Thursday, 22 September 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will leave Australia today to attend the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development meetings in Washington DC. He will be also having discussions in London, Frankfurt and Paris. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) will act as Treasurer until Mr Keating returns. I inform the Senate also that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) will leave Australia today to attend discussions in Rome with Italian political leaders and the Director-General of the Sinai Multinational Force and Observers. The Foreign Minister will then travel to New York for ministerial discussions and to address the United Nations General Assembly. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs until Mr Hayden returns. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Asbestos: Narrabundah College, Australian Capital Territory To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth: The students of Narrabundah College condemn the interruption of their educational program and want the asbestos contained and areas decontaminated as soon as possible to allow classes to recommence with the assurance that the asbestos will be removed at a later date. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 271 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That any attempt to restrict the payment of medical benefits for abortions will result in: (a) An increase in backyard abortionists and subsequent increased risk of infection and death. (b) An increase in self-induced abortions which may result in failure to abort and possible birth of a severely damaged child. (c) Failure of the mother to obtain necessary counselling prior to a decision to have an abortion. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: 1. Make no alteration to the Medical Benefits Schedule with regard to abortions and 2. Seek to give women the right to decide whether or not to have an abortion. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 242 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Commonwealth Public Service Act, section 47A (3) be amended. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: Amend the Act, so as to safeguard returned servicemen from dismissal from the Service on medical grounds, who are not free from physical defects due to Service in a war, or any other service, by virtue of which they are returned soldiers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 29 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 provided that a precisely defined area, which included the coastal low water line, called The Great Barrier Reef Region should be proclaimed a marine park in which mining and oil drilling specifically would be prohibited and that management plans would be prepared for each zone, allowing for normal uses consistent with the preservation of the natural environment. Only a small percentage of the area has so far been proclaimed and in the Cairns section a 5km wide region for most of the coastline has been excluded. This seems to provide an opportunity for oil drilling and beach mining (causing silting) to take place. We fear that the granting of mining or drilling leases or other harmful developments, here or in the rest of The Great Barrier Reef Region may prevent the object of the Act from being achieved. We believe that most citizens share our fears. Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that The Senate in Parliament assembled, should request The Government to take action so that a referendum will be held with the next Federal Elections on the question that the entire Great Barrier Reef Region be immediately declared a Marine Park as defined in and provided by The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 and amended 1978 which included the coastal low water line. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: i. a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, ii. subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, iii. farmer unrest at seed prices, iv. monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also making crop chemicals, v. increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the 1983 Budget imposition of the excise on grape spirit used in fortifying wine places at risk the future of the fortified wine industry in Australia. That the requirement to pay the excise within seven days of the fortification occurring is inequitable. That the excise will be reflected in increased costs to the consumers of fortified wines of up to 100 per cent and consumer choice will be restricted. That this will cause reduced fortified wine sales which will result in reduced intake of grapes from grapegrowers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider their previous decision and either withdraw this tax or modify its method of application and collection. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 252 citizens). To the Honourable The President, and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State', and whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1) We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in- (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Mason (from 211 citizens) and Richardson (from two citizens). To the Honourable The President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region, commonly called Scheyville, imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to RAAF Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 194 citizens). To the Honourable The President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the members of the Women's Services of the 1939-45 War not at present considered eligible for Defence Service Home Loans should qualify as 'Australian Soldiers' under the Defence Service Homes Act. They volunteered for service with the Naval, Military and Air Forces, serving wherever they were sent in whatever capacity they were required and yet are refused Defence Service Home Loans. They took the oath to resist His Majesty's enemies which meant to fight His Majesty's enemies, and although not used in actual combat in war zones, they were available for that use and had a sufficiently grave need arisen would have been used, to serve with distinction as have women of other lands. In accordance with the Acts and Regulations of the period, the women of the Military Forces had enlisted for service anywhere, some of the Naval women to sail in any waters, others with service on warships optional, while the women of the Airforce could have been sent to Papua New Guinea or other territories under the control or care of Australia. Ex-servicemen of the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Imperial Force and the Royal Australian Air Force who volunteered in the 1939-45 War but were not sent to War Zones are granted home loans. Not to grant eligibility to all Ex- servicewomen of 1939-45 War is unjust and unfair. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you favourably consider amending the Defence Service Homes Act by repealing Sub-section 4 (2A) (b) (c) (d) of the Principal Act as amended by No. 137 of 1978, and grant eligibility to all members of the Women's Royal Australian Naval Service, the Australian Women's Army Service, the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force, the Australian Army Medical Women's Service, the Voluntary Aid Detachment of 1939-45 War. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from seven citizens). Petitions received. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) recognises the proposed fundamental changes that the Government is making to Australia's retirement income systems: (b) acknowledges that the Government has received a number of reports on these proposed changes from a number of committees, including: (i) the joint ACTU/CAI/Government Official Working Group on the proposed superannuation changes, and (ii) a working party of public servants from the Departments of Treasury, Finance, Social Security, Prime Minister and Cabinet and Veterans' Affairs; (c) is of the opinion that there should be the widest possible informed debate on the Government's proposed changes; and (d) calls on the Government to release and make public all reports it has received relating to its retirement income policy changes. Notice of Intention to Withdraw Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I give notice that it is my intention, at giving notices of motion on the next day of sitting, to withdraw Business of the Senate , Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in my name for the next day of sitting, to disallow the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 1982, as contained in the Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 95 of 1982 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Peter Rae proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The adverse impact on employment of the Government's broken promises and the total confusion caused by this divided Government's public disarray over its manufacturing industry policy. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, consideration of the matter of public importance be postponed until after the consideration of Government Business, Orders of the Day Nos. 1 to 4, health legislation package. Consideration resumed from 21 September 1983. Clauses 31 to 39. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.08) —I was in midstream with my speech on this matter before it was adjourned. I refer to the situation which has arisen between the Commonwealth and Tasmania with regard to the State's tax sharing and health grants provisions. Yesterday, during the debate in the Committee stage, I outlined from the correspondence the very clear dispute about and difference of interpretation which has arisen between the Minister for Health in Tasmania and the Federal Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and between the Tasmanian Premier and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The provision to which I referred, in particular, was section 23 of the States Tax Sharing and Health Grants Act which provides: If, at any time before 1 July 1985, . . . the Premier of Tasmania-- I leave out the irrelevant parts- elects, by writing under his hand furnished to the Prime Minister- they may terminate the cost sharing agreement. The emphasis which I place is in relation to the Premier electing, by writing under his hand furnished to the Prime Minister, that the agreement should terminate. There is clearly no such election. In fact, the correspondence which I have quoted makes it completely clear that the very reverse is the case. Tasmania has, at least since 13 July 1983, made it very clear that it has not agreed to any particular variation of its rights under an agreement formally and solemnly made between the Commonwealth and Tasmania. Quite clearly, if there is to be a revision of that agreement, if there is to be a change of the statutory provision, it is the obligation, I believe, certainly of this chamber to ensure that agreement has been reached. It is not our function, perhaps, to determine in any way what the terms of the variation ought to be, but to ensure that there has been agreement reached and that there is a meeting of the minds in relation to it are the clear obligations. Clause 38 of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill provides for the repeal of the section in the principal legislation which provides for cost sharing agreements. At this stage we seek to have clause 38 deferred to enable there to be time for the Federal Minister for Health and the State Minister for Health to come together on this matter and for the very reasonable requests of the State Minister to be answered. I reiterate that on 13 July the State Minister said: . . . I must express my dissatisfaction at the lack of detail provided to date to enable this State to make an informed judgment as to whether or not it should remain under cost-sharing arrangements . . . Therefore, I request that you give these matters your urgent attention. Clarification is vital . . . before any final decision can be made. As recently as 15 September the Premier of Tasmania, in a letter to the Prime Minister which I understand is as yet unanswered, repeated that request, making it quite clear that to this stage no agreement has been reached. It would be monstrous, I believe, for the Senate to pass legislation which terminates, not in accordance with the provisions of existing legislation but by an arbitrary overriding of the terms, the agreement made between the Commonwealth and the State of Tasmania. For that reason, I move: That consideration of clause 38 be postponed. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.11) —Senator Peter Rae , in some ways not unreasonably, suggested that this chamber should ensure that an agreement is reached between the Tasmanian Government and the Federal Government, although he pointed out that it was not necessarily our job to work out just what the details of that agreement should be. I put it to Senator Peter Rae that that is not an easy thing to do when his colleagues the Premier of Tasmania and the Minister for Health, Mr Cleary, are involved. I think we should go through in steps what has happened to find out what this is all about. At the end of the Premiers Conference a communique was issued on behalf of the heads of government. It was issued with the agreement of the heads of government and those heads of government included the Tasmanian Premier. The communique stated: The heads of government agreed on the revised proposals for Medicare as outlined by the Minister for Health in Premiers' Conference, including the basis for compensation payments to each of the States as outlined by the Minister . . . The document referred to in that communique is in fact the Medicare program financial proposals by the Commonwealth dated 30 June 1983 and circulated at the Premiers Conference. That document stated: South Australia and Tasmania to be reimbursed for both in-patient and out- patient revenue losses on the basis of existing cost-sharing agreements being terminated, and their replacement by identified health grants equal in value to the cost-sharing grants applicable at 1 February 1984; plus revenue loss adjustments . . . The Premier of Tasmania signed the communique, agreed to the communique and made no objection to it. Senator Walters told us that he signed it only because he had had a yarn to Paul Keating in the corridor and Paul Keating had told him that it would be all right. Quite frankly, if she is really suggesting that the Premier of Tasmania signs communiques between governments at Premiers conferences on that basis, I think the people of Tasmania ought to have a look at whom they have as Premier. What Senator Walters said is clear nonsense. The Premier signed the document and, as far as the Commonwealth and everyone at the Premiers Conference were concerned, the communique was agreed to. The Tasmanian Minister for Health, Mr Cleary, then attended a conference of Australian Health Ministers in Sydney on 14 July 1983. At that conference, he pointed out that he was at the Premiers Conference and that what was agreed to at the Premiers Conference was the broad concept; that he was present at the Conference when his Premier agreed to the final communique and the cost sharing agreement being terminated and replaced by identified health grants equal in value to the cost sharing grants applicable at 1 February, plus the revenue loss adjustment. The meeting of the Health Ministers in Sydney was held to clarify the details of that situation. The Federal Health Minister has always recognised -Senator Rae will see this if he reads the letter of 28 July-that there were matters of detail to be settled and he has offered discussions between officers and discussions between himself and the State Minister to work out these details . But what we have had from the Tasmanian Minister ever since is a shopping list of new claims which are, as the Minister for Health said in his last letter, peripheral to and outside the Medicare arrangements. It may be good politics to play this game of adding a shopping list which includes things like the Launceston general hospital and anything else Tasmania can think of to add to the negotiations when it knows we are trying to introduce Medicare and to get a smooth transition. It may be good politics; it may even be considered smart politics for home consumption down there. Senator Peter Rae —Would you like to identify the letter in which the alleged shopping list is contained? Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator has a whole series of letters that keep adding new claims all the time, but I will get them out for him in a moment. I quote the Premier of Tasmania: A significant change will take place this financial year with the introduction of the Commonwealth's Medicare program. This will come into effect from 1 February 1984 and from that date no charges will be levied on inpatients or outpatients receiving treatment as public patients in public hospitals. That, I would have thought, was a pretty definite statement that something was going to happen, that the Premier knew something was going to happen and that he knew he was part of what was going to happen. That statement happens to have come from his Budget Speech to the Tasmanian Parliament. So we have the situation of the Premier of Tasmania signing the communique which says there is to be agreement, he talks in his Budget Speech as though the whole thing is a fait accompli and that in fact Medicare is coming in and will affect the State in that way. Yet we have this continuous sniping between Mr Gray and the Federal Minister for Health in all that time. The Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, wrote again, on 20 September, to Mr Cleary. It is a letter that I assume Senator Rae and the others do not have. Senator Harradine —It is probably a letter that the Premier of Tasmania has not got because of the postal situation. Senator GRIMES —It could be, Senator Harradine. I think the sensible thing to do is to table that letter and let the people in this place read it. I seek leave to table the letter. Leave granted. Senator Peter Rae —Mr Chairman, may I clarify something? Can we defer consideration of clause 38 until after the Minister has finished speaking so that we can get a copy of the letter and consider it? Senator GRIMES —For how long? Senator Peter Rae —Just while the other clauses are dealt with. Senator GRIMES —Yes, we can defer consideration of that clause while other clauses are being dealt with so that you can have a read of the letter. Senator Peter Baume —Mr Chairman, I seek some guidance on procedure. I take it we are talking about clause 38 but the Committee is considering clauses 31 to 39 . The CHAIRMAN —The Committee has agreed that clauses 31 to 39 be taken together. Senator Peter Baume —Would it not be appropriate to dispose of clauses 31 through 37? I understand from what Senator Grimes has just said that he would be happy to defer consideration of clause 38 for a few moments. Senator GRIMES —I will stretch it a bit further than that. Clause 38 postponed. Clauses 31 to 37-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 39 agreed to. Clause 40 (Daily bed payments). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.20) —I move: Page 25, clause 40, proposed new sub-section 33 (1), line 30, leave out '12', insert '8'. This clause repeals existing section 33 of the principal Act and inserts a new section 33 which provides for the making of daily bed payments by the Commonwealth to the proprietors of private hospitals. Sub-section 1 of the proposed new section provides for a daily bed payment to be made to the proprietor of an approved hospital for each day on which an eligible person is an in-patient for a period of more than 12 hours. The difficulty that has arisen is that some feel that there are people who should qualify for a daily bed payment for admissions of less than 12 hours. I will not rehearse all the arguments; I will just bring out one obvious example. Those of us who are medical practitioners know that when a woman is required to go to hospital for a diagnostic curettage the usual arrangement is that she is admitted in the morning and discharged some hours later-whatever the appropriate time is, say eight or nine hours later. That is an arrangement that is appropriate for the procedure. The procedures are necessary and if this 12- hour period stood-I have only used that one example; many others could be used- all that would happen is that the hospitals would modify their behaviour and people would be held until they had been in hospital for a sufficient time to qualify for the benefit. I do not think it is the intention of this proposed new sub-section to exclude people going into hospital for that kind of diagnostic test from getting a daily bed payment. They require to be admitted; they require the services of the hospital. The amendment which we are proposing is one which we think will try to meet the Government's purposes, but sets a more realistic figure for the minimum stay. We have suggested that the eight-hour figure is appropriate. The 12-hour figure, I understand, was determined without what the major private hospital groups thought was appropriate consultation. Many groups would think that the period should be even less than eight hours, but the Opposition's view is that it represents a reasonable length of time to protect the public interest and that the 12-hour period, on reflection, is unduly long. The amendment that we have proposed is reasonable and I hope one to which the Committee will agree. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.23) —I share, as does my Party, Senator Peter Baume's concern about the definition of a day as being 12 hours. As I indicated in my speech during the second reading debate we believe that this would inadvertently-I am sure quite unwittingly-and unnecessarily disadvantage quite a large number of people. People who go into hospital, for instance, for renal dialysis are required to take hospital based treatment that lasts somewhere between six and eight hours. It is a convenient form of getting their treatment for both them and their medical practitioner. Of course, in the long run, it is also cheaper for all concerned. In addition, patients suffering from cancer are admitted for blood transfusions and chemotherapy. Cardiac patients who are admitted to hospital for restoration of cardiac rhythm by electrical stimulation need to be monitored for some hours after receiving their treatment. Patients undergoing a wide range of surgical procedures, from general surgical procedures to gynaecological, paediatric and orthopaedic procedures, often spend less than 12 hours in hospital. We run into the situation that I think I mentioned briefly during my speech on the second reading of the Bill, in which children are admitted to hospital for what should be a non-overnight stay simply for their own benefit, and women with young families may go into hospital, for instance for a breast biopsy with a frozen section, may not want to stay overnight because it is not convenient. Yet they require some number of hours of treatment and oversight following that treatment. We believe that, given trends towards decreasing hospital stay for patients, a strict interpretation of a day for receipt of the bed day subsidy of 12 hours would unnecessarily go against this very improved trend in health care. We certainly support the removal of the figure '12' and its replacement with the figure '8', since we believe that a provision embodying eight hours will get over the problem of some patients being induced at some less ethical hospital- they are certainly in a minority-to stay for just over four hours. This would be of no inconvenience to them. But it is not going to launch us into the problems that are associated with a 12-hour stay requirement. We believe that eight hours is a reasonable compromise and we may even be able to reach that magical word ' consensus' on the issue. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.26) —The overwhelming clarity and lucidity of the arguments of the opposite parties have swayed us completely. We not only accept the amendment but also agree with it. It is a sensible amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 41 to 44-by leave-take together, and agreed to. Clause 45 (Review of decisions). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.28) —The Opposition has an amendment to clause 45. I move: Page 27, clause 45, proposed new paragraph 38 (1) (b), line 23, after 'sub- section', insert '18 (2) or'. This clause inserts into the principal Act a new provision to provide that people who are affected by certain decisions may request the Minister for Health to reconsider a decision and to give them the right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It is the right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that concerns us. The Committee will remember that last night we looked at the position of doctors with contracts between the doctors and hospitals. The Committee was not disposed to make certain matters in relation to those contracts subject to the approval of Parliament. That is one arm of the argument. The other arm of the argument is that the doctors who are affected should have a right of appeal through the route provided under this clause. As the clause is written, it does not include those doctors among the groups of people who would have a right of appeal. The amendment which we propose, which is to insert the reference to section 18 (2), which deals with the contract, would confer upon those doctors a right of appeal. It would seem to us that that is an appropriate route to take. It is particularly appropriate in view of the Committee's decision last night not to take up the other possible issue of parliamentary approval. I commend to the Committee the amendment and the right of appeal which it will give to any doctor who may feel aggrieved. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.29) —On this occasion I am afraid that we oppose this amendment. What we are talking about here are doctors' existing contracts which may not be in line with the guidelines. The clause in fact allows the Minister for Health to determine that contracts entered into before February 1984, which do not meet the guidelines, can be treated as approved agreements for a specified time. In other words, it is a transitional clause designed to allow the Minister's discretion to allow existing arrangements to continue until the new contract, if necessary, can be regularised. The contract may have been in existence for many years. The amendment will allow an appeal, against the Minister's decision in this transitional period, to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. We think this is completely unnecessary. In fact, representatives of the medical profession did not raise the matter at all in my discussions with them because they recognised that this clause was in fact a benefit to the medical profession. It is not a restriction; it is a benefit. It allows contracts which have been in existence for a considerable time to continue for a specified time. The clause gives the Minister the power to do this. Agreements could not be affirmed if the Minister did not have this capacity. The Minister has a discretion to allow a transitional period for appeals. If ever an appeal were likely, it is hard to imagine one having to trot off to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, with all the problems which arise from that. We think the amendment is absolutely unnecessary. We really think that the Opposition ought to think again before it pushes forward this sort of amendment. Question put: That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Peter Baume's amendment) be inserted. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Jessop, D. S. Bolkus, N. Grimes, D. J. Button, J. N. Haines, J. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Jack Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. McIntosh, G. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Hearn, J. M. Scott, D. B. Primmer, C. G. Martin, K. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator Lewis —I take a point of order, Mr Chairman. I am really seeking your guidance on this matter. I am unable to point to the relevant standing order. I do not have time to sit down and go through the Standing Orders. Before that division was called I heard Senator Haines call: 'The ayes have it'. But Senator Haines voted against the clause. It seems to me that it is a fundamental principle in this place that a person must vote the way he or she calls. What has happened seems to me to be quite wrong. Senator Haines was the second person calling for the ayes. To have a division, two people must be calling for it. That is in the Standing Orders. Senator Haines was the second one. She quite clearly said: 'The ayes have it'. Mr Chairman, you said: 'Division required?' A division was called on the basis of Senator Haines and Senator Peter Baume calling for one. But in fact Senator Haines voted against the clause. The CHAIRMAN —Standing Order 170 requires each senator to vote in accordance with his voice. But this matter is a very difficult one for the Chairman to judge. I heard voices from the Opposition benches, from Senator Peter Baume in particular and from at least one other. I did not notice which way Senator Haines called, so I decline to rule on the question. Senator Haines —Am I allowed to say anything, Mr Chairman? The CHAIRMAN —There is no need for you to say anything. You have been exonerated . But you are perfectly entitled to make an explanation, by leave, if you wish. Senator HAINES(South Australia) —by leave-Senator Peter Baume was aware that we were not supporting this clause. Indeed, I had sent you, Mr Chairman, a note saying that we would not be supporting it. If Senator Lewis thinks I said 'Aye', all I can say is that, at the end of four months of carrying on about Medicare, I am probably at the stage of saying just about anything. The CHAIRMAN —That explanation was not relevant to the point of order. Nevertheless, it has been heard. Clause agreed to. Clauses 46 to 48-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 49 (Medicare Benefits Advisory Committee). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.41) —The Opposition has an amendment to clause 49. The amendment has been circulated. I move: (4) Page 29, clause 49, paragraph (1) (b), lines 8 and 9, leave out the paragraph. Clause 49 relates to the Medical Benefits Advisory Committee which helps to advise the Government on the appropriate level of medical benefits. It is a matter which affects the Government. It also affects patients and doctors. I suppose, in industrial terms, it is a matter which affects their wages and conditions. Clause 49 (1) (b) proposes to amend the section so that the Minister no longer has to consult with the Australian Medical Association before appointing the medical practitioner members of that Committee. The Committee is important because of the advice it gives to the Minister on what should be in the schedule. It is only proper that those who will be directly affected should know that they will have some input. The Opposition's amendment deletes the new provision. The deletion of the new provision means that the existing provision would stand. The existing provision provides that the Government should do certain things, including consulting with the Australian Medical Association before appointing the medical practitioner members of the Committee. Our concern is that a body which has the job of advising the Minister on the nature of the medical schedule of fees and the items to be on that schedule should include some of the people from the medical profession who will be directly affected and who are medical practitioners. The deletion which is proposed would maintain the status quo which in fact involves the Australian Medical Association being consulted. If the Government's proposal in the Bill were to stand we would have the anomalous position where the Government would not be required to consult with the Australian Medical Association on the appointment of members of the Committee but would still be required to consult with the AMA on the filling of casual vacancies because that is provided for in another Bill and has not been included in what is before us. In terms of good sense and consistency I have moved this amendment on behalf of the Opposition. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.43) —Just to get it quite clearly on the record, Mr Chairman, I and other Australian Democrats are supporting the amendment moved by Senator Baume. Contingent on that clause being removed, the Australian Democrats will be moving our own amendment which will read: Page 29, clause 49, after paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph: ''(b) by adding at the end of sub-section (2) the following words 'and such other organizations and associations as the Minister considers appropriate' ''. I certainly share Senator Baume's concern that the largest group representing medical practitioners in this country should have been summarily removed from the consultation and discussion process. I wonder whether perhaps it would not be equally as appropriate, in an industrial relations or public relations exercise, for the opportunity to be given to the Minister to consult not only with the Australian Medical Association but also with other such organisations and associations as he considers appropriate. Is this an appropriate time for me to move my amendment, Mr Chairman? The CHAIRMAN —It is not an appropriate time. Your amendment is dependent on Senator Peter Baume's amendment being agreed to. Senator HAINES —I foreshadow my amendment and undertake not to make another speech. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Haines, I will allow you to move your amendment without a further speech after Senator Baume's amendment has been dealt with. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.44) —If the Senate wishes to amend this clause, and clearly it does, the Government certainly prefers the amendment foreshadowed by Senator Haines to the amendment moved by Senator Baume. The situation is simply this: In the past the medical practitioner members of this body have not only been selected by the Minister, in consultation with the Australian Medical Association-the Association has told the Minister who it wants and the Minister has then appointed them. We are of the view that the Australian Medical Association is not the only voice of the medical profession in this country. We are of the view that the Minister should, in fact, negotiate with not only the Australian Medical Association but also other medical organisations. Therefore, rather than specifically mention one group we thought it best to leave out a reference to that single organisation. We thought it best to remove the expectation of the Australian Medical Association that it would nominate the medical members of the committee. I have discussed this with representatives of the Australian Medical Association. I know how indignant they were that their name had been left out. I accept the fact, as Senator Peter Baume has pointed out to us, that somehow along the line the draftsmen have forgotten to pull out of the legislation the condition that the Australian Medical Association should be consulted about casual vacancies and it was a silly but minor mistake in the legislation. If the Minister intends to consult with the profession-and the Minister should and will consult with the profession-of course he should consult with the Australian Medical Association, but he should consult with other medical organisations also . As I have said to the Australian Medical Association, I think the time has come when the Australian Medical Association has to realise that it represents something like 55 per cent of doctors in the country and not 100 per cent, as it claims. The Association does not have the exclusive right to speak on behalf of the medical profession in this country; nor should it claim to have that exclusive right. All that our change to the legislation did was make it clear that we were going to negotiate not only with the Australian Medical Association but also with other medical organisations. If the words 'Australian Medical Association' are to be put in the legislation, as Senator Peter Baume wishes, the sensible thing to do would be what Senator Haines has suggested and add 'and other organisations and associations which the Minister considers appropriate'. At one stage I thought of getting officers of the Department of Health to give me a list of all the medical organisations in this country so that I could add those to the legislation to point out how silly this sort of behaviour is. If we are to persist in this country-in a way in which the media no longer does, for instance-in assuming that the Australian Medical Association is the only voice of the medical profession in this country, Senator Peter Baume's approach is a good way to go about it. I can remember the days when the only comment one heard from the medical profession in this country was the comment on the news 'A spokesman for the AMA said'. Then we received an anonymous statement from some anonymous person on behalf of the AMA. If the General Practitioners Society in Australia, which as everyone here knows does not share my political views, did anything in this country it was to stop that nonsense. At least the anonymous spokesman is now named. At least the anonymous spokesman now has a face. At least we have more sensible and open debate. That is as it should be and as it should continue. As I say, the Government will certainly accept the amendment as it will be amended eventually by Senator Haines. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.49) —Very briefly, I make the point that we are not aiming to put anything into the legislation. We are aiming to have something that is in the legislation remain there. I suppose it is proper that I identify quite clearly for the Committee that I am a member of the Australian Medical Association and have been for many years. I would like that to be on the record. Senator Grimes —We'll forgive you. Senator PETER BAUME —I thank Senator Grimes. I imagine that he may have been a member also at some time in his career. I think that should be on the record. Amendment agreed to. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.50) —I move: Page 29, clause 49, after paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph: '(b) by adding at the end of sub-section (2) the following words ''and such other organizations and associations as the Minister considers appropriate'' '. I have moved this amendment for the reasons already stated and agreed to. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.51) —I think the amendment moved by Senator Haines is sensible. The Opposition supports it. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 50 to 56-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 57 (Prohibition of certain medical insurance). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.52) —This clause prohibits certain medical insurance activities. It is one of the matters to which the Opposition has objected. I wish to place that opposition on record. Our opposition remains. We will not carry the matter to a division. Clause agreed to. Clauses 58 to 64-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 65 agreed to. Clause 66 (Interpretation). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.53) —Clauses 66 and 67 contain amendments to the Health Insurance Act. They confer new functions upon the Health Insurance Commission. Our objections to these clauses were raised during the second reading debate. They are part of the package to which we are opposed. I wish to place that opposition on record. Clause agreed to. Clause 67. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.54) —I move: Page 34, sub-clause 67 (1), at end of proposed new section 5, add the following new sub-section: '(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) authorizes the Commission so to perform the functions referred to in that sub-section as to permit the issue of a Medicare card to a child in respect of whom the family allowance is paid without the authority of the child's parent or guardian, or of another person authorized by the child's parent or guardian to give such authority.'. Last night, in my speech during the second reading debate, I gave notice that I would move a motion along these lines. Of course, that notice naturally gave the Government and the Opposition time to consider the ramifications of my proposal. Of course, the matter at issue is one about which there has been considerable Press speculation and about which, no doubt, honourable senators and members in the other place will have received correspondence from constituents. I considered what the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) said in replying to the second reading debate. He indicated that these matters had been canvassed in the Estimates committee. He reminded the Senate that Estimates Committee B had considered this matter. I have now amended the proposal which I intended to put forward last night to conform with the views of the officials at Estimates Committee B. Honourable senators will recall that last night I argued that no Medicare card should be issued without the authority of the child's parent or guardian to a child who had not attained the age of 18. Quite clearly, in examining the Hansard record of Estimates Committee B, we learn that there are children who require to have cards made available to them. This includes children in institutions. In answer to a question about health care cards by Senator Walters during the hearings of Estimates Committee B, Mr MacMahon stated: Children under the age of 16 are precluded from these cards-- that is, the health care cards- if the parent is in receipt of family allowance for them. If the parent is not receiving family allowance for the child because he does not have the care, custody, control and maintenance of the child, that situation could be addressed by the issue of a card to the child if family allowance is not being paid for the child. I propose that that which occurs under the existing system in respect of health care cards should be the basis for the distribution of the Medicare cards with the acknowledgment that, of course, health care cards are issued to particular people by the Department of Social Security and other qualifications are needed for those people who are in receipt of those health care cards. Health care cards in accordance with what the Minister stated during the Estimates Committee hearing will, of course, continue to be issued because, for example, pharmaceutical benefits are available to persons who are in receipt of health care cards. So they will still be on issue. I am not suggesting that only those children who are in receipt of health care cards should be in receipt of Medicare cards. I am putting to the Committee that the principle of the family allowance test, which is one of the tests applied before the issuing of the health care card, ought to be the test that applies in respect of the issuing of Medicare cards. I believe that that is a reasonable approach to this situation. It is one that should attract the support of the Government; I believe that it ought certainly to attract the support of the Opposition. It is a clean way of going about it. In my view it will overcome most of the objections and allay many of the fears that have been raised, both publicly and by constituents, about the matter. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.00) —We are all aware that there is a group of young people who need health care cards in their own names. This group comes from that section of our youth who are called homeless youth. They are out on their own, without the backing of their families and with no support from their families. Some of these young people under 16 years of age have to stay at shelters, and unless they have access to a health care card they have no access to free health care. I was told at the hearings of Estimates Committee B last week that figures were not kept in this area. I think there was some misunderstanding about the matter. I think possibly Mr MacMahon misinterpreted my question. He said that the Department does not collect statistics which would answer my particular query. I took his answer to mean that no statistics at all were kept in this area, but I believe that there are. Until February 1983 5,248 health care cards had been issued for children under 16 years of age. The majority of these cards had been issued to institutions where the institution applied for health care cards for the children in its care. However, there is another group of children who, as I have already said, are considered the homeless youth. They are entitled, in some instances, to special benefits. Out of those 5,248 young people under 16 years of age to whom cards have been issued, those who are getting special benefits number 1,339. They hold a health care card in their own name. When we were talking about this matter at Estimates Committee B, Senator Grimes said: But I would like to emphasise also that there has been no change in policy, as far as I know, between this Government and previous governments, as to this matter. That is not accurate. This Government's new Medicare proposition is that every citizen-no age is mentioned-is entitled to a card. Every household will be issued with an application form. The head of the household indicates who will have a card and in whose name it will be. This is not the end of the matter. The head of the household, the father, can set out the names of the members of his family that he wants to hold a card. He may well withhold, and I would presume he would, all his younger children, all his children under 18 years of age, perhaps, who are still being supported by him. As I say, that is not the end of the matter. Each one of those children may apply for a card of his or her own. No questions will be asked, none at all. Each child will be entitled to have a health care card of his or her own. We know that under the Family Law Act parents are supposed to be responsible for their children up to the age of 18 years. We know that at the moment parents are told that they should know what their children are doing. They are held responsible for the behaviour and care of their children, and that is exactly as it should be. If this Government is willing to take that responsibility out of the hands of the parents for this group of children and put it into the hands of children of 13 and 14 years of age, there is something radically wrong with the Government. I do not want the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, to tell me that there is a group of children who need the card. We have gone into that. I am talking about two different groups of children. There is the group comprising the homeless youth and comprising the group in institutions who can be cared for most appropriately. There is the other group which is being supported by their parents who are receiving, as Senator Harradine has said, a family allowance. They are completely and utterly responsible for their children . Yet this Government is willing to take the responsibility out of the hands of the parents and allow those children to have a health care card without the knowledge of their parents, and allow those children to go their own way. I do not believe that the majority of Australian parents wish this to occur. Senator Grimes —That is an outrageous suggestion. Senator WALTERS —I am not suggesting that all children will do it. Nor am I suggesting that the Government is encouraging this practice. What I am saying is that the Government is making the opportunity available. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in his second reading speech made it very obvious that this could happen, and we have been told that this proposal is necessary. I would like the Minister for Social Security to tell me why he considers it necessary to take the responsibility for children's health and their upbringing out of the parents ' hands. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.08) —I find this a rather extraordinarily worded amendment since it talks about 'the issue of a Medicare card to a child in respect of whom the family allowance is paid without the authority of the child's parent or guardian, or of another person authorised by the child's parent or guardian to give such authority'. Unless I am very much mistaken, family allowance normally ceases when a child turns 16 years of age. However, in the case of full time dependent students, family allowance is paid to children up to the age of 24 years. Senator Walters —Read the amendment. Senator HAINES —I will just finish this statement. I find it rather odd that a parent of a 23-year-old who happens to be a full time dependent student ought to be entitled to stop that child from getting a card. Senator Walters —It says 'a child'. Senator HAINES —I know it says 'child'. I have just read it out. However, there is no definition of what a child is. I would very much like to know the accepted Australian or international definition of a child. Is it up to the age of 15 years, is it up to the age of 18 years, is it up to the age when they run away from home, is it up to the age when they stop being dependent, or what is the Australian definition of a child? Even supposing that the definition of a child is something which would mean that this clause is applicable only to people around the age of 14, 15 or 16 years, I am concerned that for some probably genuine reason people who are supporting this amendment are confusing caring for a child with absolute and utter dictatorial control over a child. There are families in which the parents have no real concern about the welfare of the child, and they may not include them on the family card. The only way the child will be given any adequate medical care is if he seeks it himself. I believe that supporting any sort of amendment in this area simply plays into the hands of irresponsible parents. Those parents who are responsible, who do care for their children, presumably will bring up their children in a loving, Christian family situation so that those children are aware of their social responsibilities. Senator Peter Baume —Caring and ethical, please. Senator HAINES —I accept Senator Baume's correction in its non-religious, non- sectarian sense. I am sure that in suggesting that he agrees with what I say: No parents bringing up a child in that manner need have any concern about the child sneaking out behind their backs, which apparently is the concern, and getting hold of a Medicare card. Those parents who do not bring up their children like that, having abrogated their responsibility, have no right to stop those children from attempting to protect themselves. I have a sneaking suspicion that at the back of this amendment is some desire not to allow children of the female species to go to a doctor for some sort of contraceptive advice. It never ceases to amaze me that those people who object to their girls preventing conception have no particular concern about what the heck their sons are doing in the meantime. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.11) —I think it is proper to say on behalf of the Opposition that we will not be supporting the amendment. It is important that I explain why. I understand Senator Harradine's concern for the position and strength of the family in Australian society and I understand his concern that the influence of families may diminish. I say to the honourable senator that I have asked myself the question: What can be the possible consequences of agreeing to the amendment and perhaps denying the availability of the card to certain people? That is the question. Senator Harradine —I have asked myself that and I have come back to the conclusion that has been suggested in the Estimates committee. Senator PETER BAUME —I just want to take this through with the honourable senator. Some people will work through their families to get whatever medical care is required, and to that extent the family influence will be preserved and the family structure and unity will be preserved. Certain other people will go without advice or care. I have received representations, and Senator Haines is quite right; the question that concerns many people is contraceptive advice for young women. In 1981 more than 100 girls in Australia aged 15 years had babies and more than 20,000 girls of teenage had babies; that is, at least that number of pregnancies went to term. However difficult it is in terms of our conception of what families should be about, if denying the health care card allowed that situation to continue or perhaps made it more difficult for some of those people to avoid getting advice, I think that would be undesirable. I do not like the fact that many people end up having abortions. I do not like the idea of unwanted pregnancies. I also do not like the idea of a society that is so permissive that sexual promiscuity becomes a feature of it. But I am not certain that denying the card to certain people who may wish to have it, and thereby perhaps denying them access to certain services, will be in the best interests of the society. I am also a bit uncertain as to what the significance of the definition of the word 'child' is. Would Senator Harradine say that a child, in a legal sense, is anyone under the age of 18 years? Senator Harradine —Under Commonwealth and State law, the interpretation of a minor-I will read it to you directly. Senator PETER BAUME —Is it 18? Senator Harradine —Yes, it is. Senator PETER BAUME —If it is 18, I really think that that is too old an age. It is simply too old and not in keeping with contemporary standards. Senator Walters —It is certainly not 23, as Senator Haines was saying. Senator PETER BAUME —No. Nevertheless, it is correct that the family allowance is payable in respect of certain people up to the age of 23 and there may be considerable argument about what the word 'child' means. We have a problem of cause and effect. Senator Harradine is concerned, I think rightly, about what the effect of issuing the card more widely might be. I am concerned, on the other hand, as to what some of the adverse effects of not issuing it might be. I cannot determine between the cause and effects of social behaviour. I find the whole question extremely difficult. It is one that is very sensitive in society and, with great sympathy for what Senator Harradine is trying to do, I must nevertheless indicate that the official Opposition will not be supporting the amendment. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.16) —We must look at this matter very carefully. I ask Senator Harradine in particular to look at it very carefully. I believe that he has a genuine concern, a concern I accept. I agree that Senator Walters has a genuine concern although I dislike the way she extends that concern to suggest that what is happening here is a result of some sinister plot by the Government to break up families and to take children out of the care of their families. Let me make several points. The first point is that the Medicare card does not entitle a holder to medical treatment. It is a device for facilitating the payment of medical benefits for the treatment that has been given. Under the existing system, if a child goes to the doctor and the doctor bulk bills, the child, like anyone else, gets treatment but the parent does not know about that treatment. That is the existing system. Under the proposed system, which proceeds further, the absence of a Medicare card will not prevent that child from getting treatment; it will merely delay the settlement of payment. Giving the child a card does not entitle the child to demand treatment. The child can go and get treatment from a doctor, if the doctor will give the child that treatment. I remind Senator Harradine that in New South Wales the age of medical consent happens to be 14 years. The card itself is a means of identification and a means of speeding up the payment. It is no more than that. It is not like the health care card, which is necessary to establish one's right to treatment under the circumstances. So the absence of the Medicare card does not stop the person from having treatment; the presence of the card does not entitle the person to treatment. It is the doctor who must decide whether to treat the child, and Medicare, or the existence of a Medicare card or any other sort of card does not make any difference to that. So it is a matter between the doctor and the child and the doctor and the family. The card is a means of identification and a means of speeding up the claim. So that is what the card is about. That is why people who are entitled to a service are in fact entitled to a card, but the card is not essential for them to get that service, nor is the card essential for the doctor to get the benefit under Medicare. Everyone under those circumstances is entitled to the card. Senator Harradine, Senator Walters and many people in the community do not like the situation which, perhaps as Senator Baume says, largely concerns contraception and a young woman of 14, 15 or 16 years being able to get the contraceptive pill. That is what it is all about. The Medicare card does not in fact make any difference to that. If they go to a doctor who is willing to give them the pill, he can do so and get his payment by bulk billing Medicare. The parents need not know anything about it. Senator Harradine —Nor without the card. Senator GRIMES —He can. The card is a means of identification. It speeds up the doctor's capacity to make the claim. But without the card- Senator Harradine —May I ask this question? Will the HIC pay the bulk bill claim ? Senator GRIMES —Yes. What will happen is what happens now. I do not know exactly what information will be required under Medicare, but under Medibank the patient 's name, date of birth and address were all that were required for the claim to be processed. It is quite wrong to suggest that the card is absolutely essential . People will lose cards or will not have them. The gist of my argument is that we do not need this amendment. Senator Walters apparently suggests that the giving of these cards is a deliberate plot by the Government to break down the family. But by putting forward an amendment like this she creates the sorts of difficulties that Senator Haines pointed out, whatever one's definition of ' child' may be. I was told by one lawyer in the Senate that under the common law a person can be considered a child until the age of 21. That may or may not be so. I do not know because I am not a lawyer. If Senator Walters's amendment were adopted, students up to the age of 18 in this situation would not be able to have a card. This amendment is aimed at stopping something which Senator Walters sees as destroying society-in essence, the child who wants to get the pill. Senator Walters thinks that we can interfere with or stop that by preventing the handing out of a Medicare card to a child under these circumstances. In fact, the side effects of doing that, as Senator Baume has said, may be to prevent that child from getting attention because there may be a perception that without the card he or she is not entitled to treatment. The side effects of withholding the card may be much more severe. I think it is the wrong way to go about a problem which I accept that Senator Walters perceives with all sincerity and which she wants to do something about. As I said in the Senate the other day, I think that the publicity-the rather spectacular newspaper articles about the issuing of Medicare cards-was unfortunate. The issuing of a Medicare card will not force a doctor to treat a child of 14. It will not change the State laws regarding the age at which a child may be treated by a doctor. In New South Wales the age of medical consent is 14 and it varies from State to State. It will not affect State laws at all. It will not entitle anyone to medical treatment and, in fact, the absence of the card will not prevent anyone getting medical treatment. The card provides a means of identification and a means of speeding up claims and making the system more efficient. That is what it is about and it should not have any magical powers more than that attributed to it. Therefore, we oppose the amendment. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.23) —Senator Grimes has told us that he is not sure what will happen with bulk billing under Medicare, but that under the present system only the patient's name, address and date of birth are required when bulk billing occurs. Can he assure us that under the new Medicare system the card, the number on the card or any reference to the card will not be required? Can he assure us that only name, address and date of birth will be required? Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(11.24) —I wish to make a few comments on this issue. I think it has been fairly well covered but I wanted to suggest to people that they consider that young people between the ages of 13 and 14 and whenever they commence living independently do see doctors not only because they are females who wish to talk about contraception. Anybody who has worked with adolescent people will know that quite a few of them are very concerned about privacy. They do not necessarily want to talk to their parents to whom, in the ordinary course of living, they may be quite close. Many youngsters have other worries or anxieties including loneliness, depression or worries about what they will do when they grow up, to name just a few. Many of those, I might say, are young men. The suggestion that this is a secret plot to make contraception available to young girls merely misrepresents-- Senator Harradine —You're building up a storm. I said nothing about that. Senator CROWLEY —I was not speaking directly to Senator Harradine, but if he cares to listen that is very good. I am suggesting from my experience that there are people who have actually sought my help and the help of other doctors in this area. They may be living independently from their parents, be out of affection with, or abandoned by, their families; but they may also be living at home in, to all intents and purposes, a going concern sort of family. They simply may not wish to discuss some of these matters with their parents. These are somewhat of the nature of furphies, because I think Senator Grimes has outlined the real issues. It is not merely a matter of who seeks treatment for what. I just wanted to make these comments so that we do not continue to consider youngsters between the ages of 13 and 21 who seek the help of doctors as being only female and only looking for contraception methods. The other important point to make is that whether or not people have cards or apply for cards will not interfere in a relationship between parents and children. That relationship does not depend on parents being able to restrict access to cards. We are looking at the symptom and regarding it as the cause. Family breakdown, or dislocation between children and parents, will not be prevented by parents denying their children access to cards. I think it also needs to be said that most of the people who issue these cards are reasonable people who will follow a reasonable approach in distributing them. Kids will not front up at desks and say 'Give me a card', and get one. Senator Walters —Yes, they will. Senator CROWLEY —That is not how the world operates, Senator Walters. Most people are more mannerly. While the people issuing the cards may not necessarily get the Federal Police to check up on dates of birth, they will in most cases ask reasonable questions. But more importantly, some people would like to get a card because they may be away from home. They may not wish to ring up Mum and Dad and ask for their authority to get a card. The card is simply a mechanism whereby the whole process can be facilitated. I think it is important to stress again what Senator Grimes said. It is not some kind of secret plot. The card is a mechanism for facilitating medical payment. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.27) —I asked a question of Senator Grimes. I wonder whether he could answer it. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.28) —Of course the Health Insurance Commission will not want to encourage people to seek medical attention without their Medicare card, but in the future, as now, someone who does not have a card or who has lost it can still be processed. A person's Medicare number can be checked-on using the basic information of name, date of birth and address. I doubt whether the address would even be necessary. That is the system which exists now. It has existed in the past and under Medibank. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.29) —Is the Minister saying that for purposes of bulk billing a card will be necessary unless there is some excuse, such as that the patient has lost it? Is he saying that in normal circumstances, a doctor who is to bulk bill will need the patient's name, address and date of birth, or the card? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.30) —The card is a means of facilitating claims generally, be they bulk billed or not. Of course, the vast majority of people and doctors will want people to have the card, because it makes the system more efficient. I am merely saying that there will be some situations in which people will not have their card. Senator Harradine —It gets the money in their pockets. That is the point. Senator GRIMES —That is what really encourages them, Senator. I am not denying that. The point I am making is that the existence of a Medicare card does not entitle people to have treatment, nor does it prevent them from having treatment . Senator Harradine —Yes, it does if they want the money in their pocket quick. Senator Crowley —Do you think all doctors are as mean as that? Senator Harradine —No, I do not. I know some are. The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is too much cross talk in the chamber. Senator Grimes has the call. Senator Harradine —Why are you bringing in the Medicare legislation the way you are? Senator GRIMES —But, with due respect, that is not the point the honourable senator brought up in presenting his amendment. I accept his genuine concern that the existence of the card in the hands of a young person will enable him to do something that he would not otherwise be able to do. That just is not so. Possession of the card does not ensure that the doctor will provide the treatment that one may or may not like and it does not inhibit the patient from getting it otherwise. Quite apart from the fact that people can get attention from a hospital, or an out-patient or other clinic, this card, which has been given mystical power in various newspaper articles and in questions from Senator Bjelke-Petersen and others in this place, is in fact an identification card. It will facilitate getting claims through. We oppose the amendment because, first of all, we do not believe, as Senator Harradine believes or suspects, that the existence of the card in the hands of kids will make any difference at all. Secondly, we believe the side effects of restrictions like this will certainly be very much greater than any of the problems that Senator Harradine apparently perceives. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.31) —Can the Minister clarify what happens if parents apply for a family card for their children? Are they then entitled to get another card, at the same time? Senator Grimes —Yes. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I substitute a second version of my amendment and accordingly move: Page 34, sub-clause 67 (1), at end of proposed new section 5, add the following new sub-section: '(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) authorizes the Commission so to perform the functions referred to in that sub-section as to permit the issue of a Medicare card to a child who has not attained the age of 18 years and in respect of whom the family allowance is paid without the authority of the child's parent or guardian, or of a person authorized by the child's parent or guardian to give such authority.'. There has been a little bit of debate about this matter, but I do not think it has clarified the situation at all. Extraneous matters have been raised. I will deal with one that was raised by Senator Haines. She seemed to suggest that if any young person between the ages of, say, 13 and 16-the age of confusion, of crisis of identity-succumbs to peer group pressure- Senator Crowley —Oh! Senator HARRADINE —Obviously Senator Crowley does not know what I am talking about, but anybody who has had anything to do with a good number of children will know-any parent ought to know-what I am talking about and that I am correct . Children in that age group who are suffering from an identity crisis-as many of them are-are susceptible to peer group pressure and to financial and other exploitation. Senator Haines seems to suggest that if they succumb to that peer group pressure or to exploitation, it is the problem and fault of the parents- because they have not done the right thing over time. I reject that suggestion completely. It is utter nonsense. In fact, it is the responsibility of this Parliament to ensure that the laws of our nation recognise the various phases, psychological and otherwise, that the human being goes through. It is for that reason that I raise this amendment here today. Nothing that has been said convinces me that given possession of the card by young people, an unscrupulous doctor will be prevented from exploiting them and by 'exploitation' I mean financial exploitation. Senator Grimes has said that the only reason for the issue of the card is that it facilitates the claim being paid; that it does not entitle the person who possesses it to medical advice or treatment. But what he is not saying is that once people front up to clinics a number of doctors will immedately ask: 'Have you got your Medicare card?' If they have not and unless they have illnesses which need urgent attention, the doctors' advice will be: 'You had better see somebody about it'. Patients will then be able to go to another doctor, who will say: 'Yes, I will give you the advice'. Presumably that doctor will say: 'In order to ensure that I get the payment through quickly, here is a form from the Medicare organisation, the Health Insurance Commission. Fill out this form and I will send it along with the bill to the HIC and you will be issued with a card'. I ask the Minister whether that will occur. Will the medicos have forms from the HIC for patients to fill in, and will the doctors then send in those forms with their bulk bill? Presumably that will be the case. In effect, from the point of view of a doctor who wants quick payment for his services, possession of the card is all important. Therefore, indirectly, the delivery of the service depends on the possession of the card in that instance. If that is not the case, there is no need to worry about the card at all. Why have a card? Obviously, anybody who fronts up to a doctor, firstly, has been born and secondly is alive and presumably a citizen of this country. Senator Crowley —Why do we have Bankcard? Senator HARRADINE —We have Bankcard to get the services of a bank. That is what I am coming to. We will have a Medicare card to get the medical and hospital services which Medicare will provide. Senator Peter Baume —If someone does not have a card a doctor can make arrangements for that person to get one, whether it is through that person's parents or whether it is direct-- Senator HARRADINE —That is exactly the point I am making. Senator Peter Baume —I am confused as to why it is important that it not be direct. You are saying it must be through the family. Senator HARRADINE —I am attempting to ensure that the family situation is not disturbed, particularly in a case of teenagers who are in a period when identity crises can arise. Senator Peter Baume —That is the essence of your amendment, isn't it? Senator HARRADINE —Yes, of course it is. I seek to ensure that those persons are not open to either financial exploitation or peer group pressure. If they are- which, of course, they will be-the families, who will have to pick up the pieces in the end anyhow, will know at the earliest possible stage of any problems that might arise, problems that are created by financial exploitation or peer group pressure. That seems to me to be an eminently reasonable proposition. We are all talking about the need to have the problem identified early in the piece so that people can consider it. And who best to consider it than the family? It is suggested that there are people outside this situation who need to be issued with a Medicare card. I refer to people in institutions and people whose parents are not responsible for their care, custody, guardianship and so on. Of course, the test in that case is whether the parents receive the family allowance. I cannot see any difference between the test that has been applied to the issue of health care cards and the issue of Medicare cards. The Minister said that a person did not necessarily need a health care card to receive medical attention or advice. He also alleged that the possession of a Medicare card does not entitle a person to receive medical advice or services. Yet, health care cards are not issued to children. On page 140 of the Hansard report of Estimates Committee B, Mr MacMahon is quoted as saying: Children under the age of 16 are precluded from these cards if the parent is in receipt of family allowance for them. So, what is the difference? What is the difference between the application of that principle for the health care card and the application of the principle for the Medicare card if, as the Minister says, neither card entitles the holder to medical services or advice? I ask the Minister frankly whether he envisages the possibility that medicos will provide services only if the people in partciular cities in the age group we are talking about have a Medicare card because those doctors want for their services rapid payment which, according to the Minister, the Medicare card will facilitate? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.44) —As to the latter question, of course there will be such doctors. There always have been such doctors. There will even be some doctors who, I dare say, will refuse to treat anyone who comes in with a Medicare card. Members of the General Practitioners Society have done that in the past in respect of pensioner medical cards. There is a distinction between the health care card and the Medicare card. Of course, no bit of paper or anything else entitles a person to walk into a doctor's surgery and demand treatment. I think we have to be clear about that. No payment is made to a doctor if a health care card is not presented. As I said payment can be made in the case of the Medicare card even though it may be delayed. We persist in our opposition to the amendment. I accept the concerns of Senator Harradine, Senator Walters and others. But I make the point that that concern is part of a general concern that they have about their perception of what is happening in our society and what is happening to young people in our society. I believe that it is wrong to think that the introduction of Medicare and the Medicare card will exacerbate that situation. I believe that the harm that will be done to some people in society by what I think one must admit is a fairly hastily drawn up amendment of this type, without considering the ramifications of restricting the card in this way, does not justify the passage of this amendment. It is for that reason that the Government, as it did in the other place, expresses its opposition to this sort of amendment. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 68 to 70-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 71 (Prescribed functions). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.47) —I rise only to indicate that the Opposition opposes clause 71. It is part of the arrangements which put Medicare into place. The clause sets up the Health Insurance Commission. It provides that the Commission shall perform such functions as are prescribed by regulations. We believe that this is almost a Henry VIII clause. We have not talked a lot about this but the same objections we had to earlier clauses in the Bill apply to this clause. I indicate that the Opposition does not support the clause. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.48) — This is the area in respect of which I presume Senator Haines, as the spokesman for the Australian Democrats, orginally agreed that her party would support the Opposition. On 13 July 1983, she put out a joint Press statement with our shadow Minister for Health, Mr Carlton, and Senator Harradine which in part read: We do not accept that the centralisation of basic insurance under Medibank is a necessary part of the Government's Medicare proposals. That statement still stands. This clause is not a necessary part of the Medicare proposals. It is possible to implement the philosophy or the ideology behind Medicare with the non-centralisation of its administration. Such an arrangement would enable all the funds to be able to conduct their business in the way they have. The jobs of 5,000 people will be saved and the administration of the system would be able to be kept much cheaper than would be the case under Medicare. I suppose this is the last possible occasion on which we can ask the Democrats to join us in allowing Medicare to go forward but in not permitting the centralisation of the administration area. I appeal to the Australian Democrats to adopt that course. Clause agreed to. Clause 72 agreed to. Clause 73. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.50) —I move: Page 36, clause 73, after proposed new sub-section 8J (2), insert the following sub-section: '(3) Sections 48, 49, 49A and 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply in relation to directions under sub-section (1) as if in those sections references to regulations were references to directions, references to a regulation were references to a direction and references to a repeal were references to a revocation.'. Clause 73 provides that the Commission is subject to the Minister's directions and that any direction received by the Commission will be included in the Commission's annual report. I will not go over all the arguments, but I simply say that this is one of those occasions when we believe that any such direction should be subject to parliamentary disallowance for the reasons which we set out last night in relation to other matters. It is entirely appropriate that this kind of direction come before the Parliament and that the Parliament have a chance to examine it. I commend the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 73, as amended, agreed to. Clause 74 agreed to. Clauses 75 to 84-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 85 agreed to. Clauses 86 and 87-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 88 to 100-by leave-taken together. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.52) —I desire to place on record again the opposition that we have to this group of clauses which are new provisions relating to matters such as diversification of activities of registered funds. It is part of the package by which we believe that the funds have been weakened. We advanced the arguments during the second reading debate. I wish to record our opposition. Clauses agreed to. Clause 101. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.53) —The last two amendments which the Opposition wishes to move relate to clause 101 and clause 107. I circulated last night copies of an amendment to this clause. The amendment has been circulated in two forms. I indicate that I will be moving a pair of amendments which appear on our sheet as Nos 6 and 7. I will read them out to make sure that the Committee understands them. Amendment No. 6 refers to clause 101, line 41 and will leave out the word 'notice' and insert the word 'direction'. Amendment No. 7 relates to clause 107, line 20. At the end of the clause the following words are added: 'and substituting ''or served under sub-section 73BAC (2)''.'. I have varied the original form of the amendment on the advice of counsel. This will enable us more adequately to achieve what we were setting out to achieve with the amendment as we originally circulated it. The CHAIRMAN —You may speak to both of the amendments for clarity, but at the moment you should move the amendment to clause 101. Senator PETER BAUME —I move: (6) Page 53, clause 101, line 41, leave out 'notice', insert 'direction'. I will speak to both amendments. The first is a fairly simple matter. The Minister for Health is able to issue certain revocations of existing approvals under this clause. We simply wish to provide that there be parliamentary scrutiny of any revocation. The revocations would in fact have the effect of stopping the activities of registered organisations. The redrafting has led to a situation where the revocations would not take effect until the Parliament had had a chance to look at them. That is simply because the revocations would have the effect of ending the business activities of the people involved. I commend the amendment. It is simply another case of having the Parliament oversight certain Executive decisions. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.56) —We accept the amendment. Although we think it may create some difficulties, it is acceptable. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 102 to 106-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 107 (Directions subject to Parliamentary disallowance). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.57) —I move: (7) Page 56, clause 107, line 20, at end of clause, add 'and substituting ''or served under sub-section 73BAC (2)''.' This matter has already been referred to in Committee. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 108 to 131-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Postponed clause 38 (Agreements with States and Northern Territory for provision of hospital services). Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.58) -Since the matter was last discussed in the chamber the letter to which the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) referred has been copied and made available to interested honourable senators. I have now also received a copy of a telex which went from the Premier of Tasmania to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the matter. It refers to the letter to which Senator Grimes has referred. I seek leave to table that telex so that the correspondence is complete. I have made it available to the Government. Leave granted. Senator PETER RAE —The further complication is that in three minutes time there will be a meeting between the Tasmanian Minister for Health, Mr Cleary, and the Federal Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, to discuss the subject matter that has been referred to already in some considerable detail. I am assured that it is a matter of very real substance to the State of Tasmania. In the correspondence it is pointed out how there is a very significant difference between what Tasmania was led to believe as a result of previous meetings and what was provided for in the Federal Budget which was introduced last month. That makes a difference of $ 4.5m immediately. I hope that the Australian Democrats are taking a legitimate interest in this and in particular, being concerned about the interests of a State and the people of a State being protected in this chamber, they will support some deferral of this matter so that the discussions taking place almost at this moment can be made known to us. I understand that arrangements have been made between the Government and others about the passage of this Bill so that the amendments can go back to the House of Representatives. I point out that clause 38 of the Bill is not essential to the Bill in any event. It is something which simply seeks to remove section 30 of the existing Health Insurance Act. If the Government's case is correct, that is, that there is an agreement to vary the cost sharing agreement, it does not need to repeal section 30 of the principal Act. I hope that the Democrats and the Independent senator from Tasmania will support an action to defer clause 38 of this legislation until after a meeting has taken place between the two Ministers and a report of the meeting has been received. I invite the Minister for Social Security to respond to that suggestion. Senator GRIMES —(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) (12.00)-The simple fact of the matter is that what Senator Peter Rae is asking us to do is to delay legislation on matters of principle because, coincidentally, a meeting happens to be taking place between the Tasmanian Minister for Health and the Commonwealth Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). Senator Walters —It is not a coincidence. Senator Peter Rae —It is to try to resolve the dispute. Senator GRIMES —I know, but it is coincidentally taking place right now. The meeting might have been held next week or even in three weeks time but it happens to be taking place now. Let me clarify the situation. I believe the telex that Senator Peter Rae was kind enough to give me to read this morning-the telex which apparently according to him lays down the greatest concern of the Tasmanian Government-demonstrates either a great misconception on the part of the Tasmanian Government or that the Tasmanian Government is politicking in a silly way. Prior to the Health Ministers Conference on 15 June, that was before the Premiers Conference, the Commonwealth held a meeting of officers to provide financial details of the Medicare arrangements which were to be discussed at the Conference. Papers were circulated which outlined quite clearly the basis of the Medicare compensation grant. A document at that time clearly pointed out: States will continue to receive revenue from lagged payments at 1983 rates for an average of six weeks after February 1984. In other words, compensation for revenue losses will therefore commence from 15 March 1984. The Tasmanian Government and Mr Cleary have used 1 February and taken five-twelfths when in fact Mr Cleary should be using 15 March. The Commonwealth has estimated that there will be some shift from private to public patient status in public hospitals. This, however, on the basis of experience will not occur immediately. For the Commonwealth to meet the cost of the full estimated shift it would have to pay Tasmania in advance for a factor that in fact may not even occur, and we are not allowed to do that in our budgetary estimates in this Parliament. We have to estimate as accurately as possible. A similar thing has happened in relation to the estimates in the Budget for the freight equalisation scheme. The Commonwealth has agreed to meet the actual shift on the basis of information which is to be provided by the State. The difference that Senator Peter Rae and the Tasmanian Minister talk about arises because of the different date of calculation. There has been a misconception or a misreading of the documents that the Health Ministers' officials discussed or in fact someone is being mischievous. I just do not think that in this place we should delay an important package of legislation-a package which I might add it was agreed last night would be passed today-on the basis of a meeting which happens to be taking place this morning. It is a meeting about detail, not about principle. The Ministers at last are doing the right thing in discussing the details of the arrangements between the States. The principles were agreed to and have been agreed to for some months. I have had dealings with the Tasmanian Government over another issue. I know how it operates. I am not necessarily blaming it for operating that way; we all operate that way, I suppose, in some cases. But to come into this place and say, just because a meeting is being held at midday today, that the legislation should be held up I think is an improper use of this chamber of review. Therefore, the Government cannot agree to it. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.05) -The letter that was photostated for us, the reason for seeking a delay, made no mention at all of the letter of the Premier of Tasmania. As Senator Peter Rae has already indicated, the two Health Ministers are meeting at this moment. I do not believe for one moment that a delay of half an hour or an hour would make any difference to the legislation being passed today. I can see no problem in the Minister for Social Security agreeing to a delay of a couple of hours. The legislation would still reach the House of Representatives and would still be passed today. However, the Minister for Health in Tasmania is in Canberra seeking a meeting with the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp, to try to make the Australian Democrats understand this situation. Senator Chipp has refused to see Mr Cleary. Senator Chipp said he has read the letters and he will not bother seeing Mr Cleary. Senator Grimes said that it is a coincidence that the Ministers are meeting today. That is not right; it is not a coincidence. Dr Blewett is going away. Mr Cleary particularly sought a meeting before Dr Blewett went away. There is no great coincidence about it. Mr Cleary is meeting with Dr Blewett on this specific issue. Senator Grimes —I said it is coincidental with this debate. Senator WALTERS —Senator Grimes said that the meeting could have been held next week or the week after. It is a coincidence that this legislation is being passed today and the Ministers are meeting, prior to it being passed, to see whether they can come to some agreement. We should delay the legislation in this place a couple of hours until that meeting has concluded. We have at the moment still in operation an agreement that was signed by a former Premier of Tasmania, Mr Neilson, and the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser . That agreement has not formally been concluded. It has not formally been torn up. It is an agreement by which the Tasmanian Government still abides. It still denies that there is any agreement to replace the one over those two signatures. In Tasmania at the moment an agreement is being reached between the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Premier of Tasmania about compensation for the South West. Again, two signatures will be required. Is that piece of paper going to be as worthless as the other piece of paper which was signed by Mr Neilson and Mr Fraser appears to be? Is the Government going to say: 'In a couple of years time , if we do not like that agreement, we will alter it by the weight of our numbers. We will be able to change our agreement in that way'. Is that agreement going to be worthless too? How reliable is this Government if we cannot rely on it to abide by a document which was signed by a Premier and a Prime Minister? Until it is agreed that the current agreement should be no longer continued I am sure that the people of Australia consider that that agreement should still stand. The Premier's letter to Mr Hawke dated 15 September-not long ago-stated: At the very least the Tasmanian Government would seek deferral of consideration of Clause 38- That clause gets rid of the agreement- of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill, and an early reply on the matters raised in our recent meeting in Hobart. In this connection, I would point out that in the course of discussions with your Treasurer (Honourable P. J. Keating) at the Premiers' Conference- He had discussions with the Treasurer (Mr Keating), not a conversation in the corridor, as Senator Grimes said. Senator Grimes ridiculed the Premier and said that he had been talking to the Treasurer in the corridor. The letter continued: I indicated that I was not happy with the terms of the draft communique in view of Tasmania's current cost sharing arrangements and the fact that a number of matters still required clarification. I suggested that it would be appropriate for the communique to be amended accordingly. The Premier asked Mr Keating for the communique to be amended accordingly- However, following the Treasurer's assurance that there would be ample time and opportunity for further discussion on the new Medicare proposals as they affected Tasmania, I did not raise the matter any further in Premiers' Conference. The Premier took the word of the Treasurer in discussions that this proposal would not do away with the cost sharing agreement. Yet because it was not in writing, because there was no signature, the Government does not acknowledge that that conversation took place. Senator Grimes derides it by saying that they chatted in the corridors and that if that is the way the Premier of Tasmania does business it is no wonder Tasmania is as it is. That is a disgraceful attitude. Senator Grimes says that he knows the way in which the Tasmanian Government behaves and that it is just playing politics. That is not true. The Premier had conversations and discussions with the Treasurer. The Treasurer assured him that there would be ample time and opportunity. Now, of course, he does not even acknowledge that discussion. It is now 12 minutes past 12 o'clock. The meeting between the two Ministers for Health should be over within the hour. I ask the Minister for Social Security to delay this clause for an hour until the discussions are over and the position is clarified. I appeal to the Government to do that at least. It will not stop the legislation passing both Houses today. One hour will not make any difference. Surely the Government's honour is at stake. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.13) —Senator Walters talked about agreements, about arrangements and about breaking arrangements. Let me tell honourable senators about an agreement and an arrangement. At 11 o'clock last night in this chamber we had the capacity to pass this legislation and we did not pass it. The reason we did not pass it at 11 o'clock last night was that an agreement was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) that we would pass the legislation this morning. Senator Walters is not taking any notice of that agreement. Senator Tate —Where is your leader? Senator GRIMES —Where is the Opposition leader? The Opposition is filibustering in the way it has so often in the past. The reason I object to and oppose the delay in the passage of this legislation is that the argument that has been presented here by Senator Peter Rae, quite justifiably, from Mr Cleary's letter is demonstrably wrong. Mr Cleary is claiming that the State of Tasmania should receive a compensatory grant based on five-twelfths of the estimated payment for Tasmania in a full year from 1 February, when every other State realises that because of the six-week lag the payments should start on 15 March. If that is the only argument which the Opposition has to go on there is no justification for the Committee delaying this legislation. It should not be delayed because, coincidentally, there happens to be a meeting between the State Minister and the Federal Minister today. If we had done what we had intended to do last night, this legislation would have been through; it should have been through. Because of the interference of the Leader of the Opposition it did not go through. Now Senator Walters in particular is taking advantage of that and is willing to delay the passage of this legislation. On behalf of the Government, I am not willing to accept that attitude. Senator Walters mentioned the fact that the Premier was somewhat concerned after the Premiers Conference because he had come to an arrangement, in a conversation with the Treasurer (Mr Keating), about fixing up details arising out of the communique and the health care program. I made the comment last night , I believe, that I found it extraordinary that the Premier of a State would sign a communique and then say he did not really mean to sign it, that he signed it only because of a conversation he had with the Treasurer who assured him that things would be fixed up later. That may or may not be so, but I still find it extraordinary. I do not deny that the conversation took place. We know that it took place because on 28 July the Commonwealth Government wrote to the State Premier and the State Government saying: 'We know there are things to discuss. Come up here, with or without your officials, and discuss them.' They did not do so. This is absolutely typical of the approach of the Tasmanian Premier not only on this matter but also on the negotiations on the dam compensation. The only evidence which has been presented to the Committee to justify delaying this clause and the legislation is Mr Cleary's claim in the letter which Senator Peter Rae gave us earlier-I accept that he did it in all good faith-that $4m-odd is missing. I think that is demonstrably not so. On the basis of that little bit of evidence I do not believe the Committee should delay the legislation while two Ministers are talking. We do not know how long they will be talking. They may talk for four hours. In any case, the commitment was given last night. It might not mean anything to Senator Walters, but I am sure it means something to her Leader. Senator Peter Baume —She was not party to it. Senator GRIMES —She was here. I saw Senator Chaney go and talk to her about it. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.17) —There seems to be some misunderstanding. As I understand it, the proposal by Senator Peter Rae does not seek to hold up the legislation. Senator Tate —He is not. She is. Senator HARRADINE —As I understand it, if Senator Rae's proposition is adopted, the legislation will not be held up. The legislation can go forward. The Government could then introduce a subsequent piece of legislation, when there is an agreement between the parties, to repeal the cost sharing agreement. The proposal in clause 38 smacks of retrospective legislation. The explanatory memorandum explains that the clause repeals clause 30 of the principal Act which authorises the Commonwealth to enter into agreements with a State. That agreement has been entered into. It was entered into between the then Premier of the State, Mr Neilson, and the then Federal Government. There were provisions in the agreement and in the principal Act, I think, which indicated how that agreement would be implemented and terminated. The measures for termination did not include unilateral legislation by the Commonwealth Parliament. It is fair for honourable senators from a particular State to try to understand the attitude of the government of that State and the attitude of the Commonwealth Government. I would be disturbed if unnecessary delays occurred on this question, but I am not convinced that the Parliament should take unilateral action to terminate an agreement made in accordance with the principal Act whereby the termination clause does not permit the Commonwealth Parliament to take unilateral action. I believe that we as a Parliament, particularly as an upper House, have a responsibilitiy to ensure that the rights of the States in these matters are upheld. If honourable senators from other States do not want to enter into this debate or do not want to vote on it, let only those senators from Tasmania vote on it and see what happens. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Harradine, I wish to clarify a point of procedure. It would not be possible for the Committee to postpone the consideration of clause 38 and pass the remainder of the Bill. Clause 38 would have to be deleted for that to be possible. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.20) —I can understand Senator Harradine beating the local drum. I understand Senator Harradine's proposal that we should not do anything in this place until we know what is in the mind of the Tasmanian Government. I suggest that all one could do in those circumstances would be to bring the Premier and perhaps the Minister for Health up here every time the legislation came before this place. Let me explain what happened. At the Premiers Conference, the Treasurer, Paul Keating, said, in words that could hardly be clearer: I emphasise that the Commonwealth's attitude towards the amount of any additional borrowing programs-- that is, the whole borrowing program- it is prepared to support will also be heavily contingent on the States agreeing to the proposals for compensating the States for new health arrangements under Medicare on the basis put forward by the Minister for Health on 15 June, 1983 subject to the changes which we will later be proposing in Premiers Conference. At the end of the Premiers Conference a communique was signed and agreed to by the Premier of Tasmania. I have quoted that communique here about 14 times. I have pointed out that the Commonwealth-State hospital agreements between Tasmania and South Australia would be terminated but that there were details to be worked out. A health Ministers meeting was held on 14 July. The Tasmanian Minister for Health did not open his bib, did not say a thing, about those arrangements being unsatisfactory and that they were still negotiating. On 28 July the Federal Government wrote to the Premier of Tasmania and said that it knew there were details to be worked out. The Government asked the Tasmanian Government to send its officials up to talk about it. It did not. Today a telex is sent from the Tasmanian Minister for Health, Mr Cleary, to the Federal Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, complaining that what is really wrong is that Tasmania did not get enough because five-twelfths of the grant worked out, as from 1 February, would be $11m-I think it was-and in fact there was not an amount of $11m in the Budget . Because of the six weeks lag in compensation payments, the basis of the calculation had to be from 15 March. In fact, the actual cost of any shift from private to public patients in the hospitals-not the estimated cost-will eventually be met. The whole basis of that document is that calculation, and that calculation is wrong. For heaven's sake, are this chamber and this Parliament to be stood over by every Premier and State Minister for Health who carries on in that way-who signs communiques he does not agree with when asked for details, does not come to Canberra and in fact provide them-- Senator Tate —And when he does they are wrong. Senator GRIMES —And who eventually provides details, as Senator Tate says, that are wrong. They come up to Canberra on the day that the debate happens to be on and Opposition senators from Tasmania and elsewhere say: 'Look, the Ministers are meeting; let us hold up this legislation. Let us leave this clause here and send the rest of the Bill over to the House of Representatives.' That is impossible without defeating the clause. It is an irresponsible way for us to operate. Governments which conduct government to government relations in that way will find it impossible to operate. There is no question that Tasmania and South Australia have agreed that the Commonwealth-State hospital cost-sharing agreements will end under Medicare. Tasmanians will be gravely disadvantaged if they do not come under Medicare. The Ministers are today debating details, not principles. This Bill is about principle. We should pass this legislation without obstruction, as was guaranteed, as was stated by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) last night. It will be an increasing problem in this place if the Leader of the Opposition makes statements like that and people like Senator Walters ride roughshod over them whenever they choose. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.23) —To begin with, I am not filibustering. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) has just taken five minutes to speak. I have taken no more than a couple of minutes each time I have risen to my feet. If the Minister wants to filibuster and blame the Opposition, that is his problem. I say to the Minister that he had better quote accurately from the letters. On 14 July he said that the Tasmanian Minister did not open his mouth, that he was not concerned about it. Dr Blewett said at that stage that there would be need for officer to officer decisions with the two cost-sharing States and that he had written a letter to indicate this to South Australia and Tasmania. That is why there was no discussion about it. The Minister said then that there would be officer to officer discussions. Again, Senator Grimes said that, in response to the request of 28 July, the Tasmanian Government would not send officers up. Do honourable senators know what that request was? The request concluded by stating that Mr Cleary was to set in train arrangements for the Tasmanian Premier to write to the Prime Minister seeking a formal termination of the current hospital cost-sharing agreement from 31 January 1984 in accordance with section 23 of the States (Tax Sharing Grants) Act. Why would the Premier do that? Naturally, he would not. No agreement had been reached. It was not the case that officers would not come up here. Dr Blewett was asking the Premier to sign a termination. Senator Grimes ought to get his facts straight. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(12.25) — In an endeavour to bring the matter to finality, I move: That further consideration of clause 38 be postponed. In doing so I quickly reiterate that there are matters of concern which have been outlined. I do not think it is entirely accurate for Senator Grimes to suggest that the matter is so simple. If it is so simple agreement should have been reached long ago. There are questions of increases in costs over the next nearly two years, as well as matters relating to $4.5m to which reference has been made which have to be determined. Clause 38 which I have moved be adjourned is really only for the purpose of repealing section 30 of the principal Act. I have referred already to that. The Health Legislation Amendment Bill could go ahead satisfactorily without that clause. I would be happy to listen to any suggestion that the Minister may make in relation to any way of achieving finality. We certainly do not wish to see broken any agreements that have been reached. That is why we are concerned about this matter. We believe that, if this were allowed to go ahead, it would involve a breach of an agreement which is actually in statute. The statute is section 22 of the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act which requires any termination of the agreement to be in writing under the hand of the Premier of Tasmania. That certainly is not the case in this instance. My motion is offered in the hope of resolving the matter. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.27) —I have nothing more to add. Senator Walters mentioned the fact that Dr Blewett spoke about the need for further discussions on 14 July. Of course he did. He spoke about it at every meeting they have had and been able to negotiate at. Senator Peter Rae added only one new factor, that the Tasmanian Minister wants to talk about cost increases in future years, et cetera, et cetera. That is the shopping list I was talking about. That is the shopping list that is outside the Medicare agreements . In fact, the actual costs of the shift from private to public hospitals will be met by the Government. Agreements for compensation payments will be met by the Commonwealth Government. I think really that it is absolutely outrageous that one State Minister and one State Premier who made an agreement at the Premiers Conference and have been fiddling around ever since should be able to come here and stand over their State senators in an effort to-- Senator Peter Rae —Are you assuring us that there is no reason for concern about cost increases? Is that your assurance? Senator GRIMES —There is no reason for concern at all about cost increases. Senator Peter Rae —They will be covered by the Commonwealth? Senator GRIMES —There is an escalation factor in the agreement and there always has been. We have always negotiated that. If we are going to do this, I warn the Committee that it will give the green light to every State Premier and every State Minister, when legislation such as this comes up, to come here and stand over this Parliament and the Government and say: 'Sure, we agreed with something back in July but we are not quite happy with it now'. Because there may be an election coming up, or for all sorts of reasons, they may demand that their State senators delay legislation. It is an outrageous proposition and I urge the Committee to reject it. Question put: That further consideration of clause 38 be postponed. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. Boswell, R. L. D. Lajovic, M. E. Carrick, Sir John Lewis, A. W. R. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Withers, R. G. Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Button, J. N. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Mason, C. V. J. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. Evans, Jack Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. McIntosh, G. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Hearn, J. M. Scott, D. B. Primmer, C. G. Martin, K. J. Cook, P. F. S. Watson, J. O. W. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Senator Walters —Mr Chairman, I ask when the Bill to impose the Medicare levy will be called on. The CHAIRMAN —That is the next Bill. The second reading of that Bill would have to be passed. Although there was a common second reading debate, the Bills are being passed and considered in Committee separately. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 20 September 1983, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.39) —I ask the Minister for Social Security ( Senator Grimes) why it is that the Government is not imposing a different levy in each State. The levy at the moment takes over from the health insurance contribution rates that were applicable in the various States. The State from which I come-and certainly this is also the case in Queensland-pays a far lower rate for basic hospital and medical table insurance than the larger States. Indeed, when one takes off the 30 per cent rebate, people in Tasmania pay $6.79 for basic hospital and medical cover, while people in New South Wales pay $9.80. That is a 30 per cent difference-a quite considerable difference. If the one per cent levy is uniform throughout Australia Tasmanian people will be greatly disadvantaged. As it is, doctors in Tasmania do not charge the same schedule fee as doctors in other States do. Last evening when this matter was being debated I had incorporated in Hansard a table showing some of the fees charged. For instance, a general practitioner's standard consultation fee is $12.40 in Tasmania, whereas in New South Wales it is $13.20. Referral to a specialist in Tasmania costs $31.50; in New South Wales the fee is $38. A visit to a consultant physician costs $60 in Tasmania and $66 in New South Wales. The fee for a confinement by a specialist in New South Wales is $255 and in Tasmania it is $192-the same as a general practitioner charges in New South Wales. A general practitioner in New South Wales charges $192 for a confinement, but in Tasmania the fee is $154. An appendicectomy costs $172 in New South Wales and $150 in Tasmania. There is a vast difference in the amount that patients have to pay. There is a 30 per cent difference in the contribution rate, and I ask the Government why it is that Tasmanians and certainly Queenslanders will be disadvantaged by a uniform levy of one per cent when already Tasmania pays 30 per cent less than New South Wales in contribution rates for the same services. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.42) —In brief, the answer to Senator Walters is that section 51 (ii) of the Constitution of this country, which she is so keen to defend, refers to 'Taxation, but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States'. Of course that is only partly the answer. Senator Walters —It is not an answer at all. Senator GRIMES —It is a perfectly valid answer. If Senator Walters is suggesting that we ignore section 51 of the Constitution and apply a different levy in each State, I suggest she talk to some of the people from the High Court of Australia whom she so frequently quotes. She should talk to Sir Harry Gibbs; she is always quoting him. Of course Senator Walters is right: Medical fees tend to be lower in Tasmania than in other States, and contributions to voluntary health funds tend to be lower there than they are in other States. There is something about swings and roundabouts. I suggest that the good senator look at the tax reimbursement to Tasmania per capita, for instance, and talk to some of her colleagues about the level of tax reimbursement to Tasmania compared to, say, Victoria which Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle represents or New South Wales which Senator Baume represents. She might get some arguments which would make Tasmania quite happy to accept the one per cent levy across the board, as long as it gets the tax reimbursements that it gets now. The simple answer is, firstly, that this is done because it is constitutional and, secondly, because it is a sensible way to do it in the Federation as we have it. Tasmania gets it back in other ways. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without requests; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 20 September 1983, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(12.46) —I ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) for some advice. On page 4 of the Income Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy) Bill, under the heading 'Prescribed persons', a series of statements about the levy payable by certain personnel, including Defence Force personnel, is set out. A problem has been raised on which some clarification is needed. As I understand it, Defence Force personnel pay no levy . I understand that a Defence Force person with a wife who earns no income is to pay a contribution to the levy on behalf of his wife. Defence Force personnel think that if their wife is an income earner, she will be required to pay the levy herself. They are concerned that they also will still be required to pay the partial contribution in respect of their wife. So there are several questions. Are the concerns of the Defence Force personnel correct, in that if they have a working wife they will end up paying twice because of her contribution? I understand that the Defence Force personnel are prepared to make some contribution to the levy in respect of a dependent wife with no income, but they see no reason why they should pay any levy if the wife has her own income and is paying a full levy herself. It is really a question of detail. We are anxious to know what the facts are. I would be grateful for the Minister's advice. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.48) —As Senator Baume says, a member of the defence forces who, as part of his conditions, is covered by the medical services in the defence forces, does not pay a levy on behalf of himself; nor does he pay a levy if he has dependants who are also covered by that agreement. If he has dependants who are not covered he pays a percentage of the levy, as Senator Baume says, to cover them. If his wife works, she, like everyone else who has a taxable income-if her income is over the threshold-pays the levy, and in those circumstances he also continues to pay that part levy. I think it is wrong to consider coverage under Medicare as just covering a period that a person spends in the Services. It covers a lifetime's contribution towards a health scheme, and the Government thinks it is reasonable that that situation apply and continue to apply. Senator Peter Baume —Are you saying, then, that in that circumstance there would be two payments in respect of that wife-one she makes herself and one made by her husband as a part payment? Senator GRIMES —I think the situation is completely analogous to the one I brought up last night. A single income family and a two-income family both pay the levy on their incomes. In this case the serviceman would pay a proportion of the levy on his income, whether or not his wife is working. If one is to draw comparisons between incomes of Defence Force families and incomes of other families, it is sensible that that levy should apply across the incomes which are leviable. I think that is a reasonable way to put it. Therefore, that is the situation. I do not see it as analogous with that described by Senator Peter Baume. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(12.50) —Given that response from the Minister, can he now explain what happens with the various ceilings that will apply in respect of a spouse? We have only been talking about wives, but I presume there are female defence service personnel who actually have husbands in the work force. What will happen with the upper income level, dependent children, and so forth? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.51) —I am informed by my advisers that the ceiling is arrived at by first calculating that ceiling under the normal rules and then reducing it by the amount for which the serviceman himself is covered. Senator Haines —So in the event of a defence service family the top ceiling is lower than it is for a family outside the defence forces? Senator GRIMES —Indeed, it is. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 20 September 1983, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(12.53) —I reiterate the objections that have been previously raised. It is obvious from the numbers that there is no point in my doing more than reiterate the objection to the fact that an agreement entered into is being overruled by legislative action of this Parliament on a unilateral basis. It is clear, though, that the Australian Democrats are not prepared to support us in protecting the interests of Tasmania from being run over by the Commonwealth. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.54) —The Government rejects the nonsensical statement by Senator Peter Rae. An agreement in fact was made at the Premiers Conference. The Premier of Tasmania with other Premiers signed it. The Minister for Health from Tasmania and the Commonwealth Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) have since been negotiating on the details of the matter . To suggest that this Government or this Parliament is trampling over the rights of the States might be good for a column in the Launceston Examiner tomorrow, but it does not stand up to any close scrutiny. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Debate resumed. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(12.55) -In this matter of public importance we are considering: The adverse impact on employment of the Government's broken promises and the total confusion caused by this divided Government's public disarray over its manufacturing industry policy. The election of the Government was, I believe, a reflection of a very widespread concern in Australia amongst electors for future employment opportunities. Seeing a position in which there was an increasing percentage of unemployment, electors opted for a change of government in the belief that it would be possible for the promises-I would describe them as rather wild and extravagant- made by the then Opposition to be fulfilled. In the words that were used by one of the Labor Party's State Premiers and adopted by others, the election campaign and the economic policy required by the people of Australia were about jobs, jobs, jobs. The present Government promised that it would provide those jobs. During the election campaign it campaigned on the basis that it would adopt what I would describe as a Mitterrand approach-that is, it would adopt a policy in which it would, by fairly massive spending and by other fiscal stimulatory measures, expand the economy and ensure that jobs were created. It very promptly changed from the Mitterrand approach to what might be described as the Stone approach. It might also be described as the Thatcher or Reagan approach. There are those in the community who find it difficult to see how the economic policies being adopted by this Government differ from those of the previous Government. I wish to point out a number of significant places wherein this Government's policies differ from those of the previous Government to the detriment of Australia. The National Economic Summit Conference was well summed up by an editorial in the Australian of Tuesday, 13 September, in which it was stated: Without any doubt, the outcome of the summit was all about improving the living standards of those still left with jobs and not about making the maximum effort to help those without them. That summarises the concern of the Opposition with the fact that this Government is continuing to adopt a policy under which it goes soft on wage demands and the wage pause which the former Government put into effect. It goes soft on those who already have jobs at the expense of those who have not. It was upon those who have not that the election campaign was centred, and because of them the election result was as it was. Therefore, it is a matter of public importance, it is a matter of great concern, that these various policies, which I will outline, are doing nothing for the creation of greater employment opportunities in Australia. The most extraordinary good fortune has followed on the most extraordinary bad fortune. The good fortune is that the drought has broken. The bad fortune is that the former Government had to fight an election campaign at the height of the bad effects of the drought. Those effects were very extensive. They did not apply directly only to the rural sector. Besides affecting the rural sector, the drought had all sorts of flow-on effects, for example, on manufacturing industry . It adversely affected the whole of the economy and all rural Australia, not only those on the land but also those associated with rural towns, transport and the like. The drought has broken and that advantage has accrued to Australia. It is clear that the wage pause introduced by the former Government, with the support of all State Premiers and the Australian conciliation and arbitration system, has been successful. We then had the coincidence, after the breaking of the drought and the success of the wage pause, of the United States and world recovery taking place. With all of those advantages laid on a plate for the new Government, an opportunity for it to be able to take steps based upon the completely changed circumstances, one would have expected that the Budget introduced in August this year would have projected very significant increases in employment. Instead of that this Budget, which was introduced at the end of August 1983, to apply for the year 1983-84, projects a net half per cent decrease in employment in Australia. If honourable senators look further they will find that the projections in relation to manufacturing industry are even more dismal because even though the amount of bounty payments has not been changed a large number of areas of bounty payments for manufactured goods show a decrease estimated in the actual payout, which can mean only that it is projected that there will be a lower volume of production during the current year than there was during the bad year of 1982-83. This Government, with all of those advantages to which I have referred-the wage pause, the breaking of the drought and the United States and world recovery taking place-had an opportunity to introduce a mini-Budget. What did it do in that mini-Budget? It made an attack on those in the community who have been thrifty, those who might invest and those who might be concerned about housing and what the upturn in investment there can provide and those who have reasonable entitlement to believe that they can expect a reward for effort. All of those people were hit in that mini-Budget. That mini-Budget did nothing to encourage investment or to create confidence or jobs. That has been followed by the continuation of an extraordinary saga-the efforts of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, to continue to make threats about the introduction of a capital gains tax at a time when most people would have believed that the last thing the Government wanted to do was to frighten off capital and investment. The Government should be endeavouring to encourage confidence for investment to take place so that one can anticipate that more jobs will be created as a result of that investment. We then find not only continuing threats as recently as yesterday with Senator Button saying that he will continue to argue for a capital gains tax and that in effect he does not mind if that means there will be some loss of confidence and investment but also, worse than that, the statements of the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, in which he provides Australia with a most dismal prospect in relation to employment in manufacturing industry. On 22 April last he said that the downturn in employment in manufacturing industry is permanent, structural and irreversible. It is quite clear that as far as he is concerned he does not think that anything can be done to recreate job opportnities in manufacturing industry. That can be categorised only as an extremely dismal attitude and in fact is being shown at this very moment to be incorrect because in quite a cross-section of sectors of manufacturing industry new jobs are being created and old jobs, which have been temporarily vacant, are being refilled. On top of the mini-Budget, the Budget and the statements by Senator Button and Mr Jones about the prospects of job creation we find that the whole Budget is premised on the old socialist concept of providing the answer for employment by creating public sector jobs. In fact, the Budget failed dismally in providing stimulus for industrial investment to create new jobs. For industry generally the Budget is a dismal document of despair. It will reduce the encouragement and assistance to industry which has existed. This, together with the inflationary and interest rate pressures arising from the Budget's tax measures and the Government's wages policy, can lead Australian industry only further into an internationally uncompetitive position. In 1983-84 the Federal Government's provision for industry assistance and development will decline by 7 per cent in real terms. I hope Senator Tate will look at that and reply if there is any inaccuracy in it. I repeat: In 1983-84 the Federal Government's provision for industry assistance and development will decline by 7 per cent in real terms. Senator Tate —What was the source, Senator? Senator PETER RAE —That is done by calculating the Budget figures. Outlays to mining and manufacturing are forecast to decline by 2 per cent in real terms, with assistance to export industries decreasing by 17 per cent-hardly a sign of projected growth or of Government encouragement to industry. Budget provisions for assistance to industry provide further proof that this Government regards the downturn in Australia's manufacturing industries as, as I quoted from Mr Barry Jones a little while ago, permanent, irreversible and structural. Senator Tate —What was the source of the analysis? Senator PETER RAE —It is an analysis from the Budget figures. These are the Budget figures. I hope that the Government has analysed what they mean. With those sorts of provisions made in the Budget one can understand if there is some degree of concern about the future. Let us look at what is happening amongst the leadership of the present Government. We find a leadership war taking place over the question of manufacturing industry and a manufacturing industry policy. The quotations from the statements made by various leaders are fairly well known and well documented. I will not take time to refer to them all in detail, but I will quote from what Mr Hayden said on 12 September at a book launch in Canberra: The various forms of protection in the Australian economy are, in fact, embalming geriatric industries in the formaldehyde of protection. He continued: The problem is that over the longer term our arteries harden, our muscles do not respond when they ought to, our reflexes slow down. In commenting on that, Senator Button said: I simply take the view that Mr Hayden was expressing a long term view in this matter. There has been well documented a series of comments back and forth between Senator Button, Mr Hayden and others and then Mr Lionel Bowen. I remind honourable senators that Mr Bowen is the Deputy Leader of this Government and that Mr Hayden is the former leader of the party in government. Mr Bowen said: In matters of trade I am responsible. In matters of foreign policy the Minister for Foreign Affairs is responsible, and matters of economics belong to the Treasurer. Mr Bowen made it very clear that he was, what I think could be fairly described as, an all out protectionist. Mr Hayden has made it very clear that he is virtually an all out free trader. Senator Button has pleaded for, I think as he said yesterday, a middle role. Mr Hawke has been somewhat firmer in supporting his former leader Mr Hayden. Mr Hawke said: We do not think that any good purpose would be served by changing established medium-term programs to provide more protection. For one thing, the problems faced by industries have many causes, and greater protection from import competition would do little to address more fundamental, long-term problems. That was reported in the Australian Financial Review on 26 August 1983. He went on to say: . . . Competitiveness cannot satisfactorily be restored by feather-bedding of inefficient or outdated processes or by a regressive drop in working conditions. He does not say exactly to which industries he is referring. Let me refer to the fact that manufacturing industry in Australia is feeling rather bruised and battered. It has been commonplace in recent times to say that Australian manufacturing industry is inefficient, not up to date or competitive and not competent. I refute that. I think Australia has some of the most efficient manufacturing industries in the world and can demonstrate that. One could trot out a whole list of industries in Australia which compete world wide and knock the pants off their opposition. Others are uncompetitive. When one looks at that uncompetitiveness, almost without fail the cause is that their labour costs and labour on-costs in particular have costed them out of, either directly or because they are downstream from the addition of such costs, a competitive position. One of the more strange interventions in the whole of this debate which has been taking place within the government leadership was the introduction of Mr Kerin, as the Primary Industry Minister who apparently felt that he was being left out of the fun and so he ought to buy in. Senator Grimes —They have not given me a run yet. Senator PETER RAE —Would Senator Grimes like to make a contribution as to where he stands between the Buttons, the Haydens, the Hawkes and the Bowens? If he does not wish to, I will get on with my speech. Let me refer to what Mr Kerin, as Primary Industry Minister, said. In a newspaper article he is reported as saying: I frankly can't understand the IAC recommendation on the harvester case. It is one I am personally opposed to. I think it was quite a silly decision, particularly as we pay bounty on tractors rather than tariffs. I fought it off once but I was in Papua New Guinea the day the decision was taken. However, I am fighting to get the bounty principle established. He is talking there about a Cabinet decision of a government of which he is a member. He is disputing the decision-a rather strange breach of what is normally understood as Cabinet corporate responsibility. Be that as it may, we then find that the Caucus Industry Committee, not wishing to be left out on this, is quoted as having made considerable comment through its Chairman, Dr Theophanous. No doubt my colleagues will be able to refer to those in more detail. But members of that Committee have apparently come out as full blooded protectionists in the fight which is taking place. They accused Senator Button of ignoring ALP industry policy. They attempted to intervene directly in the Department of Industry and Commerce in relation to industry matters. They sought new assistance packages for the metals industry after Budget decisions had been made. Also, they are seeking to have the policy upon which the Government was elected changed. These actions are part of a long list of broken promises which again destroy the confidence of people in investment and the creation of jobs in Australia. Let me run very quickly through some of the broken promises. They include: The petrol pricing policy, the retreaded tyres sales tax question, the taxation of lump sum superannuation payments, the retention of the home loan rebate, the Darwin-Alice Springs railway, the East Timor question, the income tax cuts that were promised and the uranium question. They are just a few of pages of promises already broken by a government which is not yet six months old. We have a government which has broken the fundamental economic policy promises that it made to the electorate as a basis for being elected. The Government said that it would create jobs, jobs, jobs by using a particular method. It has thrown that out the window. It has now broken a whole cross-section of other promises. It is now having an internal but very public war between various members of the leadership as to whether people in Australia involved in manufacturing industry or interested in investing in manufacturing industry can expect any or no protection as a matter of government policy. It would not be any wonder if the people of Australia, if they had an opportunity to cast a vote at the moment, rejected this Government for its very failure to be able to come to grips with two major problems it has. The Government needs to restore confidence to provide for the investment that is necessary in manufacturing and other industries. In particular, manufacturing industry lost over 80,000 jobs in the 12 months to February last. More jobs were lost in the period immediately following but as a result of the wage pause there has been some improvement. Confidence in Australia, confidence particularly in manufacturing industry, is fragile. The public debate which has taken place within the Government's leadership will do nothing to restore that confidence. It is a matter of public importance that confidence be restored, and restored at the earliest possible opportunity. The Government must stop its public war and make a firm and clear statement as to where it is going and what people can expect in relation both to promises made previously and providing for a viable, efficient and competitive manufacturing industry in Australia. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(1.15) —The Government rejects the matter of public importance raised by the Opposition, which asserts that there has been an adverse impact on employment as a result of the Government's 'broken promises and the total confusion caused by this divided Government's public disarray over its manufacturing industry policy'. If, of course, such a grave charge were true and could be sustained, this chamber would be well spending its time in debating it. After all, employment in the manufacturing sector is of the order of some 18 per cent of total employment in Australia and therefore this is properly a matter for debate and deliberation in this chamber. But I do not believe that the charge in the matter of public importance can be sustained. I believe that such a charge is particularly audacious, coming from the Opposition benches as it has, because over the years when honourable senators opposite were in government, employment in the manufacturing sector declined by over 100,000. If we look at the figures for August 1976 when the first Liberal-National Party Budget was introduced-the then Government's own Budget, as it were-we find that 1,281,600 Australians were employed in the manufacturing sector. But when the Liberal-National Party Government was unceremoniously replaced by the Labor Government in February 1983 there were 1,146,900 jobs in that sector. As I say, those figures show an overall decline in employment in the manufacturing sector. The figures on overall decline in the number of jobs during a sustained period of seven years-this is not a matter of seven months-under the previous Government's administration and policies do not tell the whole picture either because they give no real impression of the havoc and distress in particular industries, plants, factories and communities that are dependent on manufacturing. They certainly give no feel for the momentum that was building up and was unleashed this year as a result of those seven years of neglect of industry policy-a problem with which we have had to deal. No one, surely, can seriously suggest that this year's adverse employment figures in the manufacturing sector can be sheeted home as the responsibility of this Government. We are not responsible for the accumulated effect of seven years of failure. After seven months, as I will illustrate, we are doing particularly well to get a coherent policy together. But there is no mea culpa from Senator Rae, no attempt even to apportion some of the blame fairly on the previous Government's administration of this area. All we have had is hostile propaganda against us. It is difficult to take seriously talk of public disarray, given the manifest public disarray of the Liberal-National Party Opposition on almost every issue of importance to the future of Australia. Only in the last few days-and this is not as entirely irrelevant as it may seem to be, Mr Deputy President-in relation to the Sex Discrimination Bill, Claude Forell was led to say this in an article in the Melbourne Age: Meanwhile, the newly-married Opposition leader, Mr Peacock, is floundering in the middle, trying to reconcile the liberal and conservative forces of opinion inside and outside his party. That type of floundering is well exemplified in the Opposition's policies on the manufacturing sector as it is in other sectors. Indeed, the Opposition's performance led the Daily Telegraph of today to come to this general conclusion in its editorial: Where does the Liberal Party stand in Australian politics today? The editorial continued: Today the Labor Party represents the middle ground of Australian politics. It further stated: Labor Governments can be seen as actively implementing the hard decisions. Meanwhile, the opposition partners are showing division, indecision and opportunism. I want to demonstrate to the chamber how the Labor Government is actively implementing the hard decisions in relation to manufacturing industry policy, because there are hard decisions to be made. I guess the whole chamber can agree on the goal, which is to modernise Australia's manufacturing industrial base so that not only will it produce wealth for Australia but also it will increase employment opportunities for Australians. As we know those two things do not always go together and I will comment on that a little later. Of course, it would be better if we could have a debate in this chamber which looked at some of the causes for the declining employment and activity in the Australian manufacturing sector. We could look at an article by Gregory and Pincus under the title 'Industry Assistance' which points out: The principal source of decline of manufacturing production and employment has been the reduction in the growth-rate of domestic demand for manufactured products. By 1977-78 the aggregate domestic demand for manufactured products had yet to reach the 1973-74 peak. It goes on to analyse the decline in demand in the late 1970s from which as a consequence much of the decline in the manufacturing sector resulted. An analysis of that information would be extremely productive and, indeed, the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library, I have discovered, has put out a paper on policies for manufacturing industry. It, too, looks at the question of the structure of demand and states: It is difficult to determine to what extent the slow growth in demand for manufactures in the 1970s was associated with generally depressed economic activity, on the one hand, and faster growth in demand for services relative to manufactures on the other. These are all points which we would have to consider and debate if we were to have a rational discussion in this chamber. But since the challenge has been thrown out that this Government has done nothing and is in confused disarray in relation to its manufacturing policy, I think the Senate ought to take note of what we have actually done and what, even in recent weeks, we have signified that we intend to do. When that is done-when I discharge my duty in that respect -it will be seen that the matter of public importance proposed for discussion has no substance. Protection is not a panacea. We have nevertheless said that in the situation in which we find ourselves, in the current economic circumstances, although scheduled planned phased reductions in protection are to continue for those industries which are assisted and in relation to which those arrangements have been undertaken over the years, we will make no reduction in protection in other areas. That sort of assurance has been provided by this Government. On the other hand, the procedures in relation to temporary assistance and the anti-dumping procedures which are also of importance in protecting Australian industry against unfair competition have, it has been acknowledged, been streamlined in an efficient way. It is not an entirely satisfactory way but there never will be an absolutely timely way of enabling the Government and indeed the effective manufacturing industry in Australia to react to a threat of dumping or actual dumping on our market. Nevertheless, we have attempted to streamline those procedures. But to talk about all those sorts of measures in relation to protection and anti-dumping procedures and so on is-and I concede this-to still talk in negative terms. One can go on. In certain sectors, in relation to major manufacturing sectors, we have taken definite steps. Of course, the steel industry plan announced on 11 August comes immediately to mind. We had some discussion of this in the chamber a month or so ago. It is quite clear that under that plan-and only because of that plan-BHP has been enabled to put funds into the capital works necessary for that industry to be sustained as a feature of Australia's manufacturing base. In that way also, the sustenance has been provided for whole communities, whole cities, dependent on the viability of the steel industry and, therefore, of course, the employment basis of those areas. The challenge was put out that our policies have created unemployment in this area of manufacturing. That is a very clear instance where, at a cost to the Australian community through the provision of protection measures which nevertheless did not fully meet the demands of BHP management, the employment base in those cities has been guaranteed but not in total as it stands now. There will be a decline; we acknowledge that. But at least some viability has been secured. In doing that, of course, there was considerable agreement with the trade union movements to increase productivity above the Australian average. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the creation of viable manufacturing industry does not necessarily mean the creation of ever escalating numbers of people employed in that industry. With increased productivity and growing capital intensity in those establishments it is quite clear that wealth and activity can be generated without necessarily creating further and greater employment. Therefore that again, to some extent, is a holding operation. But at least it has to be acknowledged-I believe the Opposition in a fair-minded way would acknowledge it-that we saw what had to be done. A steel industry plan was produced. I believe it was timely that it be done. Senator John Button is to be given credit for bringing it about. No other Australian government had ever done so. To be positive, what the Australian people need, and I think rightly demand, of the national Government is the provision of such legislative and administrative measures and structures within which new industries can flourish and prosper in the manufacturing sector. Only yesterday my colleague, Senator Maguire, pointed out to the chamber that it is the new small businesses, particularly those utilising our skills of intelligence and enterprise, which will generate the gains in employment in this sector in Australia in the future. Not merely to hold current levels of employment as the previous measures I have mentioned might be seen to be trying to do, but actually to create employment, we need establish those new dynamic small industries, businesses and firms which have the enterprise, the high technology and the utilisation of Australia's highly educated and skilled population as their primary raw materials. Positive industry development measures being undertaken by this Government will encourage higher levels of employment in such industries. I mention some of them . With regard to investment, we have said that this ought to be put in place. We have put in place improved systems of depreciation. These were outlined in June this year and, of course, the investment allowance was retained at 18 per cent. Very importantly, the Australian Industry Development Corporation will have its ability to provide finance in industrial restructuring and development greatly improved. Only on Friday of last week, on 16 September, the additional financial support and the expansion in the powers of the Australian Industry Development Corporation were announced by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button. Of course, this will enable the AIDC to invest in any industry in a much more efficient and productive manner than has been the case hitherto. We have increased the authorised capital for the AIDC from $100m to $150m. We have placed upon it an obligation to give priority to financing manufacturing industries. I think Senator Peter Rae would acknowledge that that improved financial base and the setting of clear priorities for and obligations on the AIDC can only help the development of new and improved technological industries and the general manufacturing industry in Australia. Senator Peter Rae —But the point was that, without confidence, it won't do it. Senator TATE —But how do we get the confidence? We will not get the confidence, I agree, by merely having yet another Government injection of funds into some obscure quango. What one needs to generate confidence in the business community, I imagine, is the establishment at the head of such organisations as the AIDC of those with great corporate executive experience. In Sir Gordon Jackson, as Chairman of the AIDC, I believe the Government has such a person. In fact, Sir Gordon at the launching of this new phase of the AIDC's fortunes, on Friday, said: Given this new encouragement by the Government and the charter and some extra support in financial affairs I am very confident the AIDC will serve the country very well. He said that the new arrangements in relation to the reserves of the AIDC: will release significant funds-like $67.5m-for the proper purposes of the corporation. I have spent a little time on that aspect because, as I say, it is only as recently as Friday that that initiative was announced. A further very positive initiative, of course, has taken place in relation to the creation of a capital venture market for the encouragement of high technology industry in Australia. Honourable senators will know that this flows largely from the report of Sir Frank Espie, Chairman of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences, who indicated to the Government what it ought to be doing and what it ought to have been doing to achieve the sort of investment in high technology enterprises in Australia that we all desire. The Melbourne Herald, in its editorial of 2 May 1983, said: Australia is losing ground in economic and job growth and is being overtaken by smaller and less naturally well-endowed nations, because of our lagging pace in the international pursuit of new technology. The position is not merely worrying but critical. We have worried about it and we have taken the hard decisions which were needed to respond to that analysis. Senator Peter Rae —To be fair, we established the Espie Committee. Senator TATE —The previous Government did establish it, but this Government has taken the decisions which, as I said, mean that in these difficult times for the financing of government programs we have agreed to forgo $20m a year in tax revenue in order to generate some $40m for investment in high risk industry ventures. If one had time, one could outline the establishment of the management and investment company licensing board scheme whereby the program will be administered. Under that scheme licensed management and investment companies will be able to claim a 100 per cent tax deduction in the year of the subscription. We believe that in the fields of manufacturing, computer software, consultant engineering services, scientific and technical services and data processing services, to name just a few, technology companies by their very nature-they operate at some risk, and certainly without the benefit of venture capital they cannot flourish-will now be heartened by this Government's action. As I have pointed out in relation to Senator Maguire's contribution yesterday, we believe that it is in relation to this newly expanding sector of the manufacturing industry in Australia that the new skills and innovations which are available in the Australian community will be brought together with capital in such a way that would generate productive new enterprises and employment for the Australian people; not that, of course, the manufacturing sector will be a huge employer of Australians in the future. We cannot generalise absolutely. Indeed, I acknowledge that Senator Rae in his remarks said that in quite a cross-section of manufacturing industry some new jobs are being created and old jobs are being filled even now. I have pointed out that in relation to the old established industries in Australia we are taking measures. We have taken hard decisions to hold employment within those industries to the best of our ability. Of course, market forces cannot be constantly resisted. They will eventually erode employment even in some of those traditional industries which we are holding together at the moment. It is in relation to new industries that the initiatives of the Government are to have, I believe, in the years to come their greatest impact. Certainly, they show a determination to create in the manufacturing sector, as it ought to develop in Australia, a competitive base-export orientated where possible-such that we can confidently say that manufacturing industry in Australia will still have a place in our general economic growth and development. Far from there being a divided and confused approach, I believe that the decisions I have outlined show that the Cabinet has indeed worked very well, in harmony with the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button). In our seven months in office, as opposed to the seven years' inadequate administration by the previous Government, we have begun to take those decisions which will ensure the continuance and strengthening of manufacturing industry in Australia. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(1.34) —This matter of public importance states: The adverse impact on employment of the Government's broken promises and the total confusion caused by this divided Government's public disarray over its manufacturing industry policy. On the matter of Australia's industry protection policies, we have been treated to a number of statements and policy decisions since the election of an Australian Labor Party government in March by various Ministers, including the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) himself, and a variety of statements from the trade union movement on the same subject. The problem for Australian industry which these statements and decisions have caused is that-this is quite clear from the public disagreement between the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) which surfaced recently-this Government does not have a single intelligible policy on which Australian industry can plan its future strategies. The Australian Labor Party, while new in its flirtation with business, needs to learn one important and fundamental principle of economic planning. Industry needs to be able to plan, with confidence, certainty and stability in the Government's policies. I take up one small area of particular inconsistency, that of the developing country preferences. The Government has received three reports on the impact of the developing country preferences on local industry. Because the matters were examined by the Industries Assistance Commission on a case by case basis, the Commission's recommendations, of course, varied dependent upon the circumstances and the facts presented before it. The first related to power transformers of the kind used in the generation and distribution of electric power. In this instance, the developing country preference had applied to South Korea and Taiwan. The IAC recommended that, since the preference was not causing or threatening injury to Australian industry, it should continue. The Government rejected that recommendation and withdrew the developing country preference for transformers, as, of course, is its right. The IAC produced a similar report on gelatine for which a developing country preference has applied to Brazil. It recommended, in similar terms, that the preference continue to apply. The Government also again decided to ignore that recommendation of the IAC, and it discontinued the preference, again as is its right. Finally-this is my third example-the IAC reported on sodium and potasium alkylzanthates, for which a developing country preference was being accorded to Yugoslavia and the People's Republic of China. In this case the IAC suggested that the preference was causing harm to a variety of Australian suppliers and should be withdrawn. Once again, the Government ignored the recommendations of the IAC and decided that the developing country preference should continue. In relation to the third case, Australia's only producer of alkylzanthates, Union Carbide Australia and New Zealand Ltd and three suppliers of raw materials to Union Carbide-namely, Stauffer Chemical Co. (Aust.) Pty Ltd, ICI Australia Ltd and CSR Ltd-all submitted that the developing country preference be removed. Their reason was that the production of alkylzanthates had declined markedly in 1981-82 and that in the first nine months of 1982-83 imports had increased from virtually nil to about 10 per cent of the local market which this year is projected to be of the order of 3,000 to 4,000 tonnes. The effect of this increased import penetration on Union Carbide has been significant. Employment has been reduced, and the company has changed from a seven-day roster to a 10 days on, four days off shift arrangement. As well, company profitability has declined dramatically according to confidential information which has been provided to the IAC by Union Carbide. That, of course, represents a further threat to the employment levels of that industry. The point is not that the Government disagreed with the recommendations of the IAC but rather that on the one occasion that it was demonstrably clear that local industry was being disrupted, its profitability damaged and employment seriously jeopardised, the Government chose apparently to change course completely. How, in those circumstances, can business have confidence? How can it be expected to embark on new investment? How can it be expected to risk new labour intakes, particularly with the new and disastrous severance arrangements which apply to employees whose sevices are terminated? The situation in applying developing country preferences is illustrative of the overall confusion in the Government's policy towards industry protection. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, in his address to the National Economic Summit Conference, described the Government's role thus: . . . to lay down the broad parameters which provide continuity and certainty. The Minister went on to describe structural problems in Australian industries, some of which he said: . . . are sheltered from international competition, or sometimes from any competition at all, seek or obtain profitability levels or asset gains which are unattainable in industries that have to compete internationally, or seek to obtain wages and conditions that set unrealistic community standards. That in itself is a correct statement. Successive governments have allowed industries to get fat, inefficient and incompetent and have continued to cave in to unrealistic wage demands. They then turn to the taxpayers, through the Government, for further protection to overcome their own shortcomings. All of that is true. If that is the Government's attitude on the matter, the official line, there have been some remarkable variations. The Minister for Foreign Affairs referred recently to various forms of protection 'which are, in fact, embalming geriatric industries in a formaldehyde of protection'. On 13 September the Minister for Industry and Commerce described those comments as 'couched in colourful language', adding that the Government's policy was for no general reduction in protection in the present climate and a longer term restructuring of industry, of which reduction in protection would be part. This is a clear contradiction of the comments of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Clearly, it was his intention to distance himself from his Foreign Minister's comments, which could only be interpreted as a call for the lowering of protection. The next day the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) bought into the argument with the statement that Australia was one of the least protective countries in the world, and that protection was the only hope migrants had, for example, to find work in manufacturing, to which, he added, most migrants were forced to turn to find any employment at all. Obviously the Minister for Trade was setting out to put Mr Hayden right with his contradictory statement. Mr Hayden confirmed that by later saying that he had been chastised for his comments. The honourable member for Burke, Dr Theophanous, who is the Chairman of the Caucus Industry Committee, put in his bit for the Labor back bench with the comment that reductions in protection would have dire employment consequences for Australia- he did not say whether that would occur in the long term or the short term-which is the Government's feeble attempt to explain the clear differences in opinion amongst its Ministers on this matter. He simply stated the equation between jobs and protection which was supported also by the Australian Council of Trade Unions at its recent Congress. Our economy cannot afford the luxury of jealousies and rivalries between senior Ministers of Government seeking to settle old scores. It reminds me of the Whitlam years, when every Minister was a public authority on every other Minister's portfolio. I turn for a moment to the ACTU. The ACTU has been pressuring the Government to adopt a more interventionist approach to the economy, in line with the prices and incomes accord. That accord states that comprehensive interventionist policies are necessary to restore employment, with the main thrust being in the area of manufacturing activity. It goes on to say that neither the current situation nor expected future trends justify reductions in protection. In other words, in the long term, contrary to the views of Senator Button, there should be continuity, interventionist policies and no reduction in protection. In ratifying the South Pacific Forum communique, the Prime Minister said that he endorsed in principle the lowering of tariff barriers to promote regional trade-adding, of course, to the mayhem-notwithstanding the Government's decision , in respect of developing countries, and the fact that preferences for Taiwan, South Korea and Brazil had just been revoked. In an answer which the Minister for Industry and Commerce gave to Senator Peter Rae on 24 May he highlighted the fact that manufacturing's share of total employment had declined from 27 per cent to 18 per cent in the last 15 years. Although he did not go so far as to accept this projection, he added that the view was held in quarters that it would decline to about 12 per cent by the turn of the century. So much for the Government's plans for restructuring business confidence within the community. These statements are in direct contrast to the prices and incomes accord and subsequent statements from the Government. It is no wonder that business in Australia is in total confusion. It is no wonder that industry is not investing and is continuing to retrench staff at an increasing rate. The most recent economic outlook survey of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and the National Australia Bank shows no increased optimism in industry about the levels of investment for plant and equipment. This document was published in August 1983. In both the March and June quarters only 21 per cent of respondents anticipated an increase in investment. When we set that against the fact that since this Government came to office the number of participants in the labour force has fallen by 116,000 persons and the number of people who are actually employed has fallen by almost 40,000, it becomes clear that this confusion is having a very real effect on the lives of ordinary Australians. It becomes clear that, despite the veneer of the National Economic Summit Conference, consensus has given way to uncertainty and confusion, and that is being mirrored in the investment and employment profiles of Australian industry. The Government has prided itself on its ability to bring down interest rates. This is the latest good news. The Government is shamefully taking credit for stagnation. All that demonstrates is that the banks are flush with money in the form of savings and capital accumulations from private individuals and companies which in turn anticipate further high inflation and which, therefore, are not investing to create opportunities in order to protect themselves from this Government's induced inflationary situation. This Government is so convinced that inflation will continue at its present high levels that it has indexed its excises so that it can reap the revenue benefits. It is convinced of that scenario because its own Budget policies have a severely constricting effect on business which runs directly counter to the expectations which the Australian Labor Party created during the election campaign. The former Leader of the Opposition in his policy speech said that a Labor government would follow policies aimed at 'widening of opportunities for borrowing by business, farmers and home buyers, and providing support for private sector investment'. The Treasury's assessment of the projected $8.5 billion deficit demonstrates what a cruel deception that promise has turned out to be. I refer to page 70 of Budget Paper No. 1. The Treasury warned: The current fiscal stimulus-- of course, it was referring to the Budget deficit- is large by any standards. The effect is that, if there is an upturn in private sector investment at the same time as this increased pressure which is already being applied for funds to cover the deficit, interest rates and, by implication, inflation will once again rise dramatically. According to the Treasury, the Government has pinned its hopes on its ability to finance increased public sector requirements without affecting interest rates. The Budget statements say that this assumption rests largely on the projected weak private sector demand for capital, and warns: Unless these possible consequences are contained, the potential advantages of a world upturn to Australia could then be lost and the prospect of sustained recovery further imperilled. To boil that down into its simplest form, what Treasury is saying is that this Government's Budget strategy is underpinned by a belief in no improvement in the private sector. If the Government is wrong the effect will be to choke off any tendency for recovery in private sector activity. Once again, the confusion created by the Government in its policy statements and decisions, both before and since the election, will have contributed in no small measure to that situation. The Labor Party promised easier access to funds for the private sector, which is the main source of employment for Australians. Instead it has pursued budgetary policies that will ensure that any investment capital that might become available is either left redundant through uncertainty in the business sector or taken up by the Government seeking to fund its extravagant spending requirements. Of course, business has other reasons to be disappointed that what the Government says is not what the Government does. For example-I will cite only one instance-the former Leader of the Opposition, in his policy speech, promised faithfully that the current accelerated depreciation allowance would be retained . For farmers investing in primary production plant, that promise was kept a mere two months until the economic statement of 19 May. The three-year depreciation period which had been put forward by the previous Government was scrapped because it was, in the words of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), 'beyond what is reasonable'. How much better it would have been, if the Government was seeking to create an environment in which industry could plan its investment strategies with safety and with certainty, to make that position clear from the outset. It is yet another example of the Government's lack of direction in industry policy, despite the impression that the prices and incomes accord somehow represents the guidelines for the actions of the Labor Party. More importantly, from the recent experiences in the building industry, the iron ore industry in the Pilbara and the food processing industry, to name but a few, it is clear that the prices and incomes accord can do nothing to prevent the excessive demands for increased wages and shorter hours which largely underlie our present inflation. This Government is not addressing that situation . It is exacerbating the problems by failing to give industry a clear understanding of the direction of its policies. In that environment there is only one course which business can take, and the most recent employment figures demonstrate that quite clearly. So long as the Government fails to get its act together that situation can only continue. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(1.50) —I find the way this matter of public importance has been framed surprising. I find the subject chosen breathtaking. That the Opposition should wish to criticise this Government on employment lost in the manufacturing industry is simply incredible. I think it would have been better for the Opposition to wait for some time and hope that the electorate would have forgotten the Opposition's record in this area. It was a record of disaster over the seven years that it was in government. It resulted in record levels of unemployment. Month after month in my previous employment I monitored the economic indicators as they were published under the previous Government. They got worse and worse and in no area was the situation more severe than in manufacturing. The position became worse every month. It was the worst record of any government in this country in relation to secondary industry. The Opposition must be desperate even to contemplate debating this subject. The Opposition talk of broken promises was simply amazing. It would take all afternoon to read into the record the broken promises of the previous Government over its seven years in office. There was a significant element, the so-called 'dries', in the previous Government. They believed in restrictive monetary policy and essentially in free trade. They typically came from the resource exporting States of Queensland and Western Australia. They seemed to have had a disproportionate impact on policy development under the previous Government which, had it been carried through to its fullest, could have resulted in major reductions in Australia's industrial base. It could have resulted in de-skilling. It is important to note that our secondary industries and our manufacturing industries are important repositories of skills. Those skills could have been lost had the so-called 'dries' carried the day completely. States like my State of South Australia and Senator Rae's State of Tasmania were placed at great risk by those policies. Both those States rely significantly on manufacturing employment and both saw large losses in manufacturing employment over recent years. My State was almost brought to its knees by the sheer reduction in manufacturing employment from about 1980. The record of the previous Government in employment was so bad that no other government in the history of Australia can compare with it. For example, in the 12 months to May this year 143,000 jobs were lost nationally. Of that 143,000 jobs, 93,000 were lost in the manufacturing sector alone. So the vast majority of employment lost in this country over the last 12 months came from the very sector that Senator Rae is now proudly championing. Manufacturing employment lost 93,000 jobs in total over the last 12 months and dominated the decline in employment in Australia. In my State we saw the steel industry reduce employment ; we saw retrenchments in the motor vehicle industry; we saw retrenchments in white goods and we saw retrenchments in other home appliance industries. The list goes on and on. Basically, those retrenchments were the result of national economic policies. All of those industries were decimated as economic activity fell. The problems were compounded by imports increasing. Whole sectors of the Adelaide metropolitan area were plunged into gloom as a result of the policies of the former Government in respect of manufacturing industry. There were severe local multiplier effects on service industries and loss of hope as unemployment rates in local areas soared towards 15 and 20 per cent. Nationally we saw a quarter of a million increase in unemployment over the last 12 months-from a 6.6 per cent rate in May last year to 10.3 per cent in May this year. That is an appalling record. It was the largest single increase in unemployment in this country in a year. We saw cost levels rising at very rapid rates. We had inflation at double digit levels. Our inflation rate was double that of our trading partners. No wonder manufacturing industries in this country were in such severe difficulty. Yet the Liberals repeatedly claimed to be competent economic managers. They went to the public repeatedly claiming that they could wave the magic wand and regulate the economy and create high levels of employment. They made those claims and those claims were proven to be patently false. In Government, the Australian Labor Party has indicated its attitude to protection by its actions to date. We believe in assisting industry and preserving jobs. That sort of belief did not seem to get put into practice in the latter half of the 1970s. This Government will not contemplate scaling down protection in recession. We devalued the dollar soon after coming to office. It was a long overdue move. It gave added protection to the Australian manufacturing industry which had been under cost pressure because, as I pointed out earlier, our inflation rate under the former Government was double that of our trading partners. Import competing industries were suffering enormous difficulties. We saw a 30 per cent decline in job vacancies last financial year under the previous Government and a large increase in bankruptcies. Those sorts of trends should be stabilised by the policies initiated by the present Government. We have announced in the Budget an expansionary program which will put some $2, 600m more into the economy than in the last financial year. There should be a 3 1/2 per cent growth in labour productivity which will add significantly to business profitability and give manufacturing industry a breathing space. We have announced significant increases in industrial research and development incentives from $52m last financial year to $71m this financial year. That is a 35 per cent boost in those outlays. We have increased grants for research and development projects. Australia lags behind in research and development. That is one of the key reasons that manufacturing industry in this country has experienced difficulties. Our research and development efforts have been very mediocre compared with the standards of the other industrialised countries. One of the causes of that problem is the high reliance in this country on foreign investment. The large corporations that have tended to dominate sectors of our industry have tended to do research in their parent countries. The research has not been done in Australia. The research that has been carried out here has been to scale down overseas technologies which have not been highly appropriate for our country. The Labor Party has announced a plan to protect the steel industry. We are providing bounties this financial year amounting to $30m to protect the steel industry, with a ceiling under the program of $70m. That should help stabilise employment levels in the industry. It will certainly make protection more visible than under traditional measures. The great advantage of bounties is that they avoid costs being pushed on to the using industries-those industries producing fabricated products from steel. The Government is encouraging the development of a venture capital market in Australia to provide capital for high risk areas such as advanced technology. The cost to revenue of this program should be of the order of $20m. As it involves taxation subsidies, the total extra funds available should be of the order of $40m for the development of venture capital markets. We have actually increased funds to the Australian Industry Development Corporation by $12 1/2m. That will enable the Corporation to lend more funds to industry. The major boost in housing outlays in the Budget will have flow-on effects to manufacturing industry. Of the 30,000 extra jobs to be created in Australia this financial year as a result of the housing package, a significant number will be in manufacturing industry. Those industries-such as the timber industries of South Australia-produce building materials and fittings. As new dwellings are completed, new appliances will be in demand. All of those industries will receive major boosts from the increased allocation of funds to housing. The Government has taken other measures to boost manufacturing industry. We have had discussions with timber exporters in New Zealand to hold down timber exports to Australia. Those exports were hitting timber milling industries severely and, through negotiations by this Government, there has been some resolution of the problem. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 2 p.m., pursuant to sessional order the Senate will now proceed to deal with Questions without Notice. Senator JESSOP —I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. Is the Minister aware that, at a public rally at the Melbourne Town Hall on Tuesday, some 2,000 pensioners met to protest the new assets test and passed the following resolutions-- Senator Button —Were you there? Senator JESSOP —In spirit. The resolutions are as follows: 1. That a Senate committee provide an in depth review of all matters relating to retirement income security, and 2. That until this committee tables its report, no legislation be passed by the Senate relating to changes in retirement tax or social security legislation, particularly asset and means testing legislation. In view of the widespread opposition-of which this Melbourne meeting was characteristic-that has arisen from the constant confusion and anxiety that the Government persists in creating by its unco-ordinated changes to retirement income policy, will the Government take heed of these resolutions passed at the Melbourne meeting and, pending the Social Welfare Committee's report, defer the proposed legislation? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I was aware of the meeting held on Tuesday. I had not had the motion referred to by Senator Jessop brought to my attention. But I would imagine that that is the sort of motion that would come from that meeting as it was organised by the Australian Retired Persons Association-an organisation closely allied to friendly societies, an organisation with six directors and also closely allied with Australian Retired Persons Association Services, an organisation which in recent years has accumulated some $70m worth of funds of retired people in this community, invested in its own friendly society, an organisation which, in its own words, does not represent the pensioners of this country but, to quote the gentleman who came to see me, 'represents a better class of people'. The Australian Retired Persons Association is opposed to the introduction of an assets test, as one would expect it to be. The Association came into existence in order to circumvent the income test which was presided over by the previous Minister for Social Security, in order to promote contrived schemes whereby people with very large assets holdings were in fact able to receive full pensions and full fringe benefits to the disadvantage of those who are on small weekly superannuation payments or who have no assets at all. The organisation is in fact not supported by any other pensioner organisation in this country. If he wants a balanced view on the assets test, I suggest that Senator Jessop read the latest edition of the Australian Pensioner which takes a careful and cool look at it, not in the atmosphere in which I understand it was looked at during the meeting to which he referred. Senator FOREMAN —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer . Has the Minister seen page 38 of the latest edition of the London-based Standard Chartered Review, in which it is stated that the Hawke Government's economic policies are assisting in changing the trend in economic activity in Australia from one of rapid decline to one of modest growth? Will the Minister say whether any other well-respected international business journals have similarly expressed confidence in the Hawke Government's economic strategy? Senator WALSH —I was not aware of the particular reference in the London Standard Chartered Review which was quoted or paraphrased by Senator Foreman. I am not, of course, surprised that such an assessment would have been published in the London Standard Chartered Review or any other reputable economic comment journal in the world which chose to comment on the state of the Australian economy. It is of course a conclusion which anyone who has looked at the way this Government has acted since it has been in office must come to and in particular, of course, in contradistinction to the Government which it replaced-- Senator Chipp —Discredited. Senator WALSH —Particularly in its dying days when the discredited former Prime Minister was running amok with the cheque book with the full support, of course, of the discredited former Treasurer and the discredited present Leader of the Liberal Party. They were running amok with the cheque book at a time when they knew that a $9.6 billion deficit was staring them in the face for the financial year which has now commenced. It is well appreciated in Australia and overseas that fiscal responsibility and fiscal control have been restored in Australia by the new Government, in marked contrast to the discredited Government which it has replaced. I am not at all surprised that the London Standard Chartered Review has written in those terms. Senator COLLARD —I ask the Minister for Social Security whether he is aware that officers of his Department are advising people that in relation to farms the conditions of the old means test will apply and only the homestead and one acre' s curtilage will be exempt from the new tax. If this advice is correct, does the Minister recognise the inequities and hardship that it has the potential to create? Does the Minister agree that a retired couple on a farm will not, under the proposed test, be able to give the property to their son and that, if the son cannot afford to buy the farm, both sides will be penalised? Senator GRIMES —No, I was not aware that officers of my Department were giving such advice to pensioners or to people about to retire. If they have done so, they are not correct. We are at the moment, as I have said many times in this place, finalising, in consultation with pensioner organisations, and I hope in the near future with the farmer organisations, this matter-which I have conceded is difficult-of people who retire on farms, particularly when that farm is run by someone else. It is not true to say that under the previous assets test only one acre's curtilage was taken into account. In fact, the amount of land was variable. It depended on where it was, what it was valued at and its type. These judgments were made by valuers. Farmers in those days were in a situation where they could not really appeal against such valuations. At least under the assets test, when it is introduced, they will be able to appeal through the system of administrative appeals that we have. The simple fact of the matter is that we have not yet finalised the legislation and the assets test will not come into effect until a year after the legislation has been introduced. We will arrive at a satisfactory solution to the problem of those who retire on farms. Any advice given to anybody about firm rulings in that area is wrong. I will make inquiries to see whether officers of my Department in some outlying areas have been giving that advice and, if so, will correct it. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. A recent report of changes in processes for certification of mutton suggests that this may have a favourable effect on the exports to Muslim countries. What are the implications for the meat industry generally and for live sheep exports in particular? Senator WALSH —I am advised that, as from 24 August, a new system of producing and certifying Australian export meat as suitable for Muslims-what is known as halal slaughter-has been developed in consultation with the Australian Muslim community, overseas customers and the meat processing industry. Incidentally, the new system is consistent with the recommendations of the inquiry conducted by the respected former member for Wakefield, Mr Bert Kelly, into the meat industry scandal-the Committee of Inquiry to Examine Commonwealth and State Meat Inspection Systems-which found among other things that the then Minister for Primary Industry had been negligent in his duties. The response of the then Prime Minister to his finding, I observe for the record, was to attack the integrity of Mr Kelly, whom he himself appointed and who, of course, as I said before, was a long-standing and highly respected member of the Liberal Party and the Federal Parliament. He was respected by both sides. Of course the response of the Prime Minister at the time, as was usual and customary, was to jump to the defence of the National Country Party regardless of how culpable National Country Party Ministers were. On 19 September, the present Minister for Primary Industry announced details of the introduction and operation of the new system which will apply from January 1984. One of its major features is that it does not provide for a monopoly of certification by any particular Muslim body or Muslim representative within Australia. The predictable effects of the new system, insofar as they make Australian slaughtered meat more acceptable for those countries which have strict views about slaughtering procedures and the halal method being scrupulously followed, will be that it will assist in the sale of Australian carcass mutton and carcass lamb in Muslim countries, with consequent beneficial effects on employment in Australian abattoirs and the meat processing and packing industry. Senator MACKLIN —My question, which is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, follows his answer yesterday to Senator Chipp on a similar subject. The Minister in his answer gave as justification for United States bases in Australia that they contribute to a deterrence policy. Does the Australian Government endorse a deterrence policy? Is the Government now aware that technological developments in nuclear weapons over the last decade have led to an abandonment of the deterrence policy by the United States and the adoption of a first strike nuclear war fighting strategy as outlined in United States Presidential Directive No. 59? Does the Government accept that by hosting fundamentally important United States bases it is endorsing a first strike nuclear war fighting policy? Senator GARETH EVANS —The concept of effective deterrence requires that a nation retain forces sufficient to respond to any potential aggression in such a manner that costs to the aggressor will substantially exceed any possible gains the aggressor might hope to achieve, thereby deterring it from attacking in the first place. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicated in his Evatt Memorial Lecture recently, the Government supports the concept of stable mutual deterrence, understood in those terms. Of course the Government is aware that there have been substantial technological developments in nuclear weapons since the early 1960s. United States Government spokesmen, including President Reagan, have stated repeatedly over a number of years that United States defence policy is based on the maintenance of a strong deterrence to deter nuclear war, that the United States will not be the first to use aggression and that United States strategy is defensive. Although it must be acknowledged that from time to time there have been statements from some public figures in the United States to the contrary, it is also the case that the United States has indicated at the highest level that the idea of a winnable nuclear war has no place in its strategy. The President of the United States has said that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. Of course Australia agrees with that statement. It is also to be acknowledged that the Soviet Union, for its part, has publicly undertaken that it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons. As to the last part of the honourable senator's question, about endorsing a first strike nuclear war fighting capacity, hosting the joint facilities which were the subject of a question yesterday in no way indicates support by the Government for a first strike or nuclear war fighting strategy. As the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister have indicated on several occasions recently, hosting the joint facilities is in accord with Australia's support for the concept of deterrence. They also assist in the process of verification that makes arms control and reduction feasible. Senator ELSTOB —My question is to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. It refers to the poor record of tertiary institutions in making courses available to many more socially disadvantaged people within the community. Can the Minister explain what action is planned to introduce greater social equity into the enrolment practices of universities and colleges? Senator RYAN —I agree with the assertion in the honourable senator's question that universities and indeed other institutions of higher education have a poor record with regard to access by socially disadvantaged groups to them. It is a point which I have made on several occasions on campuses. I am pleased to say that recognition of the poor record of the past is widespread now. I am hopeful for a change in this situation. The Government has taken a number of steps which ought to broaden access by socially disadvantaged groups to tertiary institutions. In particular, in the education guidelines which I issued a couple of months ago, an extra $10m was made available for 3,000 new places in tertiary education institutions, and the Tertiary Education Commission has been invited to consult with tertiary institutions and report back to the Government on how those extra places can be used largely to assist the access of groups which have been previously disadvantaged. In addition to this specific proposal, the Government has stressed in the guidelines the importance of tertiary institutions themselves examining their entrance policies and being prepared to take the necessary steps to broaden the socio-economic composition of their students. As we know, universities and colleges of advanced education are autonomous institutions and the Government cannot and does not wish to interfere directly in their entrance assessment procedures. However, I believe I have made it very clear to tertiary institutions throughout Australia that it is the Government's hope and expectation that universities themselves will review their assessment procedures and will make it possible for a much wider diversity of students to have the advantages of higher education. In particular, of course, the Government has a special commitment to improved access to tertiary education by Aboriginal students. In pursuing that particular commitment, we have also made available 100 new scholarships for adult Aboriginal teacher trainees, with an allowance paid at a much higher level for them in recognition of the fact that adult Aboriginal teacher trainees, usually have dependants-children and a spouse-by the time they undertake teacher training. We hope that that 100 scholarships will be the first significant step towards our objective of achieving, by 1990, 1,000 trained Aboriginal teachers. Other areas in which the Government is concerned include improved access by women and by some ethnic groups, but I think that by now I have given at least a summary answer to the question asked by Senator Elstob. Senator MESSNER —I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. I ask whether he recalls stating during the hearings of Estimates Committee B that a working party of officials from the Treasury, the Australian Taxation Office and the departments of Finance, Social Security, Prime Minister and Cabinet, and Veterans' Affairs had been established prior to 19 May 1983 to examine retirement income policy and that it produced a number of options, including some relating to asset testing? If so, how does he reconcile his statements with those of his colleague, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who told Estimates Committee F that such a working party did not exist prior to the 19 May economic statement and that officers of his Department did not participate in any such group? I ask the Minister: When was the working party established? What did it study? What did it recommend? When did it report? If the Minister or his colleague is mistaken, what other mistakes will they own up to in the making of their whole retirement income policy? Senator GRIMES —Senator Messner asks a question in several parts. He asks whether I remember making a statement that a working party, as he describes it, was established before 19 May. I do not recall making that specific statement. I certainly do recall mentioning such a working party. I am unsure of the date on which that working party was established. What happened with our Government is the same as what happens with every other government. Prior to the Budget we examined the options of expenditure and revenue in all areas, including my Department and the general comprehensive area of retirement incomes and retirement policy. It was out of that examination that the changes we made to the policy on age pensions arose. I remember very clearly saying to Senator Messner that I thought officers from certain departments were on that working party. I also recall that I was not sure at that time of the exact departments that were involved. I believe that my officers and I said that we would check. In answer to a second question, I think we included the Australian Taxation Office, which we had not included in the first group. There was a working party. I cannot recall at the moment just who was involved in it, but many working parties were involved in the lead-up to the Budget. I cannot remember the exact date on which that working party was set up, but I will find out for the honourable senator. The working party produced a document for the Cabinet which, among many other documents, was studied by the Cabinet in preparing the Budget. They were Cabinet documents. I think I recall Senator Messner asking whether he could have those documents. I said that that was not a matter for me; that was a matter for Cabinet. That answer stays. If Senator Messner is to get himself into a frenzy about whether a working party was established before or after 19 May and put great significance on the fact that I may have been five or ten days out as to the date of establishment of that working party, he can do so. I do not believe that the rest of the community is interested in his nitpicking. I suppose that is the best he can do in view of his Party's lack of policies. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister acknowledge that the working party about which we are talking was, in fact, established before the mini-Budget, which indicates that there was a comprehensive review of policy before that date and that subsequently some other bits were added on in such an ad hoc way that it is creating confusion in the community at present? Senator GRIMES —There has been a comprehensive review of all policies in the Department of Social Security and in every other department since 11 March when we were sworn in as the Government. That review will continue. Many parties of officials and Ministers have been working on various aspects of policy. I apologise if I cannot give Senator Messner the exact day on which any of those committees started. I dare say that, if it is so important to him, we could find out. At no stage did we make policy in the way Senator Messner suggests. Our policies were made after careful consideration both by Ministers and by working parties. The options were carefully considered, individually and together. The difference between this Government and the Government in which Senator Messner was a Minister is that we have policies and we carry them out. Senator Messner has admitted in this place that the Liberal and National parties, after seven years of government and after all the changes they made to the health scheme and the social security system, still do not have a comprehensive policy on retirement. They are not willing to do the work themselves; they wanted a Senate standing committee to do the work for them. That is the difference between this Government and the previous Government. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. In view of the debate in recent years about the need for more access to government information, can the Minister advise on the number of requests made so far to his Department under the Freedom of Information Act? How does this compare with other departments? How many requests have been granted so far? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Maguire has asked a question relating to the Freedom of Information Act. Honourable senators who were present will recall that that legislation had a fairly long and tortuous passage through the Senate. I pay tribute to the members of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs that finally produced this effective piece of legislation. I was so impressed by the need for that information that at each of the Returned Services League of Australia congresses at which I spoke over the last few months, I urged the ex-service bodies to make known to their members through their journals the value of the Act to veterans. The consequences of that, I would imagine, are borne out by figures which my Department has provided for me and which indicate that, between the time the Act was proclaimed on 1 December 1982 and 31 August 1983, the agencies within my portfolio received 1,629 requests, which represent 21 per cent of all requests to all government agencies. In fact, it represents precisely one more than the number of requests made to the Department of Social Security. The Australian Taxation Office received 1,611 requests. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs received 664 requests. The figures for all other government departments are substantially lower. Of the 1,629 requests that my Department received, 1,473, or 91 per cent, were finalised without any delay. Information has been provided for a further 2 per cent. I think my predecessor would agree that we get many requests for information about veterans' applications for disability pensions. Since the passage of the Act, obviously many former members of the Services are availing themselves of their right to look at their files and get information. The average time taken to respond, I am advised by my Department, has been 20 days. The legislation which we passed imposed a 60-day limit. Therefore, we have more than met our obligations in that respect. Senator HAMER —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security and refers to the proposed assets test and the position of holiday homes-a matter of great concern to many retired people and people approaching retirement. Can the Minister confirm that his Department is currently considering exempting a certain amount-not a percentage-of the value of a holiday home from the new test ? Is the figure currently under active consideration $15,000? By what criteria of fairness and equity does the Minister believe that this will match the exemptions of holiday homes on wheels, namely caravans, and holiday homes on water, namely boats, which may be of unlimited value and still be fully exempt from the proposed assets test? Senator GRIMES —My Department and the Government, as I have said several times in this place since the Budget, are considering all sorts of options on the exemption of holiday homes. In fact, on the night of the Budget we announced that we were negotiating in all these areas. We have made no secrets about it. I have not heard of the figure of $15,000, and I am not aware of anyone in my Department suggesting such a figure. It certainly has not been suggested to me. The sorts of proposals that have been put to the Department by pensioner organisations and, I might add, by the Australian Democrats, but not by the nitpickers in the Liberal and National parties, include: First, that we might exempt holiday homes up to a certain level; secondly, that we might exempt a package composed of the value of holiday homes and caravans in a sort of recreation package; and other options of that type. We are willing to discuss the matter with those who are interested and those who are willing to put up constructive proposals. When decisions have been made after those consultations, which I think is a reasonable way to go about things, we will present the legislation to the Parliament. Senator Hamer and his colleagues, if they have no desire to take any part in discussions now, can take part in the discussions in this place during the legislative stages and nit pick all they like. Senator ROBERTSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I refer to the Alice Springs-Darwin rail link. Has the Minister anything to add to the responses he has already given to earlier questions? What is the present situation regarding the inquiry which is to be held this financial year? Opposition senators interjecting- Senator GIETZELT —I appreciate the interest of honourable senators, particularly those opposite, because in the last few months I have been asked at least six or seven questions about the railway between Alice Springs and Darwin. Obviously, there is a great deal of interest in this chamber in the project. I indicated yesterday, I think, to Senator Foreman that negotiations were proceeding between the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and the South Australian Premier. I am now advised by the Minister for Transport that the terms of reference for the inquiry have been agreed to by the Chief Minister, the Premier and the Commonwealth Government. The only point of contention that remains between their views and those of the Commonwealth is on the question of defence. Quite logically and properly I believe, the Commonwealth has taken the view that that is its responsibility and not a matter to be elevated to one of the principal factors in respect of the inquiry which the Government has announced will take place into the general needs of transport and communication in the Northern Territory. As late as yesterday the Prime Minister wrote to the Chief Minister confirming that if this inquiry which has been announced by the Commonwealth demonstrates that the railway will generate greater net benefits to Australia as a whole than upgrading the road-I indicated this to honourable senators opposite in reply to a question a couple of weeks ago-the Commonwealth will construct and fully fund the railway. In other words, if the inquiry shows that the railway will be beneficial to Australia the Commonwealth will accept total responsibility for it. The inquiry is designed to establish whether that is a fact. If that is established the needs of the Northern Territory obviously will be met by the Australian Government. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Is it a fact that in June of this year the then Special Minister of State, Mr Young, directed that Commonwealth departments and agencies seeking police assistance on what are called politically sensitive matters must route their requests through his office? Who is the Minister now responsible for this direction or has it been allowed to lapse? Did this direction have any purpose other than the obvious political one of hiding government embarrassments? Is not this direction a direct political interference by the Minister in the discretion of the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney-General's own discretion? What was wrong with the old system? Can the Attorney-General say whether he has given any consideration to the legality of the direction and, if so, with what result? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no knowledge at all of the matters-if indeed they exist-to which Senator Lewis refers. Accordingly, I have not directed any attention, in my capacity as Attorney-General, to the legality of the course of action that he describes. I will refer the matter to the Special Minister of State and seek a reply for the honourable senator and add anything that may be required in the light of that reply. Senator RICHARDSON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of a recent Press report in the Age suggesting that important changes have been made in the senior personnel of the Indonesian administration in East Timor? Does this action, together with reports of reprisals in East Timor, suggest a further escalation of Indonesian military activity in this troubled country? In view of continued speculation as to when the United Nations will deal with the question of East Timor, can the Minister inform the Senate of the likely timing of this most important discussion? Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the first part of the question, the Government has been aware of the Dutch national radio reports alleging that a state of emergency has been declared in East Timor and that the Governor, Mario Carrascalao, has been removed from power. There have also been separate reports that the military commander in East Timor, Colonel Purwanto, has been replaced. I have also seen reports in the Age carrying statements attributed to the Indonesian Embassy in Canberra. The Department of Foreign Affairs has checked these reports with the Embassy, which has advised that Governor Carrascalao remains in office but that Colonel Purwanto has been transferred to another position outside East Timor. The Government has no information from its own sources to confirm or deny those reports. The Government is naturally concerned about the build-up of Indonesian forces in East Timor and has made its concern known, at the highest levels, to the Indonesian Government. The Government believes that, despite Fretilin's breaking of the unofficial ceasefire which had been in operation in East Timor since March, the process of peaceful contact should be resumed and given a chance to succeed. We are concerned at reports of reprisals in East Timor and we do urge and have urged the Indonesian authorities to show maximum restraint. This call is in keeping with the Government's strong support for human rights both in our region and internationally. As to the second part of the question concerning the likely date of United Nations debate on this matter, I am able to advise the Senate that yesterday the General Committee of the United Nations, which determines the agenda for the General Assembly, agreed without dissent to defer the item on the question of East Timor until the next session of the General Assembly in 1984. I add that Australia is not a member of the General Committee and had no role in that decision. The decision to defer consideration of East Timor accords with the note that was issued by the United Nations Secretary-General on 19 August, in which he stated that in view of recent developments regarding East Timor he did not consider it opportune at this time to submit a substantive report to the General Assembly on his efforts to contribute to a comprehensive settlement of the problem. He proposed instead to submit a report next year, when the matter will presumably come on for debate. Senator ARCHER —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. Are the Treasurer and the Minister aware that considerable success in controlling the white collar crime of arson has been achieved in the United States following the enactment of an arson reporting immunity Bill? In view of this success will the Minister hold talks with the States and the insurance industry in order that similar legislation may be implemented in Australia to assist in combating this serious and fast growing crime? Senator WALSH —I am afraid that I am not able to respond in any detailed way to the question that Senator Archer has asked. I have no personal knowledge of the matter. I will refer it to the Treasurer for an answer as soon as possible. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister for Social Security seen an article in the Melbourne Sun of 20 September stating that cuts in the Federal Budget for home care services could force the elderly and disabled from their homes? Can the Minister say whether there is any truth in this report, and what steps is he taking to maintain the home care services and to prevent any dislocation of elderly and disabled people from their homes? Senator GRIMES —Yes, my attention was drawn to the article in the Melbourne Sun in which it was reported that a representative of the Victorian Domiciliary Services Funding Group had said that expenditure in the Budget had cut domiciliary assistance considerably and that people would be put out of their homes. I think I should point out to the Senate that home care services in fact are funded under the States Grants (Home Care) Act. The Federal Government reimburses up to one-half of the State governments' expenditure in this area; so the Federal Government expenditure is triggered by, and is dependent on, State government expenditure. Domiciliary meals assistance is provided under the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act. Under the States Grants (Home Care) Act initiatives for new services in fact come from local government and local organisations through the State governments . The State governments process the applications. The relevant State government departments assess whether the applications provide a useful and sensible service. On approval the payment is made by my department, the Department of Social Security, on a reimbursement basis to those State departments. So the level of Commonwealth expenditure is directly related to the level of expenditure in the States. For example, in 1982-83 the Commonwealth Budget estimate for this area was $15.85m but the actual expenditure was $17.69m, the difference being due to the fact that the States spent beyond the anticipated budget in 1982-83. In 1983-84 $19.13m is allocated for home care services and $2 .4m for welfare officers. Almost $5.9m and $1.2m have in fact been allocated to Victoria. In the Budget the Government foreshadowed development of detailed proposals of community care in 1983-84 and work on this is progressing. As has been the case in the past, work in this area is dependent on activities in the States by State and local government bodies. It may well be that again this year expenditure will increase as it did last year. There is no chance at all that any budgetary estimate by this Government would have the dire effects predicted by the Victorian domiciliary services funding group. I presume that the group has either misread the Budget documents, that it does not understand how estimates are made in the budgetary process in this Parliament or it may have been misled by a statement of some person opposite. Senator HAINES —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment aware that the Nicholas Clarke inquiry into the needs of the film archives in Australia which was commissioned by the National Library of Australia was apparently completed despite the fact that it had no input from the film industry generally? Is the Minister aware that some $15,000 was spent on this rather one-sided inquiry although no less than four detailed independent reports had previously been prepared and, I understand, rejected by the National Library because those reports recommended independence of the film archive? Can the Minister say why it was necessary for $15,000 to be spent on the Nicholas Clarke report, given the existence of other reports? Will the Government act promptly to follow the lead of other countries by establishing an independent national film archive, adequately funded and staffed with technicians qualified to restore and maintain Australia's unique and rapidly deteriorating film collection, much of which consists of chemically unstable nitrate films? Senator RYAN —Some information on the matters raised by Senator Haines has been provided to me by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment who says that he has seen a Press report on this matter and has received the recommendations of the Australian Film Institute. The implication there, I think, is that he has seen the independent Nicholas Clarke report. He says that the National Library of Australia has established an advisory committee on the national film archive and has also commissioned an independent study of the developmental needs of the archive. The reports of the committee and the study will be considered by the Council of the National Library shortly. The Minister says that these reports have not been officially released but he is aware of the views of the film industry and would not wish to comment on those views until he has received and considered advice from the Council of the National Library. So clearly the matter is under very active consideration by Mr Cohen. I would like to add to the information that he has provided. The Government is very concerned about the preservation of our national film culture. We have for many years drawn attention to the deteriorating state of many of the films which are currently being held in the National Library film archive and have been in fairly continual consultation with various parts of the film industry to find the best solution to this problem. Clearly, the Minister has not arrived at that solution. But I can assure Senator Haines and other honourable senators that it is the intention of the Government to take whatever steps are necessary to preserve our marvellous film heritage for posterity. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question, which I address to the Minister representing the Treasurer, concerns the granting of sales tax exemptions for goods bought for use by public benevolent institutions. The Commissioner of Taxation has ruled, on the basis of High Court decisions, that an organisation is not a public benevolent institution unless it has as its dominant objective, both in constituting documents and in practice, the relief of poverty, sickness, suffering, distress, misfortune, destitution or helplessness. His interpretation is that these criteria rule out counselling and referral centres such as citizens advice bureaux. Since such centres do, in fact, relieve suffering, distress and helplessness and assist people to obtain relief from poverty, destitution and sickness, it would seem the ruling- The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask her question? Senator ZAKHAROV —I am explaining- The PRESIDENT —Well, it is Question Time. Senator ZAKHAROV —The point I am trying to make is that this ruling is based on an outmoded view that 'relief' means the direct provision of material relief. The PRESIDENT —The honourable senator has made her point. Will she now ask her question? Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is: Will the Government take action to remove this anomaly which denies sales tax exemption for essential equipment for vital community services? Senator WALSH —I am not able to say whether the Commissioner's discretionary ruling which has been given in this case includes or excludes citizens advice bureaux. I will refer that to the Treasurer and try to get an answer. If it does exclude the citizens advice bureaux, I will ask the Treasurer for any comments he might care to make on the Government's view on including an organisation such as a citizens advice bureau, something that would probably require a legislative amendment. It ought to be said that this is one of the areas in which considerable discretion is allowed the Commissioner in the interpretation of the Act. The Government is not able to direct the Commissioner to include or exclude particular organisations without specific amendments to the Act. I expect that the general reason the Commissioner has taken the action he has in this area would be the fact that the so-called charitable deductions which had from time to time been allowed in the Income Tax Assessment Act had been widely abused by tax dodgers who would set up phoney schemes aimed not at helping charities at all but at evading their taxation liabilities. While in general I think there would be little disagreement with the action that the Commissioner has taken in tightening up the sorts of institutions for which deductions can be claimed, there is always, I suppose, some room at the margin to argue whether a particular organisation ought to be or ought not to be included. But, in general, there can be no doubt that these provisions had been widely abused and that tax dodgers had robbed their fellow taxpayers over a long period of many millions of dollars in revenue that ought to have been paid by them. Senator CHANEY —My question to the Minister representing the Treasurer relates to some other reductions in government revenue which have actually been effected by the Government itself. I refer the Minister to the Government's latest Budget backdown involving last night's 43 per cent cut in the rate of excise on grape spirit. I ask the Minister: Does he know what the total loss to revenue will be from all the Budget reductions so far, taking into account the reduction in the Budget proposal for excise on fuel oil, heating oil and power and lighting kerosene at a cost to revenue of about $69m this year, or $145m in a full year, along with reductions in the rate of sales tax on swimming pools from 20 per cent to 7 1/2 per cent and the extension of sales tax exemption for piping and tubing used in buildings, fixtures, structures and other works? Does the Government know what will be the total loss to revenue so far from these changes to its Budget? Will these Budget backdowns in any way threaten the Government's strategy for economic recovery? Senator WALSH —Estimates can be made of all the items to which Senator Chaney referred. Indeed for one of the items he gave what I believe was the official estimate of $69m. I do not know whether estimates have been made for all of the items to which he referred but from my recollection of discussions, I think the total estimated revenue forgone would be in the vicinity of $80m. With regard to the excise-- Senator Chaney —Will you check that and let me know whether it is right? Senator WALSH —I will get the more accurate figures from the Treasurer. With regard to the excise on grape spirit to which he referred, one of the uncertainties in making estimates of revenue when there has been any change in taxation is the elasticity of demand for that product and also the degree to which some other taxable product may be substituted for the product on which the tax rate has been changed. There are wide differences of opinion about the elasticity of demand for the products ultimately produced from grape spirit. It has been suggested-a suggestion about which I have some reservations-that the same amount of excise will be collected from a $1.50 per litre of alcohol rate on grape spirit as from a $2.61 rate. Obviously that expectation assumes a very high elasticity of demand for grape spirit. The degree to which other alcoholic beverages which may or may not be taxable are substituted for the products ultimately made from grape spirit because of price changes up or down is another matter which has an effect on revenue. In total, however, changes of that magnitude will not affect the Government's Budget strategy. In particular, I note that the most recent expectations of gross domestic product growth throughout the financial year have been revised upwards due largely to a much greater recovery in farm incomes than had been expected, the revenue effects of which, it is true, will be substantially deferred into the next year because of provisional taxpaying arrangements. That upward revision in economic growth, even though it is heavily concentrated in the farm sector, could quite easily offset the revenue losses arising from the changes to which Senator Chaney has referred. Finally, I would like to make a comment on grape spirit excise. Some very wild assertions have certainly been made about the effect of the grape spirit excise at a level of $1.50 or $2.61, one of the most ill-informed of which appears in today's Australian in an article by John Stanford in which it is asserted that the imposition of excise at a rate of $2.61 per litre of alcohol will destroy the traditional quality wine producing districts, through what he called a heavy and short-sighted tax on added fortifying spirit. This, he said, 'could wipe out this historic region and a long tradition of quality wine making. The famous sweet dessert wines are expensive to make and require long ageing in casks.' Apparently the author of that article is unaware that until 1970 an excise on grape spirit of $2 a litre-- Senator Chaney —I take a point of order, Mr President. This is a very interesting answer which I think could usefully be made as a statement. But the senator has long since dealt with the questions which I raised and is now giving a general dissertation on one of the items which I mentioned as costing something to the government revenue. The PRESIDENT —I thought it rather related to the question asked by the honourable senator. Senator Chaney —The relationship was that I mentioned that as one of the losses to revenue. I went on to ask about the total cost of those losses and the possible effect on Budget strategy. We are now getting a very long dissertation on the grounds for a particular reduction. I suggest it has nothing to do with the question. The PRESIDENT —I think the Minister's answer has related to the honourable senator's question but I ask the Minister to be short in the rest of his reply. Senator WALSH —I was about to finish. The answer is relevant to the question because it concerns the effect of price changes on the elasticity of demand for products and therefore the effect on consumption of price changes. It ought to be noted that up until 1970 an excise of $2 a litre applied on grape spirit used for fortifying purposes, which if updated to present values would be in the vicinity of $8 a litre. I make the point that these historic wineries obviously survived for many decades with a very much higher levy of excise on fortifying spirit than had been originally proposed by the Government, or is now being proposed by it. It is important for a proper understanding of these matters and the effects on consumption of price changes to have such important historical facts put on the record and understood. Senator REYNOLDS —As the Attorney- General has recently set up a task force to review the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975, could he indicate what steps will be taken to ensure that the views of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Island people are heard? Will the task force visit isolated communities and will it examine Press reports which are racist in their content? Senator GARETH EVANS —The task force to which the honourable senator refers is essentially an in-house departmental group of officers seconded full time for this purpose, acting together with consultant experts in civil liberties law. It is not a fact-finding enterprise and as such it would be inappropriate, particularly within the time scales within which we are operating, to embark upon the kind of full-scale investigations to which the senator refers. However, the task force is operating in very close consultation with the Human Rights Commission, a successor organisation to the Office of the Commissioner for Community Relations, and as such there is a very large store of material available to it, as to the conditions both on the ground in Aboriginal communities and in other places where Aborigines face difficulties around Australia, together with a considerable stock of experience as to the limitations and weaknesses in the existing Racial Discrimination Act so far as enforcement mechanisms are concerned. I do not believe that we will embark upon the task of legislative reform here with anything less than full enough knowledge of the problems to get it right. The other aspects of the task force inquiry will extend to difficult policy questions like how one deals with race hatred propaganda, whether it is appropriate to relate that subject in whole or in some way to criminal offences, or whether it is better for something like a concept of group defamation to apply. It will also deal with the larger question of the interrelationship between the Racial Discrimination Act and the machinery for its enforcement with the Human Rights Commission and with the proposed new national Bill of Rights which we are hoping to introduce in the latter part of this year. I take very much on board what the honourable senator has said about the nature of the problems which must be addressed. I can assure her that they are being addressed and I hope a very satisfactory legislative solution will be the result. Senator MISSEN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to the recent acknowledgment by the Prime Minister that he has issued, I think, three writs against various persons and bodies arising out of his activities concerning the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. Is the Prime Minister aware of the serious public concern that he is using legal remedies for monetary gain and to stifle legitimate public criticism of his actions at a time when he has ready access to the media and to Parliament to respond to such criticisms? Is this action not inconsistent with the Government's claim to make available and support a vigorous use of government information by the Australian public? Senator BUTTON —The question is directed to the state of awareness of the Prime Minister about particular matters. I will convey the question to the Prime Minister and seek an early answer for Senator Missen. Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on notice. Senator Chaney —Since the time allotted for Question Time has not expired, I ask the Leader of the Government to allow Question Time to continue until a full hour has been taken. Senator Button —I am happy to allow further questions. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that on two occasions now I have allowed Question Time to go over an hour by up to 10 minutes. If he wants that right to be forgone in the future, I will oblige him. He can have another question if he wants it. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Can the Minister add anything further to his answer to my question last week in relation to the pipeline duty of the Victorian Government that was ruled illegal by the High Court of Australia? Can the Minister suggest what remedies may be open to the Victorian Government to solve this problem? Senator BUTTON —I cannot pretend to give a profoundly detailed answer on this question, Senator. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Read this morning's paper. Senator BUTTON —I am informed by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle that it is all in this morning's paper but I did not regard that as profoundly detailed. I understand that the Victorian Government has reached agreement with Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd regarding repayment of all of the monies which were the subject of the judgment of the High Court. So far as the Commonwealth Government is concerned, because of the windfall gain, if one likes, which accrued to BHP as a result of that judgment and the consequent taxation windfall which would have flowed to the Commonwealth Government, this Government has made a concession to the Victorian Government in terms of repayment of the additional taxation which the Commonwealth Government gains as a result of that process. I am unable to elaborate any further on that. I add, by way of final comment, that negotiations regarding this matter took place with the Victorian Government over a substantial period. I think it is fair to say that both governments were pleased with the successful result of those negotiations. Assent to the following Bills reported: First Home Owners Bill 1983. Home Deposit Assistance Amendment Bill 1983. Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill 1983. Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1983. Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1983. Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1983. Egg (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1983. Edible Oils (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1983. Ministerial Statement Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —For the information of honourable senators, I present copies of the statements which Ministers have provided to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) concerning their private interests. The Prime Minister's own return is, of course, also included. I seek leave to make a statement regarding that matter. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —The statements of private interests which I have presented to the Senate represent a landmark in the development of this Parliament and in the provision of information to the public about the Ministers to whom that public has entrusted the government of this country. Never before in the history of this Parliament have Ministers disclosed publicly the private interests which they hold. It is right and proper that they should do so. The public-the electors of this country-are entitled to have confidence in the integrity of their elected representatives, to know that Ministers of the Government will perform their duties without fear or favour, to be reassured that a Minister's private interests-whatever they may be-do not conflict with his or her public duties in holding the high office of a Minister in the Federal Government. With those beliefs in mind the Australian Labor Party has long held the view that public disclosure of the private interests of Ministers-and of others, to whom I shall refer later-is appropriate. I turn now to some of the details of the system of declaration of private interests which the Government has decided upon. In respect of Ministers, there are two statements of private interests. The first is a statement in general terms of the interests held by a Minister and those of his or her immediate family-that is, spouse and dependent children-of which he, or she, is aware. It is required to be provided on an annual basis, with any significant changes in the meantime also disclosed to the Prime Minister, and will cover the following matters: Shareholdings in public and private companies, family and business trusts and nominee companies, real estate and directorships in private companies . I should make it clear that Ministers are required to resign any directorships in public companies and directorships of private companies unless, for example, such companies operate a family farm, business or investments and the retention of the directorship is not likely to conflict with the public duty of the Minister. I mention other matters covered which include partnerships, liabilities, other than short-term credit arrangements, bonds, debentures and like investments, savings or investment accounts and other assets, including collections but excluding household and personal effects, each valued at over $5,000. All these matters will be included in the statement of interest. When we refer to assets valued at over $5,000, that refers to a collection valued at more than that sum, other than a collection used for household purposes. These will be declared as will other substantial sources of income. In relation to this aspect, I should say that Ministers of this Government may not derive any income through personal exertion other than as a Minister and a member of this Parliament. Senator Walters —Like speeches, you mean? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chaney —Do you agree with this? Senator BUTTON —Yes. Other items which must be declared include gifts valued at more than $250 received from official sources or in excess of $100 from non- official sources, in accordance with agreed guidelines and sponsored travel or hospitality, other than 'guest of government' hospitality. We must bear in mind there are long-standing restrictions on Ministers in that respect. The final category is any other interests, such as membership of organisations, where a conflict of interest with public duties could foreseeably arise. I have mentioned some of the particular restrictions which are placed on Ministers. So that all members of the Senate, and the public, are aware of the full extent of those restrictions I shall mention other requirements. Ministers, upon appointment as Ministers, must cease to engage in any professional practice or in the daily work of any business; nor, as I have mentioned, can they derive any income through personal exertion other than as a Minister or a member of this Parliament. Ministers have to divest themselves of shares or similar interests in any company or business involved in the area of their portfolio responsibilities. Ministers have to make a declaration at meetings of the Cabinet or its committees of any matter which may give rise to a conflict of interests. And, should any particular conflict of interest arise in the course of Ministers' administration of their Departments, the Prime Minister has to be informed so that a decision can be made on how the particular matter is to be progressed. From the statements I have presented, honourable senators will see that money amounts of individual Ministers' interests-whether income, assets or liabilities -have not been included. It is the Government's belief that public disclosure of that information would be an undue invasion of the privacy of Ministers and of their families. Ministers, however, have declared those amounts to the Prime Minister in a private and confidential statement. This is the second of the statements to which I referred earlier which will also be required to be provided on an annual basis. I turn now to provisions which might be applied to honourable senators and honourable members generally. I remarked earlier on the right of the public to have confidence in the integrity of its elected representatives. While that confidence demands particularly high standards in Ministers it also demands certain standards of each and every member of the Senate and each and every member of the House of Representatives. The Government therefore proposes that all honourable senators and honourable members should disclose by way of a public register their own private interests, and those interests of their families of which they are aware. The details to be disclosed would be no more than are in the Ministers' statements which I have presented today. In one important respect they would be much less: There would be no requirement to disclose money values at all. The Government also proposes that the Standing Orders be amended to require all honourable senators to declare a relevant interest if they participate in a debate or vote in a division in the Senate. Standing Orders already make certain provisions in respect of committee membership where an honourable senator has a personal interest in the subject matter before the committee. It is the Government's intention that the precise method of implementation of the provisions to apply to honourable senators and honourable members be examined by the Standing Orders committees of the respective Houses, meeting as necessary as a joint committee to ensure that the provisions are as far as possible consistent between the two Houses. In addition, it is intended that the Standing Orders Committee be asked to report upon whether, as proposed in the Bowen report on Public Duty and Private Interest, a code of conduct should apply to all honourable senators and honourable members and, if so, what form it should take and how it should be implemented. The Committee will also be asked to look at the other recommendations of the Bowen report-apart from those relating to the Constitution-affecting honourable senators and honourable members. I shall be presenting a notice of motion today giving further details and proposing referral to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration and report. One question is whether the registration system should be compulsory or voluntary. If the Senate ultimately decides upon the latter and an honourable senator refuses to provide a statement I am sure that people-especially the electors concerned-will be able to make their own judgment about that senator. Mr President, some may argue that any system of registration of private interests should be confined to the public's elected representatives. We believe , however, that the public is entitled to have confidence in the integrity of the wider machinery of government; in the integrity of public administration generally. Therefore, the Government has decided that senior public servants, statutory office holders, senior staff of statutory authorities, and all ministerial staff will be required to furnish a statement of their private interests similar to the public statement required of Ministers-that is, containing details of the interests I mentioned earlier, but not as to their money amounts. The statements will not be public but, in the case of public servants and members and staff of statutory authorities, will be available to the relevant Minister and to the head of the department or authority concerned. In the case of ministerial staff the statements will be available to the relevant Minister, to the Special Minister of State, and to the Prime Minister. The Public Service Board or, in the case of statutory authorities, the responsible Minister, will be informing the people concerned of the requirements in the near future. The Department of the Special Minister of State will be contacting ministerial staff to the extent that their present statements do not cover the requirements I have announced today. On such an important matter as this, I could not conclude without a reference to those who work in this building and whose task it is to report upon our activities via the media. They enjoy particular privileges and rights of access- including to the galleries of this chamber-which many other people do not. They are there, however, not only to report upon words spoken in his House but to express views and opinions on the actions and decisions of the Government as a whole, individual members, and occasionally, the Opposition. The Government therefore believes that it would be consistent with its overall approach to this matter if the Australian Journalists Association and the Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery were invited to develop a similar system of disclosure of the private interests of journalists of those media organisations accredited to or using the facilities of the Parliament, and all members of the media who have quarters in or work from Parliament House. My colleague the Special Minister of State will be pursuing these aspects in the near future. Mr President, the Government's decisions on his matter are the culmination of the work of many people over many years. The parliamentary committee which reported in 1975, chaired by the then honourable member for Phillip, Joe Riordan , made a most significant contribution to a proper system of registration of private interests. One cannot overlook, also, the comprehensive report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Duty and Private Interest, chaired by Sir Nigel Bowen. The arrangements I have announced today represent a new extension in parliamentary democracy. The electors of this country have a right to be confident that those whom they send to represent them in his Parliament will do so in all matters without fear or favour. A large part of that confidence rests in the public knowledge that the private interests of the elected member-whether a Minister, a Government back bencher or an Opposition member-will not influence , nor will they be likely to influence, the discharge of his or her public duties in whatever capacity he or she may serve in this Parliament. I seek leave to give notice of a motion. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that Ministers have provided statements of their private interests, and those of their families of which they are aware, and that copies of those returns have been presented to the Parliament as a matter of public record; (b) is of the opinion that all Senators should provide similar statements of their private interests, including those of their families of which they are aware, covering the following matters: (i) shareholdings in public and private companies (including holding companies) indicating the name of the company or companies, (ii) family and business trusts and nominee companies- (a) in which a beneficial interest is held, indicating the name of the trust, the nature of its operation and beneficial interest; and (b) in which the person or immediate family is a trustee, indicating the name of the trust, the nature of its operation and the beneficiary of the trust, (iii) real estate, indicating the location (suburb or area only) and the purpose for which it is owned, (iv) directorships in private companies, indicating the name of the company, its activities and the total amounts of its assets and liabilities, (v) partnerships, indicating the nature of the interest, the activities of the partnership and the total amounts of its assets and liabilities, (vi) liabilities (excluding short term credit arrangements) indicating the nature of the liability and the creditor concerned, (vii) the nature of any bonds, debentures and like investments, (viii) saving or investment accounts, indicating their nature and the name of the bank or other institutions concerned, (ix) the nature of any other assets (including collections, but excluding household and personal effects) each valued at over $5,000, (x) the nature of any other substantial sources of income, (xi) gifts valued at more than $250 received from official sources, or at more than $100 where received from other than official sources, (xii) any sponsored travel or hospitality received, and (xiii) any other interests, such as membership of organisations, where a conflict of interest with a Senator's public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise, (c) agrees that a public register of Senators' statements of their private interests referred to in paragraph (b) should be established; (d) agrees that Senators should provide such statements on an annual basis and that amended statements should be provided if alterations in circumstances occur ; (e) agrees that notwithstanding the lodgment of statements by Senators and their incorporation in a public register individual Senators should declare any relevant interest if they participate in a debate in the Senate or vote in a division in the Senate; and (f) requests the Standing Orders Committee to consider and report upon: (i) what changes to the Standing Orders may be required to give effect to the matters contained in paragraphs (b) to (e), and (ii) the desirability of adopting other provisions relating to Members of Parliament contained in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Duty and Private Interest (except constitutional matters, but including, in particular, a Code of Conduct). Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I understand, from my discussion with the Leader of the Government in the Senate ( Senator Button) and from the fact that he has given notice of a motion, that there will be an opportunity, when we return to this place the week after next, to debate the very important statement which he has put down on behalf of the Government. At this stage I do not want to say anything which commits the Opposition to the terms of the statement; nor do I wish to say anything which dissociates us from it. All I wish to say at this stage is that the statement does indicate the complexity of this issue. In a sense, the complexities can be encapsulated by the question: Where does one draw the line? This statement does try to come to grips with that question in a number of ways. With respect to Ministers, for example, it tries to come to grips, of necessity and perfectly, with the question: What of the interests of Ministers' families? I think that for all Ministers there is this question of the extent to which their public life impinges upon the privacy and the separate identity and lives of their families. Yet to ignore the interests of families altogether would, of course, be to leave a potentially large gap. Quite significant and difficult questions have received some airing in Australia in the context of the concerns of a spouse of a current Minister. That is the sort of issue which does give rise to a very real difficulty in this area. The Government concluded that the line was not to be drawn at Ministers. It moved on to members of parliament. The Government then concluded that the line was not to be drawn there and was to move on to certain public servants and so on. Then the line was further examined, and we found it caught up with the gentlemen who inhabit the galleries upstairs and who comment upon the Parliament and its activities. In each of those points where one considers where to draw a line and what decision to take, there are genuine difficulties and complexities. It is true also that honest men do not need rules, and dishonest men generally find ways around them. Again that is the sort of problem which faces the Government and, of course, faces all of us who have to examine this area and determine what sorts of working rules will be adopted. The previous Government had a requirement of disclosure from Ministers, which was a more private form of disclosure in that it went to the Prime Minister. On this occasion a limited amount of information has been made available. Certainly more has been made available by Government Ministers than would have been available on any sort of public register. I think the Opposition will welcome the 10 days or so which we have been given to consider the very significant issues which were raised by this statement, the significant issues which have been canvassed in the Bowen report and, indeed, in reports of the Parliament and in debates in this Parliament. On behalf of the Opposition I say that there will be many in the Opposition parties who see this as being a matter of complexity involving conflicting principles between public duties and the rights and privacy of those who are related to us and so on. I welcome the opportunity which is to be provided in the next period of sittings to give some considered views on this very important matter. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-The Australian Democrats congratulate the Government and commend it for its action, which we regard as overdue and courageous. The Government can count on our supporting the thrust of what it is trying to do. As the Leader of of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) said, we welcome the 10 days which we have been given to think about the matter and to study the report of the Bowen Committee of Inquiry into Public Duty and Private Interest. At first blush we note that the report does not require a disclosure of money values at all. It may be that that is the only way of doing it. We will certainly be looking at that because it takes a lot of sting out of the thrust of this matter if senators do not have to disclose money values. There is then the problem of defining 'family'. On page 3 of the guidelines a family is defined as a spouse and dependent children. That is a very narrow definition in today's circumstances, given the legal status of de facto relationships, just to name one of the many. It seems possible for honourable members and honourable senators and, indeed, Ministers, to divest themselves of embarrassing assets or debts by transferring them to close and trusted friends. Furthermore, non-dependent children who are still members of the family could be used to hide embarrassing assets and debts. These are the sorts of problems that we will be looking at, as no doubt the Opposition will be, over the next 10 days. In closing, I warmly congratulate and commend the Government for this initiative. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I wish to make a statement concerning sitting hours of the Senate for the next three- week sitting period. I will be very brief because I think what I have to say is already fairly common knowledge. This year, for the Government, has been a somewhat truncated year in terms of the Government's capacity to advance its legislative program, having regard to the election and the subsequent period. The whole year has been compressed somewhat. The Government has a heavy legislative program which it desires to complete at a reasonable time this year without delaying honourable senators too close to the Christmas celebrations at the end of this period of sittings. For that reason it has been decided that, in the next three-week sitting period, the Senate should sit on the first Friday and on the third Friday. That will mean that the Senate will sit for four days in those weeks. It is suggested that the Senate commence at 9 a.m. on those Fridays and conclude in time to allow senators to escape by plane to their respective parts of the Commonwealth. I have had correspondence and discussions with the Leader of the Opposition ( Senator Chaney) and the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) and correspondence with Senator Harradine about this matter. The Opposition and the Democrats have indicated their willingness to agree to this procedure subject to certain qualifications which Senator Chaney set out in a letter to me today. I have replied by letter to those qualifications and I fully respect them. It is our intention to sit on those two Fridays, that we have a Question Time of a duration yet to be decided, and then proceed to the normal legislative program. I am grateful to the leaders of the other parties for their agreement to this matter because I think it will be to the benefit of all honourable senators later in the year. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I do not wish to delay the Senate unduly on this matter, but, on behalf of the Opposition , I wish to make a couple of points so that our position is quite clear. I agree that our position is broadly as has been set out by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). Of course, there has been some concern within the Opposition parties about the extension of the sitting days beyond the program which was laid down by the Government at the commencement of the Budget session. That program involved sitting hours which provided more hours per week than the traditional sitting pattern. We have accepted that. We have already publicly indicated our concern at the lack of synchronisation between the chambers and the difficulties that gives rise to. I do not wish to deal with those matters again. The Opposition continues to be concerned about the sitting pattern generally. I think it would be no breach of confidence with the Leader of the Government to say that we are jointly undertaking some examination to see whether more satisfactory arrangements can be made for next year. It is the wish of the Opposition to see the orderly transaction of business in this place. I think the Parliament is meant to be a serious place of deliberation. The pressures which are often placed upon us, not least at the end of session, reduce both the efficacy and the dignity of the proceedings. For that reason I think there is a good deal to be said for providing, at this stage , in a year which is unusual and difficult, some additional sitting times, notwithstanding the inconvenience that that might give rise to. The general reservation expressed by the Opposition and on which we have received accommodation from the Government and from the Australian Democrats is that we have been anxious to avoid any suggestion that other than normal parliamentary procedures and so on should be applicable to additional sitting days. We think it is important that the traditional means open to non-government senators and, indeed, to private senators generally should be open to us whenever the Parliament is sitting. At the same time, I have indicated to the Leader of the Government that, in the spirit of our wishing to see the sensible processing of legislation, and all other things being equal, we would want to see additional time used for the purpose for which we are having the additional sittings. I see this as what I would like to think of as a step towards a more sensible approach to the ordering of business. I hope it is a step towards getting times, days and periods of sittings which will be sensible, workable and which will add to the efficient functioning of this Parliament. I have expressed the view that Parliament could do with a few improvements. I think they can be achieved only on a multi-party basis. I do not think a Government or an Opposition alone can make the Parliament a more effective one. I welcome the opportunity to try to work with all in this chamber to achieve a better legislative program and hence a more effective Government and Opposition for Australia. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-I should like to support the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, in his remarks and to compliment him and Senator Button on the way in which the negotiation to come to this arrangement took place. I am persuaded that we can solve all the procedural and other problems in this place and the administration of business if there is that sort of consultation. I mention briefly in passing the incident at 11 o'clock last night. A mini- crisis developed. There were consultations between Senator Chaney and me. There was a suggestion that the debate on the Medicare legislation might be extended. There was clearly no filibuster from the Opposition side. It was a sincere debate. There seemed to be no good reason why we should have sat later last night. After consultation with Senator Chaney, who consulted his members, it was made clear that there would be no undue problem in getting the legislation in good time today. That has taken place. That is the kind of spirit which I believe should exist in this place and if it does I can see no reason for any problems later in the session. As Senator Button has said, there is an extraordinarily long list of business to go through. I take the opportunity again of expressing our concern at what happened in May in the Senate. It will be remembered that the House of Representatives rose, I think, two weeks before the Senate. Propositions were put to us by Senate Ministers-when I say 'us' I mean those of us on this side of the chamber-that, if we amended the legislation, which was urgent, it would mean bringing back the House of Representatives. No one likes or wants to do that but I have given notice, as has Senator Chaney on behalf of the Liberal Party, that we will not hesitate to do that in the latter part of this year. As far as the Australian Democrats are concerned, if there is legislation which needs to be passed but which in our view needs amending, we will not have any hesitation in moving those amendments. I believe that sitting on these Fridays will, to a great extent, obviate the necessity for doing that. But I do suggest to the Government that it keep a careful eye on the procedures and get those contentious Bills that it wants to get through in 1983 completed early in the piece and not fondle the hope that if it saves them up for the last week or two, those of us on this side of the chamber will weaken and say 'Okay, we will let them through', or that we will be sorry for the Government. That will not happen. Senator Chaney has said it will not happen and I remind the Government of that in a kindly way while congratulating it on this move. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —by leave-Mr President, I came into the chamber after this debate commenced and I do not know what is proposed. But I am impressed by the goodwill that has been expressed by all sides of this chamber. I take this opportunity in that spirit of goodwill to say that what has been proposed may facilitate the work of the Senate as a whole and also the work of the committees of the Senate. For that reason, I hope that the confrontation between the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and the Senate is suitably resolved and that in the future when leave is sought for the Committee to sit for a particular reason, leave will be granted. Senator Chaney —There are limits to my affability and goodwill. Senator GEORGES —Yes, of course. I thought the affability and goodwill might prevail when I make my next request. Senator Chipp —The Democrats are the only friends that you have got. Senator GEORGES —As a matter of fact, I would agree with that. I find it difficult to accept that the real support in this matter which concerns me comes from the Australian Democrats. Senator Colston —You have friends on this side too. Senator GEORGES —Of course. Nevertheless, I hope that the goodwill which has been expressed will extend beyond the Senate as a whole and to the needs of the various committees. I am at a disadvantage because I do not really know what the proposal is before the House. But I would suggest that when committees do seek leave- Senator Chaney —To sit for two Fridays out of the three for the last three sessions. Senator GEORGES —Great; I do not want to destroy the goodwill that has been expressed. I will confine my remarks to what I have already said. But might I indicate that I am in a bind as far as the Senate is concerned. I have confronted the Senate with a proposition in relation to which it may need to look at the advice that we have received. I think we can avoid that if we can have some anticipation that next time we seek leave for the Committee to meet that leave will be granted. I think the goodwill that has been expressed seems to indicate that that will be the case. It will not be the case? Senator Chaney —I am just shaking my head ruminatively. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: That the Sessional Orders, as amended continue to apply from Tuesday, 4 October 1983, on a trial basis. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Debate resumed. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(3.36) —Before Question Time today, I was speaking in opposition to the matter of public importance brought forward by the Opposition on manufacturing industry policy. I had pointed out that the Government had taken decisive steps to reduce timber imports into Australia from New Zealand, steps which have resulted in voluntary price and quantity reductions in timber imports and stated that those measures certainly were helping to protect jobs in Australia. The Government has announced a review of anti-dumping legislation. That review began in April. A discussion paper was issued in June and in July there were meetings with interested parties. That review is nearing finalisation. There is also a review occurring of developing country preferences under the tariff system. That review has been called by the Government in response to criticisms that such preferences could be undermining local industry. In general, the Government's policy on manufacturing industry is to facilitate the modernisation of our industrial base. The policy is to provide a predictable framework for industry planning, industry investment and production decisions. The Government's priority is promotion of high technology industry and those industries which have significant growth potential. They are the areas in which Australia can generate jobs in significant quantities in future. I believe that only by getting the manufacturing sector of Australia on its feet will a general economic recovery occur. Only by boosting manufacturing can we more fully utilise the skills of our labour force and only by boosting manufacturing can inroads be made into the significant jobless totals that we have in Australia at the moment. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(3.38) —This is a fascinating debate. We have before the Senate a matter of public importance which lays the blame for the current problems in the economy and with unemployment at the feet of this Government and its broken promises. It lays the blame for the total confusion of our manufacturing industry policy also at the feet of this Government. Of course , the matter of public importance is put down by an honourable senator of the previous Government which suffered from identical problems. There is division within this Government on the protection issue. I think it is fair to say that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, a former Treasurer , who is perceived by some to have some economic knowledge, has attacked the levels of protection for Australian manufacturing industry. On the other hand, the Minister for Trade, Mr Bowen, put the alternative view that protection levels in Australia are relatively low. That is a division within the Cabinet which is blatant and obvious to the world. It is not a new division within a Cabinet, nor is it a new division within the ranks of a government. It was a feature, in fact, of the wets versus dries debate in the Liberal-National Party coalition Government and it was also a cause of dispute between the Liberals and the National Party, which party, as we all know, favours lower protection. The Government and the Opposition parties continue in this debate to create this uncertainty, as they have since Federation. The problem is that the major parties do reflect the divisions in the whole spectrum of Australian society on this issue. I suggest that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) and the representative of the Opposition have a look at the one political party which is not divided on this issue, which does not have a split down the middle and which has a policy which would be the saviour of this country if the other parties were to adopt it. We have an unequivocal policy and that is because we do not have to pander to competing industry and union interests. Senator Messner —Whom do you pander to? Senator JACK EVANS —Only to 15 million Australians. They are the people we protect; we do not have vested funding interests to protect. The issue is not resolved by raising it again, as the coalition has done today, so that the Opposition can pretend it is not divided. We believe that all parties need to agree that protection needs to be phased out. We do not think that there is any argument there. The argument is: When are we going to start phasing it out? We need long term indicative planning on tariff policies, not more ad hockery such as we have had over the last several decades. We need that not just as a Government, as a Parliament, but because industry has to know the future tariff policies of this Government. In the long term, it would reduce and hopefully eliminate the division and confusion which exists today, because guidelines giving long term indicative planning on tariff policy would lead industry and businesses to retrain their staff. There would be justification for investing in re-education. It would lead to the restructuring of organisations, given a five to 10 year lead time, which would shift the emphasis towards sunrise industries from those industries which can now quite correctly be categorised as sunset industries. In fact, the sun should have set on some of those industries long since but they are still being supported by this Government and the people of this country. The third benefit of indicating the direction of the policy of phasing out tariffs would be that it would provide right across the nation the ability to communicate, through government to industry and to employees who again would get a feeling of security. They would know what was ahead and would not dread every Budget day that their industry might be the one that this time would get caught up in the big tariff debate. In regard to the other part of this matter of public importance, I think it is fair to suggest-everybody from all political parties has said it-that the current rates of unemployment are a product of the world recession, are currently a product of the ongoing effects of the droughts and are a product of the failure of eight years of fiscal restraint aimed at achieving either an ' inflation reducing objective' or an 'employment objective'. I believe that the Fraser Government has to take a large part of the responsibility for the current problem. I do not mean that it is solely responsible but I do not think it can duck behind a matter of public importance, as is the Opposition's intention in this debate, and pretend that the sole responsibility lies at the feet of the current Government. The Fraser Government pursued the policy for fighting inflation first and in fact most people perceived that as its only economic goal . It used unemployment as a tool of economic policy without being concerned about the effects of unemployment on the people of this country. Of course, as we all know, the Fraser Government's record on wages, economic growth, inflation and unemployment, have proven the fallacy of that policy. After eight years the people of Australia, fed up with that policy, with that economic approach, responded to the promises made by Labor-the promise of fighting unemployment directly, the promise of economic expansion to generate jobs and the promise of income relief, especially to low income earners, who were promised tax cuts, and to social security recipients-in order to stimulate consumption and to revitalise economic activity. That was the pre-election promise, but it is a promise that has not been kept. That is the tragedy of this current financial year for many Australians who helped to elect this Government on that promise. Promises have already been broken. It is obvious that promises will not be kept because this Government has now pursued, albeit in a milder form, the failed Fraser recipe. The impact of this receipt on unemployment is already documented; it is in the Government's own Budget Papers. They anticipate that unemployment will rise again in this current financial year. I put that to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) yesterday and I was greeted with great derision by him despite that fact that there are highly respected economists in this country who believe that the Government could have kept its promises. I put it to this Government that it was possible to keep most of its promises, despite the huge deficit that it had inherited. The Government set up a straw man and continued to fear to go above that $8 1/2 billion deficit target. That was the target the Government set for itself-a target that it constantly preached to the people of Australia could not be exceeded, or dire consequences would result. I would like to remind you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that not every Minister , not every member of the Australian Labor Party Caucus can live comfortably with the abandonment of that pre-election Labor plan for recovery. There are some very red faces, and one sees them each time the Leader of the Government or one of the Ministers in this House tries to defend the economic policy of this Government and suggest that there is no merit in following the plan that was laid out before them by the Australian Democrats to stimulate the economy, not continue with the go-slow, conservative approach of the previous Government. We need to ask why our pragmatic Prime Minister deserted his party's pre-election pledges, because a larger deficit is justified now-not next year, now. Just as it was justified before the election when Labor won votes on it, so it is justifiable right now. The money was there and it is still there. It is lying idle in bank deposits, which are at record levels. It is a sign of economic despair by the investors of this country. This Government needs to be providing work by having that money spent on a revitalised, rejuvenated economy. This Government has the power, had the power and should have used the power to provide the trigger to get this country up and going again because our economy can take the kind of expansion that such an economic approach would have given. We are working at 20 to 30 per cent below capacity, in both industry and labour. We need the stimulus that this Government could have given to the economy. Coincidentally, the economic line of the Democrats lines up very closely with the Labor Party's pre-election line. It is currently being pursued by the Victorian Labor Government which this week brought down a Budget which is expansionary and aimed at stimulating the economy in that State. The Victorian Government has made an attempt to create economic growth and jobs because it has the courage to implement the Labor Party policies which this Government, in this Parliament, failed to do. Evidence of the similarity between this Government and the previous Government is the 1983-84 Budget which is predicated on further increases in employment and the hope that the economy will improve in the long term. Unemployment will then be reduced. That is not good enough. We have to provide that stimulus ourselves. It is up to the Government to provide it, not just to hope that it will come from overseas or even from local economic upturn as a result of good farming years or good mining years or whatever. We have to do it ourselves. This Government was given that challenge. In the long term this Government thinks that we will come out of this recession. We waited eight years for Mr Fraser's long term recovery. Do we have to wait another eight years for Mr Hawke's long term recovery? I am reminded of Keynes's expression that in the long run we are all dead. I guess that applies to a lot of people who are waiting for a second eight-year term for the economic recovery of this country. We should aim at resolving and alleviating our problem today not tomorrow. We all know that today's biggest economic problem in this nation is unemployment. There is no relief in sight. The Labor Party promised responsible government. Instead, Labor has produced a mildly modified version of the Fraser style of responsibility. Sadly, the economic conservatives are still determining the fate of this country. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(3.53) —The matter of public importance submitted by Senator Peter Rae which we are now considering is: The adverse impact on employment of the Government's broken promises and the total confusion caused by this divided Government's public disarray over its manufacturing industry policy. Others who have spoken before me have dealt with some of the broken Labor promises, but I turn in particular to the problems of our manufacturing industry . It would be a foolish person who did not admit that for many years, there have been increasing problems in that area which we as a nation have to face. We have to see that this Government moves in a consistent, coherent and sensible direction. That, I think, is extremely doubtful. Before looking at this aspect, I would like to consider some of the problems of manufacturing industry in this country. The first problem, of course, is that we have a small market. It is an inescapable fact that we have a small home market. We have problems with exports because of our abysmal relations on the waterfront and our consequential very high overseas shipping costs. We have a further problem because of the impact of the Navigation Act. Because of the monopoly of Australian flag ships on the Australian coast, interstate and intrastate shipping costs are absurdly high. The costs of this are borne by industry. We have high labour costs. One point that is sometimes overlooked is that not only are direct wage costs a matter of concern, but also on-costs are a matter of concern. I refer to the extra costs of holiday pay loadings, workers compensation, annual leave and so forth. The estimate is that, by the end of this decade, the on-costs will be 50 per cent of the wage costs. This is an expense that our competitors generally do not have to bear. It is one to which attention must be directed. Another problem is that we do not have a good reputation for reliability. This perhaps impacts more in the area of mining. It is extraordinary to see how people looking at us from outside this country regard us. They think that we must be insane. We have wonderful natural assets and potential markets of enormous value; yet we destroy or damage them through wildcat industrial action. The impact is more dramatic in the minerals area, but also it affects manufactured exports. But perhaps the most important problem of all-a combination of all these factors-is that the profits of industry have fallen to dangerously low levels. This is the worst problem because out of profits come investments, out of investments comes growth, and out of growth come jobs. Without profits we will not get any of these things. The Government must take urgent action to improve profitability. For doctrinal reasons, I suppose, it has not really addressed the problem. If we want to increase efficiency in the manufacturing industry, increase jobs, and improve the economic health of this country, it is urgent that we improve profitability. That is a hard thing for this Government to say, but I am sure that any economic rationalists-if there are any in the Government-would have to admit that that is the key to our recovery. Because of all these factors, I do not think the drift will be reversed. I agree with some of the statements made by Government Ministers. The percentage of our work force employed in manufacturing industry has been declining for many years and will continue to decline. Thirty years ago 27 per cent of the work force were employed in manufacturing industry. The percentage is now about 18 per cent. It will decrease more and more. We must take account of that and take measures to assist the shifting of the work force into areas such as tertiary industry, which I will come to in a moment. We do not have only disadvantages. We have some very substantial advantages in this country as far as the manufacturing industry is concerned. The first advantage that we have, or should have, is low power costs. In my State of Victoria, the advantage of the lower power costs has been fritted away by the inability of the State Government to make up its mind and come to a sensible decision about the Alcoa refinery at Portland. The extraordinary behaviour, particularly of the Builders Labourers Federation, over the building of the Loy Yang power station can have serious effects on the cost of power in Victoria and , therefore, on the community as a whole and manufacturing industry in particular. Nevertheless, by international standards we have a big advantage in our availability of power. We have good access to local raw materials but that is damaged, as I said earlier, by the problems of our coastal shipping. Nevertheless, we have a potential advantage in this area. We have a couple of other advantages that are not often commented upon, but which I think are significant. We have a stable form of government. If we look at the problems that beset the manufacturing industry in, for example, Argentina where the government is notoriously unstable , we see that the attractions of a stable government system such as we have here -a non-corrupt government system-are very great. We are an attractive area for investment for that reason. We also have something which is really very uncommon around the world. People criticise the Public Service, but ours is a Public Service of unquestionable integrity. That is another great advantage for the industrial development of this country. Another impending advantage that will remove one of our disadvantages-our small market-in some areas is the development and introduction of many more robots. Their use removes the enormous disadvantage of constant repetitive work. A robot, instead of making 10,000 items all the same, which is the way we had to get efficiency in mass production, can equally well make 10, 000 different things in rapid succession. This will change one of our disadvantages and give us the potential to make our manufacturing industry more efficient. We do have-and it would be foolish to deny it-immediate problems. Last year the drought put a lot of people out of work. The world recession knocked out many of our commodity export industries. The main thing which caused our present employment problems and one which the Government does not seem to have faced up to yet and which put three-quarters of a million extra workers on the scrap-heap -perhaps that is an exaggeration, maybe half a million; it depends on how many have withdrawn from the work force-was excess wage demands. That was what priced all our industries out of the market. What is the Labor Government doing about this situation? One thing any government must aim for is certainty and predictability. If a government wants a good manufacturing industry it cannot change the rules suddenly and unilaterally . It may get away with doing it once, but it will frighten off the people who should be investing in the future. They need to know. They have a hard enough job estimating the market. They need to know that the government rules under which they are operating will not be arbitrarily changed. One area where government policy impacts very greatly on manufacturing industries is protection . That is where it is so dangerous to have one Minister, such as Mr Hayden, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, putting in what appears to be an extreme free trade argument and talking about geriatric industries pickled in formaldehyde or whatever his expression was-- Senator Walsh —Embalmed in formaldehyde. Senator HAMER —Yes-and other Ministers saying flatly that they disagreed with him or that he was talking in such long distance terms that the words were meaningless. There were disputes between Senator Button and Mr Bowen as to who was taking the right line. All of this creates uncertainty. The problems of protection are not easily solved. To get a structure that suits our needs and makes our industry efficient is important, but great damage is done by contradiction and uncertainty between Ministers. Although the Government talked a lot before the election it has done nothing effective yet to improve the situation of dumping, and it has done nothing effective yet about developing country preferences. Countries like South Korea and Taiwan can bring goods into this country in competition with our own industries and at great damage to them. The Government has done nothing at all as far as I am aware about an area of complete economic absurdity-that is, the State preference system whereby the Government seems to think that Australia is not an economic unit and that something built in Victoria, South Australia or wherever has to have a preference in regard to government purchase by that State. I find it hard to imagine anything more economically anarchic or economically absurd than that. The one State-the most serious State- holding up a sensible resolution and the elimination of these absurd pre-Federation State barriers, which the State governments are busily setting up, is New South Wales. The Labor Government of New South Wales is the most reactionary and absurd in this area. The Federal Government has done nothing effective there. I said earlier that the rise in wages beyond the capacity of industry to pay has caused so much unemployment, so much hardship and so much social dislocation in this country. What did the Labor Government do? I think the most irresponsible submission to an arbitration commission I have ever seen was made by this Government in the recent national wage case. It argued that incapacity to pay in particular industries should be ignored. The submission by the counsel for the Government was that the Government was aware that some companies had difficulty paying wage rises. The lawyer went on: . . . in any economic circumstances marginal firms or industries will experience economic difficulties. These are the lawyer's words. Only a lawyer would use them, I think: This is part of the normal process of growth and readjustment of the economy. First the Government cripples a company by official action, then blames market forces for its crash. That was the most absurd economic argument ever put by a supposedly responsible government. It was destroying industries by official action and saying that market forces were doing it. It was no such thing. It is enormously damaging having this sort of argument put and not developing our wage system into an economically sensible structure. The consequence of this behaviour-a wage rise that the community cannot afford, forced on industries which cannot afford to pay it-can be only more unemployment. So much for the jobs, jobs, jobs campaign of the last election and the National Economic Summit Conference. As I said earlier, the Government has done nothing about the on-costs, the workers compensation, the holiday pay loading, all the imposts which put workers out of a job because these imposts make their employers non-competitive. The Government cannot or will not face up to this fact. Interest rates are of great importance to manufacturing industry and therefore to jobs. The deficit, by most standards, is too high at $8.5 billion. The only way that will not send interest rates through the roof is if there is no private sector investment. Of course this is why the Government is predicting a rise in jobless in the coming year. There are other areas which certainly need looking at. Penalty rates is one area that the Government has not yet dared to touch. The Government accepts that there will be no growth in employment in primary industry. It accepts that there will be a decline in employment in the manufacturing industry. Therefore employment must be created in the tertiary sector. The Government does not look seriously at or do anything about one great barrier to employment in these areas , the existence of absurd penalty rates. There is also an alarming tendency for the Government to think that it is going to direct new investment. It sometimes uses the Japanese model. In Japan there is free movement between government, industry and parliament. Here we have separate sectors. For government and public servants to start making economic decisions, for which they bear no real responsibility, is extremely dangerous. Public servants chose a horse to present to the Queen. I think it was called Australia Fair. I think it raced once and came last. That is the sort of industry we will get if selection is made by public servants and governments. I am sure the Labor Government is well-intentioned with its sunrise industries. I hope it keeps its hands off the selection of those industries because if it does start selecting them they will all be a bunch of Australia Fair racehorses. One of the problems in the disarray caused by the Labor Government, which I mentioned earlier, is that we seem to have four different Ministers-the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Bowen and Senator Button-all saying different things. Someone once said that it is difficult enough listening to economists talking about economics, but it becomes absurd when lawyers talk economics. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that three out of those four Ministers are lawyers, and the economics they talk is nonsense. We want a coherent and sensible direction for this country and we are not getting it from the present Government. Senator Walsh —Who are the four lawyers? Senator HAMER —Three out of four-Senator Button, Mr Hawke and Mr Bowen. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.08) —I was astounded by two statements that Senator Jack Evans made. The first one was that the National Party of Australia was a free trade party. I do not want to go as far back as protection all round and the Bruce-Page era of the 1920s. Much more recently than that the record clearly shows that the former Country Party Leader , Mr McEwen, was the architect of policies which ultimately embalmed Australian industry. Indeed it often seemed as though the objective of the Country Party, if it had one, was that every industry should ultimately become dependent upon government patronage for its survival-patronage, of course, dispensed by Country Party Ministers. That tradition is carried on to this day by his direct successor, Mr Anthony, and by others such as Mr Bjelke-Petersen. The second point he made, when he referred correctly to differences of opinion within other parties on the question of protection, was that there are no differences of opinion within the Australian Democrats. I do not know whether there are any differences in their opinions, but there are certainly massive differences in the things that they say in public. For example, on 29 November last year the then Democrat Senator Siddons was reported as saying to a meeting of shareholders: . . . that import quotas should be temporarily introduced to give 'our shattered industries time to restructure and to give us time to provide sufficient job opportunities for full employment.' On 28 July 1981 Democrat Senator Macklin, in a Press statement, strongly criticised the Federal Government's failure to reduce import tariffs. So the divisions or, as Senator Evans correctly said, differences of opinion within other parties on the appropriate protection policies to follow certainly exist among the Democrats as well. The true position, of course, is that individual options vary within all the political parties and policies vary between the parties. The general policy of this Government on the question, however, is quite clear, and that is that existing systems, including those which provide for gradual winding down of levels of protection, will be continued but that there will be no new reductions in protection while unemployment remains at or near its present unacceptably high levels. The previous Government's record on unemployment is, of course, a disgrace. That Government presided for six years over a permanent recession with the minor exception of the blip in 1980 and, in a final ignominious burst, decreased the number of people in employment by 130,000 in its final year. There are divisions-continuing bitter divisions-between and within the Liberal and National parties on a number of vital policies. For example, the shadow Treasurer-I think he still holds that position-the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the discredited former Treasurer, Mr Howard, on the vital question of a wages policy, believes that market forces alone should determine the level of wages. The spokesman on that subject within the Liberal Party, Mr Macphee, believes in a centralised wage fixating system. On the Sex Discrimination Bill, of course, we have Mr Macphee saying there is no place in the Liberal Party for people who do not support at least that sort of legislation. Whether that was a ruse to get rid of Senator Walters is a matter on which I do not wish to speculate. But that is clearly a view which is utterly rejected by arch conservatives of the Liberal Party. I was about to add something which may be marginally unparliamentary. It is probably flattering to describe Senator Walters as an arch conservative. On the question of electoral reform, we have, of course, the bitter split between the Liberal and National parties with Mr Anthony supporting the proposals for an enlarged Parliament and Mr Peacock opposing them. This dispute was ultimately resolved by a conscience vote. The Government's position on protection is clear. What is the Liberal Party's policy on protection or anything else? If one looks to the most recent Deakin Lecture for some philosophical or intellectual guidance one will be disappointed . That lecture, delivered by the present leader of the Liberal Party, could charitably be described as 'moist'. More accurately probably it could be described as 'squishy' as indeed, I suppose, could the statements, major and minor, on almost any conceivable issue which come from the present Liberal Party leader. The Government has been in office for just over six months. It has moved quickly on unemployment. The community employment program is in operation for those who cannot be employed in the foreseeable future, those who have suffered most from the recession. There has been a substantial increase in unemployment benefit for the single unemployed. In this financial year $733m extra is being spent on employment and training-an increase of 110 per cent on the previous year. Industry policies are in place. Senator Button did not quite maintain his 100 days undertaking to have a steel industry policy in place. I think it took 115 or 130 days. Senator Peter Rae —Or 150 or 160. Senator WALSH —No, it was not 150. It was something less than that. Senator Peter Rae —I think you will find it was in fact 150. Senator WALSH —One hundred and fifty, was it? Senator Peter Rae —Yes. Senator WALSH —I stand corrected. The 100 days objective was not met. But the new Government, within five months of taking office, had in place a firm policy for the steel industry which has been, under the circumstances of competing interests, extraordinarily well received. Moves have been made to provide venture capital to sunrise industries and to broaden the capital base and extend the gearing ratio of the Australian Industry Development Corporation. In general , of course, and above all else, the key to the Government's economic strategy is a prices and incomes policy. An examination of the record of the 1970s, which globally was the worst economic decade since the 1930s, shows quite clearly that the common denominator in each of the five or six countries, mostly in Europe but also Japan, which throughout that difficult decade maintained low rates of inflation, high rates of economic growth and low rates of unemployment, was the existence, whether formally recognised in government policy or not, of an effective prices and incomes policy. The evidence from around the world shows that that is the key to success and that is the key to this Government's economic strategy and the ultimate restoration of full employment. It is not realistic, indeed it is not possible, in a short time to reduce the double digit levels of unemployment to levels which are acceptable and which were regarded as normal through most of the 1950s and the 1960s. We would be prepared to listen to any constructive suggestions which the Opposition parties might care to make on economic management. We regret that so few, if any, such suggestions have been presented either in this debate or in any other discussion in the Parliament. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The discussion is now concluded. Consideration resumed from 14 September 1983, on motion by Senator Jones: That the Senate take note of the papers. Question resolved in the affirmative. Report of Council 1982 Consideration resumed from 14 September 1983, on motion by Senator Reid: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Paper Consideration resumed from 14 September 1983. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.18) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Consideration resumed from 14 September 1983. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.20) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.21) —I move: That the Senate- (a) deplores the abandonment by the Hawke Government of the Fraser Government's $640 million five year bicentennial water resources program; (b) stresses the vital importance to Australia's future of the maximum conservation of our limited water resources; (c) emphasises that the main projects in the program had been indicated by the States as having high priority, advanced planning and preparedness, short lead times for commencement and relatively short construction times; (d) stresses that many of the projects would create both immediacy of useful employment in the construction period and significant long-term new job opportunities in new industries dependent on water; (e) focuses attention upon the importance in New South Wales of the following projects: (i) Split Rock Dam, (ii) Glenbawn Dam-Stage 2, (iii) Mid-Murray Storage (Euston), (iv) Menindee Lakes Storage, (v) the proposed Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation feasibility study for the construction of a major Upper Murray storage, and (vi) the proposed feasibility study for the diversion of the Clarence River inland; and (f) regrets that the Hawke Government has given no indication that it will continue to support the existing National Water Resources Program which is a Federal-State dollar-for-dollar sharing program of great significance to all Australians. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Sir John Carrick, I understand you wish to suggest that notices of motion Nos 22 to 27 be handled in a cognate debate? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Yes, I seek leave to do so. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —This motion is directed towards the failure of the Hawke Government to continue or to maintain the most exciting developments in water resources put forward over the years, and even more recently by the Fraser Government. The motion is in a number of parts. Essentially, it deplores the abandonment by the Hawke Government of the Fraser Government's $640m five-year bicentennial water resources program. It stresses the vital importance for Australia's future of the maximum conservation of all our limited water resources. It emphasises that the main projects in the program had been indicated by the States as having high priority, advance planning and preparedness, short lead time for commencement and relatively short construction times. It stresses that many of the projects would create both immediacy of useful employment in the construction period and significant long term new job opportunities in new industries dependent on water. It focuses attention, particularly in my State, on a number of projects which the Government has not taken up. It regrets that the Hawke Government has done nothing to foreshadow the continuation beyond the end of its five years of the national water resources program. It is well known that Australia is the most arid continent on earth and that our average annual rainfall is some 16 inches compared with an average world annual rainfall of some 26 inches. It is well known that if we are to develop our other abundant resources we must develop water. What happened over the period of the Fraser Government term of office was that that Government had set out to establish a series of very important water projects and water functions. Firstly, it set up a five-year program of national water resources-a dollar for dollar program with the States-which in this year had moved into its fifth year. The Fraser Government had said that it would fund the fifth year and then would fund for the following four years up to the bicentennial year, 1988 with a commitment of $210m-a very substantial amount. That meant that the States could plan ahead for the next five years, on a dollar for dollar basis, a whole host of quite significant programs that we had been developing together in the past four years. It did not mean that the States could simply look a year ahead but that they could plan in-depth. The Hawke Government has simply funded the fifth year of the program and has given no indication of what it will do for the future. The alibi it is hiding behind is that it is studying a report that the Fraser Government commissioned. I want to demolish that because the Fraser Government, among the many things it did, set up a very specialised and expert committee to look at the perspective of water resources to the year 2000. It produced a focal report. That committee reported to the Government last April. If any honourable senators wish to have confirmation of that, they can look at the report of the relevant Estimates committee at which the responsible Minister indicated that the report had been in the hands of the Government for some five months. It was within the competence of the Government, well before putting the Budget together, to indicate that it had studied the report and that it was earmarking money. It is no defence. The fact that there is no money in the Budget for any projects beyond this single year indicates that the Government had the time to do something but refused to do it. That bicentennial program of the Fraser Government was an initiative involving some $640m for five years. It comprised three elements: It comprised $210m over five years for the national water resources program that I alluded to earlier; it comprised some $85m for the Burdekin Dam and $350m at the rate of $70m a year over five years. One of the most extravagant attempts at propaganda by the Hawke Labor Government in recent weeks, both in this chamber and elsewhere, has been its attempts to seek to represent the Burdekin Dam as one of its initiatives. The Government has sought to suggest that, because there is money in the current Budget for the dam, it started it off. I draw the attention of the Senate to the Estimates committee and to the report of the senior officer who indicated quite clearly that under the Fraser Government an arrangement had been made to fund the dam, with a specific funding of some $85m in 1981 dollar terms and that in fact in the previous Budget a sum of $6.5m had been placed by the Fraser Government. Let me say that any attempt by the Hawke Government during the Queensland elections to suggest that the Burdekin Dam is its creation is utter nonsense. The arrangements for that were well in place. But it was considered by the Fraser Government that there ought to be a new supplementary program and that that supplementary program should consist of $350m, being $70m each year for five years, and that the works should be significant works. The criteria were that the works should be significant works and be so regarded by the States, as well as the Commonwealth; that they should be almost ready to start now so that we could get them under way; that all the general development planning had been done and that they would be labour intensive and therefore would contribute to employment. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the schedule of that program. Leave granted. The schedule read as follows- LIST OF SPECIAL PROJECT Construction Project Location Size Details Lead time period New South Wales Split Rock Dam Manilla 372,000 ml Augment supplies for irrigation, mainly cotton, in Namoi Valley. 4 months 5 years Glenbawn Dam Stage 2 Muswellbrook 750,000 ml Augment water supplies in Hunter Valley. . . 3 years Victoria Lake Merrimu Stage 3 Bacchus Marsh 74,000 ml Increase storage capacity from 15,000 ml to 74,000 ml for outer metropolitan areas and irrigation of market gardening. 3 months 3 years Piping Wimmera- Mallee water supply scheme Stage 1 Horsham- Ouyen- Swan Hill . . Convert existing open channel stock and domestic supply to piped supply. Would save about 90,000 ml annually now lost by evaporation and seepage. 6 months 5-10 years Mitchell River Dam Bairnsdale 15,000 ml Augment groundwater used for vegetable production, and urban supplies for Bairnsdale and holiday resorts on Gippsland lakes. 3 months 5 years Queensland Dawson River Weir Theodore . . Replace old timber weir and increase storage capacity for agriculture, mining and urban supplies 6 months 3 years Macintyre River Weir Goondiwindi . . Regulate releases from storage to improve supplies for irrigation. 9 months 2 years Awoonga Dam Gladstone 125,000 ml Augment supplies for urban and industrial purposes in the Gladstone region. 1 year 4 years South Australia Adelaide Water Filtration Scheme Adelaide . . Accelerate work on filtration scheme to overcome water quality problems originating in the Murray. . . 8 years Northern Towns Water Filtration Scheme Iron Triangle Towns . . Accelerate work on filtration scheme to overcome water quality problems originating in the Murray. . . 8 years Lock 2 to Lock 3 Salinity Control Works River Murray . . Reduce saline groundwater flows to River Murray in stretch of river between Locks 2 and 3. 6 months 3 years Western Australia Goldfields Pipeline Rehabilitation Mundaring Dam to Kalgoorlie . . Some of the original installations are uneconomic and will have to be replaced. 3 months 5 years Harris Dam Collie 80,000 ml Provide good quality water to dilute salinity in supplies currently available from Wellington Dam. 9 months 4 years Harvey Dam Harvey 140,000 ml Augment water supplies for the Harvey Irrigation Area-vegetables and whole milk for Perth and south-west. 9 months 5 years Tasmania Craigbourne Dam Coal River- north of Richmond 5,000 ml A new dam for irrigation in the Coal River Valley. 18 months 3 years River Murray Commission Mid-Murray Storage Euston Increase of 30,000 ml Raise level of existing weir to increase storage capacity and improve scope for improving regulation of releases from Hume/Dartmouth storages. 6 months 3 years Menindee Lakes Storage Menindee (near Broken Hill) Increasee of 700,00 ml Raise level of levee banks to increase storage capacity from 1.8 million ml to 2 .5 million ml; additional yield of 46,000 ml. 6 months 3 years Studies and Investigations Murray River Dams Investigations Clarence River Diversion Study North Queensland Coastal Rivers Inland Diversion Study Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The program will show what I have just said. It will show the names and locations of the projects, their size, what the projects are intended to do and the lead times before the start. In each case it will be seen that the criteria have been satisfied. For example, the Split Rock Dam located at Manilla has a lead time of four months and a construction time of five years. One can see that the criteria had been satisfied-that these were vital projects, that they had short lead times and had labour intensive characteristics so as to employ people. The Hawke Government and its Ministers have been saying that they have not proceeded with these projects because the Fraser Government had not given enough time for the consideration of the matters. They said that there were many matters that were of greater importance than these items. They indicated that there had not been consultations with the States. It is of very great significance to look at this matter and to knock over the dollies. I have already sought leave to incorporate a table in Hansard. I will also seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the statements issued by myself and each of the representative State Ministers for water resources, following negotiations between myself as Commonwealth Minister and each State Minister on this supplementary program. The statement was agreed to by all Ministers. I now seek leave to incorporate that document together with my covering statement. Leave granted. The document read as follows- COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT'S$640 MILLION WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE-NEW SOUTH WALES The Minister for National Development and Energy, Senator Sir John Carrick, and the recently appointed New South Wales Minister for Water Resources, Mr Paul Whelan, met today to discuss New South Wales participation in the Commonwealth's Bicentennial Water Resources Program involving $640m over five years. The Ministers discussed the Commonwealth's supplementary program to be fully funded by the Commonwealth. Of this New South Wales could receive about $75m over five years-about 20 per cent of available funds for: the construction of Split Rock Dam, north of Tamworth, to augment supplies in the Namoi Valley; and Stage two of Glenbawn Dam on the Hunter River to augment supplies in the Hunter Valley for industrial, thermal power generation and agricultural purposes. The proposed full scale feasibility study for diverting surplus flows of the Clarence River to the inland across the Great Dividing Range was discussed. The study, to be fully funded by the Commonwealth, will cover engineering, economic, agronomic and environmental aspects of the most promising possibilities and could cost up to $4m over two years. Details for undertaking this study will be announced later. The current National Water Resources Program is now to be extended for a further four years after its completion in 1983-84, on a dollar for dollar basis with the State. On current planning, a further $27m should be spent over the next five years under the Program on salinity control and drainage works in the Murray Valley. In addition, about $18m will be spent to continue the State's floodplain management program. The current very low levels in storages in New South Wales clearly demonstrate the vulnerability of water supplies to drought situations, and the two dams now proposed for construction under the Bicentennial Water Resources Program should ensure improved security of supplies in these two important regions of the State . The Ministers also discussed works proposed for the River Murray Commission under the Bicentennial Water Resources Program which include enlargement of Maindee Lakes near Broken Hill and a study of new Upper Murray storage, upstream of Albury. The works now proposed, and a new Upper Murray storage, will better equip the Commission to handle its water quality responsibilities, and all three States along the River Murray stand to benefit from this timely Commonwealth initiative. Sir John said that not only would the construction and manufacturing industries benefit from the new Bicentennial Water Resources Program, but numerous jobs will be created in local areas. COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT'S$640 MILLION BICENTENNIAL WATER RESOURCES PROGRAM- IMPLICATIONS FOR QUEENSLAND The Minister for National Development and Energy, Senator Sir John Carrick, and the Queensland Minister for Water Resources, Mr John Goleby, today discussed Queensland aspects of the Government's recently announced five-year $640m Bicentennial Water Resources Program. This includes a new program supplementary to the current National Water Resources Program. The Ministers agreed in principle the Queensland projects proposed for inclusion in the Commonwealth funded supplementary Program: a weir on the Macintyre River in the Border Rivers system which will help regulate releases from Glenlyon Dam, a new weir on the Dawson River in Central Queensland which will be used for urban, mining and agricultural purposes, and a grant towards the completion of Awoonga Dam on the Boyne River to augment supplies for urban and industrial development in Gladstone. Increased funding of $6m over three years will also be available to upgrade the capacity of Gin-Gin main channel on the Bundaberg Irrigation Project. On current indications, Queensland should receive about $30m under the Supplementary Program for these projects. The full-scale feasibility study of the Bradfield Scheme to divert waters of the Burdekin, Herbert and Tully rivers in North Queensland across the Great Dividing Range for agricultural and other uses was also discussed. The study, to be fully funded by the Commonwealth, will cover engineering, economic, agronomic and environmental aspects and will probably cost about $5m over three years. Details are to be announced later on arrangements for the study. The extension of the National Water Resources Program-for a further four years after the current $200m commitment has been completed in 1983-84 was also agreed in principle. This will enable Queensland to plan ahead for projects already approved under the Program. Over the next five years about $50m will be spent under the shared funding program on the Bundaberg Irrigation Project, $27m on the Eton Irrigation Project and about $8m for Stage 2 of Leslie Dam. In addition , about $18m will be provided for floodplain management studies, planning and works. The Commonwealth Government has played a major role in the development of water resources in Queensland, providing funds for Maraboon Dam (near Emerald), Monduran Dam (Bundaberg), Kinchant Dam (Mackay) and, more recently, for a start on one of the most ambitious water resource developments now under construction in Australia-the Burdekin Falls Dam near Townsville. Over $100 million is likely to be provided by the time the dam is completed. COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT'S$640 MILLION WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE- IMPLICATIONS FOR VICTORIA The Minister for National Development and Energy, Senator Sir John Carrick, and the Victorian Minister for Water Resources, Mr David White, commented today on their discussions regarding Victorian participation in the Commonwealth's five- year $640 million water development initiative. The Ministers agreed that the extension of the National Water Resources Program , due for completion in 1983-84, for a further four years on a dollar for dollar cost-sharing basis, will enable Victoria to plan ahead for projects currently approved under this Program. On current projections, about $22 million will be spent under the Program for salinity and drainage works in the Murray Valley and about $12 million for floodplain management studies and works throughout the State over this period. The second part of the new initiative, the Bicentennial Water Development Program, which the Ministers agreed in principle, will include for Victoria: the construction of Stage 3 of Lake Merrimu, west of Melbourne; piping of northern sections of the open-channel Wimmera-Mallee stock and domestic water supply system to reduce evaporation and seepage losses, as well as reducing maintenance of the channel, parts of which are now clogged with drift-sand; and Mitchell River Dam in East Gippsland which will reduce pressures on groundwater resources and improve water supplies to Bairnsdale and the Gippsland Lakes area in respect of both quantity and quality. In respect of the Mitchell River Dam, Mr White indicated that the State had other projects to which it attached higher priority, but the Commonwealth believed that the Mitchell Dam was appropriate for inclusion in the Bicentennial Water Development Program. The Ministers said the preliminary estimates indicate that Victoria's direct share of the Bicentennial Water Development Program could be about $70 million- 20% of the available funds, as well as benefits from the River Murray projects. These include storage augmentation projects for the mid-Murray and a feasibility study of a new upper Murray storage. The Ministers discussed other projects which might be included in the National Water Resources Program or the Bicentennial Program. These will be considered at a later stage. It was recognised that a formal agreement will be necessary to ensure that projects, once commenced, will be funded to conclusion. The Ministers said that the new initiative will provide a very timely boost to water resources development in the State, and also create employment in the construction and manufacturing industry and in the local areas concerned. COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT'S$640 MILLION WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE- SOUTH AUSTRALIA The Minister for National Development and Energy, Senator Sir John Carrick, and the South Australian Minister for Water Resources, Mr Jack Slater, today commented on the outcome of their talks concerning South Australia's participation in the Commonwealth Government's recently announced $640 million water resources program. The Ministers discussed the extension of the jointly funded National Water Resources Program for a further four years after its completion in 1983-84 and the Bicentennial Water Resources Program over the next five years which will be fully funded by the Commonwealth. The new arrangements will allow over $100 million to be spent on water filtration projects in Adelaide and the Northern Towns over the next five years. Funds will come from Commonwealth grants under the new Commonwealth initiative, and joint Commonwealth/State funding under the extended National Water Resources Program. The Ministers agreed in principle that under the Bicentennial Water Resources Program, South Australia should receive about $45 million, some 13% of the total available funds. These funds will be used to accelerate the Adelaide and Iron Triangle water filtration schemes and for salinity control works in the Murray Valley between locks 2 and 3. South Australians, in particular, will be very interested in works proposed for the River Murray Commission under the Bicentennial Water Resources Program-a mid -Murray storage to improve regulation of supplies from the Hume and Dartmouth storages, enlargement of Menindee Lakes storage and a study of a new Upper Murray storage upstream from Albury. All these initiatives should improve the security of supply to South Australia and significantly improve water quality for urban and agricultural uses. COMMONWEALTH'S BICENTENNIAL WATER PROGRAM FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA The Minister for National Development and Energy, Senator Sir John Carrick and the Minister for Works and Water Resources, the Hon. Andrew Mensaros, said today that Western Australia would benefit substantially from major water projects to be funded through the extension of the jointly financed National Water Resources Program and the Commonwealth funded Supplementary Water Resources Program. The Ministers said 'the extension of the current national Water Resources Program for a further 4 years after its completion in 1983-84 will permit planning to go ahead on a firm basis for projects already approved for funding in Western Australia. Included in this program would be about $16m for the Harding Dam'. Projects discussed by the two Ministers and agreed in principle for inclusion in the Commonwealth's new 5 years $350 million Supplementary Water Resources Program were Harris Dam to improve the quality of water supplies in the Collie Catchment, Harvey Dam to augment supplies in the Harvey area and the rehabilitation of Goldfields Pipeline. A summary of these projects costing in the order of $50 million is attached. Mr Mensaros said he was very appreciative that about 15% of the supplementary program will be spent in Western Australia. The Ministers said that 'as well as improving water storages and water quality some hundreds of new jobs would be generated in Western Australia through these projects'. The Ministers said that 'after discussions had taken place between the Commonwealth and other State water resources Ministers early next week, and firmer cost estimates established, the Supplementary Water Resources Program would be finalised'. WESTERN AUSTRALIA-SPECIAL WATER PROJECTS UNDER CONSIDERATION Construction Project Location Details Lead Time Period Goldfields Pipeline Rehabilitation Mundaring Dam to Kalgoorlie Some of the original installations are uneconomic and will have to be replaced. 3 months 5 years Harris Dam Collie Provide good quality water to dilute salinity in supplies currently available from Wellington Dam. 9 months 4 years Harvey Dam Harvey Augment water supplies for the Harvey Irrigation Area-vegetables and whole milk for Perth and south-west. 9 months 5 years COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT'S$640 MILLION WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE- IMPLICATIONS FOR TASMANIA The Minister for National Development and Energy, Senator Sir John Carrick, and the Tasmanian Minister for Water Resources, Mr John Beswick, commented today on their discussions regarding the Goverment's recently announced $640m water resources development initiative. The Ministers said the new initiative involves, firstly, the extension of the National Water Resources Program for a further four years after its completion in 1983/84. This will enable Tasmania to plan ahead for the next five years on projects already approved under the Program, which include flood mitigation works at Launceston and water quality improvement in the Westbury and Deloraine areas. The second part ot the Government's initiative, the establishment of the Bicentennial Water Development Program, will also be of considerable importance to Tasmanians in drier areas in the south of the State. The Ministers agreed in principle that Craigbourne Dam on the Coal River will be included in the Program at a cost of about $6.5m. When completed this dam would become one of the key elements of the south-east water development plan now being examined by the Tasmanian Government and due for report in April. MINISTERIAL TALKS ON GOVERNMENT'S $640 MILLION BICENTENNIAL WATER RESOURCES PROGRAM The Minister for National Development and Energy, Senator Sir John Carrick said today that he was very pleased with the outcome of his talks with State Water Resources Ministers over the last week regarding their participation in the Government's Bicentennial Water Resources Program. Sir John said that the program involved the extension of the current National Water Resources Program for a further four years after its completion in 1983-84 , and the establishment of a supplementary program involving the expenditure of $350m over the five-year period. 'I am very pleased with the assurances I have received from the State Ministers that State expenditures on water resources will be maintained over this period, and that the States will continue to participate in the jointly-funded National Water Resources Program,' Sir John said. There has also been agreement in principle on the projects to be included in the $350m supplementary program. New South Wales will receive about $75m for agreed projects representing 22 per cent of available funds, Victoria $70m 20 per cent, Queensland $40m 12 per cent, South Australia $45m 13 per cent, Western Australia $50m 14 per cent, and Tasmania $7m 2 per cent. The balance of funds will be used for special feasibility studies and River Murray projects. The New South Wales and Queensland Ministers pledged their full support for the major feasibility studies which will now be carried out under the Bicentennial Program on the potential for diverting surplus flows in coastal rivers to the inland across the Great Dividing Range. Further, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia indicated their full approval for works proposed for the River Murray Commission over the five year period to improve water quality in the river, and to improve regulation of releases from storages. A study will also be set in train on a new Upper Murray storage. Discussions will now take place at officer level to firm up cost estimates of specific projects included in the supplementary program and to finalise a timetable of expenditures over the five years. Sir John said that the States had warmly welcomed the Commonwealth's initiative particularly in view of the vulnerability of water supplies throughout Australia as has become clearly evident during the current severe drought. Brisbane, 8 February 1983. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —It will be seen that the significance and pattern of these works was readily and eagerly agreed to by the States. The States acknowledged that the works were significant, and that they could get under way quickly, that they could be completed in the five-year period and that they were labour intensive. It will be seen that only two or three matters in the whole list were queried. The Victorian Minister made a suggestion that a dam on the Mitchell River was not given a high priority by the Cain Government. Let me simply say this: The Mitchell River dam had been given high priority by the previous Hamer and Thompson Governments. It was regarded by those former governments as worthy of a high priority on the lists which they submitted. The Cain Government lowered its priority. The fact of the matter is-much has been made about the Mitchell River dam situation-that the dam is needed to supply precious water to Bairnsdale and the surrounding holiday areas. That area was vastly affected by the drought last year. Much has been made of the Bradfield scheme-indeed the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) ridiculed it. If there were more people with the practical visions of the Dr Bradfields in this country, Australia would be the better for it. It certainly is worse off for the knockers of Dr Bradfield and his visions. Whether or not the Bradfield scheme is real is not for the knockers , or even the visionaries, to say. Hard headed assessments have to be made. What could be more hard headed than to say to the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, the Corporation that built the Snowy Mountains scheme of which we are immensely proud: 'The Corporation has immense, world-wide experience in building dams and is consulted by people throughout the world about the feasibility of projects. It should go ahead and make a survey about whether it is a dream or a reality to turn back the Clarence River'. We have the knockers but how can any Minister, no matter what his experience, make a judgment on these matters because he has read or heard something? After all, does anyone deny the ability of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation to go ahead and do these things? What has happened is typical. The Hawke Labor Government and its Ministers decided to rubbish a series of matters which, in themselves, were not major at all. I will go through them in a moment or two and point out the major matters. One would have thought that in a period of drought the Government would have looked towards the Murray River, particularly in view of the fact that the River Murray Waters Bill is before this Parliament, and set in train a feasibility study of the upper Murray storage. But no, this idea was ridiculed by the Minister, who said that nothing had been done, that no thought had been given to the matter and that this matter lacked priority. Indeed, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation had been doing this for the past 30 years. Information regarding the upper Murray storage area has been available during the existence of the Corporation. Nobody can hide behind the idea that these projects were too hastily conceived. Let me make this point quite clearly: Not one of the items on this program was put there by ministerial decision. Every one of them came about as a result of departmental consultation with the States. No political decisions came into this at all. Senator Walsh —You must have blisters on your tongue. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I, as the former Minister, say so. Let the brain-fever birds opposite go on with their chatter. I say that quite clearly. What is more, there was consultation with each of the States. I have incorporated in Hansard the statements that were issued following the meetings with the water resources Ministers of each of the States. In fact, there was agreement on all these matters. As I said, it is enormously easy to hide behind alibis. The Government' s alibi is that it is going to do a complete survey of water and hide behind the report on prospective projects. The fact of the matter is, as I have said, that the Minister for Resources and Energy indicated the other day that he has had that report for five months. That was long enough for him at least to have made a statement and an allocation in the Budget. Did the Government need to spend five months finding out whether a feasibility study into the upper Murray storage area needed to be undertaken-a matter that would involve perhaps $1m? Does the Government need to hide behind this? Does it not know that New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia face an enormous water resource problem because of the salination and the drying of the Murray River? Need another five months be spent on this? All this information was known. The Government had available to it people of immense quality. The Government is not acting in a rational way in saying: 'We are going to wait and think'. It is like the woodpeckers and the white ants they destroy. Each of the six States is represented on a ministerial council, the National Water Resources Council. Amongst the many tasks performed by that Council was to look at how the best water research could be achieved in Australia. It looked at an Australian Labor Party suggestion to set up an institute of freshwater studies. The Council decided that that was not what it wanted because it would not meet its requirements. Labor States and Liberal States, both at the official level and at the ministerial level, said that what they wanted was a national water resources council. The Fraser Government set up the National Water Resources Council, comprising people of impeccable qualifications. Indeed, as I recall the Council was chaired by the person who also chaired the study into prospective water resources to the year 2000. People with very high qualifications in engineering and water engineering were on that Council. What has the Hawke Labor Government decided to do in relation to this matter? Has it decided to go ahead with that? The Hawke Labor Government claims that it is a party of consensus; it says that it gets together with the States and other people; that it pursues what is agreed upon. In fact, the Government will demolish this Council. It has suspended its operations and has announced that it is setting up a pilot scheme for an institute of freshwater studies. Is this consensus, when in fact the six State Ministers said that they did not want a pilot scheme, they wanted the Council. The Government is demolishing organisations such as this one by one. The National Water Resources Council has to go because the Government is setting up a political instrument, despite the fact that it is against all reason, all consensus. The projects in the national water resources program must remain tottering. It is not known whether they will be extended again. Does anyone say that the Government, in putting together its Budget, did not have time to make a decision whether a dollar for dollar matching grant program which had been eminently successful over the previous four years should not go into the years ahead? Do honourable senators remember the arguments of the Labor Party on the Split Rock Dam? The very Australian Labor Party which criticised us for not supplying enough money has stopped the funding of this dam. The very State Labor Government that said it could not proceed on a dollar for dollar basis is now going it alone. One by one, the pieces of propaganda that have been put up are falling over. Let me make these things quite clear. This Government-- Senator Walsh —You pathetic creature. Fraser and the National Party cooked it up between them. They put it on you and you did not have any say in it. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —One of the only resources that the Minister for Resources and Energy has is a larrikin streak which he thinks he can substitute for reasoned argument and logic. He is becoming the clown, the buffoon, of this Senate. It is high time that somebody reminded the Senate that this is so. In his days in Opposition, he called out the most outrageous reflections on various Ministers and members of the Senate. He revels in the dirt. That is all that he can come forward with. This is the Government and the Minister which did these things. First of all, the Government suspended the National Water Resources Council, against the judgment of every State in Australia. It has refused to indicate any future for the national water resources program regarding dollar for dollar funding. It has said that it will not go ahead with the supplementary bicentennial scheme on these grounds: The scheme was ill thought out; it was of a low priority; there had not been enough consultation; and it intended to get the perspective report. The Government has had the perspective report for five months. I remind the Senate and the Minister that the whole of this schedule was submitted to the chairman of the committee on the national perspective of water resources and placed before the people of Australia. That gentleman and that body confirm that scheme had been studied. I point out that it was not a political decision at all . It was an administrative decision. The decisions were made between the States and the Commonwealth entirely on priorities. Discussions were had by myself as Commonwealth Minister with each of the State Ministers. The statements which were issued arising out of each of those meettings are now incorporated in Hansard. I now turn to the Minister's statements that many proposals were of more importance and that these were of lesser priority. I suppose the Murray River scheme is of lesser priority. Let us tell the people of South Australia that the Upper Murray storage scheme and the desalination of the Murray project are wrong . Let us tell the people of Adelaide and the Iron Triangle that their water supply filtration plants both to Adelaide and the Iron Triangle are of low priority. Let the Minister tell us what is a greater priority to South Australia than those two projects as from the Upper Murray storage to the whole of the Murray system. Let the Minister tell us, if the Split Rock Dam and the Glenbawn Dam in New South Wales are not a high priority, why it is that the Wran Government regards the Glenbawn Dam, with its water supply to the Hunter River, as a vital priority to its development? The fact is that if one goes through this list one will find that each contains matters of prime consideration to the States concerned. I refer to the proposals for South Australia and the Wimmera- Mallee pipeline in Victoria, which is the very lifeblood of the place itself. In Western Australia, a series of dams is being developed. One can see this wherever one turns. There is the Craigbourne Dam, which has immense implications to south-eastern Tasmania. We have been given an opportunity to put aside the propaganda of this Government. Let nobody again suggest that the Hawke Government is the government that set up the funding and the planning of the Burdekin Dam in Queensland. The Minister heard his own officials say that this had been put in place, that the funding had been arranged-in fact the budgeting had been done in the previous year-and that all those arrangements had been made with, of course, one exception-the signing of the agreement, but that in itself is a common practice. So let that dolly fall. Let the next dolly fall that these were matters neither of intense consultation nor of high priority. Let the Minister point to the pipelines-let him name them-in South Australia which are of low priority. Let him tell us that the Upper Murray storage project is a low priority. Let him tell us those which are of greater priority. After all, he has the facilities to tell us these things. We would like to hear it now . Let him tell us what he would do. As with the uranium situation at the moment, the Minister is hiding behind a major conflict between the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and himself. The Minister is on record in a Senator Estimates committee Hansard as saying that there is no authority, of which he knows as a Cabinet Minister, for Western Mining Corporation Ltd to proceed with the Roxby Downs project on the assumption that it can go ahead and mine and market uranium. He is hiding behind that kind of situation. Now he is hiding behind a series of situations, one being that the Government is waiting for the perspective report. The Minister has had the report for four or five months. He has had sufficient time to have looked at the principles of the report. He has had sufficient time to have decided whether the Murray River ought to have been developed. He has had sufficient time to have decided whether the Adelaide pipeline or the Iron Triangle pipeline should have been developed. There has not been a pettifogging thing to start and pitch on whether the Bradfield scheme is good or bad. Of the $350m for this supplementary program, less than $10m is allocated for prospective studies-for studies of the Clarence River, the Bradfield scheme and the Upper Murray. In any case, why has the Government not started a study on the Upper Murray? All the evidence is available to it. That is the simple situation. I return to the motion; that is, that a $640m program, put in place and interlocked with the States-the evidence is now in Hansard-has been set aside by the Government. The Government's claims as to why it has been set aside are fraudulent in the extreme. The Government's claims that there was no consultation and that these were not high priority matters are absolutely wrong. The Government's claims that there ought to have been consultation with the committee on perspective are wrong, because there was consultation. The Minister may have the advantage of looking at Hansard-as indeed he can look at the records-at any time and find the statements that emerged from State to State. Only one State-that is, New South Wales-argued about the funding. It argued about the Split Rock Dam. It did not argue about Glenbawn because that State had never intended to build Split Rock. It had always opposed it. We gave it matching grants but all the time it made alibis that it would not use the grants because they had to be guaranteed into the future. Every other State took the matching grants and got on with the work. The fact of the matter is that the Wran Government never wanted to build Split Rock Dam and so it started creating alibis in that regard. I know of no program that is of more importance to Australia than the bicentennial water resources program. I know of no program that was on a more sound basis for development. I know of no issue in Australia that has more urgency to it. If Australia is to meet any emerging movement out of the recession in this world of ours, it will need water, particularly in its industrial areas. It will need water to help development. The talk of Roxby Downs depends entirely on whether we can get the filtration plants to the Iron Triangle. One of the saddest elements in the Hawke Government's short record is its demolition of this program. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.50) —I support my notice of motion No. 23 of which I gave notice on 1 June 1983 and speak in support of notices of motion No. 22 by Senator Sir John Carrick, No. 24 by Senator Hill, No. 25 by Senator Crichton- Browne, No. 26 by Senator Collard and No. 27 by Senator Archer. All these notices of motion relate to the disgraceful dismissal by the Hawke Government of the bicentennial water resources program announced on 25 January this year by the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser. This program involved an expenditure of $ 640m over the next five years. The ingredients of this program included an amount of about $210m for the completion of the existing five-year program for national water resources, which is in its fourth year, and the extension of that program for another four years. They included also finance for the Burdekin Dam totalling about $80m, and a new five-year supplementary program especially proposed for the bicentennial celebrations in 1988 for each of the six States involving projects of high priority and early commencement amounting to some $ 350m. The aims of these programs were to provide water for new industries and agriculture and to provide employment at a time when employment projects, with a definite advantage to the capital cities, of this nation and projects looking to our infrastructure were needed. Everyone in Australia acknowledged the dependence of this nation on water. Of course this program was not some sort of a gimmick got up for an election, as alleged by Senator Walsh. It was, in fact, a carefully thought-out program. It had specific objects. They included: To improve efficiency of supplies from existing storages; to improve security of supplies to existing users; to improve availablilty of supplies for industrial development; and to improve quality of water supplies, particularly in South Australia, where water quality problems, of course, come from the other States. The important thing about this-and the reason why Senator Walsh's allegation that this was some sort of election gimmick is absolute nonsense-is that the list was prepared by officers of the Department of National Development and Energy. Senator Sir John Carrick, who was the Minister at the time, has given the Senate his assurance that there was no political interference in that list. Furthermore, there was consultation between those officers and the Chairman of the Perspective Study of Water Needs to the Year 2000, Major-General Green, and consultation with all State water Ministers. Senator Sir John Carrick tabled documents which relate to those agreements and consultations. Mr Deputy President, as a Victorian you would know of the problems in Victoria in connection with the Mitchell River Dam near Bairnsdale. Your Party and my Party, the Liberal Party in Victoria, has always seen the need to have a dam on the Mitchell River near Bairnsdale for the desperate need of the people of Gippsland. The funds for that dam were to be committed under this proposal. That proposal was given high priority and was considered a matter of urgency by the former Liberal Government of Victoria. However, the Cain Labor Government of Victoria decided, once again, to treat the rural people of our State in its usual dismissive manner. It decided not to go ahead with this dam but to expend the funds on some other water supply project which would benefit the people of the metropolis. The result was that there was criticism of this proposal by the Victorian Government. Let there be no doubt that Bairnsdale an the area surrounding Bairnsdale are desperately in need of water. That was proven recently in the drought when Bairnsdale was subjected to a very heavy rationing of water. I think that Bairnsdale was down to a consumption level of not more than 50 per cent of the normal daily rate. Apart from that criticism by Victoria, all of the other projects were approved. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of the special projects for Victoria. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Construction Project Location Size Details Lead time Period VICTORIA Lake Merrimu Stage 3 Bacchus Marsh 74,000 ML Increase steerage capacity from 15,000 Ml to 74,000 ML for outer metropolitan areas and irrigation of market gardening. 3 months 3 years Piping Wimmera- Mallee water supply scheme Stage 1 Horsham- Ouyen-Swan Hill . . Convert existing open channel stock and domestic supply to piped supply. Would save about 90,000 ML annually now lost by evaporation and seepage. 6 months 5-10 years Mitchell River Dam Bairnsdale 15,000 ML Augment groundwater used for vegetable production, and urban supplies for Bairnsdale and holiday resorts on Gippsland Lakes. 3 months 5 years Senator LEWIS —That list disloses that the first project on the program was stage 3 of Lake Merrimu at Bacchus Marsh. That project was to increase storage capacity from 15,000 million litres of water to 74,000 million litres of water for outer metropolitan areas and irrigation of market gardens. There was a need to have a lead time of three months. The estimated construction time was three years. So if that had been started this year the people of the outer metropolitan areas of Melbourne would have been receiving the benefit of this enormous increase in storage capacity of Lake Merrimu by about 1986. Instead, the whole thing has been put aside, not to be proceeded with. Apparently it has been abandoned by the Hawke Government. Where will the people of the outer metropolitan areas of Melbourne obtain their water supplies when a project of such vital importance to the people of Victoria can be stamped on by this Government and in a most irresponsible manner by Senator Walsh who dismissed the whole thing out of hand as some sort of election gimmick? Of course, Senator Walsh has fallen flat on his face in regard to this matter because, in due course, his Government will adopt the policy of the former Liberal-National Government in relation to Lake Merrimu stage 3. The Hawke Government will end up adopting this policy but, of course, much later than if it had gone ahead with the proposal as it was planned by the Fraser Government. Of course that is only one example of the Hawke Government adopting Liberal- National Party Government policies. Of course, Senator Walsh who keeps referring to so-called discredited Treasurers, in fact is party to a government which is adopting the policies of that so-called discredited Treasurer. He has referred to a so-called discredited government. In fact, Senator Walsh is party to a government which is adopting the policies of that so-called discredited government. In due course, Senator Walsh, as the Minister for Resources and Energy, will end up adopting these policies of Senator Sir John Carrick when he was Minister for National Development and Energy. The second project proposed for Victoria was the piping of the Wimmera-Mallee water supply scheme stage one, covering Horsham, Ouyen and Swan Hill. That project is to convert the existing open channel stock and domestic supply to a piped supply. It is estimated that that would save about 90,000 million litres per annum which is lost by evaporation and seepage due to this channel being open. The lead time was six months, and the estimated completion time five to 10 years. The Mitchell River Dam project will provide an extra 15,000 million litres of water to augment the ground water supply used for vegetable production and urban supplies for Bairnsdale and the extensive holiday resorts on Gippsland Lakes. The three months lead time, the five years completion-all of that time has now been put aside as the Hawke Government abandons the scheme, and abandons it for what? It abandons all of these proposals for no valid reason at all because Senator Walsh thinks that they were some sort of an election gimmick. What sort of government is prepared to abandon projects of such enourmous importance to the people of Victoria and indeed, the other projects of such enourmous importance to the whole of the nation because Walsh has a bit of a thing about Senator Sir John Carrick and, with his usual intemperate language, indeed foul language, dismisses these proposals out of hand? But he will pay for it in due course. When he gets around to adopting these proposals, he will be too late. The people of this country will have come to realise what a terrible Minister he has proven to be and what a terrible shame, a disgrace, he has been in adopting these sorts of dismissal proceedings for no valid reason at all. Let me turn now to these projects and examine what they were. They all stand the test of high priority. They were in fact recommended by Labor's own Ministers. They were undertaken on the basis of departmental arrangements and deep consideration. There were significant employment works involved in them. On their completion, one could anticipate that there would be new industries and extended employment arising out of the additional water supply. All of these things have gone by the board. Let us not forget the proposed Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation feasibility study for the construction of the major upper Murray storage. Everyone in eastern Australia realises the absolute desperate need to solve the problems of the Murray River. This study would have been a start on the solution to that problem. But no, thanks to Senator Walsh and his attitude towards anything to do with the former Government and the former Minister of his Department, it has all been dismissed. It has all been pushed out of the window for no valid reason at all. And how is he doing this? He is doing it by alleging that he is waiting for the report. I quote from page 190 of the Budget Paper No. 1: The recommendations of the recently completed report, the 'Perspective on Australia's Water Resources to the Year 2000', have been discussed with the State water resources Ministers in the Australian Water Resources Council (AWRC) . The scope and nature of Australian Government assistance for water resource programs beyond 1983-84 will have regard to the outcome of these discussions. The Government has had that report for some four or five months. It has had these discussions. It brought down the Budget in August and still there is no decision. The whole thing has been deferred so that it will, in due course, have regard to the outcome of these discussions. But of course we can see from the Budget Papers that in fact at this stage this Government has abandoned all of these programs. It has abandoned $640m worth of programs that would benefit this nation, programs which would have created jobs, programs which on completion would have provided facilities for further jobs, further development. Water resource projects desperately needed by this country have all been abandoned for nothing, abandoned by this Minister in a fit of pique, for no valid reason at all. They have been deferred until such time as the demands of the people of Australia to this Government finally get through and finally the Cabinet, probably, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will have to stand over this Minister and demand that these works be completed. I strongly support the motion moved in my name and the motions moved in the names of other senators, and I urge the Senate to adopt these motions. Senator HILL(South Australia)(5.05) —I wish to speak to the motion in my name and, really, the series of motions deploring the abandonment by the Hawke Government of the Fraser Government's $640m five-year bicentennial water resources program and also expressing the regret that the Hawke Government has given no indication that it will continue to support the existing national water resources program, a regret that, as I think has been indicated by my colleagues , has now reached the stage where we have very serious doubts as to whether the program will proceed. I do not wish to cover the ground that has already been covered so adequately by my colleagues but rather to put the South Australian perspective in relation to this series of motions. South Australia's dependence on the River Murray, I think, is simply not adequately appreciated by the population at large. It can be evidenced by the fact that 49 per cent of the state's total irrigation, stock, domestic and industrial water consumption depends on that river. Even more dramatic is the figure that some 80 per cent of Adelaide's water needs are also met by the River Murray. It is no wonder, therefore, that South Australians view their future well-being as intrinsically tied to the security of water supplied from that river. In recent years that security has been threatened, not only by devastating drought but also by the unacceptable quality of water supplied from the river. Irrigation practices upstream and resulting high water tables have increased the river's salt load through South Australia. The impact on agricultural industries dependent on the Murray for their water supply has been most dramatic. South Australia has therefore been at the forefront in supporting initiatives which have aimed at improving the management and development of our nation's major river system. Presently before the Senate, I remind honourable senators, is the River Murray Waters Agreement, which marks a milestone in the development of effective management of the River Murray system and for which my colleague Senator Sir John Carrick can take considerable credit. The River Murray Commission is now empowered to consider and make recommendations on water quality. The Agreement, in a sense, signals a recognition of the adverse effects of high salinity levels on South Australian water supplies. Moreover, the agreement marks the conclusion of strenuous efforts made by Sir John Carrick, as I mentioned, and the previous Government to ensure that our greatest river system is provided with support necessary for its continued survival. I mention that only in passing as just one illustration of the previous Government's commitment to the conservation of Australia's water resources. Another example which has been mentioned is the establishment in August last year of the National Water Research Council, a body charged with the task of improving the co-ordination of water research within Commonwealth research agencies. Under the former Government, water resource management, conservation and development therefore remained high priority national objectives. The national water resources program and the bicentennial water resources program were significant programs geared towards achieving these objectives. They were not, as the Opposition would like people to believe and as I think has been effectively demolished already in this debate, programs merely plucked out of the air. The national water resources program, as has been indicated, has received no assurance of funding beyond this year. It has been in operation since 1977-78 and since that time has provided funding on a dollar for dollar basis to all State governments for projects considered of high priority. The program now appears to be gutted, with no alternatives yet proposed by this Government. As we have heard, the report upon which the Government claimed to be waiting has been in its hands since April of this year but still there is no indication as to what the future holds. I reminded the Senate that under the national water resources program South Australia has received funding for significant programs. Over $35m since the year 1977-78 has been provided by the Commonwealth for water assessment projects , filtration schemes for Adelaide and the northern towns of Port Pirie, Port Augusta and Whyalla, Murray River salinity and drainage works and flood mitigation projects along the River Torrens. All these projects are still in train. A significant boost to the development of these programs was provided by the former Government when it announced in January that the national water resources program would be extended for four years to 1987-88. This announcement provided State governments with an opportunity to undertake forward planning decisions in the knowledge that an average of $40m a year would be available for programs already under way-something that seems so obviously necessary in long term water resource programs, particularly those that have already been instituted and are part completed. I regret to say that this forward planning has now been taken away by the precipitous decisions of this Government. All South Australian projects, other than the Adelaide and Iron Triangle filtration schemes, have suffered as a result of this year's Budget. Funding for water resource assessment has been cut back, although I am pleased to say the cutback has not yet led to the dropping of any assessment programs. However, the three main programs on ground water assessment, surface water assessment and computer modelling of the River Murray resources investigation have all been scaled down. Funding for River Murray salinity and drainage work has been cut by $405m and the River Torrens flood mitigation program, which received a 100 per cent funding increase in the 1982-83 Budget, has this year been increased by a mere 6 per cent-not even enough to keep up with the Government's highly optimistic inflation forecast. South Australia now faces the uncertainty created by a government with no clear planning intentions for comprehensive water resource development. This contrasts so dramatically with the philosophy of the previous Government, which not only sought to secure the continuation of the national water resources program but also had the imagination and the initiative to propose the supplementary bicentennial water resources program. The announcement of the commitment of an additional $350m for water resource projects brought with it greater hope that South Australia would obtain a more secure and higher quality water supply. Under this scheme a further $70m in direct funding was to be provided each year for five years. The program was one of vision. That vision has not been shared by this Government and South Australia, like the other States, will be disadvantaged. For South Australians particularly, the bicentennial scheme offered hope that additional storage capacity on the Murray could be built. A significant project under the scheme, since jettisoned by the Government, was the comprehensive engineering, economic and environmental study of a new upper Murray dam. The development of this dam, along with funding for increased storage capacities to be provided at Euston and on the Menindee Lakes and improvements in the regulation of water release from the Hume and Dartmouth dams , would have had a positive effect on maintaining a sufficient flow of water down the Murray while at the same time improving water quality. I stress both objectives-quantity and quality. The three projects I have mentioned were to be part of the bicentennial water resources program. Their significant investment potential, along with that of the other projects in other States, has now been lost. When the Government comes to realise the value of these programs, their cost obviously will be far in excess of $70m per annum. The bicentennial water resources program provided for the completion of water projects over a very short period. The value of that is to be stressed. These projects contain substanital opportunity for employment generation. That opportunity has been missed. They provided an imaginative addition to Australia's capital infrastructure. That opportunity has now been missed. The bicentennial water resources program provided the Government with an opportunity to build on the initiatives provided by the former Government. It has missed that opportunity as well. Above all, the Government has shown that it lacks the courage and foresight of its predecessors. Australia and South Australia in particular, now face a less secure future. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.14) — Senator Sir John Carrick has not been so enthusiastic since the days when he used to talk up the resources boom in general and Rundle shares in particular- Senator Sir John Carrick —You know that is wrong. Senator WALSH —He got them up to a capitalised market value of $1,200m. Last time I looked the figure was $300m. He fiddled with the National Energy Advisory Committee report to boot. Senator Sir John Carrick —I take a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. That must be an offensive and insulting remark to a senator and I draw your attention to it. To allege that someone fiddled with a report, which in this case is absolutely wrong, is to be offensive to a member of this chamber and I ask you to ask the Minister to withdraw it. Senator WALSH —I withdraw that, Mr Acting Deputy President. What Senator Sir John Carrick did, precisely, was put out a Press statement accompanying the NEAC report on the prospectivity of the Rundle project. In that Press statement, which purported to be a summary of what was in the report, he changed both the estimated time schedule in which it could come on production and whether it was a probability or a possibility. If the honourable senator objects to me describing that as fiddling with a NEAC report then I am quite happy to withdraw it, but that is what he did. As I said, I have not seen him so enthusiastic since the days when he used to talk up the resources boom and Rundle shares. The sordid reality behind the romanticism and flamboyant rhetoric is that this proposal, which was retrospectively named the bicentennial water resources program-it was not named that on 25 January when the first Press statement came out-is that it was a stunt by a desperate Prime Minister running amok with the cheque book in the approach to his terminal election campaign. He knew full well that the country was already facing a prospective deficit for the next financial year in excess of $9 billion. In that situation, the discredited former Prime Minister-if Senator Sir John Carrick wants to associate himself with this scheme he is welcome to do so-knowing all that, produced a wildcat list of proposals for expenditure of taxpayers' funds, which included a bit of double and triple counting but which the former Government claimed amounted to $640m. That sort of fiscal irresponsibility is not practised by this Government, and it will not be. Senator Sir John Carrick has accepted responsibility for it, which under the circumstances is really quite magnanimous because the scheme in fact was cooked up by the Prime Minister in collusion with National Party pork barrellers. It has subsequently been repudiated by the former Treasurer and now Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Senator Sir John Carrick made much of the alleged commitment to the Burdekin Dam by the former Government. Let us set the record straight. What the former Government did was appropriate in its last Budget $6 1/2m for the Burdekin Dam. There was no legally binding obligation for any commitment thereafter. Indeed, the Age of 19 August reported on comments of the former Treasurer as follows: it may have been necessary to reschedule some of the capital works commitments made in the election and in the lead up. So what Senator Sir John Carrick tells us was a formal and binding commitment was something that might have been rescheduled in general. The former Treasurer is further reported to have said: I never believed the employment spin off from the large capital works are as great as other people think. Then he becomes more specific: As for the Burdekin dam, which politicians have repeatedly promised to fund but the Hawke Government has actually started to fund- He said: 'but the Hawke Government has actually started to fund'; this is the former Treasurer and present Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party speaking, in a direct quote- I would not have regarded the Burdekin as any more sacrosanct than other areas. I'd have put it into hotch-potch with some of the other things. There we have from the former Treasurer himself precisely what would have happened to the retrospectively named bicentennial water resources program had the discredited former Prime Minister and the discredited former Treasurer still been in office. It would have been scuttled after the election. It was a mirage designed to shimmer between 25 January and 5 March and then disappear from view forever. Senator Sir John Carrick cannot have it both ways. He cannot assert that the former Government was irrevocably committed to funding the Burdekin Dam and support his present Deputy Leader who said in August that it was not, and indeed that it would have been rescheduled and possibly scuttled. He cannot have it both ways. Senator Sir John Carrick also chose to comment on the Split Rock Dam. I will say more about that later. The financial arrangements for Split Rock Dam, made by the previous Government, were identical to those for the Burdekin. One million dollars was allocated in the 1982-83 Budget. The New South Wales Government wanted a commitment that there would be funding in future years. Senator Sir John Carrick and the former Government refused to give that commitment. There was no guarantee of further Commonwealth funds beyond 1982-83 for the Split Rock Dam than there was for the Burdekin. Senator Sir John Carrick —$40m unmatched. Senator WALSH —There was no guarantee of any further Commonwealth funds beyond 1982-83 for the Split Rock Dam or the Burdekin. No matter how much Senator Sir John Carrick cares to wriggle and prevaricate, that is the truth, that is the fact. Senator Lewis —You can shout it, but it does not make it a fact. What does the joint statement say? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! Senator Lewis —Why should I come to order, why? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Lewis, if I call you to order I do not expect to have my call to order questioned. Senator Lewis —I apologise, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator WALSH —Towards the end of January when the discredited former Prime Minister was planning what he thought was to be a successful campaign, but turned out to be a terminal election campaign, the Department was asked for a list of water resources projects for potential funding. The list was drawn up but the message came back that there were not enough projects on the list, that a few more were required. Thus all the wildcat propositions that had been gathering dust for years were brushed off and hastily put into the former Government's package, as an election stunt. The program would have been repudiated by the former Government had it been successful in deceiving the people on 5 March. Some States had literally half an hour to respond to the proposals that had been put to them. So much for the consultation which Senator Sir John Carrick and others claim took place! One State-there may have been more than one, but I know of one-was given literally half an hour to respond to specific proposals. I refer to Victoria. One of the proposals on that list was the Mitchell River Dam, which the Victorian Government itself had previously decided to scuttle. If Senator Sir John Carrick wants to accept the responsibility for it-I would not nail him with it, because the people who were really responsible were the pork barrellers of the National Party and the former Prime Minister-he is welcome to it. He then stood over Victoria and said that they must accept his proposal or take nothing. Victoria wanted some other projects to be funded if the Commonwealth had so much loose cash that it could throw it to the States knowing that it was facing a $9 billion prospective deficit in the next financial year. Victoria said it would prefer something else, but was forced to accept the Mitchell River Dam because that is what the pork barrellers of the National Party wanted. We all know that in any conflict in the former Cabinet between the pork barrellers of the National Party and Senator Sir John Carrick, the pork barrellers always won because the Prime Minister lined up with them and overruled Senator Sir John Carrick. I do not know whether to be angry at Senator Sir John Carrick's audacity in raising this matter today or to show pity for him for having to tolerate in that Cabinet for so many years a Prime Minister who always supported the pork barrellers of the National Party against the usually better advice and policy which the Government was given by Senator Sir John Carrick. It is true that these projects were on lists submitted by the State governments. There are a vast number of projects floating around because State governments from time to time, to appease pressure groups in various parts of their States, say: 'Well, we will make an application to the Commonwealth to fund this project'. For example, a proposal from Western Australia regarding the Agaton water scheme has been on the books for a decade or more. State governments decide to make application to the Commonwealth for the funding of schemes, never expecting that those applications will be taken seriously. Of course the States accepted the offer of the money-under protest in the case of Victoria, in that it would have preferred the $20m allocated for the Mitchell River Dam to be allocated to something more socially and economically useful. But of course it accepted the money. What State government in its right mind, in the midst of the worst recession for 50 years, would have rejected it? That recession was induced substantially by years of mismanagement by the former Government. That Commonwealth handout, however ill conceived it may have been, the specific projects, however misdirected that public investment may have been, would at least have generated some employment and economic activity in the State . Of course they accepted it. Senator Sir John Carrick had a good deal to say about the Bradfield scheme. The Bradfield study itself, as a piece of engineering, is about as cobwebby as Senator Sir John Carrick's economics. Among other things, the Bradfield study, according to the report compiled by Cameron McNamara Pty Ltd completed, I think, last year-certainly very recently-showed that Bradfield had grossly overestimated the availability of water in the rivers concerned. He was the engineer who designed the Sydney Harbour Bridge. I presume he was a competent engineer in that sense. Obviously, his earlier study in this respect was very superficial, so superficial that it was grossly in error. An even more significant error was that Bradfield had assumed that the water from the point of impoundment could be diverted inland by gravity through tunnels across the Divide. In fact, as the Cameron-McNamara report showed, it required a lift of nearly 400 metres to reach the inland plains, as well as tunnelling across the Divide. I note that Senator Collard who, I suppose, is scheduled to speak on this collective of motions, thinks so little of the Bradfield scheme that he has not even bothered to list it on his list of complaints about projects affecting Queensland. That is what Senator Collard thinks of the Bradfield scheme. He is not even complaining about its being dropped. He has listed the Dawson River Weir, the MacIntyre River Weir, the Awoonga Dam, and the proposed feasibility study for the diversion of the Northern Rivers system inland. The last project mentioned is, of course, almost identical to Senator Sir John Carrick's reference to the proposed feasibility study for the diversion of the Clarence River inland. Let us consider the Clarence River diversion, another project for which Senator Sir John Carrick is accepting full responsibility. As I have said, I would not apportion full responsibility for this debacle, this piece of sordid political intrigue in the run-up to a terminal election campaign, to Senator Sir John Carrick, but he is apparently willing to accept it. In the Australian of 25 January Professor Musgrave, a well known and eminent agricultural economist from the University of New England, with respect to the Clarence River, is reported as saying: . . . there was no crop which could justify the projected cost of the water, $ 106 a million litres. A million litres is more commonly known as a megalitre. An eminent agricultural economist with a direct knowledge of the area said that no crop could justify the cost of the water. Senator Sir John Carrick proposed to squander $4m of taxpayers money on a feasibility study into that proposal, knowing-at least if he did not know, some of his better informed Cabinet colleagues must have known- that the country was facing a prospective $9 billion deficit in this financial year, before throwing away an additional $4m on a project as worthless as that. The Australian also reported the New South Wales Water Resources Commission- which like most water resources commissions could fairly be described, and would not object to being so described, as pro-irrigation development-as saying that the investigation showed that very high capital costs are involved, even for the more favourable diversion schemes. For example, two identified schemes could each divert 755,000 megalitres annual from the Clarence River basin at capital costs of $619m or alternatively $656m based on mid-1961 figures. The delivery costs, as Professor Musgrave said and as I have already quoted, are $109 a megalitre. To put that into perspective for people who may not be familiar with that area, the normal charge for water delivered by channel to a farm is in the vicinity of $13 a megalitre to $16 a megalitre. That includes, in almost all circumstances, a substantial public subsidy. The delivery costs from the Clarence River are $109 a megalitre. That is the proposal upon which Senator Sir John Carrick agrees and accepts responsibility for squandering an additional $4m on an unnecessary feasibility study. Then he has the audacity to castigate or attempt to castigate this Government for husbanding the taxpayers' dollars with a greater sense of responsibility than he or his party displayed when in office. Several speakers have mentioned the report entitled 'Perspective on Australia's Water Resources to the year 2000'. Senator Sir John Carrick appears to harbour the delusion that he pulled off some sort of a coup at Senate Estimates Committee C last Monday week, when I said that I believed I had received the report in April. A check revealed that that was the case. It was despatched to the States very quickly. It was the Government's intention to have the report printed and tabled in Parliament before this but there has been a delay in the Government Printer doing that work. But the States have had the report since May and early June and have been asked to respond to it. I am informed today that all States have responded. The response in general is to support the recommendations of the report. I will come to those in a minute. There is broad agreement with the recommendations. This is not a recommendation but a quotation from the report reaffirmed in the recommendation: Several signs clearly indicate that emphasis in the water industry is now moving from development of new resources to better management of existing supplies and that this trend will continue into the foreseeable future. Further, I observe for the record and for those who did not hear Senator Sir John Carrick that that is contradictory to the thrust of the policy which he urges upon this Government and which he himself irresponsibly pursued when in office. The emphasis that he has placed as a Minister-and he accepts the responsibility for it; if he wants to be lumbered with it he is welcome to it- and that he repeats here today is on massive new construction projects, some of which are known to be hopelessly uneconomic, some which are marginal and some which are worth while and which have been picked up by this or other Labor governments. Senator Sir John Carrick mentioned the drought, repeating the old furphy that irrigation drought-proofs the country. He commended the people who wrote the report and said what an excellent team they were; and I agree. It found: Irrigation development does not mitigate the effects of drought. It may even exacerbate the effects of drought if heavily stocked irrigation properties are subjected to water supply restrictions. That is the finding of the committee which Senator Sir John Carrick has praised . But today he repeats the old furphy that irrigation will drought proof the country. Chapter 8 of the report, recommendation 4 (1) states: Priority in water resources development for irrigation to the year 2000 should be given to the completion of those schemes already under construction. That is precisely what this Government has done, as distinct from what Senator Sir John Carrick, Senator Lewis, Senator Archer, Senator Collard and Senator Crichton-Browne would have us do. They would have us-as a pork-barrelling measure in National Party electorates and one or two others by accident, which are scattered all around the country-start new projects. The report of this Committee-the members of which Senator Sir John Carrick appointed and whose report he has praised today-recommended that priority of water resource development for irrigation to the year 2000 should be given to the completion of those projects already under construction. Again, that is absolutely contradictory of the policy pursued by Senator Carrick and for which he is magnanamous or foolish enough to accept responsibility when a Minister, and contrary to that which he urges upon this Government today. This Government has acted completely in accordance with that recommendation. I turn now to the list of projects in these five or six motions. The New South Wales Government announced last week that it was going to build and fund the Split Rock Dam. The same will happen to the Glenbawn Dam-stage 2. The Mid-Murray storage (Euston), the Menindee Lakes storage, and the proposed construction of an Upper Murray River storage projects are all viewed with reservation by New South Wales and are low on the priority list. I have already dealt with the proposed feasibility study with the diversion of the Clarence River inland which was mentioned by Senator Sir John Carrick. He regrets that the Government has not hastily rushed into an ill-considered project beyond 1983-84, following the example of its predecessor. Senator Lewis lists Lake Merrimu-stage 3, and the Piping Wimmera-Mallee water supply scheme-Stage 1. From memory the cost of stage 1 is $60m. Apparently Senator Lewis thinks that would have been an easy task for a government with a $9 1/2 billion deficit, from a irresponsible predecessor. Senator Lewis thinks it would have been a piece of cake to find $60m for that project. As someone who was associated with the Expenditure Review Comittee I can tell Senator Lewis that it was not. One motion includes the Mid-Murray storage (Euston) and the Menindee Lakes storage-- Senator Lewis —What about Lake Merrimu? Senator WALSH —Lake Merrimu, if I remember correctly, is principally an urban industrial supply- Senator Lewis —Outer metropolitan. Senator WALSH —Outer metropolitan, which has not normally been funded under the scheme of the previous Government. That draws attention yet again to the stunting nature of the retrospectively named bicentennial water resources program. Normally, projects such as Lake Merrimu were not picked up under that program because they were urban industrial. The view of the government of the day-and a view that I must say I tend to share-is that the State governments have traditionally been responsible for that area and should retain that responsibility. But when the former Government needed a stunt for an election campaign, which turned out to be terminal, it waived those long standing guidelines and threw Lake Merrimu in. Senator Lewis —What do you say about the Mitchell River Dam? Is it finished? Is there no hope? Senator WALSH —The Victorian Government scuttled the Mitchell River Dam project in May of 1982, and very sensibly too. Senator Hill's motion refers to the Adelaide water filtration scheme. Now that is one of the worthwhile projects. In spite of the desperate financial situation which we inherited from our irresponsible predecessors, an additional $4m has been provided in the Budget for that scheme. The South Australian Government last week agreed to match that contribution with an additional $1m. This Government is very conscious of the fact that that is a high priority scheme which deserves funding, and it has been funded. It has substantial, decisive social and economic justification criteria which are conspicuously absent from almost all of the other projects which the former Prime Minister announced on 25 January and for which Senator Sir John Carrick accepts responsibility. Of course, Senator Crichton-Browne will rave on for a while, I suppose. None of those projects has high priority. Senator Crichton-Browne —I am not in your class. Senator WALSH —Tell us about Christo Moll's cheque butts. That would probably be more interesting than what the honourable senator is likely to say. Senator Archer referred to the Craigbourne Dam. Senator Crichton-Browne —Is that all you have to say about Western Australia? Senator WALSH —The honourable senator has not spoken yet, so I cannot reply to him. He probably will not be worth replying to anyway. I invite him to tell us about Christo Moll's cheque butts. Various economic studies going back to, I think, the late 1960s or 1970 have been undertaken by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in respect of the Craigbourne Dam. Some people have updated the reports to establish the estimated capital costs. I have a report, bearing the Tasmanian coat of arms, of the South East Irrigation Committee of the Rivers and Water Supply Commission. One member of this study committee was Mr Casimaty, a former Country Party Senate candidate and I understand a land holder in the Coal River Valley which is a potential irrigation area. The report says that after the completion of the sixth unit of the Jordan-Coal Rivers and Iron Creek scheme which would cost $29m, and on the assumption that the full output of 10,500 megalitres were paid for every year-I just observe parenthetically that is an unrealistic assumption because less than the full output would be delivered-the delivery cost of the water is $474 a megalitre for capital alone. The existing irrigation charges in Tasmania are about $6. The estimated cost was $474 plus $ 43 for servicing and administration. So much for the Craigbourne scheme. The last point that I have time to make is that this stunt which the previous Prime Minister announced on 25 January and which was retrospectively named the bicentennial water resources program, with the very limited exclusions of the Harding River Dam in Western Australia-- Senator Sir John Carrick —You don't come from Western Australia, do you? Senator WALSH —That was part of it. With the exception of the Harding River Dam and the Iron Triangle towns, the previous Government completely excluded funding water supplies for country towns. That was one of the most unacceptable arrangements. With a few minor exceptoins, it refused to accept any responsibility for people in country towns who have the worst water supplies in Australia. That was what the people in country towns got from the National Party and what they got from Senator Sir John Carrick. This Government has not accepted that. We have announced a program under the community employment program and have allocated $20m to provide water supplies to people in smaller country towns who have a high, if not the highest, priority and the greatest need for decent water supplies of any people in Australia. They have got it from a Labor government. They did not get it from the previous Government and they would not get if from such a government. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation on two points. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) said during his speech that I had personally altered a Press statement relating to a National Energy Advisory Committee report to pervert the meaning of the report. He knows, because I told him at the time as did the then Department of National Development and Energy, that the Department made a statement completely unprovoked that a departmental officer had made that clerical error. What he said was a gross, and indeed dishonest, statement on his part. I claim that that is a gross misrepresentation. Secondly, the Minister keeps saying that I talked up the Rundle shares. History will show that in the months of my Ministry the price of Rundle shares fell steadily, through none of my choosing, and that because of information I discovered after going to Rundle I had subsequent consultations with the then Treasurer. The Treasurer and I had discussions with Esso and the Rundle partners . As a result of that we arranged that a picture be released to the public different from what the public had understood, with the effect that by our actions, however peradventure, the shares fell again. So they are two completely false statements and they ought to be put to rest. In accordance with standing order 363 I ask that the Minister table the document entitled 'Perspective on Australia's Water Resources to the Year 2000', from which he quoted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Standing order 363 states: A Document relating to public affairs quoted from by a Minister of the Crown, unless stated to be of a confidential nature, or such as should more properly be obtained by Address, may be called for and made a public Document. Senator Walsh, Senator Sir John Carrick has asked under standing order 363 that the document from which you quoted be tabled. Senator Archer —Under open government, of course we will get it. Senator Walsh —Honourable senators will get it as a parliamentary paper. They would have had it as a parliamentary paper last month if the Government Printer' s schedule had not been delayed. I have no objection to tabling it. However, I think it would be rather foolish if the printing resources of the Senate were needlessly overtaxed by hundreds of people asking for a copy of the document that has been tabled. Alternatively, I am willing to table it if the honourable senator wants me to because I do not regard the document as confidential. If it satisfies Senator Sir John Carrick I will supply the Opposition with a copy. Alternatively, I will table it. Senator Sir John Carrick —I take a point of order. It surely is quite improper for a Minister to quote from a document that is not yet the property of the Senate and to try to support his arguments from that document without being totally willing to make that document as a whole the property of the Senate. That must be an offence to the ordinary practice of the Senate. Having done it, he has committed himself to this course. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Sir John Carrick, I understand that Senator Walsh said that he was prepared to table the document. Alternatively, he made a suggestion that-- Senator Lewis —We don't want to bargain with him. We want him to table it. Senator Walsh —I table the document. I might add that whether the report is subsequently presented to the Parliament is a matter, as far as I know, for my discretion. I am not obliged to present it. It is something that I intend to do, and I would have done it before had the document been available. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave- Senator Sir John Carrick said that a-and I stress the word 'a'-singular clerical error was made in the Press statement which accompanied the National Energy Advisory Committee report on the Rundle prospect, among other things. I do not remember the title of the report, but it was concerned with alternative sources of liquid fuel, or something like that. There were in fact in that Press statement two errors-one number was different and one description was different. I cannot quote the precise figures or words, but they were along these lines: Senator Sir John Carrick tells us that 'eight' year lead time had by clerical error become 'five' and 'possible' had become 'probable'. That may not be the precise description, but those two, shall we say, very substantial differences of emphasis which appeared in the Press statement were described by Senator Sir John Carrick as a singular clerical error. The second point with regard to the Rundle shares matter is this: It is correct -and I remember this very well-that Senator Sir John Carrick, after he had been to Rundle in I think about February 1981, changed his tone in the Senate regarding Rundle shares. But in the general euphoria of the resources boom and the 1980 election stunt, the general tone of Senator Sir John Carrick's comments in the Senate about Rundle was that it was a project which was a goer. I submit that that, coming from a presumably responsible Federal Minister, must have had some influence on the share price. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(5.51) —My notice of motion condemns the Government for abandoning the bicentennial water resources program, which, had it been allowed to continue, would have effectively addressed two significant water resource problems in Western Australia. It is a matter of regret to all Australians, and particularly to those people in the goldfields region and the south-west farming district of Western Australia, who would have been amongst the first beneficiaries of the scheme, that the Government has adopted this attitude. Those people are aware that this Government already has a record of broken promises unparalleled in Australian history, but that amongst the very few election commitments it has kept is the destruction of a scheme that would have brought immense benefit to people in the rural and isolated regions of Australia. The Australian Labor Party has always been the anti-rural party, and its record so far seems to confirm that view. The destruction of the bicentennial water resources program, which was an imaginative and carefully planned attempt to address one of Australia's most pressing problems, is yet another reminder that people outside Labor's main electoral base in the main urban centres can expect no understanding and no assistance from this Government. It contrasts starkly with the sympathetic and meaningful policies which were pursued by the previous Government to help develop those areas outside the major cities which contribute more than half Australia's export income in the agricultural and mining industries. Australia is one of the driest continents on earth, and its development has been largely related to the availability of water. As the population grew and those areas which were served by natural water sources became populated and developed, Australians developed imaginative projects to extend the irrigated areas available to them. The Snowy Mountains scheme and the Ord River irrigation project are two significant examples of this imagination translated into projects which will have a lasting benefit for the regions they serve. Coalition governments have always been at the forefront of these developments. They have been conscious of the problems brought about by drought or simply by lack of guaranteed annual rainfall. They have responded to that challenge. In November 1977 the Fraser Government established the national water resources program to provide funds to the States for water related purposes. Between 1978- 79 and 1982-83, a total of $147.8m was disbursed to the States in this way. The then Government recognised not only that water supplies are crucial to regional development but also that the constitutional responsibility for such works lies with the States. The Australian bicentennial water resources program would have supplemented these grants and loan guarantees which had been available to the States for the past five years. Recognising that the States have the constitutional responsibility in this area, the former Prime Minister and the former Minister for National Development and Energy worked closely with the relevant State Ministers in identifying areas of greatest need in each State. Over the next five years those areas identified in the original program outline, and others which it was felt were in need of attention, would have received the benefit of a $640m fund which the Federal Government had established for that purpose. The fund was in two forms-an extension of the national water resources program for another four years, committing a total of $210m, and $70m a year for five years from the bicentennial fund. That was an iron-clad commitment from the former Government to provide a total of $640m by 1988 for that purpose. In my State of Western Australia two immediate areas were to receive attention. The first was the south-west, which supports a wide variety of primary industries and which, unlike most other parts of Western Australia, receives good annual rainfall. The problem in that region is largely one of soil and water salinity, which to some extent is a product of injudicious cutting of trees in the area and to some extent the result of the heavy primary activity in the region. Last year, for example, as part of the national water resources program a sum of $2m was allocated to fund work to control dry land salinity in the Wellington Dam area. Two projects to be funded by the bicentennial program were announced last January to address the same problems-a four-year program to provide good quality water to dilute salinity in supplies currently available from the Wellington Dam by upgrading the Harris Dam and a five-year work program on the Harvey Dam to augment water supplies to the Harvey irrigation area, which is an important vegetable growing area of the State. The significance of these projects can be illustrated by the fact that several years ago part of the town of Harvey had to be evacuated through fears about the structural safety of the Harvey Dam. While that situation was addressed by prompt action from the State Government, it underlines the fact that further work is necessary in the area. Because of the nature of the primary industries in the area, expecially in the vegetable and fruit growing and dairying industries, much more work will be required to ensure a continuity of supply of these products to Western Australia. As I have said, the area is generally well served by rainfall, though that is not to say that some difficulties have not been encountered, particularly in dry years. As a result of continuing consultations with the previous State Government, the previous Federal Government had planned to assist in reducing the likely future impact of those difficulties through the existing mechanisms that had been in place since November 1977 and by the additional funds that would have been made available from the bicentennial water resources project. The other water scheme that would have benefited from the Federal funds was the Goldfields pipeline. Some of the original installations for that pipeline, which extends nearly 550 kilometres from the Mundaring Weir to Kalgoorlie, are uneconomic and in need of replacement. Regular upgrading of the pipeline has been going on for many years, but the allocation from the bicentennial fund would have expedited that work and enabled its completion by Australia's bicentennial year, 1988. It would have been particularly appropriate for this project to have been completed then because, as most honourable senators would no doubt be aware, the Goldfields water scheme was and remains one of Australia' s most ambitious engineering projects. In the 1890s, when the original scheme was completed, it cost the then astronomical figure of #2.5m. There were many critics who said that the goldfields of the Coolgardie-Kalgoorlie region would be short-lived like similar goldfields in the eastern States which had been worked out and then abandoned. As history has since demonstrated, these predictions vastly underestimated the huge reserves and the durability of the Eastern Goldfields. In fact, although the industry has gone through several peaks and troughs, gold mining in the Eastern Goldfields is on the verge of a new revival. There are two projects in the Kalgoorlie region of which I am aware which are each seeking to produce in the order of one million tonnes of ore a year and, depending on the nature of the ore, they will each require in the order of 2.8 million to 4 million litres of water a day for processing. North Kalgurlie Mines Ltd has announced a $13m expansion which it hopes will increase its ore output by 30 per cent, and Western Mining Corporation Ltd has announced new work at Kambalda. Because of the small, very salty underground water reserves in the Kalgoorlie area, all the water for the present ore treatment is supplied by the pipeline, which presently has a capacity of 40 million litres a day. I understand that the Public Works Department is planning to augment that supply by 10 per cent over the next five years although, of course, as a result of the action of the present Federal Government in abandoning the bicentennial water resources program, one obvious avenue for funds has been deleted and has disappeared. Nevertheless, even the 10 per cent upgrading to an ultimate capacity of 44 million litres a day will not be sufficient for the needs of these two projects, nor for the predicted additional 500 householders who will find employment with the development of these projects. If the labour force in Kalgoorlie is increased by 500, and given the average daily consumption of water at 1,400 litres per household, another 750,000 litres a day will be required beyond that which is necessary for the treatment of ore from the new projects and the planned expansion of the existing operations. The obvious conclusion is that the Eastern Goldfields has a very optimistic future in terms of further development of its traditional industries but much of that future hinges on the provision of suitable infrastructure, especially water . The previous Federal Government was mindful of that situation and that is why, in consultation with the previous State Government in Western Australia, the rehabilitation of the Goldfields pipeline was included in the bicentennial water resources program. Unfortunately for the people of Kalgoorlie, they have been sold out by the present State and Federal governments which have already demonstrated their complete lack of understanding of rural and isolated areas and their specific needs. This Government has terminated a program which would have been beneficial to two separate regions of Western Australia and several other regions in other parts of Australia as well. I note that Senator Walsh said that the only project that was likely to effect rural and isolated areas was the Harding River project in the north-west of Western Australia. It makes me wonder about his knowledge of the geography in his own State. As I said, Kalgoorlie is more than 550 kilometres from Perth. Senator Sir John Carrick —He was not even interested in Kalgoorlie. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No. He made no comment about Kalgoorlie. Senator Sir John Carrick —He did not even know there was an existing scheme. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No, that is obvious otherwise he would have sought to criticise it. If it had not been for the foresight, courage, vision, imagination and the bold plans for the future as perceived by C. Y. O'Connor, that project would never have got off the ground. It is tragic to record that as a result of the sceptics like Senator Walsh who said that the project was not worth funding, was not worthy of implementation and was not worthy of expenditure ultimately C. Y. O'Connor, who was the subject of enormous pressure and depression, committed suicide. He was one of the finest engineers Australia has ever seen. Of course, his judgment, planning and implementation of the pipeline has been well vindicated. If it had not been for him the water resources in Kalgoorlie would not be as they are today. It was put by Senator Walsh to Senator Sir John Carrick that it was an unnecessary expenditure. All the people of Kalgoorlie ask for is an adequate and reasonable water supply. It is not a grandiose scheme. The people of Kalgoorlie are simply asking for enough water for daily use and the provision of water for projects that are about to take place. As I said, industry in Kalgoorlie is on the verge of a new revitalisation. The area has enormous capacity to make a magnificent contribution to the economy of Western Australia and Australia and, particularly, the capacity to stimulate growth in industry in Kalgoorlie. We find that at the stroke of a pen the Federal Labor Party has slashed that program. The people of Kalgoorlie can make their own judgment about the Australian Labor Party. In my view the Government will stand utterly condemned by its action. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(6.04) —I speak to my notice of motion that deplores the abandonment by the Hawke Government of the Fraser Government's $640m five- year bicentennial water resources program. In the midst of this debate we have been subjected to the rantings and ravings-we have become used to them-of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh). Of course, he raised all the usual red herrings that we have become used to, not the least of which, of course, was the financial situation that his Government-- Senator Chipp —Do you think he has been discredited? Senator COLLARD —He will be by the time I have finished, Senator. We had all the usual rantings and ravings about the financial situation in which the Labor Government found itself when it came into office. I must acknowledge one trait of the present Government: I refer to its deviousness. Its ability to con the people of Australia knows no end. If we had learned something from it maybe we would not be where we are now. I mention the so-called projected deficit of $9.6 billion. Never in the time I have been interested in politics have I heard discussion in February or March about a projected deficit. We have only ever heard discussions about deficits once the Budget has been brought down and the figures are on the board. That figure is then the projected deficit for that year. This Government, with all the deviousness of which it is capable, perpetrated the myth that this country was heading for a $9.6 billion deficit without giving us any firm figures whatsoever. As I pointed out to a lot of people who asked me about it, how can there be a projected deficit when there is no Budget? How can there be a projected deficit before discussion and before the Ministry has even sat down to discuss what expenditure and expected revenue will be? I make this point about deficits and projected deficits. Let us go back to the discredited Whitlam Government and the Hayden Budget of 1975-76. The deficit in 1975-76 was $3,567m or 4.9 per cent of the GDP. The deficit that the Fraser Government left-in other words the deficit from the Budget of 1982-83, which we all knew would blow out and which indeed did blow out because of the drought and the many effects that drought had right through society-was $4,473m or 2.8 per cent of the GDP. These figures are taken out of his Government's Budget Paper No . 1. Indeed, this Government's projected deficit of $8.3 billion is 4.7 per cent of the GDP, something a little less than the Whitlam Government left us with in 1975-76. Let us get this whole projected deficit in perspective. The Whitlam Government in actual fact left us a Budget deficit far worse than anything we left the Hawke Government. Yet, this Government is using this as a reason for it not being able to do many things, not the least of which is to carry on with the bicentennial water resources program. It has been said by a cynic that if Captain Cook had an economist on board the Endeavour when he sailed up the east coast of Australia, Australia would never have been settled. I take that a little further. If Captain Cook had the likes of Senator Walsh or his ilk giving advice when he sailed up the east coast of Australia, Australia would never have been settled. It has been mentioned by Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Crichton-Browne that Australia is the most arid continent on earth. I think few people realise that we have more desert than any other continent, including Africa which has the notorious Sahara Desert. If ever a country needs to pay attention to the husbanding of its very sparse water resources, it should be Australia. We should be doing all that we can with every method at our disposal to encourage water storage and the use of that water. In this way we would provide not only for ourselves but also we would provide food for the nations that are close to us which are experiencing difficulty in feeding countless millions of people. Senator Walsh, who is the Minister for Resources and Energy and comes from the land himself, takes this stand every time the matter of water resources comes up . I put it to you, Mr Deputy President, that instead of being called the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh should be known as the Minister for famine, drought and desert because that is all that he seems to be advocating. Let us examine the current situation. This Government blamed the Fraser Government and its Budget. Yet Senator Walsh, as the Minister for Resources and Energy, brought in a measure that sought an increase in excise on a large range of fuels. People on the land who are just trying to get over a bad drought period, have lost the benefit of sales tax exemptions. Senator Walsh is supposed to be looking after the resources of this country. He has an interest in the land himself. As a matter of fact, I would say that this Budget is like a gold lotto Budget. The Minister is responsible, as much as anybody, for the introduction of these excises. It is a gold lotto Budget in that the Government wins the lottery every six months and it is the taxpayers who are buying the tickets. This discredited Minister for Resources and Energy, or the Minister for famine, drought and desert, if one likes, is as much responsible for that as anybody else. He has said here, in defence of his position and his Government, which has taken away the bicentennial water resources program, that all the programs were new; that the Government did not take money from existing programs which were not of much use to country towns. Let us look at the programs. I refer to the Awoonga Dam on the Boyne River. Money was allocated to go to that dam, which already exists. That project will go ahead because the State Government will put in all the money required. If Gladstone is not a developing country town, a provincial town, I do not know what is. I have taken part in debates in this chamber in which Gladstone was castigated by honourable senators opposite when they were in Opposition. Gladstone is a delightful place in which to live. Certainly it had growing pains as some of the large industries took off and it became a major coal shipping port. Because of the uninformed criticism that has taken place by members opposite, Gladstone has gained an undeserved reputation. It is a delightful town , but it certainly needs a better water supply. The Awoonga Dam was part of the bicentennial water resources program. The scheme met all the criteria which Senator Walsh laid down, yet it was one of those abandoned by this Government. Therefore, the Queensland Government has to pick up the whole tab itself. I refer to the Dawson River Weir. I do not know how old the weir is. It is an existing scheme and, once again, meets the criteria laid down by Senator Walsh. It is an old wooden dam. Therefore, its building probably goes back quite some considerable time. The new scheme was to replace that wooden dam with a concrete structure and a far greater holding area, which would allow irrigation for all that fertile land that is around the Dawson River area and also, of course, water for the town of Theodore, which is right on the banks of the river. Theodore is a small country town. That is an existing scheme, once again a scheme which meets all the criteria laid down by Senator Walsh. There is also the Macintyre River scheme near the town of Goondiwindi. I return to probably the main scheme, the one which has aroused such great contention. I refer to the Burdekin River scheme which I call the Australian Labor Party's 'born again Burdekin scheme'. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) went through Queensland and made a great deal about the Burdekin River. I think it is great that at long last he has found it and has found north Queensland. The Fraser Government and the Bjelke-Petersen Government came to an agreement to build the Burdekin Dam. That agreement has been given credence. I thank Senator Sir John Carrick for drawing my attention to the Hansard record of the Estimates Committee C hearing of 12 September 1983. As recorded at page 71 of Hansard, Senator Sir John Carrick asked: At the time of the allocation of the $6.5m what was the arrangement between the Commonwealth Government of the day and the State Government in terms of the dam? Would you spell it out? Mr Maunderson replied-and I draw attention to the reference to the previous Government: The previous Government agreed to meet the full cost of the dam, which was estimated at about $85m in mid-1980 prices. The State was to meet the preliminary costs associated with the construction of the dam, mainly road works , then estimated at about $14m. The State Government was also to meet the costs of developing the irrigation works, which were then estimated at about $109m. There we have it, the born again Labor Party Burdekin scheme. It was there. It was already up and running. Money had been allocated by the previous Government. The commitment was there that we would build a dam wall. I noticed, I think in one of today's Queensland newspapers, that the tenders for the construction of the dam wall have been opened. They range from somewhere in the vicinity of $50m to some $105m. The scheme is an ongoing one. As I said, I am very thankful that Mr Hawke travelled to north Queensland and found out where the Burdekin River was. But the scheme was for the axe. It was part of the bicentennial water resources program. I recall asking Senator Walsh a question before the Senate rose in early June regarding what would happen to the Burdekin Dam. At that stage he could not give me an answer. It was not until just before the Senate resumed that the announcement was made. Quite fortuitously, of course, it was made when the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, went to north Queensland. I guess that when he was up there he had to say something. He has done nothing else. He did not fulfil all his promises to the sugar industry. Indeed, I think the same $10m has been hawked around by Mr Hawke at least twice. All it is for is loans through the Rural Reconstruction Board. The Government had to do something so it literally agreed to continue a program which had been put in place by the Fraser -Anthony Government. The Labor Government has agreed to continue that program. I turn to the Bradfield scheme and the disparaging remarks that are continually heaped upon such schemes by Senator Walsh. I am not an engineer. I have never purported to be an engineer, but I do know, as I have said, that Australia is the most arid continent on earth. It has more desert than has any other continent. Seventy per cent of the water in Australia is uncommitted. It flows mainly into the Coral Sea, the Gulf of Carpentaria and the Timor Sea; in other words, it is from the heavy rainfall belt in north Queensland. I do not think we could live with ourselves over a period, knowing the aridness of this country and with all that water going to waste, if we did not make some investigations as to how best it could be used. I think that about $5m was allocated in the bicentennial water resources program for investigation into the Bradfield scheme . Vast amounts of water are flowing out every day-let alone during the wet season-right along the north coast of Queensland and, of course, Arnhem Land, into the Gulf of Carpentaria. It will be to the ultimate detriment of this country if we do not get our act together-77 per cent of Australia's water being uncommitted-and do something about using that water. The abandonment of this program by the Labor Government happened just as Australia was coming out of one of the worst drought periods in its history. So much for its concern for rural Australia. So much for the concern of the Minister, the now discredited Minister for Resources and Energy. As I said, he should be known as the Minister for famine, drought and desert. Senator Sir John Carrick —Buffoonery. Senator COLLARD —Buffoonery should be included in the title for his performance. He is not present in the chamber. I think that he should become known as the Minister for famine, drought and desert. If ever a country has a potential to feed the countless starving people in this world it is Australia. Yet we cannot do it. We should be ultimately condemned if we do not manage our water resources far better than we are doing now. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(6.18) —I rise to speak to the item which appears in the Notice Paper in my name relative to the cancellation of the bicentennial water resources program, in particular as it affects Tasmania. I move in this direction for two main reasons. Firstly, I deplore the cancellation of the program. Secondly, it does reek of very heavy-handedness as far as Tasmania is concerned, particularly as to the Craigbourne Dam proposal. I listened with great interest to what the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) had to say. I believe that all he really said was enough to make every Australian person absolutely terrified. I think that Australia can despair as far as water is concerned because very obviously the Government has no policy whatsoever. All the Minister did was stand here ranting, raving and roaring about various people and various places. He destroyed absolutely everything on a very full schedule and offered absolutely nothing in return. I do not think he made one comment that would indicate that anything was satisfactory. In other words, while ever he is the Minister all we can expect is for things to get worse and worse. Clearly, the Minister does not want any money to be spent on these sorts of projects. He believes that it is better to spend money on the dole than on development. I think that dole or development is probably another connotation that we could add to his portfolio. He did not offer us one proposal to replace all the projects he said were wrong or the schemes that he tore down. He referred to wildcat schemes in the broad generality. He did not dare to list what he considered to be wildcat schemes. He then accused us of not concentrating on existing schemes or concentrating our attention on country towns. I would like to run briefly through the list. In New South Wales, the Glenbawn Dam is an existing dam. We are talking about stage 2. In Victoria, Lake Merrimum is at stage 3. It is also an existing dam. Piping the Wimmera-Mallee water supply project has been in existence for years and years and years. It is an existing scheme. As Senator Collard said, in Queensland, the Awoonga Dam will service one of the biggest country towns in Australia and one of the most needy. All schemes mentioned in South Australia are existing schemes. They will bolster up the water supply, not only for Adelaide, but for the country towns in the Iron Triangle. Exactly the same applies to Western Australia. The Goldfields pipeline rehabilitation is an existing scheme for country towns. I will deal with the Craigbourne Dam in Tasmania separately. I find it quite extraordinary that Senator Walsh can get up , speak for half an hour, say absolutely nothing and be totally wrong in his facts at the same time. I return now to the Tasmanian situation. The ups and downs through 1983 are really quite important. They began on 25 January 1983 when the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) produced a statement setting out what the program would be. This was followed on 5 February by a meeting in Sydney at which Senator Sir John Carrick and Mr Beswick agreed that the Commonwealth would fund the Craigbourne Dam to the tune of $6.5m. It was agreed and everything was finalised. It then happened that, on 21 February, the Hobart Mercury reported that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) had been to Tasmania, made an inspection of the south-east Tasmanian area and pledged Federal funding of the Coal River irrigation scheme, the Craigbourne Dam. There were no ifs or buts; he pledged Federal funding. Then , of course, the great white chief turned up on 4 March and said: The ALP Economic package for Tasmania and encompasses such water and irrigation schemes as Warners Creek, Coal River/South-East and Cascades. Those were the three schemes that were promised by the present Prime Minister. What happened? They have all been cancelled since then. We went from three to nothing. By 29 March, the Minister, Mr Beswick, was getting a little bit nervous because he had not had any confirmation that these promises would be kept. He sought confirmation and tried to find out what was going to happen. On 12 April, he received a letter from Senator Walsh stating that he was not prepared to confirm the commitments and that there would be a review. That was the first time that that idea had ever been mentioned. On 19 April, the Tasmanian Minister wrote to Senator Walsh expressing his disappointment and noting the commitments that had been given by Mr Kerin and the then Prime Minister. He also noted the commitment given by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) to undertake the Winnaleah project, the Cascades scheme. The saga continued on 9 May when Senator Walsh again wrote to Mr Beswick and disputed that a commitment had been made. I notice that the Government had not, at any stage, written letters to the Press stating it had been misquoted. Senator Walsh then disputed the fact that any commitment had been made. It was then up to the Premier to write to the Prime Minister, on 20 May, seeking confirmation of the commitments on the three projects. There was a meeting. On 27 May, the Prime Minister said that the national water resources program still existed and that he would have talks and include the Craigbourne Dam in it. He said also that Craigbourne Dam would not be tied to any dam compensation. Senator Walsh, besides disputing the commitments, on 9 May said that the project could be used as a bargaining counter in the lower Gordon hydro scheme. That is the way it has been going on. On 27 May 1983, Senator Walsh again wrote to Mr Beswick still disputing that there had been a commitment. Referring again to what Senator Walsh said, I mention that he claimed that the previous Government had tried to foist the Mitchell River Dam on the Victorian Government. He said the Victorian Government did not want it; it was not one of its priorities. As far as the Craigbourne Dam is concerned, it was on the Tasmanian list of priorities; it was wanted; and it was the No. 1 project. Senator Walsh now says that he has far greater knowledge of what is best for Tasmania, what is good for Tasmania or what Tasmanians should want; and it is not the Craigbourne Dam. I have news for Senator Walsh: It is what the Tasmanians want; they will go ahead with the project. I believe that every Tasmanian will expect the Federal Government to carry out the promise that it made prior to the election and which was very much part of the campaign at that stage. So that this chamber may know a little about the matter in hand, I wish to give some information on the Craigbourne Dam. There are three dams in the proposal but the Craigbourne Dam was included in the bicentennial water resources program . The Craigbourne Dam is designed to provide irrigation water to an area of about 35,000 acres in south-east Tasmania. It is a particularly excellent piece of soil. It is in a very favoured location, handy to transport, handy to the city of Hobart, well sheltered and an ideal area for summer cropping of specialist crops, provided there is water to get them growing. That is the crux of the matter. It is useless country until it has regular, dependable water. When this country is developed, it will be amongst the highest employing pieces of rural land anywhere in Australia. It will provide high employment and a whole range of new industries which currently do not exist. I suggest that, if Senator Walsh is concerned about the cost of the project, he should find out whether the cost of providing many of these make work schemes that seem to be fashionable around Australia at present is more or less beneficial than building a great capital work with a very long term benefit for a whole group of people. The project will proceed, make no mistake. It has to. It is terribly important to the economy of Tasmania and its future development. As I have said before, I and the people of Tasmania, will look to this Government to proceed with what it promised. I am in no doubt that I will not have any difficulty with any of my Tasmanian colleagues on this matter because all of them will, of necessity, support a scheme which they fully understand, the value of which they appreciate and which is very much a part of the relationship that Tasmania has with the Federal Government. No part of Australia really has any greater problem with drought than this part of south-east Tasmania. Rain is not terribly dependable in this area. More often than not it has a sub-economic rainfall. The soil is good, the site is close to Hobart, it is close to transport, but it needs the water. I think very few people would appreciate that currently between one- quarter and one-third of Tasmania is still very much in the grip of a severe drought which has been going on for four years. People do not usually associate Tasmania with droughts. Drought is a fact at the moment, and unless there are extraordinary rains in the next month or so, Tasmania will be entering yet another year of continuing drought. The cancellation of the Craigbourne Dam project and other water schemes is, regrettably, only part of what Tasmania has so far suffered at the hands of this Government. Two other water schemes were cancelled. The upgrading of the Wynyard airport was cancelled, and the Gordon below Franklin scheme was cancelled. Some 70 per cent of Tasmania's future power development potential was completely taken away by that cancellation. We have an undertaking from the Government that nobody in Tasmania will be disadvantaged as a result of the cancellation of the Gordon below Franklin scheme. We are told that other occupations will be found. We are told that tourism is to be assisted and that new industries will be fostered. I am at a loss to see how we can develop new industries and foster tourism in line with the cancellations by this Government. I do not really think the Government can honestly say that it will foster tourism in Tasmania by cancelling the upgrading of the Wynyard airport, which is the main access to the north west, the west coast of Tasmania and that part of the State with the greatest tourist potential. I cannot see that part of helping Tasmania is to cancel what was already started, what had already been approved, by just saying: 'No, we will not go ahead with it'. How will it help Tasmania, if the Government cancels or defers irrigation schemes that prevent new agricultural industries or prevent the extension of existing industries that in themselves would have provided thousands of extra jobs in Tasmania and beyond? How does this fit in with the national policy? Then there is the Gordon below Franklin Dam. To take away 70 per cent of the remaining potential development of Tasmania's hydro power, which in turn will eliminate thousands of primary and secondary jobs for decades, is hardly backing up the statement of the Prime Minister: 'We are going to look after Tasmania'. Tasmania is no different from the mainland States. Its entire future is tied to the use and development of its water resources. There are a considerable number of schemes, not as good as the ones put forward, but ones that will be necessary for the on-development of the State in years to come. The future of Tasmania will be far more closely tied to the further development of the schemes that we already have than to some of the high-faluting nonsense that various Ministers and people in the wild keep saying Tasmania can enter into. I would venture to suggest now that in 50 years time Tasmania will still be far more dependent on the things that it has now than on many of the potential schemes that people are still talking about. Our forestry, our fishing, our farming, our mining and our tourism will still be the industries that will be keeping Tasmania afloat at that stage. It is important that we have these fundamental resources. It is important that the Federal Government understand that every time it interferes in the projects that are going ahead in Tasmania, the things that are budgeted for, it is working strictly against plans that, in many cases, have been in the making for many years. Water, the access to it and what we will do with it will provide jobs for many people. The development of the west coast of Tasmania is very much an integral part of all this. We need the roads, we need the airport and we need the industries that follow. I see a whole range of new industries, and on-development of existing industries coming with the extension of the water resources. The three schemes in my proposal are, firstly, the Craigbourne Dam; secondly, the Warners Creek Dam, and thirdly, the Cascade Dam. The Cascade Dam proposal in the north east of Tasmania is one that has a lot of support. It is in an area which has a good, reliable rainfall. More irrigation water will probably change that land from dairying country into cash cropping country. It is most important that that happen so that the area around Scottsdale and the factories in the town of Scottsdale can utilise the extra products that come from it. The third project, the Warners Creek Dam, is a mixed operation that will provide town water for the towns of Deloraine and Westbury and will provide irrigation water for farmers in that general vicinity. These projects are all absolutely essential as far as the future progress of Tasmania is concerned. Tasmania does not wish to be dependent on the Commonwealth for anything. It does not wish to be told what it can and cannot do. I do not think any joy is being felt by Tasmanian people at present on being told that various jobs are appropriate and various jobs are not, as far as compensation for what the Commonwealth has done to the State this year is concerned. I believe that the Federal Government, in taking the action it did in relation to the power resources of Tasmania, put itself into a simple situation of having to compensate in the normal manner. When one is deprived of one's property or assets the normal manner of compensation is that it shall be in the currency of the realm. I find it absolutely untenable that the Commonwealth should now be saying: 'We will not pay you in money, we will pay you in kind'. It will be offering the Tasmanians beads and biscuits before we know where we are. That proposition is totally unacceptable. In conclusion I wish to say that I support the motion of which I have given notice. I deplore the abandonment by the Hawke Government of the Fraser Government's $640m five-year bicentennial water resources program. I stress the vital importance for Australia's future of the maximum conservation of our limited water resources. I emphasise that the main projects in the program had been indicated by the States as having high priority, advanced planning and preparedness, with short lead times for commencement and relatively short construction times. The program stresses that many of the projects would create both immediacy and useful employment in the construction period and significant long term job opportunities in the new industries dependent on water. The motion focuses attention on the importance to Tasmania of the Craigbourne Dam project and rejects the Hawke Government for giving no indication that it will continue to support the existing national water resources program which is a Federal- State dollar for dollar sharing program of great significance to all Australians . Debate (on motion by Senator Jones) adjourned. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill. Debate resumed from 14 September 1983, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.41) —Loan Bill (No. 2) of course is the traditional Bill designed to finance the deficit. It is traditional that on the discussion of the Loan Bill the deficit, its composition and the economic principles flowing from it should be commented upon. The Government, in putting together its Budget, said with great force and emphasis that it could not tolerate a deficit bigger than $8.4 billion. It invented the spurious figure of $9.6 billion, saying that that would have been outrageous and would have created great inflation and great pressure on interest rates. It said that it cut $1.8 billion out, and now has a Budget deficit of $8.4 billion. I want to show in the course of this debate just how the Australian Labor Party speaks with two voices. The thrust of this Loan Bill and the deficit is that $8. 4 billion is as far as a government can go; that governments must not increase deficits because if they do they will get higher inflation and higher interest rates. But, Mr Deputy President, the Labor Party went to the Federal elections in March with an economic policy statement given on 10 February. It was the definitive statement of the Labor Party's economic policy-a very long statement. I want to quote from it in regard to the thesis on the relationship between deficits, interest rates and inflation. The Labor Party invited the electorate to support it in government on this principle: Another false assumption underlying the Fraser government's policies concerns the relationship between budget deficits and inflation. The conservative argument is that the budget deficits, by adding to the money supply add to inflation. It is therefore argued that to reduce inflation the deficit must be reduced. The policy document goes on to say: In practice, in the first few years of the Fraser government we had continuing high deficits but inflation declined. During the last two financial years the deficit has been considerably reduced, but the rate of inflation has increased. Therefore on the basis of the Australian experience it is difficult to sustain the argument that deficits are a basic cause of inflation or that the higher the deficit the higher is inflation. Analysis of the experience of other countries confirms the remoteness of any relationship-with some countries running high deficits associated with low inflation and others having low deficits with high inflation. That is the economic policy statement which seeks to break the link between deficits and inflation. In regard to the link between deficits and interest rates, it goes on: Similarly the government has argued that reductions in the budget deficit are essential to keep interest rates down. However, the two financial years in which substantial reductions in the budget deficit were achieved-1980-81 and 1981-82- were the years during which interest rates rose to the highest level in Australian history! Recently interest rates have begun to fall concurrently with a substantial rise in the deficit. The document concludes: Furthermore, interest rates have risen faster than in most other industrial countries and are now higher than in all but a few. Many countries with much larger budget deficits as a percentage of national income have interest rates well below Australia's. The conservative assumption about the relationship of budget deficits and interest rates is clearly misleadingly simplistic. I do not happen to agree with that, but what I want to do is show in a number of ways how, in putting together its economic thesis, the Labor Party one day speaks with a particular set of principles and within a week or two completely shatters those principles and goes the other way. It said: 'It doesn't matter how high your deficit is because it won't affect inflation and interest rates. Then the Treasurer (Mr Keating), at the National Economic Summit Conference and when bringing down his Budget, said diametrically the opposite. The Government cannot have it both ways. On 14 February, a few weeks before the election, the Labor leader, Mr Hawke, pledged that under Labor policy unemployment would be held at present levels over the next year. That level was then around 9 per cent . He went on to say: You could expect that unemployment would be two percentage points less at the end of a full three-year term under Labor. That was the clear statement in February. But what did we find in March and April? The Labor Party went to the National Economic Summit Conference and, in defiance of all the advice it got from industry and from outside organisations, it supported an Australian Council of Trade Unions option, option A. The National Economic Summit Conference document of April 1983 says that under option A unemployment, which in 1982-83 was 8.9 per cent, would move in the second year of the Labor Party in office, 1983-84, to 10 per cent and, in the third year, 1984-85, to 10.1 per cent. In other words, the Government itself at the Summit said that it would have higher unemployment at the end of the three years. Indeed, the Treasurer stated in the course of his address to the Summit that there would be no fall in that period. So we have, on the one hand, a series of statements being made for election winning purposes and, on the other, those statements being completely reversed and twisted as the Government goes along. Quite clearly, what is happening now is the very reverse of Mr Hawke's promise to restrain the unemployment rate and drop it 2 per cent over the next period of years. That will not happen. Unemployment at the moment is rising. It is rising most notably in the large Labor State of New South Wales, under a State Premier who came to office on the pledge that he would create full employment. His promise was very clear. He said , only several years ago, that he would create full employment, that he could attract industries to Australia and that he had surplus electricity that was cheaper than anywhere else in the world and so he would have full employment for New South Wales. Of course, within weeks of that, electric power generation collapsed around him and he could not even supply power to his existing industries. Within months of that the industrial tariffs for electricity in that Labor governed State rose to be not only the highest in Australia but also, as consultants have indicated, some of the highest tariffs in the whole free world. This was the invitation: 'Follow Labor policies and we will survive'. Another deception-it is inherent in this Budget and in the putting together of the deficit-is that inflation in the coming year will run at 7.5 per cent. Everybody knows that if we use the consumer price index on exactly the same basis as we have in the past, we cannot take off the 2.6 per cent but in fact 10 .1 per cent becomes the true comparison. But more than that-the Ministers are now putting up answers to this-as each day goes by and each State Budget comes down it is quite clear that the State Budgets will create an increase in inflation throughout Australia on top of the Commonwealth inflation rate of somewhere between at least one and 2 per cent. On the admission of the Ministers , it is clear that increased State charges particularly on alcohol, tobacco, fuel and so forth will make the true projected inflation figure closer to 11 or 12 per cent in the course of this year. That figure is higher than before, not lower. It is true that whilst the inflation rate will be at that high level, a pretty poor device will be used to ensure that in the fixing of pensions and wages a CPI calculation is used which takes out the 2.6 per cent factor for private medical insurance. By using that device, the inflation rate is brought down to 7 .5 per cent. It is true, in fact, that if we pay out of our left hand pockets for private medical insurance the inflation rate is 10.1 per cent based on the CPI. If we do not do that, but pay by means of direct taxes-that is, if it is taken out of our pay before we put it in our pockets-the inflation rate drops by that 2.6 per cent. I wonder how the Government will explain this contrivance in view of the fact that what is now emerging is that every principle on which this Budget and this deficit was based is falling away. Does the Government now say what it said in February as the basis of its economic statement? Does the Minister now say that there is no relationship between large deficits and high inflation, between large deficits and rising interest rates? That is what they said before the election without any equivocation. Do they say it now? Of course they do not. They say that we must get the deficit down. Do the Ministers now say that they must get unemployment down by 2 per cent by the end of their third year in government. Of course they do not. As soon as they got into government, they changed their tune. Their device is to say that they did not then really know the size of the Budget. But, mark you, Mr Deputy President, that excuse was completely destroyed by their economic statement. It said that it does not matter how large the deficit is; it cannot affect adversely inflation and interest rates. How the Government can reconcile those two things is a mystery to be unravelled. But the fact is that the Government built this edifice around a deficit of $8.4 billion. In so doing, it did a great many punitive things to the people of Australia. In speaking to this Bill I want to talk about the double talk of Labor. Let me take, for example, the Labor Party's quite clear promise that there would be no capital gains tax. Yet we have the extraordinary behaviour of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) saying that he will continually advocate it. With great respect, the ethics of an honourable senator who represented to the people before the election, as did the Leader of the Government in the Senate, that there would be no capital gains tax and who now says that in spite of that promise he will do his darnedest to bring it in, must be challenged. This is, of course, a device that has been used. I refer to the device by which Ministers can say: 'Look, I am not speaking as the voice of the Government; it is my personal view'. In this case there is a massive ethical view to be considered. Of course there will be a capital gains tax. Once the Labor Government set out on its taxation of lump sum superannuation payments and its screwing down on the assets of retired people, it had to move to wherever there was an accumulation of capital and hit it. A government cannot say simply that it will hit people on the head if they accumulate capital by receiving superannuation payments, when they can accumulate capital by fixed trusts, real estate deals and in other ways. The jackhammer will go on. In fact, the Leader of the Government in the Senate is refreshingly honest in this regard . But the same thing happens time after time. At this moment the papers are full of the fact that the Labor Party is in conflict over the uranium issue. I will make it perfectly clear how the Government's uranium policy stands at the moment. As the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) said when asked a series of questions in Estimates Committee C, there may be assumptions by people outside but there is no reason for anyone to assume that the Government has given any undertakings at all. He said that there had been no undertakings given. Lest there be any doubt about this I will read what he said. In Estimates Committee C on 12 September on page 74 of the Hansard the following exchange is reported: Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Are you aware of any assurances given by the Commonwealth Government, whether through the Department of Trade or through the Prime Minister? Senator WALSH —I am not aware of any. I pressed him on this matter as he is a Cabinet Minister and knows the decisions that are made not only with respect to his own portfolio, but with respect to others as well. I asked: Will you indicate why the Press believes that the Prime Minister is indicating that there are assurances? His answer was: I cannot answer for the Press. I can only answer for the Government. In answering for the Government, he in fact said that there were no assurances given to the people involved in the Western Mining Corporation or Roxby Downs. Here we have the most extraordinary conflict. Day by day what has been said before is turned around. Promises that something will be sacrosanct tomorrow are broken. Thus we have the putting together of a Budget which has collapsed. It was put together on the basis, so the Government said, of an economic policy statement, a very long policy statement which I read. The policy statement said: 'Put us in . Do not worry, because we believe in expansionary policies. It is not true, however large the deficit, that that deficit will impact upon inflation or high interest rates'. Those were the words used. When the Budget came out we saw a complete reversal of those words. It is now said that we cannot have large deficits and that we have to bear down on them because they will create inflation; they will create high interest rates and will therefore harm the economy. The Labor Party said that if they were elected they would reduce unemployment. They are in for a moment and they then say: 'The policy that we have squared off with the ACTU is a policy that will, in fact, increase unemployment over the three years. But there it is. We are sorry about that'. So it goes with every policy that formed this Budget. The ugliest deception practiced is the citing of a 7.5 per cent inflation rate. How could that be the real inflation rate? The wages accord is falling apart around the Government. It was interesting that the Government of the day did nothing and said it would do nothing to condemn the Australian Council of Trade Unions for threatening, as it did the other day, the arbitral system of this country. When the ACTU threatened the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the greatest silence on earth fell. Yet it is the responsibility of governments to maintain morals and ethics in this regard. But for the Government threats were all right in this extraordinary situation. In point of fact, the one thing that Australia could depend upon to have worked for the present was the wages pause which was put into place by the Fraser Government and which at that point the Labor Party and the ACTU set out to destroy. The only thing that has run as an econmic policy has been the wages pause. There is talk of accords. We want to see a demonstration of them. I now come to what I regard as the most unethical principle; that is, to construct a Budget on the thesis of a 7.5 per cent consumer price index. The Government is simply saying: 'We can get away with that because direct taxes are not in the CPI, indirect taxes are and we are taking them out'. The Government says that, knowing that under the new Medicare scheme probably 50 per cent of the people under that scheme will still be paying for bridging insurance out of their left-hand pockets. Presumably no consideration has been given to that. We have been asking: 'What is the ingredient that has been put in the CPI to allow for the raid on the people by the States? Yesterday's edition of the Age shows that tram and bus fares have gone up, that city tram rides have doubled, to 60c. For most people there is a basket of tax rises worth $203m. It states that the price of petrol is to rise by one cent a litre, cigarettes by 18c a packet and a $5 bottle of wine is to cost 50c more. Stamp duty is also up. How is it that this can be happening, that this fraud is being perpetrated on the people? Of course the CPI will go up more than 7.5 per cent. Indeed I heard a very well respected professor of economics say on Budget night that in fact the real inflation rate that the Government had set for the year would be at least 10.1 per cent-that is, 7.5 per cent plus 2.6 per cent. The professor said it would even rise to 11 per cent. Quite clearly the picture is emerging that all the framework of this Budget has crumbled around the Government. One cannot tell from day to day what is going to happen next. I understand that the Government desires Loan Bill (No. 2) 1983 to be passed tonight, and I will not impede its passage. On that basis I conclude my remarks and commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(7.02) —in reply-Senator Sir John Carrick has raised some questions about the consumer price index and whether the Loan Bill (No. 2) 1983 is an appropriate measure. In my view he raised some valid points, one being that direct tax increases or reductions do not affect the CPI but indirect tax increases or reductions do. Logically I think he has a point in that both changes are made in either direction by government for revenue raising or for general economic management purposes. There is a legitimate argument that it is something of an anomaly, but it is the system that has prevailed for many years. If Senator Carrick is so concerned about it I suggest that he should have taken the opportunity to change it in the seven years or so that his party was in government. That matter, together with the others that he raised, are legitimate matters that could be legitimately put forward in a debate on the Loan Bill, but are really more pertinent to a general economic debate or a debate on the Budget Papers. Every second reading speech for every Loan Bill that I can remember is really only a machinery measure which all governments have employed for as long as I have been in this Parliament and even before then. I thank the Opposition for expediting the passage of this Bill. In view of the time constraints, I do not propose to speak any longer. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present a report on proposals for variations of the plan of layout of the city of Canberra and its environs (78th series) second report. I also table extracts of minutes of items 1, 2 and 7 of the 79th series of variations. I seek leave to make a statement relating to the report. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator REID —by leave-I have a tabling statement and I seek leave to incorporate that part of my remarks in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The Report I have just tabled covers four items outstanding from the 78th Series of Variations to the City Plan. These concern roadworks associated with the new Parliament House. The previous Committee when reporting on the 78th Series of Variations late last year expressed concern that a number of substantial modifications were being presented to it as one item. Accordingly, that Committee divided the variation into 10 separate items. The Committee, in its report tabled in the Parliament on 14 October 1982, approved six items and deferred consideration of the following four items: the Commonwealth Avenue Ramp to the New House; the Kings Avenue Ramp to the new House; Kings Avenue/State Circle intersection; and Canberra Avenue/State Circle intersection. The previous Committee was concerned at the visual impact the two ramps would have. Commonwealth Avenue is a major element of Canberra's transport system. The Variation proposes to provide access from Commonwealth Avenue to the perimeter road around the new Parliament House via a ramp within the median strip, rising from the existing road level south of the Canadian High Commission. The ramp will be 341 metres long and will form a two-5 metre lane (compared with standard 3.7 metre lanes) single carriageway, with a maximum grade of 8 per cent. The proposal will also require the removal of five mature trees from the median of Commonwealth Avenue. The estimated cost for the Commonwealth Avenue extension at April 1983 prices is $3.6m. At present Kings Avenue connects to Capital Circle via two ramps. The current layout is considered to be unsatisfactory as there is a high accident rate at the entry from the ramp on to Capital Circle because of lack of sufficient room for merging traffic in Capital Circle and visibility problems. The proposed variation will delete the two existing ramps and instead provide access from Kings Avenue and State Circle to the Parliament House perimeter road . The road will be one of the primary access roads to the new building, and will directly link Parliament House to State Circle which is a major distributor road encircling the New House. The difficulties with the ramps encountered by the Committee are primarily those associated with Commonwealth Avenue. The Kings Avenue ramp, unlike the Commonwealth one, fits into the landscape but would create symmetry problems if built without the Commonwealth ramp. The Committee is concerned about the visual impact of the Commonwealth Avenue ramp but believes that by providing an undulating earth form on which part of the ramp sits, with plantings to further soften its appearance the ramp will not be the imposition on the landscape that it was in the form first proposed. The Committee approves the extensions to Commonwealth and Kings Avenues, provided that the visual impact of the rising roadways is minimised. The ramps should be harmonised with their surroundings by having a contoured and undulating landform supporting the ramp, complemented by an appropriate level of plantings and concealed parapet lighting instead of overhead lighting. The Committee approves the Kings Avenue/State Circle and Canberra Avenue/State Circle intersections. In the first Report on the 78th Series, the previous Committee approved the Melbourne Avenue extension on the condition that a workable system be produced to deter through traffic to the south from using Melbourne Avenue. During the hearings, NCDC undertook to provide such a solution by the next Series of Variations. The Committee has still not received definite proposals on this matter from NCDC although it believes work is well advanced on the project and some public consultation has been conducted. The Committee has received a considerable number of submissions on the resolution of these traffic problems some of which have objected to the Commonwealth and Kings Avenue Ramps. The Committee has considered these objections and notes that they essentially object to the contribution these ramps will make to through traffic along Melbourne Avenue. The Committee has taken into account these objections but believes that the traffic problems to the south have to be addressed in those areas and not by limiting access to the New House. It is clear that the Committee will need to conduct public hearings on the proposals for minimising traffic problems to the south. However, the Committee does not wish to delay reporting on major works outstanding in this series and therefore defers reporting on traffic management to the south of the New House to a further report on the 78th Series. Senator REID —The thrust of this report is to deal with some of the roads associated with the development of the new Parliament House site. The proposals for variation came before the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory some time ago and we divided them up and approved most of the variations but withheld approval of four of them. They related to two sections of the road-Kings Avenue and Commonwealth Avenue, there being ramps going from each of those two roads up to the new building. At the time we were first presented with the proposals I think all of us on the Committee felt that the Commonwealth Avenue ramp in particular was an extremely ugly structure and we were not prepared to approve it in that form. The Kings Avenue ramp was less offensive in that it followed more closely the lie of the land and was not apparently as steep as the Commonwealth Avenue one. The Committee also felt that we could not have one without the other and that they were either both in or both out. Subsequently discussions have been held with the National Capital Development Commission. The proposal came back to us a short time ago sufficiently modified, I think, for the Committee to feel that the road is necessary for the Parliament House and is now in a more satisfactory state. It is still as steep as it was originally but it will be built up and have more earth underneath it so that it will not appear to be as steep and, we hope, as much of a ramp as it did previously. The NCDC has also said that there may be landscaping of an undulating nature on each side of the ramp so that the height of it will be somewhat disguised, that there can be plantings of trees and shrubs on those areas and that the whole effect will be less ugly than we thought it would be when it was first presented to us. The architect gave evidence to us. The plans of the whole building including the two roads led all of us I think to agree that this work was necessary. But many of us were concerned about the view from Commonwealth Avenue . Senator Georges, with whom I spoke earlier today, was a member of the Committee at the time as was Senator Colston who may speak on this matter later tonight. I know that I speak for Senator Georges-he said that I could-when I say that he had very firm views about the ugliness of the plan as it was originally presented. I think the Committee has justified the position that it took. The proposed plan will work out to be better than the original one. We have also suggested that lighting should be on the sides of the ramp, that is, on parapets . It should not be overhead lighting. Another aspect of the variations in regard to the roads around Parliament House was important to the Committee. This related to Melbourne Avenue. We approved the changes to the exit of Melbourne Avenue onto State Circle, but we were very conscious of the representations that we had from many citizens of Melbourne Avenue about their worries about what this change would in fact mean to the use of that avenue. There is some risk that Melbourne Avenue and the new Commonwealth Avenue ramp will be used as a speedway to get from Melbourne Avenue down to Commonwealth Avenue by travelling around Parliament Road which is a new road around the site. Such a possibility is not satisfactory. But the NCDC said that there are ways in which it can avert that happening. I hope that the Commission does not mean that speed humps will be constructed because speed humps around the Parliament building would not be particularly satisfactory. There are options. Melbourne Avenue should perhaps be designed in such a way that vehicles turning in and out can do so only by making a left hand turn. The NCDC also has undertaken to survey the area surrounding Melbourne Avenue and to bring the matter back to us in due course. In particular it is to look at the problems at the other end of Melbourne Avenue where there is a large school and several adjoining roads. It is important to consider the flow of traffic through Deakin and Forrest as they adjoin Melbourne Avenue and the impact of the traffic of both of these areas in relation to Parliament House. The changes that will occur will have an important effect on these two residential suburbs. The NCDC has put out three proposals. From the representations that I have received so far, it would seem that none is popular with the residents of the area. So, a great deal in the way of more work and discussion is still to take place before the matter can be finally resolved. The Committee looks forward to these matters being put before it again because it is very aware of the significance of the changes that may need to be made to ensure that any problems are resolved satisfactorily and a hopeless traffic situation is not created. That brings me to the role of the Parliamentary Joint Committee as far as these road variations are concerned. The NCDC report of the Committee of Review of the Role and Functions of the National Capital Development Commission, which the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) finally made public yesterday says several things about the role of the Joint Committee. Recommendation 4 is: The Committee supports the view that the role of the Joint Parliamentary Committee should be wider, and accordingly the Committee recommends that NCDC policy plans should be referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee for comment . The Committee of Review also recommends that: . . . changes in the gazetted plan should no longer be referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee. An earlier recommendation comments that the role of the Committee is a valuable one and should be continued. The fact is that at present it is only through changes to the gazetted plan that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory can in fact have any real influence on the changes that take place and have any real influence on the policy decisions. In this case-and as Senator Colston would know we have done this in other cases-we have deferred approval so that we can find out more about what the plans really are about and their impact. If consideration of changes to the gazetted plan is withdrawn from the role of the Committee, that right to exercise some veto role will be withdrawn completely. Even though the Committee of Review said that the role of the Joint Parliamentary Committee is a valuable one and even though it says that NCDC policy plans should be referred to us for comment, I do not really believe that has any significance whatsoever. If the recommendation is agreed to, the Joint Parliamentary Committee would merely become another group which makes comments to the NCDC on plans that it puts forward. We would be no more than one of many making comments to the Commission. We may or may not be taken notice of. I think that, if the Committee of Review is serious when it says that we play a valuable role and that that role should be wider, some real significance has to be given to that recommendation. The only way we can have any influence at the moment is to make changes to the gazetted plans in terms of proposed variations. I think the Parliament needs to think seriously, in the light of this report, as to what the future role of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory should be. These recommendations I think seriously erode the Parliamentary Committee's status even though in fact the Committee of Review says that what it was trying to do was to widen the Parliamentary Committee's role. The current report approves the remaining roads that are relevant to the construction of the new Parliament House. We are still awaiting the review and the continuation of discussions as far as the impact of this work on Melbourne Avenue is concerned. That is something that the Committee will be pursuing and taking up later in the year. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the third report of the Publications Committee. Report-by leave-adopted. Debate resumed from 7 September 1983, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Senate take note of the papers and the statement. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(7.18) —I commence by asking the Government what is happening as far as the international hotel and convention centre, known as the White Industries Ltd development, is concerned. This question is very relevant to the Budget. The Budget stresses the importance of jobs and I will refer to that subject in more detail subsequently. The Budget provides a substantial increase in funds to the Australian Tourist Commission because of recognition of the importance of tourism to Australia. The White Industries Ltd development is particularly important for tourism in that it will consist of an international hotel and convention centre. It is important also because it will provide a significant number of jobs. I understand that about 600 jobs will be provided at the construction stage. Once the hotel is completed and operating, another 1,200 jobs are likely to be provided. The project was approved. Many people in the community support it and are anxious to see it go ahead. But in the five months that this Government has been in office, we do not seem to have heard much about what is happening in regard to this important development. I think we are entitled to know. I think the private sector is entitled to know because it wants to get on with the job. The relevant roads and other adjustments that need to be made to the area have been approved. So the question really is: Why has the Government held up the project for five months? Why cannot it proceed immediately? What in fact is going on? I think it would cause considerable lack of confidence in the private sector in Canberra if it were to be abandoned. There is another aspect of the White Industries project which is significant. Honourable senators may remember that only a week or so ago, when I asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) a question about opening offices of his Department in Canberra, he explained that the reason for the delay was the lack of office space in Canberra at present. He now says that he has found some suitable place in one of the older buildings. The fact is that offices are not being constructed at present in the Australian Capital Territory . This project will have office space in it. It is time that a decision were made. I cannot imagine what the hold-up is, and I ask that priority be given to resolving the problem so that the project can go ahead. As far as the Australian Capital Territory is concerned, the Federal Budget is far more than just the Federal Budget; it needs to be analysed from several points of view. It is a State Budget and a municipal Budget on the same night as the Federal Budget, and all three of these are important to the community. From whichever point of view one begins to examine the Budget, jobs are the centre of the interest of most people and are the dominating considerations. In the Budget , the Treasurer (Mr Keating) referred to employment and said: Today's unemployed are victims of events beyond their individual control. It is unconscionable that they also be made victims of government indifference. He went on: Later in my Speech I will announce substantial increases in benefits to the unemployed. The Community Employment Program also makes its contribution in this area. It is directed at the longer term unemployed who, because of their lack of recent work experience, are particularly disadvantaged in job-seeking. Those proposals are very significant for the unemployed. The real gap in the Treasurer's Budget Speech is that it fails to show any concern for real jobs and real career prospects. Many people who voted Labor on 5 March are now very disillusioned indeed that there have been no real prospects of jobs and no real prospects of careers. I quote from an article in the Canberra Times of 7 August. It is headed 'Unemployed: by an angry young man'. The man is identified as Larry Anderson. He states: I have been unemployed since January, I am 27, and have been feeling trapped and angry. I have checked the noticeboards of the Commonwealth Employment Service daily, five days a week, and checked the notices at the Australian National University daily for casual work, and earnestly want to work. Later in the article he states: People have been tolerant of the Hawke Government, giving it time to fight the problem. The election result brought me some hope but when confronted with the problem as an individual, I became less tolerant, less sympathetic, whether it is a Labor or Liberal Government. There does not seem to be any end in sight. If there was a glimmer of hope that things were getting better it would act as some kind of encouragement, but there are no real guarantees or assurances that the position is going to improve in the near future. They are not coming through and there is a limit to anyone's patience. There is more to the article than that, but I think that indicates the despair and frustration of those in this community who really want jobs. They voted Labor in the hope of a better scene as far as jobs are concerned, but it just has not happened. To get back to the Budget as far as it affects Canberra, we saw the heading in the Canberra Times the following morning which referred to the Press release of the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren). The heading was: ' Canberra does well in Budget: Uren'. The allocation was said to be up by 19 per cent, but what are the realities? Those are the sorts of figures that headlines are made of. As far as the Department of Territories and Local Government was concerned, the actual increase was $8.6m, which was in fact an increase of only 6.2 per cent. The Treasurer made it plain in his Budget Speech that inflation had been 11.5 per cent. As far as all those areas that relate to the Department of Territories and Local Government are concerned, it was not an increase but a decrease. The actual increase for the National Capital Development Commission of $13.5m or a 10.96 per cent increase is less, but only slightly less, than the Budget Speech figure of 11.5 per cent for inflation. The big increase related to the construction of the new Parliament House, which was a 58 per cent increase on last year's figure. That figure represented the natural progress of the building, to be completed by 1988, and the amounts needed during this financial year to maintain the program. I am not for a minute suggesting that there are not some benefits to the Australian Capital Territory in terms of jobs on that site, but not all of the money is spent here or is relevant to the local community. It is quite wrong to include those national projects as if they were local projects. It is a distortion of the figures on the part of the Minister for Territories and Local Government when he makes it look as though the people of the Australian Capital Territory are being pampered by a Budget increase of 19 per cent, greatly in excess of the inflation rate. Enough people in this country already do not understand the financial arrangements in the Australian Capital Territory without the Minister using the Budget figures to put the position in that light. For the Department of Territories and Local Government, the Budget is in real terms a decrease. There are many areas where last year's figures, as adjusted, have not kept up with inflation, and in many areas there has been an actual decrease. The municipal services-services for parks, gardens, recreation areas and the Tourist Bureau; I will come back to that later-have the same amount as last year. There is a cut in the amount for bush fire control, which I hope is a reasonable judgment. There are cuts in many other areas. At the same time, there has been an increase in motor vehicle registration charges, making our rates one of the highest rates in Australia. There has been an increase in motor vehicle licence fees, an increase in rates, an increase in sewerage rates and a number of other lesser ones. The day after the Budget, rent for government houses went up. People in the Australian Capital Territory are paying more and getting less in the area covered by the Department of Territories and Local Government. This fact should be known. In one particular area I was disappointed that the Minister did not see his way clear to include some funding. It related to disabled people and the use of multi-cab-a taxi service to enable severely handicapped people to get around. In this regard there was a demonstration outside Parliament House not long ago. The amount sought was not a large amount, and it was a pity that it was not included . It is a service effectively provided by our local taxi firm at present, which is bearing the financial burden of it. It seems to me that this was an area where the Minister could have allocated some of his resources. Debate interrupted. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That the Senate at its rising adjourn till Tuesday, 4 October 1983, at 2 p.m. Pilbara Iron Ore Industry: Industrial Situation-Asian Coalition of Human Rights Organisations Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(7.29) —I draw the attention of the Senate to the appalling industrial situation in the Pilbara iron ore industry in Western Australia which on two separate strike issues has virtually closed down two of the largest producers of iron ore in the region. Honourable senators may be aware of an answer to a question given by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) last week in which the Minister made several pertinent points. Firstly, he pointed out that the claim for a 36-hour week being pursued by nine unions at operations of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd was not consistent with government policy, nor with what is necessary for economic recovery. Secondly, he added that with several long term contracts coming up for renewal next year, and with the Japanese looking to diversify their sources of supply it would assist those forthcoming negotiations if a period of industrial harmony could prevail in the region. Unfortunately for the objectives of promoting economic recovery and securing an equal or even larger share of the Japanese iron ore market, the Government has done nothing and is apparently not planning to do anything to address the situation. If a major export market is permanently impaired and jobs are lost in the Pilbara as a result, the blame will lie in equal proportions with the trade union movement and the Federal Labor Government. It is not good enough for the Federal Government, which claims to have a special relationship with the unions, to sit back and watch the drama unfold. The Minister said in his answer that a 36-hour week is 'not in accord with government policy; indeed, nor is it in accord with the prices and incomes policy'. Yet the nine unions involved in the Hamersley Iron dispute are demanding a 36-hour week, apparently in spite of government policy and the agreement which it is supposed to have with the trade unions. It confirms what we on this side have been saying about the prices and incomes policy all along- that it is a one-sided document which commits the Government to high spending policies and programs and achieves nothing in return in terms of restraint and moderation from the trade union movement. It proves also that when the unions choose to ignore the prices and incomes accord, as by the Minister's own statement it is clear they are in this case, there is absolutely nothing which the Government can or will do to rectify the situation. The consequences of the Government's inaction will be disastrous. On 1 September the Tex Report, the authorative organ of the Japanese steel industry, reported the Mount Newman Mining Co. Pty Ltd strike and its consequences in the following terms: Japanese steelmakers such as Nippon Steel are now obliged to drastically change their ship assignment programs for September. The report suggested Hamersley as an alternative supplier, though it is now history that Hamersley has also closed down its mining operation and retrenched 1,400 staff. On 5 September the Tex Report noted that Hamersley had also ceased to be an alternative, and in a note that should be a warning to the unions involved, added: Two major ore supply sources in Western Australia have now been crippled. Japanese parties concerned are now reminded of the problemed instability of Australia as a supply source. It is astounding that while these strikes were going on, a seven-member delegation of Japanese steelmakers visited the Pilbara to be greeted by what one newspaper described as a 'study in still life'. Although the unions involved would have clearly understood the significance of the visit at a time prior to new contract negotiations, those same unions did nothing to improve the image of the region as a future reliable supplier of iron ore to the Japanese. It is hardly surprisingly that when Mr Saito, a Vice-President of the Nippon Steel Corporation and the head of the mission, gave an interview to the Press, he had this to say: . . . what Japan is now expecting from Australia is the stability of supply and the maintenance of international competitive price, which are indispensable for long maintaining friendly trade relations with the same share of trade as in the past. There are several crucial aspects to Mr Saito's comments: reliability of supply, competitive price and, as a result of these factors, the maintenance of Australia's share of the Japanese iron ore market. Reliability of supply has been a source of constant warnings from Japanese steelmakers. In 1975 Australia supplied 47 per cent of iron ore to Japan, and the two largest Pilbara miners, Mount Newman and Hamersley, were the two most significant suppliers. By 1980 Australia's share had fallen to 44.5 per cent, while in the same period Brazil had moved from 17.6 per cent of the market to 21.2 per cent. In this fiscal year , Hamersley is again expected to be the largest single supplier of ore to Japan, but now the Brazilian producer Companhia Vale Do Rio Cohe is the second most important supplier. Slowly but surely Australia is losing its pre-eminent position as an iron ore supplier, and that is largely related to reliability of supply. The Japanese are being inconvenienced by these latest strikes. The Japan Echo of 10 September reported that ships which had been scheduled to carry Australian iron ore to Japan were being dispatched to India and other supply sources. Senator Button —You are a Japanese echo in here. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The Minister should take careful note because it will effect his Government and my economy. The Japan Echo reported that congestion was already a problem at Indian ports. The Japanese steelmakers are hard-headed businessmen who will not tolerate these inconveniencies, especially when, in Hamersley's case at least, the Federal Government is prepared to sit idly by while the unions act in direct contradiction not only to government policy but also to a so-called agreement they are supposed to have with the Government. Australia has advantages over other suppliers in terms of transport costs which , but for the industrial relations problems which plague the Pilbara, should enable us to sew up the Japanese iron ore market. The freight cost per tonne of Australian ore to Japan is $7 compared to $10.50 from Brazil and $11 from South Africa. The South African costs are higher largely as a result of the smaller ships used for that trade, but the Brazilian and Australian ships are largely comparable in size. In other words, ships from both countries can maintain a high volume steady supply. Ore costs in both countries are comparable, so to date our advantage has been in the freight costs alone. However, if the economics of the Pilbara industry are affected to the point where Pilbara iron ore becomes more expensive, the freight advantage will be eroded. Of course, that impinges on Mr Saito's second criterion of competitive price. If Australian trade unions create a situation in which, after freight costs are taken into account, Australian ore costs are the same as Brazilian ore costs, the Japanese will naturally go to the supplier which is most reliable. That supplier will naturally be Brazil, because of the record of industrial problems in the Pilbara, which, as I said at the outset, has been appalling. In the period 1973-75, the average number of working days lost per employee in the non- coal mining industry, of which the iron ore industry is by far the largest component, was 3.22 days. In the following three-year period-that is, from 1976 to 1978-3.71 days per employee were lost, and in the period 1979 to 1981 that had jumped to 4.88 days per employee. Senator Button —Shame, Fraser, shame! Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It had nothing to do with Fraser. In both 1979 and 1981 more days were lost per employee in the non-coal mining sector than in any other industry in Australia, and in 1980 the record was exceeded by the coal industry. Mining generally in Australia has been plagued by problems, not because of poor conditions or low pay but because of a preconceived notion by unions that this is an industry which is a bottomless pit in respect of wage demands and reduced hours. The number of disputes in mining, especially in the non-coal sector, has been steadily rising over the past 10 years. In 1973 there were 132 strikes in that sector and in 1981, the last year for which full statistics have been published, the number was 331. Those figures are not selectively chosen. Referring again to the three 3-year periods, the annual aveage number of strikes between 1973 and 1975 was 166, between 1976 and 1978 it was 212, and between 1979 and 1981 it was 296. Again, in my view, that illustrates that in terms of the number of strikes the situation in the non-coal sector is worsening. Incidentally, the situation is paralleled now in the coal mining industry as well. Mr President, the Japanese are aware of that situation and have frequently expressed concern at the problems which are being caused to their domestic industries. They will naturally seek to diversify their supplies to ensure that the effects are minimised. That is why this Government must act, not only to assure the Japanese of its good intentions but also to genuinely address the problem of Australia's worsening reputation as a reliable trading partner. I call on the Government and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, to reply, not with empty words in this chamber, but with positive actions to prove to all parties that this agreement with the unions is more than a one-sided surrender to union militancy which, so far at least, it appears to be. Senator HILL(South Australia)(7.41) —I will detain the Senate for only a few minutes. I want to draw to the attention of the Senate and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), through the Minister for Industry and Commerce ( Senator Button) who is present in the chamber, the first meeting of the Asian Coalition of Human Rights Organisations which was held on the second and third of this month in Manila. The Coalition comprises 34 non-governmental human rights organisations from 12 countries in the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific region. Its history is worth noting briefly. In July 1982, the United Nations sponsored and promoted a Seminar on National, Local and Regional arrangements for the promotion of Human Rights in the Asian Region which was held in Colombo, Sri Lanka. At that seminar a number of resolutions were passed. Rather than delay the Senate, although the list of resolutions is not particularly long, I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- U.N. Seminar on National, Local and Regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of Human Rights in the Asian Region Conclusions and Recommendations 1. At its 14th meeting on 1 July 1982, the seminar adopted by consensus the following recommendations and conclusions. International Human Rights Instruments 2. The seminar recommends that urgent attention should be given to encouraging States Members of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) which have not yet done so to ratify the basic international treaties on human rights, particularly the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, and the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees of 31 January 1967. 3. The seminar recommends that the United Nations, as well as other organizations such as the Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee, should consider ways and means by which they can assist governments within the Asian and Pacific region, at their request, in the preparation of legislation designed to bring international instruments on human rights into force within their respective countries, as well as for giving effect to such instruments, the ESCAP should also contribute to these ends as appropriate. Promotion of education and training 4. The seminar recommends that the United Nations, including the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific ( ESCAP) be requested to contribute to the promotion and realization of human rights through, inter alia, the carrying out of studies and research, the organization of seminars, symposia and conferences and the dissemination of information on human rights. This seminar welcomes UNESCO's plan for the development of teaching of human rights approved by the Executive Board at its 108th session and by the 21st General Conference and looks forward to its implementation in the Asian and Pacific region. 5. The seminar recommends that a programme for teaching, seminars, training and education in the field of human rights be developed for the Asian and Pacific region and expresses the view that the United Nations as well as UNESCO could play an important role in this. Non-governmental organizations could also cooperate and contribute actively in this programme. 6. The seminar recommends that within the context of the world-wide programme of action for the dissemination of basic international instruments on human rights currently under way in the United Nations, particular attention be given to the needs of the Asian and Pacific region and to the need for the translation and dissemination of these instruments in the various languages of the region. The seminar urges UNESCO, ESCAP and the United Nations Information Centres in the region be requested to pay special attention to the dissemination of information on human rights within the region and to develop and maintain collections and/or ''depository centres'' of United Nations documents and materials relating to human rights. Research and Study 7. The seminar recommends that a study be undertaken on the integration of human rights in the development process of the region as soon as possible with the participation of ESCAP as appropriate. 8. The seminar recommends that the United Nations University be requested to undertake a study of areas in which regional standards on human rights may be needed in the region in order to supplement the universal standards of human rights already proclaimed in the United Nations system. 9. The seminar recommends that the ILO be requested to undertake a study of needs in the promotion and protection of labour rights in the region. 10. The seminar recommends that UNITAR be requested to undertake a study on the development of regional organizations in the area. Meetings of Government Representatives and Experts 11. The seminar recommends that steps be initiated to hold periodic meetings of government representatives and/or recognized experts designated by States of the region or sub-regions with a view to establishing regular exchanges of experience and information and to compare national legislation and practices on human rights. 12. The seminar suggests that periodic meetings of representatives of national institutions in the field of human rights within the region should be organized at the regional or sub-regional level so as to enable these persons to exchange their experiences. Non-governmental organizations 13. The seminar recommends that the non- governmental organizations develop co-operative activities in the region with a view, inter alia, to enhancing the dissemination of information on human rights in the region. Other conclusions and recommendations 14. The seminar expresses its deep appreciation to the Government and people of Sri Lanka for the excellent arrangements and facilities provided for the seminar as well as for the hospitality extended to participants and observiers at the seminar. Senator HILL —In response to one resolution that the non-governmental organisations develop co-operative activities in the region with a view to enhancing dissemination of information on human rights in the region, Lawasia's Standing Committee on Human Rights invited approximately 200 national, local and international NGOs to meet with it in New Delhi in October last year to discuss the establishment of a regional co-ordinating NGO. As Senator Button would know, but some honourable senators may not, Lawasia was founded in 1966. It is an association of lawyers from Asia and the Pacific. It is the only regional organisation of its kind. The number of lawyers who are, individually or through association, members of it can now be measured in thousands. Pursuant to the association's recognition of the role that law and lawyers should play in furthering the interests, both economic and personal, of the communities which they serve, in 1979 it decided to form a permanent Standing Committee on Human Rights. I think that the Committee's objectives are also worth recording in Hansard. I seek leave to incorporate those objectives. Leave granted. The objectives read as follows- (i) to work towards the establishment of a Centre or Centres for Human Rights in the LAWASIA Region, the principal function of such centre or centres being the promotion, propagation and protection of Human Rights in the region, by research, education, the use of mass-media and the publication of literature concerning Human Rights, and by other means. (ii) to initiate as a matter of priority steps towards the ultimate establishment of an Asian Commission and/or a Court for Human Rights in the LAWASIA region. (iii) to take steps towards the implementation of the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in specific form within the LAWASIA region . (iv) to promote by education and publicity awareness of Human Rights among the members of LAWASIA. (v) to prepare and publish reports on matters affecting Human Rights within the LAWASIA region. (vi) to urge the ratification of the International Covenants relating to Human Rights by Governments within the LAWASIA region, and to work towards adherence to other UN instruments in the field of Human Rights, including those concerning law enforcement and refugees. (vii) to safeguard the independence and freedom of judges and lawyers in the discharge of their duties in matters concerning Human Rights. Senator HILL —It might be said that this Standing Committee was formed out of the acceptance, in terms of the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable right of all members of the human family is 'the foundation of freedom and justice and peace in the world'. There was also a recognition that such a situation by no means had been achieved in the Lawasia region. The meeting was held in New Delhi. It unanimously resolved to establish a Coalition of Human Rights Organisations which would be active in the region and decided that the Coalition should work towards the establishment of an Asian charter of human rights and an Asian human rights commission similar to the commissions now existing in the continents of Africa, Europe and America. The Lawasia Standing Committee on Human Rights, upon which a number of Australian lawyers are serving, undertook the co-ordinating role for the new Coalition and accepted the administrative role of formulating a three-year plan of co-ordinated activities for the affiliate members of the Coalition. That committee accepted, as a first activity, that two studies be prepared for the Manila conference on the subjects of, first, the adequacy of laws affecting women in the ESCAP region and how far they may be implemented and, secondly, preventive detention, law and practice in the ESCAP region. These papers, which were prepared by Mr Kapila Hingorani and Justice Rangarajan, were presented to and discussed at the Manila meeting. I intend to ensure that copies of those papers are lodged in the Parliamentary Library. At the Manila meeting it was resolved that the structure of the Coalition should be as follows: (1) That the Coalition take the form of an association of non-governmental organisations active in the areas of promotion and/or protection of human rights in the ESCAP area, and encourage greater participation of and membership from rural organisations in the region, (2) That membership of the Coalition be open to all such governmental groups, whether social, legal or religious, or concerned with only one particular aspect of human rights activities, (3) That the Coalition should set up a preparatory committee under the chairmanship of Mr Ceaser Espiritu whose task would be the drafting of its constitution and for detailing its specific objects and areas of action. The other members of the preparatory committee were to be from each of the countries in the ESCAP region, (4) That Lawasia, through its Human Rights Standing Committee, may assist the preparatory committee in its administrative work. Members of the Senate and the Minister no doubt will be interested to learn of the non-administrative resolutions passed at the Manila meeting which were as follows: (a) the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations is outraged at and deplores the assassination of Senator Benigno Aquino, respected Opposition Leader in the Philippines while returning to his homeland and requires that all independent measures be taken to secure the ends of justice (b) the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations deplores the continued imprisonment in Taiwan of Mr Yao Chia Wen and other persons imprisoned as a result of the Kaoshiung incident in 1979 and calls upon the Government of Taiwan to improve the conditions of such prisoners and to grant early parole and amnesty to such prisoners (c) the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations condemns all forms of preventive detention in the region and decides to set up as soon as may be convenient, fact-finding missions which will visit various countries in the Lawasia region and report to the Coalition the state of the laws relating to preventive detention and the implementation of those laws in each such country (d) the first meeting of the Asian Coalition of Human Rights Organisations, being made aware of the grave situation relating to the oppression of women in Iran and the seeming total withdrawal of human rights from them, condemns the continuous violation of women's basic human rights in that country and calls on the government of Iran to specifically: (i) stop itself, its revolutionary guards and the mobs harrassing and humiliating them (ii) refrain from executing among others, women accused of alleged physical and anti-social activities (iii) abolish rules, laws and procedures which may discriminate against women in any way or re-establish the equal right of employment for women and their reintroduction to judicial and teaching positions particularly (iv) reintroduce and maintain the equal right of women to education, and further calls upon and urges all international bodies and governments concerned in human rights to exert positive influence upon the Islamic Republic of Iran to effect and implement immediate reforms affecting human rights to its women (f) the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations condemns the recent shooting down of a defenceless civilian aircraft even if it may have violated the airpsace of another country and calls on all responsible governments concerned to compensate adequately the relatives of the deceased passengers and crew, (g) the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations condemns killings, savaging or summary executions of criminals and dissidents in Indonesia, Iran, Philippines, Sri Lanka and other countries in the region. Apart from the Coalition, honourable senators will be interested to learn that Lawasia has had prepared a report on repression of lawyers and interference with their freedom of expression in Pakistan. I will ensure also that that report is lodged in the Parliamentary Library. Additionally, Lawasia has sent representatives to Sri Lanka to investigate alleged violations of human rights arising out of and in relation to the recent disturbances during which some 300 deaths occurred. I urge honourable senators also to read the Human Rights bulletin which is published from time to time by Lawasia which details changes which have occurred in the region, whether they be for better or for worse. I raise these matters in order to urge honourable senators and the Government to take an interest in and support work being done by this new Coalition and the Lawasia Standing Committee on Human Rights. There are many ways in which we can press for change that will better secure basic human rights, but to do so we need to be informed of the true and continuing position in our region. These bodies will contribute to enabling us to be better informed. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(7.50) —in reply-I thank Senator Hill. I am sure the four honourable senators in the place were interested to learn what he had to say. I will certainly pass his comments on to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) as he requested. I am sure honourable senators will be very receptive to the work of the Asian Coalition of Human Rights Organisations. I want to say a brief word about Senator Crichton-Browne's remarks. I will be brief because I am concerned about my own human rights; I am very hungry at the moment. The Government is aware of practically all the information of which Senator Crichton-Browne gave us the benefit in his speech. The only thing I was not aware of was that I did not appreciate how much industrial relations in this country had deteriorated under the Fraser Government. That is, no doubt, attributable to the discredited former Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Peacock, who is now the Leader of the Opposition. The consequences of the disputes in the Pilbara are very severe. The Government is aware of them. We are trying to get them fixed up. I would not want Senator Crichton-Browne to go back to Western Australia and say that he had exposed the accord and the relationship between the Government and the unions and that when he had done all this the Government had no answer. Senator Crichton-Browne —I am far too humble. Senator BUTTON —There is always the temptation to do those sorts of things. I do not want Senator Crichton-Browne to fall into that error. I hope that by the time the Parliament resumes again these matters will be resolved. They are matters of serious concern to the Government and some steps have been taken in connection with them. I take issue with Senator Crichton-Browne's assumptions about all these matters. He said at one stage that the dispute in the Pilbara was the fault of the unions and the Federal Government, that unholy alliance about which he no doubt has nightmares and will continue to, because we will keep feeding those nightmares for him. We do not make the same assumptions about any industrial disputes. There are always problems in any industrial situation which are attributable to all sides and which are recognised by some of the companies involved in the Pilbara with whom I have had discussions about this issue. I will certainly draw his comments to the attention of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). But I repeat: We are aware of those difficulties and will certainly endeavour to act on them. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.53 p.m. until Tuesday, 4 October, at 2 p.m. The following papers were presented: Public Service Act-Appointment-Department of Social Security-R. D. Morris States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the Schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States of New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, dated 12 September 1983 The following answers to questions were circulated: Senator Button —On 25 May 1983 (Hansard, page 774) Senator Mason asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the following question without notice concerning part time work: Is the Government aware of a large and growing body of opinion in the community for a system of part time work and job sharing in appropriate circumstances for those who want it? Would the Minister agree that these measures would share available work more fairly and so reduce unemployment? Is the Government currently negotiating with the trade union movement to gain its acceptance of these principles? If not, when will the Government do so? When can we expect changes in the industrial law to provide for a fair and regulated system of part time work in which at present many young people in particular are being shamefully exploited? I gave a partial answer at the time, and raised the matter with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. He has provided the following additional information in response to the honourable senator's question: The Government notes the growing interest in part time employment patterns in the Australian community. A number of recent reports have suggested that sections of the labour force would support the introduction of, and in some cases seek to participate in, voluntary permanent part time work and job sharing options. In particular, a survey of attitudes to alternative working arrangements conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1982 showed that 8 per cent of employees currently working 10 or more hours per week would, given the opportunity, work less hours for commensurately less pay. Permanent part time work opportunities are increasing in State public sector employment; a permanent part time work scheme operates in the South Australian public sector, limited schemes currently exist in the New South Wales and Western Australian public service, and the introduction of permanent part time schemes is being considered by the Northern Territory and Tasmanian governments. The introduction of more flexible methods of work organisation into Australian Government employment is part of ALP policy and will be examined in the context of implementation of that policy. However, discussions with all relevant parties on the various issues involved will be required before initiatives are introduced. There is little doubt that greater sharing of employment opportunities through job splitting, greater facilitation of part time work, and other measures, could expand the number of people engaged in employment. Indeed in a number of countries Government programs have been introduced to encourage the development of such alternative work arrangements. There is however some uncertainty about the long term effects of such programs and considerable discussion as to whether part time work is an acceptable alternative to full time employment. Where fundamental alterations to working arrangements are implemented, the Government believes they should be based on negotiation and agreement between the employees, unions and employers involved, and subject to appropriate industrial regulation. In this connection it might be noted that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in a recent decision concerning an application for part time employment in the vehicle repair services and retail industry, outlined the following principles in determining whether to provide for part time employment, namely, that it must be shown to be desirable and meet the particular needs of the industry; and that it would not be detrimental to full time employment. Senator Gareth Evans —On 20 September 1983, (Hansard, page 754) Senator Missen asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, a question without notice concerning the status of investigations into the possible introduction of a code of conduct applicable to Australian business and trading interests in South Africa. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: As I mentioned in my statement of 5 June, the appropriateness of a code of conduct for the industrial practices of Australian companies operating in South Africa is under active review. The question of such a code is extremely complex and extensive investigations and consultations are required. It is hoped that the review will be completed as soon as possible.