Senator HARRADINE(9.24 p.m.) —There are a number of other amendments I will support, depending of course on what I hear in the chamber, but on this one I am not sure that changing the definition of `industry' will achieve what the opposition really wants. What it might do is leave Treasury unchallenged. The concern that I, the opposition, the Democrats and the Greens have—and I believe, if they could speak, that probably a number of the government would have—about this measure is that the diversity of economic advice that is currently given to the government will be seriously affected if this legislation goes through as it is. As has been said by speaker after speaker, it will result in the Treasury being virtually the sole organisation upon which the government will rely for economic and industry advice.

People can say what they like—and often do say what they like—about the Industry Commission but the Industry Commission, on a number of occasions, has quite strongly in its reports taken to task the sort of philosophy that you would expect to emanate from Treasury. They have been quite independent on occasions. All of us around this chamber who are familiar with Industry Commission reports would agree that the Industry Commission has, on occasion, taken to task—not by name—the sorts of viewpoints that are expressed by Treasury.

My concern about this amendment is that it will severely limit the functions of the new commission and thus affect the ability of the commission to express its views on industry as a whole or on areas; for example, regional areas, which the minister has mentioned. So I am inclined to vote against a change of definition and therefore against the amendment moved—amendment No. 1 on page 366.