at the next election. It is very important that the Government recognise that. The other day I spoke to somebody who is on a school board. He said that, whereas five or six years ago most of the requests for remission of fees were from low income earners, they are now from middle income earners; the middle income earners with families are suffering. It is very important-and I know some members of the Government are aware of the problem-for the policy makers in the Government to be aware of this because the reaction will come at the next election. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(11.10) —In the few minutes left for me to reply to this debate I would like to respond very briefly to the substantive amendments put up by the Australian Democrats that the Government is not agreeing to. The Government is agreeing to one of the amendments proposed by the Democrats, the one relating to the question of German restitution payments. In respect of the Democrats' amendment relating to the homeless youth allowance, it should be noted by the Senate that over the last few weeks the Government, recognising that there are some difficulties in this area-- Senator Reid —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy President. The Notice Paper and the motion that was passed yesterday indicate that the guillotine was to operate from 10 minutes past 10. The Government ate into that time this morning. If that is allowed to occur it will affect the whole program for the rest of the day. This debate should finish at 10 minutes past 11. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —By the resolution of the Senate, as interpreted by me and for me, the one hour starts at the time of the start of the debate, which was 10.13 a.m. Senator Reid —Mr Deputy President, if we go over time all day the program will slip and slip. I was told that the guillotine was to operate from 10 minutes past 10 a.m. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —If the Senate takes up time between debates on the Bills that will be added to the total time of debate in this place. The one hour or half hour, as the case may be, starts only when the debate starts. Senator Reid —I make the observation that it seems that one rule applies to the Government's handling of this matter and another rule applies to everybody else. Senator BOLKUS —I am quite prepared, in order to satisfy Senator Reid, to end my remarks now. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The time allotted for consideration of the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is that the second reading amendment moved by the Opposition be agreed to. Question resolved in the negative. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(11.13) —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- Page 2, paragraph 3 (a), lines 21 and 22, leave out ``(other than an amount expressed to be paid for lost income)''. (1) Page 4, paragraph 5 (1) (b), proposed paragraph 44 (3) (aa), line 1, leave out ``either of the following subparagraphs applies:'', insert ``any of the following subparagraphs apply:''. (2) Page 4, paragraph 5 (1) (b), after proposed subparagraph 44 (3) (aa) (i), insert the following new subparagraph: ``(ia) the child is a student child and is undertaking a full-time course of secondary education; or''. (3) Page 4, subclause 6 (1), paragraph (a) of the definition of ``supporting parent'', lines 13 and 14, leave out the proposed paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(a) has a dependent child who: (i) has not attained the age of 16 years; or (ii) is a student child and is undertaking a full-time course of secondary education; or''. (4) Page 6, after subclause 11 (1), insert the following new subclause: ``(1a) Section 118 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting paragraphs (8) (a), (b) and (c) and substituting the following paragraphs: `(a) does not live, and for a continuous period of at least 2 weeks has not lived, at a home of the parents, or of a parent, of the person because: (i) the parents are not, or neither parent is, prepared to allow the person to live at such a home; or (ii) other circumstances make it unreasonable to expect the person to live at such a home; and (b) is not receiving, on a continuous basis, any payment in the nature of income support (other than a benefit) from the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory;'.''. Senator Powell —I seek leave to have the questions put separately. Leave granted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question is that the amendment circulated by Senator Powell to paragraph 3 (a), to leave out the words `other than the amount expressed to be paid for lost income', be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question now is that the other four amendments, numbered 1 to 4, circulated by Senator Powell be agreed to. Question resolved in the negative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(11.14) —This morning we are debating with limited time, because of the guillotine imposed on us by the Government and supported by the Australian Democrats, the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. This is a very important piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that in the coalition's view deserves a much more substantial debate than the guillotine will permit. But such is the management, or mismanagement, of Government business in this chamber and such is the fickle nature of the Australian Democrats, who frequently say one thing and do another. I am referring to their general pronouncements to the community that they want ordered debate in this chamber and in Parliament-although it does not concern them very much in the House of Representatives because they do not have any members there-they want sufficient time for debate and they want Bills to be considered properly. That is what they tell the community consistently. Yet, consistently, when it serves their own purpose they agree with the Government to gag debate. In this instance they have agreed to a guillotine which, as you know, Mr Deputy President, has reduced the amount of time available for debate not only on this very important Bill but also on many others that are being jackbooted through this chamber as a consequence of two things. One is the Government's desire to get away to Tasmania and fix up the problems with its conference. We do not notice the Government saying that it is going to call off its conference, that it has important business to get through the Senate and that its responsibility is to the Parliament rather than to its own Party. No, instead the Government says, `Let's jackboot this all through and if we can do some cosy little deal with the Democrats we will'. The Democrats, being, as I have said, somewhat fickle and inconsistent, have agreed to that. I will not go on about that matter because it will cut down my own time to address some of the matters in the Bill before us. As a nation we obviously seek to improve the opportunities for all, whatever their age and status in the community, but there are two groups who quite obviously deserve special care and attention. One group is the young, because the nation will be relying on them to build opportunities for everyone. That is a point at which we can make some real achievements in improving opportunities for people. The other group that deserves special attention is the aged. We should see care for the aged as a responsibility of the highest level. Indeed, we should see care for the aged as being a privilege in that they have made their contribution and we, who are capable of improving their lot and opportunities in the later years of their lives, should do so. Aspects of a second reading amendment that I will move indicate the concern that we have for the ageing in the community, a concern that we do not believe is adequately shared by the Government. The matters that we are concerned with and that we believe are not appropriately addressed in this piece of legislation are as follows: We are concerned with the quality of care and the standards that are available to the ageing in our community. Obviously, it follows from that that we are concerned that there must be adequate staffing levels to care for the aged in our community in nursing homes and hostels. It follows from that that there must be adequate financial support for the aged care industry. There are some in this community who believe that it is inappropriate to have an industry of aged care, that perhaps people ought not be able to make money out of looking after the aged. Of course, that is a ridiculous assumption. The aged need to be looked after. The Government is not going to do it, and we should be grateful that the private sector wants to fill that gap. We should be working with the private sector to give it every opportunity to care for the aged in the community at the level to which we believe they are entitled. Of course, if we are to have the appropriate quality of care and standards we have to have sufficient nursing home beds. We are concerned about the practical consequences of this legislation. The Government does not seem to put much store on practical consequences. I use as an example of that its own legislation with respect to the referenda Bills, which was discovered last Friday to have a practical consequence that the Government did not want. As a result we have seen some very last minute changes, again jackbooted through this chamber with the support of the Democrats. That example shows that this Government does not pay sufficient attention to the practical consequences of the words that it puts in legislation before both chambers. That is quite obvious. But we are concerned with those consequences. Our reservations are shared by the industry, which has serious concerns with this legislation. It is no surprise that the Government has not taken industry views into account and does not give its views the same weight as we do. Consequently a portion of our second reading amendment requests the Government not only to consult closely with the industry but also to conduct a review of the standards for a classification incorporated in the residential classification instrument (RCI). It is typical of this Government to embark on a piece of legislation without adequate consultation and understanding, and that, as I say, is reflected in our second reading amendment. Let me detail some of the concerns that have been expressed by the industry. On the one hand we have the Government, through its slick media machine, making much of extra staff care hours. Someone listening to the Government propaganda would undoubtedly endorse extra staff care hours and be pleased that the Government was doing that. They might think twice if they listened to what the industry had to say, because the industry says that the extra staff care hours add up to an extra 36 seconds per hour per day. Perhaps the Government should consider that; I hope Australians who are listening to this debate appreciate the point. The Government says it is giving extra staff care hours to the nursing home industry while the industry is saying, `Yes, that is true, but why doesn't the Government say it is only an extra 36 seconds per hour per day? You cannot give much extra care to a nursing home resident in 36 seconds'. Even if we put it all together and say it is another 12 or 13 minutes a day, it is not much. The Government makes much of its concern for quality care for the ageing in our community and yet the industry says that this legislation will force many people from nursing homes to hostels. Necessarily the level of care available to them will be lower. That has obvious implications for the standard of care that they will receive. The major area of concern expressed by the industry surrounds the resident classification instrument. That is seen as being the means by which the Minister imposes on the community the standard of care that he will allow the industry to provide rather than what the industry may think is appropriate. As I understand it, the new proposals will be phased in. There is a reason for that phasing in. The Government does not want to face particularly Victoria and South Australia, Labor States which believe that nursing home standards in their States will suffer substantial reductions as a consequence of this legislation. It is because they are concerned that the Government is seeking to phase it in, to do it bit by bit and hope they do not notice. But any aged person in a nursing home is obviously going to notice. It does not matter whether it is done all in one lump or bit by bit, the Government will still in effect be reducing standards. People in all States, but particularly Victoria and South Australia are concerned with what they see as an impending reduction in nursing home standards. One other matter the Government makes much of is an alleged $130m increase in funds. The industry says, `Why can't we get details of where that $130m is going to be spent?' It sounds very much like the Priority One: Young Australia promises. Honourable senators will remember them. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised three years ago that by our bicentennial year, this year, we would have 70,000 young people per annum entering traineeships. That was just a gigantic joke. It was a con job. When we asked for the details of the program we could not get them, and we realised that the details had not been sorted out. That was why we could not get them. I draw an analogy between the failed Priority One program that promised everything to young Australians and gave them nothing, because the detail had not been properly worked out, and the Government's claims of extra nursing home funding. The industry says it cannot find the details, and it does not think it is getting any extra money. The Government, further, makes much of its fraud crackdown. All I want to say is that the powers are there; the Government can use them. It does not need to make a song and dance about a crackdown on fraud. No-one would suggest that we ought to allow fraud to continue in any area, least of all in the nursing home area. There is no need to politicise the nursing home area, but that is obviously what the Government is doing. It is playing politics with the aged, and there is an obvious reason for that. Many of the aged have limited financial resources and in many instances waning intellectual resources. They are not as capable as young Australians and those in the middle years of their life of arguing with the Government. They have to depend on other people to do it for them. They have to depend on the nursing home industry, the aged care industry, to do that. Of course, the aged care industry is always subject to the accusation by the Government and others, `But you are speaking from self-interest'. Of course they are not speaking purely from self-interest; they are speaking on behalf of many ageing Australians who cannot speak for themselves. My colleague Mr Blunt, the shadow Minister for Community Services and Health, quoted in the debate in the House of Representatives on 28 April some specific comments by members of the industry. In the limited time I intend to take up I will refer to a couple of those because they do reflect the attitude of the industry, of the people who are actually caring for ageing Australians, to the Government's legislation. In the Age newspaper of 25 April, in an article headed `New system for subsidising care for the elderly is a sham', a Mr McKernan, the Executive Director of the Villa Maria Society for the Blind, stated: Under the proposed new system of categorising patients, it is almost impossible to have any patients in the top scoring bracket. The categorising procedure gives no consideration to any allowance for sensory loss . . . The industry does not believe its views have been listened to. I turn to what the Baptist Union of Victoria, another non-profit organisation, had to say: For some reason unknown to us the Hawke Government refuses to listen to the workers in this matter. More information from that quotation was provided in the other chamber, but I will limit the points I want to make. The Baptist Union said, in respect of the RCI: There is no undertaking to review the system used to classify nursing home residents into five categories, despite the demonstrated fact that in its present form, very few nursing home residents come into category 1 unless the form is misinterpreted. It also says: The statement that residents in Victorian nursing homes would receive an average of 20 hours per resident per week means nothing until the level of Commonwealth payment per hour has been settled. When this legislation was going through the House of Representatives those voluntary organisations and others to which I will not refer were clearly unhappy with the negotiations they had been having with the Government and the level of understanding they believed the Government had of them. As I indicated earlier, there are some groups in the aged care industry which are there because of a profit motivation. One of the major profit motivated groups in the industry is the Moran Healthcare Group. This is what it had to say: The Resident Classification Instrument is basically designed so that service needs of residents fit into what the Minister is prepared to allow. Subjective assessment has replaced the objectivity of the Resident's General Practitioner. I could go on with many more comments not only from the Moran Healthcare Group but from other profit motivated groups but I think the point has been made. As a consequence of the guillotine, the jackbooting of this legislation through the Senate, with the support of the Australian Democrats-who say that they will not support a guillotine-I think it is appropriate that I say no more to give my colleagues an opportunity to comment on this legislation. I move: At end of motion, add: ``, but the Senate: (a) is concerned that aspects of the Government's aged care policy will result in: (i) a reduction in the quality and care standards for some aged persons through the use of inappropriate standards for the classification of nursing home and hostel residents in the Resident Care Instrument (RCI); (ii) the provision of inadequate staff levels to provide appropriate standards of care for many frail aged patients, particularly those with sensory loss; (iii) reduction in levels of financial support for the aged care industry which could threaten the financial viability of many facilities; and (iv) insufficient exempt beds through the imposition of an arbitrary 6% limit; and (b) requests the Government to not only consult closely with the industry, but conduct a review of the standards for classification incorporated in the RCI''. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs) —Mr Acting Deputy President, a number of amendments have been moved on behalf of the Government and I seek leave at this stage to explain some of them in the spirit of trying to organise some agreement on them. Leave granted. Senator BOLKUS —There are a number of amendments. The first seeks to rectify in clause 5 of the Bill a minor drafting error by the substitution of the word `benefit' for the word `prescribed'. The second amendment, which seeks to insert new clauses 29 and 30 into the Bill, is important. It represents the Government's response to amendments moved by the Opposition in the House of Representatives. In brief, those amendments sought to strengthen the anti-dumping provisions in the Bill. The Government carefully examined these proposals and accepted their thrust as supporting the Government's intention of making anti-dumping provisions effective. The Government's amendments would amend section 74 (5) of the National Health Act 1953 to do two things. Firstly, it would increase penalties on the public officer of a health benefits organisation which dumps or breaches any other condition of registration, provision or direction. The penalty is increased from $5,000 to $10,000. Secondly, the amendments would exclude a registered organisation from reimbursing the public officer for meeting any fine. Proposed new section 74ba essentially picks up in full the listing proposed by the Opposition in the other place of additional actions which may not be taken by a health benefits organisation seeking to dump a contributor. It imposes a fine of up to $50,000 on organisations which undertake such actions. As a result of the approach I outlined, paragraph (1g) in clause 30 of the Bill is now not required. The Government considers that its approach, as explained, achieves the objectives of both the Government and the Opposition in this matter. During the lead-up to the debate on the Bill Senator Coulter expressed concern about the need to ensure proper consultation with various consumer, industry and professional bodies when the Government carried out reviews of its arrangements for the categorisation of nursing home residents. The Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) wrote to Senator Coulter on 18 May 1988 indicating the Government's intention to involve relevant consumer organisations, industry associations and union and professional bodies in the monitoring process and in the subsequent review of the new arrangements. The Minister also gave his unqualified assurance that he would be seeking the advice of all the national bodies with an interest in arrangements for care of the aged and that he would take account of that advice in regular review of the principles governing the new resident classification instrument and the associated program arrangements. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(11.35) —The Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 seeks to change the operation of a number of Acts of this Parliament but in particular it seeks to modify two aspects of legislation. One is to do with hostels and nursing home care services, their funding, the arrangements by which patients will be assessed, and the hours which will be allocated to patients. That matter was addressed by Senator Vanstone. The other main area concerns the pre-existing ailments provisions in relation to the transportability of benefits within the health insurance system. I turn to the nursing homes and hostels provisions. The Bill represents the implementation of stage four in a Government strategy which has been developed over a period. It is therefore to be seen in the context of a continuous process of development. It involves the restructuring of hostels and nursing homes so that the provision of various levels of care is brought more into line with needs and that those needs are based on the assessment of individual patients requiring those various levels of care. As indicated by the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Senator Bolkus, a number of representations have been made to me-I believe they would have been made to other senators-in relation to the adequacy or otherwise of the provisions in this Bill. Those representations were made both by suppliers of the services to those requiring care and also by the various consumer groups. The representations were of two sorts. I was disappointed that Senator Vanstone confused the two important elements of those representations. They involved, on the one hand, the strategy which is laid out in this legislation and, on the other, the implementation of that strategy. There seemed to me to be enthusiasm and broad support for the strategy as laid out by the Government for bringing some semblance of order into the provision of the various levels of care. However, at the same time a great deal of concern was expressed as to the implementation of that strategy. That involves a great deal of detail as to how hours of care were to be allocated to individual patients. I want to pick up that point in more detail later. The Australian Democrats will not seek in any way to amend any parts of this Bill dealing with nursing homes. As Senator Vanstone has indicated, most of the people who finish up in nursing homes are indeed the aged-some 95 per cent-but a small but significant group, about 5 per cent, are the disabled young. In the past there has been considerable inequity between the various levels of care. Those who could afford private care were more adequately catered for than those who could not. The intrusion of the private suppliers of the care, those who were profit oriented, led to an imbalance between the provision of various levels of care. Many people requiring some small level of care in their own homes were being admitted to hostel care and eventually into full nursing home care. We had seen over time the development of more nursing home beds than were required with the development of a more expensive system in which fewer people were able to stay in their own homes. Smaller provision was made for hostel care, that intermediate level of care. The Government is to be congratulated for the thrust of its policy. The policy is consistent and it is based on the report of the Nursing Homes and Hostels Review. As I have indicated, a very haphazard development of various levels of care had developed. It was ill-controlled and it was extremely costly to provide the quality of care demanded. The report states on page 8: The practice has been for the States- and I think `States' is to be broadly interpreted- to set standards and for the Commonwealth to pay. In other words, the Commonwealth had very little control over what it was getting. This 1985-86 report also set out the philosophy and goal to guide the new programs. This is what this part of the present process is based upon. Page 3 of the report states: Aged and disabled people should as far as possible be supported in their own homes, in their own communities. As I have indicated, that was progressively being abrogated by the provision of unnecessarily expensive nursing home care. The report further states: Aged and disabled people should be supported by residential services only where other support systems are not appropriate to meet their needs. Services should be provided in an atmosphere and using processes which promote as far as possible rehabilitation and restoration of function. This indicated that more than a bed was required. Yet thrusting many of these aged people into nursing homes led to that development and thus the basis of the strategy. It is stated on page 4 of that report, among other points: There should be an assurance of service availability when that point of need is reached. Services should, as far as possible, be provided to people in their own localities and in forms which positively encourage independence and involvement in the person's own community, including the special needs of ethnic communities and Aborigines, and people in rural areas. This was a very considerable defect and still is a considerable defect. There is markedly insufficient provision of care for ethnic communities, for Aborigines and for people with rural backgrounds who require services consistent with their cultural backgrounds. Another point made in the report states: The point of entry to any form or level of service should be through assessment; assessment should cover three components-initial assessment of the appropriate level of care and service mix; ongoing monitoring of the need for the service; and reassessment for higher levels of service. Again, that is addressed in this legislation by a complicated mechanism which Senator Vanstone has referred to and which I want to address again in a moment. The report also states: All services, regardless of level, should be provided to a reasonable and adequate standard of care; standards should focus on outcomes and processes, not just inputs. Again, that is addressed in this legislation. For many years there have been calls for reform in the nursing home and hostel industry. These problems have stemmed from the fact that too many of the resources have been going into nursing homes with very little development of other options such as hostels or better support for home care. This has resulted in many people occupying nursing home beds who did not need them and people being kept out who did need them. The cost of the provision of those services had substantially got out of control. Many aged people could not afford the care which they desperately needed. There was also a growing burden on the taxpayer. The standard of care in many homes was poor because there were inadequate funds for those lesser levels of support. There has been a substantial growth in the proportion of people in the community who are aged. It is important to recognise that the Government is correct in addressing this problem now in this staged way because we are not simply shooting at a fixed target; we are shooting at a target in which the number of people requiring care at the various levels will progressively increase. Figures show that in the 70-plus age group there is about a 3 per cent increase per annum and that in the 80-plus age group there is about a 4 per cent increase per annum. Those are yearly increases and are leading to very substantial increases in the number of people requiring care. The median age of the population in homes and hostels is in the 80 to 89 age group. That is precisely the group that is increasing at a rate of about 4 per cent per year. There has been a great deal of misconstruction based on the increasing number of older people. It has become one of the arguments used to support an increase in the migration program. I point out that increasing the number of migrants, even if their average age is less than that of the Australian population, only addresses a decrease in the average age of the population while those migrants are coming in. If the average age of migrants is five years less than the average age of the Australian population, five years on those same migrants will have attained the average age and they will continue to age just like the Australian population. At the same time the bringing in of that migrant population requires that we provide special services, as I have already indicated, for those aged migrants needing particular care which is based on their cultural background. The important thing to recognise is that there has been a substantial fall in labour force dependency. In 1961 that dependency ratio was 1:1.43. By 1981 it had fallen to 1:1.18. It is projected that by the year 2021 it will still be only 1:1.17. In other words, if we are looking at the number of people in the community available to support those who are dependent-that includes both the young and the old-the ratio in the year 2021 will still be less than the ratio in 1981. That indicates that what we have here is not a problem in relation to the finding of funds for support of aged care against a static demand elsewhere in the economy; we have a considerable need to shift funds from the young to the old. That, of course, poses considerable political problems which we are seeing develop, for example in the closure of schools. Clearly, the figures in relation to the dependency ratio are the more relevant figures to use when we are considering the provision of aged care. I turn to the details of the principles by which hours will be allocated to particular patients. Those hours will be made up by an assessment of patients when it is thought that they require entry to hostels or nursing homes and a reasonably complicated formula will be applied. It contains a number of elements and within each of those elements a number of levels of hours which can be allocated. It is those details of the principles which have been the main concern both of the providers of health care in nursing homes and hostels and of the consumer groups and potential consumers. I recall that the other day Senator Walters raised the issue of the allocation of hours in relation to incontinence and the allocation of hours in relation to people requiring movement into wheelchairs. I must say that when I first looked at this it seemed to me that that formula was inappropriate. However, the matter is one of great complexity and it now seems to me that because of that-- Senator Walters —But you have to vote for the Government so you will find excuses. Senator COULTER —It is an element of great complexity. What is required is a great deal more information which can be derived only from applying a formula as well as one can construct one and as close as possible to needs and then very closely monitoring the performance of that formula and allowing that review to progressively modify the formula until one gets closer and closer to one which more adequately meets real needs. With that in mind, I have entered into considerable negotiation both with the individual groups and with the Minister. As Senator Bolkus has indicated, the Minister has given an unequivocal assurance that that review will be conducted on an ongoing basis. It will involve both the providers and the users of services and it will address this critical question of the principles which will guide the allocation of hours. I would like to read into the record the assurance which the Government has given and invite any of those groups or individuals who are concerned to obtain a copy of this letter from me. I think it addresses the very issue which the Opposition is trying to introduce by way of an attachment to the second reading. The Minister stated, inter alia: . . . the Government has committed itself to effective consultation in developing and implementing measures to reform the programs for the care of the aged- that is what has happened in the past- This has taken the form of: involvement of people from the industry and the relevant professions in the development of the new system; consultations in all States and Territories; and discussions/negotiations with national consumer, industry, union and professional bodies. . . . it is my intention to involve the relevant consumer organisation, the industry associations, and union and professional bodies in the monitoring process and in the subsequent review of the new arrangements. I consider it most important to have their involvement to ensure that the monitoring process takes due account of any difficulties they might encounter and that these concerns are also considered in the development of modified arrangements. I am therefore pleased to give you an unqualified assurance that I shall be seeking the advice of all of the national bodies with an interest in arrangements for the care of the aged and that I will take account of that advice in regular review of the principles governing the new resident classification instrument and the associated program arrangements. I take that as an unequivocal undertaking on the part of the Government to carry out that review. Moreover, I understand that the figures in relation to the working of the scheme will be provided by the various hostels and nursing homes to the Department on a monthly basis. Once the personal and confidential information has been removed from that data it will be given back to the individual nursing homes and at any stage, but at least within 12 months, that data will be the basis of a review of those principles which, as I have indicated, are extremely complicated. I certainly would not like to try to write a new formula which would more adequately address the problems. I think the only way one can do that is to go into the marketplace, apply a formula as best as one can construct it and, having done that and collected the data, then review that data and modify the formula as one goes along. I turn very quickly to the other main section which has caused a great deal of concern; that is, the pre-existing ailment rule and the way in which the Government has changed tack. Having set up a system in which, presumably believing in the operation of the free market, it has allowed the entry of health insurance companies which have been able to offer both lower premiums and higher benefits in a free, competitive market situation, it is now attempting to change that rule and allow portability for people with pre-existing ailments. This means that those with these ailments are free to transfer from one of the older funds, which have in the main higher premiums and lower benefits, across to newer funds which have come in under this competitive market system and to claim immediately, without any preliminary qualifying period, benefits in that new fund. Personally, I think honourable senators would know that I am not in any way enamoured of the operation of the free market. I do not believe that the market does best serve the common good. I think that is eminently provable; it is eminently demonstrable. However, both the Government and the Opposition have frequently defended a great number of programs and policies on the grounds that the free market will indeed best serve the community interest. Just this morning, for instance, we have seen the possibility of police investigation of the release of information in relation to Australia's foreign exchange rate which has evidently led some people to make profits of up to $1m overnight. Criticism is made of those who may have leaked the information. I would aim the criticism quite squarely at those who have created a free market situation which has allowed those sorts of things to occur. But having said that, it seems to me that both the Government and the Opposition should be consistent in this matter and should not have set up a system and then turned round and changed the rules. Had there been an opportunity to move an amendment to abolish the pre-existing ailment provisions which are here included, I would have done that. However, that opportunity is not available to us and I will not be doing that. I understand that the Opposition could not support such amendments. In summary, the Australian Democrats will not be supporting the attachment which has been moved by the Opposition because we believe that it prejudges many of the issues about which we do not have enough information. In relation to the Opposition's claims of a reduction in the quality and care standards, I believe that the overall quality and care of the standards will be improved. That is the main thrust. But it will depend upon the working out of the formula in some detail. It remains to be seen whether that formula adequately or inadequately addresses the issues. On the other point-that is requesting the Government not only to consult closely with the industry but also to conduct a review-I point out that that process has already been set in place on a very firm undertaking by the Minister, and I believe that the Minister will not go back on his word. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(12.00) —I rise on behalf of the Opposition to address myself to some aspects of the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1988, as they relate to the operations of certain sectors of the health insurance industry and as they amend the National Health Act 1953, in particular to clauses 29 and 30. As Senator Coulter was saying a few moments ago, these clauses deal primarily with the operation of the so-called pre-existing ailment rule. To all intents and purposes as long as there has been a system of organised health insurance arrangements there has been some form of pre-existing ailment rule in place. The rule, in essence, is that when one joins a fund one has to wait 12 months before one can be refunded, rebated or receive a benefit for any ailment one had at the time of joining the fund. The law is quite specific in this regard. It refers to having `signs' or `symptoms' at the time of joining. One does not necessarily have to have identified those signs or symptoms oneself. That can be established by a medical referee if there is a dispute. There is a good reason for this. It is improper, after all, to think that one can wait to take out health insurance until one feels one is going to be in need of insurance to cover a particular ailment. Health insurance, the way it operates in Australia at the moment, is very much a system whereby the healthy subsidise the sick. Such a system would not be possible in the absence of a rule such as the one I have just described. Nevertheless, prior to 1984 another simple principle applied: if one was insured but chose to change to another fund, it was reasonable not to have the pre-existing ailment rule apply. That seemed quite reasonable. Unfortunately, such a principle suffered from a major defect in some respects. Historically, the longer a fund is established and the longer the contributors stay in that fund the more likely the contributors are to become ill. They get older. And in Australia the elderly are the maximum consumers of our health care dollar. Prior to 1984 a large new fund was established-Medibank Private. There is evidence that some of the other funds suddenly discovered that the new participants in health insurance were going to this new fund because they perceived it as offering better benefits or lower premiums or because they had been seduced by government advertising. All of a sudden, some of the established funds saw their portfolios getting out of balance. They no longer had sufficient young, non-claiming contributors to balance the cost of the older, claiming contributors. They responded with a simple solution. In the industry it is known as dumping. They started to induce or encourage people to join another fund or, by plain bad service, discourage people from renewing their existing membership and to take their illness with them, as there was no pre-existing ailment rule when transferring from one fund to another. That became such a problem that in 1984 this Government decided to apply the pre-existing ailment rule to transferring from one fund to another. There is evidence that, to stop the process of dumping, people were being offered one year's free contributions to the new fund if they would shift. Other inducements were offered to private hospitals and other places to encourage long-term, chronically ill patients to leave. Clause 30 of this legislation proposes to go back to the pre-1984 situation. The amendments which have been put before us by the Minister on behalf of the Government this morning deal with the whole question of dumping. They go centrally to it. There are a number of problems which transfers between funds can, from time to time, occasion. Speaking in the House of Representatives on 28 April 1988, the shadow Minister for Health, Mr Wilson Tuckey, gave an example which was recently drawn to his attention. A husband and wife had a family membership in a fund, one spouse being quite healthy and one having a pre-existing ailment, as a result of which neither could shift. The Opposition agrees with the right of consumers to shift from fund to fund. The Government has attempted to resolve some of the problems of dumping in the amendments which are before us. It wishes to give people this right, whilst recognising the opportunity for one fund to dump onto another. There is quite a lot of argument about dumping. Some spokesmen in parts of the industry almost deny its existence. They say that, after all, an organisation which overtly attempted to dump contributors would soon be exposed in the marketplace, that word of mouth would get the details around, and that other people would be discouraged from joining on the basis that they might in future be dumped. All of these claims have to be regarded with a great deal of scepticism. To the extent that one can make any judgment about this matter the evidence is largely anecdotal, but all of us are aware that dumping takes place. It is unfortunate that when the Government first introduced this legislation it had not addressed questions of penalties, nor had sought to tighten up its own legislation to the extent that was necessary. This was not only unfortunate in terms of the operation of the whole health care and health insurance system but was also an obligation which the Government should have taken up, as one of the funds most likely to be dumped upon is the Government's own fund, Medibank Private. The Opposition did not think that the penalties provided were adequate, and thought that some of the remedies were administratively extremely cumbersome. For example, section 82r of the National Health Act contains a whole complex series of procedures which have to be observed in order to enforce compliance with the conditions of registration of registered organisations under the Act. As a result of the Opposition's considerations, we drafted a series of amendments which were introduced into the House of Representatives by Mr Wilson Tuckey. The Government, at the time, did not feel it was in a position to adopt those amendments. It subsequently considered its position and has brought before the Senate this morning its own amendments, which in large part pick up the amendments originally suggested by the Opposition. On examining the proposed amendments in detail, the Government has obviously considered that advantages accrue to it in substantially accepting them. It has, therefore, moved this series of amendments. First, subsection 74 (5) of the principal Act provides: Where a registered organization contravenes, or fails to comply with, a provision of this Act or the regulations or a term or condition of registration imposed by or under this Act or a direction under this Act served on the organization, the contravention . . . shall, without limiting in any way the liability of the organization, be deemed to be a contravention or failure by the public officer, and the public officer is punishable for that contravention or failure . . . The penalty under this provision is to be increased from a fine not exceeding $5,000 to a fine not exceeding $10,000. Secondly, it is provided that the registered organisation shall not permit its money or supply of money to be used for the payment of a fine imposed on the public officer under section 74 (5). Thirdly, it is proposed to introduce a new section 74ba to list various actions, for example, threats or inducements, which may not be taken by organisations who may wish to dump contributors. Finally, the new section provides for offences relating to the conduct of a registered organisation in making offers of inducement or threats of penalties to a contributor to transfer to a health benefits fund conducted by another organisation or simply cease to contribute to the fund conducted by the first mentioned organisation. The penalty in respect of those offences is proposed to be a fine of $50,000. That is a substantial fine. It is important that the fine be substantial, because the problem being tackled, that is, the problem of dumping, is of great magnitude. If it is not dealt with properly then, of course, the whole system risks being fundamentally poisoned. In speaking to this legislation I wish to quote one of the points which Mr Tuckey made in the House of Representatives debate on 28 April and to seek an assurance from the Minister about a particular interpretation. Mr Tuckey said: I assume that then it will not be incumbent upon only the Government or the Minister to take action, as they would under section 73ba of the National Health Act: if another fund feels it is being dumped upon I would assume that under the normal common law arrangements in Australia it could take some action to have such a prosecution proceed. Those very interested groups will keep their competitors honest, and that is a very significant factor. I do not think it should be upon the Minister to police this provision. I would rather the Minister did not have to get himself another police force and a few more feet in doors. My view is that once we have a monetary penalty and a clear offence for dumping it could be prosecuted by the fund that feels it has been offended against. Senator Robert Ray —Perhaps I could just interrupt for a moment, Senator Puplick. Nothing prevents a private individual or organisation from bringing a prosecution. That is what I am advised. Senator PUPLICK —I thank the Minister. That is precisely the assurance the Opposition was seeking in this particular matter. It was certainly our understanding, now confirmed by the Minister, that private individuals and organisations do in fact have the right to proceed in normal common law fashion against other persons for breaches of the National Health Act. Of course, there is also the possibility of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) by any group which feels that the Government itself should have taken action and has been negligent in failing to do so. Therefore, people may go to the AAT. The Tribunal itself may require the Department of Community Services and Health to take action. Of course, if one looks at the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, section 10 (2) and section 10 (3), one will see that it is quite clearly spelt out in that particular Act that nothing there prevents private individuals from taking action to ensure compliance by other individuals or organisations with the provisions of the law of the Commonwealth-in this case, with the provisions of the National Health Act 1953. To that extent, and because we have received that assurance from the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) on the public record, the Opposition will not be proceeding with its own amendments which it has considered introducing to this legislation-amendments which essentially sought a situation whereby a fund would have redress if the Government or the Department was not prepared to take the necessary action to enforce the provisions of this Act. In those circumstances I will conclude my remarks by saying that the Opposition, as a result, will be supporting this particular aspect of the legislation. I have not dealt with any of the matters which my colleague Senator Vanstone dealt with on behalf of the Opposition and upon which subsequent Opposition speakers will be focusing. Nevertheless, the amendments which have been introduced by the Government today to its own amending Bill, are to be welcomed. I think that they indicate the extent to which the Government was persuaded fully by the remarks made by Mr Tuckey in the other place. I thank the Government for having considered those remarks, picked them up and introduced them as its own amendments. In those circumstances, as far as this part of the legislation is concerned, it has the support of the Opposition. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.13) —I first make it quite clear that the Opposition senators only have 10 minutes each in which to speak on the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. This is as a result of the gagging of the debate by the Government and the Australian Democrats. My purpose in mentioning that is that Senator Coulter, an Australian Democrat, spoke for 25 minutes on this Bill, even though he and the other Australian Democrats had assisted in gagging the debate. He took nearly the full allotted time and left the rest of us to speak for 10 minutes. The Australian Democrats have only seven senators and we have 34. They should get only 6 per cent of the time. Senator Coulter —We get exactly the same time. Senator WALTERS —Senator Coulter has said that the Australian Democrats get exactly the same time. They do not get the same time when they gag the debate. The Australian Democrats gag the debate but take their full time. They leave any other senator who wants to speak floundering with only 10 minutes. I want to speak on just two aspects of the Bill because I have not got time to speak on others. I will refer later in my remarks to the financial basis of residential care services for the aged. My first point concerns the portability of benefits. There are further changes to the health insurance area proposed in this Bill. This legislation rectifies the mess this Government has made already in this area-or this one small mess that the Government has made. Prior to 1984 any contributor to a fund had the ability to move from one fund to another, no matter what ailment that person had. This Government stopped that when it introduced Medicare. This has created great problems with the free market aspect of the health industry. I will just briefly go through the history of what this Government has done as a result of the Medicare changes, because I think it is very important that we understand the problems the health funds have been facing. When Medicare was introduced it cut about half the health care industry's business because the health insurance industry was allowed to insure patients only for hospital care. Medicare took away all the medical servicing done outside hospitals; indeed, it took away the entire medical side. Prior to December 1983 61.5 per cent of the population was covered by health care. By June 1984, following the introduction of Medicare, that had dropped to 50 per cent of the population. The most important thing was that as a result of that dropping out of 11 per cent of the population, the funds were left with those people most at risk, the sickest and the chronically ill. The 11 per cent of contributors who got out were the healthy and young of the community who had been paying their health insurance because they believed they should be covered even though they were not at risk. Following that, in 1985 we found that the Government decided that the health funds would have to pay a $10 gap for Medicare treatment in hospitals. In October 1986 the Government decided to abolish the subsidy paid to private hospital patients. The funds therefore were paying out of their basic table the $140m for that grabbed by the Government. In December 1986 the Government increased the gap payable for medical treatment in hospitals from $10 to $20. Of course, it increased the Medicare levy from one per cent to 1.25 per cent of taxable income. The Government then later increased the maximum medical gap from $20 to 25 per cent, with no dollar cap. That added another $105m to the amount paid out by the registered funds. All those changes forced up the contribution rate and hurt most the chronically ill. The Government not only did that but also reduced by $99m the Health Benefits Reinsurance Trust Fund whereby previous governments had always acknowledged the need for taxpayers to share some of the cost of caring for the chronically ill. In December 1987 the insured population had dropped to 47.6 per cent. However, that 47 per cent still includes some pensioners. As honourable senators well know, many pensioners insure themselves at great cost because that way they know that they can get a hospital bed whenever they want it. Under the present Medicare system there is no way that pensioners can be assured of getting into a public hospital. The Government is in some small way rectifying some of the problems it introduced. Once again it is allowing contributors funds to move from one fund to another, which is absolutely essential. As I said, when the funds were first hit by the Government we had the situation where the chronically ill stayed on with their funds and some of the young and healthy got out. Now new funds are being set up and they are creaming off the top from the older funds and taking in the young and the healthy. The older and chronically ill patients cannot join those funds because they have a pre-existing ailment. They have to go through a period of 12 months without any cover at all before they can apply to go to another fund. That is what the Government is now allowing to be corrected. Because a patient who wants to move to another fund will now be able to shift, the new funds will have the same cross-section of contributors as the older funds. The older funds will then be able to reduce their contribution rates because the new funds will have their share of the chronically ill patients. It is just and fair, and indeed, contrary to what Senator Coulter said, it is allowing true market forces to operate when contributors can insure with whichever fund they want to. The Australian Democrats are opposing this. They think it is wrong to allow true market forces to apply. Senator Coulter said true market forces would apply only if people were stopped from joining the fund they chose, and they are voting against this amendment. That sort of muddled thinking is typical of all the Democrats, and we have learnt to expect it in this chamber. Because Senator Coulter took so long, I have only two minutes left as I want to give other senators a chance to speak. I turn briefly to the financial changes for residential care of the aged. I have before me at the moment a document entitled `Resident Classification Pro Forma'. The Government has said to the nursing homes, `Look at all your inmates and classify them by point scores'. If patients are bedridden but are able to be transferred from the bed to a bedside chair, and quite a number of patients in nursing homes are in that situation, but have to have the assistance of at least two people, they get a score of 4.37-quite a high score. If we go over the page we find that if residents are incontinent and need changing and nursing care more than once daily, they get a score of one. I can assure the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) that, practically speaking, this is rubbish. If patients are incontinent more than once a day, it takes considerable nursing care to change the bedclothes and to make those patients comfortable. Yet the Minister in his wisdom says that those patients will get a score of one. If the patients are fully incontinent-both urine and faeces-they get a score of 2.75. If the pressure areas have to be attended to, as naturally happens with these sorts of patients, they get a total score of 4.48. That nursing care would be very time consuming. Do the Minister and the bureaucrats not understand the situation? I am quite sure they do not, because the person who put this scoring system together, I was told some time ago, is a statistician and researcher. Those are the qualifications for putting forward a score sheet for a nursing home to use for patients. They are not the practicalities of a trained nursing sister, who knows exactly what does occur, but of a statistician and researcher. Nothing could explain better than that last statement of mine the Government's method of handling financial changes to residential nursing home patients. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(12.25) —I regret that the Government's inadequacy in dealing with the business in this place is such that issues relating to the aged take a back seat, just as they did in the Governor-General's Speech at the opening of Parliament, which outlined this Government's policy for the life of this Parliament. The aged and aged care industry should not be hoodwinked by the claim of the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) in his second reading speech, in which he said that Commonwealth spending on nursing home funding has increased by 38 per cent in money terms, from $420m in 1985-86 to an estimated $580m in 1987-88. It all depends on how we look at the statistics. If we want to know whether the Government's commitment to aged care has really changed we need look only at the expenditure on nursing home care in gross domestic product (GDP) terms. Recurrent funds spent on nursing homes have decreased from 0.428 per cent of GDP in 1985-86 to 0.419 per cent in 1987-88. So much for the figures in real money terms. The number of people in aged care is increasing, so a decreasing slice of the cake has to be divided amongst an ever increasing population of aged persons. I hope the aged care industry has not also been hoodwinked by the current proposal for funding. Last year we had the standard aggregate module (SAM) which provided for a standard fee for infrastructure costs. There are already some problems with this. This year we have the care aggregate module (CAM), the basis on which a standard fee can be applied for nursing and personal care based on patient dependency as determined by the resident classification instrument (RCI). When the first proposals for the implementation of CAM saw the light of day, the Government was confronted by an outraged industry and outraged recipients of the benefits of nursing home funding and their representatives. It was claimed that the Government had consulted closely with the industry. That was not the opinion of the industry in my State. Along with South Australia, my State of Victoria was the hardest hit by the proposals-so much so that 27,800 constituents presented me with petitions to this chamber to express their concern. In response to this pressure the Government increased the proposed number of nursing hours per patient, but in my opinion it is not high enough to achieve the outcomes outlined in the report produced by the Commonwealth-State working party in June 1987 entitled Living in a Nursing Home-Outcome Standards for Australian Nursing Homes. I believe it puts an undue burden on directors of nursing to achieve those standards with very limited resources. Another issue which is of utmost importance to me, as a Victorian senator, is the application of the resident classification scheme. In the development of this system 17,000 patients were assessed, which produced a continuous frequency distribution of patients along a continuum of dependency on a scale of 0 to 45. As the developers of the scale admit, a relatively arbitrary division into five classifications was made, category 5 being the lowest dependency category and category one being the highest dependency category. As I said, it is an arbitrary division and we do not really know from the report how this division was made or out of whose head it was plucked. But the arbitrary division of 20-20-30-20-10 was made, and the Government will fund that proportion in each of the categories one to five, that is, 20 per cent of category one through to 10 per cent of category 5. I wish to note and underscore a point that was not made and should have been made by the Minister. I quote from the Commonwealth-State working party's document on the development of the resident classification system: Although the nationwide distribution would be based upon the proportions 20/20/30/20/10 the effect by State varies significantly. The history of the aged care industry is such that, despite the fact that Victoria has the same number of people in residential care per head of population as other States, we have fewer nursing home residents and more hostel residents. Our nursing home residents fall into the high dependency category. That has been demonstrated by the RCI developers themselves. Of Victorian residents, 15.4 per cent fall into the highest dependency category. In all other States it is 10 per cent or under, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory, which is a very different scene, with 18.3 per cent. There has been criticism by other States that Victoria has, for far too long, had an unfair share of the nursing home funding cake and the RCI development research shows why this is so. The summary of the findings and outcomes of the RCI states: It must be noted, however, that application of these cut-off points will result in different distributions across States and across nursing homes. It is quite possible for one nursing home to have 30% of its residents in category 1, for example, and for another to have only 5% in that category. The proportions specified apply on a national basis, not on an individual home basis. I think that `not on an individual State basis' should have been added. As a Victorian senator I will be monitoring this closely to ensure that this principle holds and that arguments about States being treated differently do not muddy the funding waters. Victoria must get its rightful share based on dependency. The application of CAM will not commence until 1 July this year. It will be some time, maybe even a couple of years, before the full impact is felt in the nursing home sector. I do not want to have to say `I told you so', but I do want to put on record the difficulties that will be faced two to three years down the track. The Minister has acknowledged that as more category 5 residents move into hostels, the level of dependency in nursing homes will increase, but nowhere does he admit that the 20-20-30-20-10 division of categories will change. Surely, some mechanism should have been built in to deal with the predicted increase in dependency. I believe that as soon as this dependency increases, New South Wales, Tasmania and other States which have not been crying out as a result of the Government's new measure will suddenly realise that they will have to face the same situation as Victoria, with a high dependency rate, and will have to deal with average hours of nursing which are not adequate to deal with highly dependent patients. Despite the restrictions on the time I have to speak on this issue, I cannot finish without making a comment about additional health services. The Minister has said that an additional hour per resident per week of funding for increased therapy services will be provided. That is magnificent! There is to be one hour per week per resident spread across physiotherapy, occupational therapy, podiatry, speech therapy, music therapy and other health professions. So someone's mother or grandfather will get an extra six minutes of physio and five minutes of occupational therapy per week. As Dr Woods in the House of Representatives said, that is hardly enough time for a podiatrist to cut a person's toe nails, let alone undertake any therapeutic podiatry that needs to be done on ambulatory residents in nursing homes. It does not provide time for beauty care or anything that might be needed to make the life of residents in nursing homes more adequate and more like life outside an institution. This Bill demonstrates clearly the Government's attitude to our elderly. Its provision of an additional hour is a token. It is not real and it is not meaningful; nor is it a reasonable attempt to deal with the quality of life in nursing homes. Residents need more than their physical needs attended to. A token five minutes of occupational therapy, music or beauty therapy is not enough. We need to add life to the years residents spend in nursing homes and hopefully add years to their lives. That life we need to add to those years should include meaning, interest, activity and choice-all those things which are the rights of all, including the frail aged. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(12.35) —The Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 is a substantial Bill. It makes some extensive administrative alterations which will affect nursing homes and hostels and have flow-on effects for aged care, home care and private hospitals. The Bill also alters the medical insurance arrangements. In other words, the Government is stirring the same old bucket of horse manure that we have been filling up for years. Naturally, the various industries have been thrown into confusion and have shown great concern. That is understandable when one looks at the eleventh hour amendments brought in by the Government now. The fundamental fault was that over the years government has promised more and more benefits in these areas and, when it has found out that it cannot fulfil the promises, it has had to restrict the services. The Bill before us has such an effect; it is a cost cutting Bill. When the original Bills were brought in years ago, the flow of patients was from their homes to hostels, to nursing homes and then hospitals, particularly private hospitals. In other words, the flow was towards the high cost area. When government noticed that, it reversed its policy. It now wants patients to go from hospitals to nursing homes, to hostels and then into home care, which is how it was in the first place and how it ought to be. Over the years there have been bottlenecks in various areas as government has twisted and turned and tried to reduce its costs. The fear has been expressed that many nursing homes will have to close as a result of this Bill. The small nursing homes will be most adversely affected; those in country areas that supply services to minority and ethnic groups. I can understand their concern. I presume that the Bill is largely the result of the work of the assessment teams that were introduced two or three years ago at a cost of $16m. Undoubtedly, the cost will be greater now. Previously the work was done free of charge. The assessment teams are necessary only because the Government has interfered in the business. Previously the work was done by doctors, patients and their relatives and the matrons of nursing homes and hostels. Of course, once government gets in there, it has to have more and more people working for it and more and more control. The Bill introduces bureaucratic classification of patients-the resident classification instrument. This is not based on medical need but on the cost of care. The measure will make it most difficult for very sick patients to get higher benefits, even if they are medically warranted. For instance, a blind patient who may or may not be deaf and have other infirmities of age will be hard pressed to get a high classification in order to attract top benefits. The same applies to immobile arthritics or cardio-vascular cripples. It will be almost impossible for them to get a high classification. It is no wonder that the industry is upset. Those who work in the industry are genuine caring people. The Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) has announced extra funding of $130m to the industry, but he has not detailed how it will be distributed. That is another reason why there is confusion in the industry. It is unable to plan ahead. The Government has not listened to industry spokesmen in framing the legislation. Although it claims that it has spoken to the heads of the various sections in the industry, it has not talked to those who are actually on the ground doing the job. I think that it may have listened to them because it has now brought in amendments to take care of some of the problems we saw. The hours of nursing home care for patients-nursing homes have been bureaucratised-have increased. We worked out that this adds up to an increase of about 36 seconds a day. But they have been increased for the wrong patients. The new figure for exempt beds-what one might call pay beds where people want to get more benefits than the Government is able to supply-has been set at 6 per cent, which is a strange figure. It is an inappropriate and across the board figure. I think it is called a global figure. It is far too low to accommodate the industry. Our population is ageing and we need more beds, not fewer. We need less government, not more. It is patients who need the subsidy, not the nursing homes, hostels or other aged care places. Originally, the Government subsidised the patients, but then it turned around and started subsidising the homes and hostels. Once the homes and hostels accepted the Government subsidy they found themselves with government controls, restrictions, disruptions and interference. We are not opposing the Bill, even though it provides for inappropriate classification standards-the RCI-inadequate staffing levels and qualifications and inadequate remuneration. It will reduce the aged care places in Australia when we need more of them. It provides for an inappropriate percentage of exempt beds and a reduction in the number of patients who qualify for nursing homes. What more can I say about that? On top of it all we have a reduced number of hospital beds in Australia at the moment. With regard to the medical insurance and anti-dumping provisions in the Bill, I ask the Minister in his reply to turn his attention to the concern of the voluntary health insurance companies in Australia. They are non-profit organisations and if they are sued by any person or another company-particularly another taxpaying, profit-making insurance company that may be part of a conglomerate-that could tie them up in litigation which would be expensive and time consuming and would cut into their operating costs. I think their concern is pretty genuine. The voluntary insurance companies think that the Government has sufficient advisory powers at the moment to discipline companies that involve themselves in dumping. They think that, if they have a concern the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, not the courts, is the proper place to take it. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(12.43) —I thank honourable senators for their contributions. A specific matter was raised by Senator Sheil. I do not have the answer to that question at the moment. However, I can say that the proposals were developed in the discussion with the voluntary insurance industry. I would have thought on that basis that they were satisfied, but that is a matter that we may have to take up elsewhere. Amendment negatived. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The Government has circulated three amendments. The question is that the three amendments circulated on behalf of the Government be agreed to. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs) —Mr Deputy President, if I could be of assistance, I table the supplementary memorandum relating to the amendments and new clauses to be moved by the Government. Circulated amendments- (1) Page 2, clause 5, line 40, leave out ``prescribed'', substitute ``benefit''. (2) Page 14, after clause 28, insert the following new clauses: Public officer of registered organisation ``28a. Section 74 of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by omitting from subsection (5) `$5,000' and substituting `$10,000'; (b) by inserting after subsection (5) the following subsection: `(5a) A registered organisation shall not: (a) permit money of the organisation to be used for the payment of a fine imposed on its public officer under subsection (5); or (b) reimburse its public officer in respect of a fine imposed on the public officer under subsection (5).'. ``28b. After section 74b of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: Inducing contributors to transfer to other funds, etc. `74ba. A registered organisation shall not: (a) offer to a contributor to a health benefits fund conducted by the organisation an inducement or encouragement; (b) subject, or threaten to subject, such a contributor to a penalty or disadvantage (whether financial or otherwise); (c) refrain from offering to such a contributor a benefit; or (d) hinder or impede the provision of a benefit to such a contributor; for the purpose of persuading the contributor to transfer to a health benefits fund conducted by another organisation or simply to cease to contribute to the fund conducted by the first-mentioned organisation. Penalty: $50,000.'.''. (3) Pages 17 and 18, clause 30, leave out proposed paragraph (1g). Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. [COGNATE BILL: EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING BILL 1988] Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs) —Mr Deputy President, I suggest that we have a cognate debate on the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill and the Employment, Education and Training Bill. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There being no objection, it is so ordered. Education Legislation Education Legislation Education Legislation Education Legislation Education Legislation Education Legislation Education Legislation Education Legislation Education Legislation Education Legislation Education Legislation Education Legislation Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(12.45) —Mr Deputy President, I rise on behalf of the Opposition to respond to the three Government Bills that are being debated cognately. They are concerned with education, employment and training, with the emphasis being on education. Firstly, the legislation to establish the National Board for Employment, Education and Training and its subsidiary councils is a major piece of legislation and at the committee stage 18 amendments are proposed from the Opposition and 35 amendments are proposed from the Australian Democrats. We have, because of the guillotine that has been established by the Government today, only 1 1/2 hours to debate these three Bills and all those committee stage amendments. I just make the emphatic statement that we must in the Senate achieve better management of the Senate's agenda. This is the last day of debate in this, the provisional Parliament House, and as we look to the new building and to the future we must do better. We must manage our business better, to handle important legislation such as this in a much more satisfactory way. I believe we will get to an improved Bill only by amending it on the basis of informal discussions that I have been able to have with Senator Macklin, and Senator Macklin has had with the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins). Our speeches must be very much abbreviated so that we can handle the committee stage amendments, so this will not be a traditional second reading stage speech in which I would look broadly at the Bills that are before us but, rather, I will draw attention to the speeches made in the House of Representatives by my colleagues the shadow Minister for Education, Mr Carlton, and the shadow Minister for Employment and Training, Mr Shack, and note that even their speeches were constrained by a similar guillotine in the House of Representatives. The first five years of the Hawke Labor Government have shown a status quo approach to education, especially higher education. In the area of schools there was a radical leftist agenda at first, moderated after Opposition and public response opposing that radical approach. But broadly speaking, and especially in higher education, there has been a status quo approach under the former Minister, Senator Ryan. These five years have represented the last five years of what I have called on a number of occasions the Karmel period in education in this country; that is, the period from 1972 to 1987 when the most significant leadership and, indeed, contribution to education in this country was made by Emeritus Professor Peter Karmel. I salute the contribution he has made and I see that that era is over and that the marks of that period were to achieve various goals, various standards, but also to rationalise not only courses but also institutions. It was a period of amalgamations, of increased regulation from Canberra through not only the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission but also the Schools Commission. In the Bill that we have before us, we see not only the establishment of a new board with a new integration of employment, education and training, and of research, but also an express abolition of the preceding bodies-the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, the Commonwealth Schools Commission and the Curriculum Development Council. So this is a milestone and it is marking the end of what I have called the Karmel period. Whilst I have no criticism of the broad thrust of that period, I see that it is in the past and that there was an overhang of three to five years beyond that which should have been the case because of the status quo approach of the Labor Government and the Minister, Senator Ryan. We have seen two major problems arise-unmet student demand is the first and most important, and the second is inflexibility on the part of higher education institutions, not inflexibility as to their desires or objectives, but because of the over-regulation that has imprisoned them in decisions from Canberra. The Opposition's higher education policy of March 1987, to which I was happy to contribute, announced a growth plan, a breaking of the problem of the status quo approach by the Hawke Government. We sought increased independence for institutions and whilst we called for the end of the binary system as we knew it-that is, the bureaucratically restricting measures on research and post-graduate scholarships rather than on the basis of merit in institutions-we looked for extra funds being unlocked by establishing a Commonwealth scholarship scheme that would enable institutions to enrol others on whatever basis they saw fit. We drew comparisons with the considerable freedom for overseas students, which is not the experience of Australian students in being able to enrol in higher education institutions. I seek leave to table the document, the Growth Plan for Higher Education, and shall not say more about it. Leave granted. Senator TEAGUE —The newly elected Labor Government of July 1987, a few months after that policy initiative of the Opposition, at last began to face squarely the impasse that it had reached. There was a change of Minister, from Senator Ryan to Mr Dawkins. There was an immediate concentration on this critical area of higher education. Indeed, it is only 10 days ago that Minister Dawkins put down even then only a six-page statement of very general but quite commendable principles with regard to taking up reforms in the schools area. That has been deferred for nine months at least because of the concentration on higher education reforms. The instruments of change that Minister Dawkins announced in the first four years of his office as Minister were: first, the establishment of the National Board for Employment, Education and Training; secondly, the release of a Green Paper for reform in higher education; and thirdly, the establishment of the Wran committee to look at additional funding for higher education institutions. These three initiatives are a mixed bag. They understand the objectives that the Opposition put forward in the policy paper that I have tabled, but they get it only half-right. They embrace the objectives that we have set forth and which I believe are very much needed in Australia, but they seem to have missed the point of our means for achieving them. Our means are to give increased freedom and independence to institutions and to be co-operatively working to loosen up new energies in those institutions to achieve good goals, whereas the Dawkins approach has been to establish a new centralism and a reinforced corporatism which relies upon wisdom being in the Department and in the Minister. I refer very briefly to a sound and commendable speech given on these Bills by a Government backbencher, the honourable member for Lilley, Mrs Elaine Darling, on 19 May. I point to it as interesting evidence of the assessment that I have just summarised. She said: The reality in Australia today is that tens of thousands of people are annually denied access to our institutions of higher learning. She went on to say: For this reason, the Federal Government has taken a long, hard look at Australia's education system and the way it operates . . . we must turn our backs on the comfortable political option of skulking in the shadows and merely maintaining the status quo . . . The system needs a shake-up. I concur heartily with all those words. That has been the burden of my speeches in this chamber for more than five years now. At long last there is awareness, not only by the Government, the Cabinet and the Minister but also on the back benches that that time has come. I do not in any way note, or commend, that aspect of alertness in the Government and its members to embrace the particular measures or the means that they have adopted or are proposing to achieve those ends. Indeed, I am directly critical. Very briefly, on these three instruments of change, the National Board is a healthy new integration of decision-making and advice to government in the four areas of employment, education, training and research. It does see the establishment of an Australian Research Council, which is also Opposition policy. I do not at this stage seek to draw attention, other than broadly, to the dangers involved in an all-encompassing umbrella body in terms of evaluating the priorities and policies for research in Australia. There are dangers that by putting all eggs in one basket we will get a reduction in diversity and get a lot of things wrong. We do not want uniformity, but we do want a mature comprehensiveness to evaluate priorities and policies in research. We are, as I have outlined broadly in my remarks about the Karmel period, moving on from the past period of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and the Commonwealth Schools Commission to this new decision-making approach of the National Board for Employment, Education and Training (NBEET). We broadly welcome these aspects of the NBEET legislation but the approach of the Government is sadly lacking in many particulars in terms of the relationship between the Minister and the Board, in the composition of the Board, in the relationship between the Board and its four councils, in the ability for the councils to initiate and to publish matters, and in other ways. One thing that very much is fundamental to the amendments moved by the Opposition and the Australian Democrats is to achieve a sounder basis for strong councils, an independent and expert board and the ability for these councils and boards not only to arrive at decisions independently but also to show the public, through tabling of their reports in this Parliament, that they are independently putting advice to the Minister. With regard to the Green Paper, the second instrument of change initiated by Minister Dawkins, I seek leave, because of the limited time, to incorporate in Hansard two paragraphs out of the Liberal-National response to the Green Paper on higher education. Leave granted. The paragraphs read as follows- SUMMARY OF OPPOSITION REACTION There will be widespread community and academic support for Mr Dawkins' stated objectives of an expanded higher education system that is more flexible in its institutions and more responsive to the nation's economic and social needs. The questions to be asked are- Does the Minister have the right understanding of the current and potential contribution of higher education to the good of the nation, and Are the means proposed by the Minister to achieve his objectives likely to be productive? Quantity Versus Quality The Green Paper places heavy emphasis on the quantity of graduates required to be produced, with inadequate emphasis Liberal-National Alternative In broad terms the contrast between the Dawkins approach and the Liberal/National approach is that Mr Dawkins expects to promote change by getting the institutions to compete with each other for favours from government, whereas we want the institutions to have to compete more with each other for students in the real marketplace. We acknowledge that the institutions do need more flexibility of internal management, but they will not get this unless they are able to control their system of reward for accomplishment without interference from the centralised industrial relations system. The choice is between tightened central direction with only nominal institutional flexibility, and real institutional flexibility subject to greater marketplace discipline. Paradoxically the need to cater for students' needs rather than government interpretations of student needs will provide a better balance between vocational training and the humanities. Senator TEAGUE —I thank the Senate. Secondly, I seek leave to table the full document. Leave granted. Senator TEAGUE —I thank the Senate. With regard to the Wran report, I have just a minute to give some assessment. This is the third instrument of change in higher education. The Minister has already given support; the Cabinet has supported it in principle; and the Labor Party's Right and Centre Left and the President of the Party have indicated their support. It is to be seen next week in the Labor Party Conference in Hobart whether the principles of the Wran report into finding additional funding for higher education will be approved by the Labor Party. One would estimate at this stage that it is likely to be approved and, therefore, we would see in the next sitting of the Parliament a reflection in the legislation of many elements of the recommendations that the Wran report has made. I only say then in response and in this week before the Labor Party Conference that that report offers failures on three points. Firstly, there is no short term solution. It would be the middle 1990s before there would be any substantial amount of new money gained through these deferred fees of all higher education students. Secondly, in real terms it is my assessment that there will only be an additional 10 per cent contribution to the cost of providing higher education for students and not the 20 per cent that the Wran report hopes is there. Indeed, the Wran report refers to 22 per cent. Because there is a failure to take account of inflation and an average 10-year period for paying those deferred fees, it is wrong to assume that the nominal amount of the fee for a course being about 20 per cent of the cost of providing that course will, in fact, in the end, add in real terms a 20 per cent financial contribution to the costs of higher education in Australia. I think it is much more likely to be half that amount and so even in the longer term it will not achieve the goal that has been asserted. Thirdly, in any event, the Wran report estimates that it would raise by the end of this century only $625m and that is roughly half of the amount that the Green Paper proposes will be the funding gap by that time. That funding gap is indicated to be $900m to $1,200m. There are still major problems in meeting the funding gap and we should not over-estimate the extent to which the Wran report makes a contribution to this matter. The Opposition approach is quite alternative to the Wran report. Our approach is to reintroduce higher education scholarships with the objective of undergirding these scholarships with guarantees that they be to not less than the number of free places already existing in higher education institutions and that the scholarship would cover tuition fees. Incidentally, this would release perhaps 20 per cent of places for new students because the priority for awarding these scholarships would not be to second degree students or to students repeating previously failed work. Therefore, there is a resource involved in the Opposition's policy that, in fact, gives new ground or a new resource to meet the present shortfall in demand. My time is running out very quickly and I must cut short what I had intended to say about the NBEET Bill in broad terms. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the amendments which we will move in the committee stage of the Bill. Leave granted. The amendments read as follows- EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING BILL 1988 (Amendments to be moved by the Opposition in committee of the whole) (1) Page 5, paragraph 7 (1) (b), line 6, leave out ``but subject to subsection (2),''. (2) Page 5, subclause 7 (2), leave out the subclause. (3) Page 6, after subclause 7 (6), add the following new subclause: ``(7) The Board may delegate any of its functions to a Council.''. (4) Page 7, paragraph 9 (6) (b), lines 33 and 34, leave out the paragraph.''. (5) Page 8, subclauses 9 (10) and (11), lines 4 to 11, leave out the subclauses. (6) Page 8, subclauses 11 (1) and (2), lines 17 to 25, leave out the subclauses, insert the following subclauses: ``(1) The Board shall consist of not more than 13 members of whom not more than 3 may be appointed on a full-time basis. ``(2) Of the members: (a) one shall be a person having expertise in matters relating to trade unions; (b) one shall be a person having expertise in matters relating to business or industry; (c) at least 7 shall be persons having expertise in matters relating to education or training; and (d) at least 2 shall be persons having expertise in matters relating to scientific research or technology.''. (7) Page 13, subclause 24 (1), line 4, after ``Board,'', insert ``or by resolution of the Council,''. (8) Page 13, after paragraph 24 (2) (e), insert the following new paragraphs: ``(ea) the need to raise educational standards of schools; (eb) the need to maintain discipline in schools;''. (9) Page 14, after subclause 24 (2), add the following new subclause: ``(3) in the exercise of its functions the Schools Council shall consult and co-operate with persons, bodies and authorities conducting government and non-government schools.''. (10) Page 14, clause 25, line 12, after ``Board,'', insert ``or by resolution of the Council,''. (11) Page 14, clause 26, line 35, after ``Board,'', insert ``or by resolution of the Council,''. (12) Page 15, paragraph 27 (1) (b), line 26, after ``Board,'', insert ``or by resolution of the Council,''. (13) Page 16, after paragraph 30 (2) (b), add the following word and new paragraph: ``; and (c) may authorise the publication of any comment or submission made to it, of any document presented to it, or of any report made by it.''. (14) Page 17, subclause 31 (3), lines 17 to 21, leave out the subclause, insert the following subclause: ``(3) The Governor-General shall appoint: (a) subject to section 31a, one of the members of a Council chosen from the members of the Board who is not a member of the Council appointed under subsection 2 to be the Chairperson of the Council having regard to the relevance of the experience and expertise of that member to the responsibilities of the Council; and (b) another member of the Council to be the Deputy Chairperson of the Council.''. (15) Page 17, after clause 31, insert the following new clause: Chairperson of Australian Research Council ``31a. An appointment of Chairperson of the Australian Research Council shall only be made after consultation with the Australian Academy of Science, the Australian Academy of Technological Science and Engineering, the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia and the Australian Academy of the Humanities.''. (16) Page 20, paragraph 42 (1) (a), lines 10 and 11, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraphs: ``(a) the Chairperson of the National Board of Employment, Education and Training, who shall be the Chairperson of the Committee; (aa) the Secretary of the Department;''. (17) Page 20, subclause 42 (4), line 22, before ``A person'', insert ``Except for the Chairperson of the Board,''. (18) Page 24, paragraph 56 (1) (a), lines 1 and 2, leave out the paragraph. Senator TEAGUE —For about a minute each I will refer to the other two Bills that we are debating cognately. The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill supplements moneys in the normal way to a total cost of $66.5m. It allows $0.6m provision for the co-ordination of teaching hospital activities and the Government's drug and alcohol offensive. The Opposition supports these aspects of the Bill but we have a second reading amendment. I move: At end of motion, add: `but the Senate condemns the Government for its failure to provide sufficient resources to tertiary institutions for them to meet the demand for student places, or to find a satisfactory alternative source of funds for tertiary education.' I have already spoken to the two aspects of this second reading amendment and say no more about it. I draw attention in regard to this Bill to a speech I gave on 19 May in the Senate about the new arrangements that the Department is pursuing for student and staff records in our higher education institutions. I condemn the Government for not putting in place statutory safeguards to ensure the confidentiality and securing of those records and I have argued at length in that earlier speech. With regard to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill the Opposition is happy to support the Bill in terms of its usual supplementation of moneys that have already been granted to schools. There is an additional $21m to be distributed to government and non-government schools, bringing up for this financial year an amount of $1,760m in Commonwealth grants to schools. I only draw attention to the fact that the Opposition is opposed to the Government's newly announced restrictions on established grants for new non-government schools and we are opposed to the more demanding enrolment requirements for the grant of recurrent assistance to schools. It is Liberal and National Party policy to provide recurrent assistance in respect of every enrolment in both government and non-government schools. When we come to the committee stage of this Bill I will draw attention to references to the year 1990 in terms of a reform which the Government has announced whereby schools will not need to give notice to the Department concerning change of location of parts of the school, or indeed, of the whole of the school. We welcome this initiative and we want to make sure that it has an immediate effect. I will also refer in the committee stage to the speech of the Minister on 23 May strengthening Australia's schools, a consideration of the focus and content of schooling and for the purposes of our amendment to one part of the NBEET legislation concerning standards in schools and discipline in schools. I note the welcome references to standards and to discipline in the Minister's speech of 23 May and my surprise that the Minister did not accept those references in the House of Representatives debate. I note in conclusion, Mr Acting Deputy President, that in the time that remains after hearing most carefully Senator Macklin representing the Australian Democrats, we will need to proceed in a sensible manner to the wide range of committee stage amendments. We will do all that we can to facilitate an outcome of a much improved National Board for Employment, Education and Training Bill in the light of the initiatives that the Opposition and Democrats are making. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(1.10) —We are debating three Bills. Two of them are the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill, which the Democrats will be supporting; the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill, which the Democrats will also be supporting and to which the Opposition has moved a second reading attachment. We will be supportive of that second reading attachment, though I dare say that we would differ from the Opposition parties as to what might be a satisfactory alternative source of funds for tertiary education. I wish to concentrate on the third Bill, the Employment, Education and Training Bill. This Bill proposes a new series of advisory bodies to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins). They are to replace the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, the Commonwealth Schools Commission and a number of other advisory bodies in cognate areas. There will be a statutory body reporting directly to the Minister. It will have four councils reporting to it-the Schools Council, the Higher Education Council, the Employment and Skills Formation Council and the Australian Research Council. There will also be a Commonwealth-State consultative committee comprising Commonwealth, State and Territory representatives. The National Advisory Committee of the Commonwealth Employment Service is also to be abolished, as are the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and its associated councils, and the Commonwealth Schools Commission and the Curriculum Development Council. The various regional and local advisory committees connected to a number of those will also be abolished and a facility exists in this Bill for national, regional and local committees dealing with employment service matters to be formed under the aegis of the Employment and Schools Formation Council. It incorporates provision for the Commonwealth Employment Service within the Department and repeals the separate Commonwealth Employment Service Act of 1978. The Bill enables the Minister to sponsor various curriculum projects and to delegate powers in relationship to this wide range of activities that the Commonwealth is engaged in. The coordination of advice to government on the broad fields of education, training and employment is obviously highly desirable. For example, increasing the number of graduates from higher education, to which Senator Teague has already referred, has obvious implications for senior secondary school curricula and credentialling. A feature of the National Board of Employment, Education and Training is that business and industry and the trade union movement are to be more influential than they have been in the past in these particular areas. Generally improvements in these areas require changes in attitude by industry and trade unions and, I think, it is a very desirable step to move to incorporate those groupings within our community into the policy formation process. For example, improvements in training are not likely to be successful without changes in award structures. If there is to be an increased number of science graduates from higher education there must be private sector research and development at a higher level than we have seen in the past. So there is an acknowledgment in this particular structure of the interlinking mechanisms that exist already within Australia and the desirability of enhancing those links between various groups. I would emphasise that while the Democrats support participation of industry and trade unions and other groupings within the community and the work of the National Board, we do not wish to see economic and commercial issues pursued by the Board to the detriment of social and cultural issues. Education and research must not be hijacked by industry and the trade union movement purely for instrumentalist purposes. We have been concerned about the extent to which the National Board, as proposed, would be able to provide independent and constructive critical advice to government. Indeed, we have been highly critical of both the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and the Schools Commission for not being more independent on offering that critical stance upon which the general community would be able to judge the Government's or, as it were, the political response to what the critical comments of a professional body might be. We are not saying that any government would always be able to fulfil all the requirements that might be optimal in any situation, but I still believe it is useful to know what those optimal requirements are so that we are able to have a debate about whether or not resources from other areas ought to be diverted to bring us closer to. The Democrats are proposing 35 amendments to this Bill to strengthen both the National Board and its councils. They would allow the councils of the Board to embark on investigations on their own accord as well as those, of course, referred by the Minister and the Board. The situation fairly obviously is that any board which sought to ignore the requests of Ministers for advice would be marginalising itself to such an extent that it would be a useless activity to have around and would soon lose any prestige within the community. But we also believe that it is vitally important that items that not necessarily are ones that the Government wishes to pay too much close attention to for a variety of reasons, some of which of course could be political, ought also be able to be undertaken by the Board on its own operation. In addition, amendments I will move would require, as the Opposition has moved such amendments, that reports of the council and the boards provided to the Minister must be tabled in Parliament and not just, for example, those that are the result of ministerial references. Our amendments would remove the ability of the Board to censor sections of reports because of judgments about their confidential nature. The Bill currently proposes that advice from a council to the Minister may be presented in summary form. We say that any summary must be prepared by the council, not by the Board, and propose an amendment accordingly. Councillors appointed by the Minister to assist the Board and its councils in their work should not, we believe, report directly to the Minister. We do not think this could be a harmonious relationship and we are proposing instead that the reporting mechanism be through the Board to the Minister. We believe that the independence of the Board will also be strengthened if those holding the chairs of the councils and the Board are not eligible for reappointment. We think that they are much more likely to give fearless advice if they are not concerned, or even possibly concerned, about securing a future reappointment. The chairs of the higher education and schools councils, we believe, should be full time. We, in fact, originally proposed to the Government that all the chairs of the Council should be full time. The Government, however, I think quite rightly, put a proposition that, for example, the council dealing with employment and skill formation may very well need to be chaired by a business person who, in terms of prestige and eminence, would be unlikely to be obtained if he had to sever entirely, as probably the legal requirement would be, all his connections with business. It seemed to be more appropriate that the other two councils-the other council, of course, is the Research Council, which tends to be a more seasonal activity-could very well be undertaken constructively and usefully by part-time chairs. Hence, our amendment is only with regard to the higher education and schools councils. We further propose, as far as membership of the National Board is concerned, that greater account be taken of the complexities of science and technology from non-commercial points of view and we wish to extend the criteria for board membership so that at least seven shall be people having expertise or experience in matters relating to education or training or science technology. The idea of inserting there `or experience' is to make sure that we do not rule out a person who, for example, could be a national chair of a parents' committee. That seems to be a very appropriate type of person to have on such a schools council. We believe that there could have been a possibility of that person being ruled out on a narrow interpretation of what `expertise' might be. Here I may be erring on the side of caution but I think it is a reasonable proposition that parents, for example, ought to be eligible for appointment to the Schools Council. The Bill will allow councils to establish sub-committees to help them with their work. We propose that there should be a guarantee that at least one member of the subcommittee should be a member of that council. We are also proposing a number of minor amendments, including alternative wording in some instances. Our amendments would, amongst other things, give the Board and its councils greater independence. Further, it would be possible for them to publicly report their advice to government more extensively than would otherwise be the case. However, it is one thing to have the right to be able to undertake independent inquiries and to make reports. There must also, of course, be the ability to do so. We have great doubts as to whether the secretariat the Government is proposing for the Board and its councils-25 people-is adequate. I might point out here that the Australian Science and Technology Council alone has a secretariat of 22. The Australian Council for Employment and Training, which will be subsumed, of course, by the National Board, has a secretariat of 24. The research granting bodies to be subsumed by the National Body-that is, the Marine Research Allocations Advisory Committee, the National Research Fellowship Advisory Committee and the Australian Research Grants Committee-have a secretariat of 24. The Schools Commission, which will have part of its functions at least subsumed-certainly not the vast bulk of them, but part-and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission had a staff of more than 200. In terms of the National Board, we are very doubtful about the 25 and have argued this to the Government. I would hope that in the Minister's response we might indeed see what the Government's intentions are and how it might, in fact, wish to review the circumstances with regard to the extent of the number of 25 that it is now proposing as a secretariat. The Government, of course, has argued that the National Board secretariat will be able to multiply its effectiveness by harnessing the resources of the Department. This might be fine in theory, but I think anybody who has much experience with government departments will tell you how easy it is for a department to choke advisory bodies relying on that department. We are therefore proposing that the Bill be amended to direct, in legislation, that the Department must provide the Board and its councillors with information that the National Board sees as necessary for it to perform its tasks. If the department refuses to provide such information, or fails to do so in a reasonable time, the Board or the relevant council may report this to the Minister and the Minister must table this report in Parliament within 15 days of the receipt of the report. To further strengthen the hand of the National Board in this regard, we propose that the Minister, before referring a matter for advice to the Board, must consult the chairperson on the matter and this will enable the chairperson of the Board to point out to the Minister any difficulty there might be in meeting his or her requests because of a lack of staff resources and a need to complete existing projects. If the National Board is to have a high status, and we hope it will, it must have adequate resources. In many ways, I think, the strength of its policy advice to the Government will depend on the quality and effectiveness of its secretariat. We believe that the 35 amendments which we are proposing will go a long way towards enhancing the effectiveness of the Board and its councils. We would expect the Government to undertake that it will ensure that adequate resources are made available to its councils and we would also expect the Government to be monitoring the progress of the National Board, as I am sure it will, to make sure that it is effective. In conclusion, there are a couple of subsidiary items that I would like the Minister, if he could, to respond to because I believe, given the speakers list, that the time we will have in committee will be very short. First of all, I understand that pre-school education is included under another ministerial responsibility, but I do believe that since in a number of States we have teachers and a coordination between pre-school and the early years of primary school, the National Board ought be able at least to pay attention to that fact and, if it wishes to do so, be able to give advice about the rearrangements of primary education which do come under the Board's functions. I would hope that that particular activity is not to be ruled out by the legislation as it is proposed. What role does the Government propose for the Higher Education Council in any use of education profiles? We know that this process is almost under way. While the Government has not necessarily acknowledged this, the extended collection of data seems to point to the fact that the Government has already made a decision in this area. What is the role of the Board in that regard? Why did the Government fail to include a list of the functions of service for the Commonwealth Employment Service in part VI of the Bill, when there is such a list in the Commonwealth Employment Service Act 78, which this Bill seeks to repeal? What is the Government's commitment to establishing advisory committees to the reconstituted Commonwealth Employment Service? Obviously, as I have already mentioned, there is the ability to do so. Is the Government able to tell the Senate what its intentions are with regard to the establishment of those committees? Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(1.26) —I rise to speak on the Employment, Education and Training Bill 1988. To understand what is wrong with this Bill, one has only to look at its title. The Bill is fundamentally flawed because it de-emphasises the importance of education. Also, the positioning of the debate on this Bill, at a very late hour at the end of this session, is very similar to the way in which debate on an education Bill was positioned in the last sitting of this Parliament, when we scrambled through a discussion on education at about two o'clock in the morning. It is indicative of the way in which this Government places education in its hierarchy of interests and activities. It is not merely through some alphabetical accident that `employment' is listed first in this Bill and in the name of the Department. Education and training are clearly intended to be the handmaidens of the goddess employment, rather than employment being the outcome of sound education. I do not deny the importance of employment, which is critical to the well-being of our population, but there is a big difference between a job and a vocation. Technology has eliminated many of the formerly nasty jobs in our society, and will eliminate many more. Education is a key that opens the door to job satisfaction, pride in a task well done, and the ability to adapt to the changing requirements of the workplace. What does it mean to be educated? It means the development of whole personalities, able not only to function adequately in today's world and the workaday world, but also to enjoy it and to contribute to its further development. Is this what Australians, particularly young Australians, are being offered by this Government? What is the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) offering? A vision for a future society in which all citizens make their unique contribution to the well-being of their fellows, not just through paid employment, but through the full measure of their talents? No; the Minister and the Labor Government are-and I quote: determined that the education and training systems will play an active role in responding to the major economic challenges facing Australia. These challenges will make heavy demands on our human intellectual resources and labour force skills. That statement is contained in the second reading speech. The Minister continued: The new arrangements reflect the Government's determination to complement its commitment to restructure the Australian economy by revitalising education and training policies and programs to develop a highly adaptable and skilled work force. Equality of opportunity and the fulfilment of broad social goals are integral to this strategy. Effective and timely advice to government are essential ingredients to ensure that these objectives are realised in the most effective way available. His throwaway phrase about the fulfilment of broad social goals is the closest he comes to recognising the value of education per se. The highly adaptable work force he seeks will not be achieved if the school curriculum leads to too early a specialisation in skills that are narrowly focused. A highly adaptable work force is one trained to collect information, analyse it, synthesise it and apply it-in whatever discipline and across disciplines. We do not see these sorts of skills mentioned in any of the discussions on education by the Government. Before passing to more specific criticism of this Bill, I remind the Senate of what I said in my maiden speech: If Australia is to get in front again, we need the best young minds in Australia being taught by the best, most highly motivated, teachers and researchers. Mediocrity will not see us achieve our place as a competitor in the markets of the world, nor producing the professionals with the training required to deal with the complex social, moral and philosophical issues produced by electronic, technological and biomedical developments. The training of philosophers, social scientists and others in the humanities should not be neglected, either, in the current push for education to be relevant. The terrible danger of the approach taken in this Bill is that philosophers, writers, artists and actors are not only deemed to be irrelevant but are positively unwanted. One of my major criticisms of this Bill concerns the structure and function of the National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET). I would have liked to have been able to deal with these aspects in more detail in the committee stage. However, I am only able to highlight my major concerns. The most glaring criticism is that the Board is very circumscribed in its independence because of the joint interaction of clauses 7 (1) (b) and 7 (2). The Board is not allowed on its own initiative to advise the Minister if that advice prejudices something the Minister has directed it to do. I quote from a speech made in the House of Representatives on 21 April: We wanted a body which would have sole responsibility for these functions, one which would be independent of the Minister but still responsible to him. We wanted a body which would be seen as impartial and free from day to day political pressures, be accountable to Parliament and have a cross-section of capable, non-government people available for advice, have continuity of people and policies, and in the end have essentially the same costs as other alternatives. Well, surprise, surprise! I say to those honourable senators who are present that that speech was by Mr Barry Jones, the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, when he talked about the textiles, clothing and footwear industry. That Minister at least understands the importance of independent advice. The Minister for Employment, Education and Training does not understand its importance to an area of our society which is vital. I am not saying that textiles, clothing and footwear are not vital, but they are not quite as important as education. If we do not have decent education, we will not have a textiles, clothing and footwear industry anyway. Mr Barry Jones understands the importance as far as the textiles, clothing and footwear industry is concerned, but our Minister does not understand the importance of it for education. It only goes to show how little he understands about the importance of education for the continuation of our culture and our society. I refer also to one of the issues that the Board can deal with. It is outlined in clause 7 (3) (c). This is the provision of assistance for persons having difficulty in obtaining employment, education or training. One can only hope that this is intended to include beneficiaries of social security programs. If so, we would hope and expect to see some more concrete reference to integration of work force access with the social security system. There is an abundance of reports-for example, the report of the Social Security Review Committee, the report of the Brotherhood of St. Laurence entitled Hard Labour, and that of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training-which cite the lack of accessible, affordable, suitable child-care, both for infants and for school-age children, as one of the highest barriers to work force entry or re-entry for parents, whether there are one or two parents present in a family. I hope that somehow NBEET will address this issue. The research functions of the Board pose some interesting questions. Clauses 7 (4) (c) and 7 (4) (f), which concern the Board's role in setting national research priorities and allocating financial assistance for research, are interesting when they are combined. As we know, much research is carried out under the umbrella of the Commonwealth, in organisations and statutory authorities such as the Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, the Bureau of Industry Economics, the Bureau of Transport Economics, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Bureau of Mineral Resources, et cetera. There is commissioned research through government departments such as the Department of Community Services and Health and the Department of Social Security. It is not made clear in this Bill whether these are to be included in the resource allocation of NBEET. One can foresee some great barneys in the community and in Cabinet unless this is clarified. One of my other major concerns is about the membership of NBEET. The amendments we are supporting seek to minimise the big corporation approach by Government to the structure of the Board. The question I ask is: Where are the educators in this Bill? Clause 11 (2) (c) refers to persons having expertise in matters relating to education or-and I emphasise or-training. These are not interchangeable. Education is directed at broad, societal goals and training at narrow, work force goals. I also wonder whether my former academic colleagues may regret that the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations has joined the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), when the decision is made about the appointment of a person having expertise in matters relating to unions. There has been a suggestion-I have only seen it in the Press-that a likely appointee may be Mr Laurie Carmichael. Many academics will not be pleased, if that decision is made, about the sort of person who will represent them on NBEET. It is outrageous that we have had so little time to debate this Bill. The number of amendments indicates the extent of concern that the coalition and the Australian Democrats have about its adequacy. My most vital concern with this Bill is to see that education is not stifled and organised by ACTU reconstruction, ministerial control and bureaucratic interference. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(1.36) —I must say, as other senators have said, how poor it is that the management of business in this House means that debate on important Bills such as these has to be truncated, and how frustrating it is for senators who wish to speak to the legislation and the wide-ranging area that it covers to have to direct their remarks to particular areas that they find to be most important. They have to allow other senators to cover areas on which they also have an opinion. The area which concerns me most in the Employment, Education and Training Bill is that part relating to the establishment and functions of the Australian Research Council. The Australian Research Council is one of the four advisory councils to the main Board, the National Board of Employment, Education and Training, which has the appalling acronym, NBEET. Nonetheless, the concerns that I wish to express are those that are expressed in the amendments that the Opposition will move in the committee stage, which are backed up by a large percentage of scientific and academic people in Australia. The amendments that we will be moving will require that the appointment of the Chairman of the Australian Research Council shall be made only after consultation with the Australian Academy of Science, the Australian Academy of Technical Science and Engineering, the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia and the Australian Academy of Humanities. The reason, of course, is that this Research Council is the successor to the existing body, the Australian Research Grants Committee, which has had a long and successful history and which has served this country well. Many of the people who will serve on the new Board will have had an association with the former Grants Committee. It has come to the attention of many honourable senators, and indeed to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins)-because many of the academics concerned have made this point to the Minister-that, because of the nature of the Council and the fact that it will be dealing with science and technology, there is concern that the Chairman should be someone who is a scientist, either in the natural sciences or in the technological sciences, so that the Chairman may adequately reflect and understand the work of the scientific community. This proposal has been made to the Minister by bodies which include the Australian Academy of Science, the Royal Australian Chemical Institute, the Australian Institute of Physics, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, and the Australian Institute of Engineers. No less than nine eminent scientists have been prepared to put their names to a letter to the Minister, asking that this be considered. When eminent Australians, who have considered the importance of the work of the previous Grants Committee and the work that the Research Council will be involved in, make a very logical and reasoned plea, in no way hostile to the Minister or what he is trying to do, it is worthy of attention. In this area of education we should all strive for the situation where those people who have talents are best able to give of those talents. When such eminent bodies and such eminent academics as those that I have mentioned are sufficiently concerned to make a plea to the Minister, I think it is worthy of at least an answer. Indeed, these people put forward the name of a particular scientist whom they would consider to be a suitable person for that position. But the thrust of their argument is not based on personalities; it is not designed to have a particular person appointed, although he is obviously a preferred choice. The suggestion they are making, that the permanent chair be occupied by a scientist or a technologist of distinction, is a most reasonable one. As we are about to move to the committee stage-and I understand that the legislation is to be guillotined-I will restrict my remarks at this stage and perhaps take them up at a later stage. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(1.41) —In the interests of expediting the business of the Senate and avoiding delay in putting on a statutory footing the new advisory structures necessitated by the creation of the Employment, Education and Training portfolio, the Government has discussed with the Australian Democrats a number of changes that they wish to see made to the Employment, Education and Training Bill. As a result of those discussions, the Government is prepared to accept all the amendments proposed by Senator Macklin. In the course of discussions, a number of points were raised that, whilst not the subject of amendment, would be better understood if the Government were to state the position. These matters are in the areas of educational profiles for higher education institutions, the status of the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES), the secretariat to be provided to support the National Board of Employment, Education and Training and its councils, and the role of the Schools Council in pre-primary education. I believe it is important to run through these issues because they were raised by a number of honourable senators in their speeches. In regard to educational profiles, it is the Government's intention that the first task of the Higher Education Council, in association with the Department of Employment, Education and Training and other interested parties, such as the States and the bodies which collectively represent the management of the institutions, will be to develop and then negotiate these new arrangements with institutions. In regard to Administrative and Clerical Officers Association (ACOA) representatives, in developing this legislation consultations were held with a range of people and organisations, including the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association. The union sought and obtained a commitment from the Government on three basic points: firstly, the maintenance of a commitment to a public employment agency, consistent with Australia's obligations under International Labour Organisation Convention 88; secondly, the maintenance of comprehensive advisory structures dealing with the Employment Service; and, thirdly, the retention of an identified position of National Director of the Employment Service. All of these commitments are clearly reflected in the Bill. Since the earlier consultations, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) has had further representations from ACOA, relating to issues of detail in the proposed legislation. I would like to make some observations on these additional matters raised by ACOA. It seems to have a concern that more compact provisions from the Employment Service in this Bill, when compared with those in the Commonwealth Employment Service Act 1978, implies some walking away from a commitment to a public employment service. I assure the Senate, on behalf of Minister Dawkins, that there is no intention to reduce the role or functions of the Employment Service. Indeed, under the new and broader employment, education and training portfolio arrangements, the Government is currently examining the broadening of the functions of the CES, seeing it as the delivery arm for the wide range of client services that the portfolio now provides. An example is the move to have the Austudy scheme administered on a more decentralised basis through local CES outlets. If I may digress briefly, that is something that I know will be very much welcomed throughout Australia because there have been certain frustrations in my own area about some of the delays that have been occasioned by having to deal with an office based 1,000 miles from north Queensland. Another concern raised by ACOA was the status of the advisory committee structure for the Employment Service. Specifically, it is concerned that the Bill leaves the establishment of these committees to the discretion of the Minister and that membership and meeting requirements are not specified, as is the case in the current Act. The Minister has assured me of his firm commitment to establish and retain an advisory structure for the Employment Service along the lines of current arrangements. As honourable senators would be aware, the Bill incorporates a Government-initiated amendment providing for advisory committees to report to the National Director. This is consistent with present reporting arrangements and does address the concerns of the ACOA. The ACOA's final concern was about the lack of a requirement in this Bill for the National Director to prepare an annual report on the operation of the Employment Service. The requirement in the CES Act for the National Director to furnish the Minister with an annual report is no longer necessary. The Bill makes explicit that the Secretary to the departments of which the CES is a part will be the National Director. Under section 25 of the Public Service Act 1922, the Secretary to a department is required to furnish an annual report on the operation of the Department. A report on the Employment Service's operations will therefore be an integral part of that annual report. Some concerns have been expressed about the adequacy of secretariat staffing for the administrative support group to the Board and councils. The Minister intends to ensure that, as well as the Department serving as the major source of many matters for the Board and councils, the secretariat will have sufficient and appropriate staff to provide the necessary support services. In addition, it is the Minister's intention to review the adequacy of those staffing arrangements after the Board and councils have had a reasonable settling-in period of six months or so. In regard to the role of the Schools Council in pre-primary education, a concern has also been expressed about the lack of provision in the Bill for advice to government on pre-primary education. The Employment, Education and Training ministry has no general role in the area of pre-primary education. However, the Government considers that the area is one to which the Schools Council will need to pay due regard in formulating its advice about schools and primary and secondary education because of its importance and relevance to developments in the schools sector. Similarly, the Council is expected to be aware of matters in the post-secondary area that are of relevance to the Council's activities in the schools sector. I thank honourable senators for their contributions. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(1.49) —In regard to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill, there is reference to 1990 in the two parts of the Bill relating to the giving of notice to change the location of a school. The headings of those two clauses-subclause 3 (a) and subclause 4 (a) on page 2 of the Bill-include the date `1986', but in lines 6 and 41 there is reference to `1990'. I ask why Government policy would not be achieved-and that is the immediate effect of this change-if the word `1990' in the two instances were replaced with `1988'. The CHAIRMAN —Are there any further points to be raised on the Bills? Senator Colston —I think Senator Teague might have something further to say. If he has he could now rise. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(1.51) —I have asked the Minister why, on page 2 of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill, there is reference to 1990. Senator Reynolds —I am trying to find it. The CHAIRMAN —Are there any other points to be raised? Senator TEAGUE —No, there are no other points. We have received representations from various bodies that this may well be a drafting mistake. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(1.52) —We are having some difficulty in providing an immediate response to Senator Teague's query. Would he be happy for us to take it on notice? Senator Colston —Could I suggest that if it is a drafting mistake, Senator Teague might accept that a Chairman's amendment may be made. I am not quite sure whether that is possible. The CHAIRMAN —No, the Chairman cannot make an amendment of such substance. It must be done by way of amendment by this Committee, if it wishes to amend it. Progress reported. Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(1.54) —by leave-I propose to move all of my amendments, Nos (1) to (35), together so that the rest of the time of the Committee may be devoted to Senator Teague's amendments. I move: (1) Page 2, subclause 3 (1), definition of ``curricula'', lines 6 and 7, leave out the definition, insert the following definition: `` `curricula' means courses of study, and methods and procedures, for use in or in connection with teaching or learning in schools or tertiary institutions;''. (2) Page 2, subclause 3 (1), definition of ``school'', lines 38 and 39, leave out all words from and including ``but''. (3) Page 3, subclause 3 (1), paragraph (a) of definition of ``technical and further education'', line 13, leave out ``not to be a course of higher education'', insert ``to be a course of technical and further education''. (4) Page 5, after subclause 7 (2), insert the following new subclause: ``(2a) Before referring a matter to the Board under paragraph 7 (1) (a), the Minister shall consult with the Chairperson of the Board on the matter.''. (5) Page 6, paragraph 7 (4) (b), lines 13 and 14, leave out ``end products of research projects'', insert ``outcomes of research''. (6) Page 6, paragraph 8 (1), line 39, leave out ``comply with'', insert ``follow''. (7) Page 7, paragraph 9 (6) (b), line 34, after ``summary'', insert ``prepared by the Council''. (8) Page 8, subclause 9 (7), line 35, leave out ``may, and shall if so requested by the Minister,'' insert ``shall''. (9) Page 8, subclause 9 (9), lines 1 to 3, leave out the subclause, insert the following subclause''. ``(9) The Minister shall cause a copy of each report given under this section other than a report given under subsection (1), to be laid as soon as practicable before each House of the Parliament.''. (10) Page 8, subclauses 9 (10) and (11), lines 4 to 11, leave out the subclauses. (11) Page 8, subclause 11 (12), lines 20, 22, 24, after ``expertise'' in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), insert ``or experience''. (12) Page 8, paragraph 11 (2) (c), line 25, leave out ``or training'', insert ``, training, science or technology''. (13) Page 8, paragraph 11 (4) (b), line 35, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(b) another of the members to be the Deputy Chairperson of the Board; but a member who has held office as Chairperson on a full-time basis is not eligible for appointment to that office.''. (14) Page 12, paragraph 22 (6) (a), line 5, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(a) a majority of the members appointed to the Board constitute a quorum;''. (15) Page 13, subclause 24 (1), lines 2 to 23, leave out the subclause, insert the following subclause: ``(1) The functions of the Schools Council are: (a) to inquire into, and to provide information and advice to the board with respect to, any matter referred to the Council by the Minister or the Board, being: (i) a matter relating to schools or to primary or secondary education and, in particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, a matter relating to: (a) the general development of primary and secondary education in schools; (b) the marketing overseas of primary or secondary education programs developed in Australia; (c) the establishment of the priorities to be given in dealing with the needs of primary and secondary schools in respect of buildings, equipment, staff and other facilities; (d) the funding, planning and implementation of programs aimed at meeting such priorities referred to in sub-subparagraph (c) as have been, or may be, established; or (e) the granting of financial assistance by the Commonwealth in respect of school systems and schools; (ii) a matter relating to the education of handicapped children who have not attained school age; or (iii) any other matter on which information or advice may reasonably be required by the Minister or the Board in conjunction with information or advice in respect of a matter referred to in subparagraph (i) or (ii); (b) on its own motion, but subject to subsection (3), to inquire into, and provide information and advice to the Board with respect to, any matter referred to in subparagraph (a) (i), (ii) or (iii).''. (16) Page 13, paragraph 24 (2) (e), line 44, leave out ``and teaching methods''. (17) Page 14, after subclause 24 (2), insert the following subclause: ``(3) The Council may perform a function under paragraph (1) (b) only if the performance of that function does not prejudice the performance of its functions under paragraph (1) (a).''. (18) Page 14, clause 25, lines 9 to 31, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Functions of the Higher Educational Council ``25. (1) The functions of the Higher Education Council are: (a) to inquire into, and to provide information and advice to the Board with respect to, any matter referred to the Council by the Minister or the Board, being: (i) a matter relating to higher education and, in particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, a matter relating to: (a) the general development of higher education in Australia; (b) the marketing overseas of higher education programs developed in Australia; (c) the establishment of the priorities to be given in dealing with the needs of higher education institutions and other institutions providing higher education in respect of buildings, equipment, staff and other facilities; (d) the funding, planning and implementation of programs aimed at meeting such priorities referred to in sub-paragraph (c) as have been, or may be, established; or (e) the granting of financial assistance by the Commonwealth in respect of higher education institutions and other institutions offering higher education; or (ii) any other matter on which information or advice may reasonably be required by the Minister or the Board in conjunction with information or advice in respect of a matter referred to in subparagraph (i); (b) on its own motion, but subject to subsection (2), to inquire into, and provide information and advice to the Board with respect to, any matter referred to in paragraph (a) (i) or (ii). ``(2) The Council may perform a function under paragraph (1) (b) only if the performance of that function does not prejudice the performance of its functions under paragraph (1) (a).''. (19) Page 14 and 15, clause 26, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Functions of the Employment and Skills Formation Council ``26. (1) The functions of the Employment and Skills Formation Council are: (a) to inquire into, and to provide information and advice to the Board with respect to, any matter referred to the Council by the Minister or the Board, being: (i) a matter relating to employment, technical and further education or the formation of skills and, in particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, a matter relating to: (A) employment policies, programs or services; (B) the general development of technical and further education; (C) the marketing overseas of technical and further education programs developed in Australia; (D) the establishment of the priorities to be given in dealing with the needs of technical and further education institutions or other institutions providing technical and further education in respect of buildings, equipment, staff and other facilities; (E) the funding, planning and implementation of programs aimed at meeting such priorities referred to in sub-sub-paragraph (D) as have been, or may be, established; (F) the granting of financial assistance by the Commonwealth to technical and further education institutions and other institutions offering technical and further education; (G) policies, programs, or services, for the formation of skills; or (H) the promotion of effective training in the business and industrial sectors; or (ii) any other matter on which information or advice may reasonably be required by the Minister or the Board in conjunction with information or advice in respect of a matter referred to in subparagraph (i); (b) on its own motion, but subject to subsection (2), to inquire into, and provide information and advice to the Board with respect to, any matter referred to in subparagraph (a) (i) or (ii). ``(2) The Council may perform a function under paragraph (1)(b) only if the performance of that function does not prejudice the performance of its functions under paragraph (1) (a).''. (20) Page 16, subclause 27(1), at end of subclause, insert the following paragraph: ``(c) on its own motion, but subject to subsection (3), to inquire into, and provide information and advice to the Board with respect to, any matter referred to in subparagraph (b(i) or (ii).''. (21) Page 16, after subclause 27(2), insert the following new subclause: ``(3) The Council may perform a function under paragraph (1)(c) only if the performance of that function does not prejudice the performance of its functions under paragraphs (1)(a) or (b).''. (22) Page 16, after clause 29, insert the following new clause: Reports by Councils ``29A. (1) Where a Council gives advice to the Board under this Part, the Board shall, as soon as practicable, send to the Minister: (a) a copy of the advice; or (b) if the Board considers it more appropriate that only a summary of the advice be given to the Minister-such a summary prepared by the Council; together with written comments in respect of the advice. ``(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of each advice or summary of advice and of the written comments sent to him or her under subsection (1) to be laid as soon as practicable before each House of the Parliament.''. (23) Page 17, after subclause 31 (1), insert the following new subclause: ``(1a) In the case of the Schools Council and of the Higher Education Council, at least one of the members of the Board appointed to be members of the Councils shall be a full-time member of the Board.''. (24) Page 17, paragraphs 31 (3) (a) and (b), lines 18 to 21, leave out the paragraphs, insert the following: ``(a) in the case of the Schools Council and of the Higher Education Council-the member, or a member, of the Council who is also a full-time member of the Board to be the Chairperson of the Council; (b) in the case of each of the other Councils-a member of the Council who is also a member of the Board to be the Chairperson of the Council; and (c) in every case-another member of the Council to be the Deputy Chairperson of the Council; but a member of the Council who has held office as Chairperson of that Council is not eligible for appointment to that office.''. (25) Page 18, subclause 34 (3), lines 29 to 31, leave out the subclause. (26) Page 19, paragraph 36 (2) (b), lines 9 and 10, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(b) comprise at least one person referred to in paragraph (a) and persons other than persons referred to in that paragraph.''. (27) Page 24, paragraph 56 (1) (a), lines 1 and 2, leave out the paragraph. (28) Page 24, subclause 56 (2), line 6, leave out ``Minister'', insert ``Board''. (29) Page 24, subclause 56 (3), lines 7 to 10, leave out the subclause. (30) Page 25, after clause 59, insert the following clause: Department to provide information ``59a. (1) The Board or a Council may request the Department, in writing, to furnish to it information specified in the request, being information that the Board or the Council reasonably requires for the proper performance of its functions and believes to be in the possession, or under the control, of the Department. ``(2) Where: (a) the Department refuses or fails to furnish to the Board or a Council, within a reasonable time, information that it has been requested to furnish under subsection (1); and (b) the Board or the Council is of the opinion that the refusal or failure is unreasonable; the Board or the Council may report the refusal or failure to the Minister. ``(3) The Minister shall cause a copy of a report received by him or her under subsection (2) to be laid before each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of the House after the day on which the Minister received the report.''. (31) Page 29, Schedule 1, after ``Armidale College of Advanced Education'' in Part I, insert ``Avondale College''. (32) Page 30, Schedule 1, after ``James Cook University of North Queensland'' in Part III, insert ``McAuley College''. (33) Page 30, Schedule 1, after ``Canberra College of Advanced Education'' in Part VIII, insert ``Signadou College of Education''. (34) Page 31, Schedule 2, the part of that Schedule that amends paragraph (b) of the definition of ``recognised educational institution'' in subsection 3 (1) of the Bounty (Books) Act 1969, leave out all words after ``substitute'', insert ``Employment, Education and Training Act 1988, other than such a school or institution conducted for the profit, directly or indirectly, of an individual or individuals''. (35) Page 31, Schedule 2, the part of that Schedule that amends paragraph (b) of the definition of ``recognised educational institution'' in subsection 4 (1) of the Bounty (Books) Act 1986, leave out all words after ``substitute'', insert ``Employment, Education and Training Act 1988, other than such a school or institution conducted for the profit, directly or indirectly, of an individual or individuals''. Amendments agreed to. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(1.55) —I did not object to the adoption of the Australian Democrats' amendments on the ground that the Government had clearly assented to the Democrats' amendments and, therefore, because the Opposition supports three-quarters of them-in fact, all of the most substantial ones-and because the wording is very similar to that of the Opposition's 18 amendments, we are improving the Bill very substantially by including those amendments. However, for the record I note that the Opposition would not, had it not been for this package approach, have approved of the Democrats' amendments Nos (8), (11), (12), (16), (23), (24), (25), (28), (34) and (35). If there were time, I could give reasons for that. However-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! It is not really a matter of time. They have already been passed by the Committee. You should move your own amendments now. Senator TEAGUE —Yes. I take your advice, Mr Chairman. I will therefore concentrate on the remainder of the Opposition amendments that we have proposed which are not already covered by the amendments that the Committee has adopted and which I believe could well be supported by the chamber. These eight Opposition amendments are listed as (3), (8), (9), (13), (14), (15), (16) and (17). I wish to speak to those eight as a whole. Therefore I seek leave to move the eight amendments together. Leave granted. Senator TEAGUE —I move: (3) Page 6, after subclause 7 (6), add the following new subclause: ``(7) The Board may delegate any of its functions to a Council.''. (8) Page 13, after paragraph 24 (2) (e), insert the following new paragraphs: ``(ea) the need to raise educational standards of schools; (eb) the need to maintain discipline in schools;''. (9) Page 14, after subclause 24 (2), add the following new subclause: ``(3) In the exercise of its functions, the Schools Council shall consult and co-operate with persons, bodies and authorities conducting government and non-government schools.''. (13) Page 16, after paragraph 30 (2) (b), add the following word and new paragraph: ``; and (c) may authorise the publication of any comment or submission made to it, of any document presented to it, or of any report made by it.''. (14) Page 17, subclause 31 (3), lines 17 to 21, leave out the subclause, insert the following subclause: ``(3) The Governor-General shall appoint: (a) subject to section 31a, one of the members of a Council chosen from the members of the Board who is not a member of the Council appointed under subsection 2 to be the Chairperson of the Council having regard to the relevance of the experience and expertise of that member to the responsibilities of the Council; and (b) Another member of the Council to be the Deputy Chairperson of the Council.''. (15) Page 17, after clause 31, insert the following new clause: Chairperson of Australian Research Council ``31a. An appointment of Chairperson of the Australian Research Council shall only be made after consultation with the Australian Academy of Science, the Australian Academy of Technological Science and Engineering, the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia and the Australian Academy of the humanities.''. (16) Page 20, paragraph 42 (1) (a), lines 10 and 11, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraphs: ``(a) the Chairperson of the National Board of Employment, Education and Training, who shall be the Chairperson of the Committee; (aa) the Secretary of the Department;''. (17) Page 20, subclause 42 (4), line 22, before ``A person'', insert ``Except for the Chairperson of the Board,''. In the two minutes before Question Time begins, I will try to be very concise. I believe that our amendment No. (3) should be supported because it should be possible for the Board to delegate its functions to any of the councils. I believe that amendment No. (8) should be supported because amongst the terms of reference of the Schools Council there should be the inclusion of the words we propose that relate to standards and to discipline. I believe that amendment No. (9) should be supported because the Schools Council should be required in its deliberations to consult and to cooperate with government and non-government schools. In this respect we are taking up these words that were included in the Commonwealth Schools Commission legislation: In the exercise of its functions, the Schools Council shall consult and co-operate with persons, bodies and authorities conducting government and non-government schools. Amendment No. (13) should be supported because, in addition to the admirable amendment that the Democrats have introduced, concerning the Board and the councils being able to publish advice, I believe that the councils should also be authorised to publish submissions that they receive. That is what amendment No. (13) does. Amendment Nos (14) and (15) require that the chairperson of the councils not be a public servant. There is provision on page 17 of the Bill, under subclause 31 (2), whereby a person who is an officer or employee of the Australian Public Service can be appointed. Amendments Nos (14) and (15) prevent the chairperson of the councils being a public servant and also require that the chairperson of the Australian Research Council be appointed only after consultation with learned bodies. The learned bodies referred to in the amendment are expressed in these terms: An appointment of Chairperson of the Australian Research Council shall only be made after consultation with the Australian Academy of Science, the Australian Academy of Technological Science and Engineering, the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia and the Australian Academy of the Humanities. Finally, amendment Nos (16) and (17) would have the chairperson of the consultative committee, not the Secretary to the Department, as the Chairperson of the National Board. I commend this package of eight amendments to the Committee. Amendments negatived. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Honourable senators will recall that, in the Senate this morning, the matter of relocating the cappuccino coffee machine in the provisional Parliament House staff cafeteria to the staff cafeteria in the new Parliament House was raised. I have taken this matter up with officers of the Joint House Department, who advise me that the Department is presently taking action to have cappuccino machines installed in the staff and public cafeterias in the new building. I am informed that the replacement equipment will be available for use prior to the Budget sitting of Parliament. I should add that it is not proposed, even for sentimental reasons, to relocate the machine presently in use in the staff cafeteria in this building as it will not have the capacity to handle the estimated demand in the new House. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that the Minister for Resources, Senator Cook, is absent from Question Time today as he is undertaking discussions with the Tasmanian Government in Launceston on the forest accord. Any questions normally directed to Senator Cook in relation to his portfolio or those he represents should be directed to the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh. Senator LEWIS —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, relates to the matter which I raised with him last Monday week. Can the Minister yet tell me why the Treasurer has not delivered to the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) the terms of reference for an inquiry into non-tax government charges on industry as he announced in a Press release on 26 January this year? What about the other inquiries? In that Press release of 26 January, which got for the Treasurer a major front page coverage, he announced a forward inquiry program for the IAC comprising, firstly, proposed broad inquiries on impediments to competitiveness, namely, government charges on industry commencing early 1988; trade in services commencing early 1988; food processing commencing mid-1988; and travel and tourism commencing late 1988; and, secondly, industry reviews. The first two matters have already been dealt with in the May economic statement, namely, fabricated metal products and industrial machinery and white goods but, in addition, he announced a scheduled mid-term review of present dairying arrangements commencing mid-1988 and a sugar industry review commencing mid-1988. Is it the Government's intention to go ahead with all or any of these inquiries? Is Senator Button aware of any references to the IAC which the Treasurer has actually delivered since Mr Keating took over ministerial responsibility for the IAC from Senator Button? Finally, when will the Prime Minister deal with the Treasurer for the Treasurer's failure to deal adequately with his ministerial responsibilities in this area? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the announcement made by the Treasurer in January and, of course, I have not forgotten Senator Lewis's question of a week or so ago. I am able to say, without being able to give precise details, that in the last day or two I have sighted letters from the Treasurer which foreshadow an early reference of some of these matters to the IAC; that is to say, the time has ripened, as it were, and one can anticipate an early referral of some of the matters to which Senator Lewis refers to the IAC. I am not able to answer that part of the question, which I do not think was in Senator Lewis's question of a week or so ago, relating to dairy marketing schemes and sugar. I rather imagine that at least the sugar issue has, in part, been dealt with in Mr Kerin's May statement and possibly the dairying issue has been dealt with, in part, in the May statement. I would also like to check up on whether the reference to food processing is not incorporated, in some ways, in the May statement because of tariff reductions which would have been announced there. Having said all that, I believe that within the next months there will be some references to the IAC of the kind foreshadowed by the Treasurer in January this year. Senator Lewis also asked me whether I was aware of any references made by the Treasurer to the IAC since January. Senator Lewis —Since he took over. Senator BUTTON —Since the Treasurer took over. The answer to that part of the question is no, I am not aware of any, but that does not mean that there have not been any. I think there may have been one or two references in relation to minor manufacturing matters since the Treasurer took over. I believe that there have been but I am not sure, so I am not able to answer that part of the question with great accuracy. In relation to the burden of the question as to why these references foreshadowed in January have taken this length of time to be delivered to the IAC, I can only guess, but I think the guess may well produce the answer that the Treasurer and the Treasury have been very busy in preparation of the May statement and-- Senator Stone —They have been nothing. Senator Short —They haven't done anything about it; that is what you are saying. Senator BUTTON —Honourable senators should let me finish. They should not get too excited at this stage. The Treasurer and the Treasury have been very busy in relation to other matters. Of course, a lot of the issues which are inherent for consideration by the IAC in some of these references are matters which were on the agenda of the structural adjustment committee, the deliberations of which might well impinge on some of these matters. Senator McKIERNAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer to Senator Stone's comments in his column in the Australian newspaper this morning that the Minister for Finance and the Treasurer had fundamentally failed `to cut the spending programs over which their Cabinet colleagues preside'. I ask the Minister: What is the Government's record in relation to cutting spending? Further, how does that record compare with the record of the previous coalition Government? Senator WALSH —I did see Senator Stone's article. Of course, it is the article of a political propagandist, which he now is. In response to the last part of the honourable senator's question, I refer to what Senator Stone wrote to Mr Howard in 1983 in the hope that, by some freak of electoral fortune, he would still be Treasurer after the first week of March 1983. Senator Stone, in his previous incarnation as Treasury Secretary rather than as a political propagandist, the capacity in which he now writes a weekly column in the Australian, wrote in 1983: When the estimated cost in 1983-84 of the new policy proposals announced in the policy speech is added, the prospect is for a Budget deficit of almost $10 billion. I repeat the words `a Budget deficit of almost $10 billion'. He continued: Such a deficit would be equivalent to . . . 5 1/2 per cent of projected GDP, the highest in Australian post-war history. He also wrote: First, the magnitude of the fiscal imbalance is unprecedented in Australia during peace time, as is the level of Government spending. I could quote many other passages in that minute which make similar points. So that is what Senator Stone actually thinks about the record of the previous Government. In response to the part of the question concerning the expenditure control record of this Government, I have in front of me a graph taken from the Forward Estimates of expenditure published towards the end of last year which shows-starting back in 1981-82, the second last Fraser-Howard Budget-projected expenditure on no policy change shooting up to the extent of, in real terms, 6 and 7 per cent a year. It shows the same for the previous Government's last Budget, with expenditure increases in real terms shooting up by 6 and 7 per cent a year in the following years. The graph started to flatten out at the time we came to government, and eventually it started to go downwards. The graph indicates the $10 billion deficit-- Senator Puplick —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. I want to know whether the Minister has a proper ticket in Actors Equity or whether he is just carrying on like a fool. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order, but the Minister would not be on his own today if he did. Senator WALSH —We can see here a line shooting up, showing the $10 billion deficit that Senator Stone was talking about. It took us five years to sort out the mess John Howard left behind him. It took five years, but we have sorted it out. It was sorted out in the last Budget. I cannot produce the other graph because it covers only the one year but since then, and as a result of statements made last week, the thick black line down the bottom which shows-- Senator Puplick —Tell him to blow in the bag. Senator WALSH —I would be pretty careful if I were you, mate. I would be very careful. This thick black line shows that in the out years, on no policy changes, expenditure was actually falling in real terms. As a result of the May statement, it is falling even more. That is the record of this Government on expenditure control compared with the record of the previous Government, as assessed by Senator Stone, himself. Senator REID —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters. Can the Minister advise how many present recipients of compensation under the existing Commonwealth employees' compensation legislation will have their entitlements to compensation reviewed under the Government's new compensation legislation? If as a result of any review of entitlement persons presently in receipt of compensation are determined to be ineligible for compensation, will they be offered employment by the Commonwealth or will they simply lose their compensation entitlements? Senator BUTTON —There is legislation before the Senate in respect of this matter and I do not think in those circumstances this question can be appropriately asked in the context of Question Time. I think it is out of order. Having said all that, I am unable to answer Senator Reid's question without obtaining some further information. I will seek to do that. Senator AULICH —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. In the light of the debate over the use of our valuable forest resources, can the Minister tell us whether the Government is investigating the possibility of recycling paper from government offices? Can he also tell the Senate what volume of waste paper would be involved in that process? Senator RICHARDSON —The answer to Senator Aulich's question is: A great deal. At present about 35 per cent of paper consumed in Australia is recovered for recycling. While we would all like to see that figure go higher, it is of course much higher than in some comparable countries. One way to meet the demand is to tap the waste paper generated in government offices-and there is a lot of waste paper in government offices. In the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) alone it is estimated that about 20 to 30 tonnes of office waste paper are generated every week. However, because of contamination by beverages and food wastes, much of the waste paper, except for that paper separated after collection, is not acceptable to the paper recyclers. In order to enhance the recycling potential, not just here in the ACT but elsewhere, a scheme which involves the separation of paper in the work place, at source, by individual employees was developed by my Department in cooperation with the Department of Administrative Services, and it has been run on a trial basis in Adelaide since November of last year. As a result of that trial, all Commonwealth departments occupying the new Commonwealth Centre in Adelaide are now adopting the scheme and it is expected that we will not only reduce the cost of disposal of office waste but also greatly increase the amount of waste paper income that can be generated. My Department now plans to promote this approach across the Public Service and, while I do not think anyone can give Senator Aulich an estimate of just how much waste paper is involved in government departments, let alone the community at large, I am hopeful that we can have a real effect on recycling and perhaps lessen the need to attack forest resources all over the country. Senator HAINES —I preface my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer by referring the Minister to the final paragraph of a statement made by the Treasurer with regard to foreign investment policy on 29 September 1987, in which he said: Pending the passage through Parliament of the proposed legislation, the Government expects foreign interests, and Australian parties with which they are associated, to comply with the new policy, and to submit all urban real estate proposals to the Foreign Investment Review Board for examination. Will the Minister explain why this legislation still has not been introduced into the Parliament? Further, I ask whether the Government will consider tightening existing regulations to control foreign ownership of residential property in the light of comments made by Mr Robert Bevan, President of the New South Wales Real Estate Institute, as reported in yesterday's Australian newspaper: There are so many loopholes in the regulations that someone from Hong Kong could come down in an oil tanker and bring his money in and no-one would do anything about it. I ask whether the Minister will comment on the following statement of Mr Bevan: I don't believe the Federal Government wanted to stop foreign investment at all . . . it- that is, the Foreign Investment Review Board- doesn't really work. Senator WALSH —This question reminds me of a comment that my colleague Graeme Campbell made when he received a letter from a city council in Perth a few years ago expressing great concern about foreign purchases of land. He wrote back to the council saying he, too, was extremely worried about this, especially if they rolled it up and took it away with them. While I would not entirely go along with that, I think this is a rather emotional question which gets some people a bit more excited than it ought to. I do have a note from the Treasurer on this matter in general which refers to the tightening of the foreign investment guidelines announced on 29 September last year. The Treasurer has also announced that amendments would be introduced to the Foreign Takeovers Act to provide legislative backing for those restrictions, and they are to be backdated to 29 September 1987. The thrust of the new requirements is to restrict markedly the purchase by foreign interests of developed residential properties. I stress `of developed residential properties' because it is proposed that incomplete developments or land which is proposed to be developed for residential building should be treated quite separately. The effect of those new requirements will be to channel foreign demand for residential real estate away from established properties and into acquisitions off the plan or at the development stage. That shift will help expand the housing stock and bring more direct benefit to Australia in the form of employment. The Government welcomes foreign investment that is consistent with the needs of the community and which has that effect. Finally, the Government is seeking the cooperation of the real estate industry and of foreign and Australian parties in ensuring compliance with the requirements. If the President of the Real Estate Institute has evidence of foreign interests purchasing residential real estate without approval, the Government invites him to put that information before the Foreign Investment Review Board. Senator GIETZELT —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade: What is the Government's assessment of the significance of the Reagan-Gorbachev superpower summit in Moscow? To what extent has Australia been able to have an input into the process leading to this important meeting? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government considers that the Moscow summit has confirmed and consolidated the quite obviously major improvement that has occurred in recent times in superpower relations. The state of the relations between the superpowers is manifestly of profound importance to the whole climate of international affairs and the scope and depth of the present dialogue between the superpowers is without precedent and provides strong ground for basic optimism about the future. In Moscow the two leaders built on the substantial accomplishments of the past three years, including the historic intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) agreement and the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan. While there, they exchanged instruments of ratification for the INF treaty, setting off the elaborate process that will eliminate all their land based nuclear missiles in the 500 to 5,000 kilometre range. They also signed agreements on prior notification of strategic ballistic missile tests and on the experimental site monitoring of nuclear tests. They signed a number of bilateral agreements, including on fisheries, people to people contact and maritime and air navigation safety in the north Pacific. They made further progress on the difficult issues outstanding in the negotiations on 50 per cent reductions in strategic nuclear forces which have generated renewed optimism that an agreement might be finalised before the end of the year. The Australian Government has been regularly briefed on progress in the superpower dialogue, the superpower negotiations, and we have certainly taken every opportunity available to us to inject our views into that process. Reciprocally, a senior member of the United States Administration will travel to Australia in the near future to brief the Prime Minister and other Ministers on the outcome of that summit. Also, of course, the Prime Minister will be able to obtain a first-hand account of the summit when he meets President Reagan later this month. Senator CHANEY —I remind the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade of the longstanding concern of successive Australian governments for the plight of Soviet Jews, concerns which have been expressed by both sides of politics. I also refer the Minister to the fact that members of the Christian church in the Soviet Union have also been the subject of persecution and have had their places of worship closed down and other rights of worship severely curtailed. I add that that issue is very pertinent at the moment in view of President Reagan's visit to a monastery in Moscow and his expressed hope that many more places of Christian worship will be reopened. Is the Government aware of the existence of and does it support the work of the Keston College organisation, which is established in Australia and in countries overseas as a voice for silenced and persecuted churches in communist countries? Does the Government monitor the treatment of the Christian church by Soviet authorities? Has it ever expressed any concern to the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics over the suppression of all religious believers there? Further, has the Government made any direct approaches on the church's behalf or on behalf of individual Christians who, for reasons of religious persecution or intolerable constraints on their ability to practise their religion, wish to leave Russia? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Australian Government is well aware of the Keston College organisation. The Director of Keston College was received by a senior officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade during his visit to Australia last year. The Government took that opportunity to convey its admiration and support for the College's quite invaluable activities in monitoring religious affairs in the Soviet Union, China and East Europe and in assisting believers. As to the latter part of the question, the Australian Embassy in Moscow, as I think is now well known, consistently monitors human rights, including the treatment of Christian and other religious groups in the Soviet Union. When the Government's attention has been drawn to individual cases of religious persecution it has made representations to the Soviet Government. Honourable senators will perhaps also be aware that the Australian Government has negotiated a human contacts agreement with the Soviet Union which is presently under consideration by Ministers. In that agreement, the Soviet Union has accepted the obligation to facilitate contacts between adherents of various religious faiths and to permit the entry of religious material. Senator COATES —Is the Minister for Transport and Communications aware that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has proposed a serious downgrading of its radio news service in Tasmania, so that it would be run from Melbourne and with a 40 per cent reduction in staff in Tasmania? While acknowledging that such decisions are ones that the ABC itself must be responsible for and not the Minister, I ask the Minister whether he would agree, and convey the view to the ABC, that such a downgrading would be seen as an insult to Tasmania and would do nothing to enhance either the credibility of the news service or the loyalty of Tasmanians to the ABC. Senator GARETH EVANS —I say generally at the outset that the ABC has recognised, with a little help from the Government, the need to streamline and reorganise its operations in order to maintain and improve its services within its available resources, and to do so all around Australia. That recognition has resulted in a recent major internal review of ABC operations right across the board. It has to be said that the resources review document which has been produced by the ABC is a major step giving a serious indication of willingness by the ABC Board and management to come to grips with some hitherto fairly intractable problems in internal resource allocation and efficiency. Without saying anything about the quality of individual recommendations affecting Tasmania or other areas, on behalf of the Government I welcome the evidence of seriousness of purpose which is now evident in the ABC's approach to these problems. Senator Harradine —How many chiefs have gone from Sydney? Senator GARETH EVANS —Hang on; we will get to that. The detailed content of the report will be a matter of consultation with the ABC staff and all relevant unions over the next little while. It is important to appreciate that while a resources review document has been prepared-and it is a thick and substantial one-no actual decisions have been yet made by the ABC Board on the basis of that document. Certainly the Tasmanian ABC staff can be expected to-no doubt they will-participate fully in the consultation process that the ABC board is seeking. In response specifically to Senator Coates's concerns about ABC radio news staff in Hobart, not to mention the concern of the Tasmanian people as a whole, I accept that a major concern is the maintenance of an effective high quality local news service. I also accept that the ABC Board and management have that same objective. If, as a result of these review and consultative processes, the ABC were eventually to reduce its news staff in Hobart in the way that has been foreshadowed, I understand that measures would be taken to uphold the present quantity and quality of local news. This might be achieved through various measures such as improved technical equipment, the computerised distribution of news material and so on, the rationalisation of news schedules and the proposed greater use of journalists in actual news presentations. Again, on the current affairs side, I understand that it is part of the proposed rationalisation scenario that there be actually an upgrade to the extent that for the first time there would be a full time radio current affairs reporter in Tasmania. Finally, with regard to that part of the question which dealt with the possible placement of the radio news editor in Melbourne, this is a matter again on which I am told that certainly no final decision has been made, any more than such decisions have been made anywhere else. The Tasmanian branch of the ABC Staff Association will no doubt be presenting a quite forceful case for the retention of a Hobart-based news editor given that Hobart is, of course, a State capital and Tasmania, as we all know, has a distinctive political, social and cultural life of its own. I am sure those factors will be taken very much into account. Having said all that-- Senator Bishop —Boring! Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not half as boring as anything Senator Bishop has been offering us in the last two weeks. Against that background I have to say that it is a matter for the ABC Board and management mercifully. It is not a matter for the Government. I will ensure that the ABC is made aware of the noises Senator Coates has been making and the representations that are in the process of being made to me with some vigour by Senator Harradine and some of his colleagues, and Senator Tate. Anyone else? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I direct my question to the Minister for Local Government. Is the Government aware that some local authorities are anxious for ministerial direction to be given to Australia Post and Telecom Australia for the payment of general rates or an amount equivalent to general rates due to councils? In view of the financial difficulties that some local authorities are experiencing at present, will the Government change its policy in relation to these instrumentalities so that local authorities are able to be reimbursed the costs of the rates due to them? Senator REYNOLDS —The Government is aware of local government's legitimate concerns about Commonwealth trading enterprises paying general rates. It is for this reason that my Department, in conjunction with the Local Government Ministers Conference, prepared and circulated a brochure earlier this year to assist local government in assessing whether a Commonwealth trading enterprise should be paying an amount equivalent to general rates. I would be happy to ensure that Senator Bjelke-Petersen has a copy of that brochure. On 13 May 1988, in the context of the Premiers Conference, the Treasurer announced that as part of its review of government business enterprises the Government decided to remove the exemptions for Telecom and Australia Post from local government taxes, rates and charges. This will take effect from July 1989. It is estimated that this change will be worth in the vicinity of $20m to local government and will benefit almost every local government authority in Australia. I am sure that local government will greatly appreciate this move, particularly in the light of recent announcements in the May economic statement. Senator CROWLEY —I direct my question to you, Mr President. At the end of the last parliamentary session I raised the question of how few portraits of women were hung in our parliamentary halls and corridors. While I have been drawn to Henry Kendall's eyes, other Tweedledum and Tweedledee gentlemen are less attractive to our corridors. Is it possible to reconsider the possibility of former Senator the Hon. Susan Ryan and former Senator the Hon. Dame Margaret Guilfoyle having their portraits done, not only to enhance our halls but also to acknowledge the great contribution of these women to Parliament? Further, is it possible to seek portraits of non-parliamentary women to hang alongside their parliamentary colleagues, as is the case with men? Senator SIBRAA —In November 1986 my predecessor wrote to the Prime Minister suggesting that the portraits of the then Senator Susan Ryan and Senator Janine Haines be painted and included in the Historic Memorials Collection. The Prime Minister sought the advice of the Secretary of the Historic Memorials Committee which, after reviewing past practice, recommended that these portraits not be commissioned. The views of the Historic Memorials Committee were sought on this recommendation and, I believe, in April 1987 the advice not to proceed was accepted by the Committee. However, I note that Senator Crowley has mentioned Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, as well as the possibility of including portraits of other distinguished women in the collection. I undertake to raise these matters with the Prime Minister and the Historic Memorials Committee at the earliest opportunity. Senator PATTERSON —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations to yesterday's strike by metal workers, which has cost Australia about $60m in lost production, continuing industrial lawlessness by the Transport Workers Union of Australia, which has been condemned in the strongest terms by Deputy President Keogh, today's action by Telecom Australia employees, and threats of action in other sectors of the economy which are all part of the unions' 6 per cent wage rise campaign. Will the Government urge the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), which has endorsed the unions' actions, to call off the campaign before it does any more damage to Australia's fragile economy? What is the Government's view of the appropriate timetable for the coming national wage case hearing? Senator BUTTON —I do not have a note on the second part of the honourable senator's question, but I understood that it was just about to start. If the honourable senator is asking me when it will end, it would be a bold man who predicted that in relation to any Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission hearing. As to the 6 per cent claims to which Senator Patterson specifically referred, the Minister for Industrial Relations has already made public comments about this issue which I am sure the honourable senator will have read. The essence of those statements is that the current wage guidelines apply until such time as the national wage bench has prescribed a new wage fixation system. The Minister has said that on several occasions. I do not want to get into the longstanding debate about how we stop people from expressing their views in this society about particular issues or taking particular actions which may be detrimental to other members of the community. Many interest groups do that. I do not know how we take it further in a society such as this other than adopt the attitude which has been expressed very firmly by the Minister both to the ACTU and, I think, to the unions in question. Senator DEVLIN —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade comment on reports that a number of Australian business people have been expelled from the Solomon Islands? What are the implications of this development for our bilaterial relations with the Solomon Islands? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that 12 Australian business people have been expelled from the Solomons and that threats have been made against Australian High Commission staff. Australia has traditionally had a very warm and friendly relationship with the Solomon Islands, but it is clear that the reputations of Australian business people and of Australian High Commission personnel have been damaged by unfounded allegations about the propriety of their business dealings, including allegations of gold and drug smuggling. The Mr Smith referred to in Press reports has no connection whatsoever with the Australian Government or, to the best of the Government's knowledge, with any legitimate national or international agency. It is clear that his activities in the Solomon Islands have not assisted Australian interests there or those of the Solomon Islands itself. The Government is confident that the present difficulties will be resolved by continued close consultation with the Solomon Islands Government or, where legal disputes exist, through the appropriate Solomon Islands legal channels. Certainly the Government has full confidence in the High Commissioner, Mr Gaylard, and his staff. Mr Gaylard has worked competently and effectively to protect legitimate Australian interests and to maintain good relations between Australia and the Solomons in a very difficult set of circumstances engendered in the last few months by a persistent campaign of malicious and defamatory rumour-mongering. The Government respects the right of the Solomon Islands Government to admit or exclude whom it chooses to. We, of course, regret the ban imposed on the Australian journalists and have made our position known to the Solomon Islands Government in that respect. Senator McGAURAN —I direct my question to the Minister for Finance, who I understand is filling in for the absent Minister for Resources. I ask whether the Minister's attention has been drawn to a comment in today's Australian Financial Review by a spokeswoman for Mr Kerin which said: Mr Kerin in unsure of the status of the document he was shown by Denison. But, accepting for the purposes of the argument that it was a contract, Mr Kerin's position is still that there is no overwhelming economic justification for changing the three named mines policy. Is this comment totally inconsistent with the information in a letter dated 26 May 1988 to Mr Kerin from Mr J. Fowler, President of Denison Mines? I seek leave of the Senate to table this letter. Leave granted. Senator McGAURAN —In the light of Denison's obligation to fill uranium contracts to the value of $2 billion from Canada if the Koongarra project in the Northern Territory does not proceed, will the Minister agree that Mr Kerin's position is totally against Australia's economic and social interests and warrants the resignation of the Minister? Senator WALSH —I certainly do not agree with the proposition that the best Minister for primary industry the country has ever had should resign. Without wishing to detract from Mr Kerin's excellent performance in that job at all, by and large he has not had much to beat because most of the Ministers for primary industry, at least since World War II, have been members of the Country Party, or the National Party as it now calls itself. So he has not had too much to beat. Nevertheless, he has done an excellent job and is without doubt the best Minister for primary industry the country has had. In regard to the other matters, I did glance at the article in today's Australian Financial Review. I did see the passage which quotes or reports-I am not sure what it was now-Mr Kerin as saying that he was unsure of the status of that document. Indeed, as I understand it, Mr Kerin has not actually seen the contract itself; he has seen a photocopy of a contract which I understand was dated 1984. I think that is the reason he was unsure of the legal status of it. As to the letter from Mr Fowler to Mr Kerin, I have not seen that; therefore, I cannot pass any judgment about that at all, nor can I make any judgments about the other questions that have been raised. But I will see whether Mr Kerin has anything to add to my answer. Senator VALLENTINE —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade aware of the speech made by Mr Hayden at the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament, mark 3, in New York today during which he claimed that Australians are willing nuclear targets because of the so-called joint facilities on Australian soil? Senator Crichton-Browne —He didn't say that. Senator VALLENTINE —He did say that; that is a quote from his speech. I ask: Why did the Minister not divulge to the disarmament community gathered in New York the negative functions of United States bases; namely, spying for the United States and nuclear targeting of the Soviet Union? How dare the Minister only talk about the verification and monitoring role when, firstly, North West Cape has no such role and, secondly, the SALT agreements which Pine Gap and Nurrungar are meant to monitor did not even exist when those bases were established in the 1960s? Why did the Minister not promote an Australian role in an international monitoring and verification system which the world urgently needs? Finally, does the Minister support the Foreign Minister's assertions that Australians are willing nuclear targets? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have not seen either the text of Mr Hayden's speech or reports of it. I am not in a position to verify what language he may have used in this respect. I am sure he would have said that Australians are very willing participants as a nation in the joint facilities that do exist as between Australia and the United States at Pine Gap and elsewhere. They exist for the purpose of making a massive contribution to the peace and stability of this world and they do so through their capacity to provide monitoring, verification and a general contribution to the maintenance of that admittedly uneasy, but nonetheless hitherto prevailing, system of peace that has existed now for so many years. The nature, the rationale and the justification for our participation in these arrangements have been very well and fully articulated on innumerable occasions by Mr Hayden and other Government spokesmen. I do not think I need to reiterate that case here today even to give Senator Vallentine the benefit of another two or three minutes exposure on a videotape that nobody is ever going to watch. Senator VALLENTINE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Why does the Government repeatedly deny the negative roles and functions of the bases? It is not telling the whole truth. It is lying by omission. The Minister and the Government repeatedly refuse to admit to the negative functions of these bases, the functions for which they were established in the first place-that is, spying on and targeting the Soviet Union. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not accept that there are negative roles in the way in which Senator Vallentine describes them. For that reason the Government is not minded to admit to that or any other one of the conspiracy theories that Senator Vallentine is fond of pursuing in this place and elsewhere. Senator KNOWLES —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to reports that yesterday's national accounts statistics were leaked before the official time of release. Is it a fact that big profits were or could have been made by currency dealers with access to the prematurely released information? Has an investigation revealed whether the release was due, as suggested in one report, to clerical error? Given that this is but the latest incident in a series of apparent leaks from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, what action is being taken to tighten security at the Bureau? Have any officers been disciplined as a result of inquiries into previous leaks? Senator WALSH —I am not just being pedantic, because I think it was a point of some substance, but there was a reference to previous leaks. I think previous allegations of leaks would be more accurate. I suppose that if somebody does have advance knowledge of the quarterly national accounts there is always a possibility he could make some money out of that advance knowledge in various and quite improper ways. On the issue itself, the alleged leak, I do have a note from the Bureau-I think that this has already been reported elsewhere-that it has asked the Australian Federal Police to investigate allegations that there was a leak yesterday. I do not think I need to quote all of the note but, in part, it states: The figures were first reported as available in the financial markets in Sydney at 9.55 a.m.-well before the public release time of 11.30 a.m. . . . How the figures became available is of direct and serious concern to the ABS and we believe it should be investigated and resolved as quickly as possible . . . Mr Castles- that is, the Australian Statistician- said the scope of the investigation was a matter for the Australian Federal Police. Senator GILES —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of the concern being expressed by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) about the apparently widespread prescribing of mood altering drugs for children and adolescents? What action is the Federal Government able to take in order to make doctors and the public aware of the caution which should be exercised in such prescribing, and the alternative treatment of behavioural problems of young people which may be preferable to medication? Senator WALSH —I do have a note on this matter. The NHMRC concerns are essentially addressed at the medical profession. The publicity that this question has already received hopefully will alert some medical practitioners to potential problems. It is planned to circulate the findings of the Council-that is, the NHMRC-on this matter throughout the medical community and the Government will be meeting the costs of making that information available. With regard to certain specific items, namely, diazepam, oxazepam, valium, serapax and a couple of others which are more commonly known to me, doctors were advised by letter in November 1986 of the problems of dependence, overuse and abuse associated with these drugs. The NHMRC's concern will be drawn to the attention of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in case it considers that there is some other action which might be taken in relation to any such drugs which are listed for benefit purposes. Finally, in the May economic statement the Government announced that $2m per annum would be allocated to develop and implement an education campaign to encourage more appropriate use of prescription drugs. Senator BISHOP —I address my question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. On 16 May 1988 the Chairman of the Industry Research and Development Board, Mr Bill Kricker, issued a Press release announcing 10 discretionary grants for research and development by Australian companies. Is the Minister aware that one such grant of nearly half a million dollars was awarded to Rib Loc (Australia) Pty Ltd of South Australia to design and develop a pipeline renovation system? Is the Minister further aware that another Australian company, Danby Pty Ltd of Queensland, already operates successfully in this field and owns patents which cover the type of pipeline renovation envisaged by the half a million dollars grant? Can the Minister explain why such duplication has occurred and what mechanisms the Industry Research and Development Board uses to review its own decisions, particularly as Danby Pty Ltd received grants from the Board in 1985 and 1986 for the development of its system of pipeline renovation? Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator refers to the system operated by the Industrial Research and Development Board. I suppose that it is not beyond the wit of man or woman to conclude that the Board may have made a mistake and the system has broken down. I do not know. As far as I am concerned, the Board has discretion in these matters. It operates at arm's length from government. It may have made a mistake in this matter. I do not know. Every time a grant is made there are allegations by some other failed applicant for a grant, or some other company, that the grant has been made to somebody totally inappropriate. I am not saying that is the case on this occasion. But I will make some inquiries and try to provide the honourable senator with an answer to the question as soon as possible. Senator CHILDS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security aware of descriptions of the Department of Social Security field officers as being like `jack-booted stormtroopers'? What is the Minister's reaction to these claims? Senator BOLKUS —I have seen the report to which Senator Childs refers. The issue has been raised with me, not only by Senator Childs, but also by Senator Cooney, who seems to have close contact with the organisation that made the criticism, the Welfare Rights Unit in Victoria. That group is one of the groups in Victoria that have access not only to him, but also, indirectly through him, to the Minister. That is one reason why the Minister, when approached about this report, was surprised at the attitude of the Victorian Welfare Rights Unit. The Unit not only has direct access to the Department of Social Security in Victoria, but also has access to the Minister in his office direct and through members of parliament such as Senator Cooney. The second reason why the Minister indicated surprise at the reaction of the Unit is that when one looks at its annual report one sees that only about 6.67 per cent of social security matters involving the Unit deal with field officers. That means that 17 contact calls a year deal with the sorts of people who are involved in the allegation that has been made both in the Melbourne Herald and on Melbourne radio. However, the Minister has asked me to pass on to Senator Childs and others interested in this matter that the access the Unit has had to the Minister in the past will be maintained. If it provides specific information about the allegations it makes, those allegations will certainly be investigated. It is also apparent from the allegations in the newspaper that the Unit is concerned not with what laws or guidelines govern field officers but with alleged misbehaviour by individual officers of the Department of Social Security. At least, that is the impression one gets from reading the report in the Melbourne Herald and the transcripts of radio interviews. The Government's response as indicated by the Minister is twofold. One can respond to these sorts of problems in an anecdotal way or in a systematic way. With the encouragement of Senator Walters, I remind honourable senators that in the economic statement last week the Government made two announcements which should have a direct impact on the way the Department of Social Security handles cases. We announced that the Social Security Appeals Tribunal will, as from 1 November this year, no longer have merely a recommendatory power but will have-although being an informal, accessible, independent tribunal-the power to make binding decisions in every case it considers in the future. This is a major advance in protecting the rights of social security recipients. The other announcement made last week was that the Government will be taking steps to enhance the quality of counter services in the Department by improving training, experience and decision-making capacities. These two initiatives should go some way towards addressing some of the problems in the system. The Government sees the Department of Social Security as generally being a department with extremely dedicated and competent people, but obviously, if a unit has a complaint to make about it, we will take it up. Senator CALVERT —I refer the Minister for Local Government to comments attributed to her in last Tuesday's Hobart Mercury that the proposed constitutional change concerning local government would not prevent a local authority from being replaced by a commission or some other form of non-elected administration. On what basis does the Minister assert, `What it will do is ensure that after a suitable interval the local council will be returned.'? Senator REYNOLDS —I have not seen the article to which Senator Calvert refers. Perhaps under the circumstances it would be best if he at least lets me have a look at what has been reported. I have said that constitutional recognition of local government is very important in terms of the status of local government and its relationship with both State and Commonwealth departments. I would want to see the alleged quotation before I comment further. Senator Calvert and I will be putting our respective views about constitutional recognition of local government. I am sure that we can clarify what I mean by constitutional recognition, in putting the Yes case, and what he means by it, in putting the No case. Senator CALVERT —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister deny making the statement? I did show her the article. It contains a photo of her. Senator Reynolds —Oh, that one. Senator CALVERT —Yes, that one. Is the Minister also aware that the New South Wales and Western Australian Constitution Acts specifically allow for the existence of other than elected councils? Is such a provision within the terms of the Government's referendum proposal or do we face the very real possibility of a drawn-out legal challenge in the event of a State government deciding to replace an elected council with some other form of administration? The PRESIDENT —That is really another question, but I will ask Senator Reynolds to deal with that part of it which is supplementary. Senator REYNOLDS —I welcome the opportunity to do so. I apologise to Senator Calvert. He did show me the article. But he said in his question `last Tuesday', which I assumed was the Tuesday just past. In fact, he refers to a much earlier article relating to a visit I made to Tasmania over a fortnight ago. The questions that Senator Calvert has raised should properly be referred to the Attorney-General. Senator MACKLIN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. In view of the reputation of General Pinochet's Chilean regime as one of the most brutally oppressive dictatorships in the world, being responsible for the imprisonment and torture of its critics and the death of an estimated 50,000 people, what is the Government's attitude to the multimillion dollar investment of Australian companies in Chile? Does the Minister agree that the Australian investments in Chilean industries give a regrettable economic and psychological boost to the Pinochet regime and that this runs counter to Australia's strong stance as an advocate of international human rights? Has the Government made any attempt to dissuade Australian companies from investing in Chile because of the substantial support that such investments give to the regime? Does the Government intend to issue guidelines to ensure that Australian companies remove their existing investments in Chile and that companies do not make any further such investments in Chile? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is an unfortunate fact that Chile is one of many countries where domestic policies fall far short of acceptable standards. The Australian Government has for a very long time taken a strong and prominent role in condemning human rights abuses in Chile. That has been reflected not only in Australia's work in the United Nations, notably the Commission on Human Rights, but also in very frequent representations to Chilean Government authorities. It follows that the Australian Government would wish that Australian employers and entrepreneurs abroad in Chile, as elsewhere, conduct their activities as they should in Australia, that is to say, with respect for human rights. Senator Stone —You had better talk to Bondy. Senator GARETH EVANS —We have, Senator Stone. Whether Senator Stone would in these circumstances is a matter for fascinating speculation, given his Party's track record on human rights, domestically or anywhere else. In September 1987, when Mr Bond's investments in Chile became a subject of public discussion, Mr Hawke drew Mr Bond's attention quite forcefully to the views of the Australian Government on the human rights situation in Chile. That message, which was very publicly conveyed, would not have been lost on other Australian companies. Might I say, more generally, that the Australian Government does not normally intervene in the investment decisions abroad of Australian companies except in special cases, the most obvious among them being South Africa, where the racist basis of the regime singles it out for widespread condemnation and sanctions. Regrettably, it is a fact that that widespread condemnation is not nearly as evident today from the Opposition parties in Australia as it was under the previous leadership of Malcolm Fraser when there was a very strong bipartisan spirit in our approach to South Africa and associated southern African issues. It is a matter of great regret and concern for the Government that there is a manifest impending backing away now from that bipartisan policy. Might I distinguish the South African case from the Chilean one, in response to Senator Macklin's specific question, by saying that several things are relevant. One is the absence of any wide call by Chileans in Chile for sanctions against the Chilean regime. Another relevant consideration is that there is in existence a program for a return to a form of democracy by early 1990. That has led us, after careful consideration of the sorts of issues that have been raised by Senator Macklin, to form the view that the kinds of guidelines he proposes are not justified in that instance. Senator BUTTON —In Question Time today Senator Lewis asked me a question about Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) references. I said at the time that I was uncertain about the fate of the sugar reference and the dairy reference. I understand that the dairy reference will go ahead because there is the mid-term review of the so-called Kerin dairy plan that was foreshadowed when the arrangements were introduced two years ago. As I understand it, sugar will not now be referred to the IAC. Senator BUTTON —On 30 May Senator Cooney asked me a question about the Westpac Bank in Seoul. It was alleged that certain employees at the bank had been locked up by the bank. I have obtained an answer to his question which seems to suggest that, although the front door of the bank was locked, the back door was open and it was all a mistake. However, as it is a long answer, I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- Westpac has advised that some of the information in the newspaper reports was factually inaccurate. The bank maintains that whilst the main door of the Seoul Branch premises was closed on 27 May, following the cessation of normal business, there was an alternative exit open for use. Furthermore, before locking the main door, the bank ensured the availability of that exit and that one of the building guards was available to ensure the safety of the union members. Furthermore, the bank has advised that it fully recognises the rights of the union. Contrary to newspaper reports the bank has indicated it has not asked for a promise to forgo group action in the future. To further progress the wage claim concerned a meeting took place on Monday, 30 May 1988 at which Korean Ministry of Labour officials and representatives of the Korean peak trade union organisation were present. The meeting did not resolve the dispute and further meetings will take place. Westpac has maintained close contact with the Korean Ministry of Labour who have not been critical of the bank's handling of the dispute. Senator BUTTON —On 23 May Senator Michael Baume asked me a question about the Prime Minister's guest list for the opening of Parliament House. The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I do not intend to provide a list of my personal guests; nor do I intend to ask the Presiding Officers or the Leader of the Opposition to list their personal guests. There are about 260 former Senators and Members, each of whom was invited with spouse or partner. It was not possible to accommodate these 520 persons in the Great Hall. Accordingly, they were invited to be seated in the Members' Hall, except for former Prime Ministers and Deputies, former Presiding Officers and a very limited number of other former Senators and Members such as Sir Paul Hasluck who, by virtue of their eminence in other fields, were seated in the Great Hall. Senator GARETH EVANS —I regret to advise the Senate that yesterday in answering a question earlier asked of me by Senator Bjelke-Petersen I inadvertently provided some inaccurate information. It concerned the trans-Pacific flight by Sir Charles Kingsford Smith in 1928. I am indebted to that latter day aviator in our midst, Senator MacGibbon, for pointing out to me and the geniuses who briefed me that Kingsford Smith made landfall north of Ballina on9 June in the year in question and proceeded up the coast to land at Brisbane's Eagle Farm Airport. I think that someone took the view that landfall meant falling on land, rather than passing over the coast at the point in question. For those honourable senators who wish to pursue the full details of the matter, as I am now duly chastened, I am referred by Senator MacGibbon and others to the definitive account of the flight in Kingsford Smith's own book, which I now propose to refer to the departments in question which are engaged in organising the commemoration to ensure that they get right the flight, the aircraft, the date and the places that we are commemorating. Senator TATE —Senator Newman asked me a question concerning certain investigations by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) into alleged problems with certain cheques provided to doctors. She asked: Was not a comprehensive list of doctors provided to the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts and was not that information passed on to the police late last year? I do not know whether such a list was provided to the Joint Parliamentary Committee, but in any event the AFP has not been provided with a list of doctors' names. She asked further: Is it not also true that details of cheques dated after November 1987, namely in February, to Dr Alan White for $10,700 and in March 1988 to Dr Evans for $90 and $636.90, have also been given to the police? The answer to that is yes, the AFP has been given copies of these cheques. Inquiries with the Health Insurance Commission (HIC) have revealed that these cheques were issued as a result of computer error. I informed the Senate of this fact on 10 May 1988. She then asked: Did Constable Warren Grey of the AFP advise Dr Menon in April that the only information which was still required by the police was the telephone numbers of the doctors involved? The AFP advises me no. As I informed the Senate on 20 April and 10 May, the AFP has approached Dr Menon on numerous occasions seeking comprehensive details of the doctors who Dr Menon has claimed are in receipt of bogus cheques. This information has not been forthcoming. As part of its inquiries, the AFP developed a list of its own from copies of correspondence to members of parliament and senators from members of the medical profession. I understand that Dr Menon was asked whether he knew the telephone numbers of the doctors on the AFP list. Fourthly and finally, Senator Newman asked: In light of the fact that on 4 May Constable Grey advised Dr Mackay that there was a need for a proper and fuller investigation of the allegations and that he planned to go to Hobart the following week to interview Dr Mackay and Dr White and that he has not done so . . . I understand from the AFP that in the normal course of events the AFP would seek to close the file on the assessment of the cheques previously cleared by the HIC and, in so doing, would seek statements from Dr Mackay and Dr White. Originally an AFP officer from Sydney, the region in which the complete investigation was undertaken, planned to visit Hobart to take those statements. Those doctors will now be interviewed by AFP officers from Hobart. I understand that that will be done as soon as possible and at a mutually agreeable time. Senator REYNOLDS —On Wednesday, 25 May Senator Peter Baume asked me a question concerning the circumstances of the advice provided to the President of the Senate on the parliamentary qualifications of former Senator Wood. In particular, Senator Baume asked about the timing of legal advice received by the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs and about future action should the same circumstances emerge in future. With respect to the first question, I draw Senator Baume's attention to the Hansard record. On page 98 evidence is provided that, in addition to subsequent written advice, oral advice had been obtained from officers of the Attorney-General's Department before the letter to Senator Sibraa was signed. The evidence there noted that there was no legal obligation to inform the President of the Senate; however, it was the view that it was both desirable and appropriate that the President should be informed of a matter which went to the composition of the Senate. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 3.05 p.m., the Senate will resume consideration of Government Bills pursuant to order. Consideration resumed. Adoption of Report Report adopted. Senator Teague-Mr President, I do not believe that we have reported yet. We had got to the point where we were in Committee of the Whole on the Employment, Education and Training Bill and we had just resolved that the eight amendments that I had moved in a package were not supported by the Committee. The Committee would still be debating that legislation. The PRESIDENT —As far as I understand it, the Chairman of Committees reported to me that the Committee had considered the Bill and agreed to the same with amendments. Then I called on Question Time. Therefore, I called the Minister to move the motion for the adoption of the report. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Consideration resumed. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The Committee is considering the Bills as a whole. The Minister for Local Government, Senator Reynolds, was going to give an answer to a question asked by Senator Teague-but perhaps Senator Button will give it. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.12) —I can give that answer. It is not a meaningful answer to me because I did not hear the question, but I will give the answer as I understand it. The revised relocation requirements set out in clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill will apply to schools which under the two-year advance notification rule are applying now for approval to relocate in 1990. Under these revised requirements schools will no longer need to notify where the change is to a location adjacent to the school and where it does not involve a change in the level of education provided. This amendment limits the application of this revised requirement to schools relocating from 1990. This ensures that schools which may later this year decide to relocate in 1989, say, will be treated under the previous rules and in the same way as schools which met the two-year advance notification requirement and were assessed in 1987 for a 1989 start. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.13) —I can only express disappointment that, although the purport of the Government's announcement was that this charge would have immediate effect, there will be a two-year delay, given the two-year notice that the Department of Employment, Education and Training seems to require on these matters. As it would appear that any amendment moved by me to change the reference from 1990 to 1988 would not be supported by the Government or in the form that procedure in these matters has it in the Department or under the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act, I can only express the disappointment of the Opposition and urge the Government to give further consideration to making this welcome change effective immediately. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Bills be now read a third time. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.15) —It so happens there are some five or six minutes remaining before the guillotine has its full operation in the Senate, in the procedure that this Government has adopted, with the support of the Australian Democrats, to allocate precise times for packages of Bills so that it can complete its program by the end of this day. I can only say, nearing the conclusion of these matters in the chamber, that an hour and a half for the consideration of substantial education, employment, training and research matters is a minuscule and most inadequate amount of time for this chamber to do justice to the importance of the matters that are before us. I know that Senator Macklin and Senator Haines, who are in the chamber, agree with the view that we ought to be more enlightened in the way in which we handle the business of this chamber, not least in this education, training and employment area. I can only urge that in future sessions of parliament, when we have moved from this provisional Parliament House to the chamber in the new House, we actually put into practice the aspirations we have expressed here today-that we manage not only the final week but the final month of parliament in such a way that we give proper attention to important Bills such as these. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(3.17) —I agree with the comments Senator Teague has made. An appalling number of amendments went through the committee stage without being discussed in any detail. As a former educator I find it appalling, as I am sure do many of my colleagues, that education should be dealt with in such a way. We on this side of the chamber have been criticised for delaying some of the discussion, but had the Employment, Education and Training Bill been brought forward earlier, appropriate and proper consideration could have been given to it. I want to put on the record my displeasure at the way in which such a serious and important matter for Australia and Australia's future has been dealt with in this chamber. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(3.18) —I have listened to the continual harping about the guillotine being used on legislation. We on the Government side are not happy that the legislation has had to go through in this fashion; but blame for that is not on this side of the chamber. I ask honourable senators to take their minds back to the filibustering debates in this chamber in the past two weeks and previously, and to remember the number of matters of public importance and urgency motions that have been raised and the amount of time wastage that goes on in this place when fruitful and meaningful debate could be taking place, instead of what we had the other night-the repetitious, boring and continual arguments. Four hours were spent on one clause of one Bill before a gag and the guillotine had to be used. I think we should all have learnt a lesson from the situation we find ourselves in, and I hope that we will address that in the new Parliament House. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(3.19) —I feel I am obliged to respond to the comments made by Senator McKiernan. There has been absolutely no filibustering by the Opposition throughout this session. What we must recall is the mismanagement by this Government of the program, right from week one, when we sat here for weeks and weeks, and on Senator McKiernan's own admission, only a few weeks ago, very few Bills managed to get through this place-only because of the Government's gross mismanagement. He talks about matters of public importance, urgency motions and so forth. The Australian Democrats, who decided to go against every agreement and arrangement that has been made in this place in the last few weeks, moved the urgency motion the other day-not the Opposition, but those members of the left wing of the Labor Government. They are sitting on the wrong side. They should be over there where they belong, with the left wing of the Labor Government. We have not filibustered. Those constitutional amendments were particularly important to get the message to the Australian public about the lies and deceit that this Government is trying to put across to it. There is absolutely no cause for the Government to say on any account that we have filibustered in any sense of the word. I want to make sure that we have put to rest any accusation that that is so. We have seen particularly important referendum legislation absolutely rammed through this place, thanks to the Democrats, who have no morality whatsoever when it comes to making sure that legislation is attended to in a proper fashion. Important legislation, such as these education Bills, the Comcare legislation and the rest, is now going through, thanks to the Democrats. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a third time. Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(3.21) —The Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill 1988 is an important Bill, as are all the other Bills which are being jackbooted through this chamber. For instance, the education package, which was just shoved through with the support of the Australian Democrats, was equally important, particularly the Bill dealing with the National Board of Employment, Education and Training. As the title of the Bill before us indicates, the Bill deals with rehabilitation and compensation for Commonwealth employees. This is an area that is long overdue for reform. There is no disagreement between the major parties in this chamber, including the Democrats, that this area does need reform. Senator Knowles —They are not a major party. Senator VANSTONE —I was including them after the major parties. The costs of compen- sation for Commonwealth employees have es- calated in the past decade, to a point almost beyond belief. The people from Comcare have been kind enough to supply me with a graph outlining real and actual expenditure in the years from 1977-78 to 1986-87. It shows that real expenditure-that is, expenditure for previous years expressed in the current money value-went from just above $70m in 1977-78 to around $210m in 1986-87. That is an enormous rise. I remind the chamber of the publicity given to the increase in Commonwealth compensation last year, and I think the year before, by the coalition's Waste Watch Committee. Something had to be done, partly because of the enormous blow-out inexpenditure in this area. But there are other reasons why something had to be done. It is not simply a question of the cost blow-out. It is a question of the situation in which people who, unfortunately, need compensation find themselves. There is agreement that the existing system is inadequate. It is a disaster. It benefits some people much more than others, leaving some people, partly perhaps as a consequence of their own activities but partly through the luck of the way the cards fall, in much more unfortunate circumstances than we would care to leave them. So for two reasons we agree that this area is long overdue for Government attention. We are very concerned at the position of those who need compensation and at the disparity between one person and another. I think that that outlines the need for this reform. The Government originally presented us with a Bill that was defective in two respects and has now sought, at least marginally, to improve that. The original Bill denied Commonwealth employees access to compensation through common law. The coalition parties simply could not wear that. It was totally unacceptable to the coalition parties to deprive Commonwealth employees of that avenue of compensation. That matter was raised in the debate in the House of Representatives, I think in April. There was a second area of concern to the coalition, and that was that the position of existing beneficiaries needed to be protected. We agreed that we needed to make changes for people who required compensation from the date of application of this Bill onwards-we agreed that something needed to be done there-but we most certainly believed that existing beneficiaries were entitled to have their position protected. We could get into long arguments about whether changing the dollar value that an existing beneficiary receives is in some way retrospective. The two arguments are quite clear. The one which I presume the Government would endorse is one that says, `No, we are not retrospectively affecting any dollar value; we are prospectively affecting it. People cannot expect to continue to retain the benefits they have'-given, of course, that they are legitimately in need of compensation. The other side of that argument is to say that the first argument is totally ridiculous. People who have been injured through their work and are on compensation have made plans on the basis of what they have been told and are entitled to make those plans and not have the Commonwealth back out at some later stage. We believed very strongly that the position of existing beneficiaries needed to be protected for the future, while not denying that changes needed to be made to Commonwealth compensation and rehabilitation arrangements for people who received an injury or required compensation as a consequence of their work. That was where the debate was at in the House of Representatives. The Government acknowledged that there was some merit-I think that is a fair way of classifying it-in the position we put. The Government was prepared to negotiate and to see whether improvements could be made. The negotiations reached the stage where the Government was prepared to say that it would protect the position of existing beneficiaries aged 65 years and over but would not make the same allowance for those aged 65 and under and, with respect to our concern for access to compensation through common law, would make some other changes. Basically, the Government is prepared to say that one can, for economic loss, go only to Comcare and receive 70 per cent of one's updated weekly salary for the rest of one's life. In relation to the other elements of compensation, the non-economic ones, if one wanted to go to common law under the amended situation one would be entitled to do so but there would be a $110,000 cap on that access to common law. Irrespective of whether one received compensation for non-economic loss through Comcare or common law, one would receive compensation for economic loss at 70 per cent of one's updated weekly salary. There is no denying that the position the Government is now taking is more acceptable than its previous position. It is an improvement. I think everyone acknowledges that it has been made only as a result of the arguments put forward by the coalition in the House of Representatives and the Government's reconsideration of the matter as a consequence of those arguments. The coalition is very pleased that the Government has at least seen some sense in what we have suggested. We are pleased that, as a consequence of our work, it seems that this Bill will now be amended and put into a far more satisfactory form than it was in the first place. I am sure that all senators and members gain some satisfaction when a Bill is amended and improved. Even though it is not improved to the extent that we would like it to be, it is certainly an improvement. We are very pleased that the position of existing beneficiaries aged 65 and over will now be protected, as it should be. We are concerned about the position of beneficiaries under 65. We could argue in this chamber for a long time about the relative position of existing beneficiaries under 65 under the old system and under the new system, but the bottom line of the coalition's view is that their income ought to be protected. The Government has agreed to do this for beneficiaries over 65 but not for those under 65. I understand that the argument for what is, in effect, a real reduction in the income of existing beneficiaries under 65 is that they pick up other benefits. As I said, we could argue for a long time about the give and take in that respect, but, given the time limits on this debate, suffice it to say that the bottom line that the coalition will not go beyond is that the income of existing beneficiaries under 65 ought to be protected. The Government came part of the way by protecting the position of existing beneficiaries over 65 but could not see its way to protect the position of beneficiaries under 65. It is a matter of regret that it could not do that. Let me turn now to the common law position. It has been a fundamental feature of our legal system that if one believes one is injured as a consequence of someone's wrong-doing or negligence one can, to put it colloquially, have a go at him. One can let the courts test what damage has been done and recoup a benefit. To remove that option from Commonwealth employees is a change that the coalition could not and would not come at. The Government has said, `Well, let's see whether we can compromise'. Some people say that politics is the art of compromise but in the end someone has to wear the outcome of a compromise situation. Sometimes it is appropriate to stand by the principle that we want implemented and not compromise. That is our position in this debate. We tried to negotiate with the Government to bring it to its senses and to allow Commonwealth employees who were seeking compensation to choose whether or not they wanted to go through common law. The Government has now suggested that, provided the income loss portion of compensation goes through Comcare, the other, non-economic, portion could be dealt with under common law with a cap of $110,000. The coalition simply cannot accept that position. It is untenable to restrict the access of anyone-it just happens that this Bill deals only with Commonwealth employees-to common law. Accordingly, as an expression of our very strong dissatisfaction in those two elements of this Bill, we will be voting against the third reading of the Bill. We shall express our dissatisfaction with the fact that the Government could not see its way to protect the existing beneficiaries aged under 65 and has consistently refused to allow Commonwealth employees who are seeking compensation full access to common law. Accordingly, we intend to move a second reading amendment that reads: At the end of motion, add ``, but the Senate condemns the Government for: (a) restricting the access of Commonwealth employees to compensation through Common Law and; (b) failing to adequately protect all existing beneficiaries aged under 65''. I wish to comment on the second element of that motion, which reads `failing to adequately protect all existing beneficiaries aged under 65'. We are aware that, with the passage of this legislation, the situation of a significant number of beneficiaries aged under 65 will be very much improved. The economic situation of those who are receiving compensation at the moment and who do not have superannuation will be improved quite substantially. But it is those who at the moment receive more than 70 per cent of their updated weekly earnings who will suffer. They will suffer because the amount of income they receive will effectively be frozen until it falls in real terms to 70 per cent of their updated weekly earnings. Obviously, someone who is receiving only 75 per cent at the moment will not experience much of a fall but someone who is receiving 90 to 100 per cent will experience quite a substantial fall progressively over four years. We believe that it is inappropriate that they be asked to do that. They are existing beneficiaries and ought to be dealt with under the existing system. I have seen a costing of a $100 food basket over three or four years at varying rates. We could strike no acceptable rate of increase in the cost of a $100 food basket which would leave the existing beneficiaries in a good position at the end of four years. The price of food, on which a high proportion of a lower income is spent, as we know, rises at a very substantial rate, and these people are going to be prejudiced in a very real way if their present position is not maintained. We understand that there are some people-that is, existing beneficiaries under 65-whose position will improve under this package. But some-those receiving more than 70 per cent of their updated weekly earnings-are going to suffer, and we say that their position should be protected. Finally, let me make a few remarks with respect to the conduct of these negotiations. I feel that it is particularly appropriate for me to make these remarks having, as you may know, Mr Acting Deputy President, discovered an inconsistency in one of the referenda Bills and the Government having made an amendment to that Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill. It acknowledged that the words in the Bill did not really mean what it wanted them to mean, so it had to change them around. There are differing views on that matter. Some people are of the view that the Government knew all along what it meant in its original Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill. It meant that systems, such as the d'Hondt system, which is being suggested for the Australian Capital Territory, were unfair and undemocratic. The Government, having had it pointed out that a system of election that it was suggesting for the Australian Capital Territory was inconsistent with what it had described as fair and democratic, changed the definition. I do not want to say any more about that other than to highlight it as an example of this Government not paying attention to legislation that comes before the chamber. We have another example of that. Late yesterday afternoon I had discussions with some people from Comcare and from the Minister's office to go through the Government's proposed amendments. That, in itself, should be something of an indication of the care that has been put into this legislation. Members of the coalition were given the specific wording of the legislation as late as yesterday afternoon. There is no denying that negotiations had been going on for some time. It is not just the coalition and the Government that were parties to these negotiations; the Australian Democrats and the various people who are to be affected by this legislation were included. Sometimes people think they are talking about the same thing when they are not; so when we see the final wording it may not represent what we thought we were negotiating for. That could be because there was a genuine misunderstanding about what we were negotiating for, but it could also be as a consequence of sloppy drafting and the people who were writing the legislation not understanding what the Government wants. That is the very reason that there should always be a full and proper examination of legislation in both chambers, but particularly in this chamber, the House of review. We should have every opportunity to go through legislation before the chamber word by word, think it over the next day and go through it word by word again. If we do not, perhaps not through any malice but through lack of opportunity to review legislation, bad legislation goes through and everybody says, `That is not what we meant'. We have a very good example of that. I was looking through the suggested amendments to clause 133 of this Bill. Last night the Government was of a mind to include a proposed new subsection (3). For the benefit of those honourable senators who have not perused the Bill completely, perhaps I should explain that clause 133 deals with people over 65 years of age who had superannuation. The proposed new subsection (3) states that whenever the former employee's superannuation amount is increased, the amount of compensation payable under subsection 2 shall be reduced, or further reduced as the case requires, by an amount equal to the amount of the increase. In other words, as people get increases in their superannuation the Government will take away compensation. That effectively meant that people over the age of 65 would have their nominal incomes frozen. The Government was presenting this to us as an amendment which would protect the position of people aged 65 and over. I had some discussions with relevant officials and we entered into a debate over who meant what when we were talking about protecting the position of existing beneficiaries over the age of 65. Some people put it to me that perhaps the Government meant all along that it would protect the existing dollar value of existing beneficiaries over the age of 65. But, of course, the existing beneficiaries over the age of 65 said, `Oh, no. If you protect only our existing dollar value, in real terms we will be on a declining income. We will be no better off than what you are planning for people under the age of 65'. There have been a few discussions. What was I told this morning? I was told this morning that it was a mistake, that the draftsman did not understand what everybody wanted. I can understand that. People make mistakes. I mean no abuse of the officials or the draftsperson involved. It is simply a function of doing things at the last minute. The Government does not give the Opposition or the coalition its amendments; so we do not have sufficient time to peruse them. We found that flaw in the legislation. One wonders what would have happened if we had not. Would the Government have found it? It certainly did not find the flaws and inconsistencies in its own referenda package-another package that has been shoved through this place with the assistance of the Democrats. I do not know whether the Democrats noticed that flaw; I do not even know whether they were involved in these discussions last night. But that is a classic example of the Government not understanding what it wants to do and then coming into this place and saying, `You have 1 1/2 hours to discuss this. You had better make up your minds. Here are the amendments', and away we go. It is an appalling situation. In conclusion, we are grateful that the Government has seen the error of its ways and has chosen to amend the Bill as it has. We consider it a matter of real regret that the Government has refused to protect the existing beneficiaries under the age of 65 and that it has not seen the merit in allowing full access to common law compensation for Commonwealth employees should they require it. I have circulated some amendments and, if we have the time for a committee stage debate, we will be debating these amendments. In the event that there is not time, I will seek, at the conclusion of time for this debate, to rely on a contingent notice of motion and have those amendments voted on in a block. I move the following amendment to the Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill: At the end of motion, add ``, but the Senate condemns the Government for: (a) restricting the access of Commonwealth employees to compensation through Common Law; and (b) failing to adequately protect all existing beneficiaries aged under 65''. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs) —For the information of honourable senators, I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the amendments to be moved by the Government. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.48) —I wish to participate in the debate on the Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill 1988. At the outset, I point out that, to a certain degree at least, this is a reform package with regard to Comcare. Firstly, I wish to mention some of those aspects of the Bill which the Australian Democrats believe are positive. This Bill raises the incomes of generally younger recipients of compensation payments who have little or no superannuation entitlement. Their situation will be improved because they will now receive 75 per cent of pre-injury earnings with a floor, or lower limit, of $195; $50 for a dependent spouse and $25 for each dependent child. The current flat rate is $182.20 per week per adult, $47.70 for a dependent spouse and $22.70 for each dependent child. That is one of the improvements in the situation of a great many people. Secondly, I wish to point to those aspects of the Bill which increase payments for support services. Currently, only a flat rate of $32.30 per week is available for support services. Under this scheme, up to $400 a week will be available for attendant care; for bathing, grooming, assistance with artificial aids and exercise, up to $200 a week, and for household and family support services another $200 a week. The Democrats believe that this is a particularly important move for people on compensation payments, firstly, because I think all of us agree it provides an opportunity for people to be able to live in their own homes even though they may have disabilities of any kind, whether or not they are on compensation payments. Secondly, the availability of these additional payments would in many cases enhance the rehabilitation of people on compensation payments. So in general terms those reforms are noted by the Democrats. However, we have several significant problems with this legislation. The transitional arrangements in the legislation for those currently receiving compensation will, to some degree, result in a reduction of some people's income. Present recipients are entitled to rely on past Government promises to pay compensation awards on which, of course, they have budgeted for their retirement years and as a result of which in many cases they have forgone their rights to sue at common law. To these people the legislation, as I have said, is to some degree retrospective in a punitive sense. It is the first time since the Commonwealth Workmen's Compensation Act was introduced in 1912 that the rights and entitlements of pre-existing cases are not fully protected. It is particularly unjust and harsh to place the people affected in the position of being on fixed incomes for indefinite periods which, in many cases, could be lengthy. The new compensation Acts recently introduced in some States have all been prospective. The Government has agreed with that and there are amendments before us under which it will forgo its original intention to reduce the incomes of those aged over 65. This is to be commended and I believe that it is a positive outcome of the negotiations to which Senator Vanstone referred earlier. However, the legislation will still reduce these people's income over time to 70 per cent of their normal weekly earnings. Those people who really thought that the Commonwealth Government had committed itself to an agreed level of income support and arranged their lifestyles on that basis will now be put on a fixed income for an indefinite period until their incomes are eroded by inflation to the 70 per cent level. Our other concern, apart from our concern about the transitional arrangements-although we do concede that there is transition at least built into the package-relates to common law access. Clause 44 (1) of the Bill abolishes the right of Commonwealth employees to sue the Commonwealth for injuries or death before or after the commencement of the Act. We do now have, of course, Government amendments that will allow common law access in the case of death and common law determination of non-economic loss to lump sum components for permanent impairment and pain and suffering up to a maximum of $110,000. This is a concession but it does not really go as far as we would have liked. As a general principle, we believe that common law action should be available to an injured worker in a system so that there is some choice. The Government claims that the benefits it is offering are so generous that there is no need for common law access. If that is true, of course, it could have left the option of access there and then persuaded injured workers to opt for Comcare rather than risking common law action. It is dangerous to make the Commonwealth immune from prosecutions. This encourages bad work practices, and we note most strongly that the Government has not yet introduced its occupational health and safety legislation, which would be an alternative way of encouraging safer work practices in the absence of common law access. We strongly make the point to the Government that this legislation should be part of a package. We understand that the Government is moving in that direction, and we are hopeful of seeing that legislation early in the next session. It is important that the occupational health and safety legislation be there to encourage, as I have said, safer work practices and to provide further protection for Commonwealth employees. At the moment the balance is very strongly tipped towards the Government's side. A further complaint we have is that the Government does not have the table of maims for us which will be the basis of making determinations when determining a lump sum payment for permanent impairment. Even if it could be argued that the benefits provided by this legislation are generous, the Democrats believe that common law access is still needed to ensure they remain generous, as a kind of balance. If individuals feel they will get higher benefits under common law, the Government would have an incentive to continue to improve Comcare's benefits. So denying common law access to future compensation candidates enables the Government, if it is so moved, to reduce gradually its benefits in real terms over time. We believe that would be a most unfortunate thing for any government to do. As well, common law assessments of damages can act as a general indicator of community standards and a benchmark for moving compensation to new directions. The recent asbestos cases and a number of repetition strain injury cases can perhaps be cited as examples of that process in action. Common law assessment of damages is the only system which assesses compensation on a truly individual basis. It takes into account the special circumstances and needs of the disabled worker as opposed to dealing with that worker in accordance with a prior prescribed formula. I have just a few words to say about what we believe is a compelling case especially for members of the defence forces and the Australian Federal Police for access to common law. We understand that the Government intends to legislate a separate compensation scheme for members of the defence forces, and certainly I believe the Government should consider giving members of the forces the right to sue under common law. If that is so, they in particular should be exempted from this attempt to limit common law access. Members of the defence forces are also concerned about clause 5 (5), which states that the Commission is not liable to pay compensation if an injury is sustained by the employee voluntarily and unreasonably subjecting himself or herself to abnormal risk of injury. The very nature of service life means that members are often exposed to high risk circumstances, and the question of what is unreasonable and voluntary arises in those circumstances. If a senior officer deliberately places himself or herself at risk or in a dangerous situation to protect others and is injured or killed, is that unreasonable and voluntary? As I said, we now have some concessions from the Government with regard to access to common law and, although it is limited, it will be there as a result of the Government's amendments, and the Democrats are pleased about that. I want to make a couple of points about the revenue aspects of this legislation. It is clear that the major reason the Government has not been inclined to be more generous on the issue of the retrospective punitive treatment of many people currently receiving compensation benefits and in the area of access to common law rights to sue is, as usual, its desire to save more money. In fact this scheme will require more expenditure in the first years of operation anyway, and the substantial savings, estimated in the explanatory memorandum to be $350m immediately and over $1,900m by 1988, are savings of outstanding liability-that is, future savings. Nobody is denying the Government these massive future savings, most of which will come from discontinuing compensation payments after retirement age. The question is really whether the Government can afford to maintain payments to those who are currently in the scheme, and whether it can afford general access to common law. The Australian Democrats believe that governments should continue to meet past commitments and that a good compensation system needs to give people the option of common law action. These problems are of concern to all of my colleagues, as I have outlined. I refer in particular to those remaining elements of retrospectivity, which are at least to some degree punitive for some people. My colleague Senator Macklin has asked me to place on record his opposition to the Bill on this basis in particular. In conclusion, I will take a couple of moments to refer to the Opposition's amendments. We will support Senator Vanstone's second reading amendment. It expresses, as I think I have already said, substantially the views the Australian Democrats hold on the two issues concerning existing beneficiaries and access to common law. Senator Vanstone referred to substantive committee stage amendments and outlined in her contribution the situation at the time of the debate on this legislation in the House of Representatives in April and the subsequent negotiations which have resulted in the Government's concessions and its amendments. I must say I was astounded when, 10 minutes before the debate began, the Opposition's committee stage amendments were circulated. While Senator Vanstone referred to negotiations, I want to put it on record as the Australian Democrats social security spokesperson responsible for carriage of this Bill that I have had no contact whatsoever from anybody in the Opposition in relation to the amendments which appeared on my desk 10 minutes before the debate. Since I have no amendments to move to this legislation there has been no need for me to speak to the Opposition. Since it is a frequent practice of the Opposition to move amendments in the House of Representatives and not to move them in the Senate, I had no reason to expect amendments on this legislation, or on any other. A number of groups have been involved in the negotiation and lobbying process, as I am sure everybody in this chamber is aware. In line with the frequent practice I have mentioned, it did not surprise me when others who had been speaking with us on this were of the opinion that negotiations with the Government needed to continue, because there was no expectation of the Opposition's amendments being proposed. The important point which was impressed on me by groups with concern about this legislation was that we should continue to negotiate with the Government to get the best possible case. The Australian Democrats often find themselves in such a situation. As I said, we have received representations from a great many people. This legislation introduces reforms in the area of rehabilitation and compensation for Commonwealth employees. I have clearly outlined those-(Quorum formed) I am outlining the position of the Australian Democrats on the committee stage amendments of the Opposition. Faced with these amendments just a few minutes before the debate begins, of course there is no time to go to all my colleagues-most of whom are now here-and, particularly, to those groups with whom we have been in discussion in the many weeks since this Bill was first debated in the House of Representatives. Most people-I believe even the Opposition-are concerned about those people who will be advantaged by this legislation. Now that the Government has proposed two amendments, on common law and on protection for at least some of these people, there is a feeling that, although this legislation is not everything we would want, we do not want to lose this reform altogether. There is the danger that if the Bill is amended in the way proposed by the Opposition in this House and goes back to the other House the Government will take it off altogether and will reintroduce the original, unamended legislation in the Budget session, at which time, following former practice, the Opposition will pass it because it will be a Budget measure which cannot be denied the Government. That has happened in one of my other portfolio areas. There is a fine history of this. The Democrats do not consider that the Opposition's position is legitimate. Farmers in this country have been denied income equalisation deposits (IEDs) for tax purposes for more than four years because the Government took exactly the action I described. The Opposition, along with the Australian Democrats, opposed the removal of income equalisation deposits provisions. We attempted between us to amend the IED legislation because there were tax rorts in the system. As we wanted the legislation amended, the Government took it away and brought it back in the next Budget session as Budget legislation. The Opposition refused to support the Democrats in tossing it out as Budget legislation. The Government was therefore able to eliminate income equalisation deposits. The Democrats concern is that the same process would recur and that those people on 20 or 25 per cent and other low levels of their former earnings would have to be there for goodness knows how much longer if this reform were denied. We are also concerned that the Government could bring back the legislation without the negotiated concessions which have improved the legislation to some extent-Senator Vanstone has suggested the Opposition has also been involved in the negotiations-for people in receipt of Commonwealth compensation and rehabilitation. For those reasons, the Democrats will not support the Opposition's committee stage amendments. However, we will support the amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill because it expresses our views as well as those of the Opposition. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(4.07) —Once again we have seen an example of the very convoluted logic of the Australian Democrats, but I do not wish to spend much time on them when we have so little debating time today-thanks to the Government's behaviour. I begin by saying, as so many of my colleagues have before me, that it is unacceptable that a far-reaching and important piece of legislation for many Australians is being rushed through the Senate in this unacceptable fashion with a restrictive time limit. The Government seems to be wanting to get off to its winter break in Hobart almost at any price. In the last few weeks we have all suffered from the pressure of Bills on the constitutional amendments and the May statement being pushed upon us at the last minute, holding up very important Bills which the Government did not see fit to bring forward until it had the opportunity to guillotine them through. I think it has been a deliberately planned strategy and it is quite unacceptable. As Senator Vanstone spelt out in her speech, a number of drafting errors have been brought to light in the Senate recently, particularly because of her good work on the defective constitutional amendment Bill. A subsequent amendment was defective. Goodness knows the quality of the Democrats amendment which went through yesterday without any time for consideration of its drafting. Once again, amendments have come before us which we have not had the opportunity to study in detail. Despite what Senator Powell said, the Democrats have had the opportunity to study the Opposition's amendments for something like six weeks now, if they believe in doing their job. However, they are great on talk but not too great on work. It is so often said that this is a House of review. This is where the crunch comes: how does a House of review do its job if it is given a guillotine and given only so many hours to deal with so many Bills? We cannot do our work properly if Bills are pushed through without the opportunity for proper scrutiny and debate. Such important legislative measures need deliberate and informed consideration. It is totally unacceptable that the Government is using the Senate in this fashion. It is not just the unintended consequences that we are likely to find afterwards; I fear that it is also the hidden intended consequences. I shall be brief so as to allow my colleagues time to debate this legislation. Therefore, I draw attention to those matters which have been of particular concern to me. Senator Vanstone has mentioned the detrimental effect on existing beneficiaries. I am very proud of the fact that it is thanks to the Opposition's negotiations-and it is admitted now by the Australian Democrats that they have had no part in these negotiations-that Government amendments have been produced. They are not good enough, but they are a step in the right direction. The Opposition should take some satisfaction from the fact that a Bill that was quite unacceptable has been made somewhat more acceptable as a result of its negotiations on behalf of those people who were to be put in jeopardy by the Government's legislation. The problem seems to be fixed for those who are over 65 years of age, as Senator Vanstone said, but clearly the position is not acceptable for those who are under 65. I should like to mention what Mr Bill Mansfield, from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, said some time ago: The fact is that there are people out of the work force on compensation who have already made decisions about their lives who would face quite serious disruptions under this suggestion. Those people are still in the same boat. The Government has not chosen to amend the legislation to help people in that position. I call on the Government to defer action until such time as it is able to produce amendments that will look after those people. As a lawyer, I am particularly concerned about the removal of access to the common law. This is the standard method for socialist governments, I fear. It is certainly what was done by the previous New South Wales Government. It removed the right of New South Wales residents to go to common law in compensation matters. In Victoria I understand that the situation is that there is a partial removal of access to the common law. The limited amendments that the Government has provided us with at the last moment will make some improvement in relation to access to the common law-but they are very limited. I do not believe they are good enough. They allow the relatives of deceased Commonwealth employees access to common law, and in certain cases Commonwealth employees themselves are able to elect to go to common law purely for the pain and suffering component of the compensation claim. I do not intend to go into the details of that now. The Law Council of Australia has set out why it is important that these rights should not be given up. It has stated: There are no valid grounds to justify abolition of the common law right. It is not justified on the ground of decreasing disincentives to rehabilitation. Nor is it justified on economic grounds. Experience under the Victorian Workcare scheme has shown that restriction of the common law right is likely in fact to be more costly and a disincentive to rehabilitation. Actuarial evidence from a number of respected sources supports the view that costs will increase. . . . . No-fault legislation with scheduled benefits has its place, but it should not exclude the right to recover at common law where fault can be established. The Law Council believes that the interests of accident victims are best served by a dual scheme of compensation incorporating the best features of no-fault compensation with the common law right of recovery. The Law Council also pointed out: It is important that Commonwealth employees should understand that the Government's present proposals, if implemented, would significantly limit their existing rights and place them in a worse position than most other Australian workers. It is incredible that the Government would propose to put its employees in a worse position that most other Australia workers, but that is exactly what it is proposing to do under this legislation. I draw attention, as Senator Powell has done, to the problems with soldiers and policemen. I am glad that she has given recognition to the problems that they specifically face with this legislation. One problem she did not mention is that servicemen, especially, have early retirement ages, and that affects the basis on which the calculations in the legislation are based. There is also the question of whether they have been injured through some voluntary activity. Senator Powell gave a scenario in which somebody may have been deemed to have voluntarily put himself in a position in which he was liable to be injured. In the defence forces-and I think it is the same with policemen-fitness is an important element of their ability to do the job, and there is a moral obligation, at least, to keep themselves fit at all times through sporting activities. Most sporting activities would be deemed to be voluntary. I could not be sure that that would not be the case under this legislation. It does not seem to be appropriate for soldiers and policemen to be covered under this piece of legislation. There has been talk of new legislation which would cover servicemen, but once again the Government is talking about a totally new piece of legislation. I believe, as do a number of defence welfare groups, that they should be covered under the Veterans' Entitlements Act or the Defence Act. But certainly we should not introduce yet another piece of legislation which will affect the rights of servicemen. It is too complicated to administer if we have to turn first to this piece of legislation and then to another when dealing with claims. I leave the matter there because others wish to speak on this legislation. I am very glad that the Opposition has been able to achieve some sort of improvement in the legislation, but, as Senator Vanstone has demonstrated, the measures that the Government is proposing do not go far enough. As I hope I have demonstrated, the rights which are being taken away from Commonwealth employees are too important just to say, `Ho hum'. They are of vital importance to them, and no senator should willingly allow this to happen to Australian citizens. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.17) —The legislation before us deals with compensation payable to Commonwealth employees. I want to raise not the general issue but a specific case where compensation has not been paid to a Commonwealth employee. I am not sure-and I would like some response from the responsible Minister-whether a similar case would be compensable under the proposed legislation. Senator Powell has already drawn particular attention to the needs of members of the defence forces, munitions workers and members of the Australian Federal Police concerning access to common law and fair and equitable compensation payments. I look forward to seeing-I hope in the Budget session-a separate compensation scheme brought forward for members of the defence forces and others such as munitions workers and members of the Australian Federal Police who are in a particularly vulnerable area of service to the country and hence to the Government. We also need to remember that the defence forces in particular were only granted access to common law in 1983, and then only following a High Court case. I, like Senator Powell, am concerned about the fact that the Commission for the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation of Commonwealth Employees is not liable to pay compensation if an injury was sustained by the employee voluntarily and by unreasonably subjecting himself or herself to abnormal risk of injury. Senator Powell raised the general question of how people in the defence forces, ammunition workers and Australian Federal Police officers are much more vulnerable than are other public servants simply because of the nature of the work they do. But there is another aspect that I want to raise, and that is the position of women in the services who have been subject to sexual attack. We are all aware of the fact that there are still people who believe that any woman who is sexually assaulted has brought it on herself. I am particularly concerned about a case that I have been involved with for some time now which the Commonwealth Government is loath to settle. I am aware that we are short of time so I will only be able to give a summary of this case. I am raising it because I have so far got absolutely nowhere with the Government on getting an ex gratia payment for this woman. The women in question joined the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) in June 1980. She was posted to Canberra from Melbourne on 26 November 1982. The night before she left for Canberra a fellow officer tried to rape her. He was unsuccessful, but that was more good luck on her part than good management on his-or bad management on his part. Not wishing to spend extra time in Melbourne and delay her arrival in Canberra, she did not report the event in Melbourne but waited until she arrived in Canberra the following day. She then reported the matter to a sergeant, who not only said that he was not surprised when he found out who the other officer was but advised her to keep her mouth shut and to say nothing. The sergeant she reported to told another officer, who over a period then proceeded to subject the woman concerned to abuse and to harassment, both sexual and otherwise. In fact, that culminated in the submission of an unofficial unsuitability report on the woman concerned. I would say at this stage that in the intervening period the two officers concerned, and some others who became involved in this little game that they were playing, were eventually dismissed or disciplined in some other way for their actions. So there was an acknowledgment by the Air Force that the woman had been subjected to the treatment that she claimed. However, once the investigation of her complaints about the sexual assault in Melbourne had begun certain members of the RAAF police retaliated by trying to smear her character. She was alleged to be a homosexual and this allegation was put forward as the reason for rejecting the advances of the people who had subjected her to sexual harassment. This in itself is not an unknown element of these sorts of relationships. She was interrogated for something like 16 hours on this alleged homosexual inclination and some very sensitive and personal questions were asked of her. She was kept under 24-hour surveillance at one stage while she was on holiday in Adelaide and photographs were taken of her movements without her knowledge or consent. Despite the failure of the trumped up allegations to lead to any charges against her, she-I suggest quite understandably-suffered tremendous trauma as a consequence. She was so distressed that she brought her marriage forward by some considerable time in order to facilitate a discharge. After being discharged in December 1983 she submitted a redress of grievance to the Air Force. It is important that it be noted that the following events occurred post-December 1983, because it was in that month that the sex discrimination legislation passed this place, although it did not come into operation until some time the following year. Since then she has continued to suffer at the hands of some sections of the Air Force from people who are ex-colleagues. For example, in June 1985 she lost a work contract when the contractor made inquiries about her previous employment and was informed by the relevant RAAF personnel section that she was, in fact, a homosexual. As a consequence, she lost some considerable weekly income. In short, this woman has suffered appallingly. Sexual assault, improper investigation of her private life, gross infringements of her civil liberties, smearing of her character, loss of employment and promotion opportunities, stress, mental anguish and a nervous disorder clearly stemming from her experience, are just some of the complaints she is quite justified in putting forward. She was, as so often happens in the area of sexual assault, made the scapegoat for the misconduct and the guilt of other people. She disclosed facts which have since been proven correct-there is no questioning that matter-yet she has been the one to suffer. She and I have contacted the Government with a request for an ex gratia payment by way of compensation. She has undergone an appalling amount of trauma and I think it is only fair that the Federal Government accept its responsibility in this area. She has received some redress through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act in the Victorian courts, but that is not the point. The point is that she suffered while she was a member of the Commonwealth Government's force of employees and it must accept responsibility for this. Indeed, the Ombudsman has ruled that she is entitled to some redress-the Defence Ombudsman as well as the Commonwealth Ombudsman. I think it is important that we know that while the harassment started prior to the time that defence personnel were entitled to take common law action and prior to the time the sex discrimination legislation came into effect, it has continued since then. I find rather offensive the final paragraph of a letter from Senator Walsh that he wrote to me a little while ago suggesting that it remains open to her to institute legal proceedings against the Commonwealth if she believes that a case of negligence can be substantiated. I think she is entitled to compensation from the Government for the treatment that has been meted out to her. I hope this legislation means that no other woman under these circumstances would be subjected without some form of compensation to the treatment that she was subjected to. I think the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Senator Bolkus), who is at the table, ought to take up this matter with the Government with a view to getting the act of grace payment that she deserves. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(4.26) —We are discussing the Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill, and I shall refer to the matter that Senator Haines has just described in some detail. The Australian Democrats ought, in that case, to be supporting our amendment with respect to retaining common law rights so that a person in that situation could do something about it. The Government says that one reason for introducing this legislation is the increased cost to government of the compensation that is presently paid. The Government ought to look at the reason why increasing numbers are seeking compensation rather than merely trying to address the matter by penalising those who are on compensation and seeking to cut the benefits they will obtain. When I say benefits, we are not really talking about benefits; that is the wrong word. It is compensation for the fact that people have, for one reason or another, lost the ability to be in the work force. As I say, `benefit' normally implies something that is good and sought after, and it is not quite the right word in this situation. The legislation also indicates how little regard this Government actually has for people in that it is prepared to cut funds and expenditure by cutting those payments which are quite reasonably paid to so many people who are affected by the Bill. The Government does say that in this Bill it is putting greater emphasis on rehabilitation and getting people back into the work force. One could only say that that is a laudable claim. Many Commonwealth employees in receipt of compensation would far rather be in the work force. They would like to be able to get on with their jobs and their careers, to move up the ladder within the Public Service, to be in a position to provide more for their families than is possible by being fixed at the level at which they became injured. Their families' lifestyle is significantly changed as a result, and, as a consequence of this legislation, many will have their living standards will be reduced even further. It is quite apparent that there are escalating costs. One hopes that before too long the cause will be looked at in somewhat more detail. There are a couple of aspects in this legislation which have already been referred to which are entirely unacceptable. They are, firstly, the abolition of the common law rights of Commonwealth employees to sue their employer, where the employer has been negligent, in the way that other employees in the work force are able to do; and secondly, the retrospective application of the new compensation entitlements to those who have already established their entitlement under the existing legislation. Many thousands of Commonwealth employees or former employees will be affected by this legislation. Many will be affected prospectively, and that is another aspect. I wish to deal with the removal of the common law right to sue, and its retrospective implications. It covers all Commonwealth employees, the Australian Federal Police, the defence forces and persons employed by the Commonwealth or its authorities under contract or apprenticeship. It is incredible that the Government brings this Bill into the Senate today and, with the support of the Australian Democrats, restricts discussion on it to 1 1/2 hours. We all know that it has taken the Government months-years-to come up with this legislation. We have heard it stated today that even in the last hours the Government has had to agree to amendments to make the legislation workable. Apparently, it is completely unaware of the anguish which the knowledge that this legislation was being looked at has caused so many people over the last couple of years. There have been rumours. People on compensation knew they would be affected but have not been able to find out what was going on. Now, the legislation, with minimum opportunity to discuss it, is being rushed through the Senate by the Government. We are putting forward amendments which would improve the legislation, to restore and protect the common law rights these people are entitled to, and to protect those who are retrospectively affected by having their present payments reduced. I recognise that some people presently on compensation will have their situation improved, but it is not right or reasonable for others on compensation to have it reduced. A large number of people will be affected. We are told that some of the Government's amendments will restore some common law rights. To put it crudely, that is absolute rubbish. The amendments may use the words `common law rights', but the restrictions on those rights, which have already been spelt out, make them completely meaningless. Everybody knows what the common law right to sue is. It is the right to sue one's employer for injuries one has suffered as a consequence of his negligence. That right will not exist for Commonwealth employees once this legislation goes through. I repeat: The amendment which is being put forward is a pale shadow of an employee's right to sue his employer, in this case the Commonwealth, for negligence and for the consequences of that negligence. The right is effectively abolished under this legislation. No-one should be under any illusion about that. The new Comcare commission will not be liable to pay, as has been indicated, where an employee sustains an injury as a result of subjecting himself or herself to abnormal risk of injury. Nobody could possibly predict how this could be interpreted. There are some employees in high risk areas: Airline pilots, members of the armed forces and officers of the Federal Police. For example, an Army instructor teaching cadets or soldiers how to use grenades as a consequence of the actions of one of the cadets or soldiers he is teaching may be injured. One could talk about the sorts of examples that might occur for a long time, longer than we have this afternoon. That is one of the faults of the legislation being presented to us. To suggest that Comcare will not pay where the subject has put himself at abnormal risk will involve considerable litigation. As far as rehabilitation is concerned, we need to be realistic. It is said that great efforts will be made to rehabilitate people, to get them back into the work force. It cannot be denied that that is a laudable aim. In New South Wales, where Transcover came into effect, rehabilitation was to be an important factor. But we all know stories about people in New South Wales being unable to obtain rehabilitative treatment because there were no treating doctors available. I ask the Government what steps it is taking to provide the facilities and the doctors for meaningful rehabilitation. Many people who would like to return to work will not be able to do so. In Question Time today I asked whether those who were to be re-assessed and found to be capable of work would be cut off from the compensation they presently receive. I was told that efforts will be made to get them employment. I asked whether the Commonwealth would give a guarantee of employment. I suggest that it will prove quite difficult to obtain employment in the private sector for a person who has for some time been on compensation as a former Commonwealth employee. Such people will be regarded in the private sector as being in a high risk category. Those on compensation will feel particularly nervous about going into a job. They will feel apprehensive as to whether they will be able to cope with it. What happens if they go into the private work force and cannot cope? How much difficulty will they have obtaining a resumption of Commonwealth employee compensation? Or will they merely be told to go to the Department of Social Security and finish up on welfare? There are some significant problems which people who are concerned want to know the answers to. They want assurances as to what their future will be. The fact that they will be regarded as high risk people is quite significant. One cannot think about this matter without contemplating the present situation within the Commonwealth work force of those who are presently redeployed from the jobs they had. If the way they are treated is any guide at all, one can only be cynical about the words in this legislation that refer to rehabilitation. Most redeployees are regarded as being on the scrap heap. Virtually nothing is done to get them back into employment, to get them other jobs and allow them to get on with their lives. A stream of people come in and out of my office who had good jobs but who are no longer able to continue with them and would like to be able to get back to work. In the event that jobs are found for them which they are able to do, they are branded. It is as though `redeployee' is written across their foreheads for the rest of time. The chance of their getting into another job and being able to pursue a career path is minimal. Even within the Commonwealth Public Service no department wants to hear about a redeployee. Departments will not look at a redeployee from another department. If honourable senators think I am exaggerating, they should go and talk to some of the people I see quite regularly. What assurance is there under this legislation that people will be any better off, that it is not just a question of words? The Bill allows for some lump sum payments, but they are limited. I have referred to this aspect. The death benefits involve a maximum amount of $120,000, and a weekly payment of $40 for each dependent child. How many people with teenagers would agree that $40 a week is the actual cost of supporting a teenager? If one takes every cost into account one may agree that the Law Society figure of $90.64 is the more realistic cost of providing for a teenager in a middle income family. Many families with financial commitments who are presently on compensation will lose money and be significantly worse off. The stories I have been told of people who have worked out the arrangements and what will happen to them are devastating. Why should people be forced into that situation? Most of them have already spent all their savings surviving on what they have been getting until now. A public servant above the level of administrative service officer grade 7 will not receive 100 per cent of his or her salary for the first 45 weeks. For impairment, that public servant will receive a maximum of $80,000. Nothing is payable for impairment to a degree of less than 10 per cent. Of course, the guide to what in fact will be paid for impairment is yet to be published. We do not accept that it is appropriate to limit in this way the compensation which an injured employee or his dependants are able to receive. As I have said, we will oppose the abolition of the common law rights. I want now to refer to some of the examples put to me. I got a letter from the rector of the St Alban's Anglican Church in Lyons, who had been consulted by some of his parishioners. He said: Several parishioners who are already retired on invalidity and compensation benefits will be adversely affected. They were advised by the Commonwealth Employee's Compensation Authority that, as the resultant disability would continue throughout their lifetimes, compensation would be payable until death. On the basis of that advice they made financial commitments which they will be unable to meet if the proposed legislation is enacted. . . . . One parishioner will lose up to 52 per cent of her income. As a single person, she will in all probability, be unable to maintain her home and be forced to sell what she has worked many years to acquire and on which the mortgage is still being paid. I have a number of letters illustrating such examples. I have a letter from a person who was employed in the Public Service until 1984 when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident while travelling to work. His injuries have prevented him from returning to work. In March 1986 he was invalided out of the Public Service. He is aged 33 years, has a dependant wife and three children, two of whom attend a special school. There are significant costs involved in that. Many people support the objectives of Comcare and the concept of having injured employees return to the work force. However, the difficulties for many people in surviving are quite extreme. I have a huge file of letters, certainly from the organisations already referred to, but from individuals as well. These are people well under the age of 65 years who no longer have employment as a consequence of injury and who see their lifestyles being shattered. I have received one such letter today. As it would be regarded almost as too emotive, I will not quote from it, but it is from a man indicating his distress and the distress caused to his family by the delay in finally getting this legislation introduced, when for so long we have known that it was coming. People have been worrying about the impact of the legislation and what it would mean to them. I urge the Government to accept the amendments which will maintain the rights of the people to whom I referred. As well as the existing common law rights, I most certainly urge the Australian Democrats to accept these amendments of ours to protect the people to whom we are referring. Certainly, the amendments which the Government is proposing are better than the provisions in the original Act. That perhaps is to be applauded but it does not go nearly far enough. In concluding I would like in particular to refer to the Superannuated Commonwealth Officers Association letter which was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) earlier this year. The Association in its letter referred to many areas in which former Commonwealth public servants have been affected by decisions taken by the Labor Government. I shall not read all the letter but there is a portion which I think ought to be read out because it is revealing. The letter states: Never before in the history of this Association, which goes back to 1923, has a Government been perceived as setting out so deliberately to reduce the living standards of people who, throughout their working lives, served to the best of their ability the people of Australia and the Government of the day regardless of its political persuasion. These former employees are not ``fat cats'' as is so often portrayed by the media. Many thousands of them served the people of Australia as postmen, mail sorters, labourers, linesmen, tradesmen, technicians, typists and so on. Their salaries were modest and this is now reflected in the correspondingly modest level of superannuation pension received by them. Although I have made the point previously, do members of your Government fully appreciate that the level of superannuation pension received by former Commonwealth Government employees is such that in excess of 63 per cent of them are eligible for either a full or partial Social Security age pension. This percentage may be as high as 93; I am unable to be more precise due to the manner in which records are maintained in the office of the Commissioner for Superannuation. The letter goes on to mention some of the detail. Some of these people will be affected by this legislation. These are people who have part superannuation and, in this instance, part pension and, in fact, whose total income is the same as that of an age pensioner but without any of the benefits. These are people who have found only in the last week that they have to pay an extra dollar on pharmaceutical prescriptions. These are people whose incomes, as I said, are the same as that of age pensioners but who get none of the benefits of age pensioners. There are a lot of such people in my electorate who know just how hard it is to get by and to survive. There are so many aspects of this debate. I could give so many more stories, but I think I have sufficiently indicated why it is that we feel so strongly about the matter and why we feel that the amendments we have proposed are appropriate and ought to be passed. I make one last plea both to the Government and to the Australian Democrats to have some regard for the people concerned-people who have served the Commonwealth and who now are on compensation as a consequence of their injuries. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(4.46) —I will very briefly reply to a couple of points raised in the debate on the Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill 1988. The debate has been an ongoing one both in the Parliament and outside. I refer in particular to the matter raised by Senator Haines, which drew great sympathy from this side of the chamber. I undertake to take that matter up with the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and get back to Senator Haines with an answer as quickly as possible. In saying that I refer the Senate to section 6 (1) (a) of the Bill, which may go some way towards accommodating the sort of problem that Senator Haines raises. In fact, it should substantially cover the problem raised. However, we do have, as Senator Haines said, an ongoing case which has to be addressed. We will do so. Senator Reid asked whether people who might be found ineligible for compensation under the current review of permanent cases would be offered permanent employment. She raised a question on this matter during Question Time as well. I think I might have just enough time to go through the answer on that. The permanent review finds people ineligible for continuing compensation if they are found fit for work. All the services, except for the new income arrangements, of the Bill will apply to current beneficiaries. They will therefore be eligible for rehabilitation case management. I stress that. Work tests will be applied. If the person has not retired on invalidity grounds and, therefore, remains an employee of the Commonwealth, employment will be sought for that person in the Commonwealth. In the first instance the former employer will be asked to find suitable employment for that person. If the person has retired, suitable employment will be sought inside and outside the Commonwealth. I should say in this instance that if that person has retired then the rehabilitation plan program will apply directly to him if an exhaustive process does not find him employment. It should also be stressed that it will not be easy to redeploy most permanent beneficiaries. As I have already indicated, the Government is accommodating those particular problems. The Government is introducing Comcare with its premiums, rehabilitation and redeployment provisions specifically to encourage the return to work of people injured at work. Managers will be made financially accountable for compensation and will have direct responsibility and incentives for rehabilitation and redeployment. The only other thing I want to say in conclusion is that this measure represents a major reform of the compensation system available to Commonwealth employees. It is a measure that has been worked on for quite a number of years within the Government. On behalf of the Government and the Minister for Social Security I would like to thank the officers who have been involved in preparing the package, together with members of both the Minister's staff and my staff for the amount of work they have actually put into this. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bills has expired. In accordance with standing order 470b I will put the question for the 12 amendments circulated on behalf of the Government, their having been circulated more than two hours ago. The question is that the 12 amendments circulated by the Government be agreed to. Circulated Government amendments to Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill 1988- (1) Page 41, clause 44, line 27, leave out ``An'', insert ``Subject to section 44a, an''. (2) Page 41, clause 44, line 34, leave out paragraph (1) (b). (3) Page 41, clause 44, line 37, leave out ``death,''. (4) Page 41, after clause 44 insert the following new clause: Actions for damages-election by employees ``44a. (1) Where: (a) compensation is payable under section 24, 25 or 27 in respect of an injury to an employee; and (b) the Commonwealth, a Commonwealth authority or another employee would, but for subsection 44 (1), be liable for damages for any non-economic loss suffered by the employee as a result of the injury; the employee may, at any time before an amount of compensation is paid to the employee under section 24, 25 or 27 in respect of that injury, elect in writing to institute an action or proceeding against the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth authority or other employee for damages for that non-economic loss. ``(2) Where an employee makes an election: (a) subsection 44 (1) does not apply in relation to an action or other proceeding subsequently instituted by the employee against the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth authority or other employee for damages for the non-economic loss to which the election relates; and (b) compensation is not payable after the date of the election under section 24, 25 or 27 in respect of the injury. ``(3) An election is irrevocable. ``(4) In any action or proceeding instituted as a result of an election made by an employee, the court shall not award the employee damages of an amount exceeding $110,000 for any non-economic loss suffered by the employee''. (5) Page 42, clause 45, line 7, insert ``(other than the Commonwealth, a Commonwealth authority or another employee)'' after ``person''. (6) Page 42, after clause 45 insert the following new clause: Notice of proceedings against Commonwealth ``45a. Where: (a) compensation is payable under this Act in respect of the death of an employee or an injury to an employee; and (b) the employee, or a dependant of the deceased employee, as the case may be, institutes proceedings against the Commonwealth, a Commonwealth authority or another employee for the recovery of damages in respect of the death or injury; the employee or dependant shall, as soon as practicable but in any event not later than 7 days after the day on which he or she first became aware that those proceedings had been instituted, notify the Commission in writing of those proceedings. Penalty: $500.''. (7) Page 43, clause 46, after paragraph (5) (b) insert the following paragraph: ``(ba) as a result of proceedings instituted by the employee as a result of an election by the employee under section 44A; or''. (8) Page 46, clause 48, at the end of the clause add the following subclause: ``(9) In this section: `person' does not include the Commonwealth, a Commonwealth authority or an employee.''. (9) Page 48, clause 49, at the end of the clause add the following subclause: ``(6) In this section: `person' does not include the Commonwealth, a Commonwealth authority or an employee.''. (10) Page 89, clause 133, lines 1 to 9, leave out subclauses (2) and (3), insert the following subclause: ``(2) The amount of compensation payable per week to the former employee under this Act is an amount equal to the employee's 1971 amount.''. (11) Page 89, clause 134, lines 15 to 21, leave out subclauses (2) and (3), insert the following subclause: ``(2) The amount of compensation payable per week to the former employee under this Act is an amount equal to the employee's 1971 amount.''. (12) Page 94, Schedule, definition of ``commencing day'' in proposed subsection 48 (1) of the Australian National Railways Commission Act 1983, leave out ``135'', insert ``136''. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(4.51) —On behalf of Senator Chaney and pursuant to contingent notice of motion No. 20 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 Opposition, the Australian Democrats, 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 be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a third time. [COGNATE BILLS: ANTI-DUMPING AUTHORITY BILL 1988 CUSTOMS LEGISLATION (ANTI-DUMPING AMENDMENTS) BILL 1988 CUSTOMS TARIFF (ANTI-DUMPING) AMENDMENT BILL 1988] Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs) —I suggest that it might suit the convenience of the Senate if there were to be a cognate debate on the Customs Tariff Amendment Bills and the Anti-Dumping legislation package of Bills, that is, Orders of the Day Nos 6 and 7. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is it the wish of the Senate that Orders of the Day Nos 6 and 7 be debated cognately? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.53) —The Senate turns now to debate a package of some five Bills, the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1988, the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988, the Anti-Dumping Authority Bill 1988, the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1988 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1988. The Opposition has circulated a number of amendments which will be dealt with at the end of the debate. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bills cover a range of changes including surcharges on aviation gasoline; amendments which give effect to the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) reports on pulp, paper products and printing industries, medical and scientific equipment, and glass and glassware; amendments to international agreements; amendments in the context of the textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) sectoral plan; amendments to the harmonised tariff; and all of the changes to the passenger motor vehicle sectoral plan-some 154 pages in content plus 10 pages of explanatory memorandum. All of these Bills are to be dealt with within the 1 1/2 hours allowed to us, thanks to the Australian Democrats supporting the Government's guillotine. In many ways there is no doubt that these Bills, in particular the anti-dumping Bills, should clearly have gone over to the next session of Parliament. The industry-wide basis for each of the tariffs in these industries is to be 15 per cent for the large majority of products, and this will be phased in where necessary on a tops down basis. Coupled with the May economic statement, this is part of a long overdue micro-economic reform package so far as it relates to the reduction of tariffs. Since the stock market crash of October last year there has been speculation on tariff cuts and a clear acknowledgment of the necessity for change. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), Mr Dawkins, Senator Button and others have been floating the ideas of some tariff reductions for some considerable time in the hope that they would be able to persuade industry and in particular the unions to accept these tariff changes. That has proven to be successful because industry and the unions have in fact not created much fuss about the tariff changes which have been announced. The truth of the matter is that in the meantime there has been a very substantial cutback in investment, as managers of various industries have been concerned about taking long term investment decisions at a time when it was clear that the Government was going to do something about reducing their tariffs. Until such time as those announcements were made, many investment decisions were put off. Customs Tariff Legislation Customs Tariff Legislation Customs Tariff Legislation Customs Tariff Legislation Customs Tariff Legislation Customs Tariff Legislation Customs Tariff Legislation Customs Tariff Legislation Customs Tariff Legislation Customs Tariff Legislation Customs Tariff Legislation Customs Tariff Legislation Customs Tariff Legislation Customs Tariff Legislation Customs Tariff Legislation My criticism of the Government in this area goes further than that, because the Government should have been making these tariff changes not just since last October. Some considerable time ago, for example when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) talked about the banana republic, the Australian economy had so changed as a result of the devaluation of the Australian dollar that one could say that from late in 1985 it was ready for some substantial readjustment downwards of the tariff protection being given to Australian industry. If these changes had been made at a time when the Australian dollar was down as low as US70c, it may very well be that lower tariff protection could have been introduced than has been introduced. The Government has so fiddled around in this matter that it has ended up introducing these Bills at a time when the dollar has risen to about US80c, an increase of about US10c on US70c, a one-seventh increase in its value, and this has created great difficulty for industry. If the tariff reductions had taken place, as I say, a couple of years ago, industry would have been coping with them much better than it is now required to do. I am not promoting the idea that tariff changes should take place in accordance with the change in value of the dollar. I am merely pointing out that, as a result of the massive fall in the value of the dollar under this Government, the Australian economy had so changed that industry would have been able to cope much better with a lower tariff protection. If this Government would only get off its tail and deregulate some other areas of the industrial structure in this country, industry would be able to cope much better with the tariff changes which are introduced in these Bills and which could have been made a long time ago by this Government. As I said in a speech I made yesterday, I am delighted to see that at long last the Treasurer has worked out that what is needed is a deregulation of the Australian labour market in order to enable this country to become more export oriented and more production oriented and to enable our manufacturing industries, and in particular our transport industries, to create an opportunity to take advantage of a lower tariff regime. Both industry and unions have criticised the Government for the uncertainty which the Government created by itself in its speculation about tariff cuts over the last six or seven months. The Chamber of Manufacturers of New South Wales has claimed that tens of millions of dollars worth of investment plans were delayed while textiles, clothing and footwear unions argued that people did not want to work in the industry because of the uncertainty. Apparently, Mr Keating was pushing for an across the board cut of about 15 per cent. At one stage he was talking about a 25 per cent across the board tariff cut. Then we heard that he was talking about a 20 per cent cut and then, finally, we understood that he was promoting a 15 per cent cut. I understand that in the meantime Senator Button was pushing for a 10 per cent across the board tariff cut. It is quite clear that Senator Button had a very substantial fight on his hands. Before Christmas 1987 I criticised the Government for fuelling speculation about changes to the plan-not because the changes were not necessary for any industry but because of the damage that was being done as restructuring plans and other investments were delayed while industry and managements waited for the Government to come clean and announce its intentions. The legislation proposes a series of amendments to the current TCF sectoral plan, including changes to quota arrangements for goods from developing countries-that is, changes in the type of garments and quantities that are allowed to be imported at concessional rates. The textiles, clothing and footwear industries were firmly of the belief that Senator Button had broken a promise to them by changing the plan which he announced in 1986 and repeated in 1987. Before the plan comes into operation in March next year it will have been changed. The industries believe that Senator Button has broken a promise. However, Senator Button seems to have persuaded them that it is not his fault. Although he is a very senior Minister, somehow or other he seems to be able to escape criticism of the Government by saying, `It is not really my fault. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and other senior Ministers have done this. I have been battling strongly for industry'. Senator Newman —The unionists do not believe him. Senator LEWIS —As my colleague Senator Newman says, there is not the slightest doubt that the industries no longer trust him. They realise that when he makes a promise about tariff arrangements, he cannot deliver, because ultimately the Treasurer may require him to support changes of which he is not in favour. The legislation also proposes a series of amendments to the car plan. In the mid-term review of the car plan, it became evident that that four-year-old car plan was not succeeding in Australia-certainly in terms of reducing the relative cost of cars in Australia. In fact, the price of some popular cars has risen from between 43 and 63 per cent since the introduction of the plan. It now takes 46 weeks wages of an average worker to buy a standard Commodore, whilst in 1985 it took only 39 weeks wages. The changes to passenger motor vehicle plan tariffs, which were announced on 13 April 1988, abolish tariff quotas on passenger motor vehicles altogether and reduce customs duty from 57.5 per cent to 45 per cent, phasing it down by 2.5 per cent each year until 1992, when the rate will reach 35 per cent. Those reductions put pressure on local manufacturers to lift their game. This pressure should have been exerted much earlier, when the devaluation of the dollar was having a major impact on imports, and would have been much more effective if, at the same time, the Government had introduced some deregulatory moves so as to give Australian manufacturers an opportunity to take advantage of these lower tariff protection arrangements. It appears that section 23 (3) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act is being contravened by changes to the passenger motor vehicle tariffs that we are debating today. I ask the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button): Where is the IAC report recommending these changes? There is in existence, and floating around this place, the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill, which would regularise the changes proposed in this legislation and allow the Government to do whatever it pleases to tariff levels without the safeguards that the IAC provides. However, that Bill is not being debated during this session. The Government's action in bringing forward this legislation without the passage of the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill is not only an administrative bungle on the part of this Government but also an unlawful act. The Oppositions amendment to the question that the two Bills be read a second time condemns the Government for the tediously slow pace of reform and the confusion, uncertainty and speculation which has abounded in the interim, resulting in a widespread reluctance to invest. The Anti-Dumping Authority Bill 1988, the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1988 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1988 amend Australia's anti-dumping legislation and implement the Government's long overdue decisions on the report of the Review of the Customs Operation (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 by Professor Gruen, which he completed in March 1986. We now have the spectacle of the Government rushing through-although Professor Gruen reported in March 1986-this most important and indeed vital piece of legislation. The Government is pushing through the legislation under the guillotine and is not allowing adequate debate. The legislation is being pushed through at such a rate that industry has had to try to respond to it without having had an opportunity to consider some of its proposals about which people have been talking. This reflects on the incompetence of this Government and the cavalier manner in which it treats both the Parliament and the people. I wish to acknowledge the benefit which I have had from briefings by departmental officers, Mr John Hawksworth and Mr Ken McInnes-they are in the chamber-who have been very kind in explaining to me some of the somewhat complicated aspects of the legislation with which we are dealing and the practical consequences of the proposed changes. Professor Gruen recommended that the present anti-dumping and countervailing system be continued, subject to some substantial changes designed to, firstly, reduce the discrepancy between the concept of unfair trading practices as it is applied within Australia and as it is applied by Australia to its imports of goods and secondly, discourage too extensive use of the anti-dumping system as a more readily available system for restricting imports. In other words, it is not right and proper that industry should try to use the anti-dumping system as some way of obtaining protection for an industry. Professor Gruen said: The anti-dumping system should not be used to shield import-competing industry from the necessity to adjust to changing longer term economic conditions-unless the IAC has at least examined the circumstances justifying such longer-term insulation from world market trends. Professor Gruen pointed out that some industries had been endeavouring to use the anti-dumping measures to obtain protection. They should not do so. If they are entitled to protection, the IAC should be so reporting. Proper long term protection facilities could then be introduced. The legislation establishes a one-member Anti-Dumping Authority as a statutory body to advise the Minister as to whether dumping or countervailing duties should be imposed on specified imported products and to review and make reports to the Government on anti-dumping matters. I point out that this was not Professor Gruen's recommendation; it was one of the Minister's ideas. In our view, it adds a layer of bureaucracy. I have my doubts about whether that is necessary; nevertheless, it creates an avenue of appeal from a decision of the Australian Customs Service. The proposed Anti-Dumping Authority has been seen in a favourable light by industry. We will not be opposing its establishment, although I have considerable reservations about the creation of statutory authorities for this sort of purpose. I will come back to that later in my speech. It is also proposed that policy guidelines will be developed by the Authority and established by regulation. The legislation restricts the life of dumping notices and undertakings to a maximum of three years. Professor Gruen recommended two years but the Government's proposal is three years, and the coalition parties do not oppose that proposition. The legislation prescribes the manner in which the Australian Customs Service is to conduct preliminary investigations of dumping complaints. It amends the IAC Act to remove from the operations of that body the review of dumping matters, transferring that function to the Anti-Dumping Authority. It allows anti-dumping complaints to be initiated by any person on behalf of the relevant Australian industry effected. For example, a trade union or a farmer affected downstream by some dumping action can institute an anti-dumping complaint even if the industry does not wish to make such a complaint. I might add that there is a sunset clause of five years on the Anti-Dumping Authority Bill and I totally support such a provision. These Bills require the Customs Service to conduct preliminary investigations of dumping complaints and to determine whether the facts alleged constitute sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant commencing an investigation within 70 days. In other words, the Customs Service has 70 days in which to make its preliminary inquiry. The legislation allows the Customs Service a further 180 days to make a finding as to whether dumping or countervailing duties should be imposed. That makes a total of 250 days, which industry says is too long. The coalition parties also believe it is too long. We will be moving an amendment to reduce the period back to the period provided for in the previous legislation and before the Government allowed the Australian Customs Service last August to extend its time for making investigations. We believe that a period of 55 days for the prima facie case should be substituted for the 70 days proposed by the Government. We also believe that the period of 120 days should be substituted for the 180 days proposed for the hearing. There are suggestions that the Canadians operate much more quickly, but on investigation I am advised by the departmental officers that this is not the case. Although their legislation might appear to enable them to operate more quickly, in fact they take just as long as, or longer than, the Australian Customs Service has been taking with its investigations. The Americans are in a similar position. The Customs Service officers believe that they need the periods of time set out in the legislation. We believe that they should be under the pressure of the shorter period and we will move an amendment to that effect. If that proves to be unsatisfactory, perhaps the Minister will come into the chamber to explain that to us and introduce regulations to change the time allowed. Australian manufacturers have alleged that, under the previous procedures, the Customs Service has been manipulating the times to fit its own timetable by seeking more evidence or seeking in some way or other to defer the inquiry, but we believe that it will make a valiant attempt to comply with the timetables allowed under the legislation, or under our amendment if the Australian Democrats support it. There is no doubt that flexibility and adequate staffing of the Australian Customs Service is needed to ensure speedy resolution of the cases. The apparent procrastination could and should be overcome by the Authority providing guidelines and perhaps a standard document that clearly details the information needed to commence a case. However, I hope that the standard form does not itself cause some delay by becoming a formal requirement used to frustrate and delay an applicant. Since the Gruen report was prepared there has been a steady decrease in the number of anti-dumping cases, due in part to the devaluation of the Australian dollar. There were 35 tariff items under investigation in 12 countries at 31 March this year compared with 74 at 1 January this year and 285 cases in 1985. Under the legislation the decisions of the Customs Service are to be subject to review by the Anti-Dumping Authority, which must then report to the Minister within a further 120 days. One would presume that there may be some overlap between the time allowed for the Customs Service and the Anti-Dumping Authority's investigation. The reduced time for the Customs Service activities as provided for in the amendment to be moved by me appears to be a sensible compromise between the longer period sought by the Government and the even shorter periods that some industry spokesmen have suggested to me. The imposition of this time limit will bring some discipline into the Customs Service. It will also introduce some discipline into industry, which will be required to comply with the Customs Service's notices and requirements in regard to evidence of dumping applications. Professor Gruen saw the upgrading of the resources of the Customs Service as the real key to the speedy resolution of complaints. The Bills do not take up Professor Gruen's recommendation for a complete rewrite of the anti-dumping legislation, nor do they adequately address problems of simplification. That is one of the reasons for our criticism of what the Government is doing. The Bills do not repeal section 5 (9) of the Act, which was a recommendation of Professor Gruen, but tighten it. Manufacturers have considerable reservations about the tightening of section 5 (9) because a zero profit figure is to be assumed. I merely point out that we will have to see how that works out. Under the legislation the Minister has a power to change that by regulation and in due course some changes may well have to be made in that area. As I pointed out earlier, industry is strongly supportive of the establishment of the Anti-Dumping Authority, in particular because it creates an appeal mechanism so that, if a case for anti-dumping is not upheld by the Customs Service, industry will be able to go to the Anti-Dumping Authority and appeal against the decision of the Customs Service. The member of the Authority is to be chosen from outside the Public Service and for economic and commercial expertise. Associate members and consultants may be appointed for limited periods. The Minister will have a total discretion which will enable him to take into account national interest in his final decision. National interest is not to be taken into account either by the Anti-Dumping Authority or by the Customs Service. I am pleased to be able to report that the Minister is not going to hide behind the decisions of the Anti-Dumping Authority because he has agreed to amendments which will enable the Authority's reasons and the nature of its findings to be published. The Minister then will have to make a decision one way or the other as to whether he accepts or rejects the Anti-Dumping Authority's decision and recommendation. I believe that that is the way it ought to be so that Ministers are fully responsible for decisions made on important matters such as this and are responsible and accountable to the people and to the Parliament for their decisions. I approve very strongly of that proposal. I have had some representations from industry. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard recommendations made to me by Pacific Dunlop Ltd entitled `Anti-Dumping Legislation'. Leave granted. The document read as follows- ANTI-DUMPING LEGISLATION Introduction A legislative package of three bills which together are intended to change Australia's anti-dumping policies have just been passed through the federal lower house. These bills are now en route to the Senate. The bills are: Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendments Bill 1988 Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1988 Anti-Dumping Authority Bill 1988 According to the Government this legislative package will establish an effective anti-dumping policy. Earlier in a press release, on 30 October 1987, Senator Button committed himself and the government to a `level playing field' approach. Australian industry, Senator Button stated, should not be provided with lesser safeguards against unfair competition than that provided by others like the EEC, USA and Canada. This government commitment to a level playing field approach in anti-dumping areas is particularly important for Australian industry as it continues to restructure. The reductions in tariffs that are proceeding are placing pressure on Australian industry to be at least as competitive as other nations. And so long as these tariff cuts are implemented with appropriate adjustment times for the industries concerned they are to be welcomed by efficient companies. However it must concurrently be recognized by government that there are occasions when some industries face unfair trading practises in the form of dumping in Australian markets by overseas competitors. The General Agreement on Tariffs Trade (GATT) and legislation in other places (like the USA, EEC and Canada) does recognize dumping as a practice to be outlawed and one that is detrimental to a fair world trading system. Like predatory pricing by a well capitalised company, dumping can send efficient Australian firms and industry out of business. Should this occur the predatory importer can then charge whatever the market will bear in the future and recoup the costs of their earlier dumping. Competition in the industry is diminished and the economic gains from lower prices while the dumping occurred must then be offset against the economic inefficiencies of less competition and possibly even in the extreme no remaining Australian based industry. With this legislative package the government does recognize the possibility of dumping. However the government contention that this legislative package is constructed on the basis of a `level playing field' philosophy is incorrect. The new Australian policy towards dumping is weaker than that of the GATT, the USA, the EEC and Canada. Indeed the legislation is so loose that there is reason to believe that it could be ineffective. Weakness in the Legislation There are basically two difficulties with the legislative package as it now stands. First the time allowed before any action is taken against dumping is too long. Indeed by the time action is taken Australian firms could be in big economic trouble and well on the way to bankruptcy. The second difficulty with this legislation is the extent of Ministerial discretion permitted. In other words the anti-dumping legislation may only be effective if the Minister responsible has the time, enthusiasm and intent to make it work. There are in addition several other weaknesses which taken together suggests that this legislation does not give Australian industry a `level playing field'. (i) Timing provisions: For the first time in Australia statutory timing limits on investigations into dumping are set. First Customs examines the dumping complaint and conducts preliminary investigation. They must have this done in 70 days (ie. two months). If there is a prima facie case to support dumping then Customs have a maximum of 180 days (ie. six months) to make a decision about whether to impose dumping duties. If Customs make a preliminary decision that there is dumping they then have 7 days to refer the matter to the Anti-Dumping Authority. The Anti-Dumping Authority then have 120 days (ie. 4 months) to complete their examinations. This whole process could take almost one year without breaching the statutory time limits. It should be obvious that this timing is not fast enough. Setting a maximum time limit for investigations will encourage the time spent on investigations to expand so that the maximum is always reached. And as time passes the potential damage to Australian firms and industry multiplies. In addition it is worth noting that in Canada 90 days is allowed for investigation and in the USA 160 days are allowed. The longer time being for Australian investigations does not represent a level playing field and will encourage some overseas companies to dump here ceteris paribus. (ii) Ministerial Discretion The Minister can direct the Anti-Dumping Authority to act on or to ignore a wide variety of matters. This could be either good or bad, depending on the Minister, but it is not a sign of tight legislation. There are provisions in the Act (s.5.9) which allow appeal against Customs Decisions and for cases to be initiated by outside parties. This is sensible. However the Second Reading Speech also makes clear that the Minister will consider anti-dumping decisions on the basis of both economic and commercial issues. While national interest considerations are not defined in the legislation it is made clear in the Second Reading Speech that if a dumping company is from a country which has a trade deficit with Australia then its imports to Australia (including dumped imports) will be given different (more favourable) treatment. Many of the companies in the past who have been subject to positive dumping charges are from countries with trade deficits with Australia, so this interpretation is of great concern. Companies from the Eastern Bloc (eg. Romania, Poland, Yugoslavia) as well as companies from Korea, Malaysia, PR China and India have all fallen in this category at various times. Giving countries who have a trade deficit with Australia some favourable treatment in this area is of course quite contrary to a fair multilateral trading system. It is aggregate trade balances that are important in a global fair trading system. Focusing on bilateral trade flows aids and abets the breakdown of multilateral trading as the Australian government has itself asserted in many international forum for some years. In addition this Ministerial discretion allows for special pleading on any number of grounds. Foreign policy considerations, for example the desire not to upset some country for some unrelated reason, will almost certainly get brought into considerations about dumping. While there may be occasional and exceptional circumstances where such issues might dominate the dumping decision they should not be treated such potential importance. It has also been suggested that when there are generally depressed world prices the decision about dumping will be judged differently from in more normal trading circumstances. This too opens the door for abuse and it would be more rigorous to argue that dumping should simply be judged on the basis of whether GATT defined normal prices are being breached. And in this judgment the intent behind the behaviour (ie. whether predatory or something else) is not relevant. (iii) Normal Prices In calculating normal values (which roughly speaking are the prices charged for the goods in question in the alleged dumper's domestic market) it is proposed that the assumed profit rate of the producer will be zero. In other words in calculating the normal prices that Australian industry must compete against we assume a price based on zero profits. Any company that makes zero profits continuously cannot survive which in turn suggests that zero profits are an illogical benchmark for comparison. This benchmark is also quite out of line with practise elsewhere. The GATT suggests that some positive profit element be included in the valuation of normal price and the USA require a minimum of 8%. Comment It would be in Australian industry interests if this anti-dumping legislation was amended so that: (i) the timing for a decision and action was shortened: (ii) the number of matters left to ministerial discretion were fewer. In particular dumping allegations should not be able to be judged on the basis of aggregate bilaterial trade flows or other irrelevant facts to the specific dumping case; (iii) the definition of normal price used was more in line with the intent of GATT and more in line with that used in other countries. 31 May 1988 Senator LEWIS —I thank the Senate. Of course, Pacific Dunlop is a very highly respected, successful and innovative company with interests as a manufacturer, exporter and importer. I believe that its representations succinctly summarise the major concerns made to me by industry and that is why I have incorporated them in Hansard. There is a need for Australia to have anti-dumping legislation that is perceived to be fair, in conformity with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and prompt in dealing with complaints. I am concerned that the statutory authority adds another layer of bureaucracy but, as I have mentioned, in the end the legislation places final responsibility firmly in the hands of the Minister and, therefore, in the hands of the Government. The Opposition has given careful consideration to a further submission by the Law Council of Australia which recommends that the legislation be referred to a committee and also suggests that the Anti-Dumping Authority should be given powers such as those of the Administrative Review Council or one of those administrative appeal bodies. While we see some merit in that proposal we think we ought to go down the path suggested by the Government in this regard. As industry is anxious to have this legislation in place I believe that, on balance, we ought not to try to defer its passage by referring it to a committee. As I have explained, while the legislation remains far from ideal, it is an improvement on the existing legislation and will be supported. I move: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate condemns the Government for the tediously slow pace of reform and the confusion, uncertainty and speculation which has abounded in the interim, resulting in a widespread reluctance to invest''. Mr Acting Deputy President, I foreshadow that I will move the following second reading amendment in relation to the Anti-Dumping Authority Bill 1988, the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1988 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1988: At end of motion, add: ``, but the Senate condemns the Government for: (a) further complicating customs procedures; and (b) adding another layer of bureaucracy thus increasing costs to the customs service while still denying the service the expertise recommended for it in the Review of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975''. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(5.15) —The three Bills I wish to address, the Anti-Dumping Authority Bill 1988, the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1988 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1988, create the Anti-Dumping Authority and make consequential amendments to other pieces of legislation. I would like to reflect the remarks of Senator Lewis and say how pleased I am to have had so much discussion with Mr McInnes from the Australian Customs Service in relation to these complicated pieces of legislation. I guess that most of us in this chamber have no practical experience of this legislation and, therefore, need some guidance as to the operation, in practice, of these quite complex changes. I would have to disagree with Senator Lewis's claim that this sets up yet another level of bureaucracy. It really takes over the review function of the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) and puts it with the new Anti-Dumping Authority. One other thing Senator Lewis mentioned which is pleasing is that this legislation broadens the ability of people and groups to bring an action. Increasingly, as large amounts of trade are taken up by multinational corporations, it may well be that a company is both producing in Australia and importing from other countries and may be loath to bring an action in relation to dumping which nonetheless may be harming aspects of employment and the economy in Australia. It is pleasing to see that that has been broadened. As Senator Lewis has said, the three Bills seek to implement the Government's response to the report of the Gruen Review of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 by establishing, firstly, the Anti-Dumping Authority, which takes over those review functions from the IAC; secondly, amending the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975, chiefly to restrict to a maximum of three years the life of dumping notices and undertakings made under the Act; and thirdly, amending the Customs Act 1901 by prescribing the manner in which the Australian Customs Service is to conduct its preliminary investigations into dumping complaints. The Bills impose for the first time statutory time limits within which the Customs Service must determine its investigations and the Anti-Dumping Authority must conduct its review. When a complaint is made, that is, an application for the imposition of dumping duties on goods entering Australia, the Customs Service will have a maximum of 70 days to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of a prima facie case to warrant further investigation. If that prima facie case is established, the Customs Service then has a maximum of 180 days to make what is defined as a preliminary finding. It is at this stage that it will be possible for the Customs Service to impose duties, which can be made retrospective for up to 90 days, and that decision would then be referred to the Authority. The time available for the Customs Service to refer the matter to the Authority is a further seven days. The Anti-Dumping Authority then has a further 120 days to conduct its review and report to the Minister. That review process can be carried out whether the findings are positive or negative. The Australian Democrats strongly support the establishment of the Anti-Dumping Authority and we support the general thrust of the legislation. We have no problem with the 120 days allocated to the Authority to conduct its review, particularly in view of the fact that, if at the preliminary finding stage the decision is to impose duties and that decision is reversed by the Authority, those duties can be held for only 120 days. In other words, there is complete congruence between the period during which the Authority must carry out its review and the period for which the duties can be held. However, the Australian Democrats, like Senator Lewis, have some concerns about the time required for the Customs Service to determine whether there is sufficient evidence for a prima facie case to warrant a review which may then continue for a further 180 days before a preliminary finding is made. We appreciate that these are maximum times and that there are some fast-track options which could speed up the process. It is possible to conceive of situations in which the case would be sufficiently strong for the Customs Service to choose to limit the time during which each of those stages-the 70-day stage and the 180-day stage-is conducted. It is possible, by way of regulation, to change those times. Moreover, it is possible for the Authority, of its own volition, to take up a matter, deal with it and, presumably, make a recommendation to the Customs Service. Moreover, if an industry were of sufficient importance nationally, one could conceive of representations being made to Parliament and, through Parliament, to the Minister, or directly to the Minister and the Minister could give a direction to the Authority and, through the Authority, to the Customs Service and that could fast track this procedure. Of course the time limits need to be sufficiently wide to allow natural justice to all parties. Clearly one does not want to bring into existence a situation in which the claim of dumping cannot be sufficiently refuted by the party against which that claim was made. The purpose of these Bills is to ensure that goods cannot be dumped in Australia and cause injury to Australian industry. After a great deal of consultation with both the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and representatives from Australian industry, we believe it is necessary to support the Opposition's amendment to shorten the times needed by the Customs Service from 70 and 180 days to 55 and 120 days respectively. Despite the Government's safeguards, such as the fast track methods I have mentioned and the regulatory ability to shorten the time interval, on balance it is better to begin with a shorter time which may be lengthened by those processes rather than start with a longer time. We point out that under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade it is possible to collect duties retrospectively for up to only 90 days, whereas with the Government's proposals of 70 days and 180 days we have 250 days altogether, admittedly as a maximum, before a preliminary finding can be made. Against that 250 days during which damage may have been accruing, duties can be collected retrospectively for only 90 days. That leaves a significant window for potential damage. While it may be difficult to construct scenarios, one could imagine the situation in which the importation of goods which are sold only once a year and over a very short time. One could imagine, for instance, Christmas decorations-tinsel and the like-where an industry in Australia was providing a large amount of the Australian requirement. An overseas manufacturer could come in, sell over a very short time and that time might be within the period before duties can be collected retrospectively. That could significantly damage the Australian industry. So the compromise suggested by the Opposition seems to us to be a better proposal, bearing in mind that that can be extended if a substantial case can be made. The opportunity is in the legislation, if the Government so wishes, to extend or shorten the relevant time by regulation. Professor Gruen, who conducted the review on which this legislation is based, recommended 55 days for the prima facie case and 120 days for the preliminary finding stages. While we certainly do not support everything that Professor Gruen said or recommended, we believe that on this particular point the Government should have taken his advice. The Opposition's other proposed amendment, that the Authority in any report to the Minister include reasons for its recommendations, seems to us to be rather trivial. Although we agree with the Government that that provision would appear to be implicit in the legislation because the other advice has to be given to the Minister, we will nonetheless support the Opposition amendment. It seems trivial but not in any way damaging to the thrust of the Government's legislation. A number of other aspects of the legislation concern the Australian Democrats. There appear to be no penalties in the Bill for breach of confidentiality, and while there is a requirement that the Authority and officers employed directly by the Authority or those who might be employed as consultants must not breach confidentiality in relation to information provided to the Authority either in support of a claim or in defence of a counterargument, nonetheless we are informed that under common law an action could be brought on the part of an aggrieved person for which the appropriate remedy would be damages. It is also actionable under the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914, relating to offences by and against Commonwealth officers. In particular, section 70 provides that such a breach would subject the person to a maximum of two years imprisonment. That would seem to us to be sufficient deterrence against breaches of confidentiality. Representations from a number of groups have raised other issues in respect of this legislation. One which has given us some cause for concern is that the Authority will be required to accept overseas selling prices with zero profit margin as being in the ordinary course of trade. We understand that in America that is taken as a base price, but an 8 per cent nominal profit margin is added to that. We are concerned that there may be many situations in which an overseas manufacturer would have excess capacity which may be related to the efficiency of his production, and that excess capacity could be dumped on the Australian market at cost. That could quite seriously damage Australian industry. We ask the Government to review the situation quite regularly to ensure that while setting a zero profit margin it properly prevents the dumping of goods in Australia. We give notice that if we become aware of damage to Australian industry because of this method of constructing a price-and we accept that it is very often, even with zero profit, a largely constructed price-we will seek to amend the legislation at a later date. Another issue raised by concerned companies and groups is country hopping, where importers alter their source of supply of dumped imports in an endeavour to avoid the penalty of dumping duties. It was felt that much of the benefit arising from the imposition of dumping duties will be lost as Customs endeavours to carry out a large number of separate and independent dumping investigations. However, we have accepted the Government's assurances that where a company attempts to shift its port of export the essential elements of material injury and causal link will already have been proved and in that event the imposition of duties on the re-sourced goods can be quite rapidly put in place. Another issue of concern to us is whether the national interest can be taken into account. The legislation specifically excludes the Customs Service and the Authority from taking into account questions of national interest. That is absolutely justified because those bodies are not the appropriate bodies to consider what the national interest is. I guess one could reflect here on the way in which organisations such as the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation have attempted to interpret what they see as national interest, and the sorts of problems organisations such as ASIO and the Central Intelligence Agency have brought upon governments and people by interpreting `national interest'. That should be a function of properly elected parliaments. Other groups have expressed concern about the guidelines for the Anti-Dumping Authority. The Authority will, as one of its first duties, write draft guidelines. It is to be hoped that industry will have the opportunity to provide an input in establishing these guidelines, at the very least being able to comment on the draft guidelines before they come into operation. As to whether anti-dumping action constitutes additional and unjustified assistance to industry, we believe that the Government has bent over backwards in writing this legislation to avoid this very thing. Indeed, it could have been more generous to Australian industry but it has dealt quite fairly with this matter. Dumping does occur and there are well documented cases of it. Action is required to prevent it and, as I indicated earlier, as more and more industry is subsumed by large multinational corporations, it becomes very important that wide powers be given to individuals, union groups and so on to initiate action under this legislation. We believe that the only shortcomings in this legislation are on the question of the time allocated to investigations. As I have indicated already, the Democrats on this occasion will support the amendments moved by the Opposition. I draw the attention of the Opposition to that, particularly in view of the abusive remarks we had this afternoon in relation to the position taken by the Democrats on several other pieces of legislation. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(5.42) —In speaking on the Anti-Dumping Authority Bill 1988, the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1988 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1988 I start by welcoming the change of heart by the Australian Democrats. It is nice to see them on the right side for once. I also would like to pay tribute to the departmental officers mentioned by my colleagues for the briefing which they gave. I found it very helpful as well. The Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 provides that dumping occurs when the products of one country are exported to another country at less than their normal value. Subsidisation occurs when any subsidy, bounty, remission or reduction of freight or other financial assistance has been applied to the production, export or carriage of goods imported into Australia. A dumping or countervailing duty, with a few exceptions, will be imposed only when it is shown that the importation causes or threatens material injury to an established industry or when it hinders the establishment of a potential industry or the expansion of an existing industry. The Opposition believes that trade should be conducted fairly. Consequently, we support the idea that there is a need for proper tariff reductions, provided that anti-dumping systems are speedily and readily available. However, measures must protect against the possibility of anti-dumping laws being used to protect a local producer who has not taken the necessary steps to protect himself from foreign competition and is simply using the mechanisms to delay having to face the real world. I welcome the fact that action can now be taken before the goods arrive in the country. I understand that this has been happening for the last few months under operating procedures of the Australian Customs Service. These are to be established on a legislative basis in these Bills. In a case now taking place a prima facie case has been found to exist in regard to the dumping of cement on the Australian market before the cement has actually arrived. I welcome this ability to speed up the process as a means of helping to diminish the injury to Australian industry and Australian jobs where there is a case. Mr Enderby, the then Attorney-General, in debate on the legislation in 1975, said: The legislation has to be flexible, and yet it should not be so flexible that it avoids certainty. It has to be certain to give assurance yet it has to be flexible so that it can be administered in such a way that it is capable of adjustment and being kept up to date with changing circumstances. I support those sentiments. The Bills before us seek to establish an anti-dumping tribunal, to codify the decision making process and time frame, to introduce a sunset clause for duty notices and undertakings, and to change the standing requirements of complainants. The time limits are substantially different from the 55 and 120 days recommended by Professor Gruen. The Opposition supports his recommendation but the legislation allows a total of 370 days. It prescribes that investigations must start within 70 days. A further 180 days are allowed in which to make a preliminary finding as to the need for dumping or countervailing duty to be imposed. Decisions are subject to review by the Authority and must be reported to the Minister within 120 days. The Minister has total discretion and will take into account the national interest in making his final decision. This is far too long a period for the making of decisions. Certainty and speed are essential to the injured party. Hence we will move amendments to give effect to Professor Gruen's recommendations, as Senator Lewis said earlier. The Australian Customs Service needs not more time but more resources to do the job. Professor Gruen said that the biggest problem with the dumping situation is that there are not enough resources to make anti-dumping measures effective. I understand that currently the Australian Customs Service is acting very speedily and treating the times set out as maxima. But in my opinion when the pressure is on it will need to use every available day. Consequently, the Government should closely monitor the problems of the Customs Service so that resources can be thrown into the job as soon as they are needed and not delayed in such an important area. Clause 13 of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill proposes to limit the period of a dumping notice or undertaking made under the Act to three years from the date the notice is issued or the undertaking accepted. This will not prevent a new application for duties being lodged. This is a sunset clause such as was strongly recommended by Professor Gruen as a mechanism to ensure that duties do not become a source of continuing tariff protection. The Anti-Dumping Authority, in performing its functions, is to have regard to the Government's policy in relation to anti-dumping matters and Australia's obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It is not to impose duties as a form of substitute assistance to import competition or to protect industries from the need to adjust to changing economic conditions. I am glad to see that we will be getting support for our amendment to require the Minister to give reasons for his decisions. It is very important for the democratic process that the Minister be openly accountable for his decisions. I rather suspect that the establishment of the Authority is primarily an attempt to distance the Government from the responsibility of decision making, thereby legitimising its final response. I also think that it is quite possible that the Authority will be swamped with routine inquiries and referrals for review, particularly if the current economic climate should change, returning the country to a level similar to that which existed in 1983, when the number of formal investigations initiated reached 86. If this occurs it is doubtful whether the proposed system will be adequate. One factor, however, which will restrain a flood of applications is the onus on the applicant to include in his application information as to the matters which he believes constitute reasonable grounds for the imposition of a duty. Given the detailed information requirements set out in the complainant questionnaire, capricious applicants will certainly be deterred. I understand that the number of applicants who have their applications sent back for them to start again is one of the reasons for delays. Perhaps that means that there should be better procedures to help applicants to make the initial application in the right form. Former Minister John Brown, as an Opposition member in 1982 in a debate in the House of Representatives, said: The fact is that a dumping action tends to come at a time when an industry is on its knees. These industries are in no position to spend valuable resources on gathering evidence to substantiate a dumping allegation . . . We- the then Labor Opposition- would shift the burden of proof from local producers and the Department towards importers after a prima facie case has been established . . . I have some sympathy for that view, although I recognise that it is not widely shared. Senator Panizza —Is that the same Mr Brown? Senator NEWMAN —It is the same Mr Brown; the man with the desk. The review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) is regarded as highly desirable not only by the Administrative Review Council but also by the Law Council of Australia and Professor Gruen. Admittedly, a specialist body such as the proposed Anti-Dumping Authority is desirable to the extent to which it can bring a broad, commercial perspective to anti-dumping issues. I recognise that. Its capacity to review negative prima facie and preliminary decisions of the Comptroller-General quickly and effectively will no doubt be welcomed by Australian industry. However its deficiencies, which are its inability to cope with complex legal issues, its lack of jurisdiction to review final ministerial decisions, and the absence of independence from Government policy, may outweigh its benefits as a forum for review. I personally hope that, when the Anti-Dumping Act ceases operation five years after the day it commences, the Government will see fit to act on the Administrative Review Council's recommendation that anti-dumping and countervailing duty decisions should be reviewable by the AAT. I regret that the time limit imposed by the Government on the Senate for this debate-in my view, it is an important debate-prevents my covering the matter in greater detail. I shall be supporting the amendments moved by the Opposition. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(5.52) —I rise, in the short time allocated to us, to address the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1988, the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988, the Anti-Dumping Authority Bill 1988, the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1988 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1988, which we are debating cognately. I will restrict my remarks to the Anti-Dumping Authority Bill, which is the Government's response to the Review of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 by Professor Gruen, whose report was completed in March 1986. There has been a great delay in implementing these recommendations. I can think of no reason for that, except probably poor Government management. As has been pointed out, the Bill creates a new statutory authority to administer anti-dumping mechanisms. There will be a one-member Anti-Dumping Authority headed by someone from outside the Public Service, no doubt, as Senator Newman said, as a punching bag which corporations can punch instead of the Government. The Authority will advise the Minister as to what duties to apply. In the past, Australia has made greater use of anti-dumping measures than any other country. I have had personal experience with the superphosphate issue, to which I will address remarks towards the end of my allotted time. In practice, anti-dumping hinders beneficial international competition and can become a protection for inefficient industries in Australia. If Australian industries need protection, I believe they should get it in the proper way, by using the tariff system, so that everything is out in the open, rather than the anti-dumping device. The Opposition agrees with certain measures in this Bill and believes that there is a place for anti-dumping measures based on principles of fair trade, but anti-dumping systems must be speedily and readily available. The present system is far too cumbersome. The Opposition objects to the provision that investigations be commenced within 70 days, with a further 180 days to make preliminary findings and then a further 120 days for proceedings to be finalised. That is far too long. Professor Gruen recommended 55 days and 120 days, a total of 175 days, which is a considerably shorter period than provided for in this legislation. The Opposition supports that recommendation. I understand that that is the basis of the amendment that has been mooted. As has been pointed out, Canada has a lesser but far more effective period of 30 days and 60 days. Industry needs certainty at any time, as well as in relation to anti-dumping measures. Australian industries that are to be protected should not be at the mercy of dumped products for 12 months plus so many days before any action is taken. The Opposition doubts that the Bill will provide sufficient certainty for industry on this important matter. There is doubt about allowing proper resources for the new Authority to do the important job it will be required to do. It requires professional assistance. Without these resources, this new Authority will not achieve anything. I can see nothing in the Bill which provides such resources. I come back to the superphosphate industry as I know it in Western Australia, and it is probably the same across the board. In Western Australia and, I am sure, in the rest of Australia the manufacture of superphosphate has been a monopoly since, to my knowledge, at least 1969 when CSBP bought out it last competitor, Cresco. I think that took effect in 1970. Since then the price of straight superphosphate has risen from $13 a tonne to about $115. The point of CSBP using this device as a tariff device will be borne out in the figures I will give. In the early 1970s a lot of importation by a private source of di-ammonium phosphate (DAP) started to build up. DAP was a very good quality fertiliser because of its nitrogenous content. Its strength lay in the fact that it had about a 15 per cent nitrogen content but also contained a high percentage of phosphorus, whereas the Australian-manufactured superphosphate nitrogenous fertilisers have a low content of phosphorus. If they are used continuously on phosphorus deficient ground, the soil will be even more deficient in phosphorus. It was being imported for $270 a tonne, landed, in Fremantle. Compared to the straight superphosphate that CSBP was selling at the time for $88 a tonne, CSBP saw that it was out of context. In other words, DAP was virtually the same as what CSBP manufactured in the form of triple-strength superphosphate. If one multiplied by three the then price of straight superphosphate, it came to far more than the cost of imported DAP. Fortunately, CSBP found a small manufacturer of DAP in New South Wales. Whether he was manufacturing or was intending to manufacture or even got off the ground, I do not know. Anyway, CSBP found a peg to hang its hat on, so it asked for an anti-dumping measure. It claimed that the landed price of the superphosphate, considering the price overseas, should have been around $340 a tonne. It went to Customs and applied for and received those measures. Overnight, the price went to $340 a tonne. There was the big profit for CSBP. It was not interested in preventing DAP coming in; it was interested in pushing its single-strength superphosphate. As soon as it got the imported price forced up by anti-dumping measures to $343-and if we divide three into $343 it comes out at about $114-it increased the price of its single superphosphate from $90 to $113 and got away with it. With the same costs that year for the superphosphate having been manufactured, in the sheds and waiting to be sold, it was able to shift the price from around $90 to $113 or $115. Who got the big profit? It went straight into CSBP's pocket. And I do not mind telling it so. That is something that the Government has to look at: these anti-dumping measures should not be used for tariff protection. With my examples of superphosphate in Western Australia I have borne those figures out. I hope that the Ministers take that on board. I mention briefly the anti-dumping measures on dumped cement that the Government is looking at. Clinker cement has supposedly been dumped in Australia. I had in my office the other day-as have a couple of other senators on this side of the chamber-shop stewards from cement factories all around Australia who put their case for the dumping. I would not mind putting it on record, for Senator McKiernan's knowledge-- Senator McKiernan —They are nice people, aren't they? Senator PANIZZA —They are nice people. No member of the Government would see them on that day. When they knocked on my door, I said, `God, why are you coming into a Liberal office?'. They said, `Because the Labor fellows won't see us'. But I have only got their word for it. However, on this matter there could be a problem. What worries me is that dumped cement or dumped clinker is coming into Western Australia, getting processed and going out. It is being sold off to ready-mix concrete operators. I am using that term not as a trade name but to describe a trade. What gets me is that it is coming in at a dumped price but the benefit is not going to those who are buying ready-mixed concrete. Jobs are being lost as a result. That angle should be examined. I commend parts of the Bill, but, as I have said in regard to cement and concrete, and superphosphate-and I believe that it goes for other industries, too-it should not be used as a tariff protection. My watch has bleeped off, so I will close on that. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(6.02) —This cognate debate covers several items of legislation relating to customs and tariff matters. Legislation such as this requires detailed consideration. I believe it is disgraceful that the Government, with the support of the Australian Democrats, is guillotining these pieces of legislation through in just one and a half hours. Part of the legislation that is being debated relates to the harmonisation of tariffs. As with an earlier Bill on a similar matter of harmonisation, this legislation gives rise to certain anomalies. At a time when the Government is preening itself about tariff reductions which it announced in the May economic statement, we find that under this legislation a number of items will gain an increase in tariff protection. When one examines specific classifications for tariff adjustment under harmonisation, it appears that often the tariff rate is set at that of the most highly protected similar item, rather than reduced to that of the lowest comparable item. Yet again, the Government appears to have taken the soft option while claiming to be taking hard decisions. The absurdity of the impact of the harmonisation of tariffs is demonstrated by the increase in the tariff on high quality lightweight woollen cloth from 2 per cent to 40 per cent import duty under this procedure. This has occurred despite the fact that very little of this fabric is made in Australia and despite the fact that it is manufactured overseas from exported Australian superfine wool. So Australians are being denied reasonable access to this already expensive material although it is more suitable for Australia's hot climate than it is for many other countries. The fact is that the raw material, the superfine wool from which this product is manufactured, is almost exclusively produced by Australian woolgrowers. A significant part of the $200m which is provided by Australian woolgrowers and, following the May economic statement, to an ever-diminishing degree by the Government for wool promotion, is directed towards promoting garments made from this cloth. This must be one of the supreme ironies of protection. Of course, it highlights the absolute folly of protection. Australian wool producers produce the finest apparel wool in the world, but we cannot supply in Australia the cloth produced from it to our own citizens in ample variety or at a fair price. This is not the fault of the woolgrower, who receives between $10 and $20 for the wool contained in a $400 finished worsted suit. That $10 to $20 represents about 6 per cent of that finished cost. On the contrary, the woolgrower is severely damaged by this situation. Woolgrowers are losing a potential market for their wool through the reduced demand for this product in Australia as a result of the high cost caused by excessive protection. As we all know, because of protection production costs for woolgrowers are inflated and their export returns are subject to the hidden tax of protection. Furthermore, Australian consumers are paying more than twice the price for comparable products bought by overseas consumers and made from the very same Australian wool. So in Australia we find that high quality woollen garments are needlessly losing market share through excessive protection causing them to be overpriced and limited in range. That is not the only way in which Australian farmers are disadvantaged by this process of harmonisation. Recently under this process duties on diesel engine parts were increased from 2 per cent to 25 per cent even though none of these parts is made in Australia. Senator Panizza —We have got them knocked off, though. Senator CHAPMAN —It is about time. Senator Panizza —It took us six months to do it. Senator CHAPMAN —We have had promises to that effect. Of course, this is yet another example of the Government claiming that it is reducing protection whilst it is surreptitiously dramatically increasing costs to farmers and others through this harmonisation process. Recently we heard the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Senator Bolkus) attempting to bolster this facade of dramatic reductions in protection when last weekend he made a claim in Adelaide to the effect that tariff changes announced in the May economic statement would reduce the prices of shirts and blouses by 48 per cent, Mazda 323 cars by 13 per cent, and footwear by 10 per cent. The Minister knows only too well that these tariff cuts are to be phased in over a number of years. So it will be a long time before the price effects of these tariff cuts are felt. Of course, the price effects will be much less dramatic than the Minister would have us believe. To deliberately create the impression of immediate price reductions as a result of the May economic statement is a gross distortion of the facts by the Minister for Consumer Affairs. This delayed impact of the tariff reductions means that the rural community has received yet another kick in the guts for having, for the second time in five years, rescued the Australian economy. Under the May economic statement rural people will pay much more than their fair share of the Government's so-called restructuring of the economy. No other sector of the economy has been hit as hard by the statement as the rural sector, as the following list of measures directly affecting farmers shows: an increase from 50 per cent to 60 per cent in grower contributions to export inspection charges; a $20m reduction in Government funds for wool promotion, breaking the promise telexed by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) to the Australian Wool Council pledging to continue the current arrangements; abolition of the super- phosphate bounty; removal of immediate tax write-off for the cost of electricity connections to rural properties; removal of accelerated plant and equipment depreciation arrangements; an increase in livestock valuation for tax purposes, costing farmers $35m; the virtual abandonment of produce marketing underwritng schemes, subjecting producers to the vagaries of a corrupt international market currently subject to subsidies on the part of other countries as the basis for determining domestic pricing; road funding cut by $50m; local government funding cut by $20m; higher State government charges caused by the savage $870m cut representing 89 per cent of total expenditure cuts by the Commonwealth Government, in State revenue grants; likely higher telephone charges resulting from income and payroll tax being levied on Telecom Australia; and, finally, the introduction of an assets test, as well as the income test, to determine eligibility for the family allowance supplement-discriminating against farmers having bad years. They are the measures from which the farmers and the rural community in general will suffer as a result of the May economic statement. Yet, while these massive losses are being suffered immediately by farmers, they will have to wait patiently for a considerable time for the promised offsets, in particular the removal of tariffs on farm machinery, spare parts and chemicals and the reintroduction of income equalisation deposits. So under this legislation, through the harmonisation of tariffs, tariff levels on a number of items are increased to the detriment of primary industry. The Government is practising economic apartheid. There is one rule for efficient rural export industries, which have adjusted quickly to world competition, and another rule for inefficient but electorally sensitive manufacturing industries. The Government yet again is unduly punishing the very sector which allowed its early popularity through the kick-start given to the economy by the 45 per cent increase in the value of rural production after the disastrous drought broke in 1983. More recently, improved wool prices have restored economic demand to keep Australia afloat, despite the present Government's appalling economic management, which has caused an ever-rising tide of debt. Some thank you the rural sector gets from the Government, in particular the wool producers, who have saved the Treasurer's economic bacon yet again with their export earnings. One would think that the Treasurer, as Australia's best dressed man, would have a higher regard for wool; but it would seem that to the Treasurer wool is just something to pull over people's eyes. This legislation, far from reducing the tariff levels which will apply in a number of areas through the harmonisation process, increases those tariff levels. It is for that reason, as well as because of the Government's general administration of this issue, that the Opposition has moved an amendment to the effect that the Senate condemns the Government for the tediously slow pace of reform and the confusion, uncertainty and speculation which have abounded in the interim, resulting in a widespread reluctance to invest. I support the Opposition's amendment and urge its passage through the Senate. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(6.13) —I have not heard all the comments that have been made about the legislation. I heard Senator Newman's speech, which I thought was a most erudite commentary on the pros and cons of all the issues relating to dumping, but without a conclusion. Unfortunately, the Government was in the difficult position of having to draw a conclusion from all those arguments. That is what we have done in respect of this legislation. I have just heard Senator Chapman's speech. It mounted a good piece of rhetoric on the basis of a highly selective set of facts which, in some particulars, were not even correct. I do not want to debate that issue because I think Senator Chapman was seeking to make a political point rather than any point of substance. Having said that, there are no particular comments I want to make about the legislation at this stage. There has been little comment about the changes to the passenger motor vehicle plan; there has been some detailed comment about changes to particular tariffs arising from the harmonised tariff changes; but that is about all. There are, however, some issues in the dumping legislation which are subject to second reading consideration and about which I will comment in the committee stage. I commend the Bills to the Senate. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment, requests or debate. Debate resumed from 24 May 1988, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bills be now a second time. Amendment (by Senator Lewis) negatived: At the end of motion, add: ``, but the Senate condemns the Government for: (a) further complicating customs procedures; and (b) adding another layer of bureaucracy thus increasing costs to the customs service while still denying the service the expertise recommended for it in the Review of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975''. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(6.17) —by leave-I move the following amendments to the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1988: (1) Page 6, clause 6, proposed subsection 269tc (1), line 3, leave out `70 days', insert `55 days'. (2) Page 6, clause 6, proposed subsection 269tc (2), line 19, leave out `70 days', insert `55 days'. (3) Page 7, clause 6, proposed paragraph 269tc (4) (c), line 13, leave out `180 days', insert `120 days'. I move the following amendment to the Anti-Dumping Authority Bill 1988: Page 4, subclause 7 (1), at end of subclause, add the following word and paragraph: `; and (f) which shall include all reasons for any recommendations.'. The Anti-Dumping Authority Bill amendment requires the Anti-Dumping Authority to state the reasons for its recommendations to the Minister. That will mean that the recommendations of the Anti-Dumping Authority and the nature of the recommendation of the Minister will be exposed. The three amendments to the Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1988 change the times required for the investigations by the Australian Customs Service to 55 days for the preliminary finding and 120 days for its ultimate decision in lieu of the 70 days and 180 days proposed in the Bill. I ask the Minister for some explanation as to why the Government has adopted, in clause 5 (9), an assumed profit rate of zero, instead of the assumed profit rate of 8 per cent which is adopted in the United States. Could the Minister elaborate on that proposal? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(6.19) —I undertake to provide Senator Lewis with an answer in writing. It was a policy decision. The assumed profit rate was always a difficult thing to assess and calculate. We were proposing to be a little more stringent about finding normal values than we had been in the past. I will give Senator Lewis a further answer. There are just a couple of other matters I would like to refer to. I have already indicated to Senator Lewis that in regard to the amendment moved by the Opposition, in so far as it relates to the inclusion of reasons for recommendations by the Anti-Dumping Authority, that was a matter with which the Government had no difficulty and that henceforth, after the Authority's establishment, reasons will be given by it. I have also indicated that we would be prepared to accommodate that amendment in any subsequent amendment to the legislation. However, if the amendment is supported in this chamber, I do not mind it being carried. Senator Haines —What can you do about it? Senator BUTTON —Senator Haines, I said `if it is supported here'. I do not know whether it will be. Senator Haines seems to have changed her position several times, which is not unusual. I do not mean that Senator Haines has changed her seat either; I mean her intellectual position. Senator Macklin —Haven't you had dinner yet? Senator BUTTON —No, I have not had tea yet. I accept the proposal on timing with considerable regret because I think it is a matter of judgment. The judgment of the Opposition has been dictated by pressure from Australian industries. I think that is freely admitted. I think it will make it much more difficult for the Australian Customs Service (ACS) to reach the sort of quality findings it has been reaching in the past. There is more likelihood of negative findings and rejection of anti-dumping cases if there is not sufficient time to establish the evidence satisfactorily. I think that is a real difficulty. However, I understand that Senator Lewis has said that he would support any regulation changes to extend the time, if that became necessary. These are changes which could be made by regulation. Of course, I will hold him to that. Senator Lewis —I did not say that, Minister. Just give me a chance to respond. Give me one minute. Senator BUTTON —Senator Lewis said that to me. We will hold him to that. After all, the times in the legislation are maximum times for reaching a decision by Customs; they are not minimum times. We are concerned that there be some flexibility so that Customs can reach the best possible findings. It is better for Customs to reach good findings than hasty ones. Senator Lewis —Give me 30 seconds to put into Hansard what I said. Senator BUTTON —I will give the honourable senator 30 seconds. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(6.23) —What I said is that under the legislation the Minister would be able to introduce a regulation to extend the time if the Australian Customs Service was not able to comply with this Bill. The Minister would then be able to come into this chamber and explain to us why he was extending the time. We would then give that our most earnest consideration in light of the experience of the Customs Service. Amendments agreed to. Bills, as amended, agreed to. Anti-Dumping Authority Bill 1988 and Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1988 reported with amendments and Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1988 reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Debate resumed from 23 May, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.24) —The coalition will not be opposing the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988. However, we have proposed an amendment to the second reading motion and when we come to the committee stage of the debate we will be moving an amendment to clause 42 of the Bill which deals with the appointments to tax agents boards and, most particularly, the chairmanship of such boards. Copies of both those amendments have been circulated already to honourable senators at my request. I move: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate notes that: (a) this is the highest taxing Government in the post-war history of Australia; (b) it is its continual emphasis on revenue collection, rather than expenditure restraint, that has eliminated the budget deficit in 1987-88; (c) it has mainly relied on bracket creep through the various personal income tax brackets, and also on the introduction of new incentive-sapping taxes such as the fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax; (d) such new taxes represent increased complexity and uncertainty in the administration of the taxation system and so decrease efficiency and equity; and (e) without an effective tax system Australia will find it increasingly difficult to trade itself out of its $87 billion net foreign debt''. Mr Acting Deputy President, I take the opportunity to correct that figure of $87 billion. It should be $88 billion as a result of figures published very recently. Because we are, of course, operating under a guillotine, total debate on this Bill will be restricted to one hour. This Bill runs to 42 pages, plus a schedule, and contains approximately 60 amendments to the existing legislation. I simply want to note those figures in passing to illustrate the absurdity of the process in which we are now forced to participate by decision of the Government supported by the Australian Democrats. So far as the second reading amendment is concerned, we said some of the things that need to be said yesterday in the course of debate on the Government's May economic statement. If only for that reason, it would be neither meritorious nor appropriate to repeat them. Indeed, on those general aspects perhaps the only significant development since our debate yesterday has been the publication yesterday of the figures for the national income and expenditure accounts for the March quarter. I do not propose to spend much time on them, but I must say that those accounts are rather worrying. During the last 12 months, gross domestic product has grown by 5.1 per cent in constant price or so-called real terms. But, and this is the key point, net exports, that is to say exports less imports, have contributed very little to that growth. Of course, it is essential that we get growth in net exports if we are to correct our extraordinarily worrying balance of payments position and begin to contribute to the solving of that net foreign debt problem which is referred to in the proposed amendment to the second reading motion of the Bill. On the other hand, government consumption grew during that 12 month period by 5.3 per cent. That is faster than the economy as a whole grew during that past 12 months. By contrast, public sector capital expenditure fell by 9.3 per cent during that time. Of course, so far as the private sector is concerned, we have had a very sharp rise in private investment in dwellings, which is up by 15.5 per cent in constant price terms. While no doubt laudable from many points of view, that, of course, does not contribute to the productive capacity of the economy, which in the end is either going to make or break our capacity to deal with Australia's current problems. Indeed, so far as that segment of the economy is concerned, I note in passing that private investment in capital equipment in the 12 months ending in the March quarter rose by only 3.1 per cent and, indeed, actually fell on a seasonally adjusted basis in the March quarter by just over 2 per cent. I suppose that in those circumstances it would be hardly surprising if the Government were worried about the present state of affairs. We have a situation in which debt is still climbing. Net debt rose by a further $1.3 billion in the March quarter, as I indicated when noting the change to the amendment, despite the beneficial valuation effects of the rising value of the Australian dollar during that quarter. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has now twice admitted in the last three weeks, the balance of payments improvement has stalled. The only thing that has improved the balance of payments position in the past 12 months has been the sharp improvement in our international terms of trade, that is to say, the sharp improvement in Australia's export prices. The other thing that has stalled, of course, is the Government's own performance in cutting its own expenditures. That performance is stationary, if indeed it is not going backwards. The Government has, of course, been quite effective in cutting funding to the States, but that is quite a different matter from cutting the spending proclivities of its own spending Ministers. We saw that pathetic performance by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, in Question Time today in response to a dorothy dixer. We had the Minister for Finance posturing in front of the television cameras. I think at least on this occasion he had his shoes on. All of this has happened while the external winds have been blowing favourably and we have had world economic growth going on at quite a reasonable clip and, as I said before, international commodity prices have been rising. These are all favourable external circumstances in which to be performing and, notwithstanding that, the Australian economy is at best dead in the water so far as any improvement in the underlying problems of the economy is concerned. Mr Acting Deputy President, I propose to conclude at this point my remarks on the second reading but I will have some further remarks to make. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —I understand that it is the desire of the Senate to continue sitting during the period of the normal dinner suspension to consider the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill. Senator STONE —Yes, Mr Acting Deputy President. I was about to say that I should conclude at that point my remarks on the second reading debate but I shall, of course, have some further remarks to make when we come to the committee stage and we consider clause 42 of the Bill. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(6.33) —The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) makes a number of major changes to legislation, one of which is to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act in line with recommendations made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Review Council. It goes much further than that and picks up a wide range of issues in the tax-related areas. For example, it extends the scope of income tax deductions allowable for cash bids paid for offshore petroleum exploration permits. It removes from 1 January 1988 the exemption from income tax of payments received under the Aboriginal secondary assistance scheme for students 16 years of age or over. It removes the exemption from income tax of the carer's pension, where the handicapped pensioner cared for is of age pension age and the non-relative carer is not. This brings the income tax treatment of carer's pensions received by non-relatives into line with relatives caring for a handicapped person. The legislation also modifies the rules relating to the registration of tax agents and changes the composition and powers of the tax agents boards. This of course is one area of considerable contention to those of us on the Opposition benches, although we are concerned less with the actual appointment of somebody from the Australian Taxation Office to the board than we are with that person taking up a position as chairman of the board. Tax agents boards, as I am sure most people in the chamber are aware, monitor registration of tax agents. They examine applications from tax agents and they act on complaints about tax agents from members of the public and the Taxation Office. Currently the tax agents boards consist of the officer in charge of the Commonwealth Department of Finance in the State, and that particular person acts as the chairman of that board. The other two members are the officer in charge of the Australian Audit Office in the State and a person appointed by the Governor-General, which essentially means somebody appointed by the government of the day. The legislation will reconstitute the board in a fairly significant way so that it consists of an officer of the Australian Taxation Office who, under the legislation as it stands, would be the chairman of the board; that is, under the legislation as it is proposed. Under the Bill as it stands and under the legislation as it is proposed to be, he would be the chairman of that board and then two other persons would represent specific areas of relevance here, namely, accounting and the legal professions. Our concern is less with the fact that the Government has decided to put on the board a member of the Australian Tax Office who is currently employed by the Tax Office, not simply somebody who has been employed by the Tax Office. But it is planned to make that person the chairman. We have spoken to representatives from the Institute of Chartered Accountants and from other areas. These are the people who, as I said earlier, are likely to be going to the Taxation Board for some reason or other. They have indicated to us that they are not generally concerned about the fact that there is a member of the Australian Tax Office on the Board. But they do see some merit in amending the Bill to provide that one of the two other persons appointed by the Minister be the chairman and that role not be granted under the legislation to the person from the Taxation Office. They argued that, if the Government has its way, somebody from the Taxation Office could be asked to adjudicate on a complaint referred by the Taxation Office itself and this is a conflict of interest situation quite clearly. I have also had a letter from a lawyer who practises in this field and he takes a similar view. He has pointed out that `currently no person from the Australian Taxation Office may be a member of the Tax Agents Board'. However, the Bill provides that not only shall a tax officer be a member of the reconstituted board but also that that tax officer shall be the chairperson of the Board. He says: In my view this is wholly undesirable as it could create the impression that any agent who upsets the Tax Office could be subjected to harsh treatment by the Board. A person who is a chairperson of a board has greater control in the setting of the agenda for the meeting and in the conduct of the meeting of the Board than does any other member. He then points out: . . . Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. I think it is worth while pausing at that point to note that there is an innate suspicion in the hearts and minds of the community generally about the way tax officers operate and about people involved in the Taxation Office generally. So he is quite right. There is a need to have a person other than somebody from the Australian Taxation Office in the chair. He goes on to say: A move in the opposite direction was recently made. It was previously the case that the Chairman of the Taxation Board of Review was a former officer of the ATO. That situation was remedied by abolishing the boards and transferring their functions to the AAT where a former tax officer would not assume the role of chairman of a three-person tribunal. It was recognised at pages 17 to 19 of the report to the Attorneys-General by the ARC entitled `Review of Taxation Decisions by boards of review', report No. 17, that the previous situation was undesirable and could be seen as being unfair. He finished his letter by saying: I would appreciate it if the Australian Democrats would attempt to have proposed subsection 251d (1) (A) of the Bill amended to provide that one of the two other persons appointed by the Minister shall be the chairperson of the Tax Agents Board. Indeed, that is what the amendment that I had circulated in the name of the Australian Democrats earlier this afternoon does. It would still allow the Government to appoint somebody to the boards from the Australian Taxation Office but would ensure that the person who was chosen to be in the chair would come from one of the other two positions. With time being short, and I know Senator Michael Baume wishes to make some points, I will leave my second reading contribution at that point. That is the major area of contention in the legislation and while we will not be supporting the Opposition's amendment to prevent an Australia tax officer from actually going onto the boards, I look for Opposition support because I think it coincides with its view that that person not be in the chair. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(6.39) —I would like first of all to thank Senator Haines for cutting her speech short so that Senator Watson and I may be able to contribute to this debate. This debate, of course, is taking one hour to deal with these tax matters. I should point out to the Senate that two hours was allowed to the House of Representatives and that is a jackbooted organisation down there under the heel of the Government. Here we are in a House of review being allowed by the Government, with the assistance of the Australian Democrats, one hour to deal with review of legislation which was rammed through the House of Representatives in two hours. This, of course, is an absolute disgrace. Senator Watson —It is absurd. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Watson says, it is absurd. I would like to restate the amendments that I am strongly supporting to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2). This is the highest taxing government in the post-war history of Australia; it is continual emphasis on revenue collection, rather than expenditure restraint, that has eliminated the Budget deficit for 1987-88. It has mainly relied on bracket creep through the various personal income tax brackets and also on the introduction of new incentive-sapping taxes such as the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax. Such new taxes represent increased complexity and uncertainty in the administration of the taxation system and so decrease efficiency and equity. Lastly, without an effective tax system, Australia will find it increasingly difficult to trade itself out of its $87 billion net foreign debt. This point, of course, about making the tax Act more and more complex is underlined by the fact that approximately 60 amendments are to be made to the existing taxation laws through this proposed legislation. As the shadow Treasurer, Mr Peacock, pointed out in the other place, given the Government's past record of shabby drafting and its continual prattling about unintended consequences, we will no doubt be getting more amendments to these amendments from the Government, not only now but as time goes by. I am particularly concerned about some developments in the way powers are being increased, not only by this legislation but also by administrative fiat within the Australian Taxation Office. We had an extraordinary situation recently where the Taxation Office seized the membership list of the Australian Small Business Association. This is absolutely incredible. There is no tax merit whatsoever, that I am aware of, in the seizing of the membership list of the Australian Small Business Association. The only merit I can see in seizing such a list is to intimidate the members of that Association who have been vocal in their criticism of this Government and its taxation policies. If the Taxation Office can demonstrate that there is some merit in acquiring forcibly that list of members, I would be glad to hear it. Otherwise it strikes me as most unfortunate evidence of the manner in which this Taxation Office has been inclined to operate. It may be held that if a person is a member of the Australian Small Business Association, therefore that member is a small business person and therefore that member presumably should have put in a tax return. Maybe that requirement is to see whether tax returns have been submitted. I do not know. All I know is that it looks most unfortunate and I hope that the Minister will encourage the Taxation Office to explain itself, particularly the arrogant and assertive way in which the list was demanded in the first place. I am absolutely convinced, having talked to the Australian Small Business Association, that the manner in which the Taxation Office went about seeking that list was totally intolerable in a free society. This, of course, follows a previous situation in which confidential documents held by tax accountants which deal with taxpayers' business affairs are now being routinely sought by the Australian Taxation Office. Accountants protested earlier this year to the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Boucher, both as individual firms and through the Institute of Chartered Accountants, because they believe that the access power is so sensitive that it should be used by the Taxation Office only as a last resort; for example, in cases of suspected fraud. After all there is, in many instances, confidentiality of a high level between clients and their accountants. The other point I would like to make about this Bill relates to the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. It had this point to make: Clause 15 of the Bill amends section 57 (a) under the Income Tax Assessment Act and will restrict concessions available to a purchaser of new or substantially modified ships in that a taxpayer, so as to obtain the concession allowed by the section, must comply both with taxation legislation and the Ships Capital Grants Act 1987. The amendment is retrospective to 22 December 1986. As the bipartisan Scrutiny of Bills Committee says: The clause is a further example of legislation by Press release. The Committee also draws the Senate's attention to the fact that the Press release announcing the proposed change and its retrospectivity to 22 December 1986 was itself released on 2 April 1987. So not only have we waited a year from the Press release until the legislation eventually emerged, during which time of course it could have been altered in some material way-this government by Press release in bad enough-but that 2 April announcement was retrospective itself to 22 December 1986. Here we are, in 1988, passing laws which are retrospective to 1986. That is an intolerably bad way to run a country. It is an appalling way to run a tax system. The Government should lift its game very significantly in this area. It is all very well saying that because the Government is making what it calls reforms, or because it is chasing tax dodgers or doing all sorts of other things, therefore any action it takes is justifiable. That `end justifies the means' stuff just will not wash. The Commissioner and this Government must, I believe, do a lot better than the instances I have outlined today indicate they are doing. Very briefly, I would like to deal with the question in our amendment of the record taxes of this Government. As I mentioned earlier on another matter, the latest statement by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) reveals that tax revenue has increased 10.6 per cent so far this year. Revenue is up $5.8 billion. That means that the people of Australia are contributing $5.8 billion more this year to the Government's big spending than they did last year. Half of that total rise is made up of pay as you earn tax. It is not rich people's tax; it is tax coming from the workers, the people who are paid as they earn their money in Australia. It is no wonder then that there has been no significant increase whatsoever in people's standard of living. Not only that, in fact the standard of living of ordinary Australians has been falling largely because of the massive tax rip-off of this Government. The national income figures that came out yesterday revealed that the major factor in increased consumption expenditure was government spending, which rose at twice the rate in the last 12 months; twice the rate of private sector spending, which went up only about 2.6 per cent. We have here in these Bills and in this amendment in particular clear evidence of the extent to which this Government has been ripping off the taxpayers of Australia; ripping them off more and more. The deferment-and that was the bad news for taxpayers-in the May statement of any suggestion of tax cuts until just before the next election is associated with a refusal by the Government to cut its own expenditure and that is why tax cuts have been deferred. It is because this Government will not cut its spending and any propaganda that it has put out in recent times that its word is in fact totally phoney. It is bunkum. The only people who are having to cut their spending are, of course, the States. This Government is not cutting its own spending one jot. In those circumstances I believe the Senate should pass the amendments to this legislation which point out the massive tax rip-off. The people of Australia are becoming increasingly aware of the fact that they are paying far more than they need to pay in tax and that this Government's budgetary surplus which in itself is inadequate in many ways, has been gained only by milking the Australian citizen, the Australian taxpayer, and by the Government's determined refusal to cut its own spending. I commend Senator Stone's amendments to the Senate. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.51) —Those who have participated in and have followed the tax debates that have occupied this chamber for many hours in recent times will by now have become familiar with the pattern of tax legislation under this Government. We have seen a succession of haphazard and fragmentary Bills that give the appearance of being stitched up to fill in the gaps of a highly complicated tax system and the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) is certainly no exception because it deals with a wide range of issues and in doing so amends six taxation Acts. Principally, the Bill deals with a modification of rules relating to the registration of tax agents and the creation of tax agents boards. In addition it covers depreciation concessions for Australian trading ships, tax exemptions and allowances paid under the Disability Services Act, modifications to the tax credit system and changes to the capitalisation rule. I also draw the attention of senators and listeners to this radio broadcast to the fact that amendments to the foreign tax credit system and thin capitalisation have been appearing before this Parliament with monotonous regularity. The Government just cannot get it right. Time and again we have these tax credit amendments coming through, affecting these areas, which indicate the Government's incompetence in this tax issue. So this lack of foresight shown in drafting of tax legislation is simply not good enough. Only last year the Income Tax Assessment Act was reprinted to incorporate the masses of changes and already we have a stock of amendments that will send the legislation further down the road to incomprehensibility. In fact, the Income Tax Assessment Act is now in serious need of complete overhaul, not just an endless procession of minor and major amendments that do nothing more than tinker at the edges of this problem because taxation laws in Australia have become intolerably complex and beyond the comprehension of the vast majority of taxpayers. Despite continued reminders from this coalition, the Government continues further to complicate the system. The Australian Taxation Office is wallowing in the consequential mire. We see losses of a quarter of a million dollars as a result of a clerical error in the Taxation Office. Warnings have come from the Commissioner of Taxation that up to 300,000 taxpayers could be paying around $400m in provisional tax more than they need to pay. Complaints have come from auditors that the confidentiality of clients' affairs has been breached by the push by the Australian Taxation Office to investigate large companies. In fact the Taxation Office is in such disarray as a result of its struggle to keep up with Mr Keating's regime of high taxation that it has been forced into a public relations exercise to try to salvage its image. Only last week we saw the Government give the okay for an advertising agency to handle the sale of the new taxation file number system. All this is just an additional burden on the taxpayer. We, in fact, are now paying to be convinced that paying more tax is actually good for us. The slogan is `Taxes building a better Australia'. I hardly think so. This approach is simply a further example of the arrogance of this Government and its Big Brother approach. We have often heard, and I think it bears repeating, that this is the highest taxing government in Australia's peacetime history. In fact, since Mr Keating took over the purse strings of the Treasury, tax revenue has soared from $44 billion to $78 billion, an increase of $34 billion in just five years. It is little wonder that the electorate is becoming alienated from the policies of this Government. There are a number of amendments to clause 42 and my colleague Senator Stone will cover these in the committee stage of the debate. But in the interests of clarity I would suggest that if this Government is serious about protecting taxpayers from the vagaries of the taxation system, it should also look to the infringements by the Australian Taxation Office itself. I have already mentioned some examples of inefficiencies of the Taxation Office and I believe it is pertinent to add a few more. Many taxpayers are faced with lengthy delays in the processing of their returns. One of my constituents has only just received a 1985-86 tax assessment. Small businessmen have to wait up to six months from an initial notification from the Taxation Office that they are to be audited. They have then to wait for the job to be eventually commenced. Complaints have been registered that the confidentiality of clients' affairs has been breached by officers of the Taxation Office. All these inefficiencies are symptomatic of the new tax system that Mr Keating has brought upon us. We all know about the problems of the computer system-people getting assessments that are not even yet due for payment; not getting credits for amounts that have already been paid and so on. All this is a consequence of the rush to push up tax receipts with new taxes and a myriad of new regulations, all of which indicates that things have simply got out of hand. In fact, there appears to be a new philosophy that taxpayers are defrauding the system. The onus of proof has been reversed. Despite what Mr Keating would have us believe, the average taxpayer is honest; he complies with the system to the best of his or her ability. I do not think the Tax Office or the Government should be judging the great bulk of taxpayers by standards set by Keating himself because the bulk of the taxpayers are honest. I believe that there are significant problems with the formation of a taxation board and these are going to be subject to some amendments that will be put forward by my colleague Senator Stone. While most are in favour of reasonable levels of regulation of any profession, it is accepted and a fundamental premise that anybody who has the power to prevent an individual from working within a profession should be wholly independent. This is the thrust of one of our amendments. However, this Bill provides that one member of a three-man board will be an officer of the Australian Taxation Office and, in addition, that he or she should be chairperson of that board. Surely this is a classic case of conflict of interest for an officer of the Australian Taxation Office to be presiding over a body that controls the registration of taxation agents. At the very least, such a structure will affect the confidence placed in the board by members of the profession. If the boards are to function effectively there must be no question about their impartiality. This will not be the case should the proposed composition of the boards be implemented. I regret that time prevents a further evaluation of these complex changes included in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2). Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.58) —Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise to speak in relation to clause 42 of the Bill which has already been referred to by Senator Haines in her remarks during the second reading debate. Clause 42 of this Bill provides for two things. It provides first that in constituting the new tax agents boards, one of the three people to be appointed shall be `an officer of the Australian Taxation Office appointed by the Minister'. The clause provides secondly that that member of the board-that is, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) officer-and again I quote, `shall be the chairperson of the board'. I put it to the Committee that both these proposals are objectionable. I regard the first proposal, that each board shall contain as one of its three members an officer of the Australian Taxation Office, as totally inappropriate. I think it is quite wrong for a serving public servant to be appointed to sit on a board, the chief function of which is to assess and to pass judgment upon the fitness of private individuals who earn their living in a field in which they are in daily communication with the agency-in this case the Australian Taxation Office-of which that member of the board is a serving officer. I think that is totally inappropriate and I am astonished that the Government should bring such a proposal forward. I can only say that the rules seem to be changing in the Australian Public Service. As it happens, we have some experience in a related and very similar field-the field of taxation boards of review which recently, of course, have been done away with. But during their long history, I think going right back to about 1922, taxation boards of review were chaired by people who had previously been officers of what is now called the Australian Taxation Office. These people, who had retired before taking up their appointment to the boards of review therefore combined two qualities. First, such people were knowledgeable about the taxation law and had worked throughout their professional careers in that field; and, secondly, they no longer were employees of what is now called the Taxation Office and were therefore capable of being, and being regarded as being, independent. Nevertheless, it is instructive to note that up until the time the boards were abolished, even those arrangements drew considerable disquiet and discontent. In 1983 the Administrative Review Council undertook a review of taxation decisions by boards of review which was stimulated by that growing discontent about the modus operandi of the boards of review under their ex-Taxation Office chairmen. I can only say in summary that the view even that retired officers of the Taxation Office should chair boards of review did not commend itself to the Administrative Review Council. Although debate on this measure is limited, I think it is of a sufficient importance to spend at least a few minutes elaborating on the view that was taken at that time by the Administrative Review Council. Paragraph 88 of the Council's report No. 17 states: The possibility that a specialist tribunal may lack independence from the department whose decision it reviews arises in several ways. Whenever a tribunal has one particular party appearing constantly before it, as is the case with the Boards and the Commissioner of Taxation, there is a risk that tribunal members may become attuned to the kind of arguments put by that party. The report continued: One way in which the risk may become evident was pointed to in an editorial article published in the Australian Taxation Review ((1980) . . . p. 2). The editors observed: and this is a quote within the Council's report- there is . . . a belief-whether or not it is well founded being not presently to the point-that taxpayers find themselves at a disadvantage, at least in certain classes of cases, before Boards of Review. Thus it has become commonly believed that taxpayers have very great difficulties in persuading Boards of Review that their purpose in acquiring property has not been a purpose of profit-making by sale. Indeed, it does not appear to be going too far to say that there is an apprehension that taxpayers appear prima facie to be treated as untruthful and as persons whose evidence should not be accepted. That viewpoint was strongly challenged by the Commissioner of Taxation in his evidence to the Administrative Review Council. But the Council, while obviously noting and acknowledging the Commissioner's views, rejected them. In paragraph 89 of its report, the Council stated: The nub of the problem is, as one member of a Board put it, that `independence is a state of mind'. The Council went on to say: The confidence which litigants have in the independence of the judiciary is a great strength in our legal system. Such confidence is no less important in the context of administrative review. I could quote many other opinions, all of which are cited in this most interesting report of the Administrative Review Council, which tend to the same conclusion, namely, that there had developed a very unsatisfactory feeling on the part of the taxpaying citizenry as to the disinterested and objective qualities of the now defunct taxation boards of review. I pass no judgment upon whether or not that view was justified. I simply observe, as the Administrative Review Council did, that the view had become widely prevalent and was clearly damaging to the confidence in the administration of the taxation law. That led the Council, in paragraph 91 of its report, to pass the following judgment: . . . the present practice of appointing not merely as a member but as Chairman a former officer of the Taxation Office or the former Deputy Commissioner of a State giving to him power to rule on evidence that may be admitted and control of procedural matters such as adjournments is a matter of adverse comment not only among practitioners but also among clients. I turn from that piece of history to the tax agents boards which will be constituted under the Bill which we are now considering. I put it to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) that the proposal in this Bill to appoint to these boards a serving officer-not a retired officer-of the Australian Taxation Office is bound to lead to the same kind of discontent and distrust, which can only be damaging to the administration of the law. Tax agents may feel that they have not been appropriately treated by the boards. If they are dealing with officers who, in another capacity, on another day, wearing another hat, will be dealing with perhaps the taxation returns of their clients, they are bound to feel that their freedom and their discourse with the tax agents boards are inhibited. I would like the Minister to answer specifically why the Government feels a need to break from a longstanding tradition and move to appoint a serving officer of the ATO to the boards. The provision in clause 42 which would allow the Minister to appoint a taxation officer as chairperson-as the term is described-merely compounds the offence. I would like the Minister to respond. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(7.10) —In regard to the direct question concerning the composition of the tax agents boards, I am told that neither the Australian Audit Office nor the Treasury wanted to have an officer on such boards and a decision was made that it should be an Australian Taxation Office (ATO) member. I do not think Senator Stone raised this, but it should be mentioned for the record: the Opposition in the House of Representatives had claimed that the chairperson of the tax agents boards, who it is proposed will be an ATO officer, would have as much power as two other members. This was obviously based on the assumption that there would be a casting vote as well as a deliberative vote. I do not think Senator Stone said that, but I am putting the record right. That is simply incorrect. The chairperson has a deliberative vote, but not a casting vote. The view of the Government is that the proposed composition-that is, one member from the Taxation Office, one from the accounting profession and one from the legal profession-is an appropriate mix. Senator Stone disagrees and the Opposition disagrees apparently, which I guess they are entitled to do. But the Government does not agree with their proposed amendment and, therefore, will be opposing it. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(7.12) —I thank the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) for his answer, as far as it goes. But I have to say to him that I do not find it in the least bit convincing. What the Minister has told the Committee is that because neither the Treasury nor the Australian Audit Office wishes to have officers of their institutions-quite rightly I may say; and I am very glad to hear that they took such a view-placed in this position of conflict of interest, therefore the Government has decided that an officer of the Australian Taxation Office should be placed in that position. That is not an answer. That merely, in effect, provides further evidence, if you like, as to the inappropriateness of what is proposed. The Minister has not responded to the question of how it comes about that it is thought by the Government to be appropriate to have a serving public servant from the key agency involved serving on these tax agents boards. There is no need to have a public servant on the boards at all. But if it were desired to have on these a member who had demonstrated professional expertise in the taxation field-and, of course, it is possible to find those people both in the legal profession and in the accounting profession as the Minister indicated by referring to the qualification of the other two members-it would be perfectly possible to resort to the device to which over many years the taxation boards of review resorted, namely, to appoint a retired officer from the Australian Taxation Office. Perhaps a retired Deputy Commissioner might be rather senior for such a job, but a retired officer of acknowledged expertise and ability would be appropriate. The Minister has not addressed that possibility. He has not addressed the question of why there is a need to have a serving public servant from wherever on the board. I would be grateful if he would now address the question. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(7.14) —I do not know what else I can say. There is just a difference of opinion here between Senator Stone and the Government. He does not think that a serving public servant should be on the board at all. That is not the Government's view. I think he has paid insufficient attention to the fact that there are two other members on the proposed board-that is, a majority will be people from outside the Public Service; people, as I said before, from the legal and accounting professions. Just in case it is not entirely clear to those who may be listening or who may ultimately read the Hansard record, I want to stress that this particular board is not one which will be determining any disputes about taxation liability. It will determine disputes which may arise about the registration of tax agents. I do not think it is at all inappropriate to have a serving officer of the Australian Taxation Office-who, as part of his duties in that Office, could be expected to have a fairly intimate knowledge of tax agents-represented on the board, though in a minority capacity. Just in case I do not have time to indicate later on, I state for the record the Government will accept the Australian Democrat's amendment. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(7.15) —I know we are under the guillotine, Madam Temporary Chairman, but I simply want to say that the further response of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) is, I think, as unsatisfactory as his initial response. If the Minister cannot see what is wrong with it, let me put it to him, without I imagine further response from him, that it is utterly inappropriate to have a board which will, as he acknowledged explicitly, have the power to deregister a tax agent-after all, that is what this board is about; it is about assessing the appropriateness of particular people to serve in the capacity of tax agents-and, at the same time, have as a member an officer of the Australian Taxation Office who, with his other hat on, may be dealing with that tax agent, or some other tax agent. It does not take any imagination at all to see the kind of pressures that can be brought to bear upon a tax agent by the Taxation Office through that conflict of interest. I will not pursue the point. I can see the Minister does not propose to budge on it. I simply put it to him that the Taxation Office will regret this action because it will serve to lower its reputation for integrity in the minds of the public and members of the tax agents' profession who deal with it. I regret that very much. I will not prolong my remarks. I move: Page 23, clause 42, paragraphs (a) and (b), lines 33-40, leave out the paragraphs, insert the following paragraphs: ``(a) by omitting paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c) and substituting `appointed by the Minister.'; (b) by inserting after subsection (1) the following subsections: `(1A) In appointing persons to be members of the Board, the Minister shall not appoint an officer of the Australian Taxation Office. `(1B) The Minister shall appoint a member of the Board to be Chairperson of the Board.';''. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(7.16) —I would like to reiterate Senator Stone's comments that in this time of complicated taxation laws and uncertainty about taxpayers' positions, it is not difficult to envisage real situations where tax agents are frequently in conflict with the Australian Taxation Office. To have a chairman of a tax agents board presiding over these conflicts is just not good enough. I think the amendment, that the Opposition has put forward must be supported. Amendment negatived. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(7.17) —As I indicated at the second reading stage, while we are not particularly concerned about there being an Australian Taxation Office member on the board, we were concerned about that member being the chairperson of that board. Accordingly, I move: Page 23, clause 42, paragraph (b), proposed subsection 251d (1a), lines 39 to 40, leave out the subsection, insert the following subsection: ``(1a) The Minister shall appoint as Chairperson one of the persons referred to in paragraph 1 (b).''. We have replaced the requirement that an Australian Taxation Office person be the chairman with a requirement that the Minister select the chairman from one of the other two people who represent the legal and accounting professions. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(7.18) —We, of course, regret the unwillingness of the Australian Democrats to support our amendment on this clause but we do, of course, support their subsequent amendment which has the effect, as Senator Haines has just explained, of ensuring at least that the Australian Taxation Office officer concerned shall be precluded from appointment as chairman or chairwoman of these boards. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(7.19) —As I said before, I agree with the point that Senator Stone has made that the Australian Democrats' amendment goes some of the way towards meeting what he wanted. It is not the Government's preferred position but, as I indicated earlier, the Government will accept the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. [COGNATE BILL: CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1988] Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator HILL(South Australia)(7.21) —The Senate is debating two pieces of legislation-the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 and the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988. The first of those Bills seeks principally to repeal the sunset clause contained in the National Crime Authority Act 1984-in other words, it will enable the National Crime Authority (NCA) to continue and not be curtailed by that sunset provision. Furthermore, the Bill will enable the present Chairman to be reappointed for a further year. In addition to those two principal amendments, there are also some changes to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. The second of the Bills does a number of things but the principal amendment is designed to empower the National Crime Authority to use listening devices in its own right in the investigation of illegal drug offences, subject to judicial warrant and on the same basis as the Australian Federal Police. Therefore, these Bills cause us to focus clearly upon the National Crime Authority, its structure, its achievements and, in particular, its future. As I said, the legislation will enable the Authority to continue as a permanent body and the Chairman to continue for a further year. Again, the legislation will further extend the Authority's powers. In recent times a number of criticisms have been made of the NCA. In the minds of some, there has been a growing number of criticisms and clearly those criticisms are causing public concern. As we focus our attention on the NCA tonight it seems to me to be sensible to look at some of those criticisms and attempt to analyse whether or not they are valid and, if they are, to look to some remedial action. As I said on a previous occasion, public support for the NCA is important if it is to do its work properly. If it loses public support, it will soon be undermined and pressure will be applied for it to cease to be. As I said on a recent occasion, I do not think that would be in the best interests of our fight against organised crime. The first criticism that one has read in recent times is that the NCA is too secretive. That criticism has not only been applied in relation to the NCA but also it has been applied in relation to the monitoring committee-the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority-and, to some extent, it is a fair criticism. The Committee has recently put down an interim evaluation of the NCA and perhaps it overdid the need for secrecy by holding all of its meetings in camera. If we had held some of our hearings in public, I think public support for the work that we were seeking to do but, more importantly, for the NCA, might have been enhanced. I think we have learnt a lesson from that. The more difficult question is the level of secrecy required by the NCA itself. When the body was set up some four years ago I can remember debating in this chamber and also in the committee that considered its structure in depth, the question as to whether or not it should operate in secret or, rather, whether it should follow some of the American models which carry out a lot of their work in public. I was of the view, and the committee was of the view, that if this body was to carry out investigative functions somewhat similar to those of the police, it was important that it did its work in secret. In other words, we rejected the American model, which is really designed to warn the public against particular individuals without those individuals having been convicted of any crime. We were of the view that that method was contrary to the system and the values of justice that we think are important in this country. The fact that the NCA operates in secret is not by chance; it was intended to operate in that way and is doing so. Of course, criticisms can more easily be made of any secret organisation because people are uncomfortable with the secrecy per se. This criticism has come to the fore in recent times because of the comparisons between the NCA's work and that of the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct. I stress tonight that both bodies are performing different functions. The function of the Fitzgerald inquiry has been simply that of a public inquiry to establish a set of facts which, as I said, must be compared to the entirely different structure of the NCA, which is to investigate a target and to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute that target before a criminal court. To establish a set of facts on the public record, as the Fitzgerald inquiry does, requires, sensibly, a large amount of this work to be done in public. That is the way in which it operates. To criticise the NCA because the proceedings of the Fitzgerald inquiry are held in public is to confuse the two different functions of two different bodies. Just as we would not want police officers to make their investigations public, I suggest we would not want the NCA to make its investigations public. The problem, of course, is that if it does so, it has the effect of placing in people's minds the suggestion of guilt before guilt is proven-something that does not seem to be of great concern to the Americans, but, as I said, which would certainly be of concern to us and should be protected. Both systems can, of course, be complementary. The NCA will take the public evidence of the Fitzgerald inquiry and, where targets are established from that, conduct its own investigations in secret and, if evidence is sufficient, bring prosecutions arising out of those investigations. This whole question of secrecy is complex. At the next step it raises the practices of some courts, particularly in my State, in regard to their very liberal approach to the granting of suppression orders, so that the public is not made aware of who is before the court or the circumstances of offences. There are those who say that that is a wise course of action, in that guilt has not been proven in those cases and the public has no right to know. On the other hand, there is a security, I would suggest, in matters being put on the public record in a court. It is not only a security for the public in general that matters are being handled properly, but, whether or not the defendant believes it at the time, it is also a great security for the defendant that justice will be done. It is a difficult debate, but overall I support public hearings as much as possible, even at the magistrates court stage. I place on record tonight that I think that South Australian courts have gone too far in the other direction and the public is not made aware of information of which it has a right to be made aware. If we are to have a body such as the NCA with wide powers, there must obviously be securities. This is not appreciated often enough in this debate. The numerous methods of safeguards that we have applied to the NCA are far greater than those applied to any other police force. There is the safeguard of the annual report. That might be just a small contribution. There is the greater safeguard of the supervisory committee of this Parliament, the monitoring committee, which can go quite a bit further. It can be a forum for complaints by individuals against the NCA, and it has acted as such. If individuals are unhappy with the operational performance of the NCA, they can complain to this Federal Parliament. On occasions they may do so, and their complaints would be properly investigated and appropriate action taken. The supervisory committee goes further than that. It can fulfil a responsibility to the public. When there are criticisms of the performance of the NCA, as there are now in relation to the Harvey case in South Australia, where the magistrate was critical of the NCA, and, more recently the Grassby case in New South Wales, this Parliament will investigate those public criticisms in order that we can either satisfy ourselves that the criticisms are valid, in which case remedial action should be taken, or, if they are invalid, we can say so in this Parliament and, hopefully, give the public of Australia some extra assurance. So this extra safeguard of a supervisory committee is placed upon this body. The committee also has the responsibility of trying to make some assessment as to whether the NCA is achieving its objectives. State police forces, of course, do not have the same challenge in a parliamentary form. The parliamentary committee has sought to see whether it is effective. How does it do so when the Authority's function is to act as a deterrent as well as, of course, to assemble evidence to be presented in courts against major criminal figures and, hopefully, to obtain convictions? It is not an easy task. Certainly, the NCAs record in relation to convictions and material benefits can be directly pointed to. The figures at this interim stage of its operation are really quite impressive. At the time of our report, 194 persons had been charged with a total of 540 offences, and so far 46 have been convicted and are serving very long sentences. A number of major cases are currently before the courts. Over $17m in understated or undeclared income has been assessed by the Australian Taxation Office as a result of NCA investigations, and another $13m has been notified to the Taxation Office. Proceedings have commenced for forfeiture of assets from criminals in the sum of $3.3m. On the face of it, it looks as though the NCA is achieving something positive. What we do not know is, had the same powers and resources been given to existing State police forces, whether the figures would be very different. I think we are quite happy to acknowledge the difficulty in making that assessment. With respect to deterrence all I can really say is that in our investigations on the witness protection inquiry what did seem to be emphasised to us was that criminals are concerned and have a real consciousness about the NCA-its powers, its resources, and its interdisciplinary structure. We concluded in our evaluation that the body should continue, although it was premature to make a final assessment, and that has been the attitude of the Opposition. We believe that the sunset clause should be lifted. The NCA has enough runs on the board to justify its continued existence so that, with public support, which we hope we can assure, it can continue to play a worthwhile role in combating organised crime in this country. There are a number of extra safeguards which the Senate should be aware of. The first is one that we also stressed in the original report some four years ago-that is, the safeguard of appointing the right people to the body. I stress to the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, who is not here tonight-nevertheless, no doubt it will come to his attention-the importance that we attach to the fact that if one gives a body such as this coercive powers, one must appoint the right people to that Authority. The fourth safeguard, of course, is that those people would be rotated-that is, the so-called Hoover principle that we learnt from the experience of the United States, that it is unwise to leave members of such a body in office for too long a period. Although we have agreed to this Bill, I think we are probably making a mistake in agreeing to the Chairman's-Mr Justice Stewart's-term, being extended. I say that with no disrespect to him. Once one breaches the principle, it is easy to breach it again. There will always be good reasons to extend someone's term. There are good reasons in relation to Mr Justice Stewart, in that he is part of the way through a number of inquiries. As I said, those good reasons will always exist. I think it is probably better if one recognises the importance of the principle and stands firmly by it. The final safeguard is the inter-governmental ministerial council to which the Authority is responsible, which met last Thursday. In summation, we find that, although the NCA has great powers, it is in many ways answerable to many more bodies and authorities than a normal police force. I have said that it is the opinion of the Opposition that the NCA should continue. I draw the Senate's attention to the recommendations in the evaluation report which we would endorse-that is, there needs to be a better working relationship between the NCA and traditional police forces. We made some suggestions regarding investigative teams comprising both bodies. I remind the Senate of our suggestion that we should appoint a senior, respected serving or former police officer as a member of the Authority to try to overcome this barrier that seems to exist between an authority which, at the moment, consists only of lawyers, and the police forces around the country. We said that in setting up more task forces the Authority also can help to overcome this gap that seems to exist at present. If the Authority could get more support from traditional police forces, in turn it would get more public support, and that will be in its best interests. I do not want to take up too much more time because I want to give Senator Macklin a reasonable opportunity, having regard to the limitations imposed by the guillotining of this legislation. I mention the other criticisms of the NCA that have been made. The second criticism was the Costigan-type criticism-that the body is not putting together a sufficient picture of organised crime and that that should be its function. That was not the function that was determined by this Parliament. The function determined by this Parliament was that it should be chiefly an investigative body. Out of those investigations, a picture of organised crime would come. It should not be set up on the model of the Costigan inquiry. That was a different type of inquiry and it, in turn, suffered criticisms. There were those who said that it did not produce evidence in a form that could be put before the courts which could therefore lead to convictions. I am not critical of Costigan because that was the nature of his inquiry. This is a different body and, therefore, criticisms of that type do not appreciate the determination of the Parliament as to the nature of this body. I will end my comments. Let me simply say that, in trying to evaluate the performance of the NCA to date, I ask those who are trying to make that assessment to recognise that its budget-$15m to $16m a year-is not a great budget when one compares it with the enormous sums of money that are being produced by organised crime in this country. If one thinks purely of the drug trade-the huge masses of money with which those who are involved in such criminal activity can buy protection for themselves from all levels of authority in our society-one has an indication of just how difficult a task the NCA has in meeting its charter. Nevertheless, in accepting that difficulty, we accept our responsibility to be able from time to time to assure the Parliament that the NCA, in our view as a monitoring committee, is doing its job properly. I can assure the Senate that we will continue to meet that responsibility in the future. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(7.39) —I thank Senator Hill for allowing me some time to make a few comments on the Bills which are before us-that is, the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 and the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988. The first Bill contains amendments to the National Crime Authority Act and to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. The principal item that we are dealing with is the repeal of the sunset clause, which now places the National Crime Authority on a permanent footing. The Australian Democrats wholeheartedly support the National Crime Authority and the work that it is doing, and we therefore welcome this move to entrench the Authority's position. I think it is worth remembering at this stage the reasons for the establishment of the Authority. During the late 1970s and early 1980s it became clear that the traditional law enforcement methods in Australia could not cope adequately with increasingly sophisticated methods of crime, particularly those employed by international groups and, probably more importantly, by the overwhelmingly powerful, moneyed interests involved in drug trafficking. Three commissions at that time-the Williams, Costigan and Stewart commissions-identified these problems. It is interesting to note that none of those sought-in their earlier stages, at least-to declare the existence of organised crime in Australia. I, a number of members of the monitoring committee and, I believe, the National Crime Authority, now differ from those earlier positions. We now recognise the existence of organised crime in Australia. The evaluation report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority attempts to look at that in the Australian context. I think it is a worthwhile exercise because there is probably enough sensationalism in this area without adding to it. A more sober approach to the type of problem that we are facing in this country is certainly necessary. The Australian Democrats, while supporting the concept of the Authority, believe that it is necessary to ensure that the very important powers and activities that it has are balanced against the civil rights of the citizens of this country and the fundamental principles of fairness which we have sought to entrench within our judicial system. History will certainly reflect the important role that the National Crime Authority has played to date and undoubtedly will play in the future to try to make Australia and our society a safer place against crime. A range of other pieces of legislation over the last few years have also added to that. The point that Senator Hill raised is an important one. It is not necessary to say that we might not have been able to achieve the same result by granting these powers to State police forces and to the Australian Federal Police. The problem was that there did not seem to be a parliament that was willing actually to grant those police forces those types of powers. Hence, we were in a difficult position. There did seem to be the need for a new body with the type of role undertaken by the National Crime Authority, yet one which could be monitored by a parliamentary committee. The role of the parliamentary Committee is vitally important. It is one which increasingly will become an advantageous element in this whole exercise. It had a very rocky road earlier on, which I think is public knowledge, but since that time, certainly it has been my experience that the relationship between our Committee and the National Crime Authority is becoming increasingly productive. I certainly endorse the comments made by Senator Hill with regard to the type of role that that Committee can play that it has not sought to play in a great way so far. It can be the recipient of problems that citizens may have with the National Crime Authority. It is not our role to engage in censorship of the Authority in any shape or form, but we hope that our constructive relationship with the Authority will enable us robustly to raise problems that we see might arise and, hopefully-certainly, knowing the Chairman of the Committee, this will be the case-get an equally robust response. I think that that is an important role. It is an innovative way of dealing with things in this country. It is probably made possible by the willingness of members of parliament to look at their role in a more expanded light and to realise that while we cannot have our finger on the pulse of the details, Parliament has a role to play in our type of society that has to change and develop over time. This is one aspect. There are others-in fact, there is another statutory body which, unfortunately, still has not been established, with regard to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Indeed, I wonder when it will be established, as is required by legislation. We are still waiting. We thought we would see it introduced in this session, but we have not yet seen it. I imagine that the Government, at some stage, will belatedly get around actually to fulfilling the requirements of the law in that regard. I see both this role and the role of that other statutory committee, when established, as being ones that develop the traditional role of Parliament. The other Bill about which I wish to make a couple of comments is the one which amends five separate Acts. The amendments to the Customs Act are designed to empower the National Crime Authority to use listening devices in its own right in the investigation of illegal drug offences, subject to a judicial warrant, and otherwise complying with the requirements applicable to the Australian Federal Police. Most senators would be aware that the majority of references to and general investigations by the National Crime Authority involve drug-related offences. Indeed, the work of the Committee has certainly been a revelation to me in terms of the density of crime, as it were, in the whole area of drugs. One cannot help being amazed that that single problem, if removed from the criminal system, would certainly lead us back to the old fashioned notions of crime-breaking and entering and murder. This problem, however, seems to have grasped in its tentacles almost everything else that has been operating in our society. Even the lesser crimes that are caught up in the web of investigations by the National Crime Authority seem, in some way or other, to be related to drugs. It is a terrible scourge in our society. I believe that most citizens do not realise the cost that our society has to bear, not just in terms of the lives that are lost but in terms of the money that is generated to promote and extend the criminal activity into so many areas-to provide the money which is being used in Australia, as we well know, to bribe officials, to bribe police, to bribe judges, to bribe politicians. It is a cost that is probably not recognised by most people in our society, but one which does not seem to be lessening. It is one which seems to be on the increase. I do not have time to deal with the other amendments in detail. These types of amendments to the National Crime Authority were envisaged in the original Act, upon request by the Authority or upon review of its functions and powers. The extension of the powers of the National Crime Authority are an indication of the continued trust and support that this Parliament has in the National Crime Authority and in the work that it is doing. Unfortunately, I believe that we will long need such an authority, and we have made a good start in that regard. I, too, support the point made by Senator Hill with regard to making sure that there is a rotation of the chairing of that committee. There is, as Senator Hill said, always a good reason why it should not occur. I think that Mr Justice Stewart has done a magnificent job, but the principle is a vitally important one. We also know that a good job was done by a number of other people who stayed too long. Mr Justice Stewart has got the thing up and running. He has, in fact, stamped his particular mark and approach on it, which will long endure when he goes on to other activities. I believe that we should be excessively careful in extending the terms of anybody serving on the Authority and should seek, rather, to abide by that principle. This will be to the benefit of the Authority and to the fight against crime in this country. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bills has expired. The question is that the remaining stages of the Bills included in the allotment of time be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a third time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —On behalf of the President, I table a summary of questions on notice for the period 14 September 1987 to 1 June 1988. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —On behalf of the President and in accordance with usual practice, I table a list of parliamentary committee reports to which the Government has not responded within the prescribed period. This list has been circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, the list will be incorporated in Hansard. The list read as follows- PRESIDENT'S REPORT TO THE SENATE ON GOVERNMENT RESPONSE OUTSTANDING TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS Title of Report Date tabled Government response A. LEGISLATIVE AND GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE Legal and Constitutional Affairs 1. Freedom of Information Act 1982: Report on the Operation and Administration of the Freedom of Information Legislation 15.12.87 Science, Technology and the Environment* 1. Examination of Annual Reports-Australian Libraries and Information Council 11.9.85 5.12.86 (I) 24.11.87 (I) *Note: This report was tabled prior to the change in administrative arrangements on 22 September 1987. B. SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE Regulations and Ordinance 1. The Repeal and Re-enactment Device-82nd Report 25.11.87 C. JOINT COMMITTEE Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade 1. The Management of Australia's Defence 7.12.87 Note: (I): Interim Response only As at 1 June 1988 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The President has received letters from the Government, the Opposition and the Australian Democrats nominating senators to be members of the Select Committee on the Administration of Aboriginal Affairs. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: That Senators Peter Baume, Boswell, Collins, Coulter, Devlin and McMullan, having been duly nominated in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 1 June 1988, be appointed members of the Select Committee on the Administration of Aboriginal Affairs. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —I present the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Publications. Report-by leave-adopted. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —On behalf of the Chairmen of Estimates Committees, I table further additional information received by Estimates Committees A, B, C, D and E. Sitting suspended from 7.52 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 18 March, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(8.00) —The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill is an important Bill. It proposes several changes to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act designed to bring the Act into line with similar provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Commonwealth Electoral Act relates to the conduct of elections, whereas the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act deals with the conduct of referendums to alter the Federal Constitution. Last year the Commonwealth Electoral Act was amended in a variety of ways to implement the recommendations of the second report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. That report was prepared following a reference to the Select Committee to review the Electoral Act in the light of the experience gained at the 1984 general election. That general election was the first to be conducted after the major changes which were made to the Commonwealth Electoral Act in 1983. The Government rushed through the 1987 changes to the Electoral Act to enable them to be in place in time for the hastily called and totally unjustified election in July 1987-an election, one might recall, that added yet another notch to the Prime Minister's gun of broken promises. The result of rushing through those changes to the Electoral Act in 1987 was that several of the provisions in that Act became inconsistent with the provisions of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. Prior to 1987 there had been no inconsistencies between the two Acts. The Bill before the Senate this evening is designed to remove those inconsistencies and it also proposes several other amendments which flow from the second report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. The Bill seeks to make 10 changes to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. I will come back to the specifics a little later. Let me just indicate here that the Opposition accepts seven of the 10 proposals but opposes three. I have circulated on behalf of the Opposition proposed amendments to those three and I will comment further on them in the committee stage. I would like first to make a few general comments about the Bill and related matters. I said at the outset that the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill is an important Bill. It is important because it proposes changes to the ways in which referendums are conducted in this nation. As we all know, referendums are of vital importance because they are the only way in which the Constitution of this nation can be changed. The Constitution is the very basis of our federal system and it is therefore the very basis of our democratic system. The machinery provisions through which changes to the Constitution are made are therefore of great significance. It is essential for the preservation of confidence in our parliamentary democratic system that all aspects of the electoral and constitutional processes, including the ways in which they are conducted and the ways in which they are altered, are also held in high confidence by the Australian people. Any proposals to change the arrangements should therefore be subjected to close scrutiny. I therefore believe it is scandalous that this Bill should be jackbooted through the Senate in half an hour using the razor of the Government's totally undemocratic guillotine, a guillotine which, it must be stressed, the Government has been able to employ only because of the agreement and connivance of the Australian Democrats. For years the Democrats have trumpeted their total opposition to the use of the guillotine, but we now find them prostituting all the so-called principles at the altar of shabby, cynical, sleazy political opportunism. The debt owed by the Democrats to the Government for calling a double dissolution election last year and thereby ensuring their survival when political oblivion was imminent is enormous, and the Government is now demanding and taking not just its pound of flesh. By now it must be up to a tonne, with no end in sight. Senator Knowles —It would have been peaceful if they had been wiped out, wouldn't it? Senator SHORT —It certainly would. It is not just sad to see a party of self-described principle so totally prostituting all those so-called principles: quite frankly, it is disgusting. Although the proposals in the Bill flow from the recommendations of the highly regarded Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, the actual Bill not only deserves but also requires much closer scrutiny by the Senate than is possible in a rushed half-hour on the very last night of what has been a long, tiring and demanding session. In recent months we have seen two classic examples of the abject failure of this Government to get its legislative drafting right. There have been many other examples of perhaps lesser moment. Late last year we discovered a fatal flaw in the Government's Australia Card Bill. Only this week a major flaw was discovered in one of the vitally important referendum Bills. So it is perfectly clear that we cannot have any confidence in the Government's ability to draft any of its legislative proposals accurately. It has been in the Senate where most of these flaws have been detected. Yet it is the Senate, the watchdog on behalf of the Australian people, which is being subjected to today's brutal guillotine and it is the Senate's watchdog role which the Government is seeking to emasculate in its referendum proposals to be put to the people in September, which proposals must be defeated if the Senate is to remain the guardian and watchdog of the interests of the Australian people. I also express my concern at the frequency and the extent of the changes we have made to the electoral laws in recent years. There have been a great number of changes, some major and some less so. Obviously, many of the changes have constituted improvements. However, I believe some have resulted in an erosion of confidence in the integrity of the electoral process. This confidence has been further eroded in recent months by concerns expressed by the Electoral Commissioner about the accuracy of the election returns after the 1987 election. I believe I would share the experience of most senators and members when I say that nowadays I receive a very large number of allegations of electoral malpractices. Those allegations may be ill-informed. Certainly, frequently it is difficult to have them backed up with hard evidence. But the very fact that the allegations are made clearly demonstrates that the public has declining confidence in the electoral system. Such a decline in confidence is, in reality, a concern about the integrity of our democratic processes, the core of which is free and honest elections. This decline in confidence may well be due, at least in part, to the frequency of the changes we have been making to the electoral laws. Tonight we are considering further changes. Although they are to referendum rather than electoral provisions, the two are closely interrelated. There is in the Parliament another Bill-the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill-which proposes a whole raft of still more changes. In addition, the Joint Committee on Electoral Matters is currently engaged on a review of the Commonwealth Electoral Act in the light of the experience of the 1987 Federal election. That inquiry is bound to lead, in due course, to many more proposals for change. I consider, as does the Opposition, the Committee's inquiry to be an important one. I am not suggesting that it should not proceed and with expedition. Rather, I am saying that we need to step off the merry-go-round of change before too long, before confusion and lack of confidence in our electoral processes become endemic. In view of the time I will reserve any further comments, particularly in relation to the amendments that I have in mind, until we move to the committee stage. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.11) —I did not intend commenting at the second reading stage of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill, but I was provoked by some of Senator Short's comments about the Australian Democrats' role in exercises such as this. He made what I consider to be the most extraordinarily wild but serious allegation about connivance between the Democrats and the Government over legislation. In other words, he suggested some type of pay-off. I did not at that time seek to take a point of order but I consider that the most serious and wild allegation, obviously one that would be made only inside the chamber. It would certainly not be made outside, because it would constitute a case that I would love to take to court. If Senator Short wants to go outside and repeat the allegation I would be very happy for him to do so. One of the television or radio stations might ask him a question about it. I would like to see whether he made the same types of remarks. His proposition can easily be displayed as extraordinary by looking at today's events. Senator Short would not know this because he would not have read most of the legislation to have come before this chamber, but I amended one Bill 35 times. I am sure the Government would be very happy not to have us here amending legislation time and again. The Democrats end up amending more Government legislation than the Opposition has even bothered reading. The exercise that Senator Short just engaged in was an extraordinary one in light of the type of Bill that we are trying to discuss. The prostitution of the methods of this House that the Opposition has engaged in with its filibustering reflects the importation into this chamber of methods used in the House of Representatives. The idea is to waste enough time so that time for debate runs out and certain Bills do not pass. It is a pretty crude method but it works. There is only one method of avoiding it. I have said on occasions, and I say it again, that we need a far better method of processing this and other types of legislation through this chamber. We will probably need to sit longer-although I must admit that that is a daunting prospect this Thursday-because we have far more legislation to deal with. But I wonder, for example, whether we need the vast second reading debates that we have or whether we might be able to use far more of our time in the committee stage. If we are indeed constituting ourselves-because we are not so constituted by the Constitution-as a House of review, perhaps we ought to see whether the majority of our time on Bills is spent in reviewing legislation rather than in stating positions about it, which is what the House of Representatives does and does effectively in its adversarial politics. There are many ways in which we ought to be dealing with legislation. It seems to me that Senator Short's claim is a very odd one. I repeat that it is one that he would make only in here and not elsewhere, because it is a fabrication of furphies and lies. Indeed, I would be happy to have a case in the courts with regard to that particular allegation. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(8.14) —I am not going to take up most of the issues raised by Senator Short. We will have it out one day as to whether there are rorts and ramps in the Australian Electoral Commission, but not tonight. I will not speak in the committee stage. I just want to indicate in general the three issues the Opposition considers important. The first one relates to clause 8. I am not going to canvass the committee stage here but will just go to the generalities. This amendment arose out of contact between the Australian Electoral Commission and the Attorney-General's Department. Sample ballot papers were sent to the Attorney-General's Department and it found that one section of the legislation was probably in conflict with another. The section that we are proposing intends to clean that up. I will not speak at any length on it but I wish to make one plea to Senator Short. If he is to persist with his amendment he should delete clause 8 (b). Quite frankly, leaving 8 (a) by itself is an embarrassment to us all because it has no real meaning. In the committee stage Senator Short might add 8 (a) and 8 (b) to his amendment. We would give leave for that because it will just make for a sensible approach to this amendment. The other two amendments that will be moved were passed by this chamber, without opposition, last June. They have already been passed in the electoral Bills and I think it will be quite consistent to put them in the referendum Bill. If we do not, we will have two different Acts for the Australian Electoral Office to enforce. Just imagine what would happen if this was not changed again. We would have, in an election that had a referendum attached to it, two different sets of criteria to deal with. It would make it absolutely impossible. Let me deal with the point raised relating to the extension of time to perform certain acts. This proposal is to provide extensions of time in which acts must be completed in the event of the unforeseen failure of a person to discharge an associated statutory duty. This was agreed by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and it was done to overcome that problem of industrial blackmail. It seems that Senator Short and his colleague in another place have argued that this will encourage industrial blackmail. It takes from certain sections of society an immediate ability to upset an election through industrial action and it allows for extensions of time. It was accepted in the Electoral Bill 1987 and it should also be reflected in the referendum Bill. I will finish on the last point raised concerning the abolition of the three-month rule. The third amendment would delete those provisions in the schedule to the Bill which amend section 30 of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. The schedule amendments are designed to delete the requirement that an elector must have resided in the division of his enrolment at some time in the three months immediately preceding polling day in order to vote in the division. It must be emphasised that the three-month residence rule, as it stands, only operates as an additional test over and above the requirement that a person must have resided in a subdivision for one month before being entitled to enrol for that subdivision. The residence requirement for enrolment is not to be changed in any way. The amendments will simply make a person's appearance on the roll conclusive evidence of his or her entitlement to vote, which is what most people presume to be the case anyway. The analogous amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act was made in 1987 on the unanimous recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. In the course of a detailed discussion of that issue the Committee noted in paragraphs 3.25 and 3.32 of its 1986 report: the three month rule is . . . in practical terms incapable of across the board enforcement. It states further: Its operations are anomalous in that it only works to disenfranchise those electors who have not correctly maintained their enrolments, but are honest enough to admit it. The report emphasised: the rule . . . is not an obstacle to fraud or impersonation. Very few electors were ever asked the complex pre 1983 prescribed questions . . . and there is nothing to suggest that any more were asked the sub-section 229 (3) question regarding places of living during the past 3 months. Any person contemplating fraudulent voting can, without difficulty state addresses or make declarations which will not of themselves prevent the admission of the vote. There are real practical difficulties which would arise in a joint election and referendum if the three-month rule were to be retained for referendums only. The most important would be the frustration which would be caused to electors who would be allowed to vote for the election but not for the referendum. Different questions would be prescribed to be asked of persons voting at the election and the referendum and different declarations might also be required. I make the point that, if the Liberal Party of Australia is serious about these amendments-- Senator MacGibbon —We are always serious. Senator ROBERT RAY —If members of the Liberal Party are serious, they will get another crack at it in the spring session. The point I am making is that if we were not to change it there would be different electoral rules for a referendum and an election held on the same day. There is a new electoral Bill coming up in the spring session, and if the Opposition is serious about these amendments it would be better to consider the matter then and amend both Bills at the same time. I assure the honourable senator that we are not likely to have a combined election-referendum in the next few months. Senator MacGibbon —Why not? It is a very unstable government. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator MacGibbon laughs. I will give him 50:1, anything up to $100,000. I make only one other point. These rather improved and generous rules for getting on the roll have not saved the Liberal candidate for Ballarat North. I read in tonight's Herald that the Liberal Party is still trying to get up their candidate for Ballarat North. If the Opposition's amendment went through and was put into the Electoral Act he would never have a chance; he would be wiped out absolutely. In summary, and I will not address myself to the Bill again unless asked a specific question in the committee stage, the Government wants to reject the three amendments. If the Opposition and the Australian Democrats want to persist with amendment No. 1, it seems to me we should take out (a) and (b) just to make the Bill logical. I will not be broken hearted about that. We can always look at it again in the spring session and have a longer discussion on what we mean by it, et cetera. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(8.21) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 5, paragraph 8 (b), lines 13 to 16, leave out the paragraph. (2) Page 5, clause 10, lines 27 to 36, leave out the clause. (3) Page 6, Schedule, leave out the following: ``Subsection 30 (3): Omit the subsection. Paragraph 30 (5) (a): Add at the end of paragraph `or'. Paragraph 30 (5) (b): Omit the paragraph. Subsection 30 (6): Omit the subsection.''. Although I have moved these three amendments together, we would prefer that the questions on each be put separately. The first amendment is to leave out paragraph 8 (b), which states: For the purpose of ascertaining a voter's intention, regard shall only be had to the word `Yes' or `No' written alone or without words of qualification. The Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ray, has suggested that if we are going to move to delete that we should also move to delete paragraph 8 (a), and the Opposition is happy enough with that. That would, as I understand it, leave the existing Act unchanged in relation to this aspect and, as the Minister said, perhaps we can look at it in the spring session. Therefore, I seek leave to amend my amendment No. 1, in effect to leave out the whole of clause 8. Leave granted. Senator SHORT —I move: (1) Page 5, clause 8, lines 9 to 16, leave out the clause. In view of the discussion that has taken place, the comments of Senator Ray and the time, and the fact that as I understand it the Australian Democrats will be supporting this clause, I will not elaborate on it other than to say that the reason we are moving for the amendment of the clause is that we believe it does not do what the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters intended, and with which we agreed-namely, to have a vote in a referendum regarded as valid if there is a clear `Yes' or `No' in the appropriate box and also if there are words outside the box that have no relevance to the question. The proposal in the Bill that regard shall be had only to the word `Yes' or `No' written alone or without words of qualification seems to us to spell out the opposite of what was proposed by the Select Committee. Indeed, in section 24 of the existing Act the method for determining the vote is already very clearly defined. The first of the other two amendments is to leave out clause 10, which enables the Australian Electoral Commission to extend by 48 hours the time in which acts must be completed in the event of a failure by any person to perform a statutory duty or function. The inclusion of that provision in the Bill has been proposed because of certain threats of industrial action which occurred, as I understand it, at the 1984 election, as a result of which the Electoral Commission considered that the remedies in existence were inadequate. It did not see an increase in penalties for failure to observe as the solution. Therefore, it has sought an extension of time in the event of industrial disputation or other causes preventing officers from carrying out their statutory duty. The Opposition believes that that is really an acquiescence to the power of industrial action. We think that that is very bad in principle and therefore we oppose the amendment. The third amendment proposed by the Opposition is to delete various sections of the schedule which is contained under clause 11 of the Bill. Basically, we are seeking the exclusion from the Bill of the changes concerning the requirement that electors enrolled in a division must have lived within that division at some stage within three months prior to voting. I fully recognise, as Senator Ray said, that this proposal in the Bill is to bring the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act into line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Considerable concern was expressed about the amendments that were made to the Commonwealth Electoral Act in 1987. There have been allegations of electoral malpractices, not necessarily hard evidence, which I mentioned in my second reading speech. It is the view of the Opposition that those allegations and the matters pertaining to them should be considered carefully in the forthcoming inquiry of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform into the Electoral Act regarding the 1987 election. Until such time as that inquiry has been completed and the Parliament has had a chance to consider the report of the inquiry, we believe that the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act should remain unaltered. It can then be looked at in the light of the findings and recommendations of the forthcoming report of the Joint Select Committee. On behalf of the Opposition I commend the three amendments. The CHAIRMAN —The question is that the three amendments moved by Senator Short be agreed to. By leave of the Committee I will put them separately. The question is that amendment No. 1, which was amended by leave, be agreed to. Amendment agreed to. Senator Short —Mr Chairman, I intervene to say something that I should have said before. The Opposition's view is that these three amendments are all very important. If the Committee does not subscribe to the three amendments, we will oppose the third reading. The CHAIRMAN —The question is that amendment No. 2 moved by Senator Short be agreed to. Amendment negatived. The CHAIRMAN —The question is that amendment No. 3 moved by Senator Short be agreed to. Amendment negatived. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Aulich, T. G. Gietzelt, A. T.Beahan, M. E. Giles, P. J.Black, J. R. Haines, J.Bolkus, N. Jenkins, J. A.Burns, B. R. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Button, J. N. McLean, P. A.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, RobertCoulter, J. R. Reynolds, M.Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F.Devereux, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Devlin, A. R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A.Foreman, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Newman, J. M.Baume, Michael Panizza, J. H.Baume, Peter Parer, W. R.Bishop, B. K. Patterson, K. C. L.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. 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.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W.McGauran, J. J. Jones, G. N. Brownhill, D. G. C.Schacht, C. C. Alston, R. K. R.Cooney, B. C. Boswell, R. L. D.Tate, M. C. Messner, A. J.McMullan, R. F. MacGibbon, D. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(8.36) —The Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 contains amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Industry Research and Development Act 1986. As the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) said in his second reading speech, the amendments arise from a technical review in 1987 of the 150 per cent tax concession for research and development. The thrust of the amendments was foreshadowed by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) on 20 November last year. This Bill implements those decisions affecting the Industry Research and Development Board. Other decisions announced at the time were implemented by the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1987, which the coalition did not oppose. The current Bill extends the powers and functions of the Board in relation to administration of the 150 per cent tax scheme and contains consequential amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act. The coalition parties recognise the importance of industrial research and development to the future prospects of Australian industry and the valuable catalytic role that Commonwealth support for industrial research and development can perform in small innovative companies. The coalition introduced some of the measures this Board now administers. The Bill we are now debating extends the discretionary powers of the Board to enable it to determine the eligibility of companies and projects to participate in the scheme and to restrict the tax concession from being exploited other than as intended. This includes ensuring that projects have sufficient Australian content and that the results of revenue subsidised research and development are exploited on normal commercial terms for the benefit of Australia. The coalition parties recognise that the potential for abuse of programs such as the tax concession for research and development must be minimised. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills drew attention to clause 16 of the Bill. In due course I would like the Minister to let us know what action he intends taking in response to the Committee's concerns. The Bill increases the access of small companies to expert research and development resources by enabling the Board to register a wider range of research agencies which can be contracted to conduct eligible research and development for companies. It also enables firms to joint venture for costly or risky projects. The coalition supports these amendments as they are in accordance with the thrust of our policy, which in part is to increase the access of small business to the scheme and also to specialist research and development facilities. It is arguable that these sorts of measures should have applied from the commencement of the initial Act, particularly the provision for registered research agencies, which can include private sector specialist research organisations, that replaces the previous provision for research institutes, which was limited to public sector organisations. What was not foreshadowed in the Minister's statement last November is the provision in clause 11 to increase the number of other members from 10 to 13; that is, to increase the total membership of the Board, including the Chairman and public servant appointee, from 12 to 15. The Opposition parties are opposed to this provision. In the committee stage we will oppose clause 11. The explanatory memorandum is deficient and states that the `amendment increases the number of Board members from 10 to 13'. This is clearly incorrect. The explanatory memorandum also states: This increase will enable the Board to carry out the additional functions imposed on it since its inception in 1986, including those included in this Bill. The Opposition does not accept that explanation or the explanation offered by Minister Jones in the other place for increasing the size of the Board. When the Board was established in 1986 it was known that the functions of the Board would increase and the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 contained provisions to enable the Minister to give additional functions to the Board. To cover that contingency, the Board was established with provision for a total membership of between six and 12 members. The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) was not satisfied with having the maximum number of 12 members. He now proposes to increase it to 15. I recognise that the current Bill amends the long title and object of the principal Act. However, the other amendments relate to the effective administration and operation of the tax concession scheme and hence would not be outside the scope of what may have been considered when the range of membership was determined in 1986. Since 1986, the Board has received only one additional function which could be considered to be separate from its initial responsibilities for the grants for industry research and development scheme and the tax concession scheme. That extra function is its role in administering the national procurement development program, which it received this financial year. I doubt whether that role justifies three extra Board members. In the other place, Minister Jones attempted to justify the increase in members by referring to the number of committees which support the Board. To me, the existence and operation of the committees ought to reduce the need for increases in Board membership, as they appear to exercise many of the functions of the Board and reduce the work of the actual Board. When the members of the seven committees are taken into account, the number of people administering the research and development programs can be seen to be very large. I would like to suggest an alternative reason why the Government is now seeking to increase the membership of the Board, and that is to compensate for its inefficiency in some areas. The Board was very late in publishing its 1986-87 report, which we did not get until 26 April 1988. I was concerned by the cynical attempt to muddy the waters in relation to the late filing of that report by having a letter accompanying the report dated October 1987, although the report was not tabled until April 1988. Last week we heard the Treasurer talking about measures to increase the efficiency of the economy and announcing tariff cuts. But it was noticeable that the Government ignored the hard issues. Notable also was the Treasurer's failure to announce any measures to deliver a more flexible labour market or to reduce the majority of the anti-competitive burdens on industry through meaningful reforms in such areas as deregulation and communications and transport. In a perverse form of consistency, rather than the Minister attempting to ensure that the Industry Research and Development Board becomes more efficient and better uses its resources, he is attempting to paper over the problems by increasing the membership of the Board. The coalition is opposed to the Government avoiding the issue and will oppose clause 11 of the Bill to ensure that the maximum number of members of the Board is not increased. The other amendments in the Bill protect the public's investment by restricting abuse of the tax concession and increasing the access of smaller companies to the tax concession and to specialist research and development resources. The coalition will support those amendments. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(8.45) —The Australian Democrats will not be opposing the Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 and will not be supporting the amendment to be moved by the Opposition to that Bill, but I would like to say a few words about the main thrust of the body with which this legislation deals because it bears on a matter which the Democrats feel is very important. I refer to the role and the commercialisation of research. It is certainly true that we should be spending a great deal more money on research, but the direction which that research takes should not necessarily be towards the commercial application of the research findings. I think it is an historical fact that when science first got under way it was directed towards discovering the structures and the working of God's universe. It was an esoteric activity which was not in any sense directed towards the conquering of God's creation. It was a purely investigatory activity so that one could better understand that working. It is really only in fairly recent times, the last few hundred years, that that attitude has changed. Not only have we been involved in research for its own sake, for the discovery of knowledge, but increasingly research has also been directed towards what Sir Julian Huxley called the heuristic idea of conquering nature-the idea of discovering truth simply so that one can turn that to one's pecuniary advantage. It is self-evident that that attitude of discovery applied to exploitation has led to catastrophic and increasing damage to the environment. If one listened to the words of Professor David Suzuki in the Science Show last Saturday, one would have been informed-- Senator Bishop —Why bother? Senator COULTER —That is a very interesting remark. Senator Bishop has asked why we should bother to listen to Professor David Suzuki. That is a remark from the Opposition which I would like on the record as typical of the views being put forward by the Opposition in regard to the views of Professor Suzuki when he was speaking to the Junior Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science conference. I would like Senator Bishop to write to me some time to tell me precisely what is wrong with Professor Suzuki's argument. Senator Bishop —I would be delighted to. Senator COULTER —I thank Senator Bishop very much. Professor Suzuki said that, if one looks at the total energy flows through the total biosphere, one will see that a large proportion of that energy now flows as a result of human activity. It far exceeds the energy which flows through every other aspect of the biosphere, on which we are ultimately dependent. The continuation of this exploitative attitude to the discovery of the workings of nature is-- Senator Bishop —Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The good senator who is speaking issued an invitation to me to explain to him why I found Dr David Suzuki's arguments less than satisfying and convincing. If he ceased speaking, perhaps I could explain to him now why I have that view. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —There is no point of order. Senator Coulter has the floor. Senator COULTER —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. That is the level of debate in relation to this important matter. One of the things one notices about members of the Opposition is that the important things to them all deal with money. Of course, here we are talking about a tax measure. That is important to the Opposition because it involves money. However, I believe that that money is being spent in a direction that is increasingly damaging. For that reason I wish to proceed to point out some of those damaging consequences. What is required now is a paradigm shift in our view of research and the application to which that research leads. It is self-evident that if one funds research which is going to produce material gains for those who fund it, certain sorts of research will be underfunded and other sorts of research will be neglected altogether. It is also true that even those research projects which have led eventually to major financial gains usually have been of the nature of fundamental research which at the time it was conducted was not conducted with any view to material gain. The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Jones), who introduced this legislation in the other place, is wont to speak of the potential advantages of superconductivity, but I point out that the research which is going on in that area may not lead to, and is not at this stage directly related to, those applications but is of a more fundamental nature, attempting to discover why certain materials can be superconducting at temperatures far above absolute zero. One could point to the original work on DNA, the applications of which we may deal with later tonight. The fundamental research which went on at the time was not intended in any sense ultimately to lead to applications which may have a financial return. The research on nuclear energy-something that the Opposition often wishes to bring to our attention-went on without any idea of an ultimate application which would return a profit. The transistor is another example of fundamental investigations in physics which have led to enormous changes in lifestyle and applications which involve enormous commercial activities. That research was not the sort of research, as I read it, which would be undertaken in the activities envisaged by this Bill and which the processes it is amending would support. So the Australian Democrats have considerable reservations about the support of this sort of research and these sorts of activities directed towards short term material gains. Nonetheless, as I indicated earlier, we are neither opposing the legislation, nor supporting the Opposition's amendment. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(8.52) —I would like to thank both honourable senators for their warm support for this legislation. I am grateful that they understand it and appreciate the purpose to which it is directed, which was described very carefully in the second reading speech, and indeed was touched on by Senator Lewis in his remarks. Senator Lewis made a sort of stock speech. I do not know that he is going to do when we deregulate the labour market in this country. He will not have anything left to talk about. His hit list has got shorter and shorter as he has gone on. Senator Lewis —Go on; get around to doing it. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator will have a real problem and the size of the problem is indicated by the gusto of the interjections from his colleagues. Two points have been raised which have some slight substance and with which I might deal. The first is the question of the report from the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I wrote yesterday to the Chairman of that Committee. I indicate to the Senate that since the Bill was drafted the Administrative Review Council has circulated a discussion paper suggesting that some discretionary decisions of the Industry Research and Development Board should be reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It refers in that paper to some of the discretions which it says should be reviewable. I am advised that the Board has decided to support the suggestion but is reluctant to pre-empt discussions of the more general issues by the Administrative Review Council. There is some additional information which the Scrutiny of Bills Committee saw tonight. Some of that information was provided to the Chairman in a letter, and I will provide him with any further information he requires. The second point relates to Senator Lewis's amendment. The Opposition feels strongly about this issue of the number of members on the Board. When the Opposition moved the amendment in the House of Representatives it did not go on with it; it abandoned it. Senator Lewis —You had a guillotine down. Senator BUTTON —No, the Opposition abandoned it. Senator Lewis —We did not. Senator BUTTON —The Opposition did not vote on it. Senator Lewis —I am in charge of this Bill and we will vote on it. Don't you worry about what happened in another place. Senator BUTTON —Righto. It is no good barracking me. The honourable senator can do so at the football on Saturday if he wants to, but it is no good barracking me. There are a number of reasons why the Government wants this additional membership of the Board. I will explain them now because I do not want to have to deal with them at the committee stage of the Bill. Since the Board was established in 1986 it has been given a number of additional functions by the Government. The Board was established with 10 members other than the Chairman and a departmental representative. It is proposed to increase that number. The Board has since been given a lot of additional functions. Four generic technologies have now been declared and there is a subcommittee dealing with each of those generic technologies-biotechnology, information industries, new materials and communications technology. It has been required to administer the national procurement development program to which Senator Lewis referred in his speech. That is not the only enlarged function which has been given to the Board. It has been given a task in respect of the promotion of research and development, and encouragement of international collaboration in research and development and additional functions in relation to the tax incentive. In order to ensure proper policy development and administration, the Board is of the view that two additional Board members should be added so they might handle all these functions. Each subcommittee has at least two Board members on it. Quite a range of functions have to be dealt with which were not present when the original legislation was passed. I make the point that the Board members are very busy people in industry. Senator Lewis chastised them for inefficiency. A better sharing of the workload is envisaged by the proposed increase of the size of the Board. I do not want to address that issue at the committee stage. That is why the Government has amended that portion of the legislation in that way. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(8.58) —I move: Page 4, clause 11, leave out the clause. This clause was referred to in the second reading debate. I indicated the reasons the Opposition parties believed that it was wrong to keep increasing the size of boards. Increasing the size of boards can be likened to Parkinson's law. If the Industry Research and Development Board was doing its job, it would be much better to employ people and utilise expertise which was not on the Board. Senator Button explained that there are two Board members on each committee. In that case I suggest to Senator Button that there is probably no need for all those people to be on the Board. I am sure that any organisation-private company, public company or statutory authority-is a much better organisation if it has a small, lean, efficient board of management which can meet rapidly and quickly and make decisions. As the size of a board is increased decisions become greyer and flatter. I am a firm believer in small boards of management in any organisation. I say to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) that, if this organisation has grown to the stage where it needs 15 Board members, the Board is far too large and needs to become more efficient. I conclude by saying that I am disappointed in the Democrats once again. As has been indicated throughout the course of the day, one can never tell what the Democrats will do until they actually vote in the chamber. About three hours ago, when we checked out with the Democrats what they were going to do in relation to my amendment, the advice was that they would support it. Senator Button has since given them their riding instructions and now they will not be supporting the amendment. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(9.01) —I must refute Senator Lewis's claim. Senator Lewis has not contacted me. I have not discussed the matter with him. It has been quite clear all the time that we would oppose the amendment for the very good reason that it is an ideological amendment only and does nothing worthwhile. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(9.01) —The Government will not accept the amendment. Senator Lewis has a vision of a small, lean board employing people to perform its functions. He had better have a look at its functions: accountability for Commonwealth money, for taxpayers' money. If we have a whole series of subcommittees which are not peopled, at least to a significant extent, by members of the Board we will not have proper accountability for taxpayers' money. Senator Lewis has gone on with his usual ideological mumbo jumbo about this Board, but it is a working functional board. It is not like a board of directors which meets and gets its riding instructions from a managing director; it is a working board of experts. That is why the extension of the membership of the committee has been proposed by the Government. The amendment is not acceptable. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(9.02) —The Minister says that this Board is highly efficient. The truth of the matter is that this Board is so efficient that the letter from the Chairman addressed to the Minister and presenting the last annual report is dated October 1987 but in fact the report was not tabled in this chamber-and I presume, therefore, was not completed and delivered to the Minister-until early this year. The Minister is required, no doubt, by the Act to table the annual report within 21 days of his receiving it. The report must have been delivered to the Minister in about March of this year but the letter accompanying it is dated October 1987. That is not efficiency; that is shonkyness. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(9.04) —We are debating the Superannuation Benefit (Interim Arrangement) Bill 1988 and the Defence (Superannuation Interim Arrangement) Amendment Bill 1988. The coalition will be supporting the second and third readings of these Bills. However, we have a second reading amendment to the Superannuation Benefit (Interim Arrangement) Bill 1988. I move: At the end of the motion, add: ``, but the Senate deplores the Government's failure to develop consistent superannuation policies without imposing additional taxes, its reliance for over 3 years on `legislation' by press release causing confusion and lack of confidence in superannuation for those planning their retirement, and the anxiety which has been caused by the superannuation changes announced in the May Economic Statement''. As of late, superannuation has been a high profile political topic. Certainly in my State, with the by-election for the Federal seat of Port Adelaide occasioned by the retirement of Mick Young, it was a very high profile issue. The result in that electorate indicates a number of things. As has been indicated a number of times in this chamber, the first thing it is indicative of is the failure of this Government to keep in touch with its grassroots-its home base, if you like. There was no better example of Labor's home base than Port Adelaide. As honourable senators would be aware, there was a very big swing to the coalition parties in that electorate. The second thing that that swing showed was not only the dissatisfaction with the direction of the Labor Party as a whole but also the real concern and anxiety of Australia's working community with this Government's attitude to superannuation. Of course, that is why the Labor seat of Port Adelaide is regarded, at least in terms of the percentage swing now required to win it, as a marginal seat. Superannuation has been a high profile issue in the media, quite apart from the by-election in Port Adelaide. It has taken prominence in the media in the last few days as a consequence of announcements made in the May statement. It is in that context that we are dealing with this Bill tonight. The coalition parties and, presumably, most people in this chamber would like to see all Australians providing for their retirement through superannuation. They need some incentive to do that. There is no doubt that there is some incentive at the moment but perhaps not enough. They need more than that. They need certainty and clarity in government announcements, and clarity requires simplicity. That is where this Government has fallen down. Very few of those people who have seen interviews on the television with the Treasurer (Mr Keating) following the announcements in the May statement, those who have listened to the Treasurer on radio trying to explain the announcements in the May statement, or those who have read Press reports of announcements in the May statement understand with any real clarity or certainty the net effect of the announcements that have been made. Australians very strongly suspect that the Treasurer, Mr Keating, is playing a pea and thimble trick. He is taking from one end, adding on to another and saying, `In the meantime no-one has to pay any more. No-one loses anything'. This has really heightened the anxiety in the community over superannuation. There is no doubt that it is in the interests of the whole Australian community if more people take out superannuation and, in that sense, are more self-sufficient in their retirement. But they will not do that if there is no certainty and they cannot rely on the Government to put into practice that which it preaches. The second reading amendment that I have moved not only highlights the anxiety caused by the announcements in the May economic statement but also emphasises the reliance by this Government on legislation by Press release. It has been a feature of this Government, not only in the superannuation area but also in other important areas, not the least of which is the taxation area, to make announcements by Press release and then months and months later down the track produce the legislation which is meant to reflect the content of the Press release. I served for some time on the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and on the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, both committees of this chamber. In both of those committees the question of legislation by Press release was raised. Of course it has been raised in other places as well. The problem created by that sort of approach is this: If a government engages so much in legislation by Press release there develops a climate where the business community is inclined, probably out of necessity more than as a result of the standard the Government has set, to make decisions on the basis of Press releases. The business community cannot afford to say, `Oh well, this has been announced by the Treasurer but we won't take any notice because there is no legislation'. Not at all. It has to rely on the Press release. We have found on numerous occasions that the legislation does not reflect what the Press release indicated many months before. Superannuation is an area, like tax, where we simply cannot afford this kind of approach by any government and certainly not by this Government, which seems on a day to day basis not to know what it is doing. There are a number of aspects by which one needs to judge a superannuation scheme. In other words, there are a number of essential elements. The first question one needs to ask oneself is whether it provides people with adequate income for retirement. Surely that is what we are looking for in superannuation. Secondly, does it reduce access to social security benefits? The economic climate we have at the moment, with the debt that has been incurred by this Government, and its own spending, notwithstanding its determination to decrease the spending of others, highlight the need for us to reduce access to social security benefits. Thirdly, we need to ask ourselves: Is it a superannuation scheme which benefits the nation, both sociologically and economically? When we consider the superannuation situation in Australia today we have to say, having regard to those three criteria, that the Government has failed and failed badly. Let me give some background to the Bill. In September of 1985, as a part of the accord mark 2, the Government agreed to support the claim of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) for superannuation benefits equivalent to 3 per cent of ordinary time earnings to be granted to all wage and salary earners on the basis of increased national productivity. While supporting the extension of superannuation, we condemned the 3 per cent productivity agreement as just another example of the ACTU dominating Government wages policy. It ignored the capacity of industry to pay. Senator Cook —It was an arbitrated decision, Senator. Senator VANSTONE —There was no requirement for a demonstrable increase in productivity, and it denied employers the right to enter into superannuation agreements with their employees voluntarily. Senator Cook —It was arbitrated by the Commission. It was the umpire's decision. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Senator Cook, I will call you if you wish to speak. Otherwise, let Senator Vanstone have the floor. Senator VANSTONE —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission rejected the ACTU's productivity claim in its June 1986 national wage case decision. However, the Commission decided that it would ratify agreements negotiated by employers and employees for additional superannuation benefits as long as they were consistent with the Commission's guidelines. In March 1987, in the national wage case decision, the Commission reconsidered its position and decided that where the parties were unable to negotiate an agreement the Commission would arbitrate. The Commission would award no more than 1.5 per cent of ordinary time earnings to operate no earlier than 1 January this year, and no more than a further 1.5 per cent to operate no earlier than 1 January 1989, next year. At the time we said that the additional costs of the extension of the 3 per cent increase to the public sector could not be justified as most Commonwealth employees already had access to a superannuation scheme which was generous when compared with most private sector funds. Certainly that view would be endorsed throughout the community were we to have a reliable opinion poll taken on that matter. The interim arrangement contained in this Bill generally covers Commonwealth employees and employees of approved authorities for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1976. There are however some exceptions. They are as follows: firstly, those who have superannuation arrangements other than under the Superannuation Act 1976; secondly, those who have no superannuation cover and who are employed by authorities that provide superannuation arrangements other than under the Commonwealth superannuation scheme; and, last, the Northern Territory and its authorities. Where authorities have superannuation arrangements other than the Commonwealth superannuation scheme and/or employees have special superannuation arrangements, it is expected that a 3 per cent benefit will be provided. The first main feature of the interim arrangements is that it provides benefits for most employees, including temporary, part-time and casual employees who have previously not had that access. I am informed that some 75,000 public servants, not being full-time public servants, have not in the past qualified for superannuation under the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund Investment Trust arrangements. That is one of the reasons that the Opposition does not oppose this Bill. It is absolutely fundamental to our approach to superannuation, and one would hope to that of the Government, that the sooner all people in the work force have at least the opportunity to provide for their retirement the better. That is a very significant feature of this Bill. The second feature is that benefits above $500 generally must be preserved until genuine retirement and are not to be taken before the age of 55. Employees may not contribute to the fund. It is an unfunded arrangement; that is, there is no central invested fund to which contributions are to be paid. The third feature is that employers will be required to calculate and pay benefits as they fall due, including payments in respect of persons who leave employment between 1 January 1988 and the date of passage of the legislation. The interim arrangement is separate from the Commonwealth superannuation scheme administered by the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office. One further aspect of this Bill which is of concern is that we may be seeing the beginning of a trend where Australian employers, irrespective of their capacity to pay and irrespective of whether they already have a suitable superannuation scheme in place, will still be required to fund a further significant increase in superannuation without any contribution from their employees. The approach the Government is taking will ensure once again that Australia's level of productivity will not necessarily increase to the extent that it should and, worst of all, that we will remain uncompetitive in the world markets because of the impact that this will have on overall costs of labour. It needs to be borne in mind that if someone gets a benefit, someone else pays. It is the old saying: there is no such thing as a free lunch. Nor is there any such thing as a free addition to one's superannuation entitlements. In the current economic climate we need to make our industries more competitive, more productive. The only way we can do that is to ensure that they get a reward for payments they make, for costs they incur. That means that when necessarily an increase is paid to employees via superannuation, there must be a consequent increase in productivity-otherwise productivity falls and our international performance falls, and the situation for all Australians, not just in the accounts we publish but on an individual level, falls. In closing my remarks I remind the Senate of the Opposition's proposed amendment to the motion for the second reading-that is, that we support the second reading of this Bill, but we deplore the Government's failure to develop consistent superannuation policies; we deplore its reliance, for well over three years, on legislation by Press release, which has caused confusion and a lack of confidence in superannuation for people planning their retirement; and we further deplore the anxiety which has been caused by the superannuation changes announced in the May economic statement which Treasurer Keating has as yet been unable to satisfactorily explain. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(9.23) —The Australian Democrats will support the second reading of the Superannuation Benefit (Interim Arrangement) Bill 1988. We also support the amendment moved by the Opposition. Senator Chapman —That is a good idea. Senator McLEAN —I am pleased that that has finally been acknowledged. We are getting some positive response from the Opposition benches. This machinery Bill simply grants a decision by an arbitrating commission. We have no objections to that, of course. The Opposition's proposed amendment makes some pertinent observations about the Government's superannuation policies. There are two significant words in the title of the Bill-`interim arrangement'. In a sense those words encapsulate what has been the nature of the Government's superannuation policies for some time now. They have been very much of an interim nature. The proposed amendment cites this inadequacy in Government policy on superannuation. It makes a number of obviously valid criticisms that can be levelled at the Government's superannuation policies. We are told that life was not meant to be easy. There is something about this area of Government policy which suggests that life is meant to be uncertain. I believe that probably the common denominator in the Government's superannuation policy is that it has required Australians to live in uncertainty, to be uncertain as to how to plan for their retirement, because there has been no firm, clear policy in place over an extended period which has allowed them to bed into their basic values of self-reliance and to plan for their future. In fact, I think many Australians have experienced in the last few years a degree of uncertainty which they find uncomfortable. For decades we were able to plan our lives and to look forward to the provision of housing and education for our children and retirement benefits for ourselves. There has been a degree of uncertainty in the last few years which Australians essentially have found uncomfortable. Unfortunately the area of superannuation is one such area. So I think it is not unreasonable to identify with the criticisms inherent in the Opposition's second reading amendment, and the Australian Democrats do so. There is one dimension of this Bill which cites a specific example of penalty, we believe, in relation to superannuation-namely, for those in the defence forces. It is a fact that about two years ago a flow-on of 2 per cent to the defence forces retirement benefits was frozen and that freeze remains in place. Members of the defence forces have suffered a penalty which simply adds to their uncertainty about how to plan for their retirement. The Opposition's amendment is citing a major area of inadequacy in government policy. We identify with it because it urges the Government to move through this period of uncertainty and to clarify what the circumstances are in this nation so that Australians can plan constructively, without penalty and without disincentive for their future. Not only has this uncertainty affected investors in superannuation funds but, unfortunately, it has also affected those who operate superannuation funds. We are joining with the Opposition in supporting its amendment to the second reading. We are joining with the Opposition in calling upon the Government to move us into a period of stable, clear policy in relation to superannuation. In summary, not wishing to take up the time of the Senate, the Australian Democrats support the second and third readings of this Bill and in doing so also support the Opposition's amendment to the second reading. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(9.28) —The Superannuation Benefit (Interim Arrangement) Bill we are debating this evening provides the opportunity for a large number of people who have previously been excluded from the benefits of entering superannuation for their later retirement to take up those benefits. It is very appropriate that we are debating such legislation at this time, just a week after the May economic statement has destroyed superannuation opportunities for Australians by imposing a new and additional tax on the earnings of superannuation funds which will significantly reduce the retirement benefits of superannuants. It is for that reason that the Opposition spokesman, Senator Vanstone, has moved an amendment which will apply to the motion for the second reading of this legislation. Senator McGauran —Mick Young took his superannuation. Senator CHAPMAN —Of course, he was a Minister in a Government that was planning to impose a superannuation tax. He was smart. He took the money and ran. He knew when to get out. Senator Vanstone —He took $3,000 a week; $1,000 a day. Senator CHAPMAN —Is that his superannuation or is that his Qantas fee? Senator Vanstone —That is his Qantas buy off. Senator CHAPMAN —That is right; so he has superannuation and a Qantas fee as well. He knew when to get out, that is for sure. As I was saying, the amendment moved by my colleague Senator Vanstone states: At end of motion, add: ``, but the Senate deplores the Government's failure to develop consistent superannuation policies without imposing additional taxes, its reliance for over 3 years on `legislation' by press release causing confusion and lack of confidence in superannuation for those planning their retirement, and the anxiety which has been caused by the superannuation changes announced in the May Economic Statement''. In passing, it is relevant to that amendment to recall the legislation that was passed through this chamber a few weeks ago. It was a prime example of legislation by Press release. That legislation in relation to superannuation and the treatment of annuities for tax purposes came into this chamber more than a year after a Press release had announced that annuities would be treated in a certain way for tax purposes. It was legislation which, as I said at the time, a significant body of opinion regarded as having a quite different effect from the effect that was outlined in the Press release. But the most significant aspect of this amendment is the anxiety that has been caused by the superannuation changes announced in the May economic statement. The Government's inherent dishonesty with regard to that statement is very much in evidence with regard to its treatment of superannuation. The Treasurer (Mr Keating), in the May statement, claimed that these measures `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'. That is simply not true. Certainly, the tax of 15 per cent on the employer contributions to superannuation funds merely offsets the reduction by 15 per cent of the tax on lump sums. However, the 15 per cent tax on the income of superannuation funds is a new and additional tax. In theory, this can be offset by using imputed tax credits from fully franked dividends received from those Australian companies providing such dividends. In practice, this is simply not possible. This is to be expected of a scheme which was thought up by some Treasury boffin who awoke in the middle of the night and which was cobbled together in a week in time to be presented as part of the May statement. It was clear from his answer to the question which I asked in this place a couple of days ago that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) is not very well informed about the implications of this 15 per cent tax on superannuation funds because, in his answer to that question, he slid all over the place without directing attention to the specifics which I had asked him. He clearly demonstrated that he does not understand the long term implications of this tax. According to the Government document that was published with the May economic statement that specifically dealt with the new taxation treatment of superannuation, superannuation funds currently have about 15 per cent of their total investment in equities offering franked dividends. To have sufficient tax credits to offset the 15 per cent tax they would have to raise to about 60 per cent the level of equities in fully franked dividends. That is the case because dividends in companies give a much lower yield than do other sources of income such as interest, rent or whatever. A number of funds would be precluded from such a high percentage of investments being in such equities. These include capital stable approved deposit funds, capital guaranteed funds and annuity funds. For the rest it would be most imprudent to have such a high percentage of their total investment in equities. So, in the first instance, prudential management of contributors' funds will prevent the tax being fully offset. Money currently invested in superannuation funds in Australia totals about $50,000m. About $10,000m of that is in equities, with about $7,000m being in franked dividend equities. Given that they need to raise that percentage of equities in their total investment to about 60 per cent, the superannuation funds must, therefore, lift their total investment to nearly $30,000m, an increase of nearly $23,000m. Again, given that not all Australian equities provide fully franked dividends, in reality that requires an increase of some $25,000m to $30,000m in overall equity investment by the funds. It must be remembered that this increase in investment has to be achieved in a total commercial and industrial equities market of about $110,000m. Of course, it is the commercial and industrial sector of the equities market that provides regular dividends. However, not even all of those are fully franked dividends. Furthermore, that $110,000m consists of many equities which would definitely not be prudent superannuation investment, leaving aside the imprudence of a 60 per cent investment in equities anyway. There are simply not enough shares available to allow funds to acquire an additional $25,000m to $35,000m in equities; nor would appropriate shares be capable of being issued to meet that demand. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance had better return to their basic economic texts. They are guilty of the fallacy of composition-something which a first year economics student learns about. Because it might be possible for one or two of the funds to meet the equity requirement they have assumed that all the funds can do so. But they cannot. As I have said, there are insufficient equities to go around. In trying to reach the required percentage of equities the funds will cause an unsustainable, at least on earnings, increase in share prices. But this in turn, of course, will reduce the yield on dividends, thereby reducing tax credits and pushing them further away from the goal of having sufficient tax credits to offset the tax. It is about time the Government came clean on this issue of the taxation of earnings of superannuation funds at 15 per cent. Opposition senators-Hear, hear! Senator CHAPMAN —I welcome the support of my colleagues for that comment. There is no doubt that this superannuation tax is yet another rapacious revenue raiser on the part of this Government which will substantially reduce the accumulation of benefits, thereby destroying the retirement plans of millions of Australians. The Treasurer has staked his credibility on his claim that nobody will lose one cent of his superannuation payout under the new rules. Andrew Peacock told the Treasurer on television last Wednesday week, on the night of the May economic statement, that he was wrong. We can see from the analysis that I have presented tonight who in fact was right. It was the shadow Treasurer, Mr Peacock, who was right, and the Treasurer who was wrong. This Government must come clean. It must admit that this is an additional revenue raiser and that it will not be possible for superannuation funds to establish a tax neutral position with regard to the new tax and, therefore, it will be the retirees who will be the losers. Of course, the Government will earn additional revenue at their expense. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(9.38) —I guess that on the last night of the last sitting of the Senate in the provisional Parliament House it is too late in the day to divert from what has been a hallowed tradition in this chamber. The hallowed tradition to which I refer is to address a Bill in terms of the speech one would have given on a major political issue. Although it is not directly relevant to the Bill one nonetheless gets one's views into the Hansard. Tonight we have had a number of speeches on the Superannuation Benefit (Interim Arrangement) Bill which were not directed to what the Bill is about. Nonetheless there has been an opportunity for three speakers from the Opposition benches to put on the Hansard record speeches which they wanted to make anyway and no doubt draw the attention of their constituents to them. That is an old tradition. It is not surprising that on the last night of the last session of the Senate in the provisional Parliament House it should be adhered to. I think that we would do ourselves a disservice if we did not recognise that the speeches delivered have not been relevant to the subject of the Bill before the chamber. We are debating the Superannuation Benefit (Interim Arrangement) Bill and the Defence Superannuation (Interim Arrangement) Bill 1988. These two Bills do specific and machinery things. Perhaps it is necessary to reply to the debate once again by citing what the Bills are about. The two Bills in fact implement decisions by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Those decisions relate to judgments handed down by the Commission in 1987 which gave superannuation increases of 1.5 per cent from 1 January 1988 and 1.5 per cent from 1 January 1989 to Commonwealth employees and to defence personnel, and the Government has chosen now to implement those decisions in the form of these Bills. The significant thing is that many Commonwealth employees have superannuation, and the benefits that apply in these Bills will go to them as add-ons to their existing scheme. The other major aspect of these Bills, and the one which it seems to me was missed entirely in the debate, is that there are a number of Commonwealth employees who do not unfortunately have superannuation cover but who by the passage of these Bills will get it and will thus be able to provide for themselves upon retirement. Many of the speakers have eulogised the need to have superannuation cover and to provide for retirement. Indeed, it is one of the proud achievements of the Hawke Government that, through the prices and incomes accord and in pursuit of superannuation with the trade union movement, we have witnessed the extension of superannuation coverage to many millions of Australians who did not have it before. That stands tall as a major social welfare reform of this Government. What we are doing in these Bills is making sure that Commonwealth employees who do not have cover now obtain it; and that is for them a significant achievement. In terms of all that was put, I think that is the only comment that is necessary from me. The arguments put by the last speaker, Senator Chapman, are arguments which he has advanced through questions in other places and which the Government rejects. The other arguments are noted and-- Senator Tambling —Let us hear your arguments to reject it. Senator COOK —I will answer those in the appropriate forum. This is not it. We are dealing with these Bills tonight, Senator. It would have been useful if the honourable senator had actually addressed them. On the basis of those remarks, I have nothing further to say. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Vanstone's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 10 —— Archer, B. R. Macklin, M. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Chaney, F. M. Patterson, K. C. L.Chapman, H. G. P. Powell, J. F.Coulter, J. Puplick, C. J. G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E.Durack, P. D. Sanders, N. K.Haines, J. Sheil, G.Hamer, D. J. Short, J. R.Harradine, B. Stone, J. O.Hill, R. M. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Jenkins, J. A. Teague, B. C.Knowles, S. C. Vanstone, A. E.McGauran, J. J. Walters, M. S.MacGibbon, D. J. Watson, J. O. W.McLean, P. A. Aulich, T. G. Devlin, A. R.Beahan, M. E. Evans, GarethBlack, J. R. Foreman, D. J.Bolkus, N. Gietzelt, A. T.Burns, B. R. Giles, P. J.Button, J. N. Maguire, G. R.Childs, B. K. Morris, J. J.Coates, J. Ray, RobertCollins, R. L. Reynolds, M.Colston, M. A. (Teller) Richardson, G. F.Cook, P. F. S. Sibraa, K. W.Cooney, B. C. Walsh, P. A.Crowley, R. A. Zakharov, A. O.Devereux, J. R. Jones, G. N. Boswell, R. L. D.Schacht, C. C. Brownhill, D. G. C.Tate, M. C. Alston, R. K. R.McMullan, R. F. Lewis, A. W. R.McKiernan, J. P. Calvert, P. H. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.53) —The hour is late. We have only 30 minutes to debate this Bill, and if my colleagues will allow the shorthand writers to hear what I am saying we may get on with it faster. The Audit Amendment Bill 1988 has been brought forward by the Government with a view to making a number of what might be called machinery amendments, to which the Opposition of course has no objection. But there are two aspects of the Bill which have excited the interest of the Opposition. The first of them relates to the arrangements whereby each month the Commonwealth publishes an account of its financial transactions for the month just completed, the so-called Commonwealth financial transactions statement, or what was called the Niemeyer Statement when I was a boy, a long while ago. In October last year the Government sought to amend the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1987 to give the Minister for Finance authority to approve variations in the form of the Commonwealth financial transactions statement, subject to tabling details and explanations in the Parliament. The Opposition, with the support on that occasion of our sometimes friends, the Australian Democrats, rejected that proposed amendment in the Senate on the ground that it would diminish existing parliamentary control over the form of reporting the monthly financial performance of the Government. In, I think, clause 6 of the Audit Amendment Bill the Government has proposed a different change to enable a similar outcome. The change proposed will enable the form of the Minister's monthly statement to be varied by way of regulation. Of course, such a variation would be subject to tabling in this place and consideration by the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and may be disallowed in this place or, for that matter, in the House of Representatives, although the House is not normally the place where such things happen. I say in passing, without dwelling on the point, that, contrary to the assertion made by the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) in the second reading speech, an amendment along the lines proposed would not accord with the suggestions which he alleges were made by the Opposition in the debate on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill last year. It is true that my colleague Senator Lewis, who had the carriage of that Bill, canvassed the possibility of the Minister proceeding alternatively by way of regulation, but he did not indicate that the Opposition would support such a proposal. On the contrary, I think a close reading of his words indicates that he said that we would still oppose the amendment. That is the case. The question is whether amendment of the monthly financial transactions statement format by regulation would diminish parliamentary control of the process. Quite clearly it would. It is true that it would diminish it less than the original proposal last October, which would have given the Minister sole power, without reference to the Parliament, to make such changes in the format. Nevertheless, it would diminish it because, as is well known to all honourable senators, any regulation, once made, is valid until disallowance. For example, a regulation made tonight would lie on the table of this Senate until some time in August, when we resume, and not be subject to disallowance for up to 15 sitting days after we resume. So we would be well into September and, meanwhile, the statement would be in a different form. On this basis I foreshadow that we shall be opposing that clause of the Audit Amendment Bill 1988 when we come to it. The other area of the Bill to which I want to direct some brief remarks, speaking as we all are tonight under the shadow of the guillotine-- Senator Aulich —The phantasmagoric shadow. Senator STONE —As Senator Aulich has interjected, that phantasmagoric shadow-- Senator Puplick —Madame Defarge. Senator STONE —Monsieur Defarge, yes. Currently, the Auditor-General has a discretion not to report certain minor or immaterial breaches of the Audit Act 1901-a very old Act. Some breaches of it are committed from time to time which the Auditor presently has a discretion not to report. Clause 15 of the Bill proposes to provide the Auditor with a more general discretion covering all departments and all statutory authorities in that respect. I think it is material to the consideration of this area of the Bill by the Senate that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts considered this proposal by the Minister and indicated its opposition to it. Indeed, I take this opportunity to quote from a letter addressed to the Secretary to the Department of Finance, Dr Michael Keating, by the Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, Mr Tickner, MHR, in the course of which Mr Tickner said: . . . the Committee wishes to outline its concern regarding the proposed amendment to Section 63md- That is, section 63md of the Audit Act. He went on to say: The Committee feels that the Auditor-General should be obligated to report all such breaches- that is, breaches of the Act- to the Parliament. The Committee is of the view that it cannot support amendments that further erode the requirement on the Auditor-General to report to the Parliament. In acknowledgment of the fact that what is being proposed here is said to relate only to minor breaches, the Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts went on to say: In cases where the breaches are relatively minor these need not be detailed reports. The Chairman concluded: I reiterate that the Committee does not support this amendment as it stands. That letter was written prior to the consideration in Cabinet of the proposal by the Minister. Cabinet in its wisdom, or lack thereof, decided nevertheless to proceed with this proposal and the Minister has duly brought it forward to the Senate. I again foreshadow that, when we come to the committee stage, the Opposition will move not to accept clause 15 in its current form. In our opinion, the Auditor should continue to report to Parliament all legislative breaches and where such breaches are considered trivial or minor we would agree with the suggestion by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts that they could be reported in an abbreviated or even tabular form. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.59) —The elements of the Audit Amendment Bill that I want to concentrate on are exactly the ones that Senator Stone has just given the Senate an outline of. Certainly in the debate in October last year on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill we shared the concern of the coalition, though I am not sure whether it was a coalition then. I think it was. Senator McGauran —We always have been, in our hearts Senator HAINES —Whether or not the Opposition parties were a coalition in their hearts, last year they shared our concern about the Government's Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and voted against the Government's amendments to section 49 (2) of the Audit Act. The Government's amendment essentially would have given the Minister for Finance the authority to approve variations of the format of the monthly statement, replacing the current requirement for the prior approval of both Houses of the Parliament. The Minister for Finance's monthly statements are progressive reports of performances against the annual budget, and it is important that this Parliament have a regular review process in place for it to use it as it sees fit. Interestingly, Senator Lewis, speaking in the Senate for the Opposition parties, expressed his concern about this. In doing so he made the suggestion that rather than leaving Parliament powerless to do anything about such changes, which of course was what the Government was planning through its amendment to section 49 (2) of the Audit Act, it could make the changes by regulation. Clause 6 of the Bill before us has taken up that suggestion made by Senator Lewis and, as he said in his speech in October last year, this means there will be some power for the Parliament to disallow the format proposed if it is considered unsatisfactory. Senator Stone —But go on and quote the rest of what he said, please. Senator HAINES —Senator Lewis then asked Senator Tate what would happen in the event of the regulation being disallowed and whether it would leave the Government in some sort of hiatus. As I read the response from Senator Tate, he said that in fact the schedule would remain unaltered. Is that the part Senator Stone wanted me to read? I thought he just wanted the bit immediately after. He said the Parliament would still have the power to disallow. Senator Cook —The Government would like you to get your act together so that we know what your opposition is. Senator HAINES —I thought I answered the interjection in the way Senator Stone wanted but obviously I did not. I do not think we should conduct this conversation any longer. Senator Aulich —What did that sentence mean? Senator HAINES —I have no idea. Look at it again tomorrow after Hansard has fixed it up. In any event, I think the Opposition's concerns are unjustified. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills drew the attention of the Senate in its recent report to the delegation of legislative power, as it frequently does, but it also pointed out: The amendment proposed by clause 6 of the Bill provides that the format of the Statement would, in future, be specified by regulation which would be subject to tabling and disallowance in the normal manner. It is a foolhardy government indeed which tries to back the Senate into a corner, so to speak, by putting down a regulation the day after the Senate rises from the autumn session knowing that it cannot be disallowed until the Budget session, because if it does do that, and if and when the Senate exercises its legitimate right to disallow, the Government is in the position of having, as in this case, to produce the statements anyway. So I think the fact that we do have the regulatory element applying rather than what the Government originally wanted, which was no control over it at all, is satisfactory. However, what the Government is proposing with regard to clauses 9 and 15 is most unsatisfactory and while we will not be supporting the first amendment that the Opposition is putting forward, we will certainly be supporting amendments Nos 2 and 3. They are linked; in essence, they are consequential. Currently, the Auditor-General has a discretionary power, amongst other things, not to include in his reports on some statutory authorities details of what the Government would like to believe are trivial breaches of the legislation. Clause 15 extends that discretion to other bodies and authorities which require the Auditor-General to report to a Minister. Quite properly, the Opposition is seeking to omit the relevant parts of clause 9 and section 63r in clause 15 which affect the extension of the discretionary authority to the Auditor-General. The question we have to ask ourselves is: Who makes the decision about what is and what is not trivial and how do we find out what has been decided is or is not trivial? That leaves not only a considerable burden on the Auditor-General but also a question mark hanging over this place with regard to the performance of its function as a review mechanism. The Minister for Finance, in his second reading speech, spoke a lot about positions of trust. Nobody in this place is casting any aspersions on the Auditor-General but the fact is that we in this place are responsible to the people and we ought to be able to have as much information as possible with regard to the decisions taken by people such as the Auditor-General. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills drew attention to clause 15 and appropriately described it as an inappropriate delegation of power. The Committee believed that the difficulty with such a discretion was that, of its nature, it would clearly not be possible for persons outside the Auditor-General's office to determine the circumstances in which the discretion had been exercised, if and when it were exercised. We would be in the position here of having no knowledge about what had happened, who had made the decisions, what the decisions were, and why they were made. Indeed, I suspect that we would not even know what departments were effected, what areas were effected, nor what were the criteria for making the sorts of decisions that had been made. The Committee reported to the Senate that it considered-and it thought the Senate could well do the same-that there was a breach of principle 1 (a) (iv) of the Committee's principles and that these clauses together constituted an inappropriate delegation of legislative power. Knowing that Senator Baume is about to follow me and that we have a very short amount of time I repeat-- Senator Puplick —And being anxious to hear him. Senator HAINES —I am always anxious to hear Senator Baume. We can see no real difficulty with the Government's move to the regulatory mode, so to speak, in clause 6 but we have grave misgivings about its plans for giving discretion with regard to so-called trivial matters and whether they are reported that are set out in clauses 9 and 15. We oppose the Opposition's first amendment and support the other two. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.09) —I plead with the Australian Democrats to apply the same rational argument to clause 6 as they have applied to the rest of this legislation. The Democrats have very simply been conned on clause 6. Senator Haines has quite wrongly taken the view that somehow Senator Lewis had recommended this course of action of making changes in this legislation so that the vital monthly statement of financial transactions of the Minister for Finance could be changed by regulation. In fact, he said no such thing. He said that if we have to impose this kind of thing it is `far less worse' to do it by regulation, which can be disallowed, than to do it by ministerial fiat, which is disgraceful. I reject the first part of what Senator Haines had to say. The second part, the extent to which the Democrats have been conned, is evident from a very simple point the Minister made in responding to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. He was justifying the reason that the Government must have the opportunity to change the format of the Niemeyer statement in minor ways. The Minister said: Advance notice of proposed changes to the format (as required by the existing arrangements) could reveal Budgetary details- It is a pity that Senator Haines is not listening to this because it demolishes her case. Senator Haines —Don't be so pompous. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The honourable senator should not be so rude, speaking in front of me, between the Acting Deputy President and me. I was trying to address the Chair through her thick hair, should I say, rather than head. The Minister said in response to the Committee: Advance notice of proposed changes to the format (as required by the existing arrangements) could reveal Budgetary details before the presentation of the Budget. Surely, even the Australian Democrats can recognise that if that is a crucial element of the Government's desire, the Government could in June bring in a regulation which the Parliament would not have the capacity to reject before August, as Senator Stone said. The implications of that are that the vital Niemeyer statements, particularly the one of June, would and could be altered in such a way as perhaps to hide a particular point, to make the statements not as useful to the Opposition or to other observers as they have been in the past. To allow that kind of gap in the crucial area of the end of year balances strikes me as absurd, and certainly puts at risk the power of the Parliament to look over and supervise these statements at the most important time of the year. Senator Haines says that `no government would be silly enough to change the system frivolously'. If a government sought to mislead the Parliament in the run-up to the Budget and, say, not give a hint of budgetary details, of course it could get away with doing that sort of thing. Once again we have the clear problem of what a minor way is. Will the Government define the phrase `in minor ways' when it is talking about changing the form of the statement? The question about the phrase `in minor ways' is exactly the question that Senator Haines addressed so sensibly on the other issues. She said that without a definition of `minor' it is improper to allow that kind of control. As we have only a few minutes to deal with these many Bills, I would like now to draw the attention of the Senate to the guidelines for annual reporting by government authorities which were determined by the Minister for Finance and which are referred to in proposed new section 50aa. The interesting thing about these guidelines-and they cover many pages-is that not one of them refers to the need for annual reports to be prepared with cost in mind. It seems to me extraordinary, having seen this year some annual reports by governmental authorities that cost up to $20 each to produce, that there is no suggestion in the guidelines that anyone preparing an annual report should, in fact, pay some attention to the cost of preparation. In particular, I draw the attention of the Senate to the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority, which is 40 pages of the most extraordinarily high quality gloss printing that I have come across and costs something like $15 each to produce, which I believe is utterly disgraceful. As I said, I wish the Australian Democrats would apply the same sort of logic to clause 6, which the coalition will be opposing. I believe the Australian Democrats are giving away some very significant powers of this Parliament to a government which would have the opportunity and certainly, I believe, in many instances, the intent to get around the requirements of being honest and reasonable with this Parliament. I encourage the Australian Democrats to reconsider what I believe to be a very foolish and damaging decision not to support the Opposition in this matter. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.16) —Let me attempt, no doubt equally fruitlessly, to persuade the Australian Democrats to change their minds on their attitude to clause 15 in particular, because it does seem to the Government to be quite misconceived to take out the provision that is in there at the moment about the Auditor-General not being required to pursue-- Senator Reid —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I thought Senator Watson was on the list to speak next. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. The list is merely a guidance. The call goes to alternate sides of the House. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sorry; I am not familiar with any list, but I am familiar with some bad quality arguments when I hear them and they need to be replied to in the 3 1/2 minutes that are left, and I propose to do so in the following terms. The Parliament has given the Auditor-General some discretion about pursuing or reporting matters that he considers to be immaterial or trivial. Existing provisions allow this discretion for most reports. The clause in question makes the Audit Act uniform in the reporting requirements it imposes on the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General is the Parliament's watchdog and the Opposition in its amendment is attempting to force him, against his better judgment, to bark at every little thing. A watchdog that barks at everything is simply an annoyance to all and eventually loses value to its owner. We have to rely on the Auditor-General's judgment and his application of professional standards in this area-that is what we are paying him to do-otherwise we might as well employ an automaton or robot that does not need to exercise any judgment at all. There may be other mechanisms for Parliament to assure itself that the Auditor-General is pursuing his tasks in an appropriate manner. The upcoming inquiry by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts into the Auditor-General's Office might explore such procedures and do so in a rather more sensible way. I will finish on this sentence to give Senator Watson a chance to make whatever contribution he had in mind. To place such trivial requirements in the law brings the law very simply into disrepute and exposes the Auditor-General to undeserved ridicule when he is made out to be concerned about trivial, nitpicking matters. I would have thought that Senator Watson, as a former businessman, would appreciate the significance of that and act accordingly when confronted with a silly proposition for an amendment of the kind that this is. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.18) —I would like to remind the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) that, if he had a modern, up-to-date Audit Act-I remind the Minister that this is a 1901 Act-the amendments currently before the Senate would not have been necessary. Why is the Government hiding behind such archaic provisions? Why is it doing no more than patching up by bandaid treatment things that should normally be within the opinion of an Auditor-General acting in accordance with modern audit practice? Why does it not follow the precedent set by its Western Australian Labor Party colleagues and get a modern, comprehensive Act in and then we would not have this patch up treatment? I regret there is no opportunity to speak at length on this Bill. It is deplorable that we do not have a full and frank debate on an important matter to do with an Act that needs current and future substantive amendments. I certainly look forward to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts coming down with a report on its current inquiry into the operations of the Australian Audit Office, because the Auditor-General is constrained by the present legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Amendments (by Senator Stone)-by leave-agreed to: Page 4, subclause 9 (1), proposed paragraph 51 (1) (c), leave out ``, being cases that are, in the opinion of the Auditor-General, of sufficient importance to justify particulars of the cases being set out in the report''. Page 6, clause 15, proposed section 63r, lines 27 to 39, leave out the proposed section, insert the following section: Auditor-General shall report on all cases of non-compliance `` `63r. (1) The Auditor-General shall report on all cases in which, in the opinion of the Auditor-General, the receipt, expenditure or investment of money, or the acquisition or disposal of assets, by a statutory body was not in accordance with the enactment by or under which the body was established. `(2) In this section: ``statutory body'' means a body or authority established by or under an enactment.' ''. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.22) —This is an historic occasion. This is the last Bill which will be debated in this historic, august chamber. To that extent I believe, Mr Deputy President, that you will grant me on this splendid occasion the indulgence to say a few words about things unrelated to the Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill by way of introduction. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Your remarks, Senator Puplick, will have to be not too distant. After this debate we will have that sort of discussion. Senator PUPLICK —I do not propose to transgress too far. It is interesting that on the first day ordinary business was conducted in this chamber, that is, 5 October 1927, one of the matters on the Notice Paper for that day, first dealt with by Senator Andrew, was the question of performing rights, which relates very directly to matters of the film industry. The next matter which was dealt with-I see Senator Aulich, Senator Watson and a number of other Tasmanian colleagues in the chamber-was the question of the duty on potatoes. The third matter, the first substantive Bill which was debated in this chamber, was a Commonwealth Electoral Bill. Related to that, the Senate was considering a report from a parliamentary committee in relation to enrolment, postal voting, polling facilities, donations or gifts by members or candidates, and additional safeguards necessary to prevent impersonation and duplicate voting, including the result of the extended reference of the committee to report on informal voting, absent voting, joint rolls and the administration of the compulsory sections of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. So I suppose that in the history of this chamber very little has changed. I wish in this introductory comment, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy President, and, through you, to express formally on behalf of the Opposition our thanks to Mr President Sibraa for the gift made to all senators this evening of an Australian flag. All senators this evening were presented with an Australian flag which had flown for one day over the Parliament House here in Canberra. That is an extraordinarily fitting gift to have been presented by Mr President to senators just prior to our move to the new Parliament House. The flag which was presented to me flew over this Parliament House on 8 September 1983. A cultivated man like yourself, Mr Deputy President, would be aware of these things-- Senator Richardson —Oh! Senator PUPLICK —And a cultivated, artistic gentleman such as Senator Richardson would be equally aware that that date was the 147th anniversary of the birth of the composer Dvorak, composer, appropriately enough, of a New World symphony, and the 39th anniversary of the death of the composer Richard Strauss. It is also the anniversary of the coronation of William IV. My South Australian colleagues undoubtedly would wish that to be noted in relation to Her Majesty Queen Adelaide. It is the anniversary of the date upon which Mr Smuts became Prime Minister of South Africa, the last occasion on which that country had a decent Prime Minister leading it. I note that on that particular day the newspapers were full of headlines about jobs lost in the car industry, about Mr Hayden's softer line on the guilt of the Soviet Union for shooting down the Korean flight KA007, and demonstrations taking place in the Public Service over promotion matters. Again, I do not think that much has changed, and that gives us a very good introduction to the Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I was about to ask Senator Puplick to drift slowly around towards discussing the Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill. Senator PUPLICK —Mr Deputy President, the Australian Film Commission tends to make one wander on these things. I will come directly, therefore, to the Australian film industry. Australia has a very distinguished history in terms of its film making. The first film made in Australia which survives is a film of the 1896 Melbourne Cup. That is a very historic film-one of the earliest films to be preserved anywhere in the world. The first feature film made in Australia was made by the Salvation Army, by Captain Perry. It was entitled Soldiers of the Cross and was made in 1906. The first commercial feature film, The Kelly Gang, was made in 1907. It is a sad reflection on the decline of the Australian Film industry that one reads in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald that a group in the United States of America entitled the Sundance Institute, the pet project of actor-turned-filmmaker Robert Redford, has decided that its next feature film will in fact be a film based on the life of Senator Sanders. The extent to which the Australian film industry has descended from the giddy heights of Soldiers of the Cross and The Kelly Gang to a film about the life of Senator Sanders, I suppose, could be reflected by saying that it has gone, in the space of 80-odd years, from a film about one rogue to a film about another. Senator Sanders —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I do not need to hear the point of order, Senator Sanders. I ask Senator Puplick to withdraw that remark. Senator PUPLICK —Absolutely, Mr Deputy President. I entirely withdraw the reference to the Kelly gang. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Puplick, you will withdraw that in good order. Senator PUPLICK —Mr Deputy President, I withdraw. The purpose of the Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill is to remove Film Australia from the control of the Australian Film Commission and to establish it as a wholly Commonwealth-owned company to be known as Film Australia Pty Ltd, required to operate along commercial lines. It is interesting to note, within a few days of the May 1988 economic statement, that this decision, this comment about the change of the status of Film Australia to Film Australia Pty Ltd, was in fact announced in the May 1987 statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). It has taken a year and four days for the Government to convert an announcement from the last May statement into a piece of legislation in this Parliament. Film Australia is an important part of the film making culture in this country. The Commonwealth's first direct involvement in film production occurred in 1911 under the aegis of the Department of External Affairs, as it then was. In 1913 Bert Ive was appointed to coordinate Commonwealth film activities. In 1921 film was placed under the responsibility of the Cinematic and Photographic Branch of the Development and Migration Commission. Thereafter, film activities were controlled first by the National Film Council in the Department of Information from 1940 to 1945, the National Film Board from 1945 to 1950, the Film Production Unit from 1950 to 1956, and then the Commonwealth Film Unit from 1956 to 1972. In the 1972 Film Australia was established within the Department of the Media, which, of course, was presided over by Senator McClelland as Minister. As you would know, Mr Deputy President, Senator McClelland went on to become a very distinguished President of this Senate. In 1975, with the passage of the Australian Film Commission Act, which we are now proposing to amend, Film Australia was placed under the Australian Film Commission as the production division responsible for the special activities of the Commission. In January 1987 a major review of Film Australia was presented to the Government, prepared by the consultants McMurchy and Neilsen. This review canvassed four options ranging from the complete closure of Film Australia through to the establishment of Film Australia as a more economically efficient operation focusing on the production of both departmental films and films of special national significance. The Government in this legislation has adopted the fourth of those options with some modifications. Indeed, Robin Hughes, the General Manager of Film Australia, described this proposal, in the Australian newspaper of 25 May 1987, as `option four with knobs on'. Whilst supporting the general thrust of this Bill, the Opposition nevertheless has a number of matters which it wishes to raise, and in particular it wishes to move an amendment to the second reading motion, and I formally move: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate: (a) condemns the Labor Government for allowing the run-down of the Australian film industry and for the confused and inadequate responses to the problems of the film industry announced in the May Economic Statement; and (b) calls upon the Government to table forthwith the Guidelines to be issued to Film Australia Pty Ltd relating to its proposed commercial operations''. The Liberal Party and the National Party have a very long and distinguished record of support for the Australian film industry. It was Prime Minister Gorton who took the initial steps which led to the establishment of the Australian Film and Television School. It was Prime Minister McMahon who brought that to further development, and it was under the guidance of Prime Minister Fraser that the amendments to the Taxation Act that introduced division 10ba were made. Division 10ba provided financial assistance for the development of the film industry in Australia. Over the life of division 10ba an estimated total of $876.6m of Commonwealth revenue has been forgone in support of the Australian film industry. That is well in excess of three-quarters of a billion dollars which has been invested indirectly in terms of revenue forgone in the Australian film industry since the introduction of division 10ba, and that is a record of which members of the Liberal and National parties are extremely proud. It is a great tragedy that in recent years there has been a monumental decline in the activities of the Australian film industry. There are now only four projects in production compared to 64 at this time last year. The level of film funding has dropped from $140m to $40m in the last year as a result of Government policies and inactivity. There have been no major starts on new productions this year. The Government is about to impose an additional disastrous 20 per cent sales tax on the production of videos and sound recordings, and the promises continually made by the Ministers with responsibility for the arts to develop a comprehensive package of support for the film industry have simply not been acted upon in good time. This Government was told some time ago that the film industry was in crisis. It was told in January 1987 that there was a major problem in the Australian film industry, and it refused to act at that time. For instance, the Canberra Times carried an article on 31 January 1987 under the heading `Film industry faces a bleak future', yet it was not until almost 12 months later that the Minister for the Arts and Territories, Mr Punch, admitted that he was suddenly aware of the crisis looming in the Australian film industry. His response has been the introduction, in the May mini-Budget, of the Film Finance Corporation. If we phone the Government's own hotline dealing with the Film Finance Corporation, no-one can tell us the details of the scheme. The questions which I have asked of Senator Richardson in this place have not been adequately answered in terms of the specific details of the matching funds of 30 per cent or so which are supposed to be required from the private sector over the whole range of the operation of the Film Finance Corporation. Indeed, the film industry has been left in a considerable state of confusion. For instance, if someone is making a film in Australia at the moment, he may have to contend or shortly will have to contend with questions arising from Film Australia Pty Ltd, from the Australian Film Commission, from the Film Finance Corporation, from the Australian Children's Television Foundation, from the Department of the Arts and Territories, from the Australian Taxation Office and from the Australian Film Industry Trust Fund. All of those bodies are currently relevant to people who are making films of various kinds in Australia. It is an absolute disgrace that, instead of people being able to deal easily with these Government creations, this confusion and cacophony of bodies is being placed before film makers in Australia. The May statement failed to address a number of significant issues in the film industry. It failed to address the question of exorbitant fees being charged by producers and executive producers. It failed to deal with the matter, for instance, of film distribution and exhibition. The Tariff Board in its 1973 report Motion Picture Films and Television Programs proposed a scheme for the divestiture of ownership of control of cinemas and distribution outlets. That has not been addressed in all of the continuing changes which this Government has made to the film industry. The Government has failed to publish the guidelines which are to be issued for Film Australia. That is the basis of the second part of the amendment which I have moved on behalf of the Opposition. We presume that the Government will now be happy to see the closure of the small unit which Film Australia has in Canberra to produce low budget films, because I understand that under this legislation programs costing less than $10,000 are supposed to be subcontracted out to the private sector and not produced by Film Australia. However, despite my requests, and despite requests by the industry in general, it has not been possible for the industry, or for me as shadow Minister, to be provided with a copy of the guidelines which will regulate the operation of Film Australia Pty Ltd in terms of its relationship with the Government and the private sector. As I understand it, the Australian Democrats are to move a number of amendments to this legislation. I will simply indicate a general position on those because I am anxious to give Senator Jenkins time to formally introduce the amendments and to make a few comments on the Bill. As I understand it, there are two areas in which the Democrats will be seeking to make amendments. The first relates to the transfer of staff and the second to the provision of annual reports. Under this legislation staff may be rendered as surplus to the requirements of Film Australia Pty Ltd. That organisation has already made substantial reductions in its staff numbers. In recent years it has declined from a quite high level of staff employment to a much leaner and more efficient organisation and is now proposing to reduce its staff members from approximately 105 to about 82 or 83. Redundant staff will be transferred to the Australian Film Commission, which may in fact find them surplus to its requirements. As a result, there will be created a pool of cinematographers and others, such as in-house directors, who are no longer required by Film Australia Pty Ltd and they will be employed on a general freelance basis, which is one of the characteristics of the industry throughout Australia. The Democrats amendment proposes that those people should have the right to retain their employment with Film Australia Pty Ltd and that the redundancy, if it takes place, should take place from there. We do not believe that that is an adequate provision because, first, the Government's proposal protects the redundancy provision of those people-indeed, the Australian Film Commission, through which they will become redundant, has a greater capacity to make those redundancy payments, because money has already been provided to it, than Film Australia Pty Ltd, which would not be in a position to so pay-and, secondly, we believe that Film Australia Pty Ltd should be required to operate as a leaner and more efficient organisation. To that extent, therefore, we are not in a position to support the Democrats' preliminary amendment. We will, however, support their second amendment, which requires an annual report to be made by Film Australia Pty Ltd to the Minister and through the Minister to the Parliament. This matter was reported on by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in its ninth report dated 1 June 1988. Having received the Minister's assurance about how he would proceed, the Committee said: As the Committee noted in its Second Report of 1988, legislation which provide for the establishment of new Commonwealth bodies, including incorporated companies, should also provide for the tabling of that body's annual report in the Parliament. Consistent with that principle, we will support the second amendment. Film Australia has an exciting program ahead of it. It has been doing some extremely good work. The work that it has done, for instance, in the production of the film Roads to Xanadu, in co-production with Sunshine Australia Ltd, the work it has done with the drug offensive on educational films and the comments made by John Baxter in his article of 31 March 1987 entitled `Can the Good Times Roll Again for Film Australia?' are indicative of the very considerable work which Film Australia is involved in at the moment and which we believe should continue. I raise one final point as far as this legislation is concerned. I wish to indicate it clearly to the Minister because it is a matter of some substance. We have been advised that Mr Gonski is to be appointed as the Chairman of Film Australia Pty Ltd. Mr Gonski, I understand, is the Managing Director of Westfield Capital Corporation Ltd. Westfield has extensive interests in the television industry. I believe that there is very considerable potential for a conflict of interest between Mr Gonski's role as Managing Director of a major television producer, namely, Westfield Capital Corporation, which is the licensee of the 10 Network, and his role as the Chairman of Film Australia, which will be a direct competitor in a number of areas with Channel 10 and the rest of the private sector. I express very considerable reservations about the appointment to the chairmanship of this organisation of somebody who might have that conflict of interest. I raise also the other issue that was of very considerable concern to me. I read in this week's edition of the Bulletin that the Government is contemplating-I direct the attention of the Minister for the Arts, Sport the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) to this matter as well-the appointment as a successor to Mr Kim Williams, the Chief Executive of the Australian Film Commission, of Mr Bob Debus, the former New South Wales Minister for Finance who was roundly defeated at the last State election in New South Wales. If that occurs, the bipartisan support which has been given to the Australian Film Commission and to the Australian film industry in general will be put substantially at risk. I say in conclusion that I am pleased to see you, Mr President, in the chair for the conclusion of this debate, because I want to reiterate the comment which I made at the beginning of this address. I thank you personally for the donation of the Australian flags to members of this chamber. You have our very considerable support for that initiative and I thank you for that. I am pleased to yield some time to Senator Jenkins to allow her to move her amendments formally and to make some remarks on this Bill which, after we have moved the second reading amendment and supported one of the two Democrats' amendments, will have the support of the Opposition. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(10.44) —I agree that the Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill 1988 is the most appropriate Bill to be chosen as the last piece of legislation to be passed in the Senate in this provisional Parliament House and that it is appropriate for this debate to be filmed for the Australian Archives. The Government's intention of privatising Film Australia Pty Ltd to some degree has been known by the industry for some time. Not everyone is happy with the notion of privatisation, but I believe that in general the Government's plans in this case have been quite well accepted. I have had meetings and conversations with representatives of such diverse bodies as the Screen Production Association, the Australian Screen Directors Association, Independent Consultants and Filmmakers, the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, the Australian Writers Guild, Actors Equity, the Australian Theatrical and Musical Employees Association, and delegates and employees of Film Australia. In general, the Government's plans seem to have the approval of the industry, but there is one area in which the legislation, or the planning behind the legislation, is greatly deficient. The primary asset of any creative organisation, whether it be a broadcasting corporation or a film studio, is its people. It is an irony that it is a Labor government that is intent on losing this most important asset of Film Australia. In mid-1987, Film Australia reduced its staff to a minimum through a series of retrenchments. The present legislation proposes to reduce the staff still further by the device of giving the Minister the discretion as to who of the present staff may be transferred to the new company. The Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) said in his second reading speech: the Government expects the new organisation to be more attuned to the realities of the marketplace. This would mean the voluntary retrenchment of some 30 employees. According to the staff profile put forward by the new company, virtually all the production staff will be eliminated, apart from those involved in management, post-production and servicing facilities. This is justified as being normal industry practice but, in itself, is a doubtful proposition if one looks at the staffing policies of such major organisations as the Grundy organisation, Crawford Productions Pty Ltd, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or the major television studios. There is, of course, a place in the Australian film industry for the non-commercial film. Unfortunately, I have to draw to a conclusion at this stage. I hope that, through a contingency motion, I will be able to move my amendments at the conclusion of the debate on this Bill. We support the Opposition's attachments to the second reading of the Bill. In general, this legislation is supported by the Australian Democrats, even though there is no provision for an annual report and we feel that it is grossly unfair that staff do not have the choice between redundancy and an opportunity to join the new Film Australia Pty Ltd. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(10.48) —Mr President-- Senator Colston —Put your hat on. Senator RICHARDSON —I shall not put my hat on. I cannot do it when I am standing up. In so far as Senator Puplick's amendment is concerned, the Government probably will not support condemning itself. I would have to suggest-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Haven't you made your mind up yet? Senator RICHARDSON —There is a spirit of joie de vivre tonight, but it does not go quite that far. In the last five years we have taken support for the film industry to new heights. Never has it had such a golden age. While it cannot be said that the golden age is obviously because of Government support-it is because of the talent of so many Australians-the reality is that the Government has at least created a climate in which that talent can flourish. Senator Puplick has suggested that we should have rested on our laurels in regard to section 10ba of the Income Tax Assessment Act, but it must be remembered that, in the end, section 10ba encouraged rorts in the system. The whole industry acknowledged that those rorts existed, so it is not something that can be regarded as a government plot. At the end of the day we had film producers, both of major feature films and documentaries, taking advantage of the system and basically ripping off the taxpayer, and it did nothing for the industry, for the Government or for Australia. There are a lot of things I would like to say but in two minutes I will not get much of a chance. I must, however, raise one matter. Senator Puplick disappointed me tonight because he mounted a vicious attack on my esteemed colleague Senator Sanders. I will be the first at the turnstiles to see the new movie about Senator Sanders. Senator Walters —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. The Minister has complained that there is lots he would like to say but has not the time to say it. Let the people understand it was he who placed the gag on this Bill. It is nothing to do with the Opposition. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator RICHARDSON —Whether the movie stars Robert Redford or Phyllis Diller, I promise I will be there to see it. I turn to the two Australian Democrats amendments. Senator Jenkins referred to the reporting requirements, and the Government will accept that amendment. However, we cannot accept the amendments that involve the staff. There have been long consultations with trade unions in the industry over a long period. We do not see those amendments as being necessary and cannot support them. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Puplick's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Archer, B. R. McLean, P. A.Baume, Michael Macklin, M. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bishop, B. K. Newman, J. M.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Panizza, J. H.Calvert, P. H. Parer, W. R.Chaney, F. M. Patterson, K. C. L.Chapman, H. G. P. Powell, J. F.Coulter, J. R. Puplick, C. J. G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Sanders, N. K.Haines, J. Sheil, G.Hamer, D. J. Short, J. R.Hill, R. M. Stone, J. O.Jenkins, J. A. Tambling, G. E. J.Knowles, S. C. Teague, B. C.Lewis, A. W. R. Vanstone, A. E.McGauran, J. J. Walters, M. S.MacGibbon, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. G. Evans, GarethBeahan, M. E. Foreman, D. J.Black, J. R. Gietzelt, A. T.Bolkus, N. Giles, P. J.Burns, B. R. Harradine, B.Button, J. N. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Childs, B. K. McMullan, R. F.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M.Cooney, B. C. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Sibraa, K. W.Devereux, J. R. Walsh, P. A.Devlin, A. R. Zakharov, A. O. Brownhill, D. G. C. Jones, G. N.Alston, R. K. R. Schacht, C. C.Boswell, R. L. D. Tate, M. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(10.58) —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 question 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. Senator JENKINS —I seek leave to move my two amendments separately. Leave granted. Senator JENKINS — I move: (1) Pages 3 and 4, clause 13, proposed section 40b, leave out the proposed section, insert the following section: Transfer of staff `` `40b. (1) This section applies to a person who: (a) was, immediately before the commencing day, an employee of the Commission; and (b) has made, before that day, an application in writing to the Minister stating that the person wishes to become an employee of Film Australia from that day; if, during the period of 12 months ending on that day or, if the person had been an employee of the Commission for less than 12 months on that day, during the person's employment with the Commission, the person had been engaged wholly or principally in performing, or taking part in the performance of, any of the special functions of the Commission. `(2) Each person to whom this section applies becomes, on the commencing day, an employee of Film Australia and shall commence to be employed by Film Australia on the same terms and conditions as were applicable to the person as an employee of the Commission. `(3) Film Australia may not alter the terms and conditions of employment of a person to whom this section applies with respect to superannuation.''. Queston put: That the amendment (Senator Jenkins's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Coulter, J. R. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Haines, J. Powell, J. F.Jenkins, J. A. Sanders, N. K.McLean, P. A. Archer, B. R. Hill, R. M.Aulich, T. G. Knowles, S. C.Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Peter McGauran, J. J.Beahan, M. E. MacGibbon, D. J.Bishop, B. K. McKiernan, J. P.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McMullan, R. F.Black, J. R. Maguire, G. R.Bolkus, N. Messner, A. J.Burns, B. R. Morris, J. J.Calvert, P. H. Newman, J. M.Chapman, H. G. P. Panizza, J. H.Childs, B. K. Parer, W. R.Coates, J. Patterson, K. C. L.Collins, R. L. Puplick, C. J. G.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Cooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Sheil, G.Devereux, J. R. Short, J. R.Devlin, A. R. Sibraa, K. W.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Evans, Gareth Tambling, G. E. J.Foreman, D. J. Teague, B. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Vanstone, A. E.Giles, P. J. Walters, M. S.Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W.Harradine, B. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment (by Senator Jenkins) agreed to: (2) Page 4, clause 13, after proposed section 40c, insert the following new section: Annual report to the Parliament `` `40d. (1) Film Australia shall, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, submit to the Minister for presentation to the Parliament a report relating to the operations of Film Australia during that financial year. `(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of such a report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report. `(3) This section does not affect the obligations of Film Australia to make reports in accordance with the law in force in the Australian Capital Territory relating to companies.'.''. The PRESIDENT —The question is that the remaining stages of the Bill included in the allotment of time be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Senator GILES(Western Australia) —I present the eleventh report of the Committee of Privileges on the circulation of petitions, together with submissions received by the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GILES —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. It is perhaps fitting that one of the last reports to be presented in this Senate chamber is one which deals with parliamentary privilege. On 16 March 1988, the following questions were referred to the Committee of Privileges, by way of amendment to a motion moved by Senator Chaney: Whether the circulation of a petition containing defamatory material for the purpose of gaining signatures and subsequent submission to the Senate, is, or ought to be privileged, and how such issues should be determined and in what forum. The majority of the Committee, after receiving written submissions from 10 persons and organisations, and advice from the Clerk of the Senate, has concluded as follows: firstly, that, while the question whether the circulation of a petition for the purpose of gaining signatures and subsequent submission to the Senate is privileged is a question of law for the courts to determine, the Committee believes that the circulation is not absolutely privileged and is probably not subject to any form of qualified privilege; secondly, that, if the Parliament were to determine that the circulation of a petition should be privileged, absolutely or otherwise, a change to the law would therefore be required; thirdly, that, in the light of the dangers inherent in denying a citizen the right to pursue action in the courts to redress an attack on his or her character or reputation, the circulation of a petition containing defamatory matter should not be protected by parliamentary privilege; and, fourthly, that the circulation of other petitions requires no special protection and therefore that no change to the present law is warranted. In a dissenting report, Senator Durack has concluded that statutory provision should be made, by amendment to the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, to give some protection, at the national level, to a limited and largely private publication of a document in the form of a petition which is subsequently presented to the Senate. Senator Durack also expressed the view, shared by another member of the Committee, that the person whose circumstances gave rise to the reference of the matter to the Committee should have been afforded the opportunity to indicate the practical problems experienced in the circulation of a petition. I am particularly grateful to the other members of the Committee whose accumulated experience in matters of privilege was invaluable in reaching a conclusion in which only minor differences developed. I want to express the thanks of the Committee to Anne Lynch, newly appointed Deputy Clerk of the Senate, for which we offer our congratulations, and to Christine McDonald, who together guided us to a speedy conclusion to this reference. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.11) —I am sorry that on the occasion of the last report Senator Giles has tabled in the Senate from the Committee of Privileges I have to disagree with the findings that were made by that Committee. But it was a very important reference and I think it is one that needs to be debated seriously by the Senate at a more appropriate time than this evening. As honourable senators will remember, the reference was the subject of a good deal of rugged debate in the Senate and was considerably changed from what was proposed by Senator Chaney. From being as proposed, an investigation of conduct by the former Premier of Western Australia, Mr Brian Burke, which may have amounted to a contempt of the Senate, it was changed to an academic inquiry by the Privileges Committee as to whether a petition containing defamatory matter should have any particular legal immunity. Senator Collins, who was responsible for this amendment, envisaged clearly that the Senate would take evidence from the person whose complaints led to this matter. Senator Macklin, speaking on behalf of the Australian Democrats, said, `I believe it would be very odd to go into a general inquiry without looking at that specific item', meaning the facts of the specific case. My very deep concern about the proceedings and conclusions of the Committee was that it decided to maintain this as a totally academic exercise and decided not to hear any evidence about the difficulties people have in circulating petitions and obtaining signatures for them. The person who felt aggrieved and concerned about the way in which he was treated in this matter by Mr Burke, the former Premier of Western Australia, made a submission to the Committee which did not raise the question of Mr Burke's conduct, but did seek to raise before the Committee the problems that he found in circulating a petition and, clearly, that is a matter of very great general interest. Senator Teague agreed with me on this matter. We believed that these questions should have been the subject of evidence called by the Committee. There are other more technical matters raised by this report, but I simply draw the attention of the Senate on this occasion to the most unsatisfactory way in which the Committee, in my view, approached this very important question. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.14) —Like other senators, I have not had the opportunity to see this report. I merely have to rely on what the Chairman has reported and on the speech which Senator Durack has just made. I simply want to express my disappointment that the Committee of Privileges has apparently chosen to treat this matter as an academic exercise. Tonight is a great night for a party. We are leaving the Senate and we will have a wonderful time celebrating the fact that we are going to move to a new building. What this report indicates is that a Senate committee was not prepared to hear a citizen of the Commonwealth who was prevented from petitioning the Commonwealth by what I described in the Parliament as bullying conduct. Senator Bolkus —You are a fraud. Senator CHANEY —Now I get from the Minister that I am a fraud. I am deeply disappointed that that individual was not given a chance to present his case. As I said when I raised this matter in the Senate, there were serious questions of a conflict between two principles. The first principle is that any citizen, including a Premier or ex-Premier, is entitled not to be defamed. I accept that as an important principle of law. It is also a principle that citizens of this Commonwealth are entitled to petition this Parliament. On the facts as they were put to me and as I put them to this Parliament, the reality was that a citizen wished to petition this Parliament and did so in terms which he did not regard as defamatory and where his advice was that it was not defamatory when he was subsequently challenged. The facts of this situation as they were presented to me-and I stress that I can speak only in the terms that they were presented to me-were that this individual withdrew his petition not because he believed it to be defamatory, but because he could not afford-- Senator Cook —They are not free to defame. Senator CHANEY —Senator Cook's knowledge of his portfolio is so limited, as illustrated in Question Time, that it is not for him to suggest that he has any knowledge of the law-Senator Cook, a traditional trade union oppressor of the people. I take no notice of Senator Cook. To get back to a subject of substance-- Senator McKiernan —I take a point of order, Mr President. Senator CHANEY —Is the clown taking a point of order, Mr President? I did not think clowns had status in here. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator McKiernan —There are ways and means of fixing wimps like you, Fred. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator McKiernan —Mr President, there is a matter before the chamber. Honourable senators and support staff are very tired. The chamber would appreciate it if the Leader of the Opposition could quit his sanctimonious rattle and get on with the debate on the matter before us. Honourable senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. There are too many interjections. I also ask Senator Chaney to ignore the interjections. Senator CHANEY —I will try to do that, Mr President. There is not point of order, I agree. I note that Senator McKiernan is protecting his own. I understand the rules of the game. The point that I put before the Senate was that a citizen of the Commonwealth claimed that, because here was an inequality of his capacity to fight a case, he had been prevented from petitioning this place. That is a matter which I squarely tried to put before the Senate and which the deft Senator Collins managed to turn into what Senator Durack has described as an academic exercise. I congratulate Senator Collins for his footwork, if not for his morality in the matter. Senator Collins —Mr President, I will not wear that in the dying moments. It is highly disorderly for senators to make personal reflections on other senators. I ask Senator Chaney to withdraw. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chaney, will you withdraw? Senator CHANEY —Mr President, if you are suggesting that it is disorderly to say that I am not reflecting on his morality, I withdraw it. The PRESIDENT —I am saying that you were making an imputation against Senator Collins and I am asking you to withdraw it. Senator CHANEY —I withdraw it if I have made an imputation that is disorderly. I express my disappointment that the Committee, apparently, chose not to hear this person and his complaint because, in treating the matter as an academic exercise, which is what Senator Durack has described, it seems to me that it simply avoided the issue. That is a pity. It is a very sorry end to the Senate sittings in this chamber. An important point of principle was raised. It was a difficult point because it involved a conflict between the principle of protection from defamation as against the principle that a citizen should be-- Senator Cook —It was a slander that was raised. You know that. You can go on your sanctimonious high horse for as long as you wish. That doesn't alter the fact. Senator CHANEY —Senator Cook again gives us a legal judgment which he clearly does not have the capacity to make. The simple point is that no attempt has now been made by the Senate to deal with this matter on its merits, on the facts which I raised in this place. I wished on this occasion to express my disappointment. I trust that the Senate will consider this report carefully and look at the circumstances, which I believe have sullied this place, and I seek leave to continue my remarks. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(11.20) —The issue before the Senate in regard to this report of the Committee of Privileges is whether the privilege of this chamber and the privilege that attaches to members of parliament speaking in this chamber and the House of Representatives should attach or does attach to petitions submitted to them. I concur with the majority report, which stated that the privilege which we enjoy in this chamber does not, and should not, attach to petitions that are submitted to us. There must be a proper forum in the courts of each State that attaches to defamation to judge whether a petition is in order or should be pursued in presentation to this chamber. Whilst a petition is to be highly regarded, and regarded as a genuine document when it is presented to us in this chamber, it should not ever be used as an excuse for defamation that is based on any untruthful or unsound statement. In this matter I have to say that whilst I agree with the conclusions of the Senate report, I also very much agree with the remarks of my colleagues Senator Durack and Senator Chaney that it was most unfortunate that in the conduct of the inquiry into this matter, the Committee did not agree with the requests of those of us who put the view that the particularity of this issue should be further explored by asking the original petitioner, from whom this matter arose, to appear before us. He gave a submission to the Committee but the Committee chose not to hear that petitioner. Therefore, I wish to say that I concur entirely with the three-quarters of the dissenting report of Senator Durack, the preamble in which he outlines that point. Yet, because of my strong conviction, undeterred by that lapse in the Committee's procedure, that privilege should be in this chamber and not attach to petitions, I nevertheless concur with the majority view of the Committee. Debate (on motion by Senator McKiernan) adjourned. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —by leave-I give notice that, 10 sitting days after today, I shall move: That Defence Determinations Nos. 14 and 15 of 1988, made on 29 March 1988 under section 58b of the Defence Acts 1903, be disallowed. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short explanation of the concerns of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances about these determinations. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Defence Determinations Nos. 14 and 15 Determination No. 14 appears to confer on a Defence Force Approving Authority a discretion whether or not to authorise certain payments to the dependants or the estate of a former member of the Defence Force. The Committee is examining with the Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon. Ralph Willis, M.P., whether or not such a discretion was intended and, if it was, what criteria ought to be followed and what avenues of appeal are available. The Committee is also examining whether Defence Determination No. 15 contains an element of retrospectivity which could have prejudicial consequences for individuals. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I table a paper concerning the history of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —I am sorry to inflict something as pedestrian as a Regulations and Ordinances Committee report this late in the day but, in my defence, I did in fact intend to deliver it at 10 o'clock this morning. For the benefit of honourable senators, I intend to seek leave to incorporate most of what I want to say in Hansard. However, this is an historic occasion-the last presentation of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee report in this place. It is only the 350th historic occasion in which I have been involved this week: the last cup of tea in Senate Committee Room 6, the last cup of cappuccino in the parliamentary dining room-it goes on and on. Peter O'Keeffe, in his usual impeccable fashion, has given me a complete tapestry to present to the Senate tonight, but I must say that, particularly because of what I have just heard, I intend to add a few useless and unnecessary threads of my own to it. Last night we attended a very pleasant dinner in the parliamentary dining room, at which I heard a number of very witty and very memorable speeches. One in particular that I recall was that of John Button, and indeed another was from my friend up the back there, Senator Sheil from Queensland. They all had one common thread, and that is that they were recollections of senators who had been in this House for a very long time. I have been in this House only a very short time and therefore my memories of it are necessarily much shorter. Senator Michael Baume —This is a weighty contribution. Senator COLLINS —Indeed, I have made a weighty contribution. I assure the honourable senator that I have enough fat jokes of my own. Of necessity, the memories I have of this place are of a much shorter period, but I must say that probably two of the more indelible memories I will take from here are instances which occurred in the last 48 hours. The first was yesterday when I went up to the parliamentary dining room, as I am wont to do, with my friend and colleague Senator Robert Ray. We all have our political heroes. Some people I look up to particularly are Russ Hinze, Robert Ray, David Lange and, to a lesser extent, Kim Beazley. We were walking past the parliamentary billiard room, where Senator Ray spends the odd hour, and as we walked past I happened to glance in the door. Even I, who do not play billiards, got a bit of a shock because on the floor in 50 pieces was the billiard table and standing over the pieces were two workmen who had just disassembled it. They did in fact look like a pair of vivisectionists attacking a body. I thought, `My God, Robert can't see this'. Somehow I was able to obstruct his view and we proceeded on to the parliamentary dining room. We had, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) would say, `a cuppa cappuccino'-in fact we had two. But it availed me nothing-this is a true story; well, mostly true-because as we came out of the parliamentary dining room and opened the door, Robert Ray froze on the spot. Passing in parade in front of us were two workmen, each one of whom had a dismembered leg of Robert Ray's friend under his arm, and Robert Ray broke down and wept unashamedly. I have another indelible memory, and I am sure I will not be the only one who takes it from this chamber. I must admit I was provoked by an earlier exchange to tell this story; I did not intend to. There are some sharp exchanges in Parliament from time to time, and it always comes to the attention of the public when politicians get stuck into each other. I have been involved in it myself over the years, standing in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and being called a cretin and a mindless idiot by Everingham, being thrown out on points of order, standing in front of a television camera and saying, `Yes, indeed, it is dreadful to have parliamentary standards lowered by such dreadful behaviour', and then walking away and thinking to myself, `If they reckon that is crook, wait until I drop the bucket on him this afternoon'. We saw an example of it tonight. I quote another example from just 48 hours ago to show that there is in fact another story behind the curtain of Parliament which the public is never permitted to see. Tonight I intend to draw aside that curtain just a little, something I would not normally do. This is an exchange that took place here in the Parliament just 48 hours ago between Senator Walters and Senator Bolkus. Senator Walters said to Nick Bolkus, `You are a fraud', to which he replied, `In the interests of my relationship with Senator Walters, I am glad I did not hear her interjection . . . ' and so on. Of course, people hearing that exchange in the chamber would go away thinking what a dreadful place Parliament is. However, had the public been permitted to see what we saw last night in the parliamentary dining room, when Nick Bolkus kissed Shirley Walters, their faith in the institution of Parliament would have been fully restored. The PRESIDENT —Senator Collins, children may be listening to this! Senator Chaney —Mr President, is it appropriate to ask the honourable senator to withdraw? Senator COLLINS —Mr President, I am a politician and I cannot tell a lie. I must say that I have made-- Senator Walters —Are you going to take a point of order, Nick, or will I? Senator COLLINS —I have made only one, much talked about, visit to the new Parliament House. I concur completely with the excellent and very witty paper prepared by our Clerk, Harry Evans, on the new Parliament House in which he said that it is the institution of parliament that is important; not the building. He does not dislike the new Parliament House. He just objects having to bow to it every morning on his way to work. I think that that is correct. There are some beautiful works of art in the new Parliament House. The only room that I looked at was the main meeting place in which there is a beautiful tapestry and a long embroidery along one wall. As I stood in front of that embroidery, which was put together with painstaking labour by the Embroiderers Institute of Australia, whose members worked in small groups around Australia-this thing of beauty and a joy forever-being the crass politician I am, I looked at it and thought `Well, if those ladies reckon this is a good piece of embroidery, wait till the speeches start in the new chamber'. It is indeed the institution that is important, not the building. Without being too maudlin about it-I am not a maudlin person-I want to say something which I truly believe: we are all aware that this institution has its defects and deficiencies. It has its share of childish behaviour at times. However, I am indeed proud and grateful for the institution of parliamentary democracy which has provided the greatest bastion for individual freedom and liberty in the world. I am proud and grateful to be a small part of it. Honourable senators-Ha, ha! Senator COLLINS —Honourable senators are quick tonight. I seek leave to have the rest of my speech incorporated in Hansard. The PRESIDENT —I wondered how the honourable senator's comments were relevant to the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. I am sure the Senator Collins will not wish to speak on the valedictory. Senator COLLINS —No, Mr President. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- As honourable senators will appreciate this is a day of some significance for the Senate. It is also a day of-I am tempted to say-even greater significance for the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, a Committee which, as Senator Ray knows, is renowned for its humility. For the past 56 years, the Committee has played out in this provisional Parliament House the drama, and I say again the drama, of scrutinising delegated legislation to ensure that it does not trespass on personal rights. Those around me, who scoff at the word `drama', might wonder what it feels like to have 10 or 20 of your own Government's regulations subject to your own protective notices of disallowance, sitting on the Notice Paper, ticking away to the fifteenth day, while you wait for an official to give a Minister a letter, and a pen to sign it, saying: yes, we will provide appeal rights; yes, we will remove strict liability offences, yes we will table subdelegated instruments; yes, we will protect rights, which in our haste we overlooked. It's personal, inner, drama from about the 10th sitting day onwards I can assure the Senate. In 56 years the Committee has encountered many remarkable instruments of delegated legislation which it has challenged because they removed individual rights and liberties. I can but mention a few. As Chairman of the Committee in the 1950s and 60s, Senator Ian Wood, so frequently and so strongly criticised the conferral of unreviewable administrative discretions on public servants that his Committee helped to create the parliamentary climate from which developed the new administrative law that eventually appeared on the statute book in the 1970s. Senator Cooney and his Committee, in 1986, restored the right to trial by jury for all defendants in the A.C.T. and not just those accused of the most serious offences. The right had been removed some 30 years previously and never restored. Senator Cooney was also instrumental in bringing about an official re-thinking of the range of protections that should exist in extradition regulations particularly those concerning extradition to South Africa. Senator Lewis and his Committee will always be remembered for the tact and skill with which they managed to persuade the High Court to amend their own legislative Rules of Court because they infringed the Committee's principles relating to prejudicial retrospectivity. Senator Missen and his Committee brought about the first amendment of the Committee's principles for nearly 50 years by recognising that the existence of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had created a new criterion for scrutiny of discretionary decisions. Senator Coates and his Committee brought about the amendment of National Crime Authority Regulations so that a Superior Court judge in chambers should have power to initiate certain unusual procedures rather than the actual members of the Authority in hot pursuit of certain witnesses. Nor should it be forgotten that it was Senator Wood, who in 1976, brought to light a Telecommunications Commission by-law which made it an offence to tell a lie in a telephone conversation. In the pantheon of important Chairmen of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, Senator Wood ranks very highly for this and other achievements, but it fell to Senator Devitt as Chairman in 1974 to bring to Parliament's attention the novel but extremely serious offence of ``being in possession of seaweed in Jervis Bay'', for which the penalty was no less than a $2,000 fine. Mr President, on this day of all days, in my capacity as the twentieth Chairman of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, I wish to pay a special tribute to all of my nineteen predecessors and all of the 100 or more Senators who have served on this Committee, in this House. They showed the courage and independence which the present Committee must imitate. They set the precedents which the present Committee must follow. Of course, in following them, we ourselves set precedents for future Committees. And the grand design, the hidden agenda is nothing other than to ensure that bureaucratic law-making always remains observant of personal rights and subject to parliamentary control. This has been a Committee which has had in its ranks some of the most able Senators this Senate has produced. It is perhaps invidious to name names but a few must be named as outstanding in their roles on this Committee. I speak of course of Senator Wood and Senator Devitt, Senator Cavanagh and Senator Missen, and the person to whom history a allots a fair measure of the credit for having started the whole process in the late 1920s and early 1930s, Senator Colbatch. Mr President, having mentioned those names there are some other names I would like to mention because, for the Committee's future in the new Parliament House, these are the names which are as important to us as are those of the people who set standards in the past. These are the names of people who have served on the Committee and are still Senators, indeed some of them are Ministers: Senator Button, Senator Evans, Senator Tate, Senator Coates, Senator Durack, Senator Colston, Senator Teague, Senator Foreman, Senator Hamer, Senator Lewis, Senator Walters, Senator Archer, Senator Cook, Senator Cooney, Senator Gietzelt, Senator Richardson, Senator Vanstone, Senator Zakharov and perhaps some others whose names I have missed. It's like a mini Call of the Senate all over again. There will be in the new House a reservoir of knowledge, experience, and tolerance of what the Committee is about, attributes which will exist in the Ministry and on both sides of the Chamber. It is the support and encouragement of the members of this Chamber which makes it possible for the Committee to act with authority and determination in protecting personal liberties and in safeguarding the parliamentary right to scrutinise delegated legislation. Mr President, for the occasion of the last sitting of the Senate in this place I have had prepared on my behalf a paper which tries to capture the essence of many of the 83 reports of the Committee tabled in this House since 1932. My intention is to convey to honourable Senators and others some flavour of the historical development of the Committee and the evolution of its bipartisan mind on questions of personal rights and liberties. I urge Ministers and their advisers who are puzzled by the persistence of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee to obtain amendments to their delegated legislation, to read this paper and understand the power of the historical traditions of personal liberty and parliamentary propriety to which this Committee owes its existence. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(11.30) —by leave-I move: That the Senate congratulates Kay Cottee on the near completion of her attempt to non-stop solo circumnavigate the globe, and wishes her every success in the final days of her journey. It is fitting that this is the last motion to be considered in this chamber because it acknowledges the achievement of Kay Cottee. She is only days away from achieving her ambition-that is, to be the first woman to solo circumnavigate the world. Her ambition reflects the capacity and determination to be found among Australian women. Her achievement, which I have no doubt will be realised, will be a symbol to all of what women can achieve, especially Australian women. It will also be an international symbol of sporting achievement. It is appropriate, perhaps, to acknowledge the role of private enterprise in this achievement through the sponsorship of a company called Blackmores Laboratories Ltd. In conclusion, I ask my colleagues to support the motion and, in doing so, to recognise a great Australian achievement. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator Harradine-Mr President, I raise a point of order. I have not heard papers called. Is it proposed that papers be called today? I raise the point of order on the basis that there is a paper on the list of Government papers entitled `Recombinant DNA Monitoring Committee' which I seek to address. In accordance with the `Red' that we have before us there is a provision for papers. The PRESIDENT —Government papers were not called because they were overridden by the guillotine. You would have to seek the leave of the Senate to make any statement now. That is provided under Standing Orders. There is to be no discussion of papers. Senator Harradine-Mr President, I seek your advice as to whether those papers will go onto the Notice Paper. The PRESIDENT —Yes, they will. The PRESIDENT —Order! I am sure I speak for all senators and parliamentary staff when I say that I am experiencing mixed feelings on this historic occasion. On the one hand I am sure that we are all looking forward to the increased facilities and space in the new Parliament House, while on the other it is always with a sense of regret that one leaves familiar surroundings behind. I do not intend to dwell on the past tonight but I am certain everybody who has worked in this building in whatever capacity over the past 61 years will have memories of his or her time here: of the great characters who have served in this chamber; of the memorable political events which have occurred here since 1927; of the celebrations and wakes which have been held in various parts of the building; and of the people who have served the Parliament in so many ways over the years. The Senate farewell dinner to the provisional Parliament House last night demonstrated the strong sense of camaraderie and the bonds which have been forged across political lines in this building. Whatever the failings of the provisional building, it has allowed an intimacy to develop among all people who have worked here. One never knows who one will run into in the rabbit warren corridors and offices of the building. This has resulted in many a political problem having been solved in the most unlikely of places. I hope that this sense of community will become a feature of the new building and that the feelings of comradeship built up here will be transferred by all of us to the new building. As President, I am aware that there will be many problems associated with the first sittings in the new building. I seek the patience and understanding of all senators and staff in our first months up on the hill. I am, however, looking forward to the Parliament gathering for the inaugural meetings in the new building on 22 August, particularly as so many distinguished parliamentarians from all over the world will be present. This occasion cannot be allowed to pass without my thanking all parliamentary staff for their efforts in the often trying circumstances which have been inflicted on them in the past and especially over the past three weeks. I thank all senators most sincerely for their forbearance and support, and I wish senators and the parliamentary staff a smooth transition to the new Parliament House over the winter recess. In conclusion on behalf of all honourable senators, past and present, I want to pay a special tribute to this building, a building which, despite its shortcomings, has served the Parliament of Australia well in the years since 1927. I am sure it will not be forgotten by any of the thousands of people who have worked here over the years, many of whom will say, `Thanks for the memories'. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Now is the hour-an expression which I hope will not provoke Senator Walsh to sing. Mr President, as is customary at the end of the parliamentary session, I pay tribute to the way you have carried out your difficult task with fairness and distinction, and I join you in thanking the Senate staff, Hansard, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and all the others who have contributed to the operation of the Parliament. This is the end of another parliamentary session but it is somewhat different. It is the last meeting of the Senate in this building, the home of the Commonwealth Parliament for 61 years. Federal Parliament has had three buildings; the first, the Victorian Parliament building for 26 years; this one, the provisional Parliament House; and now the new Parliament House. I venture to predict, perhaps irreverently, that the first home will be judged to have been the most elegant by future generations. Senator Chaney —A conservative at heart. Senator BUTTON —Yes, I am. Senator Peter Baume —He is fighting for Camp Hill again. Senator BUTTON —Yes, I still am. It is a bold task to try to capture the essential character of this building and its place in Australian history because it is a topic which engenders a multitude of passions. I suppose all parliaments around the world have something of the same character about them. Honourable senators who were at the dinner last night would realise that I have been reading a novel by an English parliamentarian and recently I have been re-reading it-- Senator Richardson —Not again. Senator BUTTON —Yes, but I propose to quote a different passage this time. In that novel, Wilfred Fienburgh, in talking about the House of Commons and a member, said this: He had found his only happiness and fulfilment inside the House, where there was always something to occupy him, even though the constant activity was sometimes more fabricated than genuine. Inside the House he had found the comfort of a routine and the loose comradeship of the group. The structure of each day was set by habit-coffee in the tea-room, open letters, meeting of a standing committee, lunch, coffee in the tea-room and a relaxed gossip until Question Time at 2.30, listen to the opening speeches of the day's debate, 4.30 and time for tea, five o'clock and a meeting of the Finance and Economics Committee, or the Foreign Affairs Committee, or an hour's work in the library on the notes of a speech, the day punctuated by divisions, spells spent listening to the debate when the member worth hearing held the floor, dinner at eight, more reading, more talking, more coffee, more gossip, more listening, division at ten, pack up papers and `Who goes home?' That could have been said about this place. I think it very much captures the life of many members in the House-the sort of political groupies which many of us are. The House of Commons and certainly the House of Lords have always been different, largely because of the structure of British society. Ernest Bevin, in his great autobiography In Place of Fear, described his arrival in the House of Commons. Looking at the ancestors of the politicians who were there in his day he made the point, `These are not my ancestors. My ancestors worked in the mines for these men'. Politics in Britain will always be influenced by class; it has always been influenced by class. It is not so true in Australia-there has not been much class here. Nonetheless, there have been 26 Parliaments and 36 ministries in this building and the value of each of them depends on one's point of view. In 1927, when this building was first opened, a member of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister, `When is the House intending to resume? It seems to me to have been adjourned ever since this Government was elected'. There have been great figures in the other place, or people with some of the attributes of greatness-Hughes, Scullin, Curtin, Chifley, Menzies and Whitlam. In the Senate there have been others who have had the same sorts of attributes, but judgments about senators are much more personal and direct. There have also been some great dramas-the rise and fall of governments and changes in ministries. The House has witnessed great historical events. Great and terrible things have happened in this building. Each of us has his or her personal memories, and mine are mostly of the terrible things. I remember missing my first division and Senator Wheeldon, then a Minister in the Whitlam Government who had a great poker face, came up to me and said, `You are in very serious trouble'. I asked, `What has happened?' He said, `The Opposition has refused Supply'. He said, `Come round and I will buy you a drink. It will be your last here'. So I went round feeling very apprehensive about everything and thinking that my career had been cut short. I said, `What am I to do?' Senator Wheeldon said, `The only thing you can do is get out your cheque book and write a cheque for $400m'. I remember another moment of horror. I had the habit of sunbaking on the roof of this building, which one could only get to through the catwalk upstairs. One day I went to sleep there. There was a thunderstorm. I had no clothes, apart from a pair of shorts and a suit which I had taken out there. I went to the window where I had climbed out to try to get in but, because of the thunderstorm, somebody had locked it. I remember seeing a couple of journalists walking across the catwalk and I was out there gesticulating in the rain, trying to get back in. Some disgraceful things have also happened in this chamber. I remember one day Senator Wheeldon was very upset because he was passed a note by one of the attendants which was said to have come from the gallery upstairs. The note said: `Senator Wheeldon, I am a pensioner on $52 a week. You sit down there on $500 doing crosswords. You are a national disgrace'. Senator Wheeldon was very upset about this, and it took him a year to find out that the author of the note was Senator Chaney. This is said to be an intimate building. It is said to be a great advantage that one always bumps into people. As far as I am concerned, that is a matter of taste. I suppose my own impression of the building is its reflection of a period of Australian history. When I first came here as a young man who had just left school, I remember buying at the Post Office downstairs a postcard which had on it a picture of Parliament House, and superimposed over it all was the enormous figure of Bob Menzies. I still have the postcard. Of course that was a very symbolic postcard of those times. This is a provisional building in a compromise capital, a sociological wasteland. At times, I must say, it has reminded me not so much of Westminster but more of Port Arthur-remote in character, away from ordinary life and commerce. To get out of the place one has to run the gauntlet of a doorstop, the equivalent of the sharks at Eaglehawk Neck, or walk for miles though crematoria lawns dotted with rose bushes. Whatever it may be-drama, intimacy, greatness, history or just plain monotony-this House has played a great part in Australian history and reflected the times in which it was the centre of government in this country. If I might trouble honourable senators, I want to just say that I hope that the new House will symbolise wider visions and aspirations for this country, but I cannot be sure about that. None of us can. Might I burden honourable senators who were at the dinner last night by quoting again from the Melbourne Argus of 1927, when people moved from the Parliament in Victoria to this House. The Argus wrote: The fact that the parliament has been sitting for years in one place and will for the future sit in another place leaves every person in Australia much the same as he was before. The old men will assemble in the new house: they will be `National' or `Provincial' as they were before, and will continue to believe that the last opinion which they expressed was wiser than an earlier one . . . Parliamentary warfare is not likely to undergo a change in the new surroundings. There will be misrepresentation, conscious or unconscious; satire, ponderous and pointed; argument, close to and wide of the mark; facts which look like fiction, and fiction dressed to look like facts. The article reminds us, of course, that we are just changing buildings, and the Parliament goes on. I hope that what the Argus wrote in May 1927 will not be true. Mr President, I wish all honourable senators and the staff of the Senate well in the new building and thank them all for the personal associations we have built up here. I hope that some of that, some of the intimacy at least, can be translated to the House on the hill. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —This is one of those occasions when I can speak in support of the comments of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, and I would like to start by congratulating the Whips for the excellent attendance in this building. I hope it indicates what is likely to happen in the new House on the hill. I have had only one message from a constituent which matches the sort of evident joy and party atmosphere there is here tonight, and that message was that that person, just as much as we here, would like to celebrate this great occasion, but would have preferred the old building with a new set of senators. I do not know how the rest of Australia feels, but I hope that that constituent is not totally representative. The speech of Senator Button was important because we all knew the remarkable qualities of Senator Wheeldon. He was one of those few people who could speak in this chamber and fill it rather than start speaking and empty it. What I had not known to this time was that he also had prescience, and had understood the risk of refusal of Supply-one of the great dramatic occasions in this place. We should get Senator Button to put a date on his story so that we can pin Wheeldon down. I would like to question Senator Button about his childhood memories because I also came to this place as a child. My recollection is that the politicians were more impressive, substantial people-rather larger people. I remember raising that with my father. He looked pityingly at me and said, `Well, they were larger'. I do not know whether Senator Button has had that same experience. Like Senator Button, in looking to the new building I look back to the time when politicians moved into this building. Being a parochial Western Australian I want to quote what a Western Australian senator had to say because it demonstrates how little has changed since 1927. Senator Lynch, on the adjournment on that first day of sitting, said: Having had a little parliamentary experience, I recognise that the opinions that have been expressed outside as to the unwillingness of this parliament to stand up to and perform its duties are but part and parcel of the unfair criticism that is generally directed at parliaments and parliamentarians in this country. I interpolate and say that we have managed to stamp that out, except from that lot up there in the Press gallery. Most of the Australian people seem to think we are a splendid bunch of fellows and females. But Senator Lynch was concerned about that at the time and he went on to say this: I do not know that the motive of these critics is a very lofty one, but I do know that among those who have spoken or written as the Minister (Senator Sir George Pearce) has described are many who would like to bring parliamentary institutions into disrepute and contempt. It is certain that their aim is not to extol or place them on the high plane they should undoubtedly occupy. Thinking of Senator Lynch's complaints in 1927, I was trying to work out whether the activities of the Senate while it has occupied this chamber have increased or lessened that public criticism of the Parliament. I totally accept the view of the Clerk, which has already been referred to, that we are not tonight saying goodbye to the Senate; we are simply saying goodbye to one of the Senate's temporary premises. From what has happened in the Senate since 1927 it can properly be asserted that this chamber is the only parliamentary chamber in Australia that has, in a genuine sense, retained its legislative function. Whilst I do not believe that that attracts widespread admiration and support, it has been a very worthwhile development for Australia and something which has benefited Australia. Since 1927 we have had the establishment of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, which was the first time that a parliament of this type had tackled what in the 1920s was described as the new despotism-the great proliferation of regulations and ordinances which removed people's freedom. This chamber broke new ground for the parliamentary world in its establishment of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. The late Senator Missen promoted internationally what had been developed here. I believe it has been a great contribution to Australia and to the parliamentary world. The introduction of a wide-ranging committee system, promoted I think initially by the late Senator Murphy-no doubt with the opposition of the government of the day; as governments of the day always oppose the exercise of parliamentary authority and power-has been an important contribution to Australia and to its welfare. The more recent establishment of the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills in 1981 is an acknowledgment that for many of us the proper scrutiny of legislation is pushed aside and into a corner. The various people who have manned that Committee have made a very significant contribution. I believe that we are all entitled to be proud of some of the genuine committee debates which have taken place. I remember again back to the days of the Labor Government from 1972 to 1975, and there are very few senators here now from that period-- Senator Peter Baume —Seven. Senator CHANEY —Seven, I am told. I remember the committee debates on Bills such as those on trade practices and matrimonial causes. They were a splendid exercise of parliamentary activity. More recently, I remember the debates on the identity card and the Bill of Rights which honourable senators opposite might remember with revulsion but which I see as having been very educative debates for the Australian public. I remember some committee operations. I remember Senator Button earning the undying affection of Gough Whitlam for his part in the report on the then Government's proposal for a national compensation scheme. Senator Button was one of the three Labor members of a Senate committee which suggested that the Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted. Like Senator Button, I remember moments of high drama, and most of all, I suppose, the experience of 1975, for those who were here at that time, which had a very powerful influence on senators on both sides of this place in terms of the attitudes that they subsequently adopted in political life in this country. Senator Button —Hear, hear! Senator CHANEY —I acknowledge the Minister's quiet interjection. I remember our conversations at that time about that issue. In all this and in all the recollections we have of this chamber, it stands out that none of the recollections is about the bricks and mortar of this place; they are all about the people who have occupied it. I join with all those who acknowledge the senators in the past who have occupied this building and who have made a contribution to good legislation and on occasions to good government in this country. The quality of the Senate is totally dependent upon senators and not on furnishings and buildings. But at the same time I express real optimism that the new quarters that we have been given will provide a new environment in which we will have a parliament which, in a physical sense more separate from the Executive, will become a more genuine legislative institution. The thing that gives me greatest pleasure about leaving this building is the appalling conditions under which staff have worked for the whole of the time that I have been here. I express my strong personal thanks to the staff who have worked for me, for my colleagues and for everybody here, because I think they have worked under the most difficult conditions imaginable. I do not think that very many Australians in the work force understand just how cramped and unpleasant the working conditions have been for many people. Those people, to whom I express my personal thanks, will be major beneficiaries of this change. Mr President, I thank you for your conduct of the Senate during this session and for your great activities in smoothing the transition to the new Parliament House. I hope that your own work is rewarded by a smooth transition. I join the Leader of the Government in thanking all those who have worked here with us and for us-the cooks in the kitchen below, the attendants, the drivers, and all those who enable the place to function. I leave this place with the nostalgia which has been expressed by so many over recent days but with a very great sense of optimism that the movement into the new building will direct our thoughts and our attention to the future of this country. That is where our attention should lie. As in so many areas, which I am sure those trade unionists opposite would have discovered, when the workers are given decent conditions it is amazing how productivity increases. I express my hope on behalf of the people of Australia that they will see a better parliament in the new place, that what we have learned that is positive here we will take with us, and the negative aspects of this parliament which have earned our disrepute at times we will leave behind us. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I am sure that valedictories of this kind are something of an art form in this place. Others who have spoken here tonight have been here a great deal longer than I have, and I am sure they are much more versed in this art form. As honourable senators know, I am a relative new boy in this place. I have been coming to the Parliament for a very long time, but not in any senatorial capacity. When I did come to it I tended to come to the other end of the building because that is where Treasurers generally reside and that is, therefore, where those who serve Treasurers generally visit them. Nevertheless, I have always had a great affection for the Senate and the role of the Senate. I have to say with great pleasure that that feeling has been thoroughly borne out even in the short time I have been here. I think it was Boswell in his Life of Johnson-- Senator Chaney —Not Ron. Senator STONE —No, not Ron; I will come back to Senator Boswell. Boswell at one time said that Johnson uttered a most terrible indictment of a man about London town when he said, `He is not a clubable man'. Of course, Senator Boswell is an eminently clubable man. I am sure that at the time Boswell was not thinking of Senator Walsh, and I am equally sure that Johnson would never have referred to a clubable person. These days, I suppose, we might be more sensitive and would have to refer to clubable men or women. Of course, from time to time there are many clubable women in this Senate, but I will not pursue that line of thought. But whatever-men, women or persons-the Senate not so much demands but at least invites a certain clubability. I have found myself comfortable in that environment. When we go up on the hill we will take with us our colleagues, including honourable senators opposite, and our devoted staff, and, above all, I hope the spirit of this place. I look forward to our new home. Friday, 3 June 1988 2-3 June 1988 SENATE SENATE 2-3 June 1988 2-3 June 1988 SENATE Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Mr President, we have all uttered many hundreds of thousands of words in this place. Some of us, it is true, have uttered a few more hundreds of thousands than others. To utter some more just because they are our last in this place seems to me to savour just a little of vulgar excess. I at least have an excuse to get to my feet because, as Manager of Government Business, a job about as thankless as that of being the last Emperor's eunuch, I have some special thanks to give to those who make my job marginally less horrible than it would otherwise be. Senator Walters —Bring back Don Grimes. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is no good looking wistful, Shirley, you are not going to get a mention in this context. I am referring especially to the Parliamentary Liaison Officer, Paul Conn, the most recent in a long line of very dedicated and very professional officers from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, who is one of the most implausible looking radio rock and roll disc jockeys that I think any of us have ever seen and whose last night it is in this job. I am thinking of people not only like you, Mr President, but Harry Evans, Anne Lynch, Terry Brown and others of the Clerks who have not allowed their congenital whiggery, as Harry put it last night, to get in the way of giving very good procedural advice, not only to me but to all sides of this chamber. In particular on this occasion I wish to thank the Whips on all sides of the chamber and their assistants-including in particular on the Government side Joan Harvey, who is with us in the chamber tonight-who have been admirably competent, level headed and sensible on nearly every occasion when those commodities have been conspicuously lacking or in short supply elsewhere. Having said all that, I do not propose to deluge honourable senators tonight with my own contribution to that torrent of lukewarm nostalgia in which the chamber will no doubt shortly be knee-deep. Of course there have been plenty of marvellous moments, funny moments, dramatic moments, riotous moments, sometimes all at once, in the life of this chamber. I have to say that my own overriding sentiment about this place is that it is time we got out of it and made a new beginning. Maybe it is just because I have had too little sleep over the last few days; maybe it is because I am afflicted with all of that accumulated distrust of human nature that overcomes Managers of Government Business and Whips after a time in those jobs. But when I look around these walls I tend to think, more than anything else, of some of the ghosts. My perception of those ghosts, I suspect, would be a somewhat different perspective from that of Fred Chaney in his earlier contribution. I think, for example, of the ghosts of poor old Jimmy Scullin and his Government, forced out of office in 1931 more than anything else by the utter intransigence of the hostile Senate he faced for the life of that Government. I think of the ghost of Bertie Milliner, so dishonoured by the circumstances of his replacement in this place, which very much precipitated all the events of 1975. Senator Archer —And the Senate was right again. Senator GARETH EVANS —I wish some people were ghosts a little earlier than would occur in the natural course of events. I think of the livid scars left on the history of parliamentary democracy by the rejection or delay in this place during the life of the Whitlam Government of some 93 pieces of legislation-30 more, it will be recalled, than in the whole previous history of Federation in the Senate; and ultimately, of course, of the blocking of Supply that occurred in October and November 1975. I think finally, perhaps more than anything else on this occasion- 2-3 June 1988 SENATE SENATE 2-3 June 1988 2-3 June 1988 SENATE Senator Walters —This isn't appropriate. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is appropriate, Senator. I think more than anything else on this occasion of the ghost of Lionel Murphy-not a flawless man, by any means, as we all know, but perhaps the greatest Senate man in the history of this place in terms of the contribution that he made to giving it life and vitality through the committee system, who, in a very cruel irony, was torn down from high office and very much driven to his grave, more than anything else, by the course of events that occurred in this place. I believe, and I have always believed, that there is a vital and very legitimate democratic role to be played by the Senate in the scrutiny of legislation, Executive behaviour and the generation and promulgation of ideas in this country. But they are not roles that have yet in the history of this country been played with very much distinction by this institution or within these four walls. We can do better. I believe that our new environment will give us an opportunity to make a break with the past and to make a fresh start in more ways than one. On this occasion, in which there is so much determination to wallow in nostalgia-and it is perfectly understandable-my sentiments about this place can perhaps be more gently summarised by corrupting, just a little, the immortal suggestion that was made to the Rump Parliament a few hundred years ago: We have sat here too long for any good we have been doing. Depart, I say, let's have done with this place. In the name of God let's go. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I should like to add a few words on this occasion and support what has been said by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) in thanking the staff. I want to add special thanks to a group of people who are not always mentioned on these occasions. I refer to a small group of persons. If they walked through the door I, for one, would not recognise most of them. I might recognise one. That small group of people have been not only of invaluable assistance to us in our work, but also very compassionate to those of us who have experienced personal tragedies and family joy during our presence in Parliament. On such occasions there was an added touch of compassion, joy or whatever, which was easily detected but pretty well impossible to describe. I refer, of course, to the telephonists-Beryl Judge and the other telephonists-who honourable senators will all agree have served this Parliament very well from their room downstairs. I do not know what new technology will be introduced in the new Parliament House. I hope that we do not lose personal touch with the telephonists. 2-3 June 1988 SENATE SENATE 2-3 June 1988 2-3 June 1988 SENATE Dennis Strangman, my staff member, has been here for longer than any other, except one. I do not think that person would care for me to mention her name. He has been here for 23 years, save for a period of two years in the Department of Administrative Services and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. He epitomises the very dedicated staff members who have worked for us in appalling conditions and, very often, for appalling bosses. Finally, I share with honourable senators a story which I intended to tell them in the early hours the other morning when we were discussing the freedom of religion question to be asked in the referendum. I was trying to work out whether the commencement of the day with the Lord's Prayer was followed by legislation or by tradition. I know the answer to that. It is this: Some time last century a Prime Minister of Great Britain took his granddaughter into the House of Commons. Afterwards, she said, `Grandfather, why does the Speaker start the day with the Lord's Prayer?'. His response was, `Well, my dear, the Speaker comes to the Parliament in procession, enters the chamber, takes one look at the assembled politicians and prays for the country'. I do hope sincerely for the good of this country that that tradition continues in the new Parliament House. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I speak in this farewell to the Parliament as a backbencher. I do not presume to speak for the back bench, but I do hope that some of the message I want to give is supported by that back bench. I certainly do not look on the departure from this chamber with mixed feelings at all; I look on it with feelings of absolute and total regret. I regret that we are leaving this outstanding chamber for a chamber which I regard as second rate and tatty. I believe that we are moving from a chamber with character, history and significance to the blight on the hill. Only seven of the present 75 Senators came into this Parliament before I did. I must say that any of us who have been here at any time will have adopted an approach to this chamber and to the chamber next door which I believe is full of recognition of the history that has taken place in those chambers and the very nature of the chambers themselves. My father sat in the Press gallery at the opening of this Parliament. My father, as a journalist, attended the opening of this building. I certainly feel a great sense of personal attachment to it. I regret our leaving. 2-3 June 1988 SENATE SENATE 2-3 June 1988 2-3 June 1988 SENATE Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —The last sitting of the Senate in the provisional Parliament House is a time not only to look to the future but to reflect upon the great times and traditions of the past. One of the great traditions is the opportunity for senators of all persuasions to gather in a spirit of bipartisanship and conviviality at the end of a session. That reminds me about the complaint that was made here very recently about a certain senator singing off key. That is not the worst thing that can happen in the world. I am aware of another certain senator who actually had to sing to be released from prison. Very recently, in another very old building, a 600-year-old building in Ireland, the song that that senator tried to sing not only off key but out of tune was Waltzing Matilda-and he came from Irish stock. He probably would have been put back in the dungeon had it not been for a group of American tourists trying to regain their Irish birthright. The importance of the gatherings in this place has been recorded for posterity by David Solomon in his book Inside the Australian Parliament, from which I would like to quote: Camaraderie in the Senate is far stronger than in the House (both on the staff level and among the politicians) probably because of the Senate's smaller size and (till recently) its aggressively defensive feelings about its parliamentary significance. This esprit de corps in the Senate is strengthened by social gatherings. Parties in the Senate Records office are a regular feature late on Thursday nights sitting weeks, particularly towards the end of a session. There is plenty of singing and dancing, drinking and arguing among those who attend, including government and opposition senators, parliamentary officers and attendants, ministerial staff, journalists, and Hansard reporters. There is no mention of Ministers. The singing probably referred to the efforts of the Records Office choir, which was led by Sir Reginald Wright and ably supported by then Senators Cant, Greenwood, O'Byrne, Keeffe, Laucke, Young and Gair-I notice that most of them have got Irish names, which probably accounts for their drinking-and various Senate officers, the most prominent being Bert Nicholls. These parties became a legend and to a degree current senators and staff have not lived up to the levels set by their predecessors. 2-3 June 1988 SENATE SENATE 2-3 June 1988 2-3 June 1988 SENATE Tradition is something the Senate is all about. In the adjournment debate on 10 June 1978 Senator Michael Townley laid on the table a copy of the Reg Wright Records Office Choir Book. On the occasion of our last sitting in this chamber I would like the inspiration of those senators at that time to provide inspiration this evening and on future evenings in the New House. I therefore seek leave to table a limited edition facsimile copy of the original Reg Wright Records Office Choir Book for use later tonight. Leave granted. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania) —I have been here only two years. In that time a number of things have taken place. I draw attention to two small footnotes to history which have happened in the two years I have been here and which have given me some pleasure. First and most important was the appointment of Anne Lynch as the first woman to sit at the table as Deputy Clerk. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator NEWMAN —This appointment has given me great joy, which is obviously shared by my colleagues. Secondly, on a more personal note, in coming to this place, and now as we leave it, I remain the only wife to hold the record of sharing with her husband service in this Parliament House. There is pride, obviously, the honour of it, the stimulus of it and the frustration of it. For Anne and for my family these are just personal satisfactions which we will all hold forever in association with the old Parliament House. New pleasures will come with the new Parliament House. But I think for most of us it is the personal things associated with the old House which will remain in our memories. 2-3 June 1988 SENATE SENATE 2-3 June 1988 2-3 June 1988 SENATE Senator JENKINS(Western Australia) —When this site was first chosen for the Federal Parliament of Australia, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) had a population of 1,762 horses, 1,714 people and 224,764 sheep. In 1927 this temporary and provisional Parliament House was opened. Since then it has been extended to 2 1/2 times its original size, and it is still cramped. It has been suggested that as well as the constant refurbishing it is the annual coats of paint which keep the building standing. Much of the colourful history of this building has been described tonight, both the better known and some of the odder and more delightful and even indiscreet anecdotes. As someone who set foot within these historic portals only after the last Federal election-that is, some 10 months ago-I nonetheless have felt myself surrounded by the historic events of the past and by some almost tangible ghosts. I have been impressed by the number of tourists and school students-visitors of all kinds-who come to see the provisional Parliament House, and I have reflected on the changes which have taken place even within the memory of some of my colleagues in this place. However, I am more concerned about the future of this historic building. It has been said that this place will become a museum, perhaps a constitutional museum. I believe this is a splendid idea. Could I float the notion that it should become a living museum, that it should have certain current and living functions. This chamber, perhaps, could perhaps be a seat for the ACT Assembly now that the ACT is seen to be poised-perhaps I should say tottering-on the verge of self-government. This would be a purpose-built home for the new small Parliament of the ACT, with all the ancillary benefits in place, that is, Hansard, members' offices, and a Press Gallery which would be the envy of State and local governments, however warren-like it might seem to the teeming journalists attendant on the national Parliament. On other occasions, perhaps, both chambers could be a venue for conferences, political education seminars and such nostalgia for visitors and tourists. I can see the tourist brochures right now and hear the voice of Paul Hogan saying, `You can sit on the very chair which was sat upon by Sir Robert Menzies. 2-3 June 1988 SENATE SENATE 2-3 June 1988 2-3 June 1988 SENATE One can even sit at the very table at which Gough Whitlam died-I am sorry, I meant `dined'. Senator Macklin —The food is not that bad. Senator JENKINS —I quite agree. One might even perhaps walk the very corridors along which Don Chipp once strode. With the move to the new Parliament House we all have a new beginning. I hope that this historic building too will have a new lease of productive life. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania) —We have thanked almost everybody who has anything to do with the Senate. We have thanked the telephone operators, and I think they deserve thanks. We have thanked Hansard, and we have thanked the staff. However, there is one group of people that has not been thanked. I think that perhaps many honourable senators who sit down your end of the chamber, Mr President, do not recognise the presence of this group. I do, because I sit on this side of the chamber. There is a representative of this group here all the time, day and night; as long as we are talking, they are here and they are recording. They are not doing crossword puzzles; they are recording our words. In fact, they are recording our words right now. I refer to the Australian Associated Press people, who deserve medals for long-suffering. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —I have been interested to meditate, too, on what this occasion might mean. Essentially it made me think of what people might mean when they refer to the ghosts around this place. Apparently all sorts of people say that there are ghosts. I do not know about that; perhaps they come up and grab them behind the neck as they stroll down the corridors. It is interesting to wonder also how one gets to be a ghost. Mostly, by definition, I think a ghost is-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Try dying. Senator CROWLEY —I thank Senator Crichton-Browne. I think that a ghost is the consequence of death, if you like. I also think that a ghost is not created unless it is as a result of some matter of passion. No boring, dull, colourless person becomes a ghost around Parliament House-only people who stab others in the back; people who rise to the great heights of literary merit; and most of the people who sat here in 1975. Those people and the things they were talking about-particularly the matters of passion of those days-I think are the substance of ghosts, or what leads to them, apart from death, Senator Crichton-Browne. 2-3 June 1988 SENATE SENATE 2-3 June 1988 2-3 June 1988 SENATE I think the notion of what a ghost comes from and the passion associated with that stand in sharp contrast to the counsel given to me quite often around this place-counsel to the effect that what we need in Parliament is rational and reasoned debate. In particular, I recall one of my colleagues saying between clenched teeth in a very fierce voice and hitting the table at the same time, `What we need in this place is calm, rational debate'. Very often I see evidence of anything but calm, rational debate, particularly in regard to what passes for rational debate. If any honourable senator is in doubt of that, I refer them to Senator Lewis's speech on the sex discrimination legislation. If anything reached the dizzy heights of nonsense, his speech did. In particular, I refer to Senator Lewis's statement that sex discrimination legislation would cause all sorts of problems, particularly for those people who had to live in `compulsory, close cohabitation'. That seems also to be one of the problems of being a member of the Senate. One can hope that Senator Lewis will rest more easy in a larger place with more space between the cohabitants. In particular, the nonsense and the foolishness of the contribution of the Opposition during the sex discrimination debate would seem to have meant that most of them were seeking prospective places as ghosts around here. I simply use this as one way of saying that one person who was never a ghost in her time here-I suspect that if she is to be remembered it is not because she is a ghost but because of her rational contribution-is former Senator Susan Ryan. I would like to place on record my high regard for that lady and her contribution to debate in this place and, in particular, the effects of that legislation passed for and on behalf of women. It would seem to me that the contribution of Opposition senators, if I can make the point, of sheer lunacy-let alone passion-in the name of rational debate will allow them to become ghosts. I would prefer to remember Susan Ryan in the very constructive, non-ghost like way in which she has contributed to the achievements of women. I too would particularly like to place on record my thanks to you, Mr President. You have sat and ruled on so much of the lunacy in this place as people I presume were qualifying to become ghosts. I also thank those other people who have been listed so well and extensively by others. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Senate do now adjourn. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Senate stands adjourned until it meets in the Senate chamber of the new Parliament House at 4 p.m. on Monday, 22 August 1988, in accordance with the resolution agreed to today. I declare the Senate chamber closed. Senate adjourned at 12.26 a.m. (Friday) The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 166) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 17 December: (1) Is the Minister aware of the report `France: the Nuclear Renegade' by Senator Norm Sanders and Richard Bolt. (2) Is it a fact that the Chaufferie Avancee Prototype (C.A.P.) research reactor in France has been used to develop nuclear reactors for civilian purposes and for nuclear-armed submarines. (3) Is it a fact that the Pierrelatte uranium enrichment plant has produced uranium for the Phenix reactor, originally a civilian power plant, in addition to weapons-grade uranium for the French nuclear weapons program. (4) Is it a fact that the Tricastin uranium enrichment plant is mainly for the production of fuel for civilian power plants, and also does low- and medium-level enrichment for the Pierrelatte plant, which then further enriches the uranium to weapons-grade. (5) Is it a fact that the Atelier de Realisation d'Assembleages Combustibles, a fuel element fabrication plant, has done military work with highly enriched uranium as well as producing fuel assemblies for civilian nuclear reactors. (6) Is it a fact that the Celestin 1 and 2 heavy water reactors are used to produce lithium and plutonium for nuclear weapons, and are also used for medical and industrial purposes. (7) Were the now-closed G1, G2 and G3 reactors at Marcoule used to produce weapons-grade plutonium as well as being connected to the French electric power grid. (8) Is it a fact the the Chinon 1, 2 and 3 gas-graphite reactors were built to generate electricity, but were also equipped with fast-loading and -unloading devices to enable them to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. (9) Is it a fact that the Phenix fast breeder reactor was built as a civilian pilot plant for the Superphenix faster breeder, and has also been used for the production of weapons-grade plutonium for military purposes. (10) Is it a fact that the Phenix reactor is not subject to international safeguards because of its military role. (11) Is it a fact that the UP1 and UP2 reprocessing plants reprocess spent fuel from both military and civilian reactors, for both military and civilian purposes. (12) Is it a fact that the SAP-TOP reprocessing plant (soon to be reopened as TOR) has reprocessed fuel for civilian purposes, and spent fuel from the Phenix reactor for military purposes. (13) Given that the current French plans to build at least 950 nuclear weapons over the next 10 years will require at least 5 tonnes of plutonium, in addition to the 1.5 tonnes of plutonium used in the nuclear weapons program so far, and given that military reactors (G1, G2, G3, Celestin 1 and 2) have produced only 2.5 tonnes of plutonium, is it a fact that the civilian plants Chinon 1, 2 and 3, Saint Laurant 1 and 2, Bugey 1, Vandellos (Spain) and Phenix must supply the remaining 4 tonnes required for the nuclear weapons program. (14) If a decision to mass produce the neutron bomb is taken by France, is it a fact that France will not have enough plutonium available for mass production unless it uses weapons grade plutonium produced in the breeder mantles of the Superphenix faster breeder reactor. (15) Are the French decisions to engage in a major nuclear buildup, to possibly build neutron bombs, to begin a joint cruise missile project with Britain to compensate for the elimination of United States (U.S.) ground-launched cruise missiles under the Intermediate Range Nuclear forces (I.N.F.) Treaty, and to examine the placement of French tactical nuclear weapons in West Germany under joint control, likely to undermine the I.N.F. Treaty and jeopardise future disarmament agreements, particularly reductions in strategic nuclear weapons and conventional and nuclear disarmament in Europe. (16) Is it a fact the France has not stated whether its share of the plutonium to be produced in Superphenix will be used for military purposes. (17) Is the Minister aware of a statement by Mr R. J. S. Harry of the Netherlands Energy Research Foundation in the `Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' in March 1985 that `Australia . . . (has) . . . agreed to a complicated pro-rata rule which separates breeding zone and core and which in fact does not rule out possible military use of plutonium from Superphenix's breeder zone'. (18) What are the precise details of that agreed rule. (19) Given that large scale reprocessing of fast breeder fuel elements is neither economic not technically developed and that the large-scale building of fast breeders is not envisaged anywhere in the world, does this mean that fast breeders will play no major role in increasing the life of uranium reserves. (20) Is this conclusion borne out by a 3 year study presented to the 13th Congress of the World Energy Conference by an Electricite de France employee, which found that the rapid introduction of fast breeders would only prolong the exhaustion of world uranium reserves by 17 years from 2073 to 2090. (21) Does this mean that the major reason France has for continuing with the Superphenix is to ensure it has a sufficient supply of weapons-grade plutonium in coming years. (22) Is it a fact that France does not accept that Euratom safeguards arrangements prevent the military use of plutonium produced in Superphenix. (23) Is the uranium imported by France from Namibia and Niger and the uranium mined within France unsafeguarded. (24) Is the quantity of uranium received from those sources sufficient to fuel France's nuclear weapons program and are Australian safeguards arrangements therefore unable to curtail France's nuclear weapons program. (25) What action has the Australian Government taken in response to the illegal mining of uranium in Namibia. (26) What action has the Australian Government taken in response to the following actions by France: (a) its provision of the Dimona research reactor, the Machon-2 reprocessing plant, and nuclear weapons design information to Israel, as revealed by Professor Frances Perrin, former French High Commissioner for Atomic Energy in 1986; (b) its involvement in building the unsafeguarded Vandilaba uranium enrichment plant, the Koeberg 1 and 2 power reactors for South Africa; (c) its offer to build a 900 megawatt nuclear reactor at Chashma in Pakistan, which no other country was prepared to do; (d) its construction of the unsafeguarded heavy water reactors at Baroda and Tuticorin, and a fast breeder reactor at Kalpakkam in India; (e) its offer to rebuild the Osirak reactor in Iraq, and its provision of 12.5 kg of highly-enriched uranium to that country; (f) its agreement to build 2 reactors and to supply reprocessing technology to South Korea; and (g) its agreement to supply uranium to Taiwan. (27) Given that Israel, South Africa, Pakistan, India, Iraq, South Korea and Taiwan are acknowledged nuclear weapons proliferation risks, what danger does the Australian Government see in the export by France of each item of nuclear technology specified above. (28) Is it the case that the only means by which the export of Australian uranium can be guaranteed not to contribute to the development and production of nuclear weapons is by the Australian Government only allowing exports to countries which: (a) are not testing nuclear weapons, and actively support the signing of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; (b) are not producing any weapons-grade nuclear materials, do not reprocess any nuclear wastes, and have placed all existing stocks of weapons-grade nuclear material under effective international control; (c) have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (N.P.T.) and have given a legally binding commitment not to export nuclear materials and technology to countries which are not N.P.T. signatories and do not have full-scope safeguards on their nuclear facilities. (29) Is it the case that, under these conditions, uranium exports to France, the United Kingdom and the United States would be banned. Senator Gareth Evans —The Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. Nuclear propulsion is a different matter from nuclear weapons. (3) Publications of the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) indicate that the Pierrelatte enrichment facility was established to meet French needs for enriched uranium for military and for several civil application requirements. It is possible that the enriched uranium used in the initial fuel load for Phenix was produced at Pierrelatte. (4) The Eurodif plant at Tricastin is a commercial enrichment facility established by a French, Belgian, Italian and Spanish consortium to produce low enriched uranium suitable for use in civilian nuclear power plants. France has separate facilities and processes-including those at Pierrelatte-for the production from low enriched uranium of highly enriched uranium for military purposes, and for making nuclear weapons themselves. For operational reasons including that of nuclear criticality, it is not possible to produce highly enriched uranium in the Eurodif plant at Tricastin. Since the supplementary answer given, on advice from the Australian Safeguards Office, in the Senate on 22 August 1986 by the then Minister for Resources and Energy (Hansard p. 358) it has been learned by the Australian Safeguards Office that the Eurodif plant at Tricastin, in producing low-enriched uranium, does process both obligated nuclear material, which remains in civil use, and unobligated material, which can-after further enrichment at another facility-be used for military purposes. The Australian obligated nuclear material which passes through the facility at Tricastin, however, remains confined to exclusively peaceful non-explosive use; that is, there is a quantity of low-enriched uranium and depleted tails, equivalent to the Australian obligated nuclear material which entered the plant, which is designated Australian obligated nuclear material and which may only be used for peaceful, non-explosive purposes. Thus the presence of unobligated as well as obligated nuclear material at the Tricastin facility does not in any way diminish the effectiveness of the safeguards regime under which Australian uranium is exported. (5) The Government has no information to verify the statement about this facility. (6) Celestin 1 and 2 produce tritium (not lithium) and probably plutonium for nuclear weapons. We do not know if they are also used for medical or industrial purposes. (7) Yes. (8) Chinon 1, 2 and 3 were dual-purpose reactors. Therefore they could have been fuelled and defuelled at rates commensurate with weapons grade plutonium production. (9) Phenix was built as pilot plant to test the concepts and feasibility of commercial fast breeder reactors. A fast breeder reactor could be operated over a period of time to produce more than enough plutonium to refuel its own core or fuel another similar fast breeder reactor. If no peaceful use obligations were attached to this plutonium it would be available for military use by France. (10) The list of facilities which France has declared as eligible for application of IAEA safeguards is confidential to France and the IAEA. Phenix is not amongst those facilities at which Australian obligated nuclear material could be used, processed or stored. (11) Yes. (12) TOR is a small, experimental facility for reprocessing of fast reactor fuels. If Phenix spent fuel reprocessed at TOR carried no peaceful use obligations the material recovered would be available for military use by France. (13) to (14) The Australian Government is aware of speculation on these lines but details of France's nuclear weapon plans and bomb designs are not released to foreign governments. Accordingly, we cannot comment authoritatively on the amount of plutonium France might need to implement those plans. Regarding the Vandellos (Spain) facility, Spain has recently acceded to the NPT. Therefore all nuclear material in Spain including any nuclear material recovered from spent fuel from the Vandellos facility will be subject to IAEA NPT fullscope safeguards. (15) French and British nuclear forces were not included in the scope of the INF Treaty signed by President Reagan and General-Secretary Gorbachev in December 1987. Both the French and United Kingdom Governments have argued that their forces are under independent national control and thus outside the scope of the U.S./Soviet Treaty. They have argued further that, in relation to the size of the U.S. and Soviet strategic forces, their nuclear forces are minimal and that any consideration of reductions in those forces should await the achievement of deep cuts in the strategic arsenals of the two major powers. The Government is obviously aware of increasing defence cooperation between France and the Federal Republic of Germany, but has no knowledge of any intention to deploy French nuclear forces in the Federal Republic of Germany. In an interview in December 1987, President Mitterrand stated that reinforcement of France-German defence relations would not go so far as to involve the German Government in a decision to use French nuclear forces. Both the United States and the Soviet Union would have been aware of discussion of possible developments in French defence policy at the time they negotiated and later signed the INF Treaty in December 1987. The INF Treaty was ratified at the Moscow Summit in May 1988. The Soviet Union and the NATO allies have declared their intention to work towards further disarmament agreements in Europe. (16) The Government is not aware of any official French Government statement on France's plans for use of its share of the plutonium produced in Superphenix. (17) Yes. (18) The details of operation of the proportionality principle in respect of fast breeder reactors are contained in the Administrative Arrangements to the Australia/France and Australia/Euratom nuclear safeguards agreements. These Administrative Arrangements are confidential to the Parties to those Agreements. However the broad thrust of the first part of Mr Harry's statement which mentions a pro-rata rule which separates breeding zone and core is correct. The Administrative Arrangements exist to give effect to the obligations contained in Australia's bilateral nuclear safeguards agreements. Article IV of both Agreements includes the obligation that Australian origin nuclear material subject to the Agreement shall not be used for any military purpose. (19) No. Fast breeder reactors can play a major role in increasing the life of uranium reserves. This could occur early in the next century if the economics of fast breeder systems then favourably compare with light water reactors. The technical feasibility of fast breeder reactor fuel recycle has been demonstrated in the United Kingdom and France. Plants have been designed in both countries for large-scale economic reprocessing of fast breeder reactor fuel. (20) No. If the study referred to was that subsequently published as a book entitled ``Energy Abundance-Myth or Reality'' by Jean-Romain Frisch, then the data in the question only relates to one of several arbitrary scenarios considered in terms of the exhaustion of world uranium reserves and the introduction of fast breeder reactors. The study concluded that ``the advantage to be gained from breeder reactors (in terms of extending uranium reserves) is very clear''. (21) No. Superphenix is a commercial fast breeder reactor operated by an international commercial consortium (NERSA) of electricity producers. Its purpose is to determine the commercial viability of fast breeder reactors for nuclear electricity generation. NERSA is 51% owned by the French electricity utility EdF, 33% by the Italian electricity utility ENEL and the remaining 16% shared by a consortium of Belgian, Dutch, FRG and British electricity companies. (22) The Government is not aware of any official French Government statements on France's interpretation of the safeguards provisions of the treaty establishing Euratom as they relate to Superphenix. (23) Niger and South Africa (the power which illegally occupies Namibia in defiance of U.N. resolutions) are not members of the NPT and therefore not subject to NPT obligations in respect of their uranium exports. Uranium mined in France would be subject to Euratom safeguards until declared by France for military purposes. (24) The Australian Government is not in a position to comment authoritatively on the amount of uranium needed for France's nuclear weapons program because details of that program are not released to foreign governments. In respect of the amount of uranium required for France's nuclear weapons program the 1984 ASTEC Report on Australia's Role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle noted that ``France has indigenous reserves that are more than sufficient to provide for its military needs''. (ASTEC Report, page 95). The safeguards obligations Australia attaches to Australian uranium imported by France are designed to ensure that Australian obligated nuclear material is used only for peaceful non-explosive use. (25) Pending the adoption of comprehensive mandatory sanctions by the international community as a whole Australia has implemented the full range of selective sanctions measures against South Africa adopted at Nassau and London by Commonwealth leaders. These also apply to Namibia. Australia supports the implementation of Decree number 1 of the United Nations Council for Namibia and would condemn any action in contravention of that Decree. (26) to (27) Without commenting on the veracity of the allegations contained in these questions and noting that France has adhered to the nuclear supply controls contained in IAEA document INFCIRC 254 I would point out that Australia has long urged universal adherence to the NPT and has long urged all nuclear supplier countries to require the application of full-scope IAEA safeguards as a minimum condition for nuclear supply to non-nuclear weapon states. Australia is concerned at the export of sensitive nuclear material, equipment and technology to countries which have not adhered to the NPT or adopted full-scope IAEA safeguards. (28) No. (29) Yes. (Question No. 170) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 17 December 1987: Has the Minister received, or is he expecting, legal opinion on section 85 of the Postal Services Act in regard to any possible action that may be taken against remailers; if so, could the Minister forward such legal advice to Senator Messner when it becomes available. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: No. I have not sought legal opinion on section 85 of the Postal Services Act with regard to remailing, although I understand that the Postal Commission was seeking advice related to this issue last last year. (Question No. 179) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 16 February 1988: (1) Has Mr F. L. Weaver of Unit 10, 63 Harris Road, Five Dock, N.S.W. 2046, who established and currently operates the Japan-Australia Pen Friends Association, lodged postal inquiry forms with Australia Post concerning the non-delivery of hundreds of letters from Japan since September 1985; if so, what investigations have been conducted into the matter. (2) What is the extent of investigations into the allegations made by Mr Weaver about the conduct of various Australia Post employees in respect of the alleged theft of Mr Weaver's incoming mail, from both the Five Dock and Concord West post offices. (3) Has Mr Weaver lodged forms officially requesting Australia Post to redirect his mail without charge as a person in receipt of a pension from the Department of Veterans' Affairs from his former address to Five Dock Post Office since September 1986; if so, what action has been taken in the matter; if no action has been taken, why not. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information from Australia Post, is as follows: (1) Yes. Australia Post has advised me that it has received more than 200 Postal Item Enquiry forms lodged by Mr Weaver concerning the alleged non-delivery of mail. These enquiry forms were lodged at numerous post offices over an extended period of time, and many of them were duplicates of forms which had already been lodged and were already being investigated by Australia Post. Australia Post has advised me that detailed and thorough investigations, involving Australia Post security officers and including inquiries with the Japanese postal administration, were conducted in those instances where the sender confirmed posting of mail to Mr Weaver. Australia Post's investigations found that the inquiry forms related to only a handful of alleged missing articles, each of which purportedly contained quantities of letters from Japanese students seeking Australian pen friends. Australia Post has advised me that its investigations failed to trace any of the alleged missing articles. (2) Australia Post has advised me that thorough investigations, again involving Australia Post security officers, were conducted into allegations by Mr Weaver concerning the conduct of various postal officers. The allegations were found by Australia Post to be unsubstantiated, and this finding was endorsed by Australia Post's acting Managing Director. (3) Yes. Mr Weaver has been informed by Australia Post that he is entitled to free redirection of mail only for the first month of the redirection period. Where continuity of the redirection service is required beyond one month, a monthly fee is payable. As Mr Weaver has apparently not been prepared to pay the appropriate fee for redirection of his mail, any mail addressed to him at his former addresses would be delivered as addressed. This is in accordance with Australia Post's normal procedure in such circumstances. (Question No. 180) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 16 February 1988: (1) What were the reasons for the proposed closure of the Telecom Business Office (T.B.O.) in Bunbury, Western Australia. (2) To what extent did Telecom consider its proposal to close the Bunbury T.B.O. (3) Were any alternatives considered in respect of the Bunbury closure; if so, what were these alternatives and the reasons for not adopting them. (4) In relation to the general issue of T.B.O. closures Australia-wide: (a) what consultations were undertaken by Telecom with the employees and/or the unions concerned; and (b) are there expected to be any redundancies as a result. (5) What, if any, is the nature of the retraining and skills upgrade courses offered by Telecom in the event that some T.B.O. employees are required to be relocated to different function areas. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from Telecom Australia, is as follows: (1) Telecom Australia has been rationalising its network of T.B.O.s for approximately twelve months now. This rationalisation has been predicated on the basis that Telecom's retail outlets, including Bunbury, were unprofitable. Also, Telecom has found the use of Business Sales Representatives a far more effective way of selling its products. Consequently, T.B.O.s are being progressively closed, or relocated with the District Office when this can be justified. Bunbury T.B.O. is part of this campaign. (2) Bunbury T.B.O., along with all other T.B.O.s that have either been closed or relocated, was considered on its financial viability. (3) No. It was necessary to close the Bunbury T.B.O. because of its operating loss of some $76,600 annually. However, a Customer Reception Area, where customers may deal with Telecom staff in person, has been established with the District Office in Edward Court, Bunbury. (4) (a) Telecom Australia has consulted with all Associations and staff relevant to T.B.O.s and has an agreed process for the closures. (b) Redundancies are not expected as the staff are being redeployed to other areas in the Customer Services Sections of Telecom. (5) Most of the employees in T.B.O.s would require little re-training as they are part of the overall Customer Services Section structure. Where, however, there is a necessity for re-training, relevant and timely training is provided having regard to the particular circumstances of each case. (Question No. 262) Senator Jenkins asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 15 March 1988: (1) Is the Minister aware of a Resolution approved unanimously by the Council of the Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers' Associations on 10 January 1988. (2) Which other organisations have indicated a wish to be included on the Advisory Council on Languages and Multicultural Education. (3) Which other organisations should, in the opinion of the Minister, be included on the Council. (4) Does the Minister plan to invite representation from the Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers' Associations; if not, why not. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment, Education and Training has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Since January 1987 approaches to be represented on the Advisory Council have been made as follows: Most State Education Departments Australian Academy of the Humanities National Council of Independent Schools Aboriginal Languages Association Ethnic Schools Associations Primary English Teaching Association Association for Multiculturalism in Education, NSW Asian Studies Association of Australia Adult Literacy Information Office, NSW Division of Adult Basic Education in the School of General Studies, Sydney Teachers College The Australian Association for the Teaching of English Inc Australian Council of TESOL Associations The former Department of Immigration & Ethnic Affairs The former Department of Foreign Affairs The National Language Policy Liaison Group (made up of professional and community organisations with interests in language policy) put forward a proposal calling for a Council to comprise the following groups: Australian Council of TESOL Associations (ACTA) Applied Linguistics Association of Australia (ALAA) Australian Association of Teachers of English (AATE) Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia (FECCA) 2 Parliamentarians Australian Teachers Federation (ATF) Australian Council of State Schools Organisations (ACSSO) Aboriginal Groups Australian Deafness Council/Concerned Deaf Group Up to 8 other people with relevant experience. The Australian Linguistic Society asked that the Council include all relevant professional bodies such as those identified in the Lo Bianco Report, National Policy on Languages. As well as organisations seeking representation for themselves, a number of letters have been received seeking appointment of particular individuals to the Council. (3) None (See answer to part 4) (4) No. The Council as currently constituted is an expert body, with members being appointed in their own right, because of their knowledge and understanding of languages policy and multicultural education issues, and not as delegates or representatives of particular organisations. (Question No. 323) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 17 May 1988: What progress has been made, in view of recent debacles in the award of Government tenders, towards the development of streamlined tendering procedures for Commonwealth departments. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: A review of Commonwealth purchasing was initiated in mid 1987 under the auspices of the Financial Management Improvement Program. Its aim was to discover opportunities for greater efficiency, effectiveness and economy in Government purchasing. The review was not a response to problems with specific tenders but rather was prompted by a recognition of potential for improvement and savings in this very important Commonwealth activity. The role and form of tendering have been examined in the review. A lack of flexibility, and an emphasis on process in the current system, have been identified as problem areas. The review is recommending changes to introduce greater flexibility in purchasing procedures to enhance professionalism in procurement within a framework where open and effective competition is established as the norm, and the traditional values of probity, equity and fair dealing are protected. Consultation has been taking place with industry groups and within the public service on proposed reforms which include changes to the public tender system. If I agree with the detailed proposals put to me, I will be conferring with the Minister for Finance with a view to bringing them forward for decision by Government. A major consideration will be the maintenance of probity. (Question No. 350) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 24 May 1988: Is the Minister considering changing the Government's purchasing policy, a result of which would be that much less of its purchasing would be done by public tender in the future; if so, will this change prejudice businesses seeking contracts and also increase Commonwealth purchasing costs because of reduced competition? Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: An inter-departmental review of Commonwealth purchasing was initiated in mid 1987 under the auspices of the Financial Management Improvement Program. Investigations have included an examination of the regulatory framework of Commonwealth purchasing, including the requirement for public tendering as the norm above a threshold of $20,000. The review has completed its first phase, and recommendations have been prepared. I am advised that the proposals are based on a principle that Commonwealth purchasing should be conducted on the basis of open and effective competition. This principle is aimed at enhancing the opportunity for industry to compete for Commonwealth business through either tendering, or through alternative processes which would involve lower administrative costs for both the Commonwealth and industry. Other proposals involve encouragement of early public notice of requirements. The proposals aim to maintain or improve the quality of competition in Commonwealth purchasing. They have been exposed to a wide cross section of Australian industry in recent months and have received favourable responses. I expect these proposals to be put to me formally and in detail in the near future. If I agree, and am satisfied that probity will be protected, I will bring them forward for consideration by Government. (Question No. 178) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 December 1987: (1) With regard to the proposed relocation of Royal Australian Navy (R.A.N.) facilities to Jervis Bay: (a) exactly what R.A.N. facilities will be moved out of Sydney; (b) to where will they be moved; (c) what will be the loss of jobs in the Sydney metropolitan area due to these moves; (d) what facilities will be left in Sydney; (e) will they include the Naval logistics and storage depot at Zetland (on Botany Road), the naval dockyard at Garden Island together and the fleet base and command facilities at Woolloomooloo; (f) what have been the costs over the years 1979 to 1988 for the modernisation of the dockyard at Garden Island, and the provision of the multi-storey carpark and fleet base facilities at Woolloomooloo; (g) what other planned modernisation programs does the R.A.N. have for other existing facilities in Sydney Harbour. (2) In view of the fact that half the R.A.N. fleet is being moved to H.M.A.S. Stirling in Western Australia, does this make more room for the remaining R.A.N. fleet, leading to a more cost-effective use of the existing facilities at Garden Island, H.M.A.S. Platypus and H.M.A.S. Waterhen; if so, is the proposed move to Jervis Bay unnecessary. (3) Has any detailed assessment been made of the R.A.N.'s ammunition transport, storage and loading requirements in the light of the trend to ``smart'' weapons containing small amounts of explosives compared to older style armaments. (4) Is it a fact that a fixed, shoreside ammunition storage and loading facility may not be needed at the east coast R.A.N fleet base. (5) Have ports with under used existing facilities like Port Kembla and Newcastle been evaluated as potential naval installations instead of Jervis Bay; if not, why not. (6) If existing facilities have been evaluated, what were the reasons for rejecting them. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) The R.A.N. Armament Depot at Newington in to be relocated. A proposal to relocate the Fleet Base at Garden Island/Woolloomooloo and H.M.A.S. Platypus at Neutral Bay is being developed; (b) The proposed location is Jervis Bay; (c) This will be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement; (d) There are no current plans to move Garden Island Dockyard, H.M.A.S. Kuttabul, H.M.A.S Nirimba; H.M.A.S Watson, H.M.A.S Waterhen, the Maritime HQ (under construction) and various supporting facilities including the Navy Supply Centre at Zetland; (e) Yes; (f) Expenditure to 1988: Garden Island Dockyard $77m; Woolloomooloo car park $20m, Fleet Base facilities at Garden Island/Woolloomooloo $15m; (g) H.M.A.S Waterhen will be modernised as a base for mine countermeasures vessels. Redeployment of patrol boats hitherto based at H.M.A.S Waterhen will strengthen patrol forces in the north based at Cairns and Darwin. One patrol boat will continue to be based at H.M.A.S. Waterhen, to support the R.A.N Reserve. Upgrading or augmentation of facilities at other establishments is planned but does not amount to modernisation. Rationalisation of some relatively minor naval facilities within the Sydney metroplitan area is also under consideration. (2) While moving half the Fleet to H.M.A.S Stirling will relieve some of the problems in Sydney for the medium term, the future growth of Sydney will impose increasing constraints on the Navy's operations there. The Government is not prepared to wait until the situation becomes unacceptable before acting on the matter. (3) Yes. However, `smart' weapons do not necessarily contain smaller amounts of explosives than earlier weapons. (4) An armament depot and an associated explosives wharf are required on the east coast. For safety reasons these facilities would not form part of a fleet base. (5) Yes. (6) The procedures under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974-75 require the Department of Defence to justify the basis for the relocation proposal and address alternatives. Those procedures, which will be fully complied with, ensure that interested organisations and individuals will have an opportunity to comment on the Department of Defence's conclusions. (Question Nos. 205-212) Senator Knowles asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 18 February 1988: (1) What is the total 1987-88 departmental expenditure for all forms of assistance to Aboriginals. (2) What is the distribution of this total expenditure between the States and Territories. Senator Tate —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, on behalf of all of the Ministers listed, has provided the following table in respect of identifiable Aboriginal assistance programs being provided in 1987-88, in answer to the honourable senator's question: Department ACT QLD SA WA NT TAS VIC NSW National Total $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories Aboriginal Arts Board Note: 1987-88 allocation $3,044,547 of which $2,475,948 approved. Balance of $568,599 to be considered for distribution in May 1988. . . 338,018 126,444 399,790 356,269 . . 178,608 606,759 440,960 *29,100 2,475,948 *Overseas ACT Administration Expenditure in respect of Jervis Bay and educational programs in ACT schools 217,478 217,478 Australian National Parks & Wildlife Services 197,000 34,500 105,500 108,000 544,000 . . 38,000 13,000 . . 1,040,000 414,478 372,518 231,944 507,790 900,269 . . 216,608 619,759 470,060 3,733,426 Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio Department of Aboriginal Affairs** 1,034,762 46,979,860 31,289,724 63,683,451 29,114,487 . . 9,935,779 19,572,117 11,186,120 212,796,300 Aboriginal Development Commission . . 18,032,400 5,092,000 14,374,000 19,927,000 . . . . 13,154,700 29,135,900 99,716,000 Aboriginal Hostels Ltd . . 3,437,084 1,362,259 2,321,188 3,648,526 . . 1,348,454 2,192,267 2,622,222 16,932,000 Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,831,000 3,831,000 ** Includes Education and Training Programs transferred to DEET in March 1988 1,034,762 68,449,344 37,743,983 80,378,639 52,699,013 . . 11,284,233 34,919,084 46,775,242 333,275,300 Department of Administrative Services Australian Electoral Commission 275,000 52,300 113,700 177,300 251,800 52,300 . . . . . . 923,000 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody 1,930,000 1,930,000 275,000 52,300 113,700 177,300 251,300 521,300 . . . . 1,930,000 2,853,000 Department of Social Security Aboriginal and Torres Strait Services 244,000 453,000 279,000 449,000 492,000 32,000 275,000 487,000 . . 2,711,000 Community Agents Scheme . . 23,000 . . 40,000 24,000 . . . . . . . . 87,000 244,000 476,000 279,000 489,000 516,000 32,000 275,000 487,000 . . 2,798,000 Department of Employment, Education and Training Programs include the following: 1,549,600 39,233,900 11,239,300 28,226,300 17,305,400 2,428,200 7,859,500 43,579,300 812,600 152,234,100 NAEC Committee Training for Aboriginals Aboriginal Secondary Ass Scheme Aboriginal Study Ass Scheme O/seas study grants for Aboriginals Remote areas prog for Aboriginals Nat Scheme, supply teachers in Aboriginal schools. 1,549,600 39,233,900 11,239,300 28,226,300 17,305,400 2,428,200 7,859,500 43,579,300 812,600 152,234,100 Department of Community Services and Health The Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement . . 15,186,000 5,595,000 10,264,000 12,497,000 696,000 3,417,000 12,345,000 . . 60,000,000 Community Assistance Programs 246,959 7,757,977 3,348,712 3,399,712 3,390,103 233,965 2,624,183 9,443,896 . . 30,433,950 Aboriginal Health Programs . . 306,648 360,648 415,829 521,330 5,000 379,017 335,617 1,197,484 3,521,820 246,959 23,250,878 9,304,360 14,078,891 16,408,433 924,065 6,420,200 22,124,513 1,197,484 93,955,780 Attorney-General's Department Royal Commissions 68,008 29,000 118,000 215,000 Consumer Affairs Education 25,000 25,000 68,008 29,000 143,000 240,000 Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet No programs applicable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nil * Current as at 20 April 1988 (Question No. 241) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 February 1988: Can the Minister provide details of how many employees of the Department are presently listed as unattached (to a substantive position within the Department). Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The total number of employees presently listed as unattached officers within the Department is 2352. An unattached officer is one who does not substantively occupy an office within the Department, and is either performing the duties of an established vacant position or is inoperative. Inoperative staff are those absent on leave for any purpose for over 12 weeks. A breakup of the number of unattached officers is shown in the following table. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE UNATTACHED OFFICERS AS AT 11 APRIL 1988 Location Inoperatives Above base operatives Base level operatives Total Australian Capital Territory ... 116 219 510 845 New South Wales ... 35 140 205 380 Northern Territory ... 2 1 . . 3 Queensland ... 17 15 64 96 South Australia ... 18 123 67 208 Tasmania ... 4 . . 4 8 Victoria ... 79 187 512 778 Western Australia ... 4 4 14 22 Overseas ... . . 12 . . 12 Total ... 275 701 1 376* 2 352 *Note: This figure reflects a common practice whereby the majority of appointments to the Australian Public Service are made at the base level, normally without the attachment of the officer to a substantive position. (Question No. 257) Senator Crichton-Browne asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 15 March 1988: (1) Has the Federal Government accepted the principles for Aboriginal access to traditional hunting and fishing grounds listed by the Australian Law Reform Commission in the January 1988 edition of ``Reform'' (page 31); if so, which ones. (2) Are there areas around Australia where access to traditional hunting and fishing grounds has been granted; if so, where, under State or Federal law and on what conditions. (3) Does the Government have any claims for access to traditional hunting and fishing grounds before it; if so, by whom are they made, to which areas do they relate and on what conditions are the rights sought. (4) Have rights been granted or are claims pending for grounds within national parks; if so, are there any constraints on the activities which may be carried on under the rights granted and what efforts are made to ensure that the activity conducted is not detrimental to the environment of the national parkland. (5) When referring to rights granted or claims pending, would the Minister indicate whether they relate to Crown land, leasehold, freehold or other interests. Senator Tate —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: (1) These principles have been the subject of discussion between officers of the Commonwealth and are under consideration by the Government. It has not been possible, given the complexity of the issues and their application to innumerable and different local situations, to yet adopt a position in relation to them before discussions are held with the States and the Northern Territory. (2) There is a range of Federal and State legislation relevant to the recognition of traditional hunting and fishing rights. State legislation is by far the most important and takes a number of forms. A useful summary of the operation of existing legislation is to be found in Chapter 35 of the Australian Law Reform Commission's Report on The Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws. (3) I am not aware of any such claims. (4) The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 (Cth), provides for the recognition of traditional hunting and gathering rights within national parks and reserves administered by the Commonwealth in the Northern Territory. These processes of that Act, as well as park management plans, generally restrict such rights so as to ensure the protection of such areas and preserve a balance between the interests of all users. Again, Chapter 35 of the abovementioned Report details the operation of individual Acts and management plans. (5) In the case of rights relevant to National Parks administered under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 in the Northern Territory, the land is held by the Director of National Parks and Wildlife Service under leasehold or freehold conditions. (Question No. 286) Senator Short asked the Minister for Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on a 13 April 1988: (1) Does the Government frequently appoint members of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations (AFCO) to official committees, councils and boards which deal with matters of interest to consumers. (2) Are these appointments made on the basis that the persons concerned will serve as independent individuals rather than as formal representatives of AFCO. (3) Does a document entitled, ``Rules for AFCO Representatives'', prepared by AFCO, rule 1 state: ``Appointees are regarded by AFCO as accountable to the Federation and obliged to act in the interest of advancing its policies''. (4) Does the Minister agree that this AFCO rule is in conflict with the Government's requirements for appointees. (5) What steps will the Government take to resolve this conflict of interest on the part of AFCO appointees to Government bodies. Senator Bolkus —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) There are no formal Government policies in place, which have overall application, in respect of the basis on which persons are appointed to such Government bodies. In some cases the terms of appointment for appointees may require service in an individual capacity but in other cases it may be recognized that appointees represent particular organisations or interests. This will vary from body to body according to the wishes of the Minister making the appointment and, in some instances, legislative provisions pertaining to the particular body. (3) Yes. However, I am advised by AFCO that the notes are in draft form and have been circulated to AFCO members for comment. (4) As noted above in (2), there are no Government requirements which have universal application with which the draft rules conflict. However, the draft rules do appear to have the potential to result in some conflict in particular situations. (5) AFCO have indicated their willingness to amend the draft rules to remove any potential for conflict with Government requirements for appointees to Government bodies. The Federal Bureau of Consumer Affairs will be consulting with AFCO to ensure the final version of the rules makes it clear that where a person is appointed by the Government to serve in an individual capacity, the rules should not be capable of being applied in a manner which prevents this from occurring. (Question No. 303) Senator Bishop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 April 1988: When will the 2 per cent discount in pensions caused by Part II of the Superannuation and other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986, which amended the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 and which came into effect on pension payday 23 October 1986, be restored to the 9.6 per cent pension increase granted from 1 July 1986? Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I refer the honourable Senator to the answer given by Senator Walsh to a Question without Notice from Senator Hill on 28 April 1988 (Hansard pp. 2068-9). (Question No. 345) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 23 May 1988: What expenditures, by quarter, on computer hardware and software, have been made by the Minister's Department over the last 3 years to March 1988. Senator Bolkus —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Quarter June 85 Sept 85 Dec 85 March 86 June 86 Sep 86 Hardware ... 25,075,266 2,301,501 18,459,791 7,520,468 2,788,792 3,675,529 Software ... 1,971,345 7,263 1,106,326 693,332 4,048,644 1,036,544 Total ... 27,046,611 2,308,764 19,566,114 8,213,801 6,837,436 4,712,073 Quarter ... Dec 86 March 87 June 87 Sept 87 Dec 87 March 88 Hardware ... 10,504,139 8,470,792 26,980,260 7,426,285 14,319,008 4,947,151 Software ... 1,169,887 1,014,068 2,575,784 387,345 1,377,176 965,340 Total ... 11,674,026 9,484,860 29,556,044 7,813,630 15,756,184 5,912,491 (Question No. 348) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 24 May 1988: What expenditures, by quarter, on computer hardware and software, have been made by the Minister's Department over the last 3 years to March 1988. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The following statistics refer to expenditure by the Minister's Department or elements of former departments which currently comprise the Minister's Department, over the 3 years to March 1988, that is directly attributable to computer hardware and software. With the exception of the periods March-June 1985 and July 1987-March 1988, statistics have been provided by financial year as they are not usually retained on a quarterly basis. Period Expenditure $ April-June 1985 ... 4,352,153 1985-86 ... 10,531,127 1986-87 ... 12,443,548 July 1987-March 1988 ... 12,799,100 Senator Button —On 18 May 1988 (Hansard, page 2399) Senator Chaney asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, a question without notice regarding the recent number of industry claims being lodged by the trade union movement and the consistency of this approach with the wage fixation principles. In particular he asked whether the union approach was in breach of the no extra claims commitment and what the Government was doing to counter that strategy. He also asked whether the union strategy was an attempt to pre-empt the May review of the principles and present the Commission with concluded agreements and whether that could be achieved without imposing any distortion on the principles to be considered and determined in the May Review. In my reply, I undertook to refer the matter to the Minister for Industrial Relations. The Minister has provided the following response: The Government is aware that the ACTU has put in a claim for a new wages system and has supported claims being progressed on an industry basis. It is open for the ACTU to discuss or progress these claims at an industry level. This process is not precluded by the present principles nor by the May Review. The Government has, however, made it clear that discussions at the industry level should not pre-empt the outcome of the Review which is properly the responsibility of the Arbitration Commisison to determine. The Government has also emphasised that any discussions at industry level should be conducted responsibly without recourse to industrial action. The Government is continuing its dialogue with the parties to the May Review to ensure that his occurs. The Government would encourage the parties to discuss at industry level the means by which productivity and industry performance can be enhanced at industry and enterprise level, including better training and skills formation in the context of award restructuring. As the President of the Commission pointed out after a preliminary conference of the Wage Review on 12 May, the current principles continue to apply during the Review of the system. The next conference commences on 7 June.