Monday, 17 October 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Senator Puplick-On a point of order, Mr President: may I ask whether it is within the rules of this place that you will give or have given instructions that people in the press gallery should be on their feet during the reading of prayers? The PRESIDENT —I will check that for Senator Puplick. Unfortunately, I do not have eyes in the back of my head, but I will make inquiries. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That your petitioners deplore the Federal Government's decision to remove 53 Pharmaceutical drugs-including the best available for the treatment of high blood pressure, cancer, epilepsy, high cholesterol and uneven heartbeat,-and place them for cost saving reasons only on a special list requiring Authority from a Canberra bureaucrat, and; That we believe a patient's doctor is clearly the best judge for medication needed for their particular illness and that it is therefore wrong and unfair to force that doctor to waste valuable time referring to a case to a person in Canberra who has no personal knowledge of that case. Your petitioners pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should heed the above. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Panizza (from 24l citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That it be recognised the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commissioner Bill is a public, legal acknowledgment that Australians who are non-aboriginal do not have sovereignty in their own country. 2. That the Australian people are opposed to the idea of a treaty, compact of makarrata between the Australian people who are non-aboriginal and those who are aboriginal, and the Government has no mandate or authority to pursue it. 3. That the proposed legislation and treaty will damage Australia's position under international law and in any conflict, will cause distrust and conflict between our aboriginal population (1%) and the non-aboriginal population (99%), will extend aboriginal land rights, contrary to the wishes of the Australian people, will not be acceptable to the aboriginal people themselves will solve none of the problems of aboriginal people who need housing, health services, education and employment. That therefore, the Senate reject absolutely the announced proposals for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Bill, and the negotiation of a treaty, compact or makarrata between the Commonwealth and aboriginal people. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 243 citizens). To the Honourable the President and and Senators of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the film ``The Last Temptation of Christ'' portrays Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in a blasphemous and offensive way and is calculated to outrage the feelings of Christians. 2. That the decision of the Film Censorship Board to allow the importation of the film and to classify the Film with an ``R'' classification, rather than banning it, shows that the Film Censorship Board has failed in its statutory duty. 3. That in failing to exercise his powers and ban the Film the Attorney General has, as with his failure to band the film Hail Mary in 1986, failed in his duty to the people of Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament will express its lack of confidence in the Attorney-General and the Film Censorship Board and pass laws which will ensure that no more blasphemous or offensive films will be permitted to be imported and/or screened in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Bishop (from 413 citizens). Petitions received. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I seek leave to withdraw two notices of motion of disallowance standing in my name. Leave granted. Senator LEWIS —I withdraw Business of the Senate notices of motion Nos. 2 and 3 standing in my name for this day relating to disallowance of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery Management Plan (Amendment) and Fisheries Notice No. 107a. I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator LEWIS —I thank the Senate. The subject of these notices of motion has been considered by the Senate Standing committee on Industry, Science and Technology. The report of that Committee was put down in the Senate last Friday. I thank the Committee for investigating this matter and reporting on the subject. I draw attention to the undertaking of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, the Hon. John Kerin, dated 12 October 1988 to that Committee from which I quote: . . . I am prepared to make provision for those fishermen with recorded catches of southern bluefin tuna under 24.1 and 24.2 by providing them promptly with quota units at a discounted level equivalent to 43 per cent of the 5 or 1 tonne catch level, whichever is applicable. These units would be provided on the same basis as the original allocation: i.e. recipients would be required to pay levy and allowed to trade in the quota units allocated. I thank the Minister for that undertaking and, in light of it, indicate to the Senate that in my view there is no need to proceed with these notices of motion. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the invitation by the Hawke Government to Australia's Allies, the United Kingdom and the United States, to participate in the Bicentennial celebrations with a naval visit; (b) notes that this invitation was effectively sabotaged in Melbourne by the Government's failure to counter actions by the Seamen's Union and the Trades Hall Council that prevented the HMS Ark Royal from docking and the USS Ingersoll from departing from its berth; (c) notes that Mr Halfpenny, Secretary of the Trades Hall Council and an endorsed ALP Senate candidate at the last Federal elections, said that turning away the Ark Royal at the weekend was `an important victory'; (d) notes that this is not the first time that Unions have blatantly interfered with what is constitutionally the Commonwealth's responsibility in Foreign and Defence Policy, while this Government has not been prepared to endorse its authority; (e) further notes that Mr Halfpenny's `victory' was assisted by the inaction of the new Victorian ALP Government which is dominated by the Socialist Left and which had previously challenged the constitutional authority of the Commonwealth when announcing its intention to legislate to prevent Nuclear-capable ships of entering the Port of Melbourne which challenge was effectively put down by the then Liberal and National Party Government. (f) calls on the Hawke Government to stand up to the Unions and exercise its legitimate authority over Australia's Defence and Foreign Policy and to enact similar legislation to the Fraser Government's Defence (Visiting Warships) Bill which was not enacted due to the 1983 Federal election. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Federal Government for its cowardice in failing to counter the treasonable activities of the Seaman's Union of Australia whose actions prevented the berthing, in Melbourne, of HMS Ark Royal and Fort Grange and the departure of USS Ingersoll; (b) notes that this action by the Labor Government characteristically reflects its feeble support for the western democracies and their armed services and is consistent with the Labor Government's tacit support for the unilateral disarmament groups and those Soviet-funded peace groups in this country. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes- (a) the decision by the Film Censorship Board to classify the film The Last Temptation of Christ with an `R' (Restricted) classification; (b) that this decision was taken following comments sought by the Board from representatives of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Sydney and the Australian Council of Churches; (c) that the Commonwealth Film Board of Review overturned the original classification decision and downgraded it to an `M' (Mature Audiences) rating without any reference to interested groups; (d) that this will permit children of any age to view a film which is grossly offensive to many Christians and contains both profane and historically inaccurate depictions of the life of Christ; and (e) strongly urges the Commonwealth Attorney-General to take action to prevent this film receiving unrestricted exhibition and similar instances occurring in the future. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the conduct and behaviour of those demonstrators who disrupted the visit to Melbourne of warships from nations invited to participate in Australia's Bicentennial celebrations and take part in Victoria's bicentennial Naval Salute; (b) condemns the Seamen's Union of Australia for their political strike which denied access to the Port of Melbourne of HMS Ark Royal and HMS Fort Grange which were invited to Australia to participate in our Bicentennial celebrations and to Melbourne, in particular, to join in Victoria's bicentennial Naval Salute; (c) calls upon the Federal Government to apologise to the United States and United Kingdom governments for the un-Australian conduct of the demonstrators and the Union, given particularly, that the warships of the 2 allied nations visited Australian ports at the specific invitation of the Australian Government; and (d) condemns those Senators who give support to law breakers and encourages their illegal and un-Australian acts. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes- (a) and the Australian people note that the Federal Government has, in recent weeks, deliberately initiated, in the name of bicentennial celebrations, 2 events of enormous potential public hazard, namely the visit by 7 nuclear-armed ships into the heart of our most populous city and on the outskirts of Sydney the largest airshow ever staged in this country, without any contingency plans in the event of a major accident on a scale even of those in recent experience; and (b) calls upon the Government to guarantee that no future events of a similar nature will be allowed unless there are publicly exhibited contingency plans in place. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the invitation extended by the Australian Government to visiting warships to visit Melbourne for the city's bicentennial Naval Salute on the weekend commencing 15 October 1988; (b) notes that the Seamen's Union of Australia adopted a resolution, endorsed by the Trades Hall Council, to ban tugs from assisting United States and British ships because of the believed nuclear capacity of the ships; (c) notes that no such restriction was placed on the visiting French warships FNS Colbert and FNS Commandant Bory; (d) notes that the British aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal and its supply ship HMS Fort Grange were prevented from berthing in Melbourne; (e) notes that the USS Ingersoll having docked under its own steam is now unable to leave Melbourne without assistance because of bad weather; (f) notes that the Royal Australian Navy does not have the financial resources to enable it to run its own fleet of tugs and that, despite pleas for assistance by the Australian Navy, no help was forthcoming from either the Australian Council of Trade Unions or the State or Federal Governments in dealing with Mr John Halfpenny and his Socialist Left friends in the Seamen's Union; and (g) condemns the Federal and State Governments for their failure to ensure that the invitation to the British and American ships was implemented, thereby jeopardising our relationship with the western alliance and damaging Australia's international standing. Senator DUNN(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that recent public opinion polls show that only 24 per cent of the Australian public support the visits to Australian ports of nuclear-armed warships; (b) commends the Seamens' Union of Australia and the Victorian peace movement for carrying out the wishes of the majority of Australians in sending the HMS Ark Royal and HMS Fort Grange out of the nuclear-free State of Victoria; and (c) calls on the Federal Government to stop future visits by all nuclear capable vessels to Australian ports. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) calls on the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) to apologise to our British allies for denying them landing facilities in Victoria to berth the aircraft carrier, HMS Ark Royal and the supply vessel HMS Fort Grange; (b) calls Senator Button to further apologise to the Australian people for the embarrassment caused to them by this action in deserting our allies in this, our Bicentennial year; (c) notes with concern the Federal Government's abrogation of its defence responsibilities in handing over the decision as to which ships should be allowed into Australia to the left-wing Seamens' Union of Australia and Trades Hall; and (d) further notes that no further examples of union domination over this Government are needed to point out to the Australian people that this Government is union controlled, owned and run by the union movement rather than a majority of the elected members representing the Australian people and forming a Government in the House of Representatives. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. What order of tax cuts can the economy afford next year? Senator BUTTON —The order of tax cuts which can be afforded next year is essentially a matter for further consideration and negotiation. I refer Senator Chaney, for example, to page 5 of the Treasurer's Budget Speech, where he says: Tax cuts will then be paid from 1 July 1989. These arrangements will underpin the wage decision recently handed down from the Arbitration Commission and open the way for both higher real incomes and lower real labour costs. As the Government has stated previously, the size of the tax cuts to be provided will be dependent on wages growth during 1988-89 and the quality of the wage/tax trade-off to be negotiated. They are some of the parameters for consideration of tax cuts next year. At the appropriate time, after those negotiations and further consideration have taken place, the Treasurer will make an announcement. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I note that as usual the Minister seems to be more forthcoming on television than he is in this chamber. I remind him that yesterday he said that Australia could not afford the `enormous figures'-in his words-which had been bandied about concerning the tax cuts. He went on to say: In terms of bracket creep and so on there is a need for tax cuts in the coming year. I remind the Minister that in regard to bracket creep-and he acknowledges that that is a factor-Mr McCrann has reported that perhaps $25 a week would be required, on average, if the average taxpayer is not to be worse off than he was under John Howard's last Budget. I remind him that the same figure has been bandied about by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Are they the `enormous figures' that the Minister is saying are not open to consideration? Senator BUTTON —Let us be clear about what I said on Saturday night and which was broadcast on television yesterday. I was asked whether I thought tax cuts were affordable, to which I answered: Some people have talked enormous figures in terms of tax cuts and I don't think they are affordable. That was my answer, and I do not in any way retreat from that. If the honourable senator wants an example of what I would regard as enormous figures, I would cite the figure that has been touted around by the shadow Treasurer, Mr Peacock, of $56. Senator GIETZELT —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training: How many jobs have been created by the Hawke Labor Government since it came to office in March 1983? How has that figure been achieved? Senator WALSH —On a seasonally adjusted basis-although if one takes the original figures the gap between the two is not significantly different-6,265,000 people were in employment when this Government took office. On the September figures, again on a seasonally adjusted basis, that figure had increased to 7,408,000, an increase of some 1,143,000. In other words, since this Government took office more than 1.1 million additional people are in jobs. I was also asked how this had been achieved. It has been achieved under this Government's sound economic management; in particular, in a sustained period of economic growth averaging around 4 per cent over the last five financial years. An important component of that was a correction of the wages explosion that took place in 1981 and 1982, when wages increased by 13 per cent and 14 per cent respectively under the economic policies of the former Government presided over by the former Treasurer, now the Leader of the Opposition. The correction of that wages explosion implied a decline in real wages, but that was offset by an increase in the number of people employed of more than 1.1 million. As I explained to the Senate last week, notwithstanding the fact that there has been a decline in average real wages, household disposable income per capita has increased. If anyone wants to read a well put together and independent analysis of those figures, I suggest that he or she read the article written by Ross Gittins and published in the Sydney Morning Herald last Saturday. Senator HAMER —Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister aware that warships of the British and United States navies which were invited here by the Australian Government to take part in our bicentennial celebrations were denied tug services in Melbourne by the Seamen's Union of Australia and that this resulted in the Ark Royal and a support ship being unable to berth and leaving Melbourne five days early? In the Government's opinion, is there any question of nuclear safety that would justify the union ban? Does the Minister know why the union ban excluded French ships, despite the fact that France is the one power exploding nuclear devices in the Pacific Ocean? Does the Minister agree that this sort of ill-informed political strike action taken by the Seamen's Union is damaging to the reputation and interests of this country? What action will the Government take to prevent a repetition of such a distasteful and damaging event? Will the Government be making an apology to the visiting ships concerned? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of most of the facts-or alleged facts-set out in Senator Hamer's question, but I am not in a position to respond to the detailed parts of that question. I will seek an early answer and respond as soon as I can. Senator McKIERNAN —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to announcements this morning by North Broken Hill Holdings Ltd and Noranda Forests Inc. of Canada that they are to develop a pulp mill in Tasmania. Could the Minister indicate what the future implications are of this development for Australia's balance of payments and employment? Senator BUTTON —I thank Senator McKiernan for his question. Although he is a Western Australian, I know that he has long taken an interest in the well-being of the Tasmanian and Australian economies. The project is not just of importance for the Tasmanian economy; it is a project of national significance. At $1 billion, this project is the largest single investment in manufacturing in Australia ever made by private industry. It is not just the size of the investment or the fact that this will be about the biggest pulp mill in the world that is important. Of more significance is that the project is aimed at adding value to raw materials: 1.8 million tonnes of timber will now be processed into 440,000 tonnes of pulp for use in paper production, rather than being exported as wood chips. Imports of pulp in 1987-88 were $224m, and a proportion of the output of the mill will replace these imports, which have been growing steadily in recent years. More importantly, about 90 per cent of the output of the mill will be for the export market. These exports will mean a net annual addition to our balance of payments of about $300m in 1988 prices. It is expected that some 2,400 direct and indirect jobs will be created during the construction phase and that the employment increase will settle at over 700 new jobs in Tasmania. At least 60 per cent of the plant and machinery required by the project will be sourced in Australia and it is expected that there will significant flow-on effects to manufacturing firms Australia-wide. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health. I refer the Minister to the Government's proposal to relocate the Office of Disability and the Office for the Aged to the Department of Community Services and Health in Canberra. Is the Minister aware that a large number of community groups have expressed concern that this relocation, firstly, will remove the direct access to the Minister currently enjoyed by the two offices; secondly, will downgrade the offices and hence indicate a lack of ongoing Government commitment to the needs of the disabled and the aged; thirdly, will diminish the role of independent monitor of government action previously enjoyed by these offices; and fourthly, will restrict the range of issues on which these offices may comment to those matters dealt with by the Department of Community Services and Health? If the Minister does not agree that all or any of these concerns are justified, can he say how the proposed relocation of those two offices will actually improve services to the disabled and the aged and enable the offices to adequately influence government policy formulation and service provision. Senator COOK —Senator Haines's question is very detailed. I will refer it to the Minister and make a reply in due course. Senator MAGUIRE —I refer the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to the current political situation in Fiji. What is the Government's reaction to the reported threat by Major-General Rabuka to withdraw the licences of Australian banks currently operating in Fiji? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of the press account in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning of an interview between Major-General Rabuka and a Fijian student in which the general is reported to have made reference to the possible closure of Australian banking operations in Fiji. At this stage I have received no official confirmation of this report and I will seek some clarification of it. May I say, however, that at no time during my recent visit to Fiji was any such possibility raised with me by Prime Minister Mara or any other member of his Cabinet. Moreover, I would not expect any such course of action to be pursued because it is so obviously counterproductive to the interests of Fiji in achieving economic recovery. I would have thought that all members of the Fijian Government, including Major-General Rabuka, were acutely aware by now of the impact on Fiji of a loss of business and investor confidence of the kind which occurred last year. There is obviously no better way to destroy that than to put at risk key elements in the nation's banking and financial institutions in the way that apparently has been floated. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice and is further to the answer that he gave to a question from the Labor Whip, Senator Jones, last Friday. Is it not a fact that the late Mr David Blenkinsop had been listed on the joint Australian Federal Police-Australian Customs Service Intel II database since 1982 when he first started to operate charter yachts off the coast of Thailand? Senator TATE —I have no knowledge that that is the case, but, in any case, that would be an operational decision by the Australian Federal Police, and something upon which I never comment. Senator HILL —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Would the Minister therefore advise the Senate what is the purpose of the Intel II database? Senator Peter Baume —That is a different question. Senator TATE —That is a different question. I do not know that it is actually supplementary. The aim of any intelligence database is to gather material upon which the Federal Police, who are within my responsibility, can take such action as they may think prudent or necessary in light of the actual or anticipated commission of some offence. I guess that that is self-evident. Senator DEVLIN —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training seen reports that the Tasmanian Premier, Robin Gray, is in Sydney promoting Tasmania as a destination, not just for a holiday, but to live and work? How does Tasmania rank among the States as an employment provider? Senator WALSH —The facts are that the most recent figures show that the unemployment rate for the whole of Australia is 6.9 per cent, while in Tasmania it is 9.5 per cent, which is somewhat more than what the Premier of Tasmania described as being marginally higher than the rate for the rest of Australia. The margin is 2.6 per cent. Tasmania has always been a great place for a holiday, of course, but it has not in the past been a very good place for someone who is looking for a job. As Senator Button has already mentioned, there are good prospects that it will improve in the future. The prospects would improve even more, I suspect, if Mr Gray ceased to be Premier. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. In view of the Government's failure to ensure the effectiveness of its invitation to United Kingdom and United States ships to participate in Australia's bicentennial celebrations, why did the Hawke Government not proceed with the Fraser Government's Defence (Visiting Warships) Bill that passed the second reading stage in both the Senate and the House of Representatives in late 1982, with the public support of the present Minister for Defence, Mr Kim Beazley? Will the Minister immediately act to reintroduce this legislation to ensure that there is no repetition of last weekend's Melbourne situation where Australia's defence policy was hijacked by the union movement, with the passive support of the Socialist Left-controlled Victorian Government? Senator RICHARDSON —I will refer the question to the Minister. However, having had the pleasure of representing the defence portfolio for all of last week, I have to confess that I have not read the 1982 legislation from cover to cover as yet. I might have to take a day or so to do that. In any event, I will refer the question to Minister Beazley to see whether I can obtain an answer. Senator ZAKHAROV —I ask the Minister for Consumer Affairs to explain the circumstances which led to his press release of 22 September 1988 regarding a recall of Neroa condoms, which are a therapeutic device. Has the Government taken any action further to the press release to ensure that consumers are protected from these defective condoms? Senator BOLKUS —I thank not only Senator Zakharov for raising this question but also Senator Messner for the competent way in which he has handled the problem that the Government faced with this particular brand of condom. The Trade Practices Act provides for a mandatory recall of unsafe consumer products. By matter of course the Government's approach in these matters is to take that action if there has not been satisfactory voluntary recall action taken by the supplier. As Minister for Consumer Affairs, I have authority over that particular part of the Act. It also has to be made clear that, in issuing instructions and issuing recall orders under the Act, I act in consultation with my colleague the Minister for Health. In this instance we had a breach of a therapeutic goods order, Australian standard 1919. After consultation with the Minister for Health it was apparent that the Government had to take some sort of action. The condoms involved were ones that had been tested on a number of occasions, particularly by the Department of Health personnel as well as by an organisation acting for the University of Sydney. In the first instance we found that the condoms had the worst failure rate ever recorded by the Department of Health in having 33 out of 315 leaking when the allowable limit is seven. In respect of the second series of tests conducted by Enersol Consulting Engineers for the University of Sydney we found that the burstage tests in August this year indicated 37 condoms bursting out of a batch of 200. Both these failure rates were far in excess of the allowable limit. As a consequence, discussions eventuated with the supplier company to ensure that consumers were protected from such defective articles. Senator Newman —Why don't you write a learned paper on the subject. Senator BOLKUS —I am not writing a letter about this; this matter affects quite a number of people. The Government, having realised that, is attempting to ensure that as much publicity as possible is given to the issue. In recent days, after consultation with the suppliers involved, we had a satisfactory result in that the voluntary recall was advertised in a number of newspapers last Friday. I thank Senator Messner for his cooperation in achieving such a result. Suppliers and retailers have been asked to return these condoms to the particular company involved, Neo Lux Corp Pty Ltd, which is based in South Australia, in order to obtain a refund. I take this opportunity to advise consumers generally that they also have that same right. Senator McGAURAN —I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the Government's announced intention to delay by only a few weeks the debate on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Bill on account of a deal done with the Australian Democrat senator, Senator Coulter. Firstly, in view of Senator Jenkins's concern expressed in this chamber on Wednesday that even the extended timetable will be quite inadequate for people to be properly consulted, secondly, in view of a motion moved by Mr Charles Perkins as Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs at an Aboriginal Development Commission meeting in Rockhampton, calling for a longer period of consultation and, thirdly, in the light of the reports that the Western Australian Labor Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Bridge, has said that more information is needed for the community to make a full assessment of the proposal, will the Leader of the Government take up with the Prime Minister the urgent necessity of further delaying this legislation until at least the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Administration of Aboriginal Affairs has been completed and considered? Senator BUTTON —I certainly do not mind mentioning the matter to the Prime Minister, but the question is of some detail and I would have thought that it would be addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in this House. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister for Resources seen recent press reports of the opening of the first new gold mine in Ballarat in 70 years? How does this square with the dire predictions of some sections of the gold industry that the Government's decision to introduce a corporate tax on gold will lead to closures and a big downturn in the industry? Senator COOK —I have seen reports, which I think were dated 13 October, of a new gold mine opening in Ballarat. The heading in the Age was, `New Ballarat gold mine to be the first in 70 years'; the Sydney Morning Herald headline read, `Ballarat prepares for a new gold rush'; and the Melbourne Sun ran a headline which read, `Gold rush days return to Ballarat'. The company Ballarat Goldfields Ltd has announced that it is going to push ahead with a $15m exploration and development program. It has pegged a strip five kilometres long and half a kilometre wide in Ballarat East goldfields. It intends to sink a shaft 300 metres deep and then drive 500 metres westward to get under the Sovereign Hill tourist park and there exploit what it regards as a very productive gold ore body. It is, of course, an historic area in Ballarat. The Eastern Ballarat goldfield has produced since 1918 over one million ounces of gold, and further work will obviously add to that product figure. This is an important announcement. It comes after the May economic statement in which the Government announced that it would extend normal company taxation to gold mining companies. Australia has seen a resurgence in gold production. In 1980 we produced 18 tonnes of gold. In 1987 that had gone to 110 tonnes, in 1987-88 to 127 tonnes, and the projections are for our production to increase, peaking in 1990. This year 20 new gold mines have been announced; two major mines in Western Australia, two major gold mines in Queensland and one major new gold mine in the Northern Territory. Ten of those 20 were announced after the May economic statement. We expect by the end of this year that a further 30 will be announced, including three further new major gold mines in Western Australia, a major gold mine in the Northern Territory and, of course, the Olympic Dam project will come on, which is a mixed mineral mine but is a significant gold resource in its own right. That will add 1.5 million ounces to Australian production. It will equal a capital investment in gold mining of $1.5 billion, if you exclude the half million dollars invested in the Olympic Dam which, as I have said, is a gold, copper and uranium deposit. There have been some very minor effects of the October 1987 stock market crash, which has caused some rationalisation in the gold mining area, but there have been no significant closures of any gold resource at all in Australia since the announcement in May of the Treasurer's intention to include gold in the normal taxation regime. I believe the figures make it quite clear that the proposal to extend normal company tax-and not this nebulous term that promoters of the campaign against this tax call `gold tax'; it is a company tax, not a gold tax-is no deterrent and investment in this area is quite strong. The figures speak for themselves. Senator BISHOP —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Education Services. Does the Minister recognise the important contribution that volunteers make to the community at large and the important role that organisations such as the Volunteer Centre of New South Wales play in the delivery of services to those in need? Does the Minister realise that the planned replacement of the community volunteer program by the Skillshare program will mean that the Parramatta Office of the Volunteer Centre, which services three-quarters of a million people in the west of Sydney and is totally funded by Federal Government funding, is threatened with closure because the funding of $67,000 is to be stopped? If the Minister does acknowledge the important contribution that volunteers make to the Australian economy, will he seek to have the decision to discontinue the funding of the community volunteer program reversed? Senator WALSH —Not surprisingly, I am not familiar with all the details of the large number of programs run within the Department of Employment, Education and Training. I did not know that the particular centre that was named is likely to close. I will refer the question to Mr Dawkins to supply an answer. Senator ARCHER —I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade: In view of the recent encouraging signs of more liberal thinking on the part of the Soviet Union leadership, what is the Government's policy now on the aspirations of the Baltic nations towards self-government and eventual self-determination? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has always had considerable sympathy for the position of the Baltic states. I think I would prefer, given the sensitivity of that issue, not to say more upon it until I have considered carefully the implications of the activity that is there occurring at the moment. Senator Hill —Refer it to Hawke. Senator Puplick —Refer it to somebody for an answer. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will give a more considered answer when I have had an opportunity to consider the implications of current events in the Baltic states and the likely reaction of the Soviet Government to them. Senator FOREMAN —I draw the attention of the Minister for Justice to various media reports about the National Committee on Violence. As this is a joint Federal and State initiative, can the Minister give some details about its terms of reference, and whether they are sufficiently flexible to handle the various issues involved? Senator McGauran —Why don't you do something positive? Senator TATE —Senator McGauran has interjected, even before I have given an answer. I believe the setting up of this particular committee, on the instructions of the Prime Minister, the Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, is a very useful response to a growing anxiety in the Australian community about the level of violence, which appears to be exacerbated and expressed, of course, in some very violent crimes that get great notoriety, but may themselves be only an expression of an increase in violence which is affecting many sectors of society. We know of domestic violence, of course, and the particular impact that has on women. We know of the general violence associated with drunken hooliganism. We know of the aura of violence that surrounds some streets and parts of cities and makes them unsafe, in the view of many citizens, for them to enjoy recreation and even just go to work or about their normal business without fear or anxiety. It is to this general question of violence and the underlying causes which this Committee will address itself-this National Committee, set up, as I say, as a result of the determination of the Prime Minister, the Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to try to unravel what underlies the violence of which I speak. Senator Walters —Why are you leaving out videos? Senator TATE —We are not leaving out anything. I always regret it when I answer Senator Walters's interjection because it gets into Hansard. Nevertheless, we are not leaving anything out. In fact, one of the points made by the Premiers at the summit on gun and other violence held late last year was precisely the impact that the media, in its various forms, might have on the inculcation of an attitude, a point of view, or a tendency in people to an early resort to violence to solve disputes. The whole question of media violence-the mass media in particular, including motion pictures and videotape recordings-will be looked at. It will not be a committee, I hope, that will duplicate the very valuable work done by committees such as the parliamentary committees which have examined video tapes in particular. It will not duplicate, for example, precisely in the same way, investigations being undertaken by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in respect of the broadcasting of violent material, particularly through the television media. I think, without duplicating many valuable inquiries that have been undertaken, nevertheless the aspect that the honourable senator raised by interjection is something that, of course, the Committee will have to look at. Not only will it look at the state of violent crime in Australia at the moment; it will also try to look at the underlying social, economic, psychological and other factors that may give rise to this changing climate, as it is perceived by many Australians. The question of alcohol abuse and abuse of other drugs with respect to violence is, of course, an important matter that the Committee will be looking at, amongst many others. Not only will the Committee be looking at the question of those who offend by violent activity, but the question of the impact on victims of violence will also be part of its terms of reference, because the very traumatic effect of violent assault on a person is something that the community has to be, and is, aware of, which will, no doubt, lead to cries for more support and assistance for victims of violence; and that is something the Committee will be examining. This Committee, under the chairmanship of Professor Duncan Chappell, who is the Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology, will not be an academic-oriented committee. It will commission research reports, of course. It will also visit every Australian capital-that is budgeted for-and the purpose of visiting those capitals is to conduct workshops and to listen to those persons in the community, individuals and groups, who have a point of view they wish to put. I am sure that listening to the community will prove to be a very important part of the role of the Committee as it makes its recommendations known. It has been asked to report by 31 December 1989; but, if along the way the Committee wishes to put forward an interim report or reports in order to enable policy makers to deal with particular aspects about which the Committee feels confident enough to make recommendations, even though the full report has not been completed, it may do so. In this way I believe that it will be a very practical committee and will fulfil the expectations of the Prime Minister, the Premiers and the Chief Minister, and thereby of the community. I believe that it will be a very useful response to the phenomenon in which Senator McGauran, as a Victorian and as a resident of Melbourne, I take it-even though he represents the National Party-would be very interested because of the eruption of crimes of violence in that city. Those crimes may be attributed to deranged minds or to the cold malice of criminal minds, but they may simply be expressions of a more general phenomenon which the Australian community must try to understand as we try to create a better society for the future. Senator SHEIL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. A few months ago a new computerised system, based in Canberra, was introduced supposedly to streamline payment of salaries and allowances to Commonwealth employees. Is the Minister aware that this system is failing, with some employees waiting many weeks to collect travelling allowances? In other words, they are digging into their own pockets to work for the Government. One of my own staff is still awaiting travelling allowances dating back to July; another waited seven weeks for a pay cheque. The Administrative Services staff in Queensland are snowed under with complaints. Why has this happened and what steps will be taken to remedy the situation? Senator ROBERT RAY —Until halfway through Question Time I was not aware that the facts alluded to by Senator Sheil were in existence. I will have that matter investigated and get him a response. We would regard it as intolerable for people to be kept waiting for long periods for either their pay or their travelling allowances. It must be, I assume, relatively unique to Queensland because I have not had complaints from elsewhere. I will try to get a response before the end of Question Time or, if not, by tomorrow. Senator COLSTON —Has the Minister for Finance noticed that Queensland was the only mainland State to record an increase in unemployment in September? Was the Queensland jobless rate at the end of September 8.2 per cent compared with the national figure of 7 per cent? Are these figures for Queensland alarming, especially given the imminent closure of Expo and the loss of jobs associated with Expo? Senator WALSH —I do not have the figures in front of me, but the figures quoted by Senator Colston seem to me to be of the right order of magnitude and therefore, I think, probably correct-and the fact that Senator Colston mentioned them almost guarantees that they are correct. I was asked whether I was surprised. Well, I am not particularly surprised, because Queensland has had a very dismal employment record over a very long period. The National Party Government, supported by Senator Stone, has for many years tried to explain away the facts by saying that people are coming to Queensland because they know that it is the State of opportunity and the State of good clean government-as the Fitzgerald commission has rather dramatically revealed! But the last time I looked at these figures I noted that in the case of people in the prime working age group there had been a net emigration from Queensland over a 12-month period of some 44,000, so, indeed, people had voted with their feet. Had they not voted with their feet, the unemployment rate recorded in Queensland would have been even higher. Senator PATTERSON —I direct my question to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. In view of the Government's commitment to women's health, as outlined in the National Agenda for Women, and in view of medical opinions that deaths from breast cancer could be halved, saving the lives of up to 1,100 Australian women a year if Australia had a high quality national screening service, can the Minister explain why Medicare benefits are not payable for mammograms except where women have symptoms of malignancy or a family history of breast cancer? Senator REYNOLDS —The national policy on women's health is in the process of being developed by Ms Liza Newby. It has been completed and it is now with the Minister for Community Services and Health, Dr Blewett. This issue, along with a number of others related to women's health, has been raised in extensive consultations that Ms Newby has had around Australia. I am not in a position to respond directly to Senator Patterson's question other than to acknowledge that this issue has been raised consistently by many women talking with Liza Newby. When the Government-and in particular Dr Blewett-has fully considered and had the opportunity to respond to the report I am sure that this and many other issues relating to women's health will be announced by Dr Blewett. Senator CHILDS —Is the Minister for Consumer Affairs aware of anomalies existing in the current safety standards covering child restraints for motor vehicles? Is the Minister aware that these anomalies exempt some child restraints from needing to comply with the safety provisions of the Australian standard? What is the Government doing to rectify these anomalies? Senator BOLKUS —Senator Childs raises a question of particular concern. There have been a number of anomalies in the legislation covering child restraints in motor vehicles. The anomaly which has been of particular concern to the Government is the one which, up to now, has not covered the situation of children under the age of six months. They have not been covered by mandatory safety standards because until recently there have not been available on the market goods that could be seen to comply with the standard that the Government wanted. The Government has taken action in this area-basically to cover this problem and to act in concert with State governments. From 1 January 1989 all child restraints, booster cushions and chairs will have to conform with the Government standard, as has been developed in consultation with industry. That applies to all those products which have been imported or manufactured on or after 1 January 1989. We have chosen that date to allow the industry some time to conform with the new standard. However, from 1 January 1990 all type `A' child restraints in motor vehicles will have to conform with the new standard. Our intention has been to achieve the same degree of protection for young children under six months as is now available to those children over that age. When one looks at the Government's reponse to this problem, together with the action taken by State governments to ensure that children in motor vehicles must be carried in approved restraints-action has been taken in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia and it is anticipated that other States will follow-one realises that we will soon have a regime of legislation which will ensure the utmost protection for children of all ages travelling in motor vehicles. Senator PETER BAUME —Following that erudite answer from the Minister for Consumer Affairs I ask him how many types of child restraint there are. Senator BOLKUS —I can answer that question by saying that there are three generic sorts of child restraints-child restraints, booster cushions and chairs. In terms of the actual numbers available, the Senate would probably appreciate Senator Baume putting that question on notice so that listing that sort of information would not take up the next 17 1/2 minutes of Question Time. Senator McLEAN —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Defence to the planned construction of 12 so-called Anzac frigates in Australia, with four of those ships to be purchased by New Zealand. Is the Government aware of widespread public opposition to the project in New Zealand? Is it correct that the Government has officially requested the New Zealand Government to approve the plan? Has the Government enlisted the aid of people outside the Government, including the Victorian Trades Hall Council Secretary, John Halfpenny, to convince New Zealand that it should join the project? Is the project economically dependent on New Zealand's participation? Senator RICHARDSON —The Government is aware that there is a vigorous public debate taking place in New Zealand on whether the New Zealand Government should participate in the program. It is not the only debate going on in New Zealand at the moment about Australian participation, but like all debates this one has two sides. Australia, however, is not a direct party to the debate and the decision on whether to participate is for the New Zealand Government alone. No commitment to buy any ships has been requested from the New Zealand Government. In any event, I would imagine that no commitment would be possible until all of the tenders had been properly evaluated. Asking New Zealand to commit now would be a forlorn request. As far as enlisting the aid of others is concerned, many people have an interest in seeing the Anzac ship proposal prosper, and many have made their views known. Those views do not, however, necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government. As to whether New Zealand's participation is a prerequisite for the project going ahead, Australia will build at least eight Anzac ships whether or not New Zealand participates. Senator AULICH —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. What truth is there in the Sydney Morning Herald article of 15 October 1988 concerning the Australian National Maritime Museum which claims that the resources of the Museum, both financial and staffing, have been slashed; that the Museum will be forced to rely on volunteer attendants, which will jeopardise loans of valuable objects for display; and as a result of cost cutting the Museum's building now has no facilities for staff, storage or a library? Senator RICHARDSON —Unfortunately much of the article to which Senator Aulich refers is woefully inadequate. Its inaccuracies are extraordinary, to say the least. The article gets it wrong in the first paragraph, so it did not waste much time in making mistakes, when it refers to funding for the Maritime Museum being slashed and its operational staffing reduced. In the current year's Budget the Museum has been allocated a total of $12.09m, an increase of about $500,000 on last year's appropriation. It has been allowed an average staffing level of 75 in the current year, an increase of 15 over last year's level. So the assertion in the article that staff has been reduced from 110 to 75 is pure fiction. The staffing allocation provides for 45 professional staff this year, including curatorial staff, and 33 after the Museum is opened. Senator Walsh, being one of the strongest supporters of the Museum, can verify what I have said. I think the writer of the article has totally misunderstood the role of volunteer attendants. The suggestion that a collecting institution with such attendants would be unable to borrow valuable items is nonsense. There are collecting institutions all over the country which use voluntary attendants, and one does not have to go far to find them. The Australian National Gallery over the road is one such institution. It has no problem whatsoever in borrowing valuable items. So I am not quite sure where that suggestion comes from. Worthwhile museums around the world use this system, and this one is no exception. Insofar as a drastic reduction of storage facilities is concerned, there was a reduction in size. That was a long time ago in the early planning stages of the facility at Darling Harbour. It was done primarily because more room needed to be given to public access to the site. Staff who are responsible for education and visitor services, management and security, et cetera will all be located on site. The library will be located in off-site accommodation, together with the professional and administrative staff. So the Government's commitments to the museum have been met and will continue to be met. I only wish that certain journalists would make decent inquiries before writing stupid articles. Senator LEWIS —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications to reports that Australia Post is selling the names and addresses of more than 400,000 Expo season pass holders to businesses wishing to distribute junk mail. Will the Minister confirm these reports and inform the Senate whether it is true that businesses will be offered the lists at $124 per 1,000 names? How much revenue does Australia Post expect to raise through this gross invasion of privacy? Is this the only instance of the sale of lists of private names and addresses by Australia Post, or has it sold such lists on other occasions? Finally, how does the Government justify this abuse of information given to Australia Post in good faith by consumers? Senator GARETH EVANS —The information I have on this matter is to the following effect: besides an Australia Post promotional mailing, the mailing list was rented to only one other body, the Pakistan pavilion, for a promotion mailing limited to the south-eastern Queensland region. I am advised that Australia Post has undertaken not to make the list available to any other organisations pending resolution of this matter. I am advised that, prior to its own promotional mailing, Australia Post cleansed the list against the Australian Direct Mail Association list of those people not wishing to receive unsolicited material. In addition, the Australia Post mailing gave recipients the opportunity to advise by return mail through the free post mechanism if they did not want any further promotional offers to be sent to them. Of 240,000 items mailed by Australia Post, only 463 people have indicated that they do not wish to receive any further promotional material. Those names have now been removed from the mailing list. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. It relates to the first National Public Forum on the Portrayal of Women in Advertising, held in Sydney over the past weekend. Has the advertising industry supported this forum, and what results can Australian women expect? Senator REYNOLDS —I welcome the opportunity to comment on the tremendous success of the two-day forum that was conducted at the weekend. I am sure that Senator Puplick and Senator Hill, who attended the forum, enjoyed it. Senator Hill made an important contribution. Senator Hill —What about my criticisms of the Government? Senator REYNOLDS —Senator Hill was a little patronising at times, but I suppose we have to allow him to keep trying. The forum was a great success for a number of reasons. Firstly, there was an overwhelming number of participants. Over 600 people registered for the conference. I think all would agree that that is an indication of the concern that is felt in the Australian community about the way women are portrayed in advertising. Secondly, the advertising industry registered in large numbers. Fifty per cent of those who attended the conference represented the industry and 50 per cent represented women's organisations. Thirdly, an issue that was very important to the success of the forum was the range of women's organisations represented. Sometimes certain sections of the media and, dare I say, even some Opposition senators are inclined to say that this issue is one of concern to radical feminists and that it is not an issue of concern to Australian women generally. I have tried in this place and elsewhere to put that myth to rest. After the success of the forum-- Senator Walters —Honourable senators on this side do not say that at all. Senator REYNOLDS —I am very pleased to hear that. I should not be acknowledging the honourable senator's interjection, as Senator Tate pointed out earlier. It is certainly true that a very diverse group of women's organisations were represented. They were able to sit down with the members of the industry, debate the issues of concern and work out constructive ways to improve self-regulation. I emphasise this for Senator Vanstone's benefit because she has spoken to me about her views in relation to self-regulation. There are ways in which the industry can certainly lift its game and improve the way in which advertisers are portraying women in the media. There were two major outcomes from the forum. First, we will be establishing a task force that will involve the community, government and industry representatives to look at ways of improving the way in which women are portrayed in the media and educating the industry itself. It was important to note the way a large number of women working in the industry were quietly critical of the way the industry itself has not been willing to change in the past. Secondly, there will probably be some form of media watch organisation, a non-government organisation modelled on the Canadian line of monitoring the way in which the industry is responding. So all in all-I thank Senator Giles for her participation and contribution to the forum-it was a great success. It vindicated the research that we have done and it certainly vindicated the fact that 28 per cent of Australian women contacted during our national consultations were right when they said, `this is an issue of concern that we would like the Government to address'. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer the Minister to the decision by the Films Board of Review to overturn the decision of the Chief Censor, Mr Dickie, to classify the film The Last Temptation of Christ as R restricted and instead to give it an M mature audience rating. In the light of the fact that people of any age will now be permitted to view a film which is clearly blasphemous and offends many Australian Christians, what steps will the Attorney-General take to ensure, first, that films of this nature in future will have to satisfy a much more rigorous test before being classified for release and, secondly, that the Films Board of Review is impelled to seek the views of interested parties in the same way as the Chief Censor did? Senator TATE —The Films Board of Review made the decision to uphold an appeal from the original decision of the Film Censorship Board. I am trying to get that exactly correct because it is quite untrue to simply put forward, as Senator Watson did in his question, that somehow the Films Board of Review overrode the Chief Censor, Mr John Dickie. Mr Dickie is only one of several members of the Film Censorship Board. I make the point that even within that body the decision to give an `R' rating to that particular film, The Last Temptation of Christ, was indeed by a majority. There was a split view within that particular group of Australians appointed for that task as to whether indeed the correct classification for this particular film was R or M. Once again when the matter went to the Films Board of Review there was a split decision. In that situation it is quite apparent that this matter of controversy is not easily resolved and certainly not by a simple assertion that the film was clearly blasphemous, the term used in Senator Watson's question. It is a very difficult matter of assessment and judgment. Different views were formed by both those bodies. In the end, the majority of members of the appellate tribunal came to the conclusion that the film could be made available under the M classification. I do not believe that in this situation more rigorous testing is required. What was done was done by properly constituted bodies and is an example of the very difficult task which society gives them. I believe that they discharged their task very competently. Whether Senator Watson or I, had we been members of that board or review panel, would have come to the same conclusion is another matter. It is certainly not clear from what one can read in the press that all Christians would be of the view that this depiction of the humanity of Christ was blasphemous. Within the Christian community, as within the two bodies, including the appellate body that I have referred to, there is considerable difference of opinion. Senator Boswell —What is your opinion? You are the Minister. Senator TATE —I have not seen the film. I have read extracts from the book. It seemed to me to be a very interesting portrayal of the humanity of Christ. All I am saying is that the properly constituted bodies have come to the conclusion that they have. It is not surprising that they have been as divided as is the general Christian community on this question. I believe that the decision is one which, as I say, was properly reached by them after proper consideration. Senator WATSON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister believe that the film is a correct portrayal, according to normal Christian belief, of the life of Christ? Can the Film Classification Appeals Board be impelled to seek the views of interested parties in the same way as the Chief Censor did? Would the Minister insist on that procedure? Senator TATE —I am not quite sure of the way in which the Films Board of Review works. I know that it receives submissions from the distributor or the producer of a film who is making the appeal. As to what other information it acquires in order fully to comprehend the likely impact of the showing of the film on various audiences, I am not quite sure how it draws on other points of view in coming to its determination. I will find out about that. Senator COOK —During Question Time last week Senator Reid asked me a question about an alleged reduction in nutrition services because of staffing cuts in the Department of Community Services and Health. I am now in a position to add to the answer I gave on that occasion. The Department of Community Services and Health is not reducing its priority for nutrition services. The nutrition services program is managed by the Health Advancement Division of the Department. Nutrition is one of the five priority areas nominated in the national better health program. It is therefore sensible to amalgamate the work of the nutrition section with better health planning and nutrition within that division. There will be some efficiencies resulting from the amalgamation, primarily in the area of general clerical support. The bringing together of better health activities in the nutrition area and the work of the nutrition section should lead to a more efficient and coordinated approach to the development of nutrition policies and programs within the Department. The national better health program places a significant emphasis on data collection and evaluation. A number of the databases currently managed by the nutrition section provide essential information in relation to the nutritional status of Australians. The national better health program will emphasise a wide range of interventions to improved health which are targeted to specific at-risk groups. These require adequate data. Structural changes, such as influencing the kinds of food available in supermarkets, training for professionals and community development will also be emphasised. In summary, the proposed staff movements are essentially the result of organisational change to produce a more efficient bureaucracy while at the same time maintaining the Government's commitment to nutrition service. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented. Senator Crichton-Browne on Friday last, 14 October, stated that I had crossed the floor and voted in opposition to the majority vote of my own party, the Australian Democrats, for political reasons. I find this an arrogant and a revealing statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Jenkins, in a personal explanation you have to confine yourself to correcting any misstatement. You should not attack the motivation or the remarks of the person making the statement. Senator JENKINS —I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy President. Senator Crichton-Browne may not be aware, but, unlike the Labor, Liberal and National parties, the Australian Democrat members of parliament have a conscience vote on every issue. In fact, we are under a moral obligation to actually represent our electorate as we see fit. In other words, we are in a position to be able to put the people whom we represent above party political considerations. Senator Walters —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. Is this a personal explanation? Senator Jenkins is not actually talking about actual mistakes or corrections. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! So far I think Senator Jenkins has been in order, but I repeat that she must confine herself to showing where she has been misrepresented and correcting the misrepresentation. Senator JENKINS —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. This is what I did when I voted against the majority of my party with regard to the disallowance of the export control ordinance on 15 December last year. Having spoken with individual farmers and representatives of farming organisations, I came to the conclusion that this particular legislation was not in the best interests of Western Australians. Indeed, I admired Senator Crichton-Browne's action and presumed that it was a matter of conscience when he asked that his dissension be noted to the meat and livestock legislation-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Jenkins, you are getting wide of a personal explanation. Link your comments to the personal explanation. You have to show where you have been misrepresented and correct the misrepresentation. Explanations of reasons are not relevant to this type of explanation. Senator JENKINS —Yes, Mr Deputy President. I believe I am being relevant to the point in question. I am stating that I admire the actions of those members of the Opposition when they crossed the floor in this place and in the other place which I presume also to be a matter of conscience. I have publicly stated as much. I repeat, Mr Deputy President, that on the occasions when I have voted in opposition to the majority of my party, the Australian Democrats, or deliberately abstained, it has been on sincere, conscientious grounds and in what I believed to be the best interests of the people of my electorate of Western Australia. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented. I am sorry that I have to refer to the same senator, Senator Crichton-Browne, who misrepresented me in this chamber on Friday, 14 October. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Vallentine, you understand that the same rules apply, that you cannot attack Senator Crichton-Browne, that you can just explain. Senator VALLENTINE —Yes, I understand, Mr Deputy President. He said in the Senate on Friday that when I visited the USS Brewton in Albany last month I was given three caps by the commanding officer. Senator Crichton-Browne got his facts wrong. One cap was presented to me by the commanding officer. I need to clarify the situation that occurred. When that was presented to me I said to the commander, Craig Kennedy, `You realise that this is a very embarrassing gift for me. What am I meant to do with this?' He said, `You can wear it when gardening or do with it whatever you like. Would you like me to put it in a plain brown wrapper for you so that you won't be embarrassed when you walk off the ship wearing this cap?' Senator Stone —At least he has a sense of humour. Senator VALLENTINE —He does indeed. We had a very cordial exchange. I said to him, `No, a plain brown wrapper won't be necessary'. I told him what I was going to do. I was wearing this same jacket and I stuffed it up the jacket. I said, `I hope this won't be offensive to you, but I cannot wear this cap off this ship'. That is the situation. It was one cap and not three. Subsequently, I delivered to the commanding officer of the USS Brewton a badge in return, a reciprocal gift, which said, `Friendships not Warships'. That was the spirit in which the visit was conducted. It was a very cordial exchange. I think Senator Crichton-Browne ought to get his facts right before he opens his mouth in this place. Debate resumed from 13 October, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.20) —This Bill brings to our notice the change in the Government's approach with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT). It is well noted by all senators that the current Tribunal which is available to pensioners and social security beneficiaries generally does not have the force of law; in other words, it has no legislative backing but it provides recommendations to the Secretary to the Department of Social Security in the event of evidence being put to it for the reconsideration of decisions of the Department on social security matters. The force of the Government's Bill is to give the Appeals Tribunal legislative backing and to establish it as an independent determinative tribunal which is capable of making decisions in its own right. It will not continue, therefore, as a recommendatory body to the Secretary to the Department. While this may be welcome, there are some difficulties with it, which I would like to come to later, but I observe first of all that the Liberal and National parties will not be opposing this Bill, but they will be moving an amendment to the second reading motion to take account of certain points which we would like to bring out in the course of this debate. Let me observe too that the Appeals Tribunal, as it will be constituted when this Bill becomes law, will not be the final appeal body for social security beneficiaries and pensioners. It will in fact be a first step and will remain as that, because there will always exist a right for those beneficiaries and pensioners to continue their appeal in the light of dissatisfaction with the decision of the Tribunal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). As has been known to the Senate, the AAT has been established as a somewhat more legalistic body than some of the other tribunals that are established under the administrative law system in this country. This is particularly so in the matter of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. In previous times the SSAT, as a recommendatory body, has undertaken its role in an informal and largely easy to get on with manner and in such a way that social security beneficiaries can easily put their point of view in plain language to have their matters heard in a way that will enable them to obtain maximum justice from the persons sitting on the Tribunal. The Tribunal comprises somewhat lower level officers from within the Department of Social Security and does not, in the sense that I mentioned earlier, constitute a kind of legal tribunal in the form of a court or a body which, in formal sittings with wigs and gowns, hears points being made and evidence adduced by social security beneficiaries in what are in some ways quite frightening and intimidatory circumstances. Turning to the substance of the Bill, let me draw attention to one or two points that have been concerning the Opposition on this matter. First and foremost, the Tribunal, as it has been constituted, reviews up to about 12,000 cases a year. That is a considerable number of issues being brought before it by beneficiaries and pensioners over that period. Clearly, this means it is a most significant body in assessing the concerns and individual complaints of beneficiaries in this country. In that sense, it is a valuable filter, if you like, of the complaints procedures that ought to be available to Australians under the laws applicable to social security. It is interesting to note that, along with that rather large number of cases heard per annum, the rate of veto since 1979 has changed quite considerably. Let me just quote the figures for the Senate. Firstly, in 1978-79 there was a 28 per cent veto rate by the secretary of SSAT decisions. This rate fell dramatically to 6 per cent in 1979-80 but rose to 8 per cent the following year, settling at an average of around 12 per cent in the next four years. However, in 1985-86 this rose steeply to 28 per cent, and for the following six months, from the figures that we have available, has reached as high as 35 to 38 per cent. In those cases, of course, the appellant has always got the right to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if a further appeal is warranted. However, it should be noted that that change has been occurring. Therefore, the attention of Parliament is drawn to the fact that there are varying circumstances arising apparently from the administration of the Department which are considerably worrying and of concern to pensioners and beneficiaries in this country. If one were to speculate, there seems to have been some concern back in 1985-86, for instance, that views the Tribunal was putting forward were quite at variance with the Department. We wonder, drawing conclusions from those statistics, whether there are changes of policy occurring within the Department of Social Security which are having significant effects upon the clients of the Department, which, as a result, may well be affecting the rights and circumstances of individual beneficiaries and pensioners, and which have not been properly brought to the attention of members of parliament before. I suppose that, in trying to make the point that emerges from the statistics, I should observe that it seems that, if policy is being properly adhered to within the Department, as laid down by a Minister, the question arises as to whether it is being properly implemented in such a way that it is being accepted by the clients of the Department and whether that is now being reflected in these very substantial statistical changes over the last several years. That conflict, if you like, raises the question of whether the SSAT is a credible body. Certainly, the more it is at variance with the Department and with its Secretary in its previous role as a recommendatory body, one must wonder whether it is achieving its objectives. To that extent, there appears to be some logic in the Government's institution of the new basis, by way of legislative amendment, to ensure that there is a proper legal base for its operations and that, in fact, the SSAT will have power of determination rather than of recommendation in the future. The Opposition's concern is that the question of ministerial responsibility for the quality of departmental decisions and the policies on which they are based should be very carefully weighed in the event of there having to be a proper system of administrative review. The Opposition has circulated to the Senate for consideration an amendment which expresses that view and which I now move: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate expresses its concern that, while there is a need for an effective system of administrative review, this should not be at the expense of Ministerial responsibility for the quality of departmental decisions and the policies upon which they must be based''. It is clear that the SSAT with its new determinative powers will in some ways become a more judicial body, and one which might be subject to future concerns in regard to clients of the Department of Social Security. It is obvious that further appeal mechanisms are available to those clients. They can, after the SSAT has dealt with the matter, go to the AAT as we discussed earlier. But beyond that they are capable of taking their cases to the Federal Court, and ultimately to the High Court if a matter constitutes such a problem. It is interesting to note that there is no provision for legal costs for clients wishing to put their views to be met, but the SSAT will determine any reasonable travel and accommodation costs in future and any necessary medical examinations that may be required to be paid by the Commonwealth. I understand that the SSAT will mostly retain its existing structure with three member panels headed by a national convener. It would aim to continue the practice of having part time members and members who do not necessarily have any kind of legal background. To observe independence the Department of Social Security departmental officers will be appointed full time members of the Tribunal and will not be departmental officers for the duration of their appointment. It is clear that there will not be a direct challenge to the existing informal character of the SSAT hearings, which is to be welcomed. It will not be bound by legal rules of evidence or notions of judicial procedure. Consequently, we believe that if that remains, so the major objection to any kind of change along the lines of what has emerged in this piece of legislation will not eventuate. As I said earlier, the Opposition does not oppose the second reading of this Bill. I have moved our amendment drawing attention to the Opposition's concerns about policy making and ministerial responsibility. Consequently, I wish the Bill a speedy passage. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(3.35) —I strongly support the Social Security (Review of Decisions) Bill 1988 and welcome the fact that the Opposition does not intend to oppose it. If I may comment briefly on the Opposition's amendment, I read the amendment when it was moved in the House of Representatives and it was in the same terms as that which we now have before us. The amendment struck me as meaningless nonsense-so much so that I suspect Senator Messner did not understand it either because he did not really make any attempt to explain it. Perhaps he could not explain what the Opposition was getting at in its amendment. The amendment says: . . . an effective system of administrative review . . . should not be at the expense of ministerial responsibility for the quality of departmental decisions and the policies upon which they must be based. The Bill itself sets out a better process of departmental review of decisions. That should be acknowledged and welcomed as improving the quality of departmental decisions. In regard to ministerial responsibility, the Minister and the Government take responsibility for the legislative changes introduced into the Parliament. This Bill also covers the guidelines to be provided to the Secretary to the Department and to the National Convener of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) about the administration within social security. Again, I regard that as an important part of the improvement of ministerial responsibility because those guidelines are to be tabled in the Parliament. That process of openness makes the Minister responsible for those guidelines. Perhaps the Opposition is suggesting that there should be ministerial discretion for all sorts of individual social security decisions. That is one interpretation one could put on the amendment. If that is what is meant, the Opposition should say so and we should debate that properly. Senator Messner —Of course not. Senator COATES —I am pleased to hear Senator Messner say that, but I wonder how one is supposed to interpret the reference in the amendment to ministerial responsibility for departmental decisions. Having dealt with the Opposition's amendment to the motion for the second reading, I wish to refer to some of the key aspects of the Bill of which I am particularly proud. The Social Security Appeals Tribunal was a major reform brought about by Bill Hayden as the Social Security Minister in the Whitlam Government, but since that time it has continued purely on the basis of ministerial direction. It has had no legislative basis. This Bill entrenches the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and its processes and this first level of appeal rights in statutory form. It is to commence on 1 November-that is, as soon as possible after the passing of this legislation. I do not think it is the Opposition's total position, but I noticed Mr Connolly in the House of Representatives questioned whether there should be both this level of appeal rights and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). He appeared to doubt whether the additional level was justified. I believe that it is important for the rights of social security clients for there to be this informal level of appeal and of course now a determinative responsibility for the SSAT rather than purely recommendations to the Department. Until now there have been just recommendations; the Department has been able to overrule the Tribunal, and has often done so. There will be a great responsibility on the SSAT because it will be implementing decisions rather than purely making recommendations. I suspect that the Tribunal will take that little bit of extra care in its decisions in the knowledge that the Department will not be in a position to overrule, although the Department and the clients can appeal decisions further to the AAT. I mentioned the informal level of appeal and this is set out in section 193 which refers to hearings being as informal as possible. I will read the relevant part of the new section: (1) The Social Security Appeals Tribunal, in reviewing a decision: (a) is not bound by technicalities, legal forms or rules of evidence; (b) shall act as speedily as a proper consideration of the review allows; and (c) shall, in determining what a proper consideration of the review requires, have regard to the objective laid down by section 176. That new section 176 uses the following terms: The Social Security Appeals Tribunal shall, in carrying out its functions under this Act, pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick. I strongly welcome those procedures and that objective. The streamlined consideration will ensure that people do not have to wait any longer than is necessary for a decision on their appeals. The other procedure that is important to people's rights and ease of access to the Tribunal is the new section 179 which allows for an oral application by a client, including an oral application by telephone. Again, that is important for those clients who might have difficulty with forms or in creating a letter setting out their case. They can make a written application, they can go to an office of the Tribunal and make an oral application or they can ring up the Tribunal and make an oral application by telephone. Once again that is an important part of providing rights to social security clients. Another important aspect that will continue from the current procedure with the SSAT is that hearings will be in private and as informal as possible. I emphasise that the Bill also gives improved legislative basis for the review of decisions by the Secretary to the Department and his or her delegates. Where there are decisions by lower level officers, there is a higher level of consideration within the Department before it necessarily gets to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal stage. I hope that by this process many cases can be properly decided in the clients' favour without the need to appeal to the SSAT. That is an important part of the Bill which should not be overlooked. In certain circumstances there is also provision for payment to continue pending the appeal being heard-that is, where a client is dependent on a pension or benefit he or she may still be allowed to receive it while the appeal is being heard without having to survive on nothing as a result of the initial departmental decision. Both the client and the Department can appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if either is not satisfied with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal decision. A point of interest is that, despite this Bill setting up a new statutory authority instead of the non-statutory body that has existed, this is a savings measure due to the streamlined processing involved. There will be a lesser cost to the Department and overall an estimated saving of $2.8m this year and $5.4m in a full year. I would like to refer to the fact that there has been an attempt to move towards some plain English drafting in our legislation which I very strongly welcome and I am sure many others in this place do as well. It was not altogether a successful attempt in that there was some backsliding from the original intent of having a plain English Bill, but some aspects survived the drafting process. I would point particularly to the novel situation whereby some of the headings to sections are in the form of questions as they might be in a departmental pamphlet designed to be read by clients or those assisting them. For instance, section 179 is headed `How should an application be made?'. Another refers to `What happens if the decision under review is varied while the application for review is still being heard?'; `Who are the parties to a review of a decision?'; `What happens initially when an application for review is received?' These are examples of having such headings in the form of questions rather than in less easily understandable terms of traditional drafting. The relevant section provides the answer to the question that is in the heading. There are also some explanatory footnotes which are a bit unusual and provide cross-references to other sections of the legislation. For instance, after new section 196 there is a note which refers to another section which gives in a more plain English form an explanation of the relationship between section 196 and the other section. Section 205 and some of the following sections refer to the review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. There are some quite detailed notes at the end of most of the sections explaining the meaning of the relevant section of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, referred to in this Bill. People do not necessarily have to go hunting for the other Act in order to know the purpose of the clause. I emphasise too that the National Convener of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal is required to give an annual report to be tabled in each House. Again, that ensures that all of us know the procedures that have been followed and the statistics of the appeals. I expect the Convener will also be in a position to make suggestions about necessary changes in the Social Security Act arising out of hearings that have been held during the year. I refer briefly to the comments on this Bill by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills because I think they deserve an answer. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee expressed some concern about clause 6 of this Bill providing inappropriate delegation of legislative power. It comments on the Minister's ability to issue guidelines or, as the relevant subsection says, to present a statement to the National Convener of the Tribunal and to the Secretary to the Department. Such statements are also required to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament within 15 sitting days to give some guidance about the administration of the Act. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee expressed some concern about asking the Department or the Tribunal to consider non-legislative policy statements by the Minister. It is important that the Minister have this ability to provide these open statements-nobody is suggesting they are secret guidelines-and all that is required of the Tribunal and of the Department is that they shall have regard to the statement in exercising powers under the principal Act. Again, relating back to the Opposition's amendment, this is an important part of the Minister and the Government taking some responsibility for the administration of the Act, and it is an important clause in the Bill. The other matter on the Social Security Appeals Tribunal that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee referred to is the fact that the National Convener of the Tribunal is able to give directions to other members of the Tribunal. The Committee suggests that this could be undesirable interference with the independence of the Tribunal. I would reject that. I would have thought the national head of a statutory authority necessarily has to give directions on detailed administration by the other members of the Tribunal. I emphasise that the National Convener is part of the Tribunal; it is not as if he or she is separate from it. It is important that there be some degree of uniformity in decision-making by all the various panels of the Tribunal operating around the country. I do not think anyone would want tribunals going off in different directions without some form of coordination by the National Convener and the various presiding members. In conclusion, I emphasise that the right of appeal is crucial to the fair administration of the social security system. It is a provision that was missing prior to 1975 but it has survived since then and it is now to be properly entrenched. We must remember that in a lot of cases we are talking about the basic income support of people, and an adverse departmental decision can be devastating. It is important that there be the ability to have a proper hearing of assertions by a client that a decision was wrong and not in accordance with the Act. I very much welcome this Bill. I congratulate the Minister, Mr Howe, on all the reforms he is steering through, and on this significant one in particular. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.53) —The Australian Democrats senators, along with other honourable senators who have spoken in this debate and many in the community, do welcome the thrust of the Social Security (Review of Decisions) Bill 1988. We believe that making the Social Security Appeals Tribunal an independent, determinative tribunal and no longer merely a recommendatory tribunal with relation to the Department of Social Security is a step in the right direction. That is not to say that we approach this legislation without reservation. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) began his second reading speech by saying: This Bill marks a new stage in social security administration in this country. That is true to the extent I have just mentioned, but the Minister went on to say: It is a further plank in the Government's social justice priority of achieving equality of legal rights for all. Certainly the Democrats would agree that the legislation heads down that track, as indeed does much of the legislation in this and other areas which the Government is putting forward, but we would not put it any higher than that. It is heading down the right track but we do have some concerns about whether the legislation will achieve equality of legal rights for all. As well as that, obviously concerns have been expressed to us by people working in this area and particularly people who are working closely with social security recipients who need to use the Tribunal and whose needs are paramount in our considerations. I draw attention to comments of the Welfare Rights Centre in Sydney which suggests, as we have, that it is essential that bringing determinative powers to the Tribunal does not mean that there is a loss in the very important informality and accessibility which have characterised the Social Security Appeals Tribunal review process over the past decade. The Welfare Rights Centre points out that the primary expertise of the Tribunal has been, and it suggests strongly that it should remain, in the finding and evaluation of the particular circumstances in each case, especially those which tend to get lost in the ordinary administrative process. The Welfare Rights Centre details the crucial features, from its point of view-and it represents clients-of the Tribunal which have enabled it to carry out this role. First, there is the informal and personal contact with the applicant at the hearing; second, the consideration of the appeal by a three-member panel with expertise and experience jointly in law, social welfare and departmental policy and practice; and third, the preservation of Tribunal independence and diversity through a strong emphasis on part time rather than full time members. We note, along with the Welfare Rights Centre, that it is intended that these very features be preserved. Some aspects of the Bill make this intention clear, but there are concerns that perhaps the Bill is not quite adequate in this area. The Welfare Rights Centre has suggested that this legislation would be better if there were provisions which would, for instance, limit the number or proportion of full time members appointed, ensure that members with relevant skills and experience other than in law or departmental administration are appointed-that is, to bring in the community voice and the client voice; and to ensure that whenever possible individual appeal panels continue to be composed of a `legal', a welfare and a departmental member. However, the Welfare Rights Centre makes a particular point in correspondence I have had with it: Finally, we believe it is entirely inappropriate for decisions under sections 163 and 164 (compulsory obtaining of information by DSS) to be excluded from review. For the information of the Senate, proposed section 178 of this legislation details those decisions which it is the intention of this legislation be not reviewable by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. The Welfare Rights Centre expresses particular concern about sections 163 and 164 of the Social Security Act. Honourable senators may well remember-although unfortunately I do not think many will-that these new sections were put in the legislation by the mini-Budget of 1987. These provisions apparently went unnoticed by most in this House, or were treated with a lack of concern by most in this House, and recently Senator Hill discovered during hearings of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry into privacy, identity card and tax file number issues-and he subsequently made public statements to this effect-that this was a dreadful thing for the Senate to have done. I now remind the Senate, as I did Senator Hill, that the Democrats did attempt to see that something was done to get in the way of giving the Department of Social Security such widespread and draconian powers. However that request was unsuccessful, as have been many other enlightened actions attempted by the Australian Democrats in this area. The Government, having put these measures in place, proposes that they should not now come under this legislation and be reviewable by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. The Welfare Rights Unit in Victoria, the sister organisation, if you like, of the Welfare Rights Centre, is also concerned with these issues. When we talk about sections 163 and 164 of the Social Security Act we are talking about extensive powers to intrude into and invade the lives of social security recipients. Given that all recipients of family allowance, a large number of families, come under this heading, this ought to be a matter of great concern to the community. Under the legislation, the Department has been granted the unfettered right to demand information from any social security recipient, any public servant, any person working for any government authority, State or Commonwealth, and any person associated with, or who might have information about, a social security recipient. The Department of Social Security can demand information about a social security recipient from virtually anybody in our community. The power relates to any information required, to quote from section 164 of the Act, `for the purposes of the Act'. Taken together with section 166, this allows the Department of Social Security to override privilege, thus constituting a total denial of the privacy of all social security recipients. Looking at it from the other side, social security recipients have limited access to information from the Department. At the same time, the Department was granted the right to divulge information, as well as to collect it, on-again to quote from the Act-`classes of cases when it is in the public interest'. Again, the Democrats believe that this ignores the rights of individuals. It is these sections of the Act and their inherent imbalances of power which, it is proposed, should be excluded from the determinative review of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to be implemented by this legislation. In the committee stage I will move on behalf of the Australian Democrats, and on behalf of everyone concerned about this matter, including those who are victims of it already, that these sections of the Act not be excluded from the provisions of this legislation. These provisions, which were implemented in September 1987 subsequent to the May statement of that year, have been causing distress to a great many social security recipients. The Welfare Rights Unit in Victoria published a document entitled Myths and Realities: Investigations by Social Security Field Officers in May this year which documents some of the distress caused by this invasion of privacy. Given that privacy issues are soon to be a major feature of debate in both Houses of Parliament-or at least I hope they will be-I hope not only that the Government will consider seriously the amendments we will be proposing in the committee stage with direct reference to these sections of the Social Security Act, but also that all honourable senators will address their minds to the implications of privacy issues in the community. The legislation has been looked at, as is the usual practice, by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. In its Alert Digest tabled in the Parliament last week a couple of concerns were expressed. Some people working in the community have expressed similar concerns to me with regard to proposed new section 17 of the legislation, which allows for the tabling of a policy statement by the Minister. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee was concerned that this was not an adequate procedure and has, as is its usual practice, drawn that to the attention of the Senate and also the attention of the Minister. A response from the Senate is not expected until the coming week. So on this issue the legislation is more or less in limbo. It is the view of the Australian Democrats that at the very least the statement, duly tabled, should have the status of being a disallowable instrument so that it is not only a statement tabled in the Parliament but also a statement about which the Parliament might do something. There are several reasons for concern about this process, not the least of which is that it affects a sensitive area, social security-an increasingly sensitive area, given the general political and economic direction of the Government and the Opposition. We believe that this process leaves social security recipients very vulnerable. A Minister could make a policy statement, table it, give-as the legislation duly requires-a copy to the Secretary to the Department and to the National Convener of the Tribunal, and that is where the action would stop. A Minister for Social Security-I dare not suggest in this Government, but in a future government-could decide to implement a major policy change and the Parliament, other than through the process of attempting to gain some publicity through the information that was presented by its tabling in the Parliament, would not in any short space of time effectively be able to anything about it. A government, pushed by a Treasurer who was determined to increase the Budget surplus yet more and who was running around the world handing over cheques to pay off debts before the blaze of flash bulbs and television cameras, could say, `We are spending too much money on widows' pensions; therefore, we will issue a policy edict which will affect the way these things are administered. We will let Parliament know but there will not be anything Parliament can do about it'. We believe that at the very least this process should be subject to the same potential action by the Parliament as are other instruments which are laid before it and which, through due process, are disallowable in the event that there is concern about them and that they do not have general community support. To make that possible, I shall be moving an amendment in the committee stage which I hope will get the attention of honourable senators, as it is an issue which has been drawn to the attention of the Senate by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. It has been drawn to my attention that proposed new section 17 allows for a potential time gap, so that even the information might not be generally available through tabling in the Parliament after a policy decision has been notified. In other words, a major policy change could take place at the beginning, say, of the winter recess and not be able to be tabled until the Parliament sat for the Budget session, quite a long period during which not even information would be available. With the amendment that I am proposing that sort of situation would still be possible, as it is with all regulations that come before the Parliament. However, there would be the sanction on government that the measure could be disallowed once the Parliament did sit. Any cavalier approach by a Minister who decided to come up with a major policy change and trample over the potential of the Parliament to act would be stemmed by that process, as it is now. The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, individual senators and people in the community often act on regulations and ordinances as they come before the Parliament. At the very least we believe that is what this legislation should do. As I have said, we will be moving an amendment in the committee stage to try to get some support for that kind of process in this legislation. They are not the only concerns with this legislation which have been conveyed to us by people working with social security recipients. Indeed, the claim by the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Senator Bolkus), representing the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), that this legislation is bringing equity to all seems rather extravagant when one looks at some of the other concerns. One other concern that I am hoping to address by way of amendment is access to speedy hearings specifically within the terms of the legislation on the grounds of financial hardship. We are not satisfied that the legislation as it is currently written gives that access to individuals who need to go to the Tribunal. Another area of concern relates to the substance of the legislation. Proposed section 178 outlines which sections of the principal Act will not be subject to review by the Tribunal. Another area of concern is that if section 168 is excluded we believe the Tribunal will not have determinative powers on the question of what is an effective stay of proceedings when someone is making an appeal. Currently, the Secretary can do that by way of continuation of payment. That discretion ought to be available to the Tribunal if it is indeed going to have equal status with the Secretary and the Department in this area. Again, that is one area in respect of which we will want to move an amendment in the committee stage. I refer again to the Minister's somewhat extravagant statements in his second reading speech. There are aspects of this legislation which give us concern and on which we hope further action might improve matters. Another area of concern is proposed subsections 189 (2) and (3). We believe that if an oral submission is not made at the time which has been set there ought to be a second chance, for all kinds of reasons. The opportunity to make an oral submission may not be taken up, notice may not arrive because of mail strikes or an unexpected emergency may arise on the day. We should bear in mind that social security recipients are often people who do not have telephones or motor cars and are very dependent on services generally within the community. It is possible for an oral hearing to be missed. The legislation would be better if a second chance, so to speak, were given but at the same time we would not go further than that. After that second chance is given, it is certainly important that the Tribunal be able to go on and make its determination. However, we believe there needs to be that extra bit of leeway. Perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of this legislation, given that we accept and welcome the thrust of establishing an independent determinative status for the Tribunal, is the intention of the Government to exclude from review by the SSAT sections 163 and 164 of the Social Security Act. Those sections have recently been brought upon us and are sections against which we have spoken often and will continue to speak often. I am amazed that the Government should have taken this step and drawn attention again to those sections, which are causing people a great deal of concern. It is very important that the Government address its mind not only to including them in this legislation as part of the review process, but also to amending the Act again to remove the odious aspects of those sections which are unnecessarily broad and vague. The phrase `for the purposes of the Act' should be much more detailed, succinct and clear. Words such as `where the information is sought specifically for the purpose of the payment of a pension, benefit or allowance' would give us a great deal more comfort if we are going to give these further powers to the Department. Finally, we believe the guidelines for officers of the Department implementing those sections should be embodied in the schedule to the Act. Looking at the Welfare Rights Unit material which is before us and at other material which I hope other honourable senators have had brought to their attention, there is a need to tidy up this area and take into account the rights and privacy of social security recipients around Australia. This legislation is an advance but we have some concerns about it which we will be wanting to address in the committee stage. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(4.16) —Over the last dozen or more years the various departments of the Public Service have taken the opportunity to create all sorts of appeals tribunals to which they can refer their decisions in an attempt to remove themselves from the rigours of our ordinary courts of law. The appeals tribunals are supposed to be independent and are given a veneer of independence, as the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT). They have been peopled by tame public servants, as this one is intended to be, or retired public servants or they are simply jobs for the boys. The concerns that have been expressed so far in this debate are quite real. For example, the Minister is allowed to give directives to the Tribunal and so is the National Convener. He can do that before, during or after a hearing has commenced. That could lead to an inappropriate delegation of legislative powers. Fears that have been expressed-I hope the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Senator Bolkus) will answer them-are the reason why the Opposition is moving its amendment. Certainly on the surface the Social Security (Review of Decisions) Bill 1988 has its attractions. We are not opposing it. The Social Security Appeals Tribunal was brought into existence in 1975 to review the decisions of the Secretary to the Department of Social Security. Of course, it could only make recommendations to the Secretary for the Secretary to accept or reject. The whole idea of the Tribunal was that it would hear these cases in an informal setting. Now the Tribunal is to be given teeth so that it can actually make decisions. There have been significant variations in the veto rate over the years before the introduction of this Bill. In 1978-79, 28 per cent of decisions were vetoed. The rate fell dramatically to 6 per cent in 1979-80. It rose again to 8 per cent and steeply in 1985-86 to 28 per cent. During the following six months the rejection rate reached 35 to 38 per cent. They are very significant figures. I might add that even if an appellant is upset by the decision of the Tribunal there still remains a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). That right existed before and will exist after the introduction of this Bill. It is estimated that the Bill will save $2.8m in 1988-89 and $5.4m in 1989-90. The basis of the savings appears to be a saving on administrative costs due to a streamlining of procedures. The Minister made a statement predicting that the new processes will simplify appeals and remove the delays currently present while the Department considers the SSAT's recommendation. There are two main provisions of the Bill: firstly, to provide for a rationalisation of the social security review process by establishing the Appeals Tribunal with the power to make decisions; and secondly, to renumber provisions of the Act. I have mentioned the inappropriate delegation of legislative power which is contained in proposed new sections 17 (1), 17 (2) and 17 (4). Under proposed new section 202 there could be a trespass on personal rights and liberties. That was noted earlier in the debate. Under this section, the National Convener can give general directions as to the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal in connection with the review of decisions. That detracts from the independence of the Tribunal. The National Convener also can give particular directions as to the procedure to be followed in connection with a particular review. These may be given at any time, either before or after the hearing of a review has commenced. That could be an unwelcome interference in the function of the Tribunal. As I have said, the Government has said that the legislation has as an objective `to provide a mechanism for review . . . that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick'. Whenever John Q. Public hears the Government saying words like that he had better watch out that he is not ripped off once again. However, I cannot see this Bill bringing about anything like that. Senator Coates —Why do you say that? Senator SHEIL —The legislation itself states that the objective of review is to provide a mechanism for review that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick. Senator Coates —Which of those things do you oppose? Senator SHEIL —I place a much different emphasis on words than does the honourable senator. For example, he does not see anything wrong with ministerial directives to the Tribunal, directives on which it has to act; or directives by the National Convener, directives on which it has to act. It says-- Senator Coates —It states `have regard to'. Senator SHEIL —It does not. It states: The National Convener: (a) may give general directions . . . to be followed . . . in connection with the review of decisions . . . Words have meanings. The honourable senator had better go back and look at Alice in Wonderland again. He is in that area. Senator Coates —The Minister is not giving directions, though. Senator SHEIL —I was talking about the National Convener. Can the honourable senator not hear? He has an additional defect. However, I will not go on with him. No legal costs are to be met or even awarded by SSAT, but I see that it can determine reasonable travel and accommodation expenses. The SSAT will largely retain its existing structure. It has three-member panels, headed by this National Convener. It aims to have part time members and members who do not necessarily have a legal background. So it is continuing the informal nature of the previous Tribunal. To preserve its independence, the public servants who will people it will be seconded from the Department of Social Security. Nevertheless, they remain public servants. Although the public may not be appealing from Caesar to Caesar, they are certainly appealing from Caesar to Caesar's wife. We are not opposing the Bill. There is a risk that the SSAT may become too judicial and lose its informal nature. It may become too complex for individuals, particularly if it becomes too judicial. We cite as an example the Administrative Appeals Tribunal itself, which suffers from both of those faults, and the recent and dubious decisions that have been made by the AAT on social security cases. We do not oppose the Bill and I support the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(4.25) —I rise at the end of the second reading debate to answer some of the points that have been made and to respond to the amendments that have been proposed by both the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. To pick up on what Senator Sheil was saying about his fears about how the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) is to continue its operation in the future, let me say that his concern is one shared not only by people on this side of the Parliament but also by the Government in general. Through the Social Security (Review of Decisions) Bill, we are trying to achieve a mixture of both ministerial responsibility and independent decision making which can retain the flexibility that has been very much part of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal's operations in the past. The Bill has been drafted in consultation with the Welfare Rights Centre, a centre that Senator Powell has invoked for some of the amendments that she is putting up before the Senate this afternoon. I should at this stage make a couple of points about that because only too often governments are not prepared to consult with relevant bodies. In this instance the person who issued the summary of the Bill on behalf of the Welfare Rights Centre, Mr Craig Sahlin, was a member of the Social Security Advisory Council Legislation Working Group, a group which looked at the draft legislation as it was being developed by the Government. At that time, and even most recently when consultations took place with him about this Bill, he did not raise one of the matters in the statement dated 13 October of which he is the author. Where people do have an opportunity to participate in a consultative process, it is not just imperative for their own credibility but more particularly for the rights of their constituency to participate fully in those discussions. It is a pity that in this instance that was not done at an appropriate time. In drafting this legislation the Government has attempted to overcome some of the structural problems that Senator Messner has talked about. It was also raised in the House of Representatives debate that we are giving reviewing officers statutory recognition. We are giving them autonomy. We are also giving the Social Security Appeals Tribunal determinative power-power which has been long wanting in that institution. As I said, this Bill has been drafted in consultation with welfare groups. In fact, the working group that oversaw much of the drafting was chaired by Terry Carney, who was quite often quoted by the Opposition in the House of Representatives as a critic of the pre-existing operation of the SSAT. So the Government has consulted widely and taken into consideration much of the criticism that has been raised about the operation of this area of decision making. Senator Messner, in his contribution, mentioned figures relating to the number of Social Security Appeals Tribunal decisions that have been overturned by the Department. This Bill, of course, will in the future do away with that sort of problem. It should be noted that, even though the Opposition has been quoting figures such as a 12 per cent rejection rate in the four years from 1981, the actual rejection rate for the year 1987-88 is 14.8 per cent. So we do not have all that much of a discrepancy when one looks at the actual figures in this area. As I said, the Government is trying to streamline the process even further. One objective that has been raised and one particular problem that I suppose is very much the point that governments have had to grapple with in this area for some time is that on the one hand one needs to have uniformity and a general approach to the whole area to ensure that people's rights are not different from one part of Australia to another, and on the other hand one needs to allow a certain degree of discretion to handle particular cases. I think the balance that has been struck in this legislation is such that it will allow the maximum opportunities to do that. On the one hand we have the Social Security Appeals Tribunal proceeding in a rather flexible way, in a much less formal way than any other mechanism, and on the other hand we have the final tier, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which acts in a much more formal way. Given a mix of both these institutions, I believe that the flexibility that is needed to handle problems in this area very expeditiously can be achieved. Senator Powell raised a couple of points in terms of amendments that the Democrats will be moving in the committee stage. The first relates to the position as put forward by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, that there was some concern about whether a Minister should be able to direct the Tribunal in a manner which would be unacceptable under our system of legal rights. What has to be recognised in approaching this particular proposition of the Democrats is that what we have in this legislation is for the first time provision for ministerial and Government policy to be made public and to be tabled in the Parliament. I think that is very much an advance and an improvement, and one that should be recognised. To go one step further and make that policy disallowable by one or other chamber of the Parliament would, I think, cause major hold-ups and bottlenecks. Also, I do not think it would achieve the objective that Senator Powell is concerned about. If we are concerned about government policy being in conformity with the law, then already there is a whole series of High Court decisions which ensure that tribunals such as the SSAT will not and should not take into consideration government policy that is outside the legal regime under which it is formulated. The decisions go back to 1965. The most recent was one of Mr Justice Brennan's in a case in 1979 where he made it clear that government policy should be followed only if it was lawful. I think when one takes into account the current legal structure of the Government and the operation of the tribunals, one can be satisfied that policy inconsistent with law passed by this Parliament will not be implemented by the SSAT. We then go on to other provisions raised by Senator Powell and the removal-or the reinstitution, as the Democrats would like to call it-of the exercise of power under new sections 163 and 164 of the Act to SSAT scrutiny. New section 163 of the Act requires a claimant to notify changes of circumstances and new section 164 requires a person to answer questions and provide documents. I think one should look at these two specific provisions in the light of the fact that the Tribunal's role is-and I think is intended to be by the Parliament and I am sure by the organisations involved in this area-to review substantive decisions about a person's entitlement, not to supervise procedures of the Department of Social Security. We should also recognise that in this area the Ombudsman has some rights and powers and we in the Government think it is best to separate these two functions and allow both the Ombudsman and the SSAT to pursue their rightful roles in their respective areas. A further Democrat amendment seeks to have under the ambit of the SSAT the operation of section 168a of the Social Security Act. This particular section relates to the power to continue payments pending appeals. I can see why Senator Powell is concerned about a beneficiary not having his payments under this particular provision suspended while he is going through an appeal process, but I do not think the problem she raises is as difficult or grave as she would have us believe. I am advised that even at the moment, in cases of urgency, a person can have his case deliberated upon and decided within seven to 14 days. Given the fact that if he were to have his payments suspended during that appeal process that urgency is increased, I would argue that his case for an expeditious hearing is being augmented as a consequence. People will get a decision in the area in which they basically want it, that is, the substantive position of their appeal, rather than in the intervening few weeks before they get a final conclusion. Senator Messner —That is a guarantee, I take it. Senator BOLKUS —In terms of guarantees, both Senator Messner and I have been in a position where we have had to rely on the goodwill of others, but I do say that even at the moment a person can have his case heard within seven to 14 days in urgent matters, and given the fact that we have over the last five years experienced somewhat of an increase in the unemployment area because of, should I say, the policies of the Government that went out in March 1983, then maybe in the future their position can be ameliorated. Having said that, let me go back to the final point, which is that we do not accept the Opposition amendment to the second reading motion. What we have done here is to achieve a balance between on the one hand the exercise of ministerial discretion and on the other hand independent decision making by tribunals. Let me also go back to consultation. I think I might have mentioned that Craig Sahlin was consulted formally. In one sense, he was. Craig was in fact a member of the Social Security Advisory Council Legislation Working Group and as such was obviously consulted as a member of that working party in the processes leading up to the Bill. Going then to Senator Powell's amendments, I point out that with some goodwill on the part of the Welfare Rights Centre in New South Wales and also in Victoria some of the representatives can take a much more active role at the right time rather than leave it until the last moment. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 3-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 4. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.37) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 2, clause 4, proposed subsection 17 (1), line 18, after ``and'', insert ``shall''. (2) Page 2, clause 4, proposed subsection 17 (2), lines 21 to 25, leave out the proposed subsection, insert the following subsection: `` `(2) A written statement of the kind referred to in subsection (1) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46a of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.'.''. These are the amendments suggested by me in the second reading debate. They pick up the concern about statements of government policy and what might be a more appropriate way for them to be conveyed and acted upon by both the community and the Parliament. In moving these amendments to clause 4 I would like to say that I thank the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Senator Bolkus) for his response to my speech at the second reading stage but I hope that in his response to my foreshadowing of these amendments he was not saying that if individuals or organisations are part of a consultative process with the Government-a process that the Australian Democrats heartily endorse, support and congratulate the Government on-this means that no subsequent adverse comments, however gentle or constructive, can be made by those people or organisations. I know there has been a tradition of a gag on public servants, preventing them from making public statements on matters in their areas. I do not know a lot about it, for the only kind of public servant I have ever been was a teacher and that was before I was a politician. It is very hard to gag a teacher. Now that I am a politician it is impossible to gag me. I understand that that situation has applied in the past, but it has been somewhat relaxed and I think public servants are now perhaps able to make statements if the subject is not in their area. I hope the Minister was not saying in his foreshadowed response to these amendments that any community based individual or organisation might need to see itself operating under such a gag. I again commend the Government for its consultative processes, where they are in operation, but it is a fact that, where individuals or groups talk with other individuals and other groups in this community, an opinion expressed on one occasion may very well develop as a result of further consultations that they might have with people other than the Government. It is always sad when governments are elected and re-elected and suddenly get this feeling of being born to rule. Indeed, being quite serious for a moment, it is a matter of great concern that not just Craig Sahlin and the Welfare Rights Centre but other groups in the community with whom this Government consults-and I again commend the Government for that consultation-do feel subject to this type of constraint. I believe it is not appropriate that there be even a hint that non-government community based organisations are constrained by such consultations that have taken place on this Bill. Part of the process of this Parliament is to be able to act on government policy and policy statements. I certainly take the point the Minister for Consumer Affairs made with respect to perhaps another road to go down, but I do not agree that it is inappropriate for this House of Parliament or any other House of Parliament to take action to stem the tide of any government policy. We do it all the time with regulations introduced by government. I see no reason why that would not be an appropriate course in this case. Therefore, I have pursued the issue, although the Minister made, as I say, an interesting point on this matter. But the Australian Democrats still believe that, if major policy statements are going to be made in this area, they should come before Parliament in a manner which enables Parliament to act upon them, if it so desires. Again I express some concern about the view expressed by the Minister that it is inappropriate for Parliament to act upon government policy decisions, because I would be most disturbed about it. I think governments need, hopefully for the foreseeable future, to take into account the fact that they will not always be able to get all their decisions through all houses of all parliaments. At least that will be the case so long as the Australian Democrats are here, and that is why people keep putting us here. I have moved these amendments to ensure proper review by the Senate of government policy decisions in this area. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.43) —The Liberal and National parties will not be supporting the Australian Democrats' amendments. Might I say at the outset that one of the problems Senator Powell has presented the Committee with is that she has put forward the amendments without proper notice being given. Senator Powell —We can't talk to you; it would be a dirty deal, wouldn't it? Senator MESSNER —I beg your pardon. Senator Powell —Don't you complain about our not talking to you! Senator MESSNER —I think the honourable senator was actually on her feet speaking during the second reading debate when I heard about the amendments for the first time. I asked the Clerk to see whether they were available, but they were not. That was the first I had heard of them. Certainly, if the Democrats are seeking support for them, one should have thought that their duty would be to at least advise other honourable senators about what they intended. But as it turns out, apparently they have no real intention of achieving success for their amendments. They are not even prepared to tell us what they are to give us due time in which to consider them. Leaving that aside, it just shows that perhaps Senator Powell, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, has rushed into print faster than she should have. Quite clearly, the amendments she has proposed will lead us down the track of absolute chaos in the administration of social security matters in the future. If she were to succeed in having these amendments incorporated into law, we would have a situation in which indeed the decision of a Minister and a policy statement as such would be thrown into chaos by the possible disallowance by the Senate in respect of that matter, which could lead to all kinds of difficulties in the administration of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. At the very least, I should have thought that Senator Powell would have brought it to the attention of the Opposition that the Australian Democrats intended to move such substantive amendments, so that we could have given proper and deep consideration to how she might have applied such a theory which she is seeking to put into practice by such a quixotic method. Obviously, she has not thought it through and I am quite sure that her Party has not thought it through. As a result, the amendments do not have the support of the Liberal and National parties. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(4.45) —In response, I refer to the Government's position as I indicated in my reply at the second reading stage. Just to make one final point with respect to these two amendments moved by Senator Powell, what the Committee has to remember is that we are talking about government policy as expressed by the Minister, not his actually directing the Tribunal. We are talking about the Tribunal having regard to government policy. When one takes into consideration the fact that we are only asking the Tribunal to take policy into account and also, as I said in my response at the second reading stage, the fact that the law as it now stands ensures that any policy outside the framework of the law need not be followed by any implementing or administering tribunal, I think the concerns Senator Powell and that the Welfare Rights Centre have are well and truly accommodated. Amendments negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 5 agreed to. Clause 6. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.47) —by leave-I move: (3) Page 7, clause 6, proposed paragraph 178 (a), line 36, at end of proposed paragraph, insert ``or''. (4) Page 7, clause 6, proposed paragraph 178 (b), line 37, leave out the proposed paragraph. (5) Page 7, clause 6, proposed paragraph 178 (c), line 38, leave out the proposed paragraph. (6) Page 7, clause 6, proposed paragraph 178 (d), line 39, leave out the proposed paragraph. These are the amendments relating to the intention of this legislation to exclude from review by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) various decisions under the Social Security Act. Amendment No. 4 relates to section 163 and amendment No. 5 relates to section 164. They are the sections of the Social Security Act which I canvassed quite extensively at the second reading stage, which by themselves give great concern, and therefore which, while they remain as they are in the Act, we believe ought not be excluded from the new process that is being established in this measure with our support. Amendment No. 6 relates to the ability of appellants also to have redress to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal with relation to continuation of payments pending review-a section of the Act which we also do not want to see excluded from this proposed legislation. We believe the SSAT should be able to review the refusal of the Secretary, in the event that that happened, to continue payments pending a review where a person is faced with financial hardship. So I put forward these four amendments together. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.49) —The amendments put forward by the Australian Democrats do not have the support of the Liberal and National parties. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(4.49) —I refer to my second reading response and the reasons I gave there as to why the Government is not supporting these amendments. In doing so, I just want to clarify one point. I referred to the two previous amendments as emanating from the Welfare Rights Centre. They are the ones that have already been decided upon by the Committee. I should rectify that and say that they came from the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills rather than from the Welfare Rights Centre. Amendments negatived. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.51) —by leave-I move: (7) Page 11, clause 6, proposed paragraph 184 (3) (b), lines 36 and 37, leave out ``and is considered by the Secretary to be relevant to the review of the decision.'', insert ``and is such as would reasonably be considered to be relevant to the review of the decision.''. (8) Page 12, clause 6, after proposed subsection 186 (2), insert the following new subsection: `` `(2a) Where an applicant claims to be suffering from financial hardship and requests a speedy hearing for that reason, the National Convener shall take reasonable steps to ensure that the decision is reviewed as quickly as possible.'.''. These amendments relate to two other concerns that we Democrats have about this legislation. Amendment No. 7 relates to changes to the process of the handing over of documents by the Department of Social Security and access to such documents. Given that the Social Security Appeals Tribunal currently receives the whole file of a person who has made an application, if only part of a file is sent applicants will have to have recourse to freedom of information applications. This would create unnecessary costs to government and delay the hearing of an appeal. We propose these amendments in an attempt to ensure that that does not happen. Amendment No. 8 is an attempt to ensure that where someone claims to be suffering financial hardship a speedy review is available. We are not satisfied that the Bill as it stands covers this area. Currently, any person in financial hardship can apply for a quick hearing. We believe that the present proposal is much narrower. Once a quick appeal is granted, it can still take up to 3 1/2 weeks-as in a case recently brought to my attention-before the Tribunal reaches a determination. It is important that a quick hearing can be granted and we believe that these amendments are necessary to ensure that that is the case under this legislation. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.52) —On behalf of the Liberal and National parties, I wish to say that we will not be supporting amendment No. 7. The insertion of the words `reasonably be considered' rather than the words `is considered by the Secretary' appears to us to introduce uncertainty in a situation where probably there is a need for very great certainty in the process that is being undertaken in the interests of the client of the Department. I am not convinced by Senator Powell that the amendment will bring any great benefit to the client. In respect of amendment No. 8, the Liberal and National parties are somewhat attracted to the idea put forward by Senator Powell, but in the light of our doubts about the wording of the amendment it is difficult to make what could be a meaningful change on the run in the fashion suggested. It would have assisted the Opposition a great deal if we had had the opportunity to look further into this amendment and consider it in greater depth. However, the Democrats apparently chose not to disclose their hand in time for that to occur. Senator Powell —The same people who spoke to me spoke to your shadow Minister weeks ago. Senator MESSNER —Unfortunately, that is news to us. We have shadow Ministers representing shadow Ministers in the Senate, and it is a pity that Senator Powell did not bring up the matter with us. Can the Minister give us some assurance that in the event of a need for a speedy hearing because of financial hardship due process will be properly considered? Can the Minister assure the Committee, given the limitations of the situation, that people will not be unduly ill-treated if this amendment is not enacted? Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.55) —I welcome even the tepidity of the Opposition's response to amendment No. 8. It gives some heart in terms of the possibility of getting some sort of enlightened approach to government legislation. The official Opposition in this place is supposed to be the Liberal and National parties, and people in the community with concerns, even people in the welfare sector, approach those parties. But Senator Messner's comments reflect the sort of response such approaches receive. Those approaches were made long before the Bill reached this stage. If approaches made to the official Opposition in the other place do not filter through to the official Opposition in this place, I do not feel too much responsibility for the speed with which these things then have to be put in place when the official Opposition neglects what I and the community believe is its responsibility in this place. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(4.56) —I do not want to interfere in what seems to be a family feud and I shall return to the legislation. The Government is not inclined to support Senator Powell's amendment No. 7. Where in Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) cases the Tribunal has before it information which is then proven to be inadequate by the beneficiary, I am sure that in those circumstances the beneficiary's case would be enhanced all the more. There is some degree of pressure on the Department to ensure that relevant material is provided to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. The Government's proposal seeks to streamline administration, and one must bear in mind that the Secretary's decision in these instances is reviewable in a number of circumstances. For instance, a beneficiary has rights under the freedom of information legislation which can be exercised, and the tribunal itself can request specific information. In fact, proposed section 191 allows the National Convener to ask the Secretary to provide information or a document which the Secretary has; so there is power in that regard. One also has the Ombudsman. If one is not satisfied with those three avenues, there are as many cases go further the powers of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the legal mechanisms available there. Therefore, this should not be seen as a sinister approach by big government. I understand Senator Messner's statement that amendment No. 8 has some attraction; but the Democrats' amendment as it stands says that, where an applicant claims to be suffering from hardship, the Convener has to take reasonable steps to ensure that the decision is reviewed as quickly as possible. There is no scope in the proposed amendment for an independent assessment of the claim of hardship and suffering. To support the amendment would make for an administrative procedure which would be too rigid for the likes of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Senator Messner asked for assurances and guarantees. Already there is provision, and it will continue, for urgent cases involving people who can be categorised as suffering financial hardship. Some of those cases have been brought on within seven days of the claim having been made. I also assure the Committee that, if a problem emerges in the operation of the SSAT, the Government is prepared to give a direction under proposed section 17 to ensure that the spirit of what Senator Powell is attempting to do, and with which Senator Messner finds some sympathy, is accommodated by the procedures of the Tribunal. Amendments negatived. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Bolkus) read a third time. Debate resumed from 14 October, on motion by Senator Robert Ray: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.01) —The Senate is now starting to debate a Bill relating to the provision of certain equipment for Qantas Airways Ltd. In leading for the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia, I declare at the outset that both parties will support this Bill, although we will move an amendment to the second reading motion. We regret very much that this Bill is necessary. The reason it is necessary is Qantas's acute lack of capital. That really can be sheeted home to this Government's five years of mismanagement of the whole aviation sector. The Bill sets out to give Government guarantees to Qantas for a very complex borrowing system, which I will examine later, for it to buy three Boeing 767-300 extended range passenger aircraft. Presumably, the reason that the Government has to act as guarantor for Qantas is that Qantas has such a very small capital base with respect to its borrowings that it has exceeded what people are prepared to lend it unless the Government guarantees it. This is a situation that should not exist in this day and age. The only reason we are locked into this situation is the absurd ideological position of the Government in not selling Qantas to private enterprise. The days are long past when governments have to-- Senator Sanders —Nobody in the Government cares about this. There is nobody on the Government side. Senator MacGIBBON —Yes, no-one cares about this at all. It is interesting that Senator Sanders has commented on that; there is literally not a Government Minister in the chamber at the moment. There is not even the Whip here. It is quite astonishing. In all my 11 years in the Senate I have never seen a situation where there was not one member of the Government keeping the Senate. It is an inviolate rule that there is always a Minister, always a Whip and always about half a dozen government members in the chamber. I think it shows the contempt with which this Government treats the institution of Parliament in general and the matter of Qantas and the aviation sector that I was talking about a while ago. It is sad that these words of wisdom and gratuitous advice that I am prepared to offer to the Government without any fee at all are going to be lost on it. The purpose of this Bill is to provide a guarantee for the purchase of three Boeing 767 extended range aircraft. These are a stretched version of the 200 series that Qantas operates at present. They carry 231 passengers as against the 208 passengers in the present 200 series. That will allow Qantas to put a first-class section into these aircraft. One of the criticisms of the existing 200 series Boeing 767 is that it does not have a first-class section. The 200 series aircraft have been very successful. They have really been great money spinners for Qantas. The ultimate test of a transport aircraft is whether one can make money out of it. The 200 series aircraft have been very efficient for two reasons. The first reason is that they have a great deal of systems redundancy built into them with the introduction of advanced avionic systems, solid state digital systems and duplication, triplication and even quadruplication systems. They start with inherently very reliable equipment which is backed up by alternative parallel systems so that if one fails the aircraft can still fly safely with a full complement of services on board. The operational experience of the systems in the 767-200 series has been exemplary. The aircraft look the same as the ones that Ansett Airlines of Australia operates but are really quite different under the skin. The other great efficiency of these aircraft comes from their engine installation-they have a very fuel efficient engine. The aircraft fly high, higher than 747s. As I said before they have been great money spinners for Qantas. The other great advantage is that being roughly half the size of 747s, they allow Qantas to operate on routes where the traffic does not justify the employment of a full sized 747 aircraft, thereby giving Qantas a great deal of flexibility in the route structures that we need around the South Pacific and around the whole of the rim of the Pacific Ocean. The aircraft will enable Qantas to operate out of all the capital cities of Australia, for example, picking up small loads and going to places such as Singapore, Hong Kong and even Tokyo. I cannot help but reflect on the speeches I made and the private conversations I had with Qantas through the last 10 years when that company was locked into one type of aircraft-Boeing 747s. I was saying both in private and in public that the airline needed to develop the flexibility that came from a mix of aircraft in the fleet. Ten years ago when Qantas was looking basically at long haul routes to Europe, Japan and North America the argument in favour of settling for one aircraft type was very persuasive. That certainly cut the supporting side greatly with crew training and maintenance spares holdings. It made the operation very much simpler and therefore much more attractive economically, but the penalty paid was a great deal of route inefficiency. One simply could not operate on the smaller routes and change the route structure very readily. I said previously that this Bill has come about because of Qantas's acute shortage of capital. It is symptomatic of the Australian Labor Party that it does not understand anything about business. While it is in bed with big business, big unions and big government-the whole trinity of this present Hawke Labor regime-it still has not grasped the fundamental point about business. If one is to run a business successfully, even if one is going to be in business, two requirements have to be met. I see that Senator Maguire is taking note of that; as a budding economist he can write these words down. The first thing one must have is adequate capital. The second thing one must have is business acumen. All the business acumen in the world is of no use if one does not have an adequate financial base. Nothing works unless there is a certain amount of money in the kitty, to put it in the simplest form, because all the working capital cannot be borrowed. If all the working capital is borrowed, particularly at the high rates of interest that exist now, one cannot make a profit. Margins are too low to pay interest, make a profit and repay the money borrowed. The international airline business is as competitive as any other form of activity on earth. The Australian Labor Party does not understand that. It does not understand also that the way out of this problem is to sell the airline-to sell it to the Australian community, preferably first of all to the 13,000-odd Qantas employees, and raise capital in that way. Earlier this year in the old Senate chamber we debated the Williamstown Dockyard employees Bill. I said in my speech: . . . the general rule that I hold-I do not hold it dogmatically or ideologically-is that governments simply should not be in commercial operations if they can be operated by the private sector. The reasons for that are basic and fundamental. I hold firmly to that belief. It is not the business of government to be in a commercial enterprise if that enterprise can be adequately run by private industry. The reason is that the Public Service simply does not have the expertise to make the commercial judgments that are the lifeblood of the day to day activities of industry. There is no training system in the Public Service to train executives for commercial enterprises. Nor can there be, because no system of reward and censure exists in the public sector. If one does well in the private sector one is rewarded, but if one does badly one is fired. No-one ever gets fired in the public sector. If people make a mess of a program, if they overspend on a program by $5m or $15m a year, they get promoted and get more staff so they can lose $20m the next year. The private field just cannot operate in that way. In the past-150 years, 100 years and even 50 years ago-Australia was very short of capital. There was an acceptable argument for governments, with their better capital raising facilities, to involve themselves in the provision of basic utilities in the community, in the building of things that could not be built because of the shortage of capital. Of course that was how the Government got involved in Qantas. But those times have passed and private industry now can raise more capital than government can, and often can raise it cheaper, at better rates and in a much more convenient way. The dreadful position existing today of Qantas being starved of capital can be overcome by selling the airline and turning it over to private industry. Clause 2 of the Bill guarantees $US235m for the purchase of three aircraft and their support equipment. But do not let anyone in this chamber think that that is the end of the business. On Thursday night of last week I attended an Estimates committee hearing dealing with the Department of Transport and Communications. I asked a question of Senator Gareth Evans, the immediate past Minister for Transport and Communications and the Minister in attendance at the time, about how Qantas was proposing to finance the purchase of 25 per cent of Air New Zealand. A Mr Phair, from Qantas, indicated that negotiations had not been completed. The Minister then said, in answer to my question: I can answer that. The reality of the matter is that whatever the investment ultimately proves to be in Air New Zealand it will be substantially less than the capital cost of one new aircraft. That is against an environment of a major investment program- this is the really critical point- Over the next few years- I interpret `few' to mean two or three- something like $5 billion will be spent involving the potential purchase of 25 to 30 aircraft. There it is, straight from the immediate past Minister: $5 billion is the capital requirement of Qantas in the next two to three years. Does anyone in this chamber think that Senator Tate, Senator Walsh, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or anyone else is going to gouge $5,000m in extra taxation from the Australian taxpayer, given the crippling rates of taxation we already bear, to keep Qantas competitive? One has only to state the proposition to see how completely absurd it is. The capital resources are no longer there in the public sector. We are being taken down this path because the Government is locked into the worst sort of ideological dogma. It is not game to take on the far Left, the Centre Left and any other part of the Left in the Labor Party and tell them a few of the basic facts of economic life. I will be interested to see where that $5 billion comes from if this Government survives-which I do not think it will. We are looking two or three years ahead, but I think this Government will be sitting on this side of the chamber within about 10 months. The fact that Qantas has to get Government guarantees is not the only sign that Qantas is short of working capital. I have been a very faithful, strong and vocal supporter of Qantas both in private and publicly during my time in the Senate. But one has only to look at the airline today to see that it is desperately short of working capital in all sorts of ways. I recently flew to London, on to Washington and back across the Pacific. It was the first time for over two years that I had been such a considerable distance away from Australia. I was shocked at the standard of the Qantas aircraft I flew in. I regret very much to have to say that this airline, which once compared more than favourably with the other airlines of the world from a passenger point of view, is now not providing the service that other airlines are. The cabins of the aircraft are not as clean as they might be. The aircraft have a general run-down air about them. Far more seriously, aircraft are being dispatched down the line with a large number of maintenance defects, though these defects are said not to involve the safe operation of the aircraft. Within the last two or three weeks there was an article in the Australian under the headline, `Qantas sends work to USA'. The article states that Qantas was short 110 licensed aircraft maintenance engineers. That is a huge number. The article goes on to say that Qantas will need an additional 700 to 800 engineers within 12 months just to cope with the work in hand. As a consequence of this, Qantas is going to send two 747 aircraft to the United States for routine maintenance. This is going to result in the loss of 40,000 man hours of work that could have been performed by the Australian work force and will cost the company $200m, which will add to our balance of payments problem. The reason Qantas is in the position of not having these 110 licensed maintenance engineers is simply that the Government, with its ideological commitment to a centralised wage fixing program and the wage policy it is running, will not let Qantas meet the market. If Qantas could go to the market and hire licensed engineers at the going market rate instead of being stuck with what Mr Hawke, Senator Evans or Mr Willis think it should pay, it would not have a shortage of engineers. Then the aircraft would not be going out in the state they are. I do not want to overemphasise the unserviceability of equipment on aircraft but on a number of the aircraft I flew on in the last month unserviceable equipment on board was reported and not fixed. Some of that equipment related to hoists for getting food up from the galley, and so far as I know none of it reflected on the safe operation of the aircraft. But as someone who has been involved in aviation for most of his life, has owned aircraft for over 20 years and has more than a passing knowledge of maintenance problems and practices with aircraft, I can state categorically that one cannot draw a theoretical line with an aircraft as to what is surplus to requirements and what is essential from a safety point of view. I see Senator Peter Baume nodding. It is very much like treating a patient. One cannot decide in one's approach to a patient that such and such a condition is life-threatening and that therefore treatment is essential but that treatment for a condition that is not life-threatening does not have to be carried out. One strives, in treating patients, to give them the best quality care one can in every element of treatment. Precisely the same ethos must apply in the maintenance of aircraft. One cannot say that, as something is not essential for the safe operation of the aircraft, it can be neglected. One must try to meet the highest standards of maintenance all along the line. It is terrible for Qantas, which has the proudest and finest safety record in the world, to be put in the position by the ideologies of the Labor Government of not being able to recruit adequate engineers. One of the other problems Qantas is facing relates to pilots. The pilot shortage is compounded by Government practice. Australia pays its pilots, whether they fly for Qantas, Ansett Airlines of Australia or Australian Airlines, very well by world standards. If one looks at the last eight to 10 years of the international airline pilot scene one will find that most international operators have either pegged airline salaries, which were at a high level, or even reduced them. Some of the American operators have taken cuts of up to 20 to 30 per cent in their salaries. Concomitant with that has been an increase in the number of hours on duty that pilots are allowed to fly. In other words, the productivity of the flight deck crew has gone up considerably. In Australia we suffer from overregulation in the whole of the aviation field. The number of hours that a pilot can actually fly is quite low, but they are made artificially much lower again because of overregulation which inhibits airlines from taking 100 per cent of the restricted hours a pilot is allowed to fly. The Government ought to be looking, through its new Civil Aviation Authority, at how to overcome some of these longstanding limitations on aircrew operations which are well in need of review. Qantas has come in for criticism because it has poached very heavily from the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). The RAAF has a long-term loss rate of about 42 pilots per year. I do not wish to go into the resignation rates for all three Services. However, so that people have some idea of the magnitude of loss involved, the RAAF lost 70 pilots in 1985-86; 107 in 1986-87; 123 in 1987-88; and in the first six weeks of this financial year 42 pilots indicated that they were going. That is a loss of nearly 300 pilots from the RAAF. The active flying pool is not much larger than that. These are all pilots who have been trained by the taxpayer at vast expense. Most of them came from the operational squadrons, the F111s and the F18s, with about 10 to 12 years' service in the Air Force and about 1,000 hours on type. They have cost the taxpayers of this country between $4m and $6m each to train. Because they do not like the way this Government treats them, they are leaving to take what is a much more boring job for them of flying for Qantas. It is a national tragedy that this should be happening. We do not need to pay $4m to $6m to train a Boeing 747 captain. We need to train Boeing 747 and 767 captains as well as we can, but we can do it for a fraction of what it costs to train the captain of an F111. One of the problems we have which pushes Qantas into poaching from the Services is that we spend nothing on aviation education in this country. We endow educational institutions with funds for basketweaving courses and all sorts of other non-essential courses. Colleges of advanced education, technical and further education colleges and universities have all sorts of hobby courses granting degrees. We pour hundreds of millions of dollars into them but we do not put one cent into training pilots or flight engineers. The training of a pilot is the most expensive training in the country. To return to the Bill, the Government has guaranteed a loan of $US235m to Qantas. When I get into the details of the loan, I find the most astonishingly convoluted set of borrowing procedures I have ever seen in my life. I will simplify it. It starts with Qantas buying the aircraft from Boeing. It flies them to Sydney and they are sold to a company called Babcock and Brown. They then go to Japan and are bought by an affiliate company, Nomura, Babcock and Brown, and separate lease companies are set up for the aircraft. Then the company sells the lease to companies in the Cayman Islands and the Dutch Antilles. Qantas then eventually leases them back. We are assured by this honourable Government that it is all legal, but I have no hesitation in saying that if you or I did it, Mr Acting Deputy President, we could be up before the rapacious and law-breaking Mr Boucher for evading the tax law-Mr Boucher, who interprets what he thinks as the meaning of the income tax law, not worrying about the letter of the law. I cannot help observing the double standards and the dubious morality of the Government in forcing Qantas to go down this path of shuffling through a chain of paper in companies all around the world-in Sydney, Tokyo, the Cayman Islands, the Dutch Antilles and then again Sydney. It is not proper for a government authority to be using these standards in its commercial operations. But I will yield to Senator Watson, who will go into this in more detail. I move: At end of motion, add `, but the Senate: (a) regrets that Qantas has been prevented from selling shares to Qantas employees and the Australian people to provide a capital increase to facilitate expansion of the airline to cope with increasing passengers and freight; and (b) notes that the Australian Taxation Office has issued a statement on debt defeasance, a procedure adopted by Qantas to finance the acquisition of new aircraft'. Qantas has a marvellous future. From the time it started on 2 November 1922 in western Queensland flying with an Armstrong Whitworth FK8 it has prospered year after year. It has proved that Australia can run a highly successful international airline. Originally Qantas was a private airline. It raised its own capital from shareholders. Right up to the end of the Second World War, in its difficult gestation period all its capital was raised by private industry. Then it was taken over by the Labor Government of the time and has remained a government entity ever since. Qantas provides great services to Australia. It is responsible for bringing 43 per cent of all the people who travel to Australia at present. It generates billions of dollars in overseas earnings for this country. The opportunities for Qantas in the Pacific region in the decades ahead are enormous. It is true that there are some risks in getting involved in this area, but the rewards more than compensate for them. It is very much in the national interest that Qantas be supported in fighting for and expanding its place in the markets in the Pacific and in the rest of the world. I do not believe in the present trend towards mega-airlines such as the United complex and British Airways. Airlines are taking three or four, or even more, major airlines and consolidating them into one airline. There is a feeling about the international airline world that this is the only way airlines can survive. I do not believe that. In the longer haul, the mega-airlines will break up into more efficient economic units. I believe very strongly that there is a place for high quality airlines such as Qantas in the future. Its defence against the mega-airlines ought to be the formation of alliances with other high quality airlines rather than merging into one commercial behemoth. The Government has completely run down the whole of the aviation scene in this country. We have had six Ministers, none of them competent, none of them adequate, in the five years this Government has been in office. We have seen the disbanding of the Department of Civil Aviation, after a variety of names, and the formation of the Federal Airports Corporation and the Civil Aviation Authority, neither of which is answerable to the Parliament for its incompetence. The airport scene, the chaos in Sydney and the shortage of an international terminal in Brisbane all point to the inadequacy this Government has brought so strikingly to the airline scene. We will support this Bill but we regret very much that the correct commercial procedure of selling the airline and raising capital through private industry was not followed in this case. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(5.32) —The Australian Democrats will be supporting the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1988 and we will not be supporting the Opposition's amendment. For one thing, no advance notice of that amendment was given. In the previous debate on the Social Security (Review of Decisions) Bill 1988 Senator Messner was very scathing of my colleague Senator Powell when he said that she had not presented any amendment. In fact, the Opposition had known about the issues for a long time. In this instance, of course, the Opposition has not given us any advance notice. In any event we would not support the amendment because it calls for privatisation of Qantas Airways Ltd. Senator MacGibbon —As old socialists, you would not like it, would you? Senator SANDERS —Senator MacGibbon interjects that I am perhaps a socialist. I am a humanist. I also believe in commonsense. Commonsense dictates that there is no guarantee that big business is any more efficient than big government. Big business is still subject to bureaucratic controls, Parkinson's law and the Peter principle. There is no guarantee that a privatised Qantas would be any more or any less efficient than a public Qantas. Incidentally, while I am on the subject of big business, Senator MacGibbon was quite scathing again of the route taken to purchase these aircraft, which is a devious route admittedly. It goes from Seattle to Sydney to Japan and to the Netherlands Antilles. This is what big business does. This is what Alan Bond does; this is what Kerry Packer does; this is big business. On the one hand, Senator MacGibbon wants this airline to be privatised but on the other he complains when the Government takes actions which are the actions that big business would be taking anyway. We do not support the amendment. Qantas is an excellent airline. It is more than an airline; it is a national flag carrier; it is a symbol of Australia around the world. I come from the United States of America, which is very dedicated to big business. When I first came here I thought it strange that a country could actually run an airline or a railway or anything else. It smacked of communism or socialism because after all I am a product of the McCarthy era of United States thinking. However, I have changed my views. I believe that it is absolutely essential that Qantas remain in government hands. It does a good job as a flag carrier and an instrument of Australian goodwill around the world. People can see an extension of Australia, not in a warship-like way as we have seen in the harbours of Australia but in a peaceful way which is a means of actually building bridges of friendship across the world. Senator MacGibbon was complaining about the standards of Qantas having slipped. I travel a fair bit and I travel on Qantas when I can. I have travelled on other airlines such as British Airways and United Airlines. Qantas compares very favourably with all the world's other airlines. It is a good airline. In fact, it is always good to get on a Qantas airliner after travelling on other airlines because one feels as though one is coming home. Senator Maguire —Hear, hear! Senator SANDERS —There are interjections from honourable senators to that effect. It is a good airline which is operated in a safe manner. Senator MacGibbon referred to the fact that Qantas airliners are taking off with some equipment unserviceable. This is true. I agree with Senator MacGibbon that it is deplorable that some of our mechanics are finding it necessary to leave Qantas in search of higher paying jobs elsewhere. But he makes it sound worse than it is. There is no machine of the complexity of a Boeing 747 that could be 100 per cent serviceable. One cannot expect all of its systems to be 100 per cent serviceable; it is a complicated machine. Because it is complicated a number of redundant systems, a number of back-up systems, can be unserviceable and the safety of the machine is not really affected. So while it is a deplorable situation, it is not one we should be unduly worried about. It is something we should keep our eyes on. We should spend more of our national resources on training aircraft pilots and people in the entire aircraft industry-aircraft controllers and aircraft mechanics. One thing that does concern me, however, is a matter that was brought to my attention by the Australian International Cabin Crew Association, which is one of the unions which cover cabin crews on Qantas airliners. The second reading speech of the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1988 states that the Bill is to: . . . finance the purchase of three Boeing 767-300 extended range aircraft. The aircraft will be delivered in October, November and December of this year . . . The aircraft will be utilised primarily on the Tasman and Japanese routes, two of Qantas, Australia's important markets. They certainly are important, especially the Japanese route. Qantas has placed a series of advertisements in newspapers in Japan, Singapore, Thailand, Korea and Taiwan. An advertisement in the Singapore Straits Times on 19 March 1988 says: Live in Sydney See the World As Qantas Cabin Crew (Japanese-Speaking) . . . You will find cabin crew life appealing if you are by nature caring and helpful, sensitive to the needs of others regardless of their cultural origins; patient and good humoured as well as steady and in control during emergencies. You must like working with others yet have the ability to cope with solitude; having worked in the service industry before, like in a hotel or restaurant or as a nurse or teacher will help. So far so good. It says that any successful applicant will have assistance with housing on arrival in Sydney and will be given permanent residency. So far it sounds like a logical recruiting system but what does it really mean? There is a basic requirement that applicants must speak Japanese sufficiently for social occasions, speak English, plus speak their mother tongue fluently. Senator Puplick —Who guarantees permanent residency? Qantas does, does it? Senator SANDERS —The Government. Qantas has rightly determined that if one is going to run an airline which carries a number of Japanese people it would be good to have cabin attendants who speak Japanese. That is fine, but what it is doing is going outside the country to recruit Japanese speaking people. Qantas is planning to recruit between 16 and 18 persons from overseas to meet this new service standard. The company claims that it cannot meet its objectives for the next three to five years simply by training existing flight attendants even though Qantas received 700 applications from flight attendants wishing to enrol in Japanese language training programs advertised by the company earlier this year. So 700 existing attendants said, `Yes, we would like to learn Japanese' and Qantas said, `Forget it, we're going to start hiring people overseas'. It does not make sense to hire people from overseas to take positions which could be handled by people who are presently working for Qantas. Of course, this has caused quite a bit of consternation amongst the Australian International Cabin Crew Association and the Australian Council of Trade Unions-and rightly so. Qantas's argument that it must implement this procedure immediately-that is, hire Japanese speaking people from overseas-is not really logical, because during the last five years the number of Japanese tourists coming to Australia has quadrupled, increasing from 71,800 in 1983 to 286,000 in 1988, in spite of the fact that Qantas cabin attendants have not been speaking Japanese at the level which Qantas desires. So it looks like we do have a little time up our sleeves. We do need to address the needs of people from other countries who do not speak our language, but actually to hire people overseas is, I think, wrong. I am particularly disturbed that these people are being brought in as permanent residents and not as temporary residents, because the permanency that is being offered to them leads me to question Qantas's commitment to training adequate numbers of Australian crew. This is a difficulty that we have with Qantas at the moment. I think it is a difficulty which can be solved. It is a relatively minor difficulty compared to the one I will mention next-the difficulties for Qantas in operating in Australia. When Qantas flights return home and are put in holding patterns outside Sydney before they can land, it is not only inconvenient for the passengers but also very expensive for Qantas, as this must burn up an awful lot of fuel. As an environmentalist, I am very concerned about the vast amount of fuel which is burnt by Qantas flights being placed in holding patterns before they can land in Sydney. This difficulty is common to any other aircraft using Sydney airport. As Senator MacGibbon said, it is a result of the incapacity of the Australian Government-of both stripes, Labor and Liberal-to come to grips with modern air traffic control procedures. Air traffic control in Sydney simply does not work. If the busy airports of the world, such as Los Angeles International, O'Hare in Chicago, Heathrow, or those in Rome or Athens used the traffic control procedures used in Sydney, traffic would simply stop. Our traffic control procedures simply are not working. Another difficulty relating to Sydney airport is the lack of runways. There is a relatively low cost solution. As much, or some, of the traffic which uses Sydney is made up of light twins and commuter-type airlines, it would be logical to put in a runway for their sole use, as occurred at Los Angeles International. I think the authorities are costing another runway for Sydney in terms of jet operations-747 and 767 aircraft operations; the heavy aircraft. It would be far cheaper and quicker to put in a 3,000 or 4,000 feet strip for the commuter airlines and the light twin aircraft. This would ease traffic congestion. It is not the ultimate solution, which involves a more modern, efficient and flexible air traffic control system in Sydney and Melbourne. Melbourne also has difficulties at the moment. Qantas flights are also put in holding patterns there. Melbourne has adequate runways but a very inadequate air traffic control system due to the radar system which has been installed. I will not delay the Senate any longer. Qantas deserves our support. I hope that it gets the support that it needs, and I hope that aviation in Australia in general gets the support that it needs. Aviation in Australia is essential to Australia's development. Aviation had its start in Australia. Australia led the world in the use of aviation. Much of Australia was settled and explored by the use of aircraft. In the years that have followed since Kingsford-Smith and the early pioneers, Australia has gone backwards until we are now one of the poor relations of aviation in the world. We do not give it enough resources; we do not give it enough attention. I think it is time that Australia came to the forefront in aviation matters and took the lead in using aviation for what it can best do-that is, adequately develop Australia's future. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.45) —The Senate is debating the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1988. Before we conclude this debate, I believe that the Senate is entitled to receive certain assurances from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Senator Gareth Evans) that Qantas does not propose to enter into funding arrangements which could be in conflict with the war by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on tax avoidance and the Federal Government's taxation objectives. The Government has been advocating a tax policy over a period of many months which has emphasised its commitment to deal with taxpayers who minimise their obligations and thereby involve themselves in tax avoidance practices. The Commissioner of Taxation has supported this deal with a number of contentious taxation rulings and by engaging in raids on premises of banks, solicitors and chartered accountants. Although there has never been any violence involved in these raids on premises, I have been told by some of the participants that they have been psychologically brutal. Of course, we, as committed and responsible citizens, must accept that we have a duty to pay our tax and not seek to evade it. I think, however, that it is important in this debate and similar debates to remind the Senate that every taxpayer has a right or entitlement, which is always upheld in the courts, to minimise one's tax liability within the law. The Senate needs to be assured that, in regard to the Bill before the Senate, the present Treasurer does not have schizophrenic tendencies. For example, I am sure that the Senate would be concerned if a situation developed whereby the Treasurer had a penchant for minimising tax avoidance obligations and, at the same time, a willingness through his Government to put forward a Bill which had behind it all the hallmarks of funding to purchase three new aircraft, with constraints on the deal to ensure that that deal was in line with taxation policy and philosophy. One would hope in all cases that a statutory body-which would obviously include Qantas-would operate within the policy guidelines of the Government's taxation policy and philosophy. I think it is arguable that Qantas in the past has always operated within the law, but under the proposed funding arrangements it could well contravene the guidelines enunciated by the Treasurer and the Taxation Commissioner, particularly if it adopts funding proposals which are similar to those which have been adopted in the past. For example, a quite reliable newspaper report in the Sydney Morning Herald recently indicated that Qantas had sought defeasance on its purchase of aircraft in the past by pursuing a complex set of deals involving the purchase and repurchase of a number of its aircraft. I ask the Minister: Has Qantas contracted deals for the purchase of these aircraft which are the subject of this loan guarantee Bill? In such a contract members of the web could include not only Qantas and Boeing but also outsiders such as a Japanese leasing company or some other leasing company, dozens of Japanese or other investors, and certain banks, possibly even the Barclays Bank. Such a deal could traverse countries such as Australia, Japan, and a number of tax haven island nation states, possibly in the Caribbean. We have to beware of a government instrumentality being involved in a deal that is contrived between such groups in order to take advantage of the taxation systems in Australia and Japan and tax haven areas resulting, naturally, in Qantas saving some after-tax money or reducing the cost of the aircraft purchase. I ask the Minister to deny that there has been a deal such as that which I will illustrate by way of an example, or a similar deal. I hope the Minister will not hide behind some technical inaccuracy, by saying that certain names or countries are incorrect. I will give an example of the sort of arrangement that I feel could be quite abhorrent, given the Taxation Commissioner's high and new moral ground in relation to this area. Qantas orders aircraft from Boeing. It then sells the aircraft to Japan with an intermediate bank paying Qantas. Naturally, under Japanese law, the Japanese owners would qualify for tax benefits and depreciation allowances. Then the Japanese issue Qantas with a lease and an option to buy the planes on hire purchase. Qantas then buys the planes back through an intermediate bank. Qantas pays the bank a fee to defease rental obligations and part of the purchase option. The planes are bought back on hire purchase, or through a similar deal, and become Australian again and qualify Qantas for tax benefits and depreciation under tax rules here. At the end of all this Qantas would be able to achieve what is known within the trade as `debt defeasance' and it would get an after-tax benefit. So Qantas would acquire the planes ultimately at a much cheaper cost than if it had bought them directly from the manufacturers. That is a scant look at what, of course, is a very complicated deal. There is nothing illegal about the deal in itself. It has been mentioned elsewhere in this debate that if the airline were to be privatised, naturally these sorts of purchasing arrangements would be not only common but also necessary to maximise profits. It concerns me that in the light of the Taxation Commissioner's commitment to the minimisation of individual tax avoidance arrangements, the activities of Qantas in its purchase of aircraft may be bringing the Tax Commissioner and a government owned instrumentality into conflict, certainly moral conflict. On the issue of privatisation I wish to point out that the coalition is committed to the privatisation of a number of government organisations, including Qantas. It is believed nowadays that the Commonwealth does not have a role, indeed it cannot afford the luxury, in owning airlines and certain other statutory bodies, and that money that is tied up in these sorts of instrumentalities would be better spent on providing government services to more pressing sectors and areas. I am not implying in any way that the current management of Qantas, for whom I have a high regard, is lacking. But Qantas must often be frustrated at the fact that the airline is being kept in cotton wool by being a wholly government-owned entity and not subject to all the benefits and pressures of the private sector. The conflict that has developed between Government policy and the activities of one of its bodies highlights another cause for the case for privatisation. Government enterprises such as Qantas are expected to operate with the same management philosophy and techniques as the private organisations in such a highly competitive environment. The airline industry is a highly competitive one and in order for a government-owned airline to operate profitably, the organisation needs to be free to compete and to deal in the same manner as do its competitors. Consequently, it is not in Australia's best interest that the Australian national airline be constrained by government policy and run the risk of compromising this policy through competitive activities. The conflict of policy which I have just described to the Senate is not the sole argument that can be made for privatisation. The coalition certainly believes, and very strongly so, that privatisation can contribute to the improvement of public operations. For example, Qantas is burdened by Public Service conditions, as is Australian Airlines, that make Qantas and Australian Airlines less competitive than their private sector rivals. Qantas, which we acknowledge is an efficient international airline in its own right, is hampered by its inability to fill seats while flying from one Australian airport to another. It is also limited in its ability to do international deals, to invest in tourist activities generally, and to compete as quite an ambitious international airline. The Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill is but another example of the constraints that are placed upon our national airline. As my colleague Senator MacGibbon said, Qantas does have inadequate capitalisation, an inadequate capital base. While private enterprise airlines can raise most of the money for these very expensive new aircraft by selling various forms of shares, the undercapitalised government airline, which Qantas is, is forced to borrow and pay huge interest bills. In fact, Qantas's total capital base is provided by the Government at present and is insufficient to buy even two-thirds of one Boeing 747-400 at today's prices. In order for Qantas to remain profitable in the future an increased capital base is required to permit a reduction in the extensive borrowing necessary to effect the forthcoming purchase re-equipment program. It must also be noted that although Qantas is helped in raising borrowings at competitive rates by having a government guarantee on its loans, the Federal Government has, since 1987, imposed a 0.5 per cent levy on all loans that it guarantees for its instrumentalities, including Qantas. Thus, the Government has found another source from which it can syphon off funds. In 1987, Qantas ordered four new high technology 747-400s costing about $250m each. But several of its competitors ordered more 747-400s for earlier delivery. The problem is that although Qantas had the option on a further dozen, it could not afford to borrow more to pay for them. So the opportunity to introduce the new aircraft earlier than its rivals could well have provided Qantas with a competitive edge, an increased market share and increased profitability. In fact, a privately owned Qantas would be expected to have the capital base and the borrowing capacity to secure the deal that I have just referred to. Privatisation would free the airline from government restrictions on its borrowings and other financial operations. I think it is appropriate in 1988, our bicentennial year, to reflect on the tremendous number of tourists that have been flocking to Australia from all around the world. This year we have had probably more visits by heads of state and heads of government than in any other year since Federation. We have seen historically memorable events, such as the Australia Day celebrations in Sydney Harbour, the opening of World Expo 88 in Brisbane and the opening of our grand new Parliament House here in Canberra. Many of these visitors would have come to Australia on Qantas aeroplanes and I was pleased to note that recently Qantas received a very high rating from regular air travellers in all countries of the world. As Qantas is the oldest airline in the English speaking world and I think the oldest airline overall apart from KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, I believe we can be justly proud of the achievements of our own airline. Therefore I hope that the Federal Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support, Mr Gary Punch, will put pressure on the Government to permit Qantas to carry more domestic passengers. I know that this area has been freed up recently and the Government is to be commended for its forward thinking change. But I see that more than half of the 14 million people who have attended Expo were Australians and I think it would have assisted the domestic network and domestic operators if Qantas had been able to carry some of those passengers. At present the domestic operators, particularly Ansett, have an acute shortage of planes. This factor frequently interrupts regular airline schedules to Tasmania. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that recently Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York was displeased when she attempted to undertake a scheduled flight to Tasmania by Ansett, which flight was changed at the last minute because of the shortage of aircraft and resulted in her chartering a special plane. Unfortunately for travellers to my State, the domestic carriers have been rescheduling aircraft away from Tasmania in favour of the more populous States. The point I am making is that the change I have suggested would provide a goldmine of extra revenue to Qantas if certain Qantas services could carry interstate passengers at no prejudice to its other international schedules. It is my hope and it is coalition policy that when the Howard government is elected at the next election immediate steps will be taken to free Qantas from its last links with the Commonwealth Government. The Howard government would naturally do the same for Australian Airlines, as Ansett and the other airlines show that private enterprise can very efficiently run an Australian airline. In conclusion, the Opposition supports the Bill. We are putting forward a number of amendments which I trust will be carried. We hope that soon Qantas will be another element in the spectrum of proud private sector successes contributing to the Australian economy. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade)(6.04) —The Government is indebted to the Opposition for its support of the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill, but we are not especially indebted for the series of misconceived criticisms of aspects of the current behaviour of Qantas Airways Ltd and the Government's approach to Qantas's financial problems which have governed the course of the debate so far. Certainly the Government will not support-it will come as no news to the Opposition-the amendment that has been proposed to the motion. Most of the debate, inevitably, has focused on the particular question of Qantas's capital structure and the need, arguably, for some form of capital injection to ensure that the investments which we all know and appreciate the airline needs to carry out in the years ahead will be affordable without teasing out too far the debt to equity ratio of the company and giving an insufficient capital base on which that expansion can occur. We are all familiar with the problem. It has been amply debated in the public arena over a long time and is still being very actively considered within the Government. I do not in any way concede that the state of Qantas's capital structure at the moment has been an inhibition to the expansion program and the aircraft acquisition program which have been embarked upon to date. Nor do I believe it will constitute an inhibition in the future. There are a number of ways in which one can address this issue, including going back and testing some of the assumptions about appropriate debt to equity ratios and so on for a government owned company of this kind. All of those matters are subject to active consideration, as I say, by the Government and by the governing party and I am sure that over the course of the next few months a satisfactory solution will emerge. Certainly in the past this Government has not been in the slightest bit unwilling to respond to capital needs as they arise. Since Qantas was purchased by the Chifley Australian Labor Party Government from the British Government and Australian private interests back in 1947, the company has received a total of $148.4m in capital injection. Of that, Qantas received $66.2m in just 10 years of Labor governments and $82.2m from Liberal and National party governments-admittedly a larger sum of money, but spread over 31 years of Qantas's activity. I think it needs to be appreciated that as the occasions have arisen government has moved-in particular, Labor governments have moved-quickly to respond to those needs. We certainly did so in 1983 when we injected $60m, raising paid-up capital from $89m to $149m, an increase of 67 per cent. In addition, of course, it needs to be acknowledged that the Government did move to improve the commercial operation of the company, with new guidelines being issued to Qantas directors, giving them responsibilities for the operation of the company and in particular removing the kind of day-to-day control and oversight that has traditionally been associated with the Government's supervision of Qantas which I think has been a serious inhibiter to it developing a fully commercial ethos. All of those things this Government has been responsive to and has done a great deal to dispel the notion that the Government will somehow let Qantas either hit the fence or be incapable of expansion in terms of the fleet and of acquisition, where relevant and necessary, of interests in other companies. I do not think the record in any way bears out that notion. The Government's intention is certainly to ensure that this company continues to ride the waves of the massive continuing expansion of the international aviation scene that we all want it to be able to ride in order to take full advantage for the nation of the income flows in external currencies that are associated with that expanding capacity. So the the capital injection issue and the whole argument that is encapsulated in the first clause of the Opposition's amendment is I think a furphy and will prove to be such quite clearly over the next few months as the issue is addressed by the Government in the way that we intend to do. The other major theme of the debate, as I understand it, has been the argument that the particular financing arrangement that has been adopted by Qantas to secure the acquisition of new aircraft is somehow at risk or colourable under Australian Taxation Office (ATO) rulings that have been made at particular times, in particular the ruling about defeasance of debt. What needs to be appreciated-and this point along with all the others has been made by the Minister for Transport and Communications, Mr Willis, in the other place, but unfortunately it seems to need repetition on these occasions-is that the leases in question have been undertaken on three previous occasions: November 1986, May 1987 and August 1987. Each one of those three previous proposals has been cleared by the ATO. Although the ATO was not approached on this occasion, the reason was that this proposal is basically the same as was previously the case. The Qantas arrangements are very different from those recently moved against by the ATO. In the case that was the subject of the ruling and that has got the Opposition so excited, principal only was defeased, whereas in the Qantas case both principal and interest are defeased and the effect of that is tax neutral. That does not seem to have penetrated the Opposition's mind, even though it was stated explicitly to be the case in the House of Representatives debate. The most clear cut assessment of the ruling in question will make that clear. One does not go on putting things back to the ATO when one has had clearance on three previous occasions, when the particular arrangement proposed is not different to any significant extent from those earlier clearances, and when the tax ruling, which may at first sight appear to be on the same subject and to militate against it, on closer examination proves to do nothing of the kind because it is addressed to an arrangement which is different in kind to that in issue here. I think that does constitute a complete answer to the concerns of the Opposition on this point. I also make the point that the kinds of arrangements in question are common practice in the airline industry. American Airlines has undertaken a number of them. CAAC, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd are also known to have used them. The notion that was advanced by Senator MacGibbon-that somehow the Government should not be in the airlines business, not least because private companies can embark upon or enter into money raising arrangements more cheaply than can a government airline-really rather comprehensively misses the point when he criticises the government airline, Qantas, for embarking upon a money raising exercise in exactly the same way the private sector has been doing, and in a way which does not involve, as I repeat, any undermining of the Tax Office rulings which are applicable in these particular circumstances. That is, I think, as much as needs to be said on that topic. If honourable senators want to check it out in any more detail, I am sure the Minister for Transport and Communications will be only too happy to give them the full chapter and verse on that. I repeat: taxation ruling 2495 is aimed at structures where only principal is defeased and that is completely different from the present situation where both principal and interest are subject to those defeasance arrangements. That leaves only a couple of other matters that have been the subject of attention, I understand, during the second reading debate. Senator MacGibbon raised the question of the shortage of skilled tradesmen, or tradespeople as we are now obliged to call them. The situation is this: Qantas and the domestic airlines are suffering from a shortage of skilled and semi-skilled tradespeople-that is well acknowledged. However, there has been a concerted effort to alleviate the situation. Qantas is increasing its intake of apprentices; it is recruiting staff overseas; and it aims to restructure awards to facilitate greater flexibility and scope for more competitive conditions. Again we have had some maintenance work being subcontracted to overseas firms so as to decrease the backlog and the pressure on Qantas maintenance staff. We are aiming to expand our maintenance facilities to provide maintenance for overseas airlines in the future, which will earn the company valuable foreign exchange. Obviously, in order to do that we need to have an ample supply of skilled tradesmen. What should also be added to that description of the activities of Qantas in this respect is an appreciation that the current shortage stems from action that was taken by Qantas in 1982 and 1983 to stop recruiting apprentices in the light of the airline recession which was current at that stage. Other airlines, both Australian and Ansett, did the same. All of them now acknowledge that that was a very short-sighted response to what proved to be a very transient situation. The airline industry picked up in a major way shortly thereafter. The basic point is that the Government's centralised wage-fixing system cannot be blamed in any way for the shortage. It is directly and squarely attributable to, in effect, a cessation in the supply of apprentices during those crucial years of 1982 and 1983, and any careful examination of the record will amply show that to be the case. The final matter that I think deserves a brief reference is one raised by Senator Sanders involving a criticism of the plans of Qantas to recruit Japanese speakers in Asia for its Japan-oriented flights in particular. The response to that is as follows: fears that Qantas is denying jobs to Australians are quite unfounded. Qantas already employs 3,300 flight attendants and it plans to recruit nearly 500 flight attendants each year over the next few years to meet its rapid expansion program. As part of its $6m program to strengthen Asian language skills among Australians, Qantas has already provided employment and training opportunities for more than 500 Australians. Qantas has recruited more than 100 Australians who speak an Asian language, has provided language training for 200 staff and has provided scholarships, cadetships or other assistance to Australians outside Qantas. However, even with all of that enormous level of activity, Qantas still needs more Japanese speaking flight attendants than have been able to be supplied through that kind of recruitment activity. Of the 520 who were recruited this year only 30 speak Japanese, and only 45 existing flight attendants have to date undergone intensive Japanese language training. What has happened is that Qantas has taken on 28 Japanese speaking attendants from Asia to meet its short term requirements, and it is seeking permanent residency for them in line with its general policy to recruit either Australian citizens or permanent residents. Senator Haines —You are making them permanent residents? Senator GARETH EVANS —We are making them permanent residents, sure, which means it is not just a transient phenomenon for those people. But what we are seeking to do is to meet the problem in other ways. It is just that in the short term it cannot be met other than by direct recruitment. Senator Haines —Permanent residence is hardly a short term gap filling exercise. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is a short term gap filling exercise, but those particular people are being recruited on the basis that they will have permanent residence if they, in fact, seek and want it. Senator Haines —This sounds like something out of Alice in Wonderland. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not think the honourable senator was quite listening. The number of staff who are going to be needed grows and grows each year. It is hoped that in future years the new staff coming on to add to the existing pool will be able to be overwhelmingly supplied from domestic sources or through further retraining of existing Australian flight staff. Until that can happen the pool has to be added to by overseas recruitment on a very small scale in the way that I have described. I am sure Senator Sanders will be fair-minded enough to appreciate that that is a pretty good response to the particular concern that he raised. There were some other lesser matters inevitably raised in the course of a debate as wide-ranging as this, but I think that does address the main concerns that have arisen during the debate. I repeat: I am indebted to the Senate for its support of the measure itself, and I wish it a speedy passage. Question put: That the amendment (Senator MacGibbon's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Patterson, K. C. L.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. M. Vanstone, A. E.Lewis, A. W. R. Walters, M. S.McGauran, J. J. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. G. Jenkins, J. A.Black, J. R. Jones, G. N.Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P.Button, J. N. McLean, P. A.Childs, B. K. McMullan, R. F.Coates, J. Macklin, M. J.Collins, R. L. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Colston, M. A. Morris, J. J.Cooney, B. C. Powell, J. F.Coulter, J. R. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M.Devereux, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Devlin, A. R. Sanders, N. K.Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O.Haines, J. Parer, W. R. Schacht, C. C.Calvert, P. H. Beahan, M. E.Alston, R. K. R. Burns, B. R.Knowles, S. C. Cook, P. F. S. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.27) —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Senator Gareth Evans) has acknowledged that the purchase involves certain defeasance arrangements. He added a rider that these arrangements are not quite identical to some previous arrangements. But is the Government not concerned that one arm of government is in conflict with another office of government in that the standards which are demanded by one section conflict with the operations of another? Secondly, why was it thought prudent not to get Australian Taxation Office approval in this last transaction when it saw fit on three previous occasions to get such advice and approval from the Taxation Office? Was not the Government aware that the Taxation Commissioner has issued a recent ruling which substantially changed the previous arrangements, including the present funding arrangements under which Qantas Airways Ltd operates? If there were no alleged taxation benefits for the acquisition of expensive aircraft or, as is alleged, the position is taxation neutral, may we have an assurance to that effect? What are the taxation benefits in Australia for Qantas entering such a complicated arrangement if there are not these sorts of tax benefits? What were the benefits of entering these costly and complicated arrangements involving transactions encompassing at least three or more overseas countries? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade)(6.29) —Most of these questions have been answered already in the course of my second reading reply. What is in it for Qantas Airways Ltd to enter into that sort of arrangement is not a tax advantage as such but cheaper finance from the Japanese investment houses which, by virtue of this arrangement, are able to benefit from some provisions in, I presume, Japanese law. But whatever those provisions are they have a benefit in entering into a leasing arrangement of this kind. It is not a benefit of a kind which is thought to raise public interest or public policy so far as the Japanese Government is concerned, and certainly not so far as the Australian Government is concerned-that is as to the motivation for entering it-but the particular arrangement has been cleared on three previous occasions by the Australian Taxation Office. Apart from one variation-that is to say, a shorter lease term from 15 to 12 years-the features of these leases are exactly the same as those previously approved. Subsequently an arrangement has been ruled against in Taxation ruling IT-2495, but that is aimed at structures where only the principal is defeased whereas under this arrangement that Qantas has entered into both principal and interest are involved. This makes it, financially speaking and in terms of tax law, a completely different proposition and one that is quite tax neutral in the Australian context. Beyond giving that answer again, with knobs on and three times over, I cannot do better. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(8.02) —Prior to dinner I was questioning the Minister about the debt defeasance arrangements of Qantas Airways Ltd-a financing arrangement for the purchase of these three new Boeing 767 aircraft. These arrangements lie behind this Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill. One of the matters of principal concern is the possibility of conflict between the interpretations of two arms of government-that is, of Qantas Airways Ltd and the Australian Taxation Office, supported by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), who takes a high moral ground on tax avoidance. I was speaking about the propriety of these arrangements by virtue of a recent ruling by the Australian Taxation Office on tax defeasance arrangements. I ask the Minister the question again and emphasise the seriousness of it: why was the Australian Taxation Office not consulted on this arrangement on this occasion, whereas on previous occasions it was consulted separately? Will the Minister confirm that there were no taxation benefits-and I ask the Minister to listen very carefully to this-including tax timing advantages which resulted from these transactions? Finally, if there were alleged tax benefits in the previous arrangements involving maximising taxation advantage in both Japan and Australia, how does the Minister now come to the conclusion that under these new arrangements, which are almost identical, except for a shorter time span, the only benefits to Qantas were lower interest charges on its debt and not taxation benefits now or in the future? Since the Minister has only taken advice from the officials of Qantas who were not prepared to go before the Australian Taxation Office, despite a change in the ruling of recent times, will he now adjourn this debate until he takes advice from the Taxation Office, lest he leave himself open to the serious charge of misleading the Senate on this question? If there is nothing unusual in this at least three-country, multipurpose financing transaction, will the Minister table the Qantas defeasance arrangements in the Senate for public scrutiny? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade)(8.06) —Clear advice available to Qantas Airways Ltd was that the structure of the financing arrangement was so different from the particular arrangement that was the subject of the Australian Taxation Office ruling that there was simply no question likely to arise in any reasonable person's mind as to any potential change in the ground rules of liability. That is my clear understanding. Qantas sought advice from its advising merchant banker-or certainly professional advice of some kind-and it acted in accordance with what it had understood to be clearly well established principles with the Tax Office. Should the Tax Office choose to get further information from Qantas in the light of issues that have been raised in this debate, which seems to me to be manifestly unlikely on the basis of all the information available to me, it is perfectly entitled to do that. I am sure Qantas would cooperate fully. We want Qantas to operate as a commercial company. That seems to be something to which the Opposition is as committed to bringing about as we are. When it enters into financial arrangements which reduce the financial liability which is associated with the financing in question and does so on the basis of a course of practice which would be completely acceptable in the private sector on the basis of advice which a private sector company would obtain, there would not seem to be legitimate grounds for grievance. As to the question about changing the timing of tax liability, I have already answered the earlier question. There is no change in information available to me as to the tax neutrality of it in terms of actual tax liability. As to the timing of it-- Senator Watson —Including timing differences? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will just quote from the relevant paragraph of the letter from the advising accountant, Arthur Andersen and Co., which relates to an earlier transaction which, I presume, was identical in all respects: We would note that the hire purchase arrangement does not in any way accelerate tax deductions for financing charges payable under the hire purchase agreement which Qantas would enter into with BIL. It would enable Qantas to avoid having to incur most of the additional costs at all. Thus, no tax deductions would be sought by Qantas for any financing charges which have been assumed by the bank and which would otherwise have been incurred by it under the hire purchase arrangement. The only interest charges which Qantas will incur will be the interest component of the final purchase option payment. Again, there is nothing in the current arrangement which in any way is different in any relevant respect so far as that question of accelerating tax deductions is concerned. I do not think there is any other timing question that is involved in this. While I admire the indefatigable way in which this matter is being pursued by Senator Watson and the Opposition, there is nothing more than I can add. I will raise with Qantas whether there are any commercially confidential considerations which would stand in the way of the relevant material being tabled but I am obviously not in a position to make such a judgment on the run tonight on the basis of information and advice available to me now. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(8.09) —Again I ask: Is the Minister prepared to adjourn this debate while he gets independent advice from the Australian Taxation Office? The letter that he quoted from related to a previous occasion when the law was different as now interpreted by the Australian Taxation Office by virtue of a recent ruling that has been handed down. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade)(8.10) —I am not in any doubt, and I am not prepared to adjourn this matter. What I am anxious to do is ensure that Qantas can get on with the business of leasing aircraft which are absolutely crucial to its commercial viability and to the rate of return which this nation can reasonably expect to get from its own international airline. If there is any lingering doubt in the minds of the Opposition senators or anyone else, the matter can be referred to the Australian Taxation Office and it can act accordingly. Qantas is obviously supremely confident of the technical validity of its position. That is the advice available to it. It seems, on the basis of the advice that is put in front of me, that the structure of the financing arrangement is completely different from the one that is the subject of the Tax Office ruling, and on the basis of that information and the advice available to me I make the point that we want this legislation to proceed. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.11) —Earlier Senator MacGibbon described the process whereby the aeroplanes in question came from the United States to Australia, then went to Japan, following which the ownership was transferred to the Cayman Islands and then back to Australia. Senator Watson indicates that I have the process about right. Are we to understand that that is in any way a normal purchasing process by Qantas for the aeroplanes it flies? I thought Senator Watson was asking some questions in relation to that most unusual set of transactions. The Minister might just clarify that for us. I have been listening carefully, and it is not clear. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade)(8.12) —Circuitous as it may sound, this sort of thing is par for the course in the highly complex world of aircraft purchases and capital financing. I am told that the kind of arrangement in issue here is common practice in the airline industry. American Airlines has undertaken a number of arrangements of this kind. That may well be where Qantas derived its information which has enabled it to put together this deal, because of its close working relationship with American Airlines. I do not know about that. CAAC, KLM and Cathay Pacific are also known to have used this particular complex leasing financial arrangement. So it is my understanding that it is perfectly common airline commercial practice, and I repeat that the taxation implications of this kind of arrangement-not some different kind of arrangement but this one-were checked out with the Australian Taxation Office on three occasions and clearances were given. On that basis Qantas has proceeded to implement this essentially routine commercial arrangement. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(8.13) —We acknowledge that transactions involving many people and many companies are commonplace within the airline industry, but my concern is that a government instrumentality could well be in conflict with the high moral ground taken by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and now by the Australian Taxation Office in relation to tax avoiding schemes. Does not this transaction result in an otherwise artificially higher purchase price to Qantas at the end of the day, giving it higher depreciation write-offs and other benefits? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade)(8.13) —I can only repeat the advice available to me: in tax terms, the arrangement is entirely neutral. It is the actual financing costs, the interest burden and the cash costs associated with paying for the aircraft that are cheaper for Qantas. Everything else has a taxation implication. I have not mastered the technical details; I can only operate on the basis of the advice put in front of me, and the clear advice from the accountants, and this has been accepted by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) in the past, is that this is absolutely tax neutral. The advantages are of a different kind. In no way will the passage of this legislation tonight inhibit the Tax Office from making any further inquiry that it may wish to make of Qantas. There is no question of the legislation foreclosing any further such scrutiny, and if there is any hint of a suggestion that there is something colourable about this, no doubt the ATO will want to scrutinise it further. That is as it should be with any commercial organisation. I can only operate on the advice and the information available to me, and I see absolutely nothing that is colourable in the transaction by reference to either the technical black letter of the law or the high moral principles which I am delighted to hear the Opposition espousing. It makes a considerable sea change from the way it normally approaches these issues, and in particular the extraordinary way it has approached the very aggressive approach to tax avoidance adopted by Tax Commissioner Boucher in recent times. I very much welcome this surge of enthusiasm for tax morality and effective tax enforcement practice. I hope we hear a lot more of it in this chamber; I just hope we do not hear too much more of it on this Bill because I have about 13 meetings to go to. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(8.15) —We have been assured that it has been the standard practice under Labor for Qantas to buy its aircraft through all these front companies buying leases and shuffling them from one pocket to another, using dubious capital in some cases, with ownership transferring all around the world. Is this the practice for the internal airlines as well? Do Ansett Airlines of Australia and Australian Airlines buy their aircraft this way and, further, can we look forward to the Royal Australian Air Force buying its aircraft under the same system? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade)(8.16) —I have absolutely no idea of the practice in so far as the internal airlines are concerned. I am sure it is something that Senator MacGibbon can pursue on another occasion. I do not think it is relevant to the legislation before us. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.16) —During the recent Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference Senator Macklin and I discussed matters with representatives from the Cayman Islands. I did not know that the Cayman Islands had an airstrip large enough to take a 747 aircraft. I must say I have come into this debate a little late, but am I to understand that somehow Qantas planes are shuttled through the Cayman Islands? Senator Peter Baume —The paper is. Senator HARRADINE —Oh, the paper only; I also apologise to Senator Watson because when the division bells rang prior to dinner I was at a place in Parliament House which was almost exactly four minutes walk away. I was not aware precisely of what was going on, and I did not have time to see the amendment. Having read it now, I just want to acknowledge that I would have voted for it had I been across the subject. It does appear that some very important issues have been raised here, and if they are not to be answered here no doubt Senator Watson will pursue them at another time, including in the Estimates Committee. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Referral to Committee Debate resumed from 14 October, on motion by Senator Macklin: (1) That, acknowledging that the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has unanimously recommended that the Commonwealth should introduce comprehensive legislation to assume responsibility for all areas covered by the co-operative scheme and that a package of Bills for this purpose is now before the Senate, the Bills be referred to a select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on Corporations Legislation, and the Committee inquire into and report on the Bills for the regulation of companies and the securities and futures industries with reference only to the adequacy of the proposed legislative provisions to: (a) improve the regulation of companies; (b) facilitate the performance of the securities and futures markets; and (c) ensure adequate protection for investors in companies and the securities and futures markets, and, in particular, report on the adequacy of the fund-raising provisions. (2) That the Committee consist of 10 members, as follows: (a) 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, (b) 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, (c) 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats, (d) 3 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by or on behalf of the Prime Minister, and (e) 2 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition. (3) That the Committee may proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all the members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (4) That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the members nominated by or on behalf of the Prime Minister or by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. (5) That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. (6) That, in the event of the votes on any question before the Committee being equally divided, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote. (7) That the quorum of the Committee be 5 members. (8) That the Committee and any sub-committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, and the Committee have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations it may deem fit. (9) That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a sub-committee be all the members appointed to the sub-committee. (10) That the Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the Committee with the approval of the President. (11) That the Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. (12) That the Committee report to each House of the Parliament by the first day of sitting of that House in 1989. (13) That the Committee have access to any relevant evidence and records of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. (14) That the Committee cease upon the dissolution or expiration of the House of Representatives. (15) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (16) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution be communicated by Message to the House of Representatives with a request for the concurrence of that House in the Resolution. (17) That consideration of the motion for the second reading of the Bills be an Order of the Day for the day on which the Committee reports to the Senate- Upon which Senator Hill had moved by way of amendment: Leave out paragraph (1), insert: ``(1) That the Bills be referred to a select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on Corporations Legislation, and the Committee examine the Bills for unintended legal and commercial consequences, and report whether: (a) the Bills and the scheme thereby created meet the legitimate needs of the business community, all State Governments and other interested groups within the community; (b) passage of the Bills and the scheme thereby created is the only means of facilitating further national and international development of Australian business, or whether a modified cooperative scheme could achieve such objectives, and in particular whether a transfer to the Commonwealth of takeover and associated securities provisions could achieve the Government's stated objectives; (c) an efficient regulatory system can be achieved by an alternative scheme other than that proposed by the Bills, i.e., the complete centralisation of power; (d) the interests of shareholders and the broader investor community are adequately protected by the Bills; (e) it is desirable and advisable to proceed with passage of the Bills considering the serious constitutional concerns which have been raised regarding their validity; and (f) passage of the Bills will result in: (i) the loss by the State regulatory authorities and their respective business communities of accessibility and the ability to influence policy and law-making; (ii) additional costs to business; (iii) a loss of skilled staff from State corporate affairs offices; (iv) loss of business and professional expertise in the States as a result of the transfer of power from the States to the Federal Government; and (v) adequate funding and resources to ensure that the regulatory system can function efficiently and react promptly to immediate concerns.''. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(8.19) —When I last addressed the Australian Securities Commission Bill and associated Bills I was dealing with the proposition put to the chamber by the Australian Democrats-that is, to refer the Corporations Bill and the related Bills to a Senate committee, but with restricted terms of reference, first to improve the regulation of companies; second to facilitate the performance of the securities and futures markets; and third to ensure adequate protection for investors in companies and the securities and futures markets. The Democrats propose that we embrace the thrust of the legislation but ask that it be slightly finetuned in a few places. The amendment does not question the legislation or doubt it; it does not go to the heart of its merit or its virtue. However, Senator Robert Hill has a subsequent amendment which goes to the heart of the problem which confronts the chamber. The amendment deals with all the essential problems inherent in legislation of this nature. He asks that the terms of reference of the Committee be widened to include whether an efficient regulatory system has been achieved by a scheme other than that proposed by the Bills, that is, the complete centralisation of power. That is a very reasonable question to ask. He asks whether the interests of shareholders in the broader investment community are adequately protected by the Bills. He asks whether it is desirable or advisable to proceed with the passage of the Bills, considering the serious constitutional concerns which have been raised regarding their validity. He asks whether the passage of the Bills will result in the loss by the State regulatory authorities and their respective business communities of accessibility and the ability to influence policy and law making. He also raises a number of other matters. As I say, the Democrats are not challenging the premise of the legislation but, by their motion, are acknowledging their support for it. In the short time available to me I am unable to address all the matters that are raised in Senator Hill's amendment. He raises the fundamental threshold question of the constitutional validity of the proposals. I think it was Senator Hill himself who asked in the midst of his speech where we would be if, this legislation having been enacted, it were subsequently challenged in the High Court and found to be without constitutional power. I assume that the Government is relying on section 51 of the Constitution, which on first reading seems to be limited to foreign corporations and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth. I gather from the way that the Democrats have embraced this legislation that they are relying, as the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs did, upon the untarnished opinion offered by Sir Maurice Byers as to whether this power will enable the Commonwealth to enact comprehensive overriding Commonwealth legislation. Sir Maurice Byers indicated that in his opinion it would. It is not, I think, uncharitable or unkind to observe that in recent times Sir Maurice Byers has been wrong more often than he has been right. Senator Macklin —There is absolutely nothing uncharitable about it. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The honourable senator is quite right. There was nothing uncharitable about that comment; it was simply a statement of fact. Senator Hill referred to those authorities which counselled against his judgment. I think it was a committee of the various State Solicitors-General that took a quite contrary view. It seems not unreasonable that that question be determined before we proceed with the legislation. I will touch on some of the other matters that have been raised. Perhaps one ought to ask what it is that brings this legislation before us. Has the present cooperative scheme failed? Has there been a clamouring amongst the States for this legislation? Has there been a spontaneous and natural call from small, medium and large businesses for this legislation? Is the existing legislation in some sort of crisis? Why are we junking a cooperative federalist system which has worked effectively and which, whilst perhaps having defects of the type that are inevitable with cooperative federalism, has the support and goodwill of all the States? We are jettisoning that system for something else which seems to have no support other than that of the Federal Government and the Democrats. My understanding is that every State of Australia is opposed to the legislation and, without exception, so is every business organisation of consequence. One of the criticisms of the legislation is that it diminishes ministerial responsibility. I think it was Senator Tate who observed in a report from the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities some time ago that the Senate was having legislation recommended to it which it had not considered itself. If I am not wrong, that is how the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee got its terms of reference. Senator Tate nods in acknowledgment. If we are prepared, in a federal system, to embrace cooperative systems, there has to be some diminution of singular ministerial accountability, on an individual basis, but in a collective sense there is a gaining of ministerial responsibility. No doubt no decisions are made at the Ministerial Council that do not have majority support. Each Minister is required to enact legislation in his own Parliament for which he is personally responsible. That includes all the States and the Federal Parliament. I would have thought that that gave more strength to ministerial responsibility, not less. However, under the proposed arrangements the Federal Government will assume all legislative responsibilities and the Ministerial Council from that day forth will be nothing more than an advisory body. All the powers and responsibilities of a legislative and administrative nature will be in Canberra. I can think of no worse place to provide for decisions that affect businesses. I can think of no more artificial or rarified atmosphere conducive to giving the worst decisions than Canberra. There is no place in Australia where decisions are made that is more removed from the real world than Canberra. Yet, with the typical arrogant audacity that is the hallmark of this Government, it has satisfied itself again that the way to solve problems, no matter how minute they may have been at the outset, is to centralise the decision making in one Commonwealth Government. Senator McKiernan —Hear, hear! Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator McKiernan agrees. As a senator from Western Australia I am surprised, given that this legislation will have more detrimental effects, not only on government and on administration but also on business, in Western Australia than in almost any other State. Businesses in Western Australia will no longer have direct and immediate access to the decision makers. They will no longer be able to provide input, to offer advice or to have discussions with those who make the decisions, those who are party to the legislation. They will have to undertake the trek to Canberra to make a contribution to decisions that affect their businesses in an intimate way, in the same way that anybody from Western Australia who wants to solve a problem in the High Court of this country has to trek 3,500 miles to Canberra and back. Senator McKiernan —Not all the time. The High Court goes to Perth. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The High Court visits Western Australia two or three times a year, I think. That is a long time between drinks when one is waiting for a decision. The more remote States such as Western Australia and Tasmania will find themselves political eunuchs, no longer part of the decision making, no longer privy to the contemplation that is intended to reflect what is in the best interests of business. It seems to me that the only people who may imagine they will benefit from this legislation are the bigger businesses of this country. Yet I understand that the Business Council of Australia, on second reflection, has changed its mind and no longer supports the proposal in the way that it did from the outset. One can go through the various organisations that are likely to be affected. They include the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges. It has indicated that in its view the existing cooperative scheme should be retained without substantial alteration. The Institute of Directors in Australia has submitted that the present system was viable and that it should be maintained. It has said that the present system testifies to the fact that there was a desire on the part of the governments concerned for both uniformity and cooperation. I would have thought that they would be at least two of the criteria for good, responsible, proper and sensitive legislation that reflects the concerns of business and shareholders in this country. The Tasmanian Government considers that the scheme has provided the basis for sound administration in the area of commercial administration generally. The Western Australian Corporate Affairs Department judged that the present system had been `remarkably successful'. It specifically cited the uniformity that had been brought to the law. Mr Alan Smith, the Western Australian Commissioner for Corporate Affairs, said that he doubted whether the administrative problems encountered between the different officers in administering the present system would be fixed by a Commonwealth system. He said that if there was a complete Commonwealth takeover initiatives such as the second board market in Perth would simply not have got off the ground. The second board was the brainchild of the Perth Stock Exchange and it received absolutely no support, help or assistance from the brokers in Sydney and Melbourne. So the Perth Stock Exchange went it alone. It went to the Western Australian Department, it set down its problems and the Department, in conjunction with the Perth Stock Exchange, worked through the problems. We now have a vibrant and effective second board that makes a substantial contribution, particularly to small and medium sized business in Western Australia. It gives an entry point for shareholders or for the people of Western Australia and Australia generally to invest in companies so listed. When asked about the question of costs and benefits and particularly about the surplus the Western Australian Department generated, Mr Smith said that there were revenues of about $14m-this is just in Western Australia-and expenditure of about $7m. Making an estimation of the costs of accommodation, computing and other costs which are not normally taken into account, he estimated a surplus of about $2m. So we see just one tangible example of the benefits. I do not need to list all of those who support the present proposal. We know, of course, that the South Australian business community is supportive, as is the South Australian Government. We know that the Victorian Government is supportive. We know that the Victorian Attorney-General declared himself in evidence as a committed centralist who on first blush supported the proposed centralising of legislative responsibility and powers in Canberra but who on serious and deliberate reflection changed his mind and made it quite clear that there was no general support from the business community or his Government for the proposals which we have before us. Yet the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), as he did with the referenda, intends to march on believing in what he is doing in the face of and in spite of overwhelming and unqualified objection and opposition to his legislation. This legislation is made up of 1,300 clauses and 3,000 pages. Rather than accepting Senator Hill's proposition of having that legislation examined from a philosophical, practical and principled point of view by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, the narrow confines of the Democrats' proposal is simply to tinker with the edges and play with the mechanics. It in no material way challenges the legislation to see whether it has substance, weaknesses or faults, to see whether it works and perhaps most of all to see whether it has a constitutional basis, whether there is a head of power in the Constitution that allows the legislation in the first place. It is not with any qualification that I support the proposals that are put by Senator Hill. It is with disappointment that I am required again to record the fact that the Democrats seem so obsessively committed to supporting the Government in what I would have thought was an unhealthy way. They are putting aside the interests of business, investment, State governments and individuals. They are simply supporting the Attorney-General, who managed to convince-as he did with the referendums-his Government, Cabinet and party room that there is some intrinsic virtue in this legislation when none can be found. This Government is hell-bent on convincing itself that it has some virtue when there is none to be had. Senator McLean —You cannot find it; we can. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The Democrats say they can find it. With respect, the honourable senator should rise to his feet and spend the next half hour convincing me what it is. Of course there is no intrinsic value to be found. We find that as a result of the support of the Democrats this legislation will pass; it will go off to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which will no doubt report in the very narrow sectional sense and leave aside the material and important considerations which ought to be the cornerstone, the foundation and more than anything else the primary concern of the Committee in examining the legislation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Peter Baume) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.38) —Any citizens interested in this legislation and listening tonight will, after Senator Crichton-Browne's speech, be massively confused about what it is we are doing. I put it clearly that the Bills were introduced by the Government, and a motion moved for the second reading. Upon the speech of the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) being incorporated I moved for the Bills essentially to go to a committee. It was not in fact the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs as Senator Crichton-Browne seems to think but rather a joint select committee. The off the cuff approach of Senator Crichton-Browne was illustrated through almost all of the remarks he made. Having obviously not read the legislation or the Minister's second reading speech and having not followed the various discussions and statements that the Minister has made over time, he was unable, for example, shuffling through his papers, even to understand which particular constitutional power the Commonwealth was drawing on. In fact it is not drawing on one but a range, as the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has stated time and time again. Senator Crichton-Browne then reiterated the point that had been made by Senator Hill about the problems that would occur if this legislation was passed and there was a challenge. He obviously had not listened to Senator Tate's response. He had not read the Attorney-General's release of almost two months ago in which it was clearly stated that the Government would await a challenge in the High Court of Australia before the proclamation. It is illustrative of Senator Crichton-Browne's approach to the whole exercise. He shackles together a few bits of misinformation and whirls them around as though he is making a serious contribution to what is an important point. I moved for this committee to be established. I raised the matter with the Attorney-General quite some time ago. It was interesting to note at that stage that the Opposition was conspicuous by its absence from the entire debate. Upon the announcement that we would have a committee inquiry-something which I would have thought would have been welcomed by the Opposition-a misleading letter from the shadow Minister in this area, the honourable member for Ryan, Mr John Moore was published in the Australian Financial Review. It was an excessively misleading letter, as I had the chance to point out in a response that I made in the same newspaper, because, amongst other outrageous, outlandish and unsupportable claims, it stated that we had threatened to block the legislation unless a committee was set up. I think it is interesting that Mr Moore was not at the meeting, had never sought a meeting and, up to that stage, had not had a discussion with me, yet he was able to say what had happened at a meeting at which he was not present. I was able to declare quite clearly-there were a number of people at the meeting-that no such threats were made. I made the suggestion that it would be very useful to have such a committee to try to pick up some of the outstanding problems. The Attorney-General was very willing to accede to that suggestion. He thought it was a good idea. That was the type of meeting which was described as a sort of throwing down of the gauntlet. I would have thought that members and senators might be able to contribute something more if this committee were set up, rather than for them-as tends to be the case, and as was shown again by Senator Crichton-Browne's speech-to engage in one of those exercises in which they have a shot at anybody who does not totally agree with them, putting aside the serious or important issues that are to be debated in this area. That is not unusual, and I suppose it is asking an awful lot that in today's political climate we should have a serious discussion of a serious proposal. Senator Crichton-Browne —Well, why not support Senator Hill's proposal? Senator MACKLIN —I would like to go through the points raised by Senator Hill in his amendment. I will take them one by one. In his first point he wants the committee to examine whether the Bills meet the legitimate needs of business-my terms of reference cover this point-all State governments and other interested groups within the community. I do not know whether the legislation will meet the legitimate needs of all State governments. In fact, I think it is highly unlikely that any piece of business legislation will meet the needs of all State governments. From the point of view of drafting, it is a pretty silly statement. From the point of view of an expression of opinion, it is even sillier. The terms of reference that I have put down will easily encompass the notion of looking at the legitimate needs of the business community. I believe that the committee inquiry will look at those needs and will seek views from the business community and from any others in the community who wish to put a proposition. Paragraph (b) of Senator Hill's amendment covers a more substantial point. He wants the committee to examine the Bills for unintended legal and commercial consequences, and report whether the passage of the Bills and the scheme thereby created is the only means of facilitating further national and international development of Australian business. I do not suppose that this is the only means. It would be a fairly extraordinary claim to make that this is the only way in which it can be done. I do not know anybody who would ever make those types of claims. This is assumed to be the best way in which it can be done. I again make the point that I made when I put down the terms of reference; that is, that a legitimate political debate will take place in the Committee of the Whole and in the second reading debate when the legislation is returned from the committee inquiry. I do not believe that that is a legitimate area for committee inquiry. I say that because it would undoubtedly end up being an exercise in the production of a couple of reports. In fact, this point was exemplified by the speech made by Senator Crichton-Browne. I do not think that is of any use in terms of a committee inquiry. I hope that, in the development of our committee system, we will try to maintain the setting up of such committees in the areas in which they have been so productive to date. Undoubtedly, from time to time there will be majority and minority reports. But let us not specifically attempt to generate such an inquiry, because I believe that it will put off track what I see as a developing use of our committee system-a use to which I believe the Opposition parties are also committed. Whether a modified cooperative scheme could achieve such results is an area for legitimate political debate-one which I am sure we will have when we reach the Committee of the Whole stage. Paragraph (c) of Senator Hill's amendment-whether an efficient regulatory system can be achieved by an alternative scheme-is a reiteration of paragraph (b). In so far as it seeks an efficient regulatory system, that is a judgment about whether this system is more or less efficient. Again, that political debate will take place in this chamber, as it should. Paragraph (d) refers to the interests of shareholders and the broader investor community. That is incorporated in my terms of reference. Paragraph (e) refers to whether it is desirable and advisable to proceed with passage of the Bills considering the serious constitutional concerns. I would have thought that after hearing Senator Hill's speech nobody would want to raise that issue, because Senator Hill referred to a list of committees and various other groups which considered this issue and brought down conflicting opinions. I do not want to be unkind to the lawyers who may be present in the chamber. I cannot see too many of them; I can see the Minister, who is not listening at the moment, so he probably will not hear what I am about to say. I think that the number of lawyers who would get together would probably equal the number of opinions, plus one. I do not really believe that yet another committee will settle the issue. There is only one way of settling the issue of the constitutional validity of this package of legislation-that is, by reference to the High Court. Unfortunately, we did not manage, for want of support, to get a constitutional change which would have allowed us to have an advisory opinion. Such an advisory opinion would have been very useful in this area. Of course, those people who are so enlightened as to attack any changes to the Constitution managed to get that proposal defeated as well. It would have been very useful for the Parliament to have asked the High Court for an advisory opinion on this matter and to have received that before we proceeded. I think it is a pity that we are not able to do so. So, the Government has done the next best thing-that is, it has made a declaration that, upon the passage of this legislation by both Houses, it will await the constitutional challenge which will undoubtedly be made. Senator Crichton-Browne has already told us that all the State governments are opposed to it, so undoubtedly there will be a constitutional challenge. That is where a constitutional challenge will be settled. It really cannot be settled by yet another inquiry. The gratuitous attack that the honourable senator made on an eminent lawyer who gave reference material to a previous Senate committee was most untoward. In fact, a previous speaker also attacked the same legal person. The types of statements which were made could certainly bring into play the motions which were passed by this chamber with regard to privilege. Indeed, if I were that person, I would seek to use those motions so that my side of the story was placed on the record. They were most unfair characterisations and attacks upon somebody who had provided material to a previous Senate committee inquiry. I believe that traducing such a person who was engaged in that activity is not helpful to our committee inquiries in any way, shape or form. Paragraph (f) of Senator Hill's amendment has five parts. The first part deals with whether the passage of the Bills will result in a loss by State regulatory authorities. Fairly obviously, in a national scheme one would have that loss, but that is an administrative follow-through. I am not quite sure that, if there is one, there will not be the other. The third part of paragraph (f), which refers to a loss of skilled staff from State corporate affairs offices, and the fourth part, which refers to a loss of business and professional expertise in the States, are not necessarily consequences of the legislation. It depends on what type of constructive attitude-if the legislation is passed-the States take. The Attorney-General has indicated publicly on several occasions that there is adequate room for discussion between the Commonwealth and the States as to how this package of Bills might be administered. From time to time the Attorney-General held out the possibility, for example, of the close corporation being administered, a split administration, a devolution of administration, and a whole variety of methods. It does not follow from the legislation as to how they will be administered. In previous discussions that I have had with Senator Hill I pointed out that the administration of these items is something separate from the legislation of these items. These legislative arrangements, if carried, will be legislation of the Commonwealth Parliament. The executive authority will vest in the Commonwealth government. The regulatory day to day control will vest in an independent commission. That is the type of structure that is being suggested in which I believe we will have a significant role to play-and not as Senator Crichton-Browne attempted to caricature, that somehow or other everybody will dash to Canberra. If anybody is going to dash anywhere I suggest that it be to Melbourne where the Securities Commission is, not to Canberra. If Senator Crichton-Browne had read the Bills he would know that that would not be necessary on almost all occasions. It would be somewhat less necessary in a whole host of areas in regard to business than is currently the case under the cooperative scheme. But then again, I do not assume from the honourable senator's comments that he has read the legislation. The fifth part of paragraph (f), which relates to adequate funding, is dealt with in the terms of reference. So significant parts of Senator Hill's amendment are dealt with. Those parts that are not dealt with were quite explicitly excluded from my reference, as I said before, in an attempt, firstly, to maintain what I believe to be the thrust of where our inquiries are going by way of committee in this chamber-and hopefully in the other place although I know that its committees are nowhere near as effective as ours; and secondly, to ensure that this is a tightly focused inquiry that is of benefit to business. When the legislation comes back from that particular inquiry, we will have the second reading debate and the committee stage of the Bills in which the political points that Senator Crichton-Browne made can be argued and settled, as is the way in this chamber, by divisions. Senator Crichton-Browne —Are you voting for any of them? Senator MACKLIN —We will not be voting for this package of Bills, and presumably neither will the honourable senator, on the basis that there are already recommended amendments. We support many of the amendments that have been recommended by the House of Representatives. We have particular views that I think will be accepted by the committee. Business has a number of views which I am sure will be accepted by the committee. I am sure that the committee of inquiry will find additional amendments that it will recommend which I hope will be accepted by the Government. The numbers in support of such amendments will be tested in this chamber. I believe that is a reasonable proposition. It is not the caricature that has been presented but one which we put forward, after consideration of the Bills and after discussions with the industry and others in the regulatory environment across Australia, as a useful contribution to the development of this debate. It is not, I suppose, as politically hardened as Senator Crichton-Browne would like, but it was meant to be a significant contribution of this legislature to that exercise. In addition, I commented that I hope we will move after that to the establishment of a statutory committee which would have a continuing oversight of a package of national legislation. I believe that that would add immeasurably to the expertise one would find here and in the other place. As I said before, we strongly support the development of those statutory committees. It provides both chambers with a very good and very useful base upon which further decisions can be made, and a useful avenue for those people in business who are concerned about the legislation to voice opinions. They do not have to go to government, they will not have to go to the bureaucracy; they will be able to go, if they wish, to a committee of this Parliament, if a particular suggestion is taken up, which will comprise representatives of all political parties. That, I think, is the type of development taking place. Let us try to pursue that line. If we do, we will add lustre to the deliberations of this chamber and move it further away from what I see as the destructive elements in debates that take place in the House of Representatives. I believe this chamber has an excellent opportunity before it to make history, if it wishes to grasp it. I do not think it has it if it seeks simply to be a reiteration of the head kicking exercises that take place in the House of Representatives. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Hill's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 2 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Archer, B. R. Newman, J. M.Baume, Michael Panizza, J. H.Baume, Peter Patterson, K. C. L.Bishop, B. K. Puplick, C. J. G.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Reid, M. E.Brownhill, D. G. C. Sheil, M. E.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Harradine, B. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W.McGauran, J. J. Aulich, R. K. R. Haines, J.Black, J. R. Jenkins, J. A.Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N.Coates, J. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Collins, R. L. McLean, P. A.Colston, M. A. McMullan, R. F.Cook, P. F. S. Macklin, M. J.Cooney, B. C. Maguire, G. R.Coulter, J. R. Morris, J. J.Crowley, R. A. Powell, J. F.Devereux, J. R. Ray, RobertDevlin, A. R. Reynolds, M.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Parer, W. R. Schacht, C. C.Calvert, P. H. Beahan, M. E.Chaney, F. M. Burns, B. R.Messner, A. J. Button, J. N.Boswell, R. L. D. Sibraa, K. W.Hill, R. M. Richardson, G. F. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Cook) proposed: That, when next the Order of the Day for the resumption of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Bill 1988 is called on, General Business notice of motion No. 70, standing in the name of Senator Powell and relating to the establishment of a Select Committee on Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals in Australia, be called on at the same time and, upon the motion being moved, the motion shall be considered together with the motion for the second reading of the Bill but shall be voted on separately after the question on the motion for the second reading has been determined. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(9.06) —The Liberal and National parties oppose this motion. We frankly do not understand why the Government is supporting a proposal to bring on this motion of Senator Powell's. This motion of Senator Powell's will create a Senate inquiry into farm chemical use in Australia in the widest possible terms. At present a number of those inquiries are being conducted. The first is an inquiry being conducted by the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC), the Government's own council. This is a council of very eminent people which is currently conducting an inquiry into chemical residues in agricultural products. The terms of reference of the inquiry are wide and I am advised that the Council believes that it will be able to report to the Government by December of this year. It is our understanding that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) has claimed that he only grudgingly supports the Australian Democrats' push for a Senate inquiry. He does not have to grudgingly support it at all. All the Government has to do at the present moment is to join with the Liberal and National parties and either throw out this proposed inquiry or, it it wishes, put a proposition to us that we defer it until after the ASTEC report is received. We could then debate the motion. We still would not be supporting it, but at least we could then debate it in the light of the ASTEC report. But no, the Government is actually assisting Senator Powell to bring this matter on for debate at this stage and to establish this Senate Select Committee on Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals in Australia at this stage of the proceedings, when there is clearly no need for it because of the ASTEC inquiry. But not only is ASTEC conducting its inquiry into this matter. There are subcommittees of the Australian Agricultural Council which are also conducting inquiries into chemical residues in agricultural products. All these inquiries are currently being conducted. Now the Senate is going to have imposed upon it a very wide ranging inquiry as proposed by the Democrats. I would firstly say to the Government that the costs of the proposed inquiry cannot be justified. Secondly, and much more importantly, because this inquiry proposed by Senator Powell is of such an open nature one must fear for the future of Australian primary produce. It is an inquiry that will deal with the economic, social and environmental impact on Australia of agricultural and veterinary chemicals and their alternatives. That will mean that there will be opportunities for all sorts of people to come before that committee and give evidence about what is the environmental impact on Australia of chemicals in primary production. It may well be that somewhere along the line there needs to be some sort of general inquiry into chemical use around the world. But what is happening here is that the Australian Democrats, supported by the Government-indeed, encouraged and assisted by the Government-intend to put Australian primary production and Australian primary producers out on the line as the example for the rest of the world to consider whether any of our produce is affected by chemicals in a manner that may be detrimental, so that Australian produce will be the produce that will suffer. The inquiry will not examine American produce, European produce or produce from other countries around the world. It will examine Australian produce. This has the potential to substantially affect our trading markets and the reputation of Australia's agricultural produce as being safe and of a premium quality. The proposal does not recognise the need for a speedy resolution of the problems of compensation and assistance to the quarantined farmers. If it were to look at those questions, there may be some merit in it. If this inquiry were to look at these farmers-and I understand that currently 1,119 farms in Australia are quarantined because of chemical residues-and to examine whether those farms or farmers on those farms were entitled to compensation and what sort of compensation they would be entitled to for the problems they have suffered, then one might see merit in it. But the motion is not in any way proposing to deal with that. This inquiry could undoubtedly develop into a witch-hunt aimed at Australia's 55 chemical manufacturers. There are 55 chemical manufacturers in Australia, and let there be no doubt what the Australian Democrats will be on about with this committee of inquiry: they will be after the skin and blood of those chemical manufacturers. Let me go a step further. Last year the Government's Business Regulation Review Unit recommended a system of self-regulation and opposed many features of draft legislation for the control of industrial chemicals. I point out to the Government that the objective of this Democrats proposal may be to reverse those recommendations of the Business Regulation Review Unit. It is hypocritical of the Government, on the one hand, to support this sort of witch-hunt that will go on as a result of this inquiry into the farm chemical industry and yet, on the other hand, to withdraw funding from a national survey of pesticide residues in food. I point out that at the national convention of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Association of Australia Ltd, the Executive Director of that organisation, Mr Allen Morley, criticised the Federal Government's proposal to discontinue the annual market basket survey which he said was one of the few independent and credible surveys of pesticide residue levels in food in the world. What has happened is that the Government has withdrawn funding from that survey and now is enabling the Democrats to go on with this witch-hunt into the farm chemical industry. There is massive opposition to this inquiry from industry sources. The National Farmers Federation, in a news release of 10 February this year, stated: The National Farmers' Federation said today the Senate inquiry into agricultural and veterinary chemicals, proposed by the Australian Democrats, was unnecessary and would halt action already taking place. It went on to oppose it. The Cattle Council of Australia, in a letter to Mr Kerin dated 15 February 1988, stated: The Cattle Council of Australia does not support the motion as proposed by the Democrats because we consider the Senate Committee would unnecessarily duplicate work already being undertaken by Commonwealth and State Governments . . . The Council is also concerned that such a committee could be used as a forum by certain people or groups to generate irresponsible publicity. The Wool Council of Australia, in a letter dated 19 February 1988 to the shadow Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Lloyd, stated: . . . the Inquiry would provide a substantial forum for misguided and misinformed discussion which could prove detrimental to the wool industry, and Australian trade in general. The Australian Horticultural Growers Council, in a letter dated 18 March 1988 to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, said: . . . it is an unnecessary and unwarranted duplication of existing systems in place at the state and federal level. It went on to say: . . . the confusion and concern that would be generated may well make it impossible for us to continue or expand our trade in fresh produce to the US. The Australian Council of Egg Producers, in a letter of 21 April 1988 to the shadow Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Lloyd, said: Because of recent legislative initiatives and the potential for damage to Australia's international trading reputation that could arise through the Senate inquiry process, ACEP has written to the Australian Democrats urging them to reconsider . . . The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Association of Australia totally opposes the proposal for the following reasons: the specific recommendations of the special task groups formed at the direction of the Australian Agricultural Council, following the beef residue problem, are the appropriate mechanism for achieving the objectives outlined in Senator Powell's proposal. an inquiry of the type proposed, now that Australia has regained her credibility with practical meat residue controls, would put the total farm chemical regulatory system under question in overseas market countries. an activity of this nature would weaken Australia's agricultural export position and thus has the prospect of negatively impacting Australia's trade position which is so dependent upon farm produce. the costs associated with a Select Committee cannot be justified in times of financial constraint, particularly when it would involve duplication of existing effective systems. a Select Committee would potentially result in significant restrictions upon the farm chemical industry which directly contributes at least $2500 million to the value of Australian agriculture. A copy of a telex message from Mr D. S. George, the chief executive of the Confederation of Australian Industry, addressed to Senator Button, Senator Walsh, Mr Kerin, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, me, and Mr Bruce Lloyd, the shadow Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, said: The points raised by AVCA constitute, in our view, a compelling case for opposing such a select committee inquiry. All of these people have indicated their total opposition to this inquiry, and all of this opposition has been conveyed to the Government. I say to the Government, `Why?'. What influence does Senator Powell have over this Government that it should bring this matter forward? I raised this matter last Friday in the Senate. I asked what was the deal that was done between Senator Powell and Mr Kerin that obliged the Australian Labor Party to support Senator Powell's proposal and to aid her to bring it forward? I put the point last Friday, as I do today: was it support for the resources rent tax? Did the Government buy the votes of the Democrats in respect of the resources rent tax, and was this the quid pro quo? I put that last Friday, as it has been put previously on many occasions in this Senate, and it has never been denied by the Democrats or by the Government. We shall hear tonight whether Senator Cook is prepared to deny that that was the deal that was done. I look forward to hearing him openly say that there was no deal. If he equivocates, we shall ask him whether the deal involved the resources rent tax. Clearly a deal was done because no-one on the Government side supports this proposal. I have spoken to many people in the corridors around here and the Government does not support this proposal. It is as fearful of the proposal as I am. The only people in this chamber who support it are Senator Powell and the other Democrats. They are determined to go on a witch-hunt, to the detriment of Australian primary producers and Australian primary production around the world. That is why we totally oppose this proposal and why I said on Friday that I would do everything in my power to prevent the establishment of this committee. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(9.22) —I find the idea of trying to link this inquiry with the passage of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Bill absolutely ludicrous. I too find it incomprehensible that the Government should have fallen for this in the way that it has. Let us look at the notice of motion itself, as it is important to start there. Paragraph (1) (a) refers to `the adequacy of arrangements under the legislation relating to agricultural and veterinary chemicals for administration and coordination systems for agricultural and veterinary chemicals'. If there is any problem in this area, why do we not fix it up in the Bill that is before the House? If the Australian Democrats have anything they are concerned about, let them do something about it now. Why leave the matter to a committee? The second item involves efficacy. If anybody here believes that it is possible to test the efficacy of every pharmaceutical product that goes under the heading of agricultural and veterinary chemicals by the last sitting day of next year, let him stand up and make a fool of himself. It would be idiotic to believe that that is possible. It would be ridiculous. Let us then look at the economic, social and environmental impact. Who will stand up here and say that that can be tested by the last sitting day of 1989? I could not even see Senator Cook going along with that as it is absolute nonsense. It is ridiculous. It would be ridiculous if it were economic, social or environmental, but this refers to economic, social and environmental. Would any imbecile, anyone in the world, get up and make the ridiculous statement that a committee could bring that down by the end of the sitting in 1989? The second paragraph of the notice of motion reads: That the committee may consider and recommend amendments to the legislation introduced into the Parliament by the Government during the 1988 Budget sittings, but not so as to delay the passage of such legislation. The easiest way not to impede passage of the legislation, if there is any grey matter left in this place, is to bring the amendments forward in the normal way while the Bill is under debate. Why do we need to submit that to a committee? What rubbish it is to be diddling around with the people of Australia and building them up by some crazy means. Why is this happening? It is happening so that amendments can be brought forward later. If there are any amendments to be brought forward, now is the time to do it. Paragraph (3) reads: That the committee present a progress report on or before the first sitting day in 1989, and that it present its final report on or before the last sitting day of 1989. What will the progress report say on the first sitting day of 1989? Will it say, `Yes, we have called applications, we have so many witnesses in various categories and we are ready to start interviewing.'? I trust that the first report by the first sitting day of 1989 will in no circumstances say, `Yes, and we have concluded' so and so and so forth. Senator Cook —It is a progress report. Senator ARCHER —But of what-how much progress will it report by 28 February 1989? I would think that at that stage of the game it would be getting ready to interview a whole lot of witnesses. I would not like to think that it would go into some inquiry on the basis that by the first sitting day next year it would have any conclusions of any sort. Senator Cook —That is not so. Senator ARCHER —I ask the Minister to give me a chance; he will have his opportunity to comment later. What will it be able to do except say that it has called for applications and has got in so many bundles? The committee will not be able to make any conclusions or to draw any straws, but that is what this rubbish is all about. That is what we are talking about having an inquiry to hear. Senator Powell —I raise a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. The motion before us is that the Bill and a notice of motion in relation to the establishment of a committee should be debated cognately. I have been listening carefully and feel that Senator Archer is debating another matter which may follow resolution of this question. Senator ARCHER —Rubbish. I will go on. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! There is some substance in Senator Powell's point of order. Senator Archer is tending to debate the substance of Senator Powell's motion itself rather than the question that is before the Chair. I suggest that he return to what is before the House, which is whether Senator Powell's motion and the Bill should be debated cognately. Senator ARCHER —The substance of the proposed motion is so far astray from what the Bill is all about that I have to demonstrate how far away it is before I can proceed on that line. After that digression, let us see why we want this. Senator McLean —I raise a point of order. The Chair's ruling has been described as a digression. The requirement of this debate is quite clear. Senator Archer must justify his statement that these two matters should not be debated cognately. He has not yet addressed himself to the proposition that is before the Chair. That was pointed out to him. He rather rudely made judgment or comment before you ruled and is not accepting your ruling. Senator Newman —I raise a point of order. It was clear to me that Senator Archer was not commenting on your ruling, Madam Acting Deputy President, but commenting on Senator Powell's point of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! In responding to the point of order put by Senator McLean, I am quite sure that Senator Archer will get to the point sooner or later. I should like to be assured that it is sooner. Senator ARCHER —If we are to deal with this motion we should at least deal with it separately from the legislation. I do not see why it has suddenly become necessary or desirable for the Government to try to hang these two together. I do not know why we should come into this chamber and find that we suddenly have been sprung with this ridiculous motion which has to be dealt with at the same time. We were all prepared to deal with the Bill and I think the Minister is aware of where we stand on this Bill. But this appendage is a different matter altogether. Why do we want this motion passed anyway? Why now? I am sure that the answer that we would all give is that we do not. I do not see why the Government sees such great virtue in becoming a laughing stock for this ridiculous action that it has taken. The inquiry itself will not be cheap. Because of the nature of the requirement, the members will rely totally on expert staff. If we are going to deal with expert staff why do we not wait on the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) which, earlier this year, took a reference. Why ASTEC? ASTEC just happens to be the Government's only reliable scientific reference body. It is the body set up by a previous Prime Minister to report direct to the Prime Minister. The Chairman of ASTEC is Professor Roy Martin. The Deputy is Mr Lloyd Zampatti and the Secretary is Dr Greg Tegart who was formerly the Secretary to the Department of Science when there was one. What better start can we have than that? For the purpose of the exercise I would like to incorporate just the names of the members of ASTEC so that people can see just who is on the Council and how they feel about arguing with people of that stature about the facts. Mind you, I am not sure that the Government wants to get too close to the facts but on this side of the chamber we certainly do. I seek leave to incorporate the names of the members of ASTEC. Senator Cook —The document has not been provided to the Government, but on this occasion I accept Senator Archer's explanation. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Members of Astec Professor R L Martin AO FAA (Chairman) Monash University Mr L S Zampatti (Deputy Chairman) Managing Director Bret & Co Pty Ltd Professor D A Aitkin FASSA Professor of Political Science Research School of Social Sciences ANU Professor R G Gregory FASSA Professor of Economics Research School of Social Sciences ANU Emeritus Professor F R Jevbons AO Director Institute for Science and Technology Policy Murdoch University Dr P D Jones Chairman and Managing Director Techway Ltd Mr P J Laver General Manager BHP Transport Professor J G McLeod AO FAA FTS Professor of Medicine The University of Sydney Dr A A Pucci AO Managing Director Australian Monoclonal Development Pty Ltd Professor G A Rigby FTS Professor of Electrical Engineering University of NSW Professor D W Watts FTS President and Vice Chancellor Bond University Mr R A Wheeldon Joint Managing Director BWD Industries Ltd Senator ARCHER —ASTEC has already got under way with this and it has been working on it for some months now. I will quote from the annual report of ASTEC that appeared last week. In one place it said: The study of agricultural chemical, will involve aspects of health, the environment and business regulation. It is based on the premise that the quality of agricultural products with respect to chemical residues is likely to become a more important factor in the marketing of these products, particularly for export. There are both threats and opportunities for Australia in this situation. Coordination between federal, state and private regulatory bodies and analytical facilities is necessary for the efficient control of residues. ASTEC will examine actions taken by government and industry to address these issues and will make recommendations for further action where appropriate. A report is expected to be published before the end of 1988. There is another passage also on page 20 of that report which I will not bother to read into the Hansard at this stage. Why would we want to start another inquiry now when we are within two months of having a report covering largely the same basic areas by the most natural body in Australia which is capable of helping the Government? Why would we ignore it at a time like this? Why would we want to start another inquiry when a report is expected in less than two months? I find this absolutely incredible. If this is the way we feel like insulting the members of ASTEC we are doing it pretty well. What do we want ASTEC for at all if we are going to let it do a job and then have a Senate committee go straight across it? It is an absolute farce. I think that the Government is hypocritical: it talks about savings and constraints on the one hand, yet on the other it completely duplicates a committee even without waiting for it to get its report out. What more ridiculous thing can it do than ignore the scientific reference that is available to it? Who does not want the ASTEC report? I guarantee that I will be satisfied with ASTEC and, seeing that it is the Government's body, I am sure that it will be also. I suggest that the manufacturers will be satisfied, as will the rural people. I am sure that the scientists will be satisfied. Why do we have this charade or is it just a slushy payoff? What about the Australian Agricultural Council's work? Again, the Agricultural Council has three committees-a legislation task force, a sampling task force and a trace-back task force. What are those committees doing? Are they not doing exactly what we are trying to achieve? What about the industry generally? The industry established a compensation task force. Who wants to talk to it? The Australian Democrats do not want to talk to it. Why does the Labor back bench want to be laughed at for doing such a stupid thing as setting up this Senate committee? I do not know who else wants the committee but I can tell honourable senators some of those who do not. Just from the few files that I have in front of me at the moment I can tell honourable senators that the Australian Dairy Corporation, the Namoi Cotton Growers, the South Australian Farmers Organisation, the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Association of Australia, the Grains Council of Australia, the Cattlemen's Union, the Australian Corriedale Association, the Potato Growers of Australia, the Australian Canners Association, the Cashmere Growers of Australia, the Australian Cotton Foundation, the Australian Council of Egg Producers, the Queensland Dairymen's Association, the Queensland Producers Federation, the Sheep Meat Council of Australia, the Cattle Council of Australia, the United Graziers of Queensland, the Western Australian Farmers Federation and the National Farmers Federation are amongst those who have written to me saying that they do not want it. Are we trying to establish the facts or are we trying to grab the headlines? Who in Australia has not had every possible opportunity to have a say over the last 12 months? There is absolutely no-one who has not had that opportunity. If the size of the headlines is the issue, that is different. I noticed, for instance, at the time that we were dealing with the issue previously that on 24 August 1987 there was a headline in the Melbourne Sun that was four centimetres high. It said: `Beef Crisis'. That is the sort of headline that some of these idiots are after. They think that they will get glorification by achieving that. If the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) is on that team I am surprised and disappointed. Let us look at last week's Australian. What made the front page of last week's Australian in nice big headlines? It said `10pc of food ``has DDT in it'' '. That is absolutely flagrantly and deliberately misleading. What the headline did not say was what was in the body of the article which said: It may be the last such national warning on the subject of pesticide residues, following a recent decision by the Federal Government to axe the surveys. Why did the Government axe the surveys? The article went on to say: In no cases were pesticide residues unacceptably high, and the overall Australian diet was well within world safety limits for noxious substances, it finds. That is the sort of thing we are going to get in headlines in papers all over the world if we take the lid off this. Is that what we are after? Do we want to bury our primary industries under a weight of ridiculous nonsense that will be stirred up by all sorts of people with no interest in the future of Australia who have nothing to do with the primary industries of Australia? Senator Newman —The Democrats are laughing at that. They think that is funny. Senator ARCHER —I am not responsible for what they laugh at, whether they are laughing at themselves or whatever. I do not want the people of Australia to be laughing about this ridiculous thing because people will not be laughing about it. They will be pretty upset about this. It will have a tremendous bearing on the future of primary industry in Australia. Let us make no mistake about that. Let us imagine the press report of a day of hearing evidence by the Senate committee, with well keyed up witnesses, who are non-scientific and highly motivated in a variety of ways. If we were able to get such a headline in the Australian just imagine, with the hearings we are talking about, the headlines we would get in the Melbourne Sun, the Daily Mirror or the Age on this subject. With the benefit of scientific, practical and realistic advice the issues have already been dealt with. We have had time-we have had the whole of 1988-to look over this. Nothing fresh has come out of it at all. What has arisen this year that was not evident last year? Check the media reports. We will not find anything. Let us look at the ministerial statements. We find nothing. Follow the activities of the `anti' movement. Even it cannot come up with any comments this year. Why are the minutes of the July 1988 meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council not full of these problems? Where are the comments from the overseas buyers about Australia's problems with agricultural chemicals? There have not been any. No, the evidence is that Australia is probably the cleanest, or is certainly amongst the cleanest, in the world. As I say, that is borne out by the comment in the Australian last week. We must also not fail to recall that without the use of chemical fertilisers and sprays many of our pastoral and agricultural pursuits just would not exist. Let us consider our responsibilities to the lesser developed countries. Consider the problem of feeding the world's growing population, and the problems these countries have with locusts, cattle ticks, mildew, codling moth, footrot and all that sort of thing. What are we to do about that? Do we just say, `No, we do not need to worry about that; it does not matter if people starve.'? Is that what we are saying? I give this guarantee: the inquiry, as proposed, would do five things. First, it would re-establish all those well known prejudices, demonstrated by those who are anti-chemicals, anti-chemical companies-- Senator McLean —On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: I cannot see that this is in any way relevant to the question of our having a cognate debate. Senator Archer —Give me the point of order so I can discuss it. Senator McLean —The point of order is that Senator Archer is not now, and has not at any stage, addressed his comments to the motion before the Chair. The motion before the Chair goes to whether or not these two matters should be debated cognately. I cannot believe for one moment that Senator Archer himself does not know that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Archer, I ask you to confine your remarks to the substance of the question before the Chair, which is whether Senator Powell's motion should be debated cognately with the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Bill. Senator ARCHER —Madam Acting Deputy President, I cannot make it much clearer that I totally oppose dealing with these two matters together, and I have been through many of the reasons for that. Madam Acting Deputy President, I give this guarantee: this inquiry would do five things. First, it would re-establish all those well-known prejudices of the people who are anti-chemicals, anti-chemical companies and anti-transnationals and who have a lack of concern for primary producers. Secondly, it would produce a range of witnesses dedicated to headlining with no, or very few, scientific facts. Thirdly, it would prejudice Australia's overseas and, to some extent, local markets. Fourthly, it would not provide compensation for the 1,117 farmers suffering from quarantine and, fifthly, it would do little to bring out Australia's extremely favourable position in the world in regard to residues. In my time in the Senate I have never seen any government become engaged in such a stupid, pointless and dangerous exercise where there is no possibility of producing a result of any benefit to Australia. In this case, everything is already in hand. I could support the legislation but under no circumstances can I do other than pour scorn on the proposed inquiry and those behind it, and to plead with the Government to think it over. If it does not, I guess we will have to accept that quote of one old Australian Labor Party politician who a few years ago said that the definition of an honest politician is one who when bought stays bought. That appears to be the case on this occasion. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(9.45) —The motion before the Chair is in substance whether or not there ought to be a cognate debate on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Bill 1988 and the motion of which I gave notice on a prior occasion relating directly to issues concerning agricultural and veterinary chemicals. One assumes that the two Opposition speakers have been attempting to prove the case that this legislation should not be debated cognately with my motion but, as has been drawn to the attention of the Senate, this has been a rather feeble attempt. However, I will make a much stronger attempt to link the two issues to demonstrate why it is that the Australian Democrats believe that the Government's motion should be supported. It is interesting to look in retrospect at the words used when this matter was first raised in this chamber last Friday. Senator Lewis made an initial attempt to prevent this cognate debate, an attempt which calls into question all the operations of this chamber. He said the matters are totally unrelated even though the subject is the same, but I think any higher school certificate student of logic and clear thinking would find that an interesting point for study. He said there is no relationship between the subject matters but, as I have already pointed out, the subject matters are the same-they relate to the use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals in this country. We have heard so far a debate along those same lines. This is a very opportune time to have such a cognate debate. The Democrats regret the fact that the Bill which is the subject of this debate has taken so long to come before the Parliament. We believe this is a forward step, one which the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) has put a great deal of effort into and one which deserves quick passage through this chamber and the Parliament. Last week Senator Crichton-Browne said in his second reading contribution that had we not had the beef residue crisis last year this legislation would not have been introduced. That vastly underrates the work that has gone on between the State and Federal governments in this area. The Bill represents the culmination of many years of very difficult and delicate negotiation and not giving credit to the Commonwealth Government and to State governments around the country for that was remiss of Senator Crichton-Browne. I do think that that important point should be made. Several things have already been said in this debate about my notice of motion, one would have assumed in an attempt to show that the points it raises are irrelevant. (Quorum formed) As I was saying, a cognate debate has been suggested on the Bill and my notice of motion. Certain reference has been made, quite appropriately, to that notice of motion in this debate. It is difficult to find the arguments that I am supposed to be responding to in this debate to stay relevant. If there were an argument against a cognate debate, it would be that the terms of reference of the proposed committee are so broad that they bear no relation to the Bill. I am happy to take the opportunity to refute that. The first of the terms of reference is the adequacy of arrangements under the legislation for administration and coordination systems for agricultural and veterinary chemicals. That has a direct relationship with the legislation. Indeed, to digress slightly, it goes down the path that the Opposition 10 months ago appeared to be wanting to go down when it proposed a Senate committee inquiry into limited aspects of the problem. At the time there was a specific problem in one industry. The inquiry that was proposed at that time by the Opposition would have been a witch-hunt and would have focused close attention on one industry which at the time was much at risk. That is why the Australian Democrats did not support the proposed inquiry. The second term of reference calls for the committee to inquire into and report on the efficacy of chemical, non-chemical and integrated management systems. The third term of reference is the economic, social and environmental impact upon Australia of agricultural and veterinary chemicals and their alternatives. Those are the terms of reference which the Opposition finds unacceptably broad. The motivation of the Government in this Bill is to provide a safe regime of chemical use, if that can be done, and to provide proper systems through which users of agricultural and veterinary chemicals can gain some reassurance and an environment in which they can operate and which will not lead to the sort of crisis that certain of them found themselves in at the end of last year. The Australian Democrats believe that a regime must be provided for the long term-not with reference to only one crisis which occurred, I might add, because of the inaction of what were mainly coalition governments in decades past, as the use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals escalated at an exponential rate, to protect the users of those chemicals, the environment and the community. The terms of reference which we have proposed and which the Government has concurred with are the only way to go if we are to follow the Government's advanced legislation with the provision of further information to people using agricultural and veterinary chemicals. If we do not look at the broadest impact and at alternatives, we are not serving our rural community well, let alone the rest of our community and we are not facing the fact that all around the world there is concern about clean food and clean products generally. Legislation is being enacted world-wide which, if we do not act in Australia, will lock us out of markets. Senator Haines, on her return from Europe last week, pointed out by way of question in the Senate that many countries in the European Economic Community are now moving in this direction. Our competing trans-Tasman neighbour, New Zealand, has taken more action than we have, having a more advanced view. The Government has noted this and has accepted that, if we can set up an ongoing Senate inquiry to look at these issues in the broadest possible context, we will be serving our community and, in particular, our rural community well. In this context it is important that I also respond to what I imagine was one of the Opposition's arguments in opposing this motion: that there is already an appropriate inquiry under way, the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) inquiry. The Australian Democrats welcome any inquiry that is undertaken in this area. But the terms of reference of the ASTEC study are much more limited than the terms of reference of our proposed inquiry. ASTEC proposes to look at national and international mechanisms to ensure that appropriate standards are developed, which coincides somewhat with the first term of reference before us. It also proposes to look at the national and international implementation of those standards. Again, there is some coincidence with the first term of reference of our inquiry and with the current activities of the Government and the Australian Agricultural Council. ASTEC proposes to look at whether residues are a cause for consumer concern. I imagine that some of the rantings of the Opposition about ratbag concerns were aimed at consumers. ASTEC seems to think that consumers are worth being concerned about. We certainly welcome that term of reference. ASTEC proposes to look at opportunities for the development of new analytical techniques and/or new and safer agricultural and veterinary chemicals through strategic research; other opportunities for contributions through strategic research, such as the development of decontamination methods; and the potential for the contamination of agricultural products through the non-agricultural use of chemicals, an issue with which Senator Panizza is most concerned, because last Friday he was talking about telephone poles. We know that non-agricultural uses of chemicals can impinge. All of those terms of reference are useful. When we became aware that ASTEC had decided to undertake the inquiry we felt that it would be a valuable contribution to the whole debate and that, indeed, a Senate committee, on being established, would welcome the ASTEC report as a strong base for moving into the even broader areas which the Australian Democrats have included. What are not involved in the ASTEC inquiry are issues of the environmental and social impact of these chemicals. I question how far their economic impact, and their alternatives, are to be looked at. If the Opposition is opposing this inquiry because it believes that it is not in the interests of the rural community, it is obviously not talking to people who are working on the ground and who are trying to exercise more caution in their use of chemicals. To do that, they need to be involved in looking at alternatives. Currently, all that is available to those people is self-help mechanisms. The Opposition has made great play about wanting compensation. It proposed an inquiry which would have been a witch-hunt basically against State departments of agriculture. We could in many ways agree with that except that it is backward looking. We want to look forward and this country needs to look forward. If we are to do that we must provide our rural producers with information through the properly structured networks, that is, departments of agriculture and other reputable research and extension institutions in our community and not through some ad hoc arrangement promoted by people who are actually doing it as well. If what I am saying is not specific enough for members of the Opposition they should take note of what has been happening recently. In the last couple of months we have seen an escalation in this area. What usually happens is that practising farmers network amongst themselves, have field days and generally try to demonstrate that what they are doing works. Senator Panizza —Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening to Senator Powell for the last five minutes. I think she should comply with the ruling you gave when Senator Archer was speaking. In the last five minutes I have not heard one reason why we should be debating these matters cognately. Therefore I urge you to call her to order. Senator McLean —On the point of order: it is interesting that the rules of this debate on whether we should have a cognate debate were laid down earlier. You were pleaded with to allow certain arguments to be advanced. We are now responding to those arguments. I think that in all fairness Senator Powell must be allowed to proceed. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —I have no intention of prohibiting Senator Powell from proceeding. I might suggest that, in accordance with previous rulings that I have made, Senator Powell maintain her argument on the question which is before the Chair: That the motion moved by the Minister for Resources, Senator Cook, to enable General Business notice of motion No. 70 standing in the name of Senator Powell for the establishment of a select committee to be debated cognately with the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Bill, be agreed to. Perhaps the honourable senator could keep her remarks to that particular question. Senator POWELL —The necessity for cognate debate at this time is very directly related to the point I was going to make. Indeed, there has been an escalation of the need for an interest in developing alternative systems and ensuring safety in the traditional use of chemical products. That is demonstrated by this Bill and in a number of other areas. One of the examples I was about to give was a recent field day which was held on the McNally farm in Queensland. A few dozen people, which is normally the case at this type of event, were expected but in fact 1,300 farmers visited the property. Mr McNally came to see me. I understand he and his colleagues also went to see members of the Opposition as well as Government members. Obviously they were not impressed and saw a very clear need for these people to have what they are doing and the processes they are interested in investigated officially, thoroughly and in a very public way so that the farmers of Australia can get assistance and the industry can move forward instead of maintaining the status quo, which is putting many rural producers and industries at risk. I do not want to go much further than that; otherwise I might transgress the ruling of the Chair. I have noted that one of the arguments in the debate has been that nobody wants such an inquiry. Several letters that have been read out purport to demonstrate that. I notice that those letters were dated very early this year before some of the more unenlightened organisations and some organisations with a clear vested interest in not taking the lid off this thing, which is something that Senator Archer mentioned, had expressed their opposition to the establishment of this committee. On the other hand, there are other groups in the community which are in support. There are even groups in the community which are changing their minds. My recent discussions with Mr Allen Morley of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Association of Australia have been most amicable. Indeed, he believes that the strong public pressure of which this proposal is only a part-this is another reason why I cannot understand the Opposition's apoplexy about it-puts an imperative on the chemical companies and industry to be responsible. He has gone as far as to show me draft material which the Association proposes putting out to educate the community. I have certainly congratulated him on doing that and cooperated in every way possible. I would have thought that that was the sort of procedure that we should be looking at. That clearly could be a problem for members of the Opposition. It is certainly the Democrats' approach and the Government's approach. It should be seen as a positive, far-sighted approach which would include everybody possible. The first time Allen Morley came to see me-indeed long before that, when I first took on the shadow portfolio of primary industries for the Australian Democrats-I said, `Look, Mr Morley, if you are so confident about what your industry is doing and what your products do, you should have no fear of appearing in a public forum to extol the virtues of your products and your industries'. I believe that is a perfectly valid argument. That is exactly what anybody would do in this context. We are saying in this inquiry proposal that everybody should have the opportunity, not just an industry which has a strong financial economic base-a multinational one at that. This opportunity should be available not just to well-funded Establishment rural organisations but also to consumers, people interested in alternatives, people with a story to tell, people with advice which can be useful to everybody and even, dare I say it, some scientists who diverge from what has been said to us for generations, the results of which we are now suffering not least in the beef industry, as we saw at the end of last year. To show that the times have changed since the date of some of the quotes which were given to us by the Opposition, I will quote from the excellent rural newspaper, the National Farmer. The National Farmer moved from a position of considerable scepticism late last year and early this year to a particularly important editorial dated 26 August in which it said, among other things: But this newspaper also believes it has a responsibility to inform farmers of what is going on about them, even if what is going on about them is not good news. May I say, `Hear, hear'. That is exactly what the Senate has the responsibility to do and can do not just through this legislation before us but also through the broader and longer term approach of the proposed committee. The editorial went on to say-a point I have already made: ``Clean'' food will become an international trade issue as this century comes to a close, and Australia is in a prime position to take advantage of it because of our remoteness from the ``dirty'' environment of the Northern Hemisphere. But to do so, we must demonstrate how ``clean'' we are again and again. We must do this not just once, not just twice but again and again. It went on to say: Part of that demonstration is jumping on any trouble-publicly . . . Somehow or other the Opposition seems to disapprove of the public nature of what is being proposed here. `Let us keep the lid on it', is what Senator Archer said. The Australian Democrats laughed because that is exactly what has been happening for decades. Senator Panizza —Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I have listened again for five minutes since my last point of order and Senator Powell has still not given us one reason why we should be debating these matters cognately. She is running off in all different directions explaining how this nut inquiry might work. That, with respect, is not the subject of the debate, which is whether we should debate the matters cognately. So I ask you to bring her to order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Peter Baume) —There is no point of order. Senator POWELL —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The point, of course, as you obviously understand, is that the question is: Why should these matters be debated cognately? If they are debated cognately, they will both be dealt with now. I am making the point that this is an issue of the moment. My notice of motion has been before the Senate for 10 months. We have been waiting for this legislation, which is totally related to my proposed motion-the subject matter is exactly the same-but which is a first step. Obviously, further steps need to be taken. The Democrats, along with the National Farmer newspaper, believe that those steps need to be open and comprehensive and need to be taken now. That is, of course, a major reason why this cognate debate needs to take place, and needs to take place now. It is important to point out that immediately after the Federal election in 1987 I publicly noted the very strong statements of both the new Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Senator Richardson, and the new shadow Minister, Senator Puplick, that they believed that land degradation was the greatest environmental problem facing this nation. I instigated, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, an urgency debate in regard to which all parties in this chamber concurred. I draw attention to one of the terms of reference of the proposed committee. If we still believe that at the moment land degradation is one of the major issues before us, I suggest that those Opposition senators who clearly do not understand the problems of land degradation should read a paper by Professor Lovett of the Department of Agronomy and Soil Science at the University of New England. It is a most comprehensive paper which I can readily make available to Opposition senators. It points out the clear links between the two issues. (Quorum formed) In terms of relativity between this legislation and the proposed motion, there can be no doubt that the advanced legislation which is now before us, courtesy of hard work by the Minister and relevant State authorities, is the first step. Many more steps are to be taken. Under the terms of reference we have proposed, those steps will be well under way. The responsibility of this Parliament, in leadership for the interests of the future of Australian agriculture and the Australian community in general, would be met. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(10.15) —We are debating-though one would doubt it, having listened to the previous speaker's contribution-whether to consider two matters cognately. Last Friday we debated the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Bill, which we support and which deals with standardising and expediting procedures by which agricultural and veterinary chemicals can be cleared for safe use in Australia. It wants to do away with the multi-testing system and revert to a system of a State taking responsibility for passing agricultural and veterinary chemicals for use among the industries. Once the chemicals have been cleared, they will be cleared for use throughout Australia, except Queensland. The other matter that it is proposed that we debate cognately-I do not have a copy of it-is a proposed motion for a wide-ranging inquiry into veterinary chemicals and their use in Australia. The inquiry would be so wide-ranging that I do not understand why it would look at only veterinary and agricultural chemicals. Chemicals are used in mining, medicine and other areas. Why could there not have been a proposal for an open inquiry, instead of just lashing into the agricultural and veterinary chemical industries? Of course, the veterinary chemical industries are mainly dependent on the agricultural chemical industry. I know that a certain amount of work is done outside those industries. I refer, for example, to the horse racing industry. I direct my remarks to the veterinary area as it affects the agricultural industry. That industry is being bashed once again. The greenie and nut element in the other corner would like to bring the industry to its knees. Many governments over the years would have liked to keep the farmers as peasants. They have not quite succeeded in doing so, but they would if they could. I return to the cognate debate proposal. What does one do with an important piece of legislation that is required to be brought on stream if some elements want to include something that is a bit unsavoury? This does not only occur here; it also occurs in the business world. If a person has one good deal to offer and one that is not so good, what does he do? He puts them together; he muddies the water. It is the same as giving a child his medicine. If he does not like it, give him a piece of chocolate to take away the bad taste. That is exactly what this rebel group is trying to do. Last Friday certain arrangements were made that there would be no divisions. I respected that arrangement. It was made for a very good reason. The Australian Democrats have been crying out for their nutty inquiry since at least December last year. The Government had decided to back their proposal and not ours. Our proposal was very well defined. We proposed to look into the problems of pesticides in beef and the question of compensation. Incidentally, the Government was fairly interested in the proposal at the time, but for some reason the Government, so that it could get some legislation passed-I forget what it was-decided to back the Democrats' proposal and not ours. The proposal had been around for about 10 months and the Democrats were getting nowhere with it. They decided to attempt to introduce it by having a cognate debate with a piece of legislation for which Australia has been waiting for quite a while. Senator Powell said that this legislation was introduced only because of the beef pesticides problem. That is a total lie. The legislation was proposed before the pesticides problem came about. As I said in my speech last Friday, detection of pesticides in beef only accelerated bringing it on-so that the chemicals could be registered much more quickly and tested far more widely, and tested overseas as well. The legislation had been lying there for a long time. The Government tried to sweeten up the wide-ranging inquiry by proposing to debate the matter cognately with a proposal by Senator Powell to establish a Senate committee of inquiry into agricultural and veterinary chemicals. If a government wants to get something passed when it is not so good all it has to do is put it with something sweet so it can be looked at through rose-coloured glasses. That failed last Friday, of course, because our Deputy Leader, Senator Lewis, refused to debate it cognately. That is the way to do it-muddy the waters. I had defined exactly the situation regarding this legislation. Now we have this smokescreen. I return to my point about our inquiry and the Democrats' inquiry. When it came to the Government's notice last year, one member of the Government-and there is only one member on the other side of the chamber who can claim to have the authority to speak on agriculture-- Senator McGauran —Who is that? Senator PANIZZA —I will come to that in a minute. There is only one member of the Government on the other side of the chamber who can speak on agriculture and that is Senator Walsh-a wheat growing colleague of mine for the last 30 years in the eastern wheat belt of Western Australia. Senator McGauran —He deserted the farmers a long time ago. Senator PANIZZA —Perhaps he has got away from the farming scene a little, but he has enough nous to know what is going on. He got wind of it that there was going to be this nut cracking, wide-ranging debate. Unfortunately, I happened to run into him in a corridor in the old Parliament House, and he said, `What are you fools trying to do?'. Senator McGauran —Just outside the bar? Senator PANIZZA —No. Actually, I never found the bar in that place. He said, `You are trying to open up a wide-ranging debate. Anyone will be able to say what they like without any scientific backup'. As I said last Friday, there is nothing wrong with respected scientists putting their case to an inquiry. Respected scientists will be judged by their peers. Senator Coulter —Like Rachel Carson-- Senator PANIZZA —Whoever that is, Senator Coulter. They will be judged by their peers. If they come up with stupid claims they will be taken for what they are. Nutty type people, people who are vindictive against farmers and veterinarians, can make whatever statements they like and get away with it, but the publicity, as Senator Archer pointed out, will be there. To return to Senator Walsh, that was the crack that he had at me. I said to him, `The story is that we are trying to get a Senate select committee going to look into the problems associated with the use of pesticides and how we can overcome them'. When he understood the fact that it was the Democrats and not us, he cooled off a little. Unfortunately, other members of the Government decided, for some reason or another, to go along with the Democrats' proposal. Senator Brownhill —A bit of a deal, I think. Senator PANIZZA —It probably was a deal. Probably Senator Walsh was hoping that the Democrats would forget about it as time went by and that they would find a few other issues to run with from which they could pick up some publicity for their failing support, as the last few elections showed. Unfortunately, they remembered and tried to bring it on as a cognate debate, which is what we are debating now. As I said, we withdrew our proposition so that the rest of Australia could judge the Democrats on their merits. That is the present state of affairs. As we are debating whether to debate these matters cognately, the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) is conducting an inquiry. It is bound by its terms of reference to report by the end of the year. It will report on the use of agricultural chemicals and their effect on health, the environment, business regulations, et cetera. It is based on the premise that the quality of agricultural products with respect to chemical residues is likely to become a more important factor in the marketing of these products, particularly for export. That Council is very respected throughout Australia. It was charged some time ago with looking into this problem. Senator Archer incorporated a list of members of that Council. The Deputy Chairman is Lloyd Zampatti, an eminent Western Australian scientist probably known to Senator Coulter. The Council was charged to come up with a balanced scientific finding and to make recommendations and guidelines for the use of chemicals in agriculture. It is due to report at the end of the year. If this unfortunate motion were to go through and we did set up a wide-ranging, idiotic, nut cracking inquiry by 31 December-when ASTEC is bound to report-that Senate select committee would not even be in place. What confidence would we be showing in these eminent scientists if we were to do that? That is the reason. It is a total waste of time to debate whether we should debate this matter cognately. This legislation is very necessary. As soon as the debate on this legislation is out of the road, we can put it into action. Yet here we are debating it with something that has no substance. The proposed committee would have wide-ranging terms of reference that probably Government members have not read. There is nothing solid or meaty about it. Why should we take another piece of legislation on board and refer it to a committee? It will be a wide-ranging inquiry that will achieve nothing. The proposed inquiry will be irrelevant. It is an inquiry to knock Australian agriculture, which supplies 50 per cent of Australia's income. A heap of greenies, obviously backed up by the Government, are trying to wreck the system. As I mentioned last Friday, we will be supporting the legislation. I foreshadowed that we will be moving amendments at the committee stage. We certainly will not be supporting this wide-ranging inquiry. We will be opposing it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Peter Baume) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m. the debate is interrupted. Under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.30) —On Thursday, 13 October the Presiding Officers tabled in the Senate a report of the Australian Delegation to the Thirty-third Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference at Kuala Lumpur. Mr Acting Deputy President, you would be aware that, traditionally, the report of the delegation to Commonwealth parliamentary conferences does not contain a detailed account of delegates' contributions to panel and plenary discussions, as a summary is usually contained in the journal The Parliamentarian. With respect to the Thirty-third Conference, this was published in the October edition for this year but, of course, it was only a summary. The subjects discussed at the Conference are listed at pages 9 and 10 in the report tabled last week. However, I believe that in future years the report could be enhanced by including in it a summary of the contributions by members of the Australian delegation to the Conference. After all, there is a parliamentary secretary that attends with the Australian delegates and it would not be a big job to summarise the important contributions made by those delegates on future occasions. However, at present I believe that the contributions made at this Thirty-third Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in Kuala Lumpur were of such significance that it may be of assistance to honourable senators if I outline briefly the major contributions of the main Australian participants. In the discussion on cooperation by Commonwealth countries in facing the problems of adequate housing in the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless and what more can be done for refugees, a common suggestion was the channelling of help through a central Commonwealth agency. One Australian suggestion was for the establishment of a low interest loan scheme, investors earning inflation rate untaxed interest. The problems experienced by Australia were similar to those experienced overseas. The importance of motivation in the campaign to house the poor was stressed. Parliamentarians had a duty to raise the consciousness of governments and people. Local Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) branches were a means to make parliamentary colleagues aware of the need to deal with such poverty. The topic `World Trade and Protectionism-The effect on world economic development in general and Third World economic, political and agricultural development in particular' led to endorsement of free trade and condemnation of restrictive practices by the European Economic Community, the United States of America and Japan. My contribution was to ask how can one be a good neighbour when one country deliberately takes trade, as it were, out of another's mouth. International trade was slowing and protectionism growing. The rich are getting richer both at domestic and international levels while the poor are getting poorer. Political bosses respond by expecting those who are being deprived to rise to the so-called `new challenges'. I warned that unless this relentless pursuit of protectionism as practiced on such a massive scale by mechanisms such as the common agricultural policy of Europe and similar effective actions by the United States and Japan ceased then not only would the tolerance of the Third World and middle countries be tested but also there would be a community reaction which would not be in the best interests of the brotherhood of nations. People will not forever stand back while living standards are in the best interests being eroded in the Third World. I concluded that protectionism not only has important implications for declining living standards in the Third World but also has associated implications on the abilities of smaller and middle countries to service foreign debts. The deliberate dumping of overseas products on Third World markets upsets local infrastructure and farming practices. Immediate action was required on three fronts: halting farm subsidy increases; bringing about responsible management of stockpiles of surplus farm commodities; and reducing the gap between domestic prices for farm products and real market prices. I called on member countries to unite and be vocal against such unfair trade practices. It is no consolation for people to shelter from the rain under, for example, the United States defence umbrella if at the same time they are being swept off their economic feet by a flood of United States protective devices. The meeting went on with the plenary sessions on `How best can Commonwealth countries cooperate to help contain the threat of AIDS?' and concluded that a Commonwealth pool of diagnostic, treatment and educational information should be established. One Australian delegate forecast an unbearable cost associated with AIDS, affecting many services outside health, if United Nations' predictions on the spread of the disease were correct. The World Health Organisation's containment program was supported, but the need to coordinate the flow of available information was stressed. The fourth plenary discussion on `The role of television and the mass media in promoting respect for Parliament and an understanding of parliamentary democracy: Who is really responsible for the generally low image of the politician in the eyes of the public?' saw a division among CPA delegates as to how to apportion blame. One Australian contribution was to point generally to journalists' lack of understanding of a parliamentarian's daily work. Parliamentarians had a responsibility to set a high standard of personal behaviour, but the mass media also had a duty to present faithfully the work and role of parliamentarians. The final plenary discussion on `Safeguarding human rights: The duty of the Commonwealth' led to spirited discussion, covering South Africa and the Eminent Persons Group, the work of Amnesty International and the advisory and information service run by the human rights unit of the Commonwealth Secretariat. The commitment to human rights was unanimous; there was some difference as to how to best enforce that commitment. In panel discussions the main contributions by Commonwealth of Australia delegates were in panels B, D, E and F. Panel B's topic was `How should the House achieve greater accountability of the administration to Parliament: Is there a role for Parliament in the scrutiny of intelligence and defence activities?'. While recognising that sensitivity was necessary in some areas, the panel's participants generally felt that there was a need for parliament to exercise effective scrutiny of all the administration's activities. The panel was advised of some difficulties that have arisen in Australia because of crown or executive privilege, but that confidential information was made available to party leaders and some senior Ministers. Panel D examined the topic `The role of the Commonwealth in contributions to world peace and combating terrorism'. The Australian contribution was to point to the Commonwealth's working for world peace and collective action in forming peacekeeping forces that could contribute to containing conflicts. In relation to terrorism, successive statements by Commonwealth Heads of Government had pointed the way, for example, to implement legal action against terrorists. It was suggested by a member of our delegation that the topic considered by panel E, `The effect of continued population growth on the environment, unemployment and urban poverty within Commonwealth countries-Possible remedies', was an extremely difficult one which should be further discussed at future conferences. Panel F's discussion on `Planning Commonwealth co-operation in national projects to help overcome food shortages, for instance by irrigation of vast arid areas' resulted in support for a proposal for a common market of the Commonwealth for food grains and a more coordinated Commonwealth response in providing technological assistance, information exchange and human resource development to combat food shortages, setting up a special Commonwealth task force for this purpose. Our contribution was to observe that the practice of certain rich industrialised countries in subsidising agricultural exports had diminished food for Third World countries that had to expand exports to buy food. It was suggested that Commonwealth national groups should concentrate on the question of finance and set up a suitable Commonwealth funding arrangement. Mr President, I commend the standard of debates, particularly the Australian contribution. I thank our Malaysian hosts and my colleagues from the Commonwealth of Australia Branch, including you, Mr President, for making this conference a successful interchange of ideas on a legislator to legislator basis from Commonwealth parliamentarians. I reiterate the plea that I made initially, that the Australian contributions be summarised and included in the future reports of delegations to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conferences. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria)(10.40) —As members of the Senate will be aware, on 12 October Constable Eyre from Shepparton and Constable Tynan from Glen Waverley were slain in the course of their duty at Walsh Street, South Yarra. They were laid to rest this week with tributes from family, friends and the Victoria Police Force. As a senator for Victoria, I pay tribute to these two young men for the contributions they made to public service in the State of Victoria. Victorians owe so much to these young men and to every man and woman who enters the police force with belief in the ideal to uphold the law for the protection of every citizen. To the bearers of this torch of protection we owe our personal safety. It is then worth reflecting upon the murders and massacres of the past two years in Victoria and the deteriorating state of the personal safety of Victorians. If a starting point can be found, it is the Russell Street car bombing. I recall then writing, as a Melbourne city councillor, to the Melbourne Herald to express my views. Sadly those views still ring true today in the aftermath of the Hoddle Street, Queen Street and Walsh Street slayings. I said then: This senseless act of violence should make us realise that terrorism is now a local issue, confronting the people of Melbourne. The citizens best response to terrorism is to give their confidence and support to the institutions such as the Police Force and the Law Courts that protect us, and condemn those so frequently wishing to attack them. Following the Walsh Street slayings, the Victorian Chief Commissioner of Police, Kel Glare, spoke in a very similar vein. He said: The brutal murder of two policemen was a result of permissive attitudes which have eroded respect for police. I think we are reaping the results of the permissive society of the 60's and 70's and respect for all institutions has diminished. I believe the fundamental responsibility for laying a foundation of respect for law and order rests with governments. Governments have the power and the mandate to build a structure in which the citizens of the state can expect basic safety at home and at work. It is clear that Victorians are not receiving the leadership required in this area. The Victorian Government, by failing to boost police powers to deal with the growing crime rate, has contributed to the decline in respect for police authority. It is no secret that the relationship between the State Government and the police force is at best strained and at worst open hostility. The Government's unwillingness to give the required powers to the police is a fair indication that it does not trust the police. This clearly reverberates in society. As a result, police lose respect and authority in society. It should also be remembered that in these times of violence it is not necessary just to re-establish the authority of the police force to deal with hardened criminals; there is a need to re-establish the most basic respect for human life. The State Government of Victoria has sadly failed in this arena also. It has in every way promoted bizarre embryo experimentation; unchecked abortions; euthanasia; and X-rated videos. It has been said that, if respect is lost for any stage or any part of human life, invariably respect will be lost for human life in its entirety. As I pointed out to the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) in this place today, the formation of yet another committee of inquiry into violence in our society is solely a means by which to delay and often avoid making the real and necessary decisions-that is, to establish total respect for human life enforced with the proper powers of both the police force and the law courts. I believe time has run out for talk, and genuine action is required. I further believe time has run out for the newly elected Victorian Government. Substantial action is needed. Surely it is true that Victorians cannot take another mass slaying. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.45 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Civil Aviation Act-Civil Aviation Orders 1988-Parts 105 Amendments, dated 27 September 1988 and 3 November 1988. 106 Amendments, dated 27 September 1988. 107 Amendments, dated 27 September 1988. Export Control Act-Export Control Orders 1988-No. 14-(Fresh Fruit and Vegetables) (Amendment). Navigation Act-Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Marine Orders 1988-No. 7-Marine, Part 2 (Fees). Overseas Telecommunications Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 248. Pig Slaughter Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 247. Postal Services Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 249. Public Service Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 245. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Variation of plan of layout of City of Canberra and its environs (3), dated 5 October 1988. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendment to the Schedule to the Subsidy Schemes in relation to the States, dated 24 September 1988. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 246. Veterans' Entitlements Act-Instrument under subsection 90 (4), varying Treatment Principles, dated 8 September 1988. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 466) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 25 August 1988: (1) Further to recent statements from the Minister regarding the labelling of artificial sweeteners, has the Minister received any further representations from manufacturers or merchants of artificial sweeteners; if so, what was the result, and can the Minister ensure that the word `artificial' will remain compulsory in the labelling of every product that does not directly emanate from sugar or from honey. Senator Bolkus —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: I have not received any representations on the labelling of artificial sweeteners since my statement on 21 July 1988 where I stated that the use of the term `artificial' to describe certain sweeteners would remain. I understand that the National Health and Medical Research Council's Food Standards Committee have considered the matter in detail. The Council decided that the term ``artificial'' should continue to apply to chemically synthesised sweeteners in order that they are able to be distinguished from sugar, honey and related products. I have accepted the Council's advice on this matter. I believe that consumers should have that basic information to enable them to make choices about the foods they consume, and the people who cannot consume those products for health reasons should be protected. The final decision on whether the word `artificial' is to remain is a matter for the National Food Standards Council, the Commonwealth/State/Territory Committee of Ministers responsible for food legislation. I will be strongly urging this Council to retain the use of the term `artificial'. I understand that the Australian Food Standards Committee, which comprises representatives from each State/Territory Department of Health, industry, consumers and professionals, amongst others, will keep the issue under review. It would be pre-emptive of the National Food Standards Council meeting for me to give an assurance that the term `artificial' will be retained. I can, however, provide my own assurance that the Federal Government's position to retain it will not be changed, and that it will be strongly advocated by myself at all levels of the debate. (Question No. 527) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 30 August 1988: (1) How many positions in each Senior Executive Service and administrative service category were abolished and how many in each category were created in 1987-88 in the Minister's portfolio. (2) Of those created, how many have the same or similar functions as one or more of those abolished. Senator Richardson —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Twenty positions were created and thirty-nine abolished in the Senior Executive Service in the Department of Defence in 1987-88. (2) Of those twenty positions created in the Senior Executive Service, eight had similar functions to positions abolished. (3) Information in respect of the Administrative Service Officer category element of the honourable senator's question is not readily available. That category was introduced into the Department on 18 January 1988 when 72 separate classifications were reduced to 8, affecting a total of 13,097 positions. To collect and assemble the information would be a major task and I am reluctant to authorise the time and expense that such a task would involve. (Question No. 529) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 August 1988: (1) How many positions in each Senior Executive Service and administrative service category were abolished and how many in each category were created in 1987-88 in the Minister's portfolio. (2) Of those created, how many have the same or similar functions as one or more of those abolished. Senator Bolkus —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1)- No. Positions Abolished No. Positions Created ASO 1 ... 1,684 1,057 ASO 2 ... 923 697 ASO 3 ... 657 646 ASO 4 ... 349 423 ASO 5 ... 263 459 ASO 6 ... 137 170 ASO 7 ... 25 68 ASO 8 ... 23 35 SES 1 ... 2 6 SES 2 ... 1 1 SES 3 ... 1 2 SES 4 ... 1 0 SES 5 ... 2 2 SES 6 ... 0 0 Total ... 4,068 3,556 (2) The only circumstances where similar positions are abolished and created are when establishment is varied to follow annual cycles in workload. Statistics on these actions are not maintained. (Question No. 539) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 30 August 1988: For the financial years 1986-87 and 1987-88, what was the expenditure, by quarter, for travel and accommodation (for his Department)? Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Quarterly expenditure on travel and accommodation by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, for the financial years 1986-87 and 1987-88 was as follows: Quarter 1986-87 1987-88 ($) ($) September ... 115,091.70 192,133.28 December ... 181,899.83 145,067.33 March ... 203,083.37 298,705.54 June ... 224,720.93 489,202.78 Total ... 724,795.83 1,125,108.93