Thursday, 1 March 1984 THE PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of Local Governments in Australia shows that: General Revenue Grants to local government under personal income tax sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983-84 over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent, The increase in grants to State governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent, Increased demands are being made on local government authorities to participate in Federal Government programs e.g. Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in general revenue grants to local government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to Local Government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bjelke-Petersen (from 12 citizens), Boswell (from 17 citizens), Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from three citizens), Jessop (from 78 citizens), Lajovic ( from 11 citizens) and Peter Rae (from 30 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliamentary assembled. The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decision which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resources base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Lajovic (from 21 citizens) and Ryan (from 29 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 R.A.A.F. 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 Lajovic (from 23 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 Senator Lajovic (from 46 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedom. It could also be a means of undermining the traditional family structure of our nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: should delay the Bill and ask: That the Government set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee to examine: (a) the implications of the U.N. Covenant for public policy, the extent of Australian commitments, responsibilities and accountability in terms of the Covenant; (b) the full effects of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 for public policy in giving effect to the U.N. Convention. The Terms of Reference of the Joint Parliamentary Committee to be widely publicised and oral and written submissions sought from the interested organisations and individuals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Rae (from 100 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 could be used to support the provision by the Commonwealth Government of funding, counselling, etc. for deliberately procured abortions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Sex Discrimination Bill so as to prevent it from being used in support of deliberately procured abortions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Jessop (from 47 citizens) and Robertson (from 92 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action nor legislate in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That, with the exception of the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 95 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 69 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to: Undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms; Entrench abortion funding and render liable to action Hospitals, Doctors and Nurses, who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; Deny to parents their rights to insist that the school 'community' provide an environment conducive to the development, including moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of all principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 11 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: In the pursuance of justice and fair play, the government's taxation portion must be removed from the home purchasers time payments and transferred to a small levy or taxation deduction from all wages and income in all aspects, including the home purchasers and not this grossly unfair crippling procedure that exists today. From the foundations to the last coat of paint, interest and inflation expectations are applied to the family homes with interest rates of unreasonable magnitude to the completed structure. Truly, this is a national monetary obligation, particularly in as far as the home purchaser is concerned and a major cause of wage demands and the grass roots of inflation. We therefore humbly pray that your House take urgent action to apply such a percentage levy or taxation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Foreman (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we support your efforts to strengthen our family and community life particularly by increased penalties for 'drug pushers' and distributors. We, however, wish to register our firm opposition to any legal changes which would increase or encourage the distribution or availability of so-called 'soft drugs' such as marijuana. We believe such drugs to be harmful to the physical and psychological health of the individual and therefore to the interest of the community of which such individual is part. Although there is current controversy concerning the question of such harm it appears to us quite foolish to legalise and encourage the use of such drugs unless or until it be shown that such drugs are in fact harmless. The serious social problems of alcohol should provide sufficient warning to our society. Any efforts to legalise or decriminalise usage or distribution of such drugs will have the following results: (1) Encourage and inculcate a social acceptability towards such drugs. (2) Increase the volume of usage of such drugs in schools and the community by present users and by 'drug pushers' through the proposed one oz. legal possession. (3) Extend the usage of such drugs to persons who would previously have abstained because of the legal sanctions. (4) Put pressure upon Parliament to establish and licence import, growth, manufacture and/or distribution of such drugs, that is, to regulate another destructive industry contrary to the best interest of the individual and society . (5) There would be the probable temptation to tax such drugs as another source of Federal revenue. We urge the Government to increase the medical and counselling facilities for the assistance of drug users and to expand existing Drug Referral Centres and Clinics. We have general confidence in the existing law and its sympathetic implementation by the Police and Courts. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will firstly take no measures that could extend the major social problem of drug usage and secondly will oblige those who are promoting marijuana and/or similar drugs to prove without doubt that such drugs are harmless before any legalisation or decriminalisation of use is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 10 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that it be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Victoria Grants Commission-Annual Report 1983-Pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 2. Australian Biological Resources Study-Annual Report 1982-83 3. Australian Children's Television Foundation-Annual Report 1982-83 4. Australian Film and Television School-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 42 of the Australian Film and Television Act 1973 5. Work in the Parliamentary Zone-Proposals for the Relocation of the Two Police Guard Boxes at the Rear of Parliament House-Pursuant to Section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 6. RAAF Veterans' Residences Trust-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 10 and 10A of the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Act 1953 7. Australian Fisheries Council-Resolutions of the Australian Fisheries Council -13th Meeting held in Sydney, 23 September 1983 8. Fishing Agreements between (A) The Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Korea. (B) Subsidiary agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Korea concerning squid jigging by fishing vessels of the Republic of Korea. (C) Agreement between the Commonwealth and KKFC Pty Ltd for joint venture squid fishing off South Eastern Australia (D) Agreement between the Commonwealth and Safcol Seafoods Pty Ltd for the use of a foreign fish processing vessel 9. Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry-Annual Report 1982-83 10. Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory-Report 11. Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 11 of the Sugar Agreement Act 1979 12. Foreign Investment Review Board-Report 1983 13. Australian Electoral Commission-Certificate-Pursuant to Sub-section 25a (2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 14. Curriculum Development Centre-Annual Report 1981-82 together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs outlining the reasons for the delay in tabling the Curriculum Development Centre Annual Report for 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 40 of the Curriculum Development Centre Act 1975 Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I refer to the report entitled 'A Maintenance Agency for Australia' and move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.06) —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered- (1) The following General Business, orders of the day, not relating to the consideration of Government papers, be postponed till the next day of sitting- Nos 1 to 7, 9, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23 to 27, 40, 52 and 53. (2) General Business, order of the day No. 16 (Anzac Day Bill 1983) be postponed till a later hour of the day. (3) Intervening business be postponed till after consideration of General Business, orders of the day relating to the consideration of Government papers. (4) General Business, orders of the day be called on in an order which is the reverse of the order in which they appear on the Notice Paper. (5) No Senator shall speak for more than five minutes on any item of General Business. The procedure outlined has been devised to meet a commitment made to all honourable senators last year. It provides an opportunity for senators to consider those papers in which they have expressed interest to their respective Whips. The normal time limit of five minutes is provided to senators who wish to speak and, of course, senators will be able to seek leave to continue their remarks or move an adjournment of the debate if they wish a matter to be kept on the Notice Paper. Items which are not for the consideration of papers have been postponed till the next day of sitting. A list of papers for consideration in the order to be called on by the Chair has been circulated to honourable senators. Debate resumed. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.08) —The paper entitled 'A Maintenance Agency for Australia', the report of the National Maintenance Inquiry, has been tabled by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). This study has been proceeding for some considerable time. The essence of the finding of the inquiry is: . . . that only 40 per cent of Australian maintenance orders are fully complied with. The report also states: . . . another 40 per cent of orders are never paid at all. Of course those words come from the summary by the Attorney-General of the inquiry's findings. It indicates quite clearly that many Australian men are avoiding their responsibilities to their former spouses and their children. Of course, this stems in part from two factors: The easy availability of divorce under the 1975 amendments to the Family Law Act and, secondly, a belief that other taxpayers will assume prime responsibility of the husband and father by the payment of widows' pensions and supporting parents benefits. I took the opportunity during the family law debate last year to have incorporated in Hansard figures showing the cost to the taxpayer of husbands and spouses who are not accepting their responsibilities. Given the fact that I have only five minutes in which to speak I will not repeat those points. Of course, the payment of widows' pensions and supporting parent benefits in circumstances of need is an important factor and a tolerant and charitable gesture is required in certain circumstances. The widows pension, as a part of the Budget, is entirely misnamed. As I have pointed out before, some years ago a change occurred and a majority of the recipients of the widows pension were separated or divorced women rather than de jure widows. From time to time we hear statements that those receiving the supporting parents benefit are mostly unmarried mothers or, indeed-there have been some quite fantastic statements-that young women deliberately become pregnant in order to become eligible for this benefit. In fact, only about 10 per cent of these recipients are women who have never lived with the father of the qualifying child. Most are separated women. Women and children have been the great losers in the easy availability of divorce. There is not much dispute about that fact. The failure of large numbers of men to pay maintenance for their former spouses and their children-surely they are not former children; a man might divorce his wife but he certainly does not divorce his children-means that a third group of people are now the losers, that is, the ordinary taxpayers . If, through the development of the welfare state, we allow the state to assume responsibilities for obligations which are clearly our own, how can we argue that a democratic state is built on foundations of personal responsibility? In the maintenance area we need to balance the obligation of the state to assist separated women and children, if they require assistance, to maintain an adequate standard of living and a determination that former spouses-if they are in a position to do so-should not avoid their financial responsibilities for their former spouses and their children. We must accept at face value, with the obvious qualifying statements, the statement in the report that a national maintenance agency could give effect to this principle with substantial savings. It is fair to warn that no one wants to see merely the creation of another bureaucracy designed to provide employment for well paid public servants. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.14) —The report entitled 'A Maintenance Agency for Australia' of the National Maintenance Inquiry, which I have not had time to read completely because it is an extremely large one, was compiled by the Family Law Branch of the Attorney-General's Department under, I understand, the instructions of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). I believe it was one of the 49 matters that he forwarded to his Department to look into. It is, I think, a tribute to that Branch of the Department. It is one of the most comprehensive and best analyses of maintenance needs and the systems available to support those needs that I have ever had a look at. In fact, it runs very close to being as definitive a report on the history and sociology of maintenance systems as it is possible to get. It looks in detail at the legal, financial and operational anomalies, problems and benefits inherent in a wide range of schemes which apply not only in Australia but also overseas, specifically the New Zealand model. It covers the problems associated with defaulters, mostly male, and the severely disadvantaged recipients, mostly female, within the existing systems and then looks at models and methods for avoiding, or at least mitigating, those problems. There is no question in my mind or in most people's minds that there is a need for change to maintenance payment collection and enforcement in Australia, and indeed that that change is long overdue. As the report points out, there has been an undue and costly history of evasion of payment, reliance on the social welfare system to either top up maintenance payments or to be used as an excuse for not paying maintenance at all or for cheerfully evading it. In fact, anecdotal evidence indicates that some of the fairly wealthy members of society are able to do this quite easily simply by leaving their wives and children with houses and cars and paying the children's school fees. The wives are then able to go to the Department of Social Security for their support. Furthermore, the report makes a statement that many of us have long suspected to be the case, that is, that maintenance payment decisions have usually paid more attention to the respondent's needs than to the needs of the wife and children. Clearly this is quite unsatisfactory. As Senator Harradine pointed out quite rightly, society expects people to accept their responsibilities in caring and providing for their children. The state's responsibility is to see that this is done. Only if it is not possible for this to be done by the defaulting spouse should the state step in and fill the breach. However, Senator Harradine spoke a moment ago as if men had never evaded their responsibilities to their dependent wives and children prior to the new divorce provisions. As the report points out quite clearly, that is not the case. Men have indulged in that exercise for many years. The report specifically looks at the goldfields situation-- Senator Giles —It is a great Australian tradition. Senator HAINES —It has not just been the great Australian tradition. I think it has been a great universal male tradition to skip off and either leave the wife and children to fend as best they can or to leave it to the state to pick up the tab. The Government, therefore, is to be commended for looking seriously at this problem. From conversations I had with the previous Minister for Social Security , I understand that the previous Government was also concerned about the problem . I understand that, like me, Senator Chaney was looking seriously at the New Zealand model at least, although I do not know how much further the previous Government went. Nevertheless, this Government is to be commended for the action that it has taken and for looking at ways of sheeting home the responsibility for maintenance payments to the person responsible for making them. I understand from a report put out by the Attorney-General that in the first instance the Government will accept the report's recommendations regarding following the South Australian model. I hope that it also takes up the report's recommendations with regard to garnishment and looks further at the use of the taxation system in enforcing and tracing payments of maintenance by the respondent to his or her dependants. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.18) —I think that the report of the National Maintenance Inquiry, entitled 'A Maintenance Agency for Australia' is extremely good and very comprehensive. I make only a couple of comments in relation to two areas. One concerns the recommendations in relation to taxation and the use of the Australian Taxation Office. The other concerns the recommendations in relation to the Department of Social Security. It seems to me that the arguments against the use of the Taxation Office and the Department of Social Security advanced in this report are not well founded. Indeed, I believe that propositions put up in part of this report are merely straw men to be knocked down. I think that it requires us yet again to look with a little more detail at the notion of creating yet another agency. The report suggests that the Taxation Office is not the most appropriate department for tracking people in this country. It seems to me that if one compares the Taxation Office with any other agency that may be established, the other agency must fall far short of the capacity of the Taxation Office to keep track of people in this country. If one is concerned with trying to get as many people as possible to meet their obligations, the Taxation Office must be seen as the office best able to do that. I believe the use of the Taxation Office to collect moneys due and the use of the Social Security Department to pay them out , and the dissociation of those two roles, will eventually lead in this country to socially desirable ends. The most important one concerns the unacceptable situation at the moment of women who have custody of children and who seek to enforce payment from their husbands through their own initiative or through the courts. As is pointed out in this report, that type of pressure on individuals puts them at a grave social disadvantage. I am thinking particularly of those people who do not readily understand the operations of the courts and the various systems in this country. I hope that the Government in its review of this report will look again at the reasons it gives for dismissing the recommendation on page 321: . . . that no steps be taken to impose upon the Australian Taxation Office a requirement to enforce as a taxation debt a sum of arrears of maintenance. I do not believe its reasons hold up or are good reasons. Before we look at changing the system, and particularly before we establish yet another agency and another bureaucracy, we should look at the bureaucracies already in place, which have enormous expertise, which have enormous reach into the community and which have the capacity to assume these additional responsibilities with very little change to their structures. For example, the Social Security Department is well able to take upon itself the payment of further benefits to people with very little movement within that Department. The Taxation Office is quite capable of assuming responsibility for the collection of new debts in the community, as it does every year through changes in the law. At the moment I am unconvinced that a new organisation is necessary. Indeed, I am still convinced that it would be superfluous. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.22) —I was not aware that this paper was to come on for consideration this morning. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration resumed from 29 February, on motion by Senator Scott: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 29 February, on motion by Senator Chaney: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.23) —This statement was put down only yesterday and the Opposition has made some comment on it in the other place. At this stage I have nothing further to say. Senator Mason indicated earlier that he wished to have an opportunity to make some comment at an early date. Senator Mason is obviously on other business at the moment. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 28 February, on motion by Senator Peter Rae: That the Senate take note of the papers. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.24) —I intend to deal with these five reports together. They are reports on polyvinyl chloride homopolymer (anti-dumping); passenger and light commercial vehicles-substitution; lawn mowers, certain engines and parts; copper and certain copper products; and fatty acids and certain aliphatic acids, their salts and esters, and so on. I wish to comment more in relation to general policy than specifically about these reports, because I think they represent something that is becoming a matter of some concern. For instance, last year the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) indicated, in answer to quite a number of questions, that he did not know what the particular situation was with regard to one industry or another. One can imagine that as a relatively new Minister, that was a problem. However, when one has an Industries Assistance Commission report in relation to, say, copper and copper products that was given to the Government on 28 February 1983 and a decision is not announced until 26 January 1984, then I think it has gone beyond the reasonable learning stage for a Minister and has reached the stage where perhaps matters are dragging on unduly and are not receiving the expeditious care which they should. The motor vehicle industry is another one in which there has been serious concern and a very real urgency for some decision making. The industry had a policy announced in December 1981 which was to apply throughout the 1980s. That policy has been the basis for a large number of investment plans which have been made and, as honourable senators would be well aware, in this industry not only the assemblers but also the parts manufacturers are concerned in very expensive tooling investment should they decide to continue or if they are to be able to continue. A great deal of uncertainity has been shown as a result of certain things such as the comments of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) while in Japan on the restructuring of the automobile industry and then the reinterpretation of those comments at various stages as the reaction in Australia grew stronger. We have had the IAC report on substitution, the car industry council report on the question of intervention and the extent to which there will be intervention, and it is no wonder, I believe, that there is very considerable uncertainty and instability in the motor vehicle industry. This has been created as a result of there appearing to be a number of people making policy statements on behalf of this Government and no clear enunciation of what is the policy, whether the policy introduced by the former Government will continue, whether reviews being undertaken by the present Government will lead to changes, and whether matters such as export credits and facilitation will be changed or not. These are all causing a growing feeling within the community reflected by the variations in the attitudes between the Government's acceptance of some IAC reports and non- acceptance of others, with the differing statements between varying Ministers and the differences between the free traders and the protectionists, between those who have the sort of view that was expounded by the Prime Minister during his recent overseas trip, in particular, but also in his general statements on matters such as steel. On that matter, apparently, without references to the Ministers concerned and with only the briefest reference to the major industry concerned, Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, he entered into lengthy discussion which led to great announcements as though some great discovery had been made. It just so happens that BHP has been exporting steel to China for many years. These are but examples of the problems in the industry which, I believe, it is becoming increasingly urgent for this Government to overcome to clear up some of the uncertainty. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 28 February, on motion by Senator Harradine: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.30) —The Industries Assistance Commission report on the dairy industry received universal comment. Nobody liked it. At best, it was inadequate and terribly disappointing. The approach taken by the Commission in this instance is very puzzling. It failed totally to take into account the realities of both the sociological and the economic aspects of the dairy industry and it failed properly to consider what the results of its recommendations would be. I am well satisfied that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) fully understands the position of the dairy industry. I think he was looking to the IAC to come up with something which the industry, at all levels, could understand and accept and which would be implementable, which these recommendations clearly are not. The difficulty that we face is that the dairy industry in Australia is three separate industries interlocking-the ordinary household fresh milk supply industry, the milk supply for domestic manufacture industry and the export industry, all of which are quite different and operate in different places for different reasons with different degrees of success. We are looking, on the one hand, at how we can provide an adequate quantity of milk at the most economic price and, on the other hand, at how we can maintain sufficient returns to the industry to ensure that that will happen. These two items compete with each other. The IAC says that the present system cannot justify the cost of domestic milk. But, as in so many cases, there is not sufficient recognition of why the price of milk is what it is today. It is primarily to ensure adequate supplies of milk Australia-wide during the worst part of the year. Regrettably, at present this provides a surplus for quite a lot of the year. This surplus goes onto the export market. The prices on the export market at present are diabolical and are likely to worsen considerably. The industry, at all levels, has given this matter quite a deal of consideration. I regret that it started moving late and has moved fairly slowly and that it has been unable to get unanimous approval for the likely recommendations. The industry has to work to reduce the surplus. It comes back to the same problem that we have had for the last seven or eight years. The industry must reduce the surplus by whatever means possible. The proposition that has now been put forward by the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation-that as from 1 July 1984 a 1c a litre levy should be imposed on all milk to support the export surplus-is attacking the problem from slightly the wrong end. That will only work provided at the same time we work to reduce the total amount of milk produced. I believe the only way we will be able to achieve that is by implementing an entitlement scheme such as has been mentioned. I have been suggesting to dairy farmers that they should also consider reducing their inputs into the production of milk with a view to improving their net profit. By not spending so much on production they would reduce the amount of milk produced. I hope that the industry will be able to lead the Government and show the IAC what an imperfect report this is. I hope that we will be able to maintain a reasonably proportioned Australia-wide dairy industry in the years to come. Debate (on motion by Senator Scott) adjourned. Debate resumed from 15 December 1983, on motion by Senator Collard: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.35) —This is an important survey. In the early post-war years something like 16,000 Australians took part in tests in Maralinga, Emu and Monte Bello areas. Many British servicemen and civilians were also there. Amongst the Australians there were also civilians. The tests were done at a time when not as much was known as is now known about the effects of radiation on people's health. The tests were done under what were then regarded as strict precautions. It was important to be able to look at this situation to determine whether there were any effects upon the Australian people . The Government of the day determined that the most intensive survey should be carried out. Indeed, I, as the responsible Minister insisted that it should be done under objective and expert advice so that there could be a health study of as many human beings as could be contacted and a survey of the cause of death of those who had died. The task of locating 16,000 people or their relatives was immense. The task of searching records in the Department of Defence was major. These tasks were undertaken. Some 10,000 or 11,000 people who were alive responded and were invited to fill in questionnaires. Something like 1,500 death certificates were examined. This was done by the Department of Health and the then Department of National Development and Energy. A thorough survey was conducted. Most importantly, every person was led to understand that, if he or she had any worries at all about his or her health, an application could be made to the Department. People could be medically examined and, if they felt that they qualified for compensation, they could approach the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Tribunal. The whole approach was one of humanity, trying to find the truth, trying to offer all those people medical examination and compensation services if they had any such claims. A report from the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council which, is listed for debate, has given us information. Taken together the two documents are of very considerable importance. In effect, the final report on the Maralinga, Emu and Monte Bello areas, indicates that there was no evidence to believe that there had been a pattern of either morbidity or mortality from radiation. At the same time people could apply for compensation. I commend all those who took part in this survey. I commend the departmental officers in both the Department of Health and the former Department of National Development and Energy. I repeat: Every person who feels that he or she has suffered any disability from those tests has a right to medical examination and a right to approach the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Tribunal. The important thing for Australian people to understand is that the government of the day wanted, and I am sure this Government would want, the most open and searching inquiry and the greatest possible help for those people. I commend the report. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(10.40) —I would like to follow up Senator Sir John Carrick's remarks, principally to take up the point that he raises in referring to the report in terms of the extensive problem of trying to follow up the survey of so many people so long after the event. I think it is very necessary that the survey was done, particularly in that case. It is very pleasing that it was done extensively and thoroughly, but the whole problem is really addressing the stable door after the horse has bolted if I can manoeuvre an analogy in such a manner. The problem and cost of that inquiry and the extent of the problems of following it up, contacting people and even perhaps, within the very nature of the inquiry, raising fear in people who may not have even had it before lead me to make those remarks as a preamble to saying such considerations, I think, are far better dealt with at the time of those people being involved in the work rather than in an inquiry long after the event. It may well be that we were not aware as much then as we are now of matters of occupational health and safety. This Government in particular has a very strong commitment to such matters. Future workers in an industry, for example working with radiation the way these people were, will consider those necessary statistics and data at the time of people being involved in their work as a preamble to a necessary series of follow-ups. This will happen more easily because names, addresses and basic data will have already been recorded as part of a person's working life and rights while they are working. Even so, I suspect people had a fair idea of the complications of work in that environment way back then. Occupational health and safety are not new issues, they have been known certainly for all of this century. Quite a few people talked about the hazards of work in the nineteenth century. It is really just that little was done about them. It is still a problem of forcing those people who have to take the health of workers into consideration to accept an economic responsibility of that kind of investigation, data collection or care of workers. It would be interesting to compare the costs of this review and follow-up against what it might have cost to have established those basic requirements for data collection at the time those people were employed. I suspect it might have been much more economic to have established the baseline data at the time those people were working. Hypothetically, had anybody been found to have had a cancer , a death or illness due to radiation-it seems from the report that was not the case-that cost too would have to have been added to the equation. I think prevention is always better than cure, particularly if one can do that in economic terms. On the other hand, who will ever put a price on a human life? Sometimes we may even have to expend money at no economic gain so as to make the health and work state of our workers less likely to cause illness, death or disease. The very significant part played by this Government in occupational health and safety considerations were very nicely alluded to in a paper which the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) tabled in this Parliament last year. It referred to the importance of health and safety being predicated on the principles that work environments need to be adapted and designed to suit the needs of people. In the case of work places where radiation is a problem, while we cannot exactly adapt the work place, what we must do is adapt the safety requirements so that radiation levels are kept sufficiently low as to guarantee no health hazards from that radiation to the workers. From time to time as research proceeds safe radiation levels need to be further modified and adapted. If the environment can be modified by reducing radiation levels or making sure workers do not get an excessive amount of radiation; yes, I would support those claims by the Minister that we must ensure occupational health and safety measures are introduced at the time of a person working rather than having an inquiry some 16, 20 or 30 years later. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.45) —In relation to the report 'Atomic Test Personnel' I wish to comment on a matter which is quite extraneous to the direct subject matter; that is, the method of conducting inquiries when the people who are to be subjected to an inquiry have been previously bound by the Official Secrets Act, the Crimes Act or other restrictions upon their rights or capacity to provide information in relation to what they did. In this instance there was a lot of confusion because people had been employed by any one of several departments and were subjected to very severe security restrictions. They were then requested by another department to provide information, much of which could have been in breach of the obligations which they had assumed and could have left them, they feared, subject to being charged, if they had answered in a way which was regarded as a breach of their statutory obligations. Obviously, it was a matter that could be cleared up in a number of instances of which I am aware it was cleared up after some correspondence had been entered into. Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that in future if such an inquiry is held, an assurance should be given at an early stage that there is a total exemption from the obligations which might otherwise apply. I simply raise the matter so that a lesson can be learnt from this inquiry and I hope that people are not concerned in such a way by some future inquiry. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 15 December 1983, on motion by Senator Haines: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.47) — The report before us today is more remarkable for its blandness and for ignoring the real problems and issues relevant to the Australian Wine Research Institute during 1983 than for anything that it actually contains. For example, on page 4 of the report, under the headline 'Staff Activities', it refers to the fact that the Director gave a talk on the Institute to the Barons of the Barossa on 24 June 1983. But the report totally ignores the fact that the first strike in the Institute's history took place in 1983 because of actions and activities undertaken by the same Director. A little further on in the report, under the heading WETICE Scheme it mentions that the Institute has been able to utilise the services of two young people under the Federal Government's work experience training in Commonwealth establishments scheme, but ignores the fact that there are very severe moral problems amongst the exisiting permanent staff caused by the sacking, with no apparent reason-certainly with no specified reason-of two of the Institute's longest serving scientists, Dr Michael Evans and Mr Gunther Zeimelis. One wonders whether the 1984 report will mention the embarassment suffered by the Senior Principal Research Scientist at AWRI, Dr Somers, when he received early last month a merit award for work done at the Institute which was in fact not done by him, but by the two sacked scientists. The problem at the Institute is very serious, and one which I have raised previously in this place, as has Senator Crowley. It is becoming so appalling that I have written to the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment. I do not have time in the five minutes that is allocated to me in the debate on this report to mention all the problems associated with the Institute. Nor have I time even to read out a precis that I included in my letter to Senator Jones. Suffice it to say that, as a consequence of the problems to which I have alluded, a number of staff at the Institute approached several South Australian senators, including Senator Crowley, myself and, I think Senator Messner, and perhaps Senator Teague, who has indicated to me that he wants to speak on this report, although, he is not here at the moment . As I have already said, we raised the matter in the Senate. I raised the matter , as perhaps did other honourable senators, on a number of occasions with the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). My staff also raised the matter on one occasion with a senior member of the staff of the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones). Despite the fact that the Federal Department of Primary Industry contributes something like a quarter of a million dollars annually to the Institute's running-although the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation contributes more, and I think that may well be part of the problem- Mr Kerin has opted for a low profile on the issues, indicating in his last letter to me that he was keeping a watching brief on what was happening. The staff member of the Minister for Science and Technology simply refused to take any action at all, including raising it with his Minister, on the ground that the Department has no responsibility for the Institute. This is notwithstanding that Institute's links with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which most definitely falls within the jurisdiction of the DST. I wrote to Senator Jones and said, in conclusion: It seems to me that the only remaining avenue of the staff, both past and present, of the Institute to take if they want justice to be done, is if the Senate is prepared to look into the matter. You may well ask why the concerns of such a small number of people should warrant such extreme action. I can only say that the issues facing those 15 or so people are important to them; that the unilateral decision made by the Director and/or the Council are questionable from a number of points of view; and that the allegation of deviousness and deceit made against some Council members of an organisation in receipt of a large sum of taxpayers' money demand the closest scrutiny. I therefore urge you- that is, Senator Jones- and your Committee to give the most urgent and serious consideration to taking on an inquiry into the nature of the research undertaken by the Institute both currently and in the past; the reasons for the sudden change in the direction of that research-apparently necessitating dismissals of highly respected scientists ; the arrogant behaviour of some Council members and the new Director; the sudden decision to change the terms and conditions under which the staff work; the involvement, if any, of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation in these decisions; and the very serious allegations made by staff re their treatment in the past year and the behaviour of some Council members during the Federal C and A hearing. I hope it falls within the brief of the Committee and that the Committee sees its way clear to take up the matter. I thank Senator Jones, whom I spoke to before I wrote to him, for giving me a sympathetic hearing and taking the matter seriously enough to suggest that in fact I write to him and the Committee putting that suggestion. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(10.53) —As Senator Haines has said, I too have had a recurring interest in the dispute at the Australian Wine Research Institute. I also found the report of the Institute remarkable for what was missing from it, but I presume that a report that brings us up to June 1983 can be forgiven for its minimal report or what happened in May, when the first strike occurred. However, as Senator Haines said, it was the first strike ever in the Wine Research Institute's history. The report was able to list visits in May, so perhaps a reference to the strike and some report of what happened subsequently might well have been in the 1983 annual report. Certainly Senator Haines and I have given notice that we will be fascinated to read the 1984 report. I must say that reading-- Senator Haines —If there is one; if it has not dissolved before then. Senator CROWLEY —I do not think it will dissolve. Before I return to the more significant matters that Senator Haines has alluded to, I mention that I find reading reports fascinating for all sorts of reasons. For example, research into such things as the loss of fermentation aroma of volatiles during white wine making certainly sounds a most fascinating piece of research, as does that into the aroma composition of chardonnay wine. What about the mousey off-flavour in wine? I cannot imagine drinking a wine that has gone off with a flavour of mouse . It mentions a further piece of research into the deposits from corks. Those people who have a significant interest in wine keeping, wine storage and wine drinking would no doubt be terribly interested that all these significant matters are being pursued. I do not wish in any way to be seen as diminishing the research done by the Institute; it is just that the titles of research sound quite fascinating and somewhat delightful to read. The point is that the Australian Wine Research Institute is a national institute for research into this very important Australian industry. Research done there is of world significance. Research teams of staff members travel internationally and overseas visitors often visit the Wine Research Institute just because of the significance and quality of the research that is done there. The wine industry in this country is no small matter. In fact, the Government's commitment to this Wine Research Institute in terms of some quarter of a million dollars annually indicates the Government's involvement and preparedness to support and back such research in this industry. We hear often in this place that there should be further research and development, and support for industries. Here is a research group. It has a long history and a great significance. In the last 12 months it has been most violently disrupted by staff dissatisfaction and the behaviour of its so-called employers or management . Morale is low. The two staff members who were originally sacked, I believe, have had the term for their leaving changed from 'sacking', but that happened long after the event and only after considerable activity. The continuing unrest there-- Senator Haines —What is a dismissal if it is not a sacking? Senator CROWLEY —I think it comes with a bigger handshake. The real continuing problem of serious importance here is the attempt by those in charge to change the status of employment of the people at the Research Institute. Maybe that could be validly done, but to attempt to do it without any discussion with the researchers is a matter of very grave significance. We hope to see much more reference to that in the 1984 report. Like Senator Haines, I have a continuing interest in this matter. I have certainly taken the matter up with Minister Kerin. He has pointed out that, as the Australian Wine Research Institute is incorporated under the South Australian Companies Act, it really is not a matter that he can readily move in and investigate. It has to be dealt with by discussion and manoeuvrings of that sort rather than by heavy handed interference. But Minister Kerin arranged that a member of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations should be in attendance on behalf of the staff at any meetings between staff and management of the Institute. Certainly the staff have reported that the presence of such persons on their behalf has been very helpful, at least in the early rounds of discussion and talks that are necessary during this protracted period of industrial unrest. The Institute is very important. I hope this industrial dispute will be settled soon so that the good research can continue. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.57) —Mr Acting Deputy President, as a South Australian you will not be surprised that three South Australian senators are speaking on the report of the Australian Wine Research Institute. The Institute is based in South Australia, which is the State with the majority production of Australian wine. The Institute is somewhat destabilised at the moment by the impost that the present Government has placed on fortified wines. It may well be that further efforts need to be taken by the Institute to achieve research results that will help to outweigh the disadvantages being suffered in the industry. The matter that has been raised by Senator Haines and referred to by Senator Crowley is the dispute within some elements of the staff of the Institute which has caused disruption and led to anxiety among those employed there. It is my understanding that the Institute's authorities had the power to terminate the two research positions that have been discussed and that those positions have been terminated and severance payments have been made to and received by those staff. It is always possible in a research institution that long-serving or short-serving staff may no longer be involved in research programs when that research institute takes a new direction in the priorities accorded to research being undertaken. As I understand it, that is the ground on which the Institute has made tough decisions to make sure that it is achieving priorities that it has consciously set out for itself. In noting that, I comment on Senator Haines's suggestion that there be a Senate inquiry into the differences of view or anxieties amongst the staff that may be associated with the two staff positions being terminated. I would be most reluctant for the Senate to be directly involved in such a dispute in any statutory authority within Australia. There are hundreds of statutory authorities and we would need not just this kind of problem or area of discussion and dispute as a ground for a Senate committee weighing in to such a dispute; we would also need to have established very serious grounds for entertaining such a matter. It would need to be in the context of the very purposes of the statutory authority concerned. I am aware that in Australia disputes are before the courts about proper or improper dismissal of staff members in various areas of employment. A great deal would need to be said, in addition to what has already been maintained, for the Senate to be directly involved in such an inquiry. I understand that the Department of Primary Industry has investigated carefully such allegations, or the room for such complaint, and has found them to be groundless and that the governing authorities of the Institute have acted within their powers. I say frankly to the Senate that we would need to be given much more evidence than has been brought before us if we were to become in any way involved in a properly constituted statutory authority. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 14 December 1983, on motion by Senator Harradine: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.03) — The Australia-China Council Annual Report has come up for debate sooner than I had anticipated. I had hoped to be in a position to advise the Senate of the outcome of discussions that I have had in respect of prisoners of conscience in China about which I had something to say in the Senate on 18 November 1983. It appears that the previous Government placed and this Government places considerable importance on relationships between Australia and China. Indeed, the taxpayers of Australia are pouring considerable funds into the development of this relationship. The Australia- China Council has been established and its annual report is now the subject of debate in the Senate. The previous Government and this Government have given lip service to the question of human rights in China. However, it gives me some concern that that lip service has not been translated into intelligent, honest, respectful and effective approaches to authorities in China to ensure that the very strong viewpoint that is held by the Australian population about human rights violations in China is made known to the authorities in China. I do not have the time in the short five minutes that is made available to us in this sort of debate to go over the various instances of the violations of human rights of individuals and groups of individuals within China. One example of these I relayed to the Senate on 18 November 1983 because of the visit to Canberra at that time of the President of the Shanghai Friendship Society and other colleagues from Shanghai. There is a growing concern amongst Australians that in China there are violations of human rights which go to the very fundamental relationships between husband and wife. I am aware that the Chairman of the Australia-China Council, Professor Geoffrey Blainey, raised with the visiting delegation the matter that I referred to on that occasion and the matter to which the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, so courteously and efficiently responded. I am also aware of the fact that Professor Geoffrey Blainey, in an address to the National Press Club on 22 November, alluded to growing attention in Australia to the question of human rights in China and expressed the view that this might affect relations between Australia and China in future. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator Harradine —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 14 December 1983, on motion by Senator Maguire: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(11.09) —I wish to speak on the Australian National Railways annual report for 1982-83. The Australian National Railways system now incorporates the former Commonwealth railways network, the old South Australian railways and the Tasmanian railways system. It should be noted that Australian National, or the former Commowealth railways, took over the two State railway systems at a time when both of them were making substantial losses. The major feature of the 1982-83 report which affects my State is the development of the standard gauge railway from Crystal Brook to Adelaide. That is now in operation at long last. From January 1983 onwards freight has been carried on that railway from Perth and Sydney to the Islington railyards in the northern suburbs of Adelaide. From the middle of 1983 freight was operated into the Mile End yards very close to the city's centre. The new standard gauge passenger service will soon operate to Adelaide. The new railway station at Keswick should be open by the end of this financial year. In all those aspects Adelaide will at long last be connected to the standard gauge network which now links all mainland capital cities. I believe that Australian National's operations have been affected by the different railway gauges in Australia which are a blight on our transport. In fact, within the boundaries of South Australia alone Australian National operates three different railway gauges. Surely those gauges quite significantly affect the efficiency of the organisation. Rail standardisation, the gradual whittling away of the other two gauges, has been a major spending boost for the South Australian economy. The investment involved in the development of the Dry Creek, Islington and Mile End freight yards has been significant. The new passenger terminal to which I have referred and the new headquarters building for Australian National all involve significant expenditure in the local economy . Unfortunately in 1982-83 Australian National's deficit increased. The Commonwealth's contribution to finance Australian National's operations rose from $68m in 1981-82 to $102m in 1982-83. I believe that the increase in the deficit significantly reflects the drought conditions and the effects of the economic recession. The latter was particularly severe in respect of the parts of Australia where Australian National operates. Essentially, Australian National is a freight railway. Eighty-five per cent of its revenue, I believe, comes from freight, so it must be affected by events such as drought and economic recession. For example, in 1982-83 the tonnage of cereals carried by Australian National fell to 400,000 tonnes, a third of the level applying in the previous year when 1.2 million tonnes were carried. The effect of the recession was felt through the decreased carriage of items such as steel from Whyalla. The unfortunate 1982 result has interrupted Australian National's goal of achieving financial viability in a decade. However, it is believed that in the current financial year there can be a move back to the trend of improved financial results. I think that projection reflects the forecast upturn in the economy and the very evident fact that the drought in Australia has now ended. Part of Australian National's deficit, I believe, reflects its requirements to meet certain social obligations; that is, it has to meet certain community objectives and not just objectives of a commercial or financial nature. For example, it is required to give service to small rural communities. Sometimes that can be uneconomic. It is required to keep some branch lines open although in some cases they make a loss. In South Australia, Australian National is a significant employer in towns such as Port Augusta, Port Pirie, Peterborough and Tailem Bend. The prosperity of those towns is linked importantly to the railway network. Unfortunately, the standardisation of the railway system has a cost in local terms; jobs will be lost at Port Pirie and Peterborough in South Australia, particularly as a result of the closure of the bogie exchanges. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 14 December 1983, on motion by Senator Reid: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(11.13) —The Australian bicentennial road development program was a great initiative of the Fraser Government. I am certainly glad that the present Government has carried it on. I wish I could say the same for its bicentennial water resources program which is certainly most necessary and most important in a country which experiences so much drought. I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that the Government has decided to index the excise tax on petrol. I feel that the Government is ripping off Australia's motorists by not allocating the increased revenue raised through the indexed excise tax on petrol to the bicentennial roads program. This was confirmed in Parliament yesterday by the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). He said that the reason the additional revenue was not being put into the program was that the coalition Government's legislation setting it up did not provide for any more than 2c a litre being allocated. The point is that the previous Government did not envisage the increased and indexed excise introduced by the present Government. If the Government really wants to ensure the continuation of the bicentennial roads program to the extent required to cover ever-increasing costs, I feel that it could change the program. I have no doubt, of course, that the Government does not want to allocate the additional revenue to the roads program. It wants to boost its coffers so it can direct the money to other areas such as unemployment benefits and things like that. I think that all honourable senators realise that Queensland has an enormous road network, consisting of something like 41,000 kilometres of main roads alone. We are the most decentralised State in Australia and, as such, rely heavily on internal transportation, particularly on our roads. Every year we seem to have the dreadful situation whereby our Far North and our western areas are cut off by roads because of the rains which unfortunately wash the roads away. Only a couple of weeks ago Mount Isa was completely cut off by road and rail. It was accessible only by aeroplane. I feel that that is a very sad situation at a time when the Federal Government is supposed to be ploughing funds into our roads through the bicentennial roads program. A country such as Australia needs a sophisticated road network linking all our major cities and towns. I consider that it is very important for the Labor Government to recognise this. Last year the number of vehicles registered in Queensland was up significantly on the figure for the previous year. I suppose one could say that that is due in part to the large number of people who come to Queensland from other States. In Queensland, of course, we do not mind the fact that they want to get away from the socialist governments down south, but the extra toll on our roads is something else. This six-monthly increase in the price of petrol is a very subtle form of revenue gathering of which the average motorist is probably not aware, in any case. I think it is rather sad that Mr Hawke and his Government have not decided to plough these funds into our roads, particularly in Queensland which I like to remind honourable senators from Victoria, is seven times the size of their State. The Bureau of Transport Economics in one of its reports found that the allocation of funds for road construction and maintenance in Queensland was severely less than it forecast Queensland should receive. I emphasise the need to put all increased and indexed excise tax to road building in every state, rather than to Consolidated Revenue. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.20) —I also wish to speak to this matter. I support Senator Bjelke-Petersen in congratulating the Fraser Government on the implementation of this program. It is certainly an excellent program. From time to time as one travels around the larger States of this Commonwealth one sees the desperate need, as Senator Bjelke-Petersen said, for the expenditure of funds on our major road network. I hope that our State governments will decide to allocate some portion of their funds towards some of those roads rather than just relying totally upon Federal governments for them, because quite frankly the state of the main roads in some of our larger States is very poor. I can well understand that. They are such large States with such an extensive road network. In addition to congratulating the Fraser Government, I congratulate former Liberal governments in Victoria for the state of the roads in Victoria. The major arterial networks in Victoria are really first-class. The problem is that motorists in outback Victorian areas are tending to stay off those magnificent roads. Why is this? In Victoria the Cain Labor Government has introduced a driving offence which relates to motorists driving at 30 kilometres an hour above the speed limit. Any motorists convicted of travelling at a speed in excess of 30 kilometres above the speed limit compulsorily loses his licence for three months. That is fair and reasonable in the city of Melbourne. Anyone who drives down Collins Street at, say, 91 kilometres an hour ought to lose his licence for three months. But the trouble with this Cain Labor Government is that it is not able to see beyond the boundaries of metropolitan Melbourne and its suburbs. When one drives between my city of Warrnambool and the major rural city of Portland one drives on a large, open, wide and flat road in flat countryside. The concern about losing one's licence if one is caught driving at a fast speed is so great that motorists are getting off the highways and taking to the back roads. I see Senator Button smiling, but of course he now gets driven around the place and does not have to worry about driving round rural Victoria. It is to me a matter of great concern to discover, when I move off to a minor road for my own purpose of travelling faster than the speed limit and in the hope of avoiding the police, that not only am I not the only person on the minor roads but also I am travelling along with 22-wheel semi-trailers loaded with 17 tonnes also travelling at excessive speeds and, of course, doing major damage to the road networks which have to be maintained by local government. The point is that the State Government, by foolishing applying the same rules to outback, rural Victoria and to drivers on those roads as apply to metropolitan Melbourne, is forcing heavy vehicles off the main road. One might say that the market forces are moving drivers of those heavy vehicles off the major roads on to the minor roads, thereby creating an enormous burden for local government in trying to maintain the rural roads system of Victoria. I suggest that with a little foresight the State Government could have done something proper about this. For example, it could recognise that it is much more reasonable to travel a bit faster on a decent freeway or a decent country highway and not limit people in Victoria to 100 kilometres an hour on a four- lane freeway. Anyone driving along at 100 kilometres an hour will find that he is passed by all the trucks in the area. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 13 December 1983, on motion by Senator Lewis: That the Senate take note of the papers. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.26) —As honourable senators know, we have only five minutes to speak to these papers, and five minutes is certainly not enough time in which to deal with this report which is of such grave concern to all pilots around Australia. However, I understand that my colleague Senator Peter Rae might be taking a procedural step following my speech, which I hope will enable us to further examine this report. I draw the attention of Senator Button, who is at the table, to the fact that on 15 December last year Senator Townley, in this chamber, asked for the production of the transcript of just what was said by and to the pilot of the aircraft which crashed, the subject of this report. I ask Senator Button whether he will ask the appropriate Minister to supply the Senate with the transcript of the conversations which took place between the pilot and the air traffic controllers at the time of this accident. The reason is that it seems to Senator Townley, to me and to other honourable senators to whom I have spoken about this matter, that if this pilot had been spoken to sensibly by ground controllers this accident may have been avoided altogether. I use the word 'sensibly', but perhaps more in the sense of someone knowing what he is talking about. As far as air safety is concerned, this might become a matter of great concern to people in the future. The pilot was supposed to be flying at 12,000 feet on his way from Tasmania to Victoria and at 14.52 hours he said to the controller: Er Whiskey Juliet Charlie we seem to have been in trouble with-er-fuel here the red-er-warning light comes on and the gauge is down . . . Nine minutes later he was in the drink in Bass Strait. Then there was a very extensive story which I mentioned in my last speech on this matter about the attempts to rescue him and his passenger. He had some problem with the fuel warning gauge. It seems to us that someone should have been making suggestions to him. For example, would he check his fuel gauges? Would he check his fuel tanks? Would he check his mixture? Would he check his pitch control? Someone should have taken him through a series of safety precautions. It also could very well have been that he might have been advised to reduce his speed, perhaps also to lower his flaps by 15 to 20 degrees to give him a little more ability to maintain height, and it may be that he could have been redirected closer towards land. It took him nine minutes to go into the drink from that point, which seems to imply that he was probably below 12,000 feet at that time. But perhaps he could have reduced his gliding angle and extended his gliding path until he reached land, until he was able, perhaps, to make a forced landing on a beach. When he went into the water he was about 42 nautical miles from Tidal River. It may be that in some way or other, with some guidance, he could have extended his glide path to reach Tidal River. Those of us who have flown or been involved in other sporting events will know that from time to time panic grips us. The opportunity here was for someone calmly sitting on the ground to talk rational sense-this is why I used the word 'sensibly'-to talk sensible common sense to that pilot. Had that occurred, it may be that this accident could have ben avoided. So for those reasons I, Senator Townley and others would like to see a transcript in regard to what took place between the radio controller and this pilot. We would like the Government and safety officers to start thinking about training radio controllers to have this sort of conversation with pilots who appear to be panicking or in some sort of trouble. I must finish my remarks because time has run out. I hope that Senator Rae will seek leave to continue, so that the debate is not wound up today. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.32) —As has been indicated, five minutes is not long enough for a subject of the complexity of this to be dealt with. It is my intention to indicate today that I shall tomorrow give notice of motion for a substantive motion to be able to debate this matter fully. I wish to quote from the editorial of the air pilots magazine, the 1983 Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association magazine. It will give honourable senators some idea of the concern which is being expressed in relation to this incident. The second last paragraph says: How long must we continue to tolerate the inefficiencies of the Department of Aviation Search and Rescue Service? How many lives are being needlessly lost through their ineptitude? Those are fairly strong words to be put in an editorial of a very responsible journal. They indicate the sort of concern. I have been given a brief in relation to this matter by people who were involved. One point which arises from the report is that not only were helicopters which were available to be used not used but also there were numerous fishing boats in the area and, through inadequacies of procedure and communication, apparently no attempt was made to bring those fishing boats into the operation. I understand that one boat was less than three hours steaming time away from where the man had been sighted. If some flares had been able to be dropped in the area where the person had been sighted it may well have been that a fishing boat despatched immediately could have got to the area and found him. I have been told, although this has not been verified to me, that there was one boat very much closer still, which was not brought into the search and attempted rescue. I just point out those matters and refer also to what Senator Lewis and other honourable senators have said, including you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Tremendous concern has been expressed by a whole cross-section of those concerned with aircraft safety, from pilots right through to passengers, and all others involved. I propose not to seek to continue my remarks in this process but rather to give notice of motion for a substantive motion so that the whole matter can be debated in more detail. I believe it is one that requires that sort of debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 13 December 1983, on motion by Senator Peter Baume: That the Senate take note of the statement. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 13 December 1983, on motion by Senator Messner: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.36) —I rise in respect of the report of the Department of Aviation for the 1982-83 financial year to make some further comment about the general level of air safety in this country. It is a matter to be greatly prized by Australia that we have a very high level of air safety at all levels, whether that applies to commercial aviation or to general aviation and to the use of such equipment as helicopters and what have you. Clearly, a very high degree of attention has been paid to that by successive governments. The report, on page 27, points out the activities of the flying unit in respect of maintaining that very high level of support and standards at airports in Australia so as to make sure that navigational aids and various equipment used for the guidance of aircraft in this country are maintained at the highest possible standards. I have one concern about the reference in the report to the flying unit which, as honourable senators know, provides aircraft to travel around Australia and check the operation of navigational aids at airports, and the calibration of that equipment, to ensure that it is operating properly. These aircraft are properly fitted out with suitable equipment in order to do that. I am a little concerned to know-and perhaps the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) will be able to ascertain the answer from the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley)-whether any economy measures have been introduced in the Department of Aviation which have reduced the operation of the aircraft that undertake this kind of work. I have some information, which disturbs me, as to cutbacks in this area, and I wonder whether that is correct information. At some stage I would like to have the Minister's assurance that there is no likelihood that air safety may be affected adversely by those kinds of economy measures undertaken by the Government. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.37) —I will seek that information for the honourable senator and see that he is provided with it as soon as possible. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(11.38) —I wish also to speak on the annual report of the Department of Aviation for 1982-83. The report documents a very large fall in domestic passenger traffic during that financial year-a figure of 9.3 per cent, which is a large fall by any standards and a very unusual event in civil aviation in Australia in the post-war period. It is very unusual to see such a large decline in passenger numbers. Not only is the recession responsible for the fall in air traffic but also the high and increasing fares charged for domestic travel in Australia, to such a point that many Australians can no longer afford air travel. I was very pleased to note that during the financial year 1982-83 capital injections were made for both Trans Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd. For most of the period of the former Liberal Government these organisations were starved of capital. Only belated moves were made at the end of the life of that Government to provide further capital for those two important public enterprises in Australia. I am pleased to note that the present Government approved a $90m capital injection for TAA and an extra $60m for Qantas. I am sure that both of those amounts will enable the airlines to keep down the debt servicing costs they are facing at the moment-the high interest bills-at a time of a depressed market. I am pleased also to note that the sale of TAA which had previously been called for by certain individuals, is no longer to occur. The report of the Department of Aviation confirms government policy on that matter. The report confirms the continuing move away from the use of identical equipment by the two domestic airlines. Over the last 20 or 30 years all of us have noted that both airlines have had identical numbers of aircraft of the same types. The move began with TAA purchasing the Airbus aircraft and during 1982-83, the period to which this report relates, Ansett Airlines of Australia received its first wide-bodied jets -Boeing 767s. So the two major airlines now have significantly different aircraft. At the end of the financial year TAA have five Airbus aircraft operating and Ansett was operating three Boeing 767s. During 1982-83 the Adelaide International Airport became a reality. This is something that residents of South Australia had been calling for for many years. After so many years of having to travel in the opposite direction when making overseas trips at great inconvenience and with great loss of time, Adelaide residents can now travel overseas direct. I think South Australia was definitely neglected by previous Commonwealth governments in the area of air travel. It is interesting to note that Adelaide was not only the last mainland capital city to get direct international air services but also, as I pointed out in my previous speech this morning, the last mainland capital city to be connected to the standard gauge railway network. I think we have really been sold short in this area of transport policy. In response to a question on notice from me during 1983 it was revealed that in the first four months of operation of Adelaide International Airport some 28,400 passengers passed through the terminal. In the first nine months of 1982-nine months compared with four months-Townsville carried only 23,000 passengers and Darwin 28,000. I simply note that both of those centres had an international airport before Adelaide did but that the number of passengers passing through Adelaide is vastly in excess of the combined numbers passing through Townsville and Darwin. The report also refers to work being completed at Adelaide Airport for the introduction of domestic wide-bodied jets. Unfortunately, although the very expensive social investment in improved taxiways and aprons has occurred, the two major airlines still have no scheduled domestic wide-bodied jet services to Adelaide. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 9 December 1983, on motion by Senator Durack: That the Senate take note of the statement. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 8 December 1983, on motion by Senator Chaney: That the Senate take note of the statement. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 8 December 1983, on motion by Senator Harradine: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.44) — I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration resumed from 8 December 1983, on motion by Senator Scott: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 7 December 1983, on motion by Senator Chaney: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 1 December 1983, on motion by Senator Jessop: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 30 November 1983, on motion by Senator Crowley: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.46) —Because of the situation in which we find ourselves, I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 17 November 1983, on motion by Senator Crowley: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.47) — For the reason I gave in respect of the report of the Family Law Council, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 10 November 1983, on motion by Senator Sir John Carrick: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.48) —The report of the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council is parallel to the paper discussed earlier today relating to atomic test personnel. The Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council is a very distinguished body charged with very important work. The Council had put out a report on its investigations over a number of years into the possible radiation effects upon those who had been in the area of atomic tests at Maralinga, Emu, Monte Bello and other adjacent areas. It had concluded from its examinations that there was no evidence of specific effects of radiation. This was a valuable adjunct to the test to which I referred earlier when speaking to the paper on atomic test personnel which examines the history, their records and dosimeter readings, which measure radiation levels, of some 16,000 Australians. I wish specifically to pay tribute to a man, recently deceased, who was Chairman of the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council from 1973. I refer to the late Professor R. J. Walsh. Professor Walsh contributed more than most Australians to public life in this country in very many fashions. He was not only the Chairman of the Council but also he chaired and led many investigations in his time. At the University of New South Wales, he was the first Professor of Human Genetics in Australia. He was the guiding light, the mainspring, in establishing the blood bank in Australia and was an authority on that very special matter. He was a very distinguished senior member of the Australian Academy of Science. He was Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of New South Wales. Indeed, the list of his accomplishments is so long that it would take more than the time I have left to refer to it. He was chairman of the inquiry into the crown of thorns starfish on the Great Barrier Reef. He was a very influential member of the Australian Population and Immigration Council and an authority on Papua New Guinea and many other matters. When a person has made these kinds of quite outstanding contributions over such a range of matters I think it is only fitting that, when part of that person's work comes before this Senate, we should pay him tribute. We have been very fortunate in Australia in having men of particular greatness who have contributed unceasingly to the work and value of this community. I pay tribute to Professor Walsh and to his family. I also pay tribute to the Council for its work. In this whole sphere of ionising radiation, that is, the carcinogenic effects on human organs and tissues, there has been a growing body of knowledge over recent decades. It is very important that we have bodies of this kind contributing to our knowledge. It is very important that people of such distinction add to our storehouse of knowledge. Therefore, in paying tribute to the late Professor Walsh, I also pay tribute to the Council. I think those who knew Professor Walsh would join me in that tribute. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 25 August 1983, on motion by Senator Peter Baume: That the Senate take note of the statement. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 23 August 1983, on motion by Senator Chaney: That the Senate take note of the statement. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 1 June 1983, on motion by Senator Peter Rae: That the Senate take note of the statement. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 26 May 1983, on motion by Senator Robertson: That the Senate take note of the statement. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 19 May 1983, on motion by Senator Martin: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 23 August 1983, on motion by Senator Messner: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.55) —I think most honourable senators have some background knowledge of this matter. A paper was put down by the Government at the time the original Budget measures were announced on Budget night. That paper outlined at that time the way in which the new assets test would operate as it was then conceived by the Government. Since then we have had various other changes to the modus operandi of the assets test to a point where really that paper is outdated and does not truly reflect the present position of the Government. The Government has announced that it will refer the whole matter of an assets test to a panel of community based organisations in order to get some better understanding of what it intends. I can only applaud that move at this stage. The original statement has been followed by a confusing number of other statements, not made to the Parliament but made by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) in various other places extending exemptions in some cases-I refer to the lifestyle package-and in others, making more clear perhaps, from the point of view of the Government, what it originally intended. I refer to various matters such as the effects on renters, which was the subject of a later statement, the effect on farmers, small businessmen and so on. The point I really wanted to make was that the statement was very incomplete in terms of its consideration by the Government. It lacked the detail which was necessary to inform people properly as to their obligations and what would be intended by the Government when it finally introduced the system on 1 November. I think that can point only to the Government's incompetence in this area. It certainly points up the confusion that has developed in the Australian community ever since the announcement was made in the Budget. It does the Government no credit at all to blame the Opposition for going about and talking to people in the community, and, as it has claimed, stirring up the community against the assets test. Judging from the way in which letters have been flowing into my office-I am certain that it is happening to other honourable senators as well- there is absolutely no doubt about the level of confusion in the community at present. For that reason I seek leave to continue my remarks later as I believe the matter should remain on the Notice Paper for later debate. Leave not granted. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.59) —The fact that we are debating today a ministerial statement that was brought down on 23 August and we are still looking at it some six months later I think speaks volumes for the problems we are facing in this chamber with regard to papers and statements generally. It is quite extraordinary that we should now be faced with looking at a statement which is no longer really relevant, as Senator Messner has pointed out. He mentioned, in the few words he had to say, the immense amount of confusion that has been evident in the community with regard to the Government's proposed assets and income test legislation. If his office has been getting the volume of mail that mine has, he certainly did not have the normal rest period to which parliamentarians can look forward in January. Despite the fact that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) put out an extremely comprehensive document late last year, for which I would like to thank him, which answered a lot of questions that have been raised, it was simply not possible to make everybody aware of it. The major anomalies in the legislation that were behind the Australian Democrats belief last year that the legislation had to be held over at least until this session were, mainly, the 10 per cent notional assessment that was to be applied to all non-exempt assets. This meant that any pensioner who had money in the bank or who had investments paying less than 10 per cent income per year was going to have that asset assessed as if indeed it was paying 10 per cent. That applied not only to the people who were, quite clearly, trying to avoid their responsibilities by putting money in non-interest bearing accounts, but also to those people who had amassed, in total, amongst all of them, something like $31 billion in Australian savings banks and financial institutions paying less than 6 per cent. A large number of those people would be pensioners who wanted ready access to their money. They were not necessarily large amounts they had in those accounts but these amounts were still going to be assessed at 10 per cent. The same applied to people who had shares in Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd which may well have been left to them by a parent or by a deceased spouse. Since I am one of those people who has assets in BHP I can assure honourable senators that the yield the company was paying annually is nowhere near 10 per cent, it is not even a third of it. Senator Grimes —What about capital gains? Senator HAINES —Well, capital gain is not something that is affecting these people at the moment. I daresay the honourable senator has something up his sleeve which will catch people with capital gains in due course. I do not want to debate that matter at the moment. The other problem that was concerning people was the application of the $30,000 leisure package which included hard assets only; that is, the people who had been in a reasonable income bracket all their lives and who had been able to acquire a holiday home, or a caravan, or a high power speed boat, or whatever, were able to have the value of these assets taken into account as non-exempt. The people who preferred to save their money for an annual holiday on the Gold Coast, Tasmania, the Barossa Valley, Perth or whatever had those savings taken into account and assessed. Indeed, as far as we were concerned the Government's proposal did nothing to prevent money going to the wealthy or to precipitate, in any way, its going to the needy. Indeed, I will stand by the notice of motion that I have had on the Notice Paper for something around 18 months. It calls for the incorporation or introduction of a national portable contributory superannuation scheme. I understand there was a comment from an honourable senator in this place yesterday who claimed that this was going to require an impost of another 5 per cent on people's taxation. I point out that at the moment the percentage of personal income tax which is paid out in age pensions equals 28 per cent. That amount alone should indicate to some people that a pension ought to be a right or that if we do introduce a national, portable contributory superannuation scheme it should not need anything like the imposition of a 5 per cent tax levy. It has pleased a lot of us that the Government has delayed, by its own action, the imposition of what was an anomalous and iniquitous piece of legislation. However, I would have much preferred the Government to withdraw the Bill altogether. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.05) —Six months ago both in the Budget and by ministerial statement the Hawke Labor Government indicated that it proposed to introduce a property test on aged pensions, the property test having been abolished in 1976. In the subsequent six months enormous confusion and insecurities have been expressed throughout the whole community, particularly amongst those who are aged and who are dependent upon the pension. These people have structured their assets and living standards as they understood the Hawke Government had given a firm promise that nothing would happen. Despite the fact that week by week and month by month the subject was raised in a major way, the Government stuck to its grounds that it would go ahead with the assets test. Despite the fact that week by week the ludicrous circumstances of the assets test were revealed, the Government went on until, a week ago, a surprise statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-a statement unknown to his Cabinet, unknown to his Ministers-was made at the National Press Club. Senator Button —Oh, that is not true. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Indeed, I thought I heard Senator Button say yesterday that he had not known-- Senator Button —Yes, you did. That is right. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Well then let me say again this was unknown to his Cabinet. Senator Button —Unknown to his Ministers, you said. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —It was unknown to his Cabinet and Senator Button is a senior member of Cabinet; it was unknown to his Ministers because Senator Button is a senior Minister. Unknown to them he went to the Press Club and said that the assets test, as proposed and as developed by his Minister, was a mistake. He did not say the nature of the mistake. He said that it was a mistake. He said this without being able to offer an alternative, without being able to say: ' Look, it is a mistake. What we will do is A, B and C'. He ultimately devised some means to get out of this dilemma by saying: 'We will get another investigation'. This Government has been in office for a year. Despite its promise that it would not fiddle with the social service age pension and despite the fact that for the last six months the Australian community has been in turmoil on this matter, the Government is at a point now where it has admitted that the assets test was a mistake and yet it has no way of coming forward and saying: 'But the correct policy is A, B and C'. On the contrary, it is now trying to hide behind a panel, to move the decision making to others. This is an utterly ludicrous situation. The Government is saying 'Yes, there will be an assets test', and so again the confusion arises. What will it be? Will we be able to have our caravans and our holiday homes? Will we be able to put the jewellery and art collections under the floor? All this nonsense has gone on week by week and extremely ludicrous paradoxes have emerged in this situation. Despite all these things the only thing the Government can say is: 'It is not we, the Government who are to blame, it is the wicked Opposition and the community outside which are confusing the pensioners. We are not to blame'. The Prime Minister said: 'It is a mistake'. When he was asked whether it was being done because of Senate opposition, he said: 'No, it is because we realise that it is intrinsically, inherently a mistake'. Do not let anyone, including the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) say that what is happening now is because of some alleged distortions by us. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Grimes —I seek leave to make a brief statement on the subject. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I will deal with the first point. Is leave granted for Senator Sir John Carrick to continue his remarks? Leave granted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Will the honourable senator move the resumption of the debate? Senator Sir John Carrick —I am not terribly clear on this matter. I would not stand in the way of the Minister making a statement. Senator Grimes —What you are trying to do is cut the debate off. Senator Sir John Carrick —Let me make it perfectly clear because the Minister, as usual, is trying to distort this matter. I said I would not stand in the way of the Minister making a statement. Senator Grimes —Thank you. Why didn't you seek leave? Senator Sir John Carrick —I was querying with the Deputy President whether he would want me to move the resumption of the debate. Having had that offensive remark, I move: That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-Despite the tone of Senator Sir John Carrick's remarks, I happen to believe that this is a very serious and very important subject. It cannot be dealt with in a series of five minute speeches such as this. The simple fact of the matter is that we have an aging population. We have a large expenditure on retirement incomes in this country. Over the years we have had a very distorted picture. Distortions were created in the system through the taxation benefits which were available to those who were able to take lump sums and therefore get a considerable advantage over those who had weekly superannuation payments or weekly small income payments and over those who were on the base rate pension. Those people who have been fortunate enough to have assets from which they can gain an income but who, under the strange definitions that exist in our system, have had that income termed as 'capital gains' have had an extraordinary advantage-and still have an extraordinary advantage-over those who are on base rate pensions or those who receive small weekly payments. So, by everybody's admission, there is a distortion of the system, a distortion which the previous Government did nothing about and a distortion which it aggravated in 1976 when it made changes to the system. It is clear and plain that the vast majority of people in the community agree with a needs based system of the type we are trying to introduce. I merely reflect, with regard to Senator Sir John Carrick's remarks, it is very strange that the turmoil and problems that he saw in the community were not reflected in the recent by-elections. The Australian Labor Party gained a swing of 1.8 per cent in Richmond- Senator Sir John Carrick —Oh, go on. Tell us about Hughes. Senator GRIMES —It remained the same in Corangamite- Senator Sir John Carrick —Tell us about Corangamite. Senator GRIMES —I am telling the honourable senator that it remained about the same in Corangamite and in Hughes the swing against the Government was less than the average swing in by-elections in this country. Senator Sir John Carrick —Tell us why your Prime Minister dropped this proposal. Senator GRIMES —I suggest to Senator Sir John Carrick that we should not debate this serious subject on that basis. We should look at what needs to be done-and no one denies that something needs to be done. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced that we remained firmly committed to the principle of an assets test, the principle of ensuring that we have a needs based retirement benefit system, excluding assets, only including income. Senator MacGibbon, who is trying to interject is, above all, the person in this place who defends privilege and those who have extremely high incomes. I will not bother to talk about his remarks. Of course, there has been considerable controversy and uncertainty. I have said that in this place before and the Prime Minister has said it. We would have preferred to have passed the legislation so that we could demonstrate to people that about 85 per cent of pensioners in the country would not be affected . But it was quite clear from statements by all of the Opposition parties that the legislation would not have been passed. So what we are doing- Senator Walters —That is not what your Prime Minister said. He said it was a mistake. Senator GRIMES —Senator Walters, of all people, should never act in this chamber as a defender of the underprivileged, the poor or low income earners. Her attitude and lifestyle make that offensive to the average person in the community. Senator Walters —It is no use resorting to abuse. There is absolutely no use at all in that. Senator GRIMES —I was responding to Senator Walters's abuse. We are setting up a panel. I earnestly ask honourable senators to wait and see who is appointed to that panel and to allow that group to look at the legislation, to look at the propositions which are brought up by various pensioner groups and various other groups in the community, and to consider its recommendations in a sane and sensible way, without all of this nonsense about harassing people. It is a serious problem. It is something that this community must face. It is something that governments have not faced until now. If we do not approach it in a sane and sensible way, with economic and social rationality, we will continue down the path we are following now. We will hear honourable senators on the other side of the House repeatedly talking about the high cost of welfare, the high cost to the taxpayer, and at the same time we will hear members of the community speaking for the disadvantaged groups bewailing the fact, quite justifiably, that the base rates of pension are too low, that disadvantaged people with children receiving pensions and benefits are receiving inadequate support, that people who are in private rental accommodation are receiving inadequate support. All of those things are true. The only way we can correct those distortions in our community, the only way we can correct those inadequacies in income support in the community, is to look at the system that we have now and see whether we cannot have some rational change. To suggest that a serious attempt-which is continuing-to make up for those inadequacies is in some way aimed at harassing people, and to raise red herrings of the type raised by Senator Sir John Carrick about jewellery, is not assisting and will not assist rational debate in this area. I hope that in the next few months, as the panel looks at the matter and has the opportunity to listen to positive suggestions from the other side of the House-which I think is terribly important and which we have not had until now-and is able to look at it in a calm and rational way, the benefits will be felt by all of us, not only by pensioners and politicians but also, in particular, by the taxpayers of this country who must pay for the social security system. I ask people to look at it in that light and debate it in that light. It is all very well to impute all sorts of evil and horrible motives to me or the Government. I suggest the issue is far too important to be looked at in that way and I hope that in the future it will be looked at in a sensible way. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented, Mr Acting Deputy President. If Senator Grimes thinks he can intimidate me he is picking on the wrong person. There is no chance in the world that Senator Grimes will ever succeed in intimidating me into not speaking, or not interjecting when he is speaking. He said that I should be the last person in the world to try to defend pensioners because I have a certain lifestyle. If he intends to attempt to initimidate me into not speaking my mind in this place he has chosen the wrong person. How dare he, with an income of, what, $70,000 a year and all the ministerial perks that he receives, refer to my lifestyle. Senator Ryan —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator Walters claimed to have been misrepresented but I think she has gone well beyond trying to explain the misrepresentation and is now making a series of invectives against my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Senator Walters, I think you have expanded your subject matter a little. Just confine your remarks to your personal explanation. There is no point of order. Senator WALTERS —Mr Acting Deputy President, if I cannot defend myself against Senator Grimes's abuse by referring to his lifestyle when he has referred to mine I am very concerned about the Standing Orders. I am now speaking to the point of order raised by Senator Ryan. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, you must restrict your remarks to what you claim is a misrepresentation. Senator WALTERS —I return to what I was saying. When Senator Grimes decided to abuse me I interjected that he had not acknowledged that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had said he had made a mistake. There was no abuse on my part. I merely said that he had refused to acknowledge the Prime Minister's comment. Senator Ryan —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. Senator Walters has now ranged well beyond any explanation of any misrepresentation that may have occurred. She is now debating what the Prime Minister might or might not have said. Senator Sir John Carrick —Mr Acting Deputy President, I wish to speak to the point of order. What in fact happened was that Senator Grimes was speaking and Senator Walters interjected, 'But the Prime Minister said it was a mistake', to which the Minister replied that she had made an abusive or offensive remark. Senator Walters is quite entitled to speak to the misrepresentation by the Minister. I draw the Chair's attention to that. Senator Robertson —Speaking to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, you may recall the ruling of the President yesterday when he said that no interjection could be regarded as a misrepresentation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Senator Walters, you may continue if you keep entirely to the personal explanation. Senator WALTERS —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Actually I have completed everything I wanted to say about the matter. I underline the point again that if Senator Grimes thinks he can intimidate me, perhaps because I am a woman-I am not quite sure of the reason-he has chosen the wrong person; he has no chance in the world. He has resorted on many other occasions to personal abuse. There is no way that I will succumb to that type of intimidation. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-Mr Acting Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. The basis of Senator Walters's claim for misrepresentation was that I had attempted to intimidate her and attempted to stop her speaking. I deny this. In fact I would never attempt to prevent Senator Walters speaking; I would not be capable of doing so. I know of no one in this place who would be capable of such a thing. I was speaking and Senator Walters interjected. She interjected in a way that I thought was offensive and I replied. Both Senator Walters and Senator Sir John Carrick are sensitive characters in this place. They will sit in this chamber and interject but when the speaker-me or anyone else-replies to their interjections they do not like it at all. They do not like being responded to in a vigorous way, as I responded to Senator Walters. If they do not like such responses I suggest they stop interjecting. I suggest they remember President Truman's dictum. Senator Sir John Carrick, when on this side of the Senate, used to get terribly upset about the way in which some of us responded to him when he abused us. Senator Sir John Carrick —You were the architects of abuse. Senator GRIMES —If Senator Sir John Carrick really wants a debate in this place about his previous associations in New South Wales I will enter into that any time he likes. Senator Sir John Carrick stood in this place as Leader of the Government in the Senate and blackguarded us over and over again. He never liked the response. I will respond every time to the interjections that he makes. I will respond to the personal remarks that Senator Walters makes in this place. I make no bones about it. Senator Messner —Mr Acting Deputy President, I make the point that if we are talking about offensiveness, I see the Minister's remarks in regard to Senator Walters' earlier remarks as being absolutely outrageous in the circumstances. All that was sought was a direct reference to a previous remark of the Prime Minister. It is the Minister who is sensitive about this issue because he knows that the Prime Minister said something against his interest. Senator Grimes —Mr Acting Deputy President, can I ask on what basis Senator Messner is speaking at the moment? Senator Missen —He is speaking on a point of order. Senator GRIMES —He did not take a point of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! I call the Senate to order. I believe there has been too much debate and interaction on this subject. I suggest that we carry on with the business of the Senate. Consideration resumed from 17 May 1983 on motion by Senator Scott: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 12 May 1983, on motion by Senator Kilgariff: That the Senate take note of the papers. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(12.25) —Section 11 of the report refers to Yulara Village. While it is not part of the reserve it is part of the report and I wish to make some comment on Yulara Village and the old village. Recently I was at Ayers Rock for the opening of the Four Seasons Hotel. It is a magnificent place. Yulara Village is a credit to the authority that brought it about. The original plan regarding Yulara Village was that when it was completed the old accommodation would become redundant. Indeed in the report it was stated that the development of Yulara Village would mean that visitor accommodation now provided by the commercial ventures in the enclaves of the Park would become redundant. While there have been very many controversial matters relating to the rock, such as its ownership, it is not my intention to discuss those today. Briefly, I wish to discuss the problem of the old accommodation that is now standing at Ayers Rock. A confrontation seems to be developing between the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, and the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Cohen. Mr Cohen sent a telex stating that the Federal Government had full intentions of demolishing the buildings when Yulara was completed. On the other hand Mr Holding, who has recently had talks in the Northern Territory regarding the old motel area, gave an unequivocal assurance that the Government would respect the private management of Yulara and would not allow the Aboriginals to use the buildings for accommodation to compete with Yulara. This has always been the arrangement. Of course, the Minister who is responsible for the park itself said the buildings will be demolished. However, Mr Holding, who gave an assurance one day that the buildings would be demolished, was reported later as telling Aboriginals that they would be able to use the facilities. As I understand, Mr Holding is proposing this and not the Aboriginal people. I sent a letter to Mr Holding which reads: In your reported discussions with the aboriginal people at Uluru/Ayers Rock last week, you stated that the original old motels of Ayers Rock could be restored and used for other purposes. This is despite the fact that the acquisition of these motels through Federal Government finance a few years ago was taken to ensure their demolition when the new Yulara village was established . After demolition, the motel leases were to be brought back as near as possible to their original bushland condition, as the Aboriginal people would have known it. Despite considerable heartache at that time, the small tourist pioneers were compulsorily bought out by the Federal Government, and they saw their years of efforts being swept aside in the interests of the environment and the future face of the Rock. Now Minister, despite these actions by Government authority, you suggest that the buildings be now retained, despite the past and despite the environmentalists who say they are an eyesore and have no part in the Aboriginal culture of the area. The people of the Territory would be most interested to understand the rhyme and reason for your latest pronouncement, having in mind too that the Aboriginal people are being re-established at Yulara. If you are again to impose your wishes on the people of the Territory despite it being a complete turnaround from a negotiated stance-we ask what next do you have in store? The matter has to be resolved. Two Federal Ministers appear to be in conflict. I for one would like to have the matter resolved, particularly now that Yulara Village is in being. I believe it is a fine example of co-operation between the Federal Government and the Northern Territory Government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 5 May 1983, on motion by Senator Durack: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I think this annual report is one of the most interesting and informative reports tabled last year and, as I understand it, nobody has had the opportunity to speak to it. In the light of the very recent fracas in this chamber about assets tests it seems some basic understanding of the facts and figures in social security would be well recorded in the Senate chamber. The annual report contains a remarkable record of the work done in this Department and gives figures and information about the number of people on pensions and benefits in this country, the changing nature of those figures and the changing population currently drawing those pensions and benefits. Before I refer to them in more detail I will comment on the early parts of the report that referred to the so-called Stratplan, that is, the introduction of the new computer system throughout the Department of Social Security, first of all to replace an outdated system and, secondly, to deal with the enormous increase of work required to be done in the Department consequent to the considerable increase in the number of people drawing pensions and benefits in this country until certainly the date of this report, June 1983. The thing that interests me in the introduction of the whole Stratplan is first of all the thoroughness with which it is being done. Very much effort is being made to judge what is needed in various States and departments around the country. Very considerable effort has gone into the planning provisions for the introduction of this considerable computer system before it is implemented. As well as that there is the parallel training and information provided to staff who will necessarily be required to work on the new system. The other lines that I find are highlighted in this report-and of which I certainly feel very supportive-are that the Stratplan requests for tender laid particular emphasis on the occupational, health and safety standards required as a consequence of the introduction of this new system. In particular the Department acknowledges that if it is going to put any number of word processors , computer terminals and so on throughout its Department it needs to be very aware of the occupational, health and safety problems that are well known; for instance, eyesight problems of people working on visual display units. I am delighted that these matters are being considered at the time of the introduction of such computers and are not being tacked on later. In particular it is interesting to note the enormous increase in the number of people who are drawing pensions and the change that has taken place between 1981 -82 and 1982-83. There was, I recall, an enormous increase in the number of people drawing pensions over this time. The figures increased by some 12 per cent on those of the year before compared with some 4.5 per cent increase on the previous year. Until 1983 over one million people were drawing pensions or unemployment benefits in this country. That has, of course, been a major consideration and preoccupation of this Government since it came to office. It is not without interest that the assets test debate has been considered in the light of this Department's annual report. It is well known to any of us who deal with people in the community that living on a pension is not an easy thing to do. The amount of money such people receive may mean that they are no longer starving but they are certainly not living with any freedom, elegance or extras. They are living very much a hand to mouth, very tight, existence. If they are faced with any increase in expenditure, for example, a stove that breaks down or a water service that goes wrong, they are in particular difficulty. One of the awful problems-it is a recurring problem-is what happens if a pensioner gets behind on his rent or any repayments. I have heard a number of reports of people who have been threatened with the cutting off of their gas supply or electricity because of their failure to pay bills. Those reports completely fail to understand the problems of people who are trying to live on the limited income of a pension. It is with those sorts of considerations in mind that this Government addressed the problem of redirecting income. It made some attempt at this through the assets test. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator JONES(Queensland) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to make one or two remarks on an item which was listed on yesterday's Notice Paper but which was inadvertently left off the list in today's Notice Paper. I think it is reasonable, from my point of view and the point of view of the Senate, that we look first at the background of the Burdekin Dam and then at the problems now existing in Queensland in relation to the development of the project itself. It is worth while noting that financial assistance was sought from the Commonwealth from as far back as 1949. Through a series of governments, including Labor governments and Liberal-National Party governments, some undertaking was given in relation to financing that project. It is also worth noting that the previous Labor Government provided a $3m grant in 1974 for the Clare Weir, regarded as the pilot scheme for any future large scale development. It also initiated a Commonwealth-State investigation of the Burdekin Basin potential which was completed in 1977 at a cost of about $1m. Specific projects were not analysed, but the conclusions indicated that without further water resource development the Burdekin delta region would stagnate. Following that investigation by the Federal Government and the allocation of certain amounts of money, it is worth while noting that the previous Government agreed to meet the full cost of the dam, $107m, at January 1983 prices. While the States would be responsible for the cost of the preliminary works amounting to $19m and the development of the irrigation area amounting to $142m, the Federal Government was going to meet its part of the bargain in relation to the amount of money that it would put forward. Not only did the Labor Government and the previous Federal Government indicate that they would support the scheme, but there was also an indication of support by the Queensland Government. In December 1978, the Queensland Government published a full economic, technical evaluation of the Burdekin Dam project. This has been accepted as the preferred scheme under which future development would take place. To extend a little further on the scheme that was put forward by the Queensland Government, the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation and the former Department of National Development and Energy undertook a further study of the Burdekin Dam project, the report of which was tabled in Parliament in September 1980. One of the reasons why I raise these points on the Burdekin Dam today is that as late as yesterday a statement was made by Mr Goleby, a Minister in the Queensland Government. He is initiating a dispute about the concern of people in relation to the gathering together of land that will need to be resumed in relation to the development of the Burdekin Dam project. According to Mr Goleby, the State Government wants a buy back scheme which will allow the farmers, who are the large landholders in the area, to buy back the land acquired by the Government for the Burdekin Dam scheme. Some conflict is involved in this because both the Federal Minister and the State Opposition believe that any land acquired by the Government should be divided amongst the smaller landholders who could ballot to acquire the land around the Burdekin as opposed to setting up a buy back scheme whereby the large landholders would reap some benefit from the development of the Burdekin scheme paid for by taxpayers throughout the Commonwealth of Australia and also by taxpayers throughout Queensland by virtue of the Queensland Government's allocation of money to that scheme. I hope that the bloody mindedness of the State Government through the Minister does not allow the situation to develop so that large landholders can buy back land and small landholders or people wishing to acquire land after the development of the scheme will not be able to acquire any land because the buy back scheme will prevent them from gaining land to develop the Burdekin River scheme. I hope that the dispute which is starting to develop is settled. Positive steps regarding the scheme have been taken by the present Federal Government and previous State and Federal governments for the benefit of the people in Townsville and north Queensland, in particular, to develop industry and farming in the area and, at a later date, a hydro-electric scheme. Question resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 12.43 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, follows the answers he gave yesterday to questions relating to discussions he had had with the judge referred to in the Age tapes. Does the Attorney-General agree that legal professional privilege arises only in circumstances where the client and the solicitor are discussing a matter in which the solicitor is acting in a professional capacity for the client? Does he further agree that such a claim of privilege cannot be sustained relating to discussions of a more general nature between client and legal adviser and to social conversation, for example? Does this mean that in the case of the conversation about an attempt to denigrate a Sydney suburban alderman said to frequent gay bars, which was reported in the Age tapes, the solicitor was acting in some way for the judge? If he was not so acting for the judge, and the published reports of the conversation about the alderman do not suggest that there were legal proceedings contemplated or a situation in which advice would be sought, what justification has the Attorney- General for claiming, as he did yesterday, that privilege prevented him from disclosing further detail of his discussions with the judge on that matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —As I understand it, legal professional privilege is available in the context not only of actual proceedings on foot but also of putative proceedings or proceedings in contemplation. That was certainly the situation in the particular context to which I referred yesterday, and as to that matter I have no further comment to make. In respect of the answers given yesterday and the rather over-heated response to them in some quarters, I should make the following points absolutely clear. First, in the two interviews to which I referred the judge made no admission that any conversation as recorded in the transcripts and published in the Age actually occurred. The second point is that in fact, as I said yesterday in answer to Senator Jessop, 'on every occasion and in relation to every matter doubts as to and, indeed, rejection of the authenticity of the reports . . . in question' were expressed by the judge. That was an absolutely general statement that I made yesterday in answer to Senator Jessop, and I repeat that for the record in case it was not noticed. The third point is that what the judge did say as to certain matters which were given publicity in the Age was that conversations with the solicitor in question may have occurred. For example, with respect to the appointment of the senior public servant, which was the subject of the first question in the series from Senator Sir John Carrick, I have subsequently checked my departmental secretary' s aide-memoire of that meeting, and it said: The judge said he may have spoken to the solicitor about the appointment. That is what I meant to convey to the Senate yesterday when I said: . . . the judge's answer was that he had had such a conversation to the extent he could recall it with the solicitor in question . . . The form of expression I adopted yesterday, without the benefit of the aide- memoire directly in front of me, was, I believe in retrospect, somewhat less than fair to the judge's position, and I correct the record to the extent that it needs correction accordingly. The substance of what I conveyed yesterday was perfectly clear, but the terminology could have been expressed a little more accurately. The final point I make to put this all clearly in context, I hope, is that what the judge further said was that, to the extent that any such conversations may have occurred-and I repeat my terminology of a moment ago-in relation to specific allegations arising from the reports of those conversations in transcripts and then in turn in the newspapers, as I said in my original statement, he either denied the factual accuracy of those specific allegations, specific propositions, or put them in a rather different context from that which was evident at first sight. Despite the guffaws emanating from the other side of the chamber, I believe that puts with precision and accuracy the substance of the exchanges I had with the judge. Beyond that, I have nothing further to say. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. There are many supplementary questions arising out of that answer, but I would like to read it carefully before asking them. There is one evident bit of confusion in the answer which the Attorney-General has given me and I would appreciate clarification on it. He referred to the fact that privilege could arise with respect to putative proceedings. Of course, I accept that if one were discussing possible proceedings privilege would arise. With respect to one of the matters on which the Attorney was questioned yesterday, namely, the proceedings to cause embarrassment to a leading Liberal, I accept that it would be possible to put up , or to argue anyway, a claim of professional privilege. But with respect to the smearing of a man for his homosexuality, or the possibility of his homosexuality , I ask the Attorney: Were there proceedings in contemplation in that case also? If not, on what basis could it be said that a discussion between a man and his solicitor on the sexual proclivities of an alderman could give rise to legal professional privilege? I think that has not been addressed by the Attorney, and I would appreciate his doing so. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Chaney manifestly has not been listening for the last five minutes. I made it absolutely clear that the judge is not to be taken as having admitted the content or for that matter the existence of any particular conversation. I was referring in the context of legal professional privilege to a conversation which the judge acknowledged he may have had and in which the identity of the particular alderman in question was in issue. The subject matter of that conversation in turn was such, he believed and I accept, as would have attracted legal professional privilege. Senator McINTOSH —Has the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy been drawn to a letter published in today's Sydney Morning Herald in which it was claimed that the report of the Water 2000 Study confirmed the wisdom of the Fraser Government's bicentennial water resources program? Can the Minister say whether the Water 2000 Study did in fact support this program? Does the Minister care to comment on the accuracy of any of the other claims in that letter? Senator WALSH —There is an extraordinary letter in today's Sydney Morning Herald, apparently written by Senator Sir John Carrick. It claims, among other things, the item to which Senator McIntosh referred-that the Water 2000 Study confirms the wisdom of the Fraser Government's program. Recommendation 4.1 of the Water 2000 Study says: Priority in water resource development for irrigation to the year 2000 should be given to the completion of those projects already under construction. What the Fraser Government actually did when it was approaching its death throes was to produce on 25 January 1983 a shopping list of projects which every cargo cultist had dropped into State departments in the last couple of decades. They varied from the Mitchell River dam which had already been scuttled by the Victorian Government to the supreme cargo cult scheme, the Bradfield scheme. Moreover, as Mr Howard subsequently revealed in an interview published in the Age on, I think, 15 August 1983, the Fraser Government, had it survived, would not have been committed even to the Burdekin scheme. Mr Howard said that he would put that in the hotchpotch with everything else and that there was no necessary commitment to the Burdekin scheme, which had already been commenced. So, far from the Water 2000 report being compatible with the cargo cult, the thrust of the election stunt pulled by Mr Fraser at the end of January last year was totally at variance with the major recommendations of the Water 2000 report: That priority should be given to the completion of schemes already commenced. If the Fraser Government set any store at all by the Water 2000 report it would have waited until it received the report before it announced a major new policy initiative. But of course that did not fit the electoral timetable which the then Prime Minister had in mind and which he subsequently implemented. Senator Sir John Carrick also claims that the Fraser Government list was based on State priorities. He acknowledges that there was one exception to that, the Mitchell River dam, which the Fraser Government had included in its so-called bicentennial water resources program, a project which had already been scuttled by the Victorian Government. Senator Sir John Carrick thought that he avoided that by saying that that project was given high priority by the Hamer and Thompson governments, by governments which had been consigned to the dustbin of history. It is often concluded that conservative parties-or at least the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia-have a firm conviction in their divine right to rule. But Senator Sir John Carrick has broken completely new ground in suggesting, as he does in this letter, that the relevant priority of a State government which should be taken into account by a Federal government is not the actual government of the State but a government which had been defeated in an election nearly 12 months previously. That is an extraordinary extension even of the widespread belief among those who populate the Opposition benches that they have some divine right to rule. They also apparently believe that defunct Liberal governments have the right to rule from the grave. Senator DURACK —I direct my question to the Attorney-General. Did the mass of material supplied by him to Mr Temby for the purposes of his opinion include, firstly, details of the judge's conversation with the Sydney solicitor's wife, during which he advised her husband to get someone to say in Parliament that the solicitor had 'come up smelling like a rose', and, secondly, the conversations between the judge and the solicitor concerning the launching of proceedings against a former Federal government figure? As there is no apparent reference to either of these matters in the opinion, will the Attorney-General explain why these matters were not dealt with by Mr Temby and will he seek a further opinion from Mr Temby in relation to them? Senator GARETH EVANS —The matters to which Senator Durack adverts were, I recall, the subject of some material that was handed to me by the Age. Whether it was in the form of detailed transcripts or just, as indeed was so often the case, one- sentence or two-sentence purported summaries of conversations, I am unable to recall. Certainly all the material handed to me by the Age was in turn given to Mr Temby. I believe that Mr Temby's opinion squarely addressed the matters in issue. He did not specifically necessarily address, nor was he asked to, every particular sentence or half sentence of scuttlebutt that was contained in this particular material. But what he did in relation to all the material in question was to satisfy himself quite clearly, as he says in his opinion, that certainly no criminal conduct occurred, nor was there anything that could be described as misbehaviour within the meaning of the Constitution. He certainly applied those tests to all of the material in his possession, as his opinion makes clear and as he subsequently orally confirmed to me. In the circumstances, I see no justification for any further reference to him. Senator DURACK —I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that, in answer to a question yesterday, the Attorney-General said that he specifically raised with the judge the question of the discussion about launching proceedings -he said what the answer was, and the reaction-and in view of the widespread reporting of that particular matter, can the Attorney-General not now assure us that that was put to Mr Temby and that Mr Temby brought his mind to bear on that matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —I can assure the honourable senator that that particular matter was brought to Mr Temby's attention. I can assure him, equally, that Mr Temby put his mind to the matter. I can assure him also that there is, indeed, one quite specific passage in Mr Temby's opinion which deals with that particular subject matter. But I shall have to leave it to Sherlock and his troops over there to find that out for themselves. Senator RICHARDSON —Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce aware that the United States Department of Commerce is investigating complaints by American steel producers that Australian steel was dumped on the United States market? Can the Minister inform the House whether, in the Government's opinion, Australia's steel exports to the United States, totalling 180,000 tonnes in the last year, constituted a breach of American trade laws in regard to dumping? Does Australia's action in this matter contravene the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade? Will the Government be negotiating with the United States Government on this matter or, alternatively, what assistance will the Government be offering John Lysaght Ltd and the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd in fighting this case? Senator BUTTON —Yes, I am aware of the anti-dumping and countervailing petitions which have been lodged with the United States Department of Commerce by the United States Steel Corporation. Those petitions allege that Australia is introducing exports at less than a fair price into the United States market. They also allege subsidisation by the Australian Government. Under the United States procedures the Department of Commerce has until 1 March-today-to determine whether the petitions are sufficient to establish a prima facie case. If it is found that the petitions establish a prima facie case the matter is referred to the International Trade Organisation for a preliminary determination on the question. The Government has been consulting very closely the Australian companies involved-the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and John Lysaght Ltd in particular. The companies intend to defend any dumping action if it arises as a litigious matter and the Government, on behalf of the Australian industry, will defend the case in respect of countervailing duties. Since this matter was drawn to our attention the Government, through its representatives in Washington, has also been making representations to the United States Government about both matters. We have been arguing there that insufficient grounds exist to proceed with the actions which are contemplated by the United States steel industry. These proceedings have been brought by the United States steel industry against exports from other countries in a very similar manner. It is perhaps an uncharitable observation to make, but I remind Senator Richardson, who is very aware of these matters, that it is an election year in the United States and the United States steel industry is no doubt very conscious of that fact. Also, the quantities of steel involved from the Australian industry are really minuscule in the context of total United States steel consumption, and it looks very much as though Australia has been hooked into these procedures, as it were, largely as a result of the desire of the United States industry to take these proceedings against a number of other countries. Senator HAINES —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of an anomaly in the Income Tax Assessment Act recently noted in the report entitled 'A Maintenance Agency for Australia' prepared by the Family Law Branch of the Attorney-General's Department? The report states: The ITAA now provides, by paragraph 23 (1), that income by periodic payments of alimony or maintenance received by a woman from her husband or former husband is exempt from income tax. This is because the income is assessable in his hands and he is not allowed the payments as a deduction-which is fair enough. The problem arises because, as the report points out, in cases 'where alimony or maintenance is received by a man from his former wife, there is no exemption from tax for the payments in the husband's hands, while the paying wife is also taxed in respect of the same money as it is income in her hands'. Is this assessment of paragraph 23 (1) correct? If so, does the Minister agree that this failure to confer an apparent benefit upon a man in the same circumstances in which it is conferred upon a woman is one of the few cases of sexual discrimination against men in this country? If so, will he approach the Treasurer with a view to having that part of the ITAA duly amended so that both sexes are treated equally and maintenance is not taxed in the hands of the recipient, whether that person is male or female? Senator WALSH —I do not know whether the Treasurer was aware of what I presume are the facts that Senator Haines has read out, but I certainly was not. I accept the accuracy of what she has set out. It is one example-it is not the only one; I can think of a couple of others off the top of my head-where, as she said, the law discriminates against males relative to its treatment of females. I will ask the Treasurer to check out the facts and whether he will consider amending the Act in order to remove, one way or other, the anomaly to which Senator Haines has drawn attention. Senator CROWLEY —Does the Minister representing the Minister for Health recall the points raised by the Opposition in the debate about Medicare, in particular its claims that a large number of jobs would be lost from private health funds with the establishment of Medicare, that there would be insufficient time to administer adequately the introduction of Medicare and that there would be a very long turnaround time for claims under the new arrangements? Can the Minister say whether there is any evidence from the first month of Medicare to substantiate any of the Opposition's arguments, that is, how many jobs have been lost, how many people have been enrolled and what is the turnaround time on claims? Senator GRIMES —The alarmist views of various people in the Opposition and some in the medical profession have not come to fruition. In fact, Medicare has been introduced successfully and with very few problems. The total number of Health Insurance Commission full time staff in June 1983 was 1,472 and in February 1984 it was 2,857. The number of part time staff totalled 382 in June last year and it now totals 1,382. Of these additional staff, I think about 1,050 are former private health fund employees. A further 28 former private health fund staff have accepted offers of employment but have not yet commenced. A further 250 positions will be advertised nationally and former private health fund employees will receive preference in filling those jobs, as in others. As fas as enrolment in Medicare is concerned, on the latest available figures 94 per cent of the Australian population is now covered. As to the efficiency of the operation generally, as Senator Crowley knows, Medicare is working towards a goal of processing direct bill claims within five working days of receipt. In practice, when we allow for weekends and postage delays at both ends, this means that claimants can expect to receive their cheques approximately two weeks after lodging their claims. Initially, the processing time has been slightly longer than five days but this period should be reduced as additional transmission lines become available. The number of staff employed on direct billing is increasing and the productivity and experience of existing staff is improving. It may be interesting to honourable senators to know the number of claims processed by Medicare during the period 1 February to 25 February. Of the total number of claims in New South Wales, for instance, there were 322,500 cash claims, 186,690 cheque claims and 257,742 direct billing claims. In South Australia, Senator Crowley's State, there were 40,000 cash claims, 78,171 cheque claims and 56,812 direct billing claims. The same pattern appears throughout all the States. In fact, out of 1,800,000-odd claims there was a total of 827,059 cash claims, 460,749 cheque claims and 560,786 direct bulk billing claims. I think this indicates two things: First of all, the system is working very well and, secondly, many more doctors than people would be led to believe are willing to use the bulk billing facilities. Senator KILGARIFF —As the Attorney-General has said he visited the judge concerned in the Age tapes and received the opinion of judicial misbehaviour from Mr Ian Temby, QC, on the same day, that is, 15 February, will he now tell the Senate whether the visit preceded or followed receipt of the opinion? If he had the opinion when he saw the judge, did he communicate all or any of it to the judge? If so, what did he comunicate and at what stage of the conversation did he do so? Senator GARETH EVANS —The interview with the judge succeeded my receipt of the opinion, as I made perfectly clear in my statement two days ago, because I wanted to receive, as it were, a clearance from Mr Temby as well as from the Australian Federal Police as to the propriety of putting the material to the judge in order to ensure that there would be no question in anybody's mind of subsequent criminal investigations being prejudiced. As to making the copy of the information available to the judge, my re- collection is that I did so at that interview. If it was not at the interview it was certainly at some time shortly thereafter. Senator PRIMMER —Would the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs not agree that internal investigations into the Department of Foreign Affairs corruption allegations such as those made by me against Mr John Ryan and those recently made by Mrs Carmel Van Dartel against Mr Henderson and others are widely regarded as farcical in the extreme? Will the Minister provide the Senate with an unequivocal confirmation that Mrs Van Dartel's invalidity retirement was due to injuries sustained in a motor accident and for no other purpose? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not accept that internal investigations of the kind to which Senator Primmer referred are farcical in the extreme. As to the latter part of his question, I will check that matter out and confirm it accordingly. Senator SCOTT —I refer the Attorney-General to his interviews with the judge referred to in the Age tapes. Did the Attorney discuss with the judge the reported conversation between the judge and the wife of a Sydney solicitor, during which conversation the judge is said to have suggested that the solicitor should get someone in the New South Wales Parliament to say that an investigation had been made and the solicitor had 'come up smelling like a rose' ? If so, did the judge explain why he had suggested the need for a public clearance of the solicitor's name? Does the Attorney-General agree that the contact between a client and his solicitor's wife could not give rise to legal professional privilege? Does he believe that it was proper for the judge to give such advice? Senator GARETH EVANS —I can certainly confirm to the extent that it is proper for me to give a legal opinion that a conversation between a client and his solicitor's wife would not attract legal professional privilege. Beyond that I have no further comment to make. As I said yesterday, I do not propose to go through a process of responding to every single line of this material, unauthenticated as it is, unaccepted as it is by the person in question, and indicating in any detail the nature of the judge's response. I simply repeat the general character of his response to this, that he made no admission that any matter alleged to have been the subject of his conversations did in fact occur. But to the extent that he acknowledged that some particular conversations may have occurred with the person in question and on the broad subject matter then, as to the particular contents of those conversations, he either denied outright their factual accuracy or put the circumstance in a rather different context than may be evident at first sight. There is simply no basis on which it is either fair, reasonable or legitimate to pursue this in the kind of detail that is being pursued. Mr Temby was satisfied, the police were satisfied and I am satisfied-and I assume responsibility for expressing that satisfaction-that there was no question of criminal misconduct or any question of any other kind of conduct that could possibly give rise to a proceeding for misbehaviour within the meaning of section 72 of the Constititution. Beyond that I do not think it is proper or legitimate for this Parliament to pursue, in the way that it seems minded to do through Opposition spokesmen and members, matters that, to the extent that they have any factual accuracy at all, represent, as I have repeated on innumerable occasions, a grotesque invasion of personal privacy; representing material, to the extent that it is authentic at all, that was obtained in circumstances of manifest illegality and, under those circumstances, I believe, make it quite inappropriate for this matter to be further pursued. Senator REYNOLDS —Has the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy been drawn to reports that contaminated water recently escaped from a site at the Mary Kathleen uranium mine? Are these reports correct? If so, can the Minister say what is the likely effect on the environment? What steps can his Department take to ensure that there can be no further incidents which are of grave concern to property owners in the area? Senator WALSH —I have been told of the incident to which Senator Reynolds referred. It has been reported to some extent in the Press. I am advised that approximately 1,000 cubic metres of liquid was accidently released from an evaporation pond. The accident occurred while the liquid was being siphoned into a lower pond to avoid possible overflow of the upper pond during heavy rain. I presume that the siphon hose broke, or something like that. Since it happened in a period of heavy rain the 1,000 cubic metres of contaminated liquid would have been heavily diluted in the creeks. But the company has tests under way to assess the water quality downstream from the point of release which will enable a determination of the appropriate clean-up procedure, if any, which will be required. The site of the Mary Kathleen mine is being rehabilitated in accordance with the program approved by the Queensland Government and for which the Queensland Government has responsibility. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer to his response to me earlier in Question Time in which he said: 'In the two interviews to which I referred the judge made no admission that any conversation as recorded in the transcripts and published in the Age actually occurred'. I remind him that, in the Senate two days ago he said: In respect of specific matters raised by the published material he-- I interpolate, the judge- . . . either specifically denied the factual accuracy of the allegations concerning him, or gave explanations which put those allegations in a rather different context than that evident at first sight. I further remind the Attorney that yesterday at Question Time he was asked three questions relating to specific conversations which were part of the tapes. He said in part answer to one: As I recall it, the judge's answer was that he had had such a conversation to the extent that he could recall it with the solicitor in question . . . With respect to the second question he said: . . . he made the point that there had been a series of conversations with the solicitor relating to the initiation of possible litigation by himself and certain others. I do not need to quote any more. He said further, in response to the third question: In the context that there may have been a discussion, whether it was precisely a discussion of the kind alleged in the tapes in the report of the newspaper is very much another question but to the extent that there may have been a discussion it was very much in the context of a solicitor-client type discussion . . . In light of the evident discrepancy between what he has said on Tuesday and Wednesday as against what he said today, will he tell us whether what he said on Tuesday and Wednesday is still to be regarded as the truth or whether, to use Mr Nixon's phrase, it is now 'inoperative'? Senator Georges —Mr President, I take a point of order. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Georges, it is not necessary, really. Senator Georges —I wish to take a point of order, no matter what the Attorney- General desires. My point of order is that we are now engaging in the trial of a person at Question Time. If the name of the person were known-and I think it is known-we would- Opposition senators-Tell us. Senator Georges —That is the responsibility of others. We would be in breach of the Standing Orders. Let me go away from the Standing Orders. Let me put it to you, Mr President, that at Question time we are engaging in the trial of a person who has no access to any defence whatsoever. We engaged in the trial of a person by innuendo and allegation based on material that has not been properly tested. I think it diminishes the status of the Senate to continue in this fashion. The PRESIDENT —I have been listening to the questions carefully, and there is no point of order. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Chaney's question, lengthy as it was, was erected on a false premise in the very first sentance. He quoted me as saying this morning: 'The judge made no admission that any conversation recorded in the transcript actually occurred'. I said nothing of the kind. What I said this morning was: 'The judge made no admission that any conversation as recorded in the transcripts and published in the Age occurred'. Senator Chaney —That is exactly what I said. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Chaney omitted the word 'as' and there is a very significant difference if he ponders it. Of course what I said yesterday and indeed what I said on Tuesday is consistent with a concession by the judge that at least some of the conversation in question with the persons in question on the general subject matter may have occurred. Of course that is the case. As such, there is no inconsistency in anything I have said subsequently. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I am happy to give the Attorney- General what I quoted from, which is the exact words he used in response to me. In light of the evident discrepancy between what he has said today and what he has said over the last two days, will he table, I think his word is, a sanitised version of the aide memoire so that we can satisfy ourselves as to the accuracy of what he has told this Parliament? Senator GARETH EVANS —Since there is no such discrepancy the question of my tabling that document to prove the point that I make does not arise. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology. I refer to a report in the Adelaide Advertiser during the parliamentary recess concerning research done in Adelaide University on a newly discovered species of frog which has the ability to stop acid secretion in its stomach. In view of the medical possibilities of applying the substance, which prevents acid secretion, in the treatment of illnesses such as stomach ulcers, will the Government consider extra funding for this research as it has been claimed that the new species could justify the work of an extra six research staff? Senator RYAN —I am advised by my colleague the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, that matters in the Adelaide Advertiser during January concerning the new frog species-I believe it is called the platypus frog -and its application to human medical research have been drawn to his attention. He advised me that the Government recognises the significance of the research being carried out in Adelaide in connection with the inhibition of stomach acid secretion in certain rare kinds of frogs. The potential application to human illness such as stomach ulcers is important. The researchers concerned, Professor Shearman, Dr Seamark and Mr Tyler from Adelaide University and Dr O'Brien from Flinders University were awarded grants from the Australian research grants scheme of $18,000, both in 1983 and 1984. Mr Jones advises me that he anticipates the researchers will shortly be making a further application to ARGS for the 1985 grant year. Senator TOWNLEY —Has the attention of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs been drawn to the brochure that was distributed by the Institution of Engineers Australia, titled 'Engineering Education in Crisis, 1983' in which the Institution points to the damaging effect of continued funding restrictions on the quality of education of professional engineers in Australia? In fact, the Institution now says the situation is contrary to the national interest. In view of the seriousness of the present situation and the importance of a sufficient number of well trained engineers to the development of all aspects of this country, will the Minister have the Department examine the brochure and, if necessary, officers of the Department? Will he have them have discussions with the Institution of Engineers and then advise the Senate what action it is intended to take on the recommendations that are made by the Institution in the brochure that I mentioned. Senator RYAN —I am quite happy to undertake some investigation into the claims that are being made by the Institution of Engineers. The particular pamphlet referred to by Senator Townley has not been drawn to my attention. In response to Senator Townley I suggest that the most appropriate course of action would be for me to consult with the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission because the Commission has been asked to review manpower needs in a number of crucial areas in higher education. Clearly, if our needs for trained engineers are changing, that need should form part of its review and part of its advice to me. If Senator Townley would like to make the pamphlet available to me I will make sure the Tertiary Education Commission considers the matters raised. Senator BOLKUS —I refer the Minister for Industry and Commerce to recent allegations of transfer pricing in the motor vehicle industry. I ask: Has the Minister instituted a thorough audit of imported vehicle components in order to determine the extent of abuse of transfer pricing in the industry. If so, are any results available to date? If not, will he conduct the audit? Senator BUTTON —I am asked whether I had an investigation made into the recent allegations of transfer pricing. I assure the honourable senator they are not recent allegations, they have been going on in one form or another for a long time. It is a very difficult issue because most component parts of vehicles are brought in in packs and it has not been an easy question for the Customs to resolve. These complaints were brought again in the middle of last year during the period in which I was Minister. I wrote in about July last year to each of the five planned manufacturers seeking information and co-operation from those manufacturers in respect of the import of component parts and the allegations of transfer pricing. I have received information in writing from most of the planned producers on this question and I am now seeking more information from them. As I said, it is a difficult question to resolve, but I am expecting to receive from my Department shortly a number of options on the basis of the material which we now have and on the basis of determining which is the best option. We will take what steps we can to deal with the matter as quickly as possible. Senator PETER BAUME —I refer the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs to that part of the Prime Minister's National Press Club speech last week in which he promised the fullest possible consultations with non-government schools on the new policy. He said: 'I give a guarantee that I will be fully involved in that process'. Because that part of the Prime Minister's promise has attracted the attention of non-government school authorities, I ask: Will the Minister advise the Senate exactly how and to what extent the Prime Minister will intervene within her portfolio to redeem the pledge he made? Senator RYAN —No, at this particular stage I will not advise the Senate of the arrangements that the Prime Minister will be making in the future. I was very pleased that the Prime Minister made that announcement to the Press Club because I have been discussing these matters with him for some time and he has expressed a great interest in the whole process. I have discussed those matters with him again today, but at this stage we do not have the particular timetable. Let me give the Senate some information about the consultations. As I recall, the Commonwealth Schools Commission is currently, and has been for the last three weeks, travelling around Australia consulting with not only representatives of non-government schools but also State Ministers, State education departments and representatives of government schools about the issues contained in the funding options paper. When the Commission has finished this process of consultation it will report to me on the results and make some proposals about how our needs based approach to funding might be expressed in terms of funding formulas for the future. It expects to be able to report to me at the end of March. At that stage, I have undertaken to consult with national government and non-government organisations about what the report has said. At that stage also I will be meeting with my State ministerial colleagues and discussing with my Federal colleagues our response to that report. At that stage it will be most suitable for the Prime Minister to become involved, but the Prime Minister's program is a matter for him to determine and I will be having further discussions with him at about that stage. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. The Department of Administrative Services is reported to be studying tenders for $9.4m worth of Commonwealth office space in Fremantle, most of which will house the Bureau of Customs. In view of the fine reputation of the Fremantle City Council for conserving and restoring its uniquely historical city, will the Minister give an assurance that the Council will be consulted before tenders are let? Senator GIETZELT —The Government is committed to improving the office stock for government operations in all the States of the Commonwealth, in particular in Fremantle where there are a number of unsatisfactory and inadequate features with our office accommodation. I have seen the reports that the Department of Administrative Services is studying tenders for office space in Fremantle and also that the City Council through its Mayor, Mr McKenzie, has expressed concern that this proposal of the Government might pose some threat to the future and the livelihood of the city's west end. To that extent the Government is committed to a policy of consultation with any group affected by government decision making and has undertaken to discuss the matter with the Fremantle City Council. I understand those discussions will take place over the next two weeks. I think I can give an assurance to Senator Giles that the Government is committed to an environmental protection policy and that also includes our concern for old buildings and for the environment, whether it be a natural or a man-made environment. To that extent the Minister for Administrative Services has assured me that he will be taking those matters into account when the discussions are held with the Fremantle City Council. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. Is it a fact that some overseas students currently studying in Australia, and some other persons on a limited entry visa to Australia, are arranging for their names to be placed on Commonwealth electoral rolls and are using this enrolment as a reason for permanent residence. How widespread is this practice? What action has been taken against such offenders? Senator GARETH EVANS —Since the honourable senator was unkind enough not to give me notice of his question, I will have to refer it to the Special Minister of State. Senator COLSTON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Was the schedule fee until yesterday for a standard medical consultation in Queensland $11.60 and has it now been increased to $12? Does the Department of Health have any information on the fees charged by individual medical practitioners? If so, do most medical practitioners on he Sunshine Coast in Queensland charge at least $15 for a standard consultation? Are the views of medical practitioners taken into account when schedule fees for various types of medical services are determined? If they are, why do medical practitioners, such as those on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, charge well beyond the schedule fee, thus financially disadvantaging those who need medical assistance? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Colston said, there has been an increase in the medical benefits schedule fees from today. The increase is 4.3 per cent, which I believe takes the standard consultation fee in Queensland from $11.60 to $12. The 4.3 per cent increase which was given to doctors from today, of course, is the same increase as workers throughout Australia have received in recent months . The Medical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal, under the chairmanship of the Deputy President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, Mr McKenzie, is currently hearing arguments from the Government, the Australian Medical Association and other interested bodies about whether there is a need for a further schedule fee increase. Because a doctor's income is different from that of wage and salary earners due to staff, transport and other overhead costs associated with running a practice, it may be that a further increase is justified. In answer to the second part of the honourable senator's question, the Government does have information on the fees charged by individual doctors. The information was provided through the private health funds' statistics prior to the introduction of Medicare. The information is now available more accurately and efficiently through Medicare. However, I stress in relation to schedule fee compliance by practitioners that an overall figure for a State, rather than for individual areas, is analysed. Because the Medicare system has just commenced, statistics are not available on the level of compliance with the schedule fee. But from subjective evidence I have received, the Minister for Health has received and certainly some other senators have received, it would seem that there are numbers of doctors who are not charging the schedule fee. In fact, the numbers who are complying with the schedule fee may even be declining. This is of concern to the government and also to the community. It also should be of considerable concern to the medical profession. If doctors and other professional groups expect trade unionists to abide by arbitration procedures, I think they should do so themselves. But when the wage freeze came into operation many members of the profession unfortunately decided to grant themselves a catch up increase without waiting for the proper arbitral procedures to be undertaken. I hope that when the fee tribunal hands down its decision-in handing down that decision, the views of the medical practitioners and their representatives will be taken into account-compliance with the schedule fees will return to its previous levels. This would be in the best interests of the community at large; it would certainly be in the best interests of Medicare and the private health funds, and it would be in the best interests of the profession. When independent interest groups act in this way against properly arbitrated decisions, there is great pressure on the Government to bring them into line. I hope this will not be necessary. But the responsibility in this case lies with the medical profession. There will undoubtedly be pressure if the medical profession, or significant sections of it, continue to avoid the arbitrated fees which are arbitrated in conjunction and in co-operation with their representatives. Senator BOSWELL —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce who is responsible for small business. I refer to the proposal to shelve the Australian Capital Territory Leasing Ordinance. Is the Minister aware of the promise made by the Australian Labor Party to small business prior to the March election last year in its action program dated 13 February 1983, which stated that a model lease would be developed. Can the Minister advise why the Government has not been able to honour its commitment in this area after twelve months in office, while the Bjelke-Petersen Government yesterday met its electoral commitment for lease legislation after only two months of parliamentary sittings? Would a copy of the Queensland legislation help the Minister with this complex problem that the Government does not seem to be able to understand? Senator BUTTON —As I recall, the Queensland Government has been in office for more than 20 years. That is the length of time that it has taken it to do anything about this topic which has been the subject of discussion in business areas for many years. It is in a similar category to the uniform building regulations with which the Queensland Government has had the same difficulty over the same period. So I do not believe I would get any help from the Queensland Government. The discussions that I have had with representatives of that Government on business matters have bordered on the inarticulate and I will not be seeking support from that source on those particular matters. With regard to the Australian Capital Territory Leasing Ordinance being shelved, I will make inquiries from the Minister for Territories and Local Government. It is within his area of responsibility. The question of a model lease being developed is still under consideration by the Department of Industry and Commerce. Senator FOREMAN —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, concerns the proposed redrafting of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. What stage have negotiations on the redrafting reached? Is the Minister satisfied with the response to date from State housing Ministers? Will the new Agreement result in an easing of public housing pressures in South Australia? Senator GRIMES —Renegotiation of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, together with new policies such as the community housing expansion program, the community amenities program and local government housing programs are part of the Australian Labor Party's policy. One of the first things that is being negotiated is the Commonwealth State-Housing Agreement. Preliminary discussions between Federal, State and Territory housing Ministers were held at the end of last year and on 24 February and probably 25 February last. The comments of the State Ministers on priorities for a new agreement were, in the view of the Commonwealth Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr Hurford, most constructive. There is a general consensus for a new thrust in public housing policy which will have two approaches. The first approach is to make a greater effort to alleviate poverty related to high rental costs of housing, particularly those in private rental accommodation. The honourable senator will be aware that at the moment the subsidies available for those in public rental accommodation are much higher than for those in private rental accommodation. The second approach is to try to ensure that housing assistance is equitable among all forms of tenure. As a result of those discussions and discussions with local government and non- government organisations, I believe there will be a much better Commonwealth- State Housing Agreement because all of those people's views will have been taken into account. At the moment the Minister expects the Commonwealth offer about the new Housing Agreement to be available towards the end of April or in May. The Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, of course, is central to this Government's housing policy. The whole intent of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement is to assist the States, particularly the State housing commissions and housing trusts, to improve the volume of housing and the access of disadvantaged people in particular to that housing. In the case of an enlightened housing trust and an enlightened State with an enlightened housing policy such as South Australia we can expect the result of such an agreement to have a greater spread of accommodation and a better balance of accommodation in general. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I address my question to the Attorney-General and refer him to land formerly used by the Commonwealth for the use and detonation of explosives, such as former artillery ranges, particularly the former artillery range at Warnbro in Western Australia. Does the Commonwealth Government accept liability for any injury or damage which may be caused by on-site explosions from debris and UXBs left in the area? While I am sure it will make no difference to the ultimate legal judgment made by the Commonwealth, I remind the Attorney-General that it was the Commonwealth that caused the bombs to be placed there in the first place, that it failed to locate them and remove them. The Government quit possession with the bombs still in place. Perhaps it might be implied that the Commonwealth accepted liability in part by providing funds for the Western Australian Government to assist to remove that material down to three metres. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised that the Warnbro land was never owned by the Commonwealth, that it was used as a range under some form of licence by the Commonwealth, the United States of America and perhaps other forces during World War II. It is known to have been polluted by unexploded ammunition. I am informed that in 1978-79 the then Government agreed to meet the cost of a search for unexploded ammunition and to arrange for detonation of ammunition that was found. The Commonwealth has not accepted liability for any injury or damage caused by explosion in the area. Generally speaking the situation is, however, that the Commonwealth is liable at law for any wrongful actions or omissions on its part, as would be the case if it were a private citizen. That follows from sections 56 and 64 of the Judiciary Act. I am not aware of any proposal that would accept a greater measure of responsibility than this. It would seem to be sufficient from the point of view of putative plaintiffs in this respect. Senator GARETH EVANS —In answer to one of the questions asked about the Age tapes this morning-I think it was from Senator Kilgariff-I said that as I recalled it I had actually physically handed over to the judge in question the Temby opinion on the first of the interviews on 15 February. I was a little unsure whether that was so. I checked my recollection subsequently and the answer is no, I did convey orally the substance of that opinion as it related in particular to questions of criminality and misbehaviour but the actual physical text of it was not in fact forwarded by my Department until some days later. I would not wish in any way to be inaccurate in this matter. Senator GIETZELT —On 29 February Senator Hearn asked me a question about the present whereabouts of a plaque in honour of the Tolpuddle Martyrs, previously located at the old Hobart Trades Hall. The Minister for Administrative Services informed me that the plaque is now located at the new Trades Hall building at Newtown, Tasmania. The plaque was relocated following Commonwealth acquisition of the old Trades Hall on 1 October 1974. I am further informed that the Hobart Trades Hall trustees and management committee regards the plaque as its property and has stated that the plaque will remain at the new Trades Hall building. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Sibra asked me as Minister representing the Special Minister of State a question about scrutineering practices during the recent Richmond by-election. The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Australian Electoral Commission has advised that the Divisional Returning Officer for Richmond did rule that each candidate was entitled to be represented by only two scrutineers at each counting centre. The Australian Electoral Commission has further advised that this ruling was quite consistent with the provisions of section 130 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act as it applied to the Richmond by-election. That section provides as a general rule that a candidate is not entitled to be represented at the scrutiny at a particular counting centre by more than one scrutineer. The section goes on to provide that the Divisional Returning Officer for the division may increase the number of candidates. The Special Minister of State has advised that the problem Senator Sibraa brought under notice should not arise in the future. One of the many electoral reforms effected by the 1983 amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act was an amendment to section 130 to ensure that a candidate was entitled to be represented at the scrutiny at a counting centre by as many scrutineers as there were officials engaged in the scrutiny or counting of ballot papers at that centre. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-During Question Time in response to the second question I asked the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) he suggested that I had misquoted something that he had said in reply to an earlier question. In asking him the question I read from a record of the answer he had given, prepared in my office. That appears to me to be exactly the same as the wording which the Attorney used in his response to me . I therefore believe that I in no way misrepresented the words which he used. I ask him to check the Hansard record and if he is wrong again I ask him, as he did a moment ago, to apologise and withdraw. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-Just for the record, I was not imputing any ill motives to Senator Chaney in saying what I thought he said in purporting to quote my words. There did seem to me to be a significant substantive difference between the two forms of expression which were in issue. We have had rows about language in the past and I thought it appropriate to get the record straight as soon as possible. I hasten to add that I do believe that, read properly, the language I used contains its own answer to Senator Chaney's question. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Kilgariff proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The political manoeuvrings of the Government to avoid its election undertaking to construct the Alice Springs to Darwin railway and the consequent denial to Australia of the advantages of the railway. 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- Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(3.08) —Pursuant to standing order 64, I raise the following as a matter of public importance: The political manoeuvrings of the Government to avoid its election undertaking to construct the Alice Springs to Darwin railway and the consequent denial to Australia of the advantages of the railway. I will very briefly go over the history of the line. The provision of a rail link through the centre of Australia from the north to the south has been a vision for 100 years or more. Indeed it played its part in the agreement reached between the Federal Parliament and South Australia. Of course, this was after Federation when the Territory, which was a part of South Australia, became Federal property. Somewhat painfully, a narrow gauge line was laid across South Australia and by degrees to Alice Springs, which it reached in 1929. During this time a line was laid from Darwin to Birdum, which eventually was closed down. In the same era Western Australia was brought into regular communication with the east by rail link. During the period of the McMahon coalition Government firm plans were made and finance committed for the continuity of a standard gauge line from Tarcoola, on the east-west line in South Australia, to Alice Springs. The project was picked up by the Whitlam Government and was completed by the Fraser Government in 1980. The completion of this project constituted a mere link in the chain of providing an all-weather standard gauge rail link to our northern coast, at Darwin. Planning continued for the next stage-that is, Alice Springs to Darwin-and a considerable amount of funds was expended in preparation, prior to initial construction contracts being signed. Thanks to the efforts of the national railway project team, headed by the engineer Des Smith who, I suggest, is the modern pioneer of railway construction, construction of the line is almost ready to start. The track has been surveyed and is being protected. Aboriginal consent has been given for where the line would cross Aboriginal land. The Northern Territory Government is prepared to protect the track. Work by surveyors and other men, numbering some hundreds, has now reached the point where it is possible to see from the air the graded outlines of the proposed rail link from Alice Springs to Darwin. It is almost ready to go; it awaits contracts for construction. Come the 1983 election the question of the future of that all important railway link became an important election issue, particularly in the Northern Territory. I think to no small degree the success in the election of the Australian Labor Party candidate, John Reeves, rested on ALP promises. Leaflets depicting the now Prime Minister Bob Hawke were put out captioned: 'Bringing Australia together. Boost Territory development. Build Alice Springs to Darwin railway'. A series of statements and promises followed. For instance, as late as 22 April 1983 the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, said that the Hawke Government promised to construct the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. On that day Senator Gietzelt told the Senate that no steps would be taken to curtail that election commitment. On 15 March 1983 the Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Morris, said that it was a project of national and international significance which the Labor Party would honour. On 10 May 1983 John Reeves, the member for the Northern Territory-I have no doubt that he regrets the report that has been tabled-said that the Alice Springs to Darwin rail link was the linchpin for future development in the Northern Territory and those who claimed the cost of the railway was unjustified would have said the same about the Snowy River project when it was first mooted. Then the thunder clouds of big government spending started to gather. Despite the improvement in the international and Australian recession the decrease in Australia's inflation rate and the end of the drought, which meant that the financial situation of the country was improving immeasurably, the Labor Government's deficit grew and it is still growing alarmingly. The effect of this appears to have brought about a remarkable twist for without precedent in Australian rail history the Northern Territory was called on by the Prime Minister to finance 40 per cent of the proposed national rail project. The overall cost of the railway in October 1982 was $541m. It was demanded that the Northern Territory contribute $216m, a most unusual demand considering that the Northern Territory gets its annual allocation of tax sharing funds through the memorandum of understanding which was agreed to by the Federal and Northern Territory governments and which the Commonwealth Grants Commission oversighted. No money was available for such a demand. This promoted a most bitter public debate, particularly as it could be seen that the Government appeared to be reneging on a firm election promise. This was followed by the Minister for Transport deciding to hold an inquiry. The inquiror was Mr David Hill, the Executive Director of the New South Wales Rail Authority. He is a close friend of Mr Wran and Mr Hawke. I see nothing wrong with that but in hindsight the appointment was lacking to quite a degree. There has been considerable interest, particularly from South Australia and the Northern Territory, in the report on the Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory, which has now been tabled. South Australia and the Northern Territory could see from the way things were going that the completion of this national rail project was being wiped out or, at least, placed in considerable jeopardy. To say the least, it was an incomplete inquiry. One of the most significant aspects of the rail case-defence-was not considered by the inquirer. A decision on the defence aspects of the construction of such a rail link still rests in the hands of the Federal Government. It is most peculiar that defence, which is one of the main considerations in the north, has been left out of the report. Many substantial authoritative submissions which were costly in time and money, were made by the South Australian and Northern Territory governments. I do not have the South Australian submissions with me in the chamber but I have the submissions from the Northern Territory. They have been prepared at the cost of much time and money. It was also promised that there would be consultation on the many aspects of the rail, including the upgrading of the Stuart Highway which was part of the inquiry. As I have said the report is now with us. It has been rushed through without any discussion on the numerous papers submitted. It was tabled without complying with the promises that were given, one of which was that there would be consultation with the South Australian and Northern Territory governments before the report was tabled. This has not taken place. In effect it is a partial report which-it is obvious now-is based on poor and false premises. I have before me an evaluation of the Hill report by officers of the Northern Territory Government and I will quote from it to indicate to the Senate the many concerns that I have in regard to the report. I intend to table the evaluation-I will not have it incorporated in Hansard-so that interested people can at least see how the Northern Territory feels towards the report. I will refer to one or two parts of the evaluation. It states: The Hill Report, in large part, is an attempted rebuttal of the case presented by the Northern Territory Government to the Inquiry. The whole tenor of the report and the manner in which the Northern Territory submission is constantly referred to, belies the even-handed manner in which an Inquiry should address its task. The NT Government provided a comprehensive and professional assessment of the economic resultants and social effects of the construction of the railway in which all estimates and assumptions of future effects were clearly spelt out. By comparison, the reasoning behind many of the fundamental assumptions made by the Hill Inquiry are inadequately documented, making independent analysis difficult. The first major area where this occurs is in its approach to forecasting freight demand. Forecasts of freight demand is a fundamental issue in assessing the transport requirements of the Northern Territory, and must necessarily be made in order to make judgments about the future. The evaluation goes on to indicate where there is disagreement with figures and costings, and states: However, as the Northern Territory submission has made clear, the economic development of many of the potential mineral areas is dependent upon either the decision to build the railway or on its actual construction. The approach adopted by the Northern Territory Government is similar to that adopted in other developing regions or countries where appropriate transport infrastructure is seen to be a prerequisite to the development of economic potential. In the absence of quantifiable reasons for the reduction of the freight forecasts by the Inquiry, the NT's forecasts of transport demand in northern Australia must remain the most acceptable estimate. Towards the end of the document, it states: There are a number of other issues referred to in the Technical Assessment which have resulted in a less than equitable evaluation being made of the case. A summary tabulation of the rerun results of the Hill inquiry and the NT base figures on our computer model is appended- That is of interest to many, no doubt- It indicates the specific areas of disagreement which are taken up in the Technical Assessment. In summary we consider that our approach has been professional and rigorous and that the conclusions are justifiable-that on economic grounds alone the project provides substantial benefit to Australia and should be undertaken. When considering the overall situation and the Federal Government's attitude to the rail project I say that, given the way the inquiry was initiated and the apparent skimming and the speed with which the inquiry was made and the report printed, one can surmise only that it is but fuel for the action of destroying the project. At this time we can only complain about this action because the Federal Government has the ability to force the findings and decisions of this report down our throats. I suggest that in time they will be regurgitated and the construction of the line will continue. Submissions to the inquiry indicate that the findings are false. There are very many grounds for this finding. It is most interesting that when one looks back with hindsight at this inquiry one finds that it was chaired by a person from the New South Wales State Rail Authority which loses $2m a day. Over a year more than $700m of the taxpayers' money is lost. Yet that person is supposed to be able to reach a reasoned decision regarding the line from Alice Springs to Darwin. How can such a situation exist? Why do we look in this gloomy area, as I think I called it, of financial rail disaster for a person with experience to make such a decision? Given the criticisms I made, which I think are justifiable , I think it is reasonable that the case for this very national project be reviewed. In doing so, the criticisms which I have made should be heeded, because quite obviously facts point to the possibility that this railway line could be viable. Much money is being spent on the Darwin port now. A huge crane is being erected . Millions of dollars are being spent to upgrade the Darwin port. I see Darwin port developing into a strong trading link with other nations, particularly in South East Asia, with cargo containers overlanding to southern centres. By ' overlanding' I mean by a rail link that will go from Darwin through Alice Springs to Adelaide and then to Sydney, Melbourne or wherever the standard rail gauge operates. The development of the mining industry, in particular, the pastoral industry and the travel industry, will assist the railway immensely. Not to be forgotten too is the immense demand such a line would make on Australian industries. The defence of the north, which I have mentioned, is also not to be forgotten. This has not been permitted to influence the case for the line in this inquiry. Summing up, I quite honestly believe that the review of this proposed national project has not been given a fair go. In the first place, the Prime Minister and others were quite obviously in favour of the project, without qualification. Times have changed. Now the Government has introduced various matters which qualify its opinion. It has conducted an inquiry which I say is incomplete and whose findings are not substantiated because the Government did not consult. It did not comply with its promises. The promise was clearly given that the inquirer was to consult with the people who made submissions to it, particularly the Governments of South Australia and the Northern Territory. This was not done , despite the fact that the authorities in South Australia and the Northern Territory were extremely able in presenting to the inquirer a substantial submission which indicated that in some circumstances the line would be viable. Construction of the line would develop industries which would ultimately make the line viable. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(3.26) —At long last, on the third day after the resumption of the sittings, we are beginning to discuss something substantive and not engaging in the muck-raking which has been part of the strategy of the Opposition in the first three days of the Parliament , both in Question Time and in debating matters of public importance. However, I think it has to be conceded, without in any way being derogatory about the needs of the Northern Territory, that the issue that Senator Kilgariff and the Opposition have chosen to debate today would hardly excite the imagination of the great majority of Australian people, given the problems that beset them. Nevertheless, the Government accepts that in the Northern Territory there is concern about transport problems and the railway link. However, I make it very clear from the outset that when in opposition the Australian Labor Party made the promise to construct the railway it did so in absolutely good faith and without knowledge of the disastrous state of the economy brought about by the Treasurer and Prime Minister of Australia in the latter part of 1982 and the deficit of something like $10 billion. That was the state of the Treasury when we inherited government a year ago. Of course we recall that it was part of the conventional wisdom of both the Opposition and the Government that each pledged to construct the railway. However, I make it very clear that the posturing of Senator Kilgariff has no substance because the Government has not, in fact, repudiated its election commitment. It has sought only to indicate to the Northern Territory Government that there needs to be a financial arrangement which is satisfactory from the point of view of the Commonwealth. Having inherited such a disastrous budgetary situation, it would be incompetent as well as immoral for a government to continue the spending program that was obviously set in train by the Fraser Administration. Of course this Government has set about creating a political, economic and consumer climate that will enable it to fulfil its election promises. Obviously it cannot do that in the first few months in which it is obliged to bring down a budget, bearing in mind that the Parliament began to meet only in the latter part of autumn of last year, and that the Government was confronted with a deficit of a magnitude of which it was not aware and the knowledge of which the previous Government withheld even from its own Cabinet. The information about the extent of the deficit was known only by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. They deliberately kept it from the Australian people, from their Government and from the Opposition. Yet Senator Kilgariff suggests that the Labor Government is dishonouring an election promise. Heavens above, if we are to talk about governments dishonouring election promises, one characteristic of the Fraser Administration was that the average Australian knew that it was blessed with broken promises and failed to honour its election commitments. Let us remember what it was like in 1980 when Mr Fraser went to the polls and received substantial support from the Australian people. He said that we were on the verge of $25 billion-worth of development, that there was to be an end of inflation, that interest rates were to be reduced, that there was to be a reduction in unemployment and that we were on the eve of a great new wave of development that would set Australia on the path of progress. Of course, we know that that was all hogwash and that the Australian people were being deceived by the Fraser-Anthony Government. If we really look at the substance of this matter of public importance we see that it should read: The political manoeuvrings of the Opposition to avoid its election undertaking to construct the Alice Springs to Darwin Railway and the consequent denial to Australia of the advantages of the railway. What a shabby record the previous Government had with respect to this project for which Senator Kilgariff suggests this Government is capable of being censured and criticised. The Liberal-National Party has been in office for 30 post-war years. Where was the progress in respect of this railway? Not one sleeper was laid and not one mile of railway network was constructed. In the brief months of the Whitlam Labor Government the Alice Springs-Tarcoola railway was begun and has now been completed-the link in the chain that made the Alice Springs-Darwin rail link a possibility. That is what was achieved by the last Labor Government. What did the Fraser Government do when it came to office in 1976? Instead of building a railway line in the Northern Territory it closed down the only line there from Darwin to Larrimah, some 500 kilometres, throwing 200 employees out of work. Yet the Opposition Whip from the Northern Territory has the audacity to suggest that this Government, barely a year in office, should be criticised in respect of its obligation to improve the transport situation in the Northern Territory. Of course, the line which was closed by the Fraser Government could have been the first stage of a link south to Alice Springs. Senator Kilgariff should have been aware that in 1980 the Fraser Government promised $10m for survey and design work on the Alice Springs-Darwin connection. Yet by the time the election came around in 1983 that amount was underspent by half. What did the Hawke Government do? With the support of the Minister for Transport, the Hon . Peter Morris, Labor in its first year of office has appropriated for the connection of this line as much as the Fraser Government spent in the previous seven years, that is, $5m to be spent in 1983-84 to complete the preliminary planning and design of the project. That is proceeding while we have this time- wasting exercise by the Opposition Whip. The Labor Government has released for public comment the draft environmental impact statement on the project and has finalised the environmental impact statement, proving again that we have not repudiated our election promise but have in fact set in train a proper inquiry, an essential prerequisite to a responsible and competent way in which to carry out this election commitment. We did all this in spite of the dramatic $10 billion deficit we were confronted with when we came to office. That hidden deficit would have necessitated any government of any standard and of any competency in this country or in the world to re-examine its financial commitments. We did that. Of course, as you well know, Mr Acting Deputy President, we also set in train in the last Budget legislation designed to overcome the difficulties in the welfare areas to get rid of those who were abusing the system and collecting large sums of money, something like $400m per annum, out of the Commonwealth Treasury, as a result of which we introduced the assets test. So a government began, for the first time in the last decade, to put into place a responsible attitude to public sector expenditure. In view of the large amount of capital cost involved in the railway, we had to modify our commitment in the interests of responsible economic management. We offered to proceed on the basis of shared funding with the Northern Territory. That has been the way in which all governments prior to and since Federation have acted with respect to the construction of railway systems throughout Australia. What did we say to the Northern Territory Government? Despite the deficit of great magnitude that we inherited, we told the Northern Territory Government that we would still contribute 60 per cent but that the Northern Territory Government would have to provide the other 40 per cent of the construction costs. We made alternative offers to the Northern Territory Government, including offers to upgrade the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Darwin and to upgrade the Alice Springs railway facilities to give a high standard road-rail link between Adelaide and Darwin by 1987. But the Northern Territory Government, being in a position to be difficult, rejected those alternatives. We make no apologies to the Australian and Northern Territory people. We have acted responsibly in the light of that unprecedented $10 billion deficit. No doubt the Fraser Government, confronted with exactly the same economic criteria that the Hawke Government was confronted with, would have had to recast its public works commitments. It would have had to delay, repudiate or in some way seek other means to finance this railway. It ill behoves a senator of the standing of Senator Kilgariff to suggest that the Government was being irresponsible when it put forward alternative propositions for the way in which the railway should be financed. Or course, Mr Everingham can claim, and has claimed, that it would be unreasonable for the Northern Territory Government to contribute towards the Alice Springs-Darwin railway as State/Territory contributions have not been required for major capital works programs, but many precedents for State government contributions to major national construction projects already exist. South Australia was required to pay 30 per cent of the cost of the railway standardisation works within that State. Western Australia constructed the Western Australian section of the trans-Australia railway and later contributed hundreds of millions of dollars towards upgrading and standardisation work on the line. Between 1963-64 and 1979-80 under Liberal-Country Party governments, the Commonwealth Government joined with State governments to construct some 17 dams and irrigation projects, all partly funded by State contributions. So there is ample precedent for the Commonwealth to seek a Northern Territory contribution to the railway. In fact there is no railway system network in this country run by State governments which States do not have to heavily subsidise. Mr Everingham's criticism falls flat on its face. It has no basis and no substance. As a government which claims the right to represent the Northern Territory and wants to be recognised as an independent State government, the Northern Territory Government should be prepared to get in the queue like any other State instrumentality. The Federal Government was left with no option but to proceed to conduct an independent economic inquiry to settle once and for all the issues of the economic and social merits of the project-only because of the extent of the deficit-and to examine the most cost-effective means of providing high-standard all-weather transport services in and to the Northern Territory. It established the inquiry. I remind Senator Kilgariff that it did so with the endorsement of the Northern Territory Chief Minister, who agreed to the terms of reference, agreed to the appointment of Mr David Hill, agreed to the report being the basis for decision on the future of the project, insisted on the exclusion of shipping services from the terms of reference, and insisted that the Stuart Highway should not be upgraded. Yet Senator Kilgariff has the audacity to suggest that Mr Hill has acted somewhat improperly. He is a man who has held high office in the State Rail Authority of New South Wales for only a short duration, having regard to the railway system itself operating for more than 150 years, and he has a record that can be compared with any other public administrator in Australia, in that he has substantially reduced the losses incurred in that particular instrumentality. The Government rejects completely the attacks upon Mr Hill, who had the endorsement of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory on both his selection and the terms of reference that he carried out on behalf of the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory Governments . The Hill report, as later speakers will elaborate, has clearly demonstrated that there is no economic justification for the railway. That has not led to the Government withdrawing its offer. The Government is still in the field with its offer. But it has pointed out the economic difficulties that both the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory would face, on the basis of the Hill report. What did the report say? It said that 130 trucks and 20 buses could perform the proposed rail link's transport tasks into the next century. That is what was found as a result of the inquiry. I say to Senator Kilgariff that the Northern Territory and the South Australian governments were consulted; make no bones about that. There is no criticism about the inquiry that was carried on, the scope of it and the fundamental way in which the Commissioner carried out his task. Using the best, but questionable, economic projections provided to the inquiry by the Northern Territory Government, he came to that conclusion. That Government provided him with the criteria on which he made his objective judgment. It showed that the projected cost of the railway would represent a unit cost of $5m for each truck and bus used. The Hill report shows a cost to the Australian taxpayer of $1 billion by the year 2000, so that for that capital outlay we would get 1,000 jobs. That is a unit cost of $1m per job, and that is very expensive job creation. Senator Teague —The $1 billion figure is wrong. Senator GIETZELT —Well, 20 times fewer jobs than alternative expenditure on roads, which is the way in which any responsible government would deal with this matter. I would have been interested to hear what Opposition senators would have had to say as to how their government, if it had, disastrously, won the election in 1983, would have handled the problem of the deficit which was hidden from the Australian people and how it would have been able to finance this project. One has only a certain sum of money that comes in from taxation and other charges, and one cannot spend it in any other way than that for which we have provided in the Budget. If the Northern Territory Government is serious about building the railway, and if it is not using this matter, as Senator Kilgariff is, for cheap political point-scoring, why is it not progressing the Queensland offer to build the Mount Isa-Alice-Darwin link? When I was in Queensland I heard a great deal about the offer that was made by the Queensland Premier. On 14 July last, in the run-up to the Queensland and Northern Territory elections, the Chief Minister and the Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, announced a joint feasibility study to build a rail link between Mt Isa, Tennant Creek, Darwin and Alice. That Press conference was also attended by the South Australian Opposition leader, Mr Olsen. Mr Everingham said that the Queensland Government had indicated that it would pay for the 1, 600 kilometre line and that that would cost $600m to $700m. The Queensland Premier said that the project could be funded by long term loans serviced by freight revenue between Queensland and the Northern Territory. Of course, the Press conference, like so many of the things that happen in politics with the conservative forces in Australia, was just another political stunt, the same sort of political stunt that was pulled by Mr Fraser in 1980, and a blatant political manoeuvre by Mr Everingham and Mr Bjelke-Petersen which, unfortunately , had the effect of influencing the voters in those two States to give them another mandate. Where is that study, Senator Kilgariff? Where is that railway, Senator Kilgariff? Why is it that the Chief Minister is not chasing the Premier of Queensland to honour that particular joint agreement, which occurred before the Budget of the first year of the Labor Government? Perhaps the previous commitment is as inviolate as his promise of $1 billion worth of rail electrification projects in central Queensland. So we see the fraud and the political manoeuvering of the Chief Minister, and the detrimental impact of his machinations on the people of the Territory is exemplified by his stand on the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Darwin. Mr Everingham tells the Federal Government that the road does not need upgrading. Is that Senator Kilgariff's view? We hear nothing about that from the honourable senator, but he tells the Territorians that the Federal Government is not spending enought money in the Territory. We reject the inane and mischievous meanderings of Senator Kilgariff. They are clearly just an attempt, on behalf of the Opposition, to suggest that somehow or other the Opposition is interested in the needs of the people of the Territory or the needs of Australia. Opposition members have been shown up by the bankruptcies since they have lost one after another of their leaders-the Frasers , the Sneddens, the Killens, the Lynches and the Streets, and all of the others who were responsible for the state of the economy in the period 1976-1983. They have departed from the Australian Parliament and left the Hawke Government to rebuild from the failures and decay of that Administration led by the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(3.46) —The matter that we are discussing today is: The political manoeuverings of the Government to avoid its election undertaking to construct the Alice Springs to Darwin railway and the consequent denial to Australia of the advantages of the railway. Contrary to something said by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), I do not believe that discussing this matter is a waste of time. Without wishing to set any sort of precedent, I should like to congratulate Senator Kilgariff, whose persistence on this matter, if on no other matter, has been legend in this place through all governments from all political parties. The Australian Democrats have always supported the construction of the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. There is no doubt that its completion is long overdue and that the failure to link the Northern Territory by rail fully with the rest of Australia under all sorts of weather conditions is of considerable disadvantage to the country as a whole but, of course, to the Northern Territory in particular. The detriment to Australia because of the lack of this section of railway being completed is evident in a number of areas-social, economic, defence, and so on. Our access to remote areas is considerably less than it would have been if that access had been made available to us through the completion of that rail link. Fuel costs, employment opportunities and so on should be taken into account when we look at the value to the country generally and the Northern Territory in particular of the completion of this section of Australia's national railway lines. The construction of the link has been discussed for so long that it would appear as though some sections of Australian National Railways and the public actually believe that it is finished. This came to my attention a week or so ago in an inquiry which came into my office regarding an elderly lady who lives in Sydney who went to the Australian National office there, or an Australian National office-I do not know how many offices it has there-and asked for a ticket from Sydney to Darwin by rail. She was furnished with a ticket that stated 'Sydney to Darwin', and she found out only when she got to Alice Springs that she was not able to proceed any further by rail or for the cost of the ticket with which she was issued. After some carry on, she was placed on a bus, and I gather that she finished up in Darwin but certainly not by the mode of travel for which she had asked or which the ticket had indicated that she would get. I find this a rather extraordinary situation. I could have understood it if the lady had said-- Senator Hill —It is a bit like the 1,400 staff who were employed for the assets test. Senator HAINES —Indeed, yes. It was a bit of a bungle, as they say. I could have understood it if she had asked for a ticket from Sydney to Darwin and the ticket had been printed Sydney to Alice Springs. But as I understand it the ticket was actually printed Sydney to Darwin, so somebody in Australian National in Sydney believes that that rail link has been completed. This lady was just one of the many people who wanted to be able to take a train trip from one capital city in this country to Darwin without having to leap on and off trains or buses, in and out of cars or on and off aeroplanes or anything else. I think it is a scandal that she and others are not able to do this. The scandal, of course, rests as much in the pocket of the previous Liberal government as it rests in the pocket of the current Australian Labor Party Government. There is no doubt that rail travel in Australia has many advantages as far as tourism is concerned. It offers high density group travel, although that seems to be something that Australian National is discouraging, if the complaints that come into my office from people who have booked from Adelaide to Alice Springs are any indication. I am frequently informed that people are told that the train is booked and then find out at a later date, too late to do anything about it, that in fact it was not booked. I rather suspect that this is some kind of cunning lurk by Australian National to cut down the number of staff and therefore cut back its costs, because I understand that it is running rather close to the financial bone. Notwithstanding that, train travel, theoretically at least, offers the opportunity for high density group travel. It also, of course, offers flexibility for multi-mode travel, which is taken full advantage of overseas and should be taken full advantage of here. I refer to the fly-rail or the car-on-rail type of trip. It would certainly make full value of Darwin as an entrance point for overseas tourists if we had not only air and bus access but also direct rail access to other parts of Australia. As far as the tourist dollar alone is concerned, the completion of the railway, notwithstanding comments made in the report of the Hill Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory, could be of substantial economic benefit to both the Northern Territory and Australia as a whole. Other economic advantages would accrue simply from the building of the line via the employment prospects, use of resources and ancilliary or secondary business benefits in local areas. For example, I understand that since the completion of the Tarcoola-Alice Springs rail line freight trade has doubled. Furthermore, it is estimated that something like 150,000 tonnes of steel would be required. That, would be of considerable interest to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, since you, like me, are South Australian and very much concerned with the problems that South Australia is facing through unemployment, particularly in some of its northern cities. That 150,000 tonnes of steel would represent approximately 20 per cent of Whyalla's plant production during the life of the project. That would provide no small boost to South Australia's economy. Had the scheme been initiated already the Iron Triangle lay-offs could very well have been avoided. Another important consideration, to which I alluded briefly when I mentioned Darwin being better used as an entrance point for overseas tourists, is its potential for the development of Australia's trade links-not just its tourist links-with South-East Asia, not only the Northern Territory's mineral and pastoral industries but also for the major industries in the southern and south- eastern States of Australia. Certainly, long term viability of Northern Territory industry, especially its agricultural and horticultural industries, would be more likely. Furthermore, I believe that the isolation of the Top End of Australia calls for the provision of a secure transport link that is not subject to the vicissitudes of petrol or fuel supplies or the weather, as is road access. Flash floods and so on have a quite drastic effect on the Northern Territory's economy and on ease of transport and so on between the Territory and other parts of Australia. Certainly, railways are not as affected by that sort of thing as roads are. Darwin needs and deserves a reliable social, economic and defence link with the rest of Australia, as well as with Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. This acknowledgment of the need for social objectives to be taken into account when designing transport services and systems is, as I understand it, part of Australian Labor Party policy. Certainly it is part of the Australian Democrats' policy, as is a commitment to provide full services to people in isolated areas. These people suffer enough from increased costs and so on because they choose to live in those sorts of areas, and they do not need another problem that could readily be rectified if governments of all political pursuasions were prepared to put their money where their electoral mouths are. Furthermore, again despite the Hill report, a South Australian report indicates that something like $20m per annum could be saved in fuel costs alone at current fuel prices if only the rail link were completed. I mentioned a moment ago the need for defence connections and security for the Northern Territory. It is not just in recent years that the defence of north- western Australia has been seen as vitally important to the defence of the rest of this country. We have, however, created a reserve unit of battalion size and another reserve unit is being raised in the Pilbara region. In order to shift and maintain a viable force in the north-west, as anywhere else, we will need to use all transport systems available. For instance, the maintenance of a division under battle conditions requires some 400 to 500 tonnes of material per day by the way of fuel, food, ammunition and spare parts. A railway would be of invaluable assistance both in shifting a viable force quickly into the area and in subsequently maintaining a substantial and fully equipped force. I understand that defence experts have said on-land railways are the only really effective way of transporting large numbers of men and material. Notwithstanding the fact that previous Liberal Governments have done nothing whatsoever to honour their promises to fund and complete the Darwin-Alice Springs railway-members of the Liberal Party are, of course, past masters of the art of political manoeuvring to get out of fulfilling their promises-this Government stands condemned not only for not fulfilling its promises but also for using a not terribly objective report to justify its inaction. That report, by the way, did not have defence services and requirements as part of its terms of reference. It further stands condemned for using that report to justify the fact that it continues to disadvantage not only the people of the Northern Territory but also steel works employees in Whyalla, tourists across the country and the population of Australia as a whole. Contrary to the Hill Inquiry's findings, the Australian Democrats believe that the construction of the rail line is economically justifiable and is a matter of considerable urgency. Senator HILL(South Australia)(3.58) —The Senate is today debating the following matter of considerable importance: The political manoeuvrings of the Government to avoid its election undertaking to construct the Alice Springs to Darwin Railway and the consequent denial to Australia of the advantages of the railway. I stress the critical words 'political manoeuvrings'-that is what the Government has engaged in and will show that-and 'consequent denial to Australia of the advantages' that would follow from the construction of the railway. I do not often quote Australian Labor Party politicans but I shall commence my remarks on this occasion by quoting the Deputy Premier of South Australia, the Honourable Jack Wright who, at a meeting in Adelaide in August last year, said: There is no doubt in my mind, and in the minds of the State Government that the completion of a rail line connecting the northern and southern borders of Australia will be of enormous benefit to our State, and to the nation as a whole . For the benefit of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, who is in the chamber, I repeat: . . . will be of enormous benefit to our State, and to the nation as a whole. Those are the words of the Labor Deputy Premier of South Australia. Senator Teague —I am sure he believes them. Senator HILL —As Senator Teague has said, I am sure he believes them. He is a very genuine old school, no promises broken, Labor politician. In pointing to the responsibilities of the Commonwealth Government in ensuring the completion of the project the Deputy Premier noted further: . . . The Federal Government has an historical and legislative responsibility to the project, and its funding. Federal financing of national assets is in the interests of all Australians, for reasons that cannot be put into economic arguments. Since 1911 the unfulfilled promise to provide a rail link from the north to the south of this continent has perpetuated the isolation of northern Australia. The neglected promise was to be finally honoured when, in 1981, the Fraser Government announced a $545m program for the construction of a 1,470 kilometre rail link from Alice Springs to Darwin. The completion of this project by the end of this decade, together with the completion of the Stuart Highway, would have meant that Australia finally had a rail and highway network linking the major population and development centres of this nation. Although obviously little pride can be attached to a 70-year delay in fulfilling a national commitment, it was not surprising that the Fraser Government's decision to proceed with the construction of the rail link was applauded for its vision. Moreover, in the early months of this Government's tenure and, following the promises that it made at the election, to which Senator Kilgariff referred earlier, it appeared that the rhetoric of 'bringing Australia together' was to have a worthwhile, practical application. As I said, in both the election campaign and following the election, the Government assured Australians that the construction of the rail link would proceed. No provisos were attached to these assurances. Senator Robertson —That is not so. Senator HILL —I will quote what the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, representing the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) said. I remind the Senate that on 22 April last year the Minister said: . . . it is the Government's intention to construct the Alice Springs to Darwin railway as part of its long-standing commitment to the completion of an all- weather standard gauge connection between Adelaide and Darwin. That appears to me to be quite unambiguous and quite clear. It was the Government's intention to construct a railway. I remind the Senate that the Minister made this statement on 22 April. The defence that we have heard from the Minister today-I thought it was a disappointingly negative speech from a disappointingly negative government-was that the Government found that, because of the size of the deficit, it would not be able to proceed. But we heard about the size of the deficit as soon as this Government came to office. Some time later, towards the end of April, the Minister gave an unequivocal undertaking that the project would proceed. Since then we have seen a steady retreat by the Government from its promise to complete the line. Unfortunately, the national vision has now been dissipated and expediency has displaced statesmanship. All Australia will suffer. The construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway is a national responsibility as was the Snowy Mountains scheme and as is the national highways system. Honourable senators will recall that, in the May economic statement last year, this Government, in abdicating its national responsibilities, demanded from the Northern Territory a contribution of 40 per cent or $200m for the completion of the railway link-an amount patently beyond the financial capabilities of the Territory. I remind the Senate that Western Australia was not required to provide a specific financial contribution to the building of the transcontinental. It was misleading of the Minister today, when he referred to the maintenance and upkeep of the railway line, to indicate a position different from a national responsibility in relation to the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line. We would all concede that maintenance upkeep is an entirely different matter. It would now appear that the Government has found for itself the final nails to place in the Alice Springs to Darwin railway coffin-the report of the Independent Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory by the Chief Executive of the New South Wales Rail Authority, Mr David Hill. Although the Government claims to be awaiting a defence assessment I am sure that my colleagues have little doubt that this is simply going through the motions. The Government made its decision back in May when it set terms upon the Northern Territory Government that it knew the Northern Territory Government would be unable to meet. I do not wish to dwell on the Hill report because economically it is another assessment; one of the many fors and againsts which have been made over the years. But I remind the Senate of one paragraph in the report which states: A major factor that could alter this assessment of the railway in the future would be the emergence of significantly higher tonnages of bulk minerals than is currently evident. The mineral prospects would need to be definite before the economic assessment of the railway would be altered. That shows the limited value of such inquiries. It shows that the responsibility of government can never be abdicated to inquiries. The Northern Territory Government made clear in its submission that the economic development of many of the potential mineral areas is dependent upon the decision to build the railway or its actual completion. That is why there is a need for a national government to have national vision. It should see the transport infrastructure as a prerequisite to the development of economic potential. But the Hill report is just what this Government wanted. It will now say that it cannot possibly proceed when Hill says that the present project cannot be justified. Will this Government recognise that Hill differs notably from the Northern Territory and South Australian Government conclusions and attempt to analyse the differences? Of course not! The Government now has exactly what it wants. Rather the Government will accept the report and, therefore, abandon a vital infrastructure project at a cost to all Australians, in particular, at a cost to employment and investment opportunities within South Australia and the Northern Territory. In the limited time available to me, I want to look further at the cost to the nation of abandoning this project. Let us reflect upon the direct employment in the construction and establishment of the link. The Northern Territory Department of Transport has estimated that 1,200 jobs would be involved in the construction project. Let us reflect upon the employment generated from associated development-the downstream supply of material for the construction, tourism, freight, et cetera. Let us reflect also upon the employment necessary to operate and maintain the railway. Let us look, for example, at the effect upon South Australia's Iron Triangle which no one would doubt has been experiencing depressed economic activity in recent times. The project would require 150,000 tonnes of rail over five years. For the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd in Whyalla the contracts for the provision of this material would be worth $124m , employing 50 people per year. Port Pirie, with the largest lead smelting plant in the world, would be the logical destination for 130,000 tonnes of Macarthur River lead by the year 2000. Three proposed mining operations in the Northern Territory will produce lead-silver concentrates which would find their way to Port Pirie for processing. Port Augusta, with its existing rail shunting yards would be where the north-south and the east-west traffic met with consequent capital spending and through traffic spending. Perhaps even more important is the incalculable number of jobs created by the further economic expansion which might be made possible by the existence of the railway; factors such as the effects of a significant reduction in transport costs from South Australia. For example, Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd estimates that the railway would allow it to supply the Northern Territory with 60,000 tonnes of quick lime and limestone which is currently imported. That raises the land-bridge concept, the argument that the railway will allow the replacement of goods currently imported into the Northern Territory with goods produced in southern Australia-that interests me-and will facilitate exports to South East Asia. It has been estimated that it could cut 14 days off the transport of some goods. The South Australian citrus fruit growers have indicated that over 20,000 tonnes of additional citrus products could be exported to the Northern Territory and overseas if the rail link were to be completed. Let us consider also the new opportunities for pastoral and mining developments along the transport route prohibited now because of the lack of suitable transport. About 55,000 live cattle are transported to South Australia from the Northern Territory each year. It is estimated that that volume could double if the line were completed. On mining, a major report of the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy refers to a possible 12 new mineral projects that will be developed in the next five to 15 years, at least four of which are almost entirely dependent on the existence and completion of the Alice Springs- Darwin railway. In the other direction is the possibility of coal being railed from South Australia to Darwin for power production. I remind the Senate that 66 per cent of the imports into the Territory are in the form of mineral fuels. Let us look at tourism very briefly. The estimates of passengers that would travel on the new line have ranged up to 60,000 per year. It is a railway link that could become part of the great train journeys of the world. It is worth remembering that on the Ghan, after the completion of the standard gauge line in November 1980, patronage increased by 176 per cent. For those honourable senators interested in employment, it is estimated that the staff would increase by one for every nine passengers on each trip. The list of opportunities is practically endless. Let me end on the national perspective. This Government promised the construction of a valuable national asset. To us it seems obvious that it is in the best interest of Australia's national development that there is an adequate transport infrastructure. The growth of the Northern Territory and the benefits to South Australian industry translate directly to benefits which Australia, as a whole, shares. Let us not forget the national advantages of fuel efficiency of rail as compared with road transport. Even so, let us not fall into the trap of trying to assess national infrastructure provision on the same strict criteria of commercial projects. As stated in the South Australian paper to the Hill Inquiry, many economic and social benefits are, at times, intangible but include items such as economic development, community and business confidence, defence and the opportunity for trade that are all dependent on the provision of a complete transport system in Australia. It is time this Government showed the vision of its predecessor. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(4.13) —Before making my contribution to the debate I would like to make a couple of comments about some of the arguments raised by the three previous speakers. Senator Kilgariff complained about the lack of consultation between South Australia, the Northern Territory and the Federal Government. Let me remind Senator Kilgariff that the Hill Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory has presented its report the Government. The final part of the review will be completed when the defence review is completed, which will be done shortly. At that time, as indicated quite clearly by the statement, the South Australian and Northern Territory governments will be consulted and the final decision will then be made . Let me make the point here that the three previous speakers have suggested that a decision has been made in this matter. There might be some clear indications but no decision has yet been made. Senator Kilgariff commented on freight estimates. Let me remind Senator Kilgariff that the Northern Territory Government's submission showed a projection of these high growth rates for freight would reflect continuous and uninterrupted boom conditions in the Territory for the next 50 years. The Australian National Railways Commission believes, and I believe any normal person would believe, these figures would be too high. We are not likely to have continuous and uninterrupted boom conditions for the next 50 years. Senator Haines suggested that the link was desirable between north and south. Of course, we agree with this. It is a commitment of this Government that an all -weather connection will be made. She talked about Australian National ticketing and moving somebody from Sydney to Darwin. I remind her that in this area former Senator McLaren and I were very anxious, when he was a member of this place, to make sure that Australian National did try to fill up its trains and not use the device of saying that all tickets had been sold to avoid putting on extra staff. Steel production in South Australia has been taken into account in the report. Let me remind the Senate that 2.5 per cent of the total annual output of South Australia would be involved; in other words, about 35 jobs. The Australian Democrats believe that the line should proceed regardless of what the inquiry has said. I think that that indicates the depth to which the Democrats have subjected the inquiry and the whole proposition. I agree with Senator Hill entirely that it is a great pity that Mr Fraser did not go ahead with his proposition to build the railway. We agree with this. It is a great pity, but given the record of the previous Government it is not at all surprising. Again, Senator Hill talks about steel production in South Australia. I remind him that 35 jobs are involved. We would like to see those filled, but the high cost of creating those jobs is the relevant point in the debate. Senator Hill also talked about the incalculable number of jobs that would be created. With the greatest of respect, as our friend Senator Chipp would say, what a ridiculous statement to make. The jobs can be calculated, they have been calculated and they have been costed. So it is not a matter of incalculable jobs at all. I suggest that the honourable senator read the report and have a good look at it. Moving to my comments on the report, there are three elements to this matter of public importance which have been put forward by Senator Kilgariff. They seem to be, firstly, political manoeuvrings of the Government; secondly, an election undertaking; and, thirdly, a consequent denial of advantages. These are the three elements in the propositions which have been raised by the Opposition today. I am assuming that Senator Kilgariff is speaking for his Northern Territory colleagues and the Northern Territory Government. There is a good relationship between the worthy senator and his colleagues in the Northern Territory-this is to be expected-and a good deal of material flows back and forth between the Chief Minister and Senator Kilgariff, as indicated by the presentation today. I remind honourable senators that we are referring here to the Northern Territory Government, the government led by Mr Everingham, the leader of the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory. This is the man who called an election in December of last year. He went to the people and said that he wanted to govern the Northern Territory for the next four years and put forward a great proposition that he would bring forth and that he was the man for the job. He announced in February 1984 that he would be the candidate for pre-selection and would come down to the House of Representatives. Mind you, that was not the first proposition. Some two weeks before he had indicated on a talk back program that he was going to come down to the Senate. Because of his great standing in the community, the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party would win two Senate seats and when the candidates came here they would take control of the Senate. Senator Hill —How about telling us about the railway? Senator ROBERTSON —I am as close to it as the honourable senator was, even in what I am saying. Let us look at the three aspects of this matter of public importance. Firstly, political manoeuvring. I am surprised that the honourable senator who proposed the matter of public importance used this term in a derogatory way because members of the Northern Territory Government are past masters at political manoeuvring. Ministers swap portfolios so that deals can be done. I can give an example of this with the purchase of some Crown land by one of the Northern Territory Ministers. I will not go into that matter. The Chief Minister manoeuvred the last election which was held last year on phony issues. He suggested that we must have an election because we are not being consulted. Then he shamefully exploited the Northern Territory electorate by calling on them to stand up for the Territory; by that he meant the Country Liberal Party. Nevertheless, because there was a short lead up to the election he closed the rolls early by political manoeuvring and that went through. People were swayed because they did not have the opportunity to see what was really behind his proposition. We might talk about the manoeuvrings on the extension of the town boundaries to thwart land claims. This is a matter of court action at present. We might talk about political manoeuvring on the politicisation of the Public Services contrary to all the principles of Public Service in Australia. I will not go into those matters. There are many more examples. What do members of the Opposition mean by political manoeuvring? Do they mean that we should not have set up an inquiry, that we should have gone ahead to build the railway without looking at the cost and the implications? I do not think that would be the case. The Chief Minister in a letter to me recently when he rejected my plea that the Darwin primary school remain open for very good reasons said: . . . You apparently advocate . . . the waste of scarce public money. The suggestion is that he would not advocate this. He is saying, in a derogatory way, that what I am suggesting will cost money and he is not prepared to do it. Is the proposer of the matter of public importance suggesting that the Northern Territory contribute part of the cost? Is this the political manoeuvring that went on? Is this the action which he has called unprecedented? Yet, quite clearly it is not unprecedented, since Western Australia constructed the Western Australian section of the trans-Australian railway and later contributed hundreds of millions of dollars towards upgrading of standardisation works on the line. Again, in 1963-64 and in 1978-79 the Commonwealth Government joined State governments in constructing 17 dams and irrigation projects, all partly funded by State contributions. Certainly, the action is not unprecedented. It is a reasonable proposition. The second part of the proposition put forward is that an election undertaking was given. I notice that the Opposition did not use the word promise. I suppose that anyone who sits on the other side of the House and remembers Fraser's record would be very careful about using the word promise. So the word ' understanding' was used. I remember the promises made by Mr Sinclair and Mr Nixon. No doubt Senator Kilgariff also remembers those promises because they were made in Alice Springs. They said: 'We will build the railway'. I understand that one of the shadow Ministers also says that he will build the railway. What undertaking was given? Early in the campaign, clearly following a request from the Northern Territory candidates, the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that he would build the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. It is part of our Northern Territory platform and it was based on our economic understanding of the situation. In the last week of the campaign-this is the point that I raised with Senator Hill by way of interjection earlier-there were rumours of a blowout in the deficit which the present Opposition knew about, which the discredited former Treasurer knew about, which the former Prime Minister knew about, but which we did not know about. In the final week of the campaign when rumours were circulating in the newspapers, Mr Hawke said that he would build the railway if the money were available. That statement was made on the Wednesday of the last week of the campaign. He introduced the qualification that Senator Hill denies. When we found out that the deficit was $4,000 billion more than we expected-I do not have to repeat the figure-the undertaking was given still to look at the project. That is why the Hill inquiry was set up. The decision was to be based on the result of the Hill inquiry and the defence aspect. We know the Opposition 's view about defence. As recently as 29 February this year in the other place the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) said: It is always difficult to counter emotive arguments such as that, but it is interesting that nowhere else in any of the policy-making that goes on in this country has the likelihood of World War III been evoked as a serious reason for determining economic policy . . . In other words the suggestion, as far as the Opposition is concerned, is that defence will not be a great consideration in this matter. Nevertheless, it was said that this aspect would be looked at. The third aspect of the proposition concerns the consequent denial of advantages to Australia. What are the advantages to Australia? The report of the Hill inquiry states: For the projected traffic levels the total cost of transporting freight and passengers by rail exceeds the cost of accomplishing the same transport task by road by a large margin. The implication is clearly that the traffic levels are not within the accepted margins that operate in New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and other places where railways lose money. This point has been raised by Senator Kilgariff. Does the Opposition really want to see allocation of scarce resources to this project? The activity of the previous Government-represented by the honourable senators who sit opposite-during its 30 years in office clearly supplies the answer. Those honourable senators certainly do not want to see it done, they would not have done it themselves and if the decision is made not to proceed, they will not do it. It is clearly, as indicated by my colleague Senator Gietzelt, a cheap political exercise. This is the sort of exercise that is much favoured by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. Let us look at the record in this area. Mr Everingham claimed that the railway was vital. He had funny little badges, flags and material printed-at taxpayers' expense, of course-to say that we should go ahead with this project and that the only way to do it was to re-elect the Country Liberal Party Government. He had a petition circulated which many people signed in very good faith because both parties in the Northern Territory wanted to see the railway constructed. It has been our policy for as long as I can remember. Mr Everingham agreed to the setting up of the Hill inquiry. He agreed that Mr Hill should be the person to conduct the inquiry. He did not like the findings, so he abused the umpire, apparently in the same way as did Senator Kilgariff today when he told only part of the story. He suggested that Mr Hill was a friend of the Wran Government. Another speaker said that the Hill inquiry brought down the sort of report that the Government wanted-suggesting in some way that there was some sort of collusion. With regard to shipping in the same area, we might recall that the Northern Territory was given a one-off payment by Fraser to subsidise the Australian National Line. It was then given another one-off payment by the Fraser Government. It was then given $2m by the present Government as a one-off final payment. That is three one-off final payments. Yet the Government of the Northern Territory still created more political mischief by creating a strike on the waterfront, by suggesting that more money ought to be coming from the Federal Government. I turn to the proposal last year from the Queensland Government. Honourable senators will recall that concurrently with the run-up to the Queensland State election the Premier of Queensland and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory announced a joint feasibility study on a link between Mount Isa and Darwin. The Chief Minister said that Queensland would pay the full amount. What has happened? Where is the inquiry? Where is the railway? Why is the Chief Minister not castigating the Premier of Queensland for not building the railway from Mount Isa to Darwin, which he promised he would do, and which the Chief Minister said would go ahead? Perhaps the Premier's commitment to that project is about the same as his promise of $1 billion worth of rail electrification projects in central Queensland. I regard the sorts of things that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory has done as falling within the lines of being called fraud. They are certainly political manipulations. There is a detrimental impact of his machinations on the people of the Northern Territory. This is exemplified quite clearly by his stand on the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Darwin. Honourable senators will recall that Mr Everingham told the Federal Government that the road did not need upgrading. After he said that, he returned to the Northern Territory and told Territorians that the Federal Government was withholding money for construction work on the Stuart Highway. All the time that he is doing this double dealing, he has $7m of road money sitting in the Territory piggy- bank, which he is using-or misusing-to build an unnecessary bypass road for one of his little projects. I sum up by saying that, of course, we wanted to see the railway built. We worked hard to try to get it. But, unfortunately, rhetoric is not enough. What we must see in this country and what we have not seen for some years is responsible government, and that is what we are looking for. The reviews and the reports have indicated that the railway should not be built. The Government may make a decision not to do so. If it makes that decision, I am sure it will be with sincere regret on my part, on the part of the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) and on the part of the rest of the Government. But let us make sure that we make the point that if the railway is not built it will be because it is not viable, economical, or the best use of the resources of this country. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(4.28) —The matter of public importance which has been raised by the Opposition today in the Senate is set out as follows: The political manoeuvrings of the Government to avoid its election undertaking to construct the Alice Springs to Darwin railway and the consequent denial to Australia of the advantages of the railway. In the present stage of the Australian Labor Party Government's manoeuvrings on this matter, to recant from its election undertaking, we had presented before us only this week in the Senate the report of the Hill Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory. In this first week of sitting , South Australian and Northern Territory representatives are raising a matter which has unified that State and the Territory more than any other issue in recent times. I believe it is the key issue which led to the overwhelming success of the Northern Territory Government. Of course, positive virtues and policies were put by Mr Everingham and the Northern Territory Government in that election. But the people of the Northern Territory were alerted to Mr Everingham and the Country Liberal Party taking up this key development issue for their part of Australia. They overwhelmingly rejected the action of the Hawke Labor Government in its political manoeuvrings to deny its election commitment. In South Australia I do not know of one politician-let them stand up now if they want to deny it-whether from the Liberal Party, the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Democrats or the National Party, who is not in favour of the Government presently committing itself to this project. The Premier of South Australia, Mr Bannon, is on record all through last year and again following the Hill inquiry as saying that this project must proceed. He is leading the Labor Party in lobbying for it. Not one Labor member of the South Australian Government is opposed to what Mr Bannon is doing. Let any member of the Labor Party in the House of Representatives or the Senate deny that they support what Mr Bannon is doing. Even more vocally and, I believe with more credibility, the politicians representing the Liberal Party are outspoken in calling for this project to go ahead. It has unified all sides of politics in South Australia and the Northern Territory. That is perhaps with the exception only of Senator Robertson, though he did say at the beginning of his speech that the decision had yet to be made by the Hawke Government and there was still yet some hope that the Hawke Government-despite the findings of the inquiry it set up and the terms of reference given it-might decide to go ahead with the rail link. Even with the withdrawing, recanting, half-hearted series of excuses by Senator Robertson in his speech he still, in his heart of hearts, wants to see that railway go ahead. Why he does not more forthrightly represent the view of the people of the Northern Territory I do not know. I would be quite happy if the speeches today of Senator Robertson and Senator Kilgariff concerning this issue were circulated to every voter in the Northern Territory so they could make a clear comparison between who is best representing them. I will now note something of the recent history of this matter. The Tarcoola to Alice Springs railway which excited so many people in South Australia and the Northern Territory was begun in 1975 and completed in 1980. At that time the inquiry into the viability of continuing the rail link from Alice Springs to Darwin was also completed and those recommendations were put before the Fraser Government. In 1980 the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, committed the Government to building the Alice Springs to Darwin link by 1990. On 14 January 1983 the same Prime Minister-again typifying the initiatives of the Liberal and National Country Parties-firmly announced that that program would go ahead and that the railway would be completed two years earlier in 1988 at a cost of $545m. It was not a vague promise. It was specific as to scope, timing and cost. In fact, it was so specific that during the election campaign of the next month Mr Morris the then shadow Minister for Transport and now the Minister for Transport said: . . . at the 1980 election, Labor supported the construction of the remaining leg from Alice Springs to Darwin and that support continues. But Senator Robertson said that lo and behold in arriving in office after the election these Ministers found there was a financial problem facing the country. That was despite the fact that on 15 March-after all the facts were known-Mr Morris told the Northern Territory Opposition leader, Bob Collins, that Labor's commitment to the railway was not simply a parochial one for the Territory but a project of national and international significance which the Labor Party would honour. Indeed in April 1983 Mr Morris again assured the Northern Territory Labor leader that preparations for the construction of the Alice Springs-Darwin rail link were proceeding on schedule and that necessary legislation was being drafted and a Budget submission prepared for Cabinet. On 8 April 1983 Mr Morris announced that public meetings would be held at various places in the Northern Territory over the next week at which details of the rail link would be explained. However, around the middle of April we saw the political manoeuvrings of Hawke himself when he interfered with his Minister for Transport in the same way he had interfered with numerous other Ministers of his Government. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, took the initiative that led to the Keating Treasurer statement on 19 May, a month or so later. The first whispers that the project was starting to be in doubt and that it was time for the ALP in the Northern Territory to try to rescue what was looking like going down the chute were heard on 26 April. By 3 May those whispers even reached in a very direct and tangible way the Leader of the Government in the Northern Territory. He saw that everything was up for grabs and immediately a telegram and writing campaign was instituted by the Northern Territory Government. Nevertheless on 19 May in the economic package announced by the Treasurer, Hawke's decision was announced to Australia. Of course that was that this very valuable project would be proceeded with but only on the basis that 60 per cent of the funds would come from the Federal government and 40 per cent from the Northern Territory. That 40 per cent of funds amounted to $216m. That $ 216m is equivalent to an extra tax on every resident in the Northern Territory of $20 a week for 50 years. Does the Government expect the Northern Territory Government to raise $20 from every resident every week for 50 years? Moreover a fraud was involved in the 60 per cent national-40 per cent Territory so-called funding division. Not only was it impossible but also it did not take account of the $200m fiscal claw-back that followed in the economics of the project. The total cost, then estimated at $540m, would have resulted in $220m being paid by the Territory and $320m by the national government. In a number of items in terms of indirect tax on materials, income tax on the 2,000 jobs to be generated every year of the building of the project and through savings in various costs-these items have been carefully analysed by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry South Australia, Inc., and acknowledged by the South Australian Government-it was estimated that there would have been a $200m claw- back to the Federal Government during the expenditure of that $540m. The inquirer, Mr Hill, fundamentally does not question that $540m construction cost. I know that the Northern Territory response to the Hill finding, which is in detail, finds all sorts of anomalies, lack of definition and imprecise methodology exhibited in the Hill report. But those criticisms will stand. Fundamentally Mr Hill in his inquiry did not disagree with an approximate $540m construction cost for the railway. However, he dismissed that claw-back of $200m by saying that although 2,000 jobs each year for every year of construction would be created of course they could be located in some other national project if the railway project did not go ahead. He said that that claw-back would therefore have come in some other way. Let it be taken in either mode, I do not mind. Let us understand the impact upon the Australian economy if such a commitment to this project was made and the claw-back resulted from the Northern Territory railway project. As I said, this was a fraud and the project would have meant that there was a net outlay of only $120m from the Federal Government compared with the $220m being demanded of the Northern Territory by the Hawke Government. It was impossible from the start and the Government knew it. That is what we mean by manoeuvrings. Instead of making a clear-cut decision that that railway would not be proceeded with and an honest answer being given to the people of Australia, there is this manoeuvring. But it did not work. Mr Reeves, the House of Representatives member for the Northern Territory, said in his maiden speech in May 1983 that the rail link was the linchpin for the whole of the Territory's development. It was the most important project for the Territory. He still believes it and so do the great majority of people involved in the Northern Territory and South Australia, as would, I suspect, the majority of Australians generally if they studied the matter. Mr Reeves was not convinced and he continued to make loud noises. South Australian industry, immediately after the Keating statement, said that it would lose $200m in contracts if construction of the line was halted. The breakdown of that amount is clearly set out. The Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd immediately retrenched 1,400 steel workers. It knew that the project was under question, abandoned, and that there was no way it could retain that work force. However in late May the Opposition said that it would confirm its original commitment. Mr Peacock, the then Leader of the National Party of Australia, Mr Anthony, and our spokesman on transport, Mr Lusher, all made clear commitments that a future Liberal-National Party government would honour a commitment to fund the railway. A like commitment was made after the Hill report was brought down. I turn to the South Australian Government. Mr Bannon's response was headlined in the newspapers: 'Now is time to start rail link-Bannon'. There is unanimity on all sides of the Parliament in South Australia. Jack Wright, the Deputy Premier, was the principal speaker at a conference of all parliamentarians convened in mid-August last year. There was not a whisper from any side of politics or from any side of industry in opposition to what I am saying. Even after the Hill report was presented Bannon and Everingham, as recently as the last fortnight, have been working together to overturn the Hawke Government's decision, to stop these political manoeuvrings and to maximise the advantages for Australia that are in the project. The advantages are clear. This side of the Parliament, which has the ability to summon a majority in the Senate, can embarrass this Government any time. I appeal to Ministers to act upon the speeches that have been made here today and, despite the pessimism of the Hill finding, go back to the evidence that was put by the South Australian and Northern Territory governments and Opposition spokesmen, and ensure that this vital national project goes ahead to the advantage of Australia. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(4.44) —It was once said that history was a great teacher. If one listens to Opposition senators speak about railways one realises that they have learnt nothing from history, especially the history of this country. Our railways have never been organised and thought out economically. We have the worst transportation system in the world. For years we have had to put up with what was called politician lines-lines that went anywhere in this country. Never mind whether they were viable; they were put there to please certain constituents. That is no way to organise a transportation system. It is no wonder that our transportation is the dearest in the world. That is what we should be looking at. Is that any wonder when for many years this country was governed by the most inefficient of economic managers? We should reflect on that. It is true that I and many other senators, and many people in this Parliament, want to see a railway line to the Northern Territory. But at times such as this, when we have to have economic restraint, we have to look at whether a project is economically viable. It would be irresponsible of any government not to do this. It would be madness at this time to build a line which has been proved by a thorough investigation by the Hill Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory to be uneconomic. It will be built in the future; we are not saying that it will never be built. However, at the moment we must look at where we can best spend that dollar. We must increase the number of people in the work force and get the economy moving. It would be totally irresponsible at this time to go ahead and spend the amount necessary for this project, which would be $1,000m to the year 2000. I do not think that expenditure is necessary. If we were seriously looking at improving the transportation system in this country we would be building new lines in places other than where they are now. We would look at the economics and at where to build the lines. We should have feeder services into railway lines. We should upgrade and strengthen roads so that road transportation can feed into those areas. At this time we cannot spend huge amounts on uneconomical lines. If construction of an Alice Springs to Darwin railway line has been proved uneconomical it should be deferred. We have to be hard headed about it. As we know, the States built their railway lines on different gauges. Lines were built all over the country to suit political purposes. If we are responsible politicians who have learnt from the past we should be looking seriously at the possibility of building lines which will improve our transportation system, at reducing the cost of transportation. If we do not reduce the cost of transportation in this country we will not be able to compete economically with world trading markets. Building the Alice Springs to Darwin rail link is not the way to do it. It has been estimated by the Hill inquiry that by 1993 only 940,000 tonnes of freight will be carried on that line . It is estimated that to make the line viable it must carry three million tonnes. That is absolutely hopeless. All Australians are paying too much taxation because of ill-conceived projects that have been uneconomical. I am sick and tired of putting up with those sorts of conditions. The Australian people have to foot the bills, but the attitude has been: Do not worry about that. We cannot get money from anyone but the Australian taxpayer. An upgrading of the Stuart Highway is justified. If a railway line would be uneconomical we have to upgrade the Stuart Highway and use road transport. That is the logical thing to do. If in future business in the Northern Territory increases-I hope it does; this Government will do everything within its power to see that it does-I will be the first person here to press for a rail line. It cannot be said that the Fraser Government did a great job. When it built the line from Tarcoola to Alice Springs it used a second-grade, light line. It is a new railway, large sections of which have been built with light line. Trains have to reduce their speed to a little under 70 kilometres an hour. We should be building in this country lines that are capable of carrying trains travelling at over 100 kilometres an hour. That is where we fall down. The Fraser Government saved a little more than $1m on that line by putting in a second-hand light line . It spent $1m on parties, and that is the tragedy of what has been going on. Do not talk to me about economic management; I have seen too much of it. Senator Kilgariff mentioned something about the Snowy Mountains scheme. He never mentioned who brought about the Snowy Mountains scheme. It was Ben Chifley . He said that there was criticism of that, but he did not say that it was Menzies who criticised it. He did not tell this Parliament that Menzies said it was the white elephant scheme. That is what was said. Let it not be said that the Australian Labor Party has not created schemes that have been of great benefit to this nation. We have. The Liberal Party has been very critical of us for doing that at times. The truth is that any scheme has to be economically viable. If it is not it cannot proceed. Alternatives are available to us. We cannot build a railway at the moment, as I see it, because of the Hill report. We have to take notice of professional people. That is what has not happened in the past. I think it is outrageous. We have wasted billions of dollars in this country. We still have a poor transportation system. It is no good operating that way. It is no use State governments saying to Federal governments: 'We want this and we want that'. It is no use isolated towns saying: 'We want a railway to come to our town. Do not worry about the viability of it. Do not worry about the costing of it. Do not worry about what the taxpayers pay'. That is just no good. Yet that is how Federal and State governments have operated in the past. It is just not correct. The Government offered the Northern Territory alternatives, yet no one has said anything about those. The Federal Government offered the Northern Territory Government a choice of 60:40 shared funding of the railway line or an accelerated upgrading of the Stuart Highway together with improved rail facilities in the Alice Springs area. The Northern Territory Government did not take up either of these options. As the situation now stands there will be discussions between the Federal Government, the South Australian Government and the Northern Territory Government. When the defence assessment becomes available -and it is not yet-the Federal Government will resolve its position on future funding for the railway. I think that is a sensible way to go about it. During the war I saw the necessity for a railway from Adelaide to Darwin. I know that it is still necessary. We should be looking at it. It will be looked at. I hope that when the defence assessment is available the result will be beneficial. But the line has to be built on the basis of either economy or the defence needs of this nation. I think that our decision can be justified, at least to the Australian people who have to foot the bill. Governments have to be responsible. It is no use wasting money and carrying on as we have done in the past. The Queensland Government's submission, relative to the construction of a rail link between Alice Springs and Darwin concludes that: . . . the development of the Barkly Highway, together with a rail link between Tennant Creek and Mt Isa, would give benefits to many more Australians. And these benefits could be acquired more economically and efficiently. Development of the Central Corridor will severely disadvantage Queensland unless development of the Eastern Corridor is undertaken at the same time. Without the concurrent development of the Eastern Corridor, Queensland would need to seek compensation for the loss of trade and for the social and economic inequality generated by the preferential treatment given to the Northern Territory by the Commonwealth Government. That has to be taken into consideration. It is no use people saying that a line can be built here and there and not doing their sums correctly. Senator Teague —They have done them. Senator ELSTOB —The honourable senator should read and study correctly the Hill report. I assure him that to say what he has indicates that he has not read the report. That is the truth of it. It is no use attacking the Hill inquiry. Senator Teague —You are attacking the South Australian Government. Senator ELSTOB —I am not attacking the South Australian Government or the Northern Territory Government. That is not my desire. Senator Teague —But they have done their sums on this too. Senator ELSTOB —I assure the honourable senator that the 3m tonnes of freight which are necessary to make this line viable are simply not there. They will not be there by the year 2000. It is no use constructing a line that will forever be a drag on the Australian taxpayer, which is what it would be. There are other efficient ways of going about it. I think that we have to be efficient. We have played politics on it too much. That is the worst aspect of trying to create a reasonable transportation system in this country, which I think should be done. I think that we should be spending money on building railways, but perhaps not in that area if it is not required for defence purposes. We should be spending money on upgrading the whole transportation system. But there are several ways that we can go about doing that. However, it is no use attacking the Hill inquiry. These attacks are totally unwarranted. The inquiry was carried out in a competent and very impartial manner. It was broadly based. Senator Teague —Oh no it was not. Senator ELSTOB —Yes it was. It optimistically estimated all possible benefits to ensure that its results were beyond reproach. Senator Teague —Only one man did it; not a committee. Senator ELSTOB —The inquiry received 110 written submissions. Members of the inquiry travelled the entire route of the proposed railway to ensure that they were thoroughly familiar with the project. It is all in the report. The inquiry was not just a one person thing. It received submissions from all governments. It received 110 submissions. If I remember correctly it took evidence from 19 of those who presented submissions. So a big study was done on this matter. It was not haphazardly done. Mr Hill has made great improvements to the New South Wales rail system. He has improved its viability. That is what we must look at. Politicians do not have the time. I also doubt whether we have the expertise. What else can we do but go to people such as Mr Hill and others to get that understanding and advice? That is what has not been done in the past. That is where we have gone wrong in regard to the railway system in this country. It would have been a great thing if Australia in its very early days had not relied on the six States all going their own way, building their own lines and not thinking of what was good for the nation. I am a South Australian and very proud of it. But I am also a member of Federal Parliament. Senator Messner —You do not care about Queensland. Senator ELSTOB —Yes, I do; it is very important to me. I am an Australian but I have a great responsibility to my State. I will press for that line to go all the way. But as a Federal politician I have an overall responsibility to consider what is best for the whole of this nation. I think that is what we should be thinking about. One should be proud to be a South Australian but also proud to be an Australian. That is what we would be better off doing. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(4.59) —During the debate that has just finished I did not seek leave to table papers entitled 'Overall Appraisal'. I seek leave to do so now. Leave granted. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.00) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.01) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.02) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I draw attention to the importance of this chamber taking notice of steps taken to relocate anything, even something as small and perhaps unobtrusive as a guard box at the rear of Parliament House. I think we ought to show, if something is being done within the parliamentary zone, that we are taking notice of it. Senator Haines —How about child minding facilities? Can we have a few child minding facilities? Senator PETER RAE —Child minding facilities come within provisions different from section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 which, for those who do not remember, is a memorial to former Senator Sir Reginald Wright who battled for quite some years to get that legislation passed. I am sure that there will be an opportunity somewhere else for Senator Haines to talk about child minding facilities. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.04) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I read with interest the resolutions of the thirteenth meeting of the Australian Fisheries Council on 23 September. It was a most progressive meeting. I was aware of most of what had taken place prior to reading the report, but it was good to see the proceedings consolidated and to see how good a meeting it was. It also gives us the opportunity to realise that the fishing industry is not as healthy as it should be and that now, and only now, are we really finding the industry trying to do something about it. It is now better organised and is directing its decisions better towards effecting the changes necessary to rectify some of the problems. Regrettably, the fishing industry has been historically fragmented, not very well represented and seldom listened to. It now seems to be changed, and its attitude to the northern prawn fishery in particular is excellent. What has been done there and what is being endeavoured there are examples not only to other sections of the fishing industry but also to other industries. The industry's attitudes to the southern blue fin tuna fishery are improving. The fishermen and the industry generally have come to realise that unless they are prepared to do somthing about the situation themselves, and unless the various members of the industry agree to what is going on, it will not improve. I turn to the south-eastern trawl fishery. Here again it is my opinion that the fishermen themselves are the people to decide what will be for the best. Regrettably, the south-eastern trawl fishermen, particularly those based in such ports as Eden and Ulladulla, have suffered from the industry's philosophy that, provided they are kept poor and barefoot, there will be no trouble with them. The situation has now gone beyond that and the costs of operating in these areas are now very high. The fishermen there have to work on the fact that they will now require, if they are to survive as a profitable industry, greater professionalism, a greater concentration on quality, improved merchandising and a reduction in the cost of effort. One factor in particular in which I was disappointed was that out of the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account $120,000 was expended for the deficit in the publication of Australian Fisheries. This had previously been a charge against the normal running costs of the Department of Primary Industry and now it is taken out of the fishermen's own account. I draw attention to this particularly because the report states that the Council noted that this had to be done because: (b) without the financial support of FIRTA the continuation of 'Australian Fisheries' was at grave risk as circulation had fallen drastically and advertising revenue was also declining. All that demonstrates is that it was not being read or sufficiently used and was a loss operation; it was not competing with other publications on the open market. It is my opinion that this $120,000 would have done a lot more had it been used for the purpose for which it was originally intended, that is, research. Space might have been bought in one of the alternative publications which had better advertising, better circulation and was privately operated so that this expenditure would not become a drain on the fishermen's account. Had space been bought in other journals, at least $100,000 of this money would have gone to a better purpose. I am very disappointed at what has happened. There have been several discussions about the publication at Estimates committee meetings over the last few years. I have never received satisfactory answers to the questions I have raised. I am very disappointed that this publication is being bunged up with $120,000 of fishermen's money. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.09) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. It is important that we consider our responsibilities under the international law of the sea. It is equally important to look to our responsibilities to the livelihood of Australian fishermen, to conservation and to the reasonable management and exploitation of the resources in the seas around Australia. The various countries with whom we have, or have recently had, agreements are Japan, the Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Thailand. It is important that these agreements are looked after and carried through in the spirit in which they were originally set up. Governments present and past have seen the Australianisation of the 200-mile zone as the most important thing to do, and I am very pleased that this is proceeding. There have been great benefits from these international relationships, and we have been able to get much better knowledge of what actually exists in those waters than we would ever have been able to obtain for ourselves. But having got that information, I must say that I am disappointed that not more Australian fishermen are out there taking advantage of it and assisting in the Australianisation. None of the countries involved-Japan, the Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Thailand-have any objection to seeing this become an Australianised fishery again, but it is difficult to get Australian fishermen to participate in these areas. We need Australian fishermen to take over more of the trawl fishing , the squid fishing and the tuna fishing. In this regard, as it is not happening as well as we would like and appreciating the benefits that would come to us and our current difficulties in some of the other fisheries around Australia, I believe it is imperative that we produce some encouragement and/or inducement that will help the surplus fishermen in other areas to take on a part of the fisheries that have been developed by fishermen of other countries. Fishing is still in quite a mess, and we need to redirect many of the fishermen into these new developing areas. I have made it my business to be familiar with all of these foreign fishing ventures. Regrettably, there is a general lack of understanding of the very fundamental needs of the industry, especially the bi-national industry, with gum -ups that seem to happen too often in the bureaucratic process. I just do not think that enough people in the offices of the Department really have any understanding of the size of the industry with which they are involved, its nature, the money involved, the employment-whether ours or other people's-and the logistics of moving vessels about from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere. There are times when I wonder what they are trying to achieve. The whole point of having agreements is that we ought to be trying to make them work. But some officers seem to get an enormous delight out of trying to make them difficult. A few weeks at sea in one of these small boats, working long hours in difficult conditions, would probably help some of these officers to gain a much more practical approach to an industry of which they do not seem to demonstrate a great understanding. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.12) —I support the remarks made by my colleague from Tasmania, Senator Archer, particularly in relation to the facilitation of the negotiation of agreements with foreign countries on the development and exploitation of our various marine resources where we do not have at the moment either the expertise or the equipment necessary for that. I have the feeling that whilst at times there have been officers who have gone out of their way to be helpful and to expedite matters as far as they could, there have been other instances in which there has seemed to be an enormous amount of bureaucratic inertia to be overcome before things got moving to the degree that they should have moved. The fishing industry is an extremely important part of Australia's future. It is a very underdeveloped part of Australia's future. It is one which will require much goodwill on the part of all those involved to develop, using, as Senator Archer said, the information which can be gained for us by other nations under these agreements and made available to Australians who, I hope, will make a reality of the Australianisation of the exploitation of the 200-mile economic zone. That is not happening at present to the degree that one would have hoped. Obviously, one of the areas of activity will have to be the development of a system whereby, not only through opportunities such as the Australian Maritime College at Launceston but also through the opportunities presented by some of the bigger conglomerates that have now started operating in the fishing industry , there will be highly qualified people able to operate efficiently the much larger and much more expensive equipment which will be necessary for the full utilisation of the economic zone. We are starting to move. I support what has been said about the importance of continuing that movement. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.14) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.15) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. We have just been through a two-hour debate on this matter. I wish to have attached to this report a brief comment. I have had a chance to review Mr Hill's report in some detail. It appears to me and to the Northern Territory Government that the report is an attempt to rebut the case presented by the Northern Territory Government for the construction of the Alice Springs-Darwin rail link. The Northern Territory Government forwarded to the inquiry a very comprehensive submission. It was one which gave a professional assessment of the economic and social effects of the railway and it should be viewed as an authoritative report on the project. It is important to point out that all of the Northern Territory Government's forecasts for the railway were clearly stated and the methodology used to reach these forecasts was also clearly explained. By comparison, the many fundamental assumptions used by Mr Hill in reaching his recommendations are inadequately documented, making it difficult for an independent review of his findings to be undertaken. There are some obvious flaws in his report. In particular, the economic benefits of the rail link have been underestimated, while the economic costs have been overestimated. The report also fails to evaluate properly the social benefits that the rail link would bring to people throughout the Northern Territory. Also underestimated by Mr Hill were the substantial benefits that the link would bring to the railway network throughout Australia. Northern Territory Government studies have found that many traders prefer to use only one mode of freighting goods. Senator Haines, I think, mentioned this point earlier. If they can use rail from the loading point to the final destination, they will do so; if not, they are more likely to use another form of transport. If the rail link were constructed to complete a national rail system, use of rail for freight transport would increase throughout Australia. It seems that the Hill inquiry has been used to free the Government from its election promises. If it had been a serious exercise, there would surely have been-I have said this previously-some form of consultation between the Federal Government, the South Australian Government and the Northern Territory Government. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(5.17) —We have just had a debate on the Alice Springs-Darwin railway, but I want directly to address the report that is before the Senate, the so-called 'Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory'. Senator Elstob placed a great deal upon the word ' independent' and on the fact that the Hawke Government had set up terms of reference for Mr Hill-one man; not a committee-to independently, so-called, evaluate the cases put by the South Australian Government, the Northern Territory Government and business interests in those areas and nationally, with the exclusion of defence matters. The Northern Territory Government and, for that matter, the South Australian Chamber of Commerce in the preparation of their cases, independently sought an economic analysis from the Department of Economics at the University of Queensland. That analysis found, for instance, that 2,000 jobs per year over six years would be generated by the construction phase of the project. However, Mr Hill, another independent inquirer, estimates that 1,000 jobs would be determined. It is scandalous if we receive just the newspaper headlines from such a massive report. We need carefully to compare like with like and to understand the restrictions that this inquirer had from his terms of reference and his methodology. I am not taking to task the particular methodology of Mr Hill. I am saying that for members of this Senate, and especially for Ministers, to evaluate the findings of this inquiry, they need to understand its methodology, its terms of reference, and the scope that Mr Hill chose. He may well be independent; I do not know whether, as my colleague Senator Kilgariff said, he is a friend of Mr Wran and Mr Hawke and was the Chief Executive of the New South Wales State railway system. I am not questioning his independence; I am saying that if we regard this inquiry as the only possible independent inquiry, we are wrong. If we just say that because he is so-called independent and we have to take the bottom line, as did the headlines, we are wrong. Let me give one example. The Hill report gives the direct contruction costs as $450m and estimates, with rolling stock, spare parts and plant and equipment costs, a total of $515m. However, Mr Hill also finds that direct benefits would result from freight line haul savings, passenger cost savings and reduced road maintenance costs, all totalling $142m. So the net capital costs involved would be $373m. That is what Mr Hill found. I am glad that Senator Maguire, a South Australian economist, is listening. Mr Hill found in his report that the net cost for the construction stage would be $373m, not the $1 billion that the newspaper headlines estimated to be the cost between now and the end of the century. We can see further reductions. I ask the Minister to inquire into the proposed $200m fiscal drawback, the reduced unemployment benefits that would be paid out and other items such as those given in the analysis by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry South Australia Inc. If we take that into account, will the net cost of $373m given in the Hill report come back to $173m? It is almost a profit. Senator Grimes —If you keep going along these lines of argument, it will not cost us anything. Senator TEAGUE —As with many investments in Australia today, Senator Grimes, one can outlay money and, because it is a good investment, receive that money back in the profits generated from the activity. I raise these questions and ask the Minister to respond in due course only to enable us to understand the terms on which the Hill report is formulated. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(5.23) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Foreign Investment Review Board report of 1983 is a significant paper. I have certainly spoken on all other reports before this chamber since I have been here. I believe that one of the basic principles of the Australian Labor Party in the age of foreign investment is the maintenance and support for a competitive, non-monopolistic private sector, including small business and farming, controlled and owned by Australians operating with clear social guidelines and objectives. The words 'controlled and owned by Australians' are fundamental to Labor's position on the private sector. Indeed, I feel there is wide support throughout the community for the retention of Australian control and ownership of the Australian economy. I am greatly concerned at the extent to which our industry is foreign controlled and the likelihood that this foreign control will increase further unless preventive action is taken. This report has to be considered against the background of the vastly increasing foreign control that has occurred in the last few years. That increasing foreign domination of the Australian economy by the foreign-based transnational corporations endangers our foreign sovereignty and places our resources, technology and the leading role in determining the future pattern of development under the control of corporations whose interests are not in accord with the best interests of our nation. Furthermore, the international scale and enormous economic power impinge upon the effectiveness of the traditional tools of government and economic management. Indeed, they reduce the authority of the elected government over the national economy. One matter of concern to me is the continuing tendency for foreign investors to acquire existing businesses rather than establishing new businesses. The 1982-83 report shows that out of 944 foreign investment proposals only 43 involve the establishment of new businesses. The other 901 proposals related to acquisitions of existing Australian businesses. I am also disturbed to see that of the 43 new businesses almost half-21-were proposed for the finance and insurance sector. This disturbs me because the finance sector is a strategic sector of our economy . I believe that we should restrict foreign entry into the strategic sectors of the economy. Yet even before the Martin Review of the Australian Financial System has been published it seems as though foreign interests are making a major push into the finance sector of our economy. Another matter of some concern revealed in the report before us relates to the manufacturing sector. Of a total of 187 foreign investment programs in the manufacturing sector, only three involve the establishment of new businesses. At a time when Australia desperately needs new growth in our manufacturing sector only three foreign investment proposals out of an overall total of 944 related to new manufacturing business. I feel that this emphasises the Labor Party platform which is a vital platform when referring to overseas control. We do not object to overseas investment in Australia, but the reference in the Labor Party platform points out that we want that investment only when it introduces beneficial new technology and expertise, increases employment, expands taxable capacity, and otherwise shows itself to be in Australia's national interest. Unfortunately a table in the last report showing foreign investment as a proportion of net private investment expenditure has not been reproduced in this report. Time does not allow me to refer to this any further except to say that I think the figures in the last three reports showed a very significant and alarming situation concerning foreign investment as a proportion of net private investment expenditure. I hope that in the next report we will get a proper detailed analysis of what has happened in this area in the period under review. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.28) —I thank Senator Childs for his contribution to the debate because it enables my contribution to contrast with his and to show where some of the differences of opinion lie. I believe that Australia's future lies very clearly and very strongly in the Western Pacific and in trading with countries in what is the major growth area of the world and likely to be the major growth area of the world for the next decade, two decades or longer. We need to ensure that we can interrelate, but not integrate, our economy with the economies of those countries to the maximum extent to our advantage. I believe that one of the fears is that if an organisation such as the Foreign Investment Review Board adopts an attitude which is restrictive towards the inflow of capital, other countries will follow up with attitudes which are restrictive to the development of trade generally with Australia. I believe that there is no reason why we should be concerned, as Senator Childs suggests we should, about the fact that only a very small percentage of the total number of applications in 1982-83 related to manufacturing. I hope that that percentage will increase. As a matter of fact, as we come out of the recession, if we stop decrying manufacturing industry in Australia, if we stop the continual practice of accusing manufacturing industry of having priced itself out of the market and of being totally incompetent, if we start recognising that there are areas where manufacturing in Australia can be world competitive, others will have more interest in coming and investing and perhaps bringing with them technology and other benefits. I have believed for many years that Australia has the opportunity-I think this is increasing almost daily-to be the finance centre, or at least a major finance centre, for the Western Pacific. But to do that we will need to deregulate. I congratulate the Government on the steps it has taken so far to facilitate that. As time is so limited I can say only briefly that the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial system has made recommendations. The Martin Review of the Australian Financial System has made some further recommendations which are perhaps more in accord with the present Government's policies. I hope that we will be getting some responses to those recommendations in the very near future because the FIRB is very important to the whole question of Australia's prospects of being a finance centre. Finally, I repeat the suggestion I made by letter to the Joint Committee on the New Parliament House, dealing with the future use of this Parliament House when the permanent Parliament House has been constructed; that is, that Australia's great contribution to the Western Pacific could be to make this chamber, in fact the whole of this building, available for the Western Pacific Council, the Pacific Basin Economic Council, the South West Pacific Forum and other bodies, all of which have been developing in recent years and tend to bring together the island nations of the South Pacific, the South West Pacific and a number of other countries from Japan right through the Western Pacific. If this could be done this Parliament House could become the equivalent of the Palace of Europe in Strasbourg as a meeting place, a centre at which people from the various countries involved could meet to produce a more cohesive approach to the development of their region. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to make those brief remarks. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allocated under sessional order for the consideration of government papers having expired, the debate is interrupted. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory I present a report on the parliamentary zone draft development plan. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short statement relating to the report and to make some further remarks. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The report I have just tabled concerns a draft development plan for the parliamentary zone. Last October, the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory along with the Joint Committee on the New Parliament House received a briefing from the National Capital Development Commission on proposals for the future development of the parliamentary zone. Until recently the major planning priority has concentrated on the location, design and servicing of the site of the new Parliament House. This included the road access to the new House, which the Committee has previously reported on. With the finalisation of major planning decisions concerning the Capital Hill area, attention then focused on the remainder of the parliamentary zone. During the briefing by the Commission it was pointed out that the quality of landscaping in the central northern part of the zone was poor. The landscaping had always been a temporary measure until the site for the permanent Parliament House was decided. Consequently it was minimal and poorly defined. The NCDC put before the Committee plans for correcting the deficiencies by creating a more coherent plan for the northern part of the zone-that is, for the area between the present House and the Lake. The design: Reinforces the Burley Griffin land and water axes; provides a framework within which future public buildings can be located; and encourages increased tourist and pedestrian use of the lake edge. The Parliamentary zone is the focal point of the national capital and it should now be developed as such. The completion of the new House and the major design elements of the remainder of the parliamentary zone by 1988 will be a fitting way to mark the bicentenary in the national capital. The designs presented to the Committee are still evolving and the final designs may differ in some aspects. However, to work within a tight timetable and in keeping with good planning practice of allowing comment on planning at an early stage, the Commission has sought an early in-principle approval of the plan. Several elements will require gazettal action and detailed scrutiny at a later date. A major concern of the Committee was the lack of provision in the proposal for consultation with all senators and members or for that matter with the community . Parliament's role in the planning of the parliamentary zone was made clear in the Parliament Act 1974. The Act establishes Parliament's control over major works in the parliamentary zone. Therefore the Committee believes that all members and senators should have an opportunity to examine the proposals in detail and comment on them before final decisions are made. We have requested the NCDC to follow this procedure. Despite its concern about the lack of consultation the Committee believes the development plan to be a good one because: It provides an overall framework within which road proposals, landscape proposals and long-term development can be resolved in a way that will complement the new Parliament House; The plan will complete Griffin's land axis between the new Parliament House and the lake; and The plan is sufficiently in keeping with Burley Griffin's plans given the structure and location of existing buildings and the need for the zone to cope with modern day traffic problems, including tourist and commuter traffic. The 1983 plan provides a much clearer road system and an improved pedestrian environment in the Parliamentary Triangle. In general, the layout is now more suitable for tourists. I strongly recommend that all members and senators read the report and, more importantly, examine the proposals for themselves. Senator REID —I also table the minutes of the proceedings of the Committee. The part of the report to which I refer specifically is made more apt by the remarks Senator Peter Rae made just a short time ago, when he moved that the Senate take note of the paper dealing with a small variation of buildings in the parliamentary zone. Whilst the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory is empowered to scrutinise national capital matters on behalf of the Parliament, we believe that we cannot speak for all honourable members and honourable senators on a matter such as this. We believe that the proposals are of such significance that all honourable members and senators ought to have been advised of them and given the opportunity to comment. We have said that in the report. I recommend the report to honourable senators and honourable members . We approve the proposals for variation which have been put to us, but we believe that, in this area, because of its significance, it is a matter that ought to be brought to the attention of all honourable senators and honourable members. As I said, I welcome the remarks made earlier by Senator Peter Rae endorsing this concept. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —As honourable senators now in the chamber were not here when I last gave some guidance, I will repeat the system under which we will handle General Business. The sessional order provides that one hour is to be set aside for the further consideration of government papers. I have been given an indication that several honourable senators wish to consider papers under this provision. To assist honourable senators in the consideration of these papers I advise that, consistent with the spirit and intention of the sessional order, papers will be considered in the following order: First, the Clerk will call on motions to take note of papers which were debated earlier today, which were postponed for further consideration during General Business. Secondly, I will call for any motions from honourable senators to take note of papers which were tabled during the week-that is, ones for which no motion was moved. When consideration of these papers is completed I will call on General Business as listed on the Senate business sheet. Debate resumed. (Quorum formed) Motion (by Senator Reid)-by leave-agreed to: That consideration of this report be deferred until the Senate has debated the next report. Consideration resumed from 29 February, on motion by Senator Chaney: That the Senate take note of the statement. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.39) —I seek leave to continue my remarks later, Mr Deputy President. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration resumed. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I really think we will have to come to some of the matters which are listed on the presentation of papers sheet because there is nothing else to deal with. Senator Archer-Mr Deputy President, I suggest that we proceed to the presentation of papers as listed for Wednesday, 29 February 1984. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is nothing in the sessional order to cover that. At the moment we are dealing under General Business under sessional order with the papers that were deferred for consideration under General Business. When all those matters have been dealt with, I will give an opportunity to honourable senators to move to take note of any of the papers which were tabled earlier in the week and then we can deal with the matters listed for Wednesday. I really have to move on the sessional order which was approved only yesterday. Debate resumed. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.43) —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That finishes all the business. Senator Peter Rae —It is my understanding that we did not deal with matters No. 13 and No. 14 on the list of papers proposed to be presented on Thursday, 1 March 1984. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That is correct. We have just finished dealing with the matters which specifically relate to General Business today. We have been through all those matters. As I said in the outline I gave, I will now give an opportunity to any honourable senator to move to take note of any papers tabled this week on which no motion to take note of the paper was moved. That would include those two matters in today's papers. By my notes there are two matters left over from Tuesday, all of Wednesday's and such papers on which no motion was moved today of which there are quite a number. Any honourable senator may move to take note of any of those papers. Senator Peter Rae —It is my understanding that under that arrangement there is no particular order so we are not dealing with matters which were left over from Tuesday first, or anything like that. I suggest that the Senate take note of item No. 14 on the list of papers proposed to be presented today. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.45) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Curriculum Development Centre annual report 1981-82, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), outlines the reasons for the delay in tabling the Curriculum Development Centre annual report for 1982-83. The report was considerably late. Concern has been expressed many times in this chamber in relation to reports which are late. I think it is to be welcomed that there is, along with the late tabling, an explanation by the Minister for the reasons for the late tabling of the report. This has meant that honourable senators are not just confronted with something which is out of date but that there is no explanation as to the reasons for the delay. I will talk a little about the Curriculum Development Centre, its future role in Australia, whether it has served a useful purpose, and if it has, which way it might go in the future. In Australia we have a very wide ranging debate amongst people who view the problem of curriculum in the various State education systems as a matter of real concern. They wonder whether we should have a much greater degree of standardisation or whether we should simply have a curriculum development centre which can develop various aspects for study and make the information available to the State and private education systems which can take it up or not take it up as they choose. To many people that is really what the debate has been about. Others believe that this country needs to have far more work done, particularly for its brighter students, those who have the greatest opportunity at school, to develop, within the curriculum, the types of studies which will put Australians at the forefront of technology and technological thought. This brings me to repeat a suggestion which I have made previously. I believe that one of the areas in which we fail badly as communities, not just in Australia but throughout the world, is in relation to what might be called technological economics. It is called this at Stirling University where Professor Bradbury is in charge of the faculty of technological economics. It can be called that as long as one does not get the idea that the subject is simply technology or economics. It is about how the technologist communicates with the economist. How does one bring together the various concepts? How does one develop the newspeak to enable the increasingly complex concepts which are developing in this rapidly changing world to be understood by a person who is in the board room having come up, say, through the accountancy section or the technical section or having never worked in either section of an industry? How does one bring together people who have to try to understand and to assist in the decision making, such as members of parliament, if they cannot understand the terminology and are turned off, as people often tend to be, by jargon? How often have we heard in this chamber criticism of lawyers for being too prone to use jargon whenever they have the opportunity? How often have we heard criticism of medicos and others? These days the economist is probably mentioned more frequently than any other. I think we need to give a lot more thought, at a school level as well as at a tertiary level, to the concept of some intercommunication, some understanding between the various disciplines. It is all very well to stream kids into an arts type humanity stream, science stream, or whatever it may be. One of the main things they need to know is what is the difference and how they communicate between the two. That is one of the areas where the Curriculum Development Centre could perhaps do more than has been done in the past. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to speak on this matter. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Before we go any further, there still seems to be some confusion in the Senate despite what I hoped were lucid explanations of the order in which I was going to take the business. I make it clear we are now considering papers presented on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of this week about which no motion to take note of the paper was moved. Under that category come the following papers: On Tuesday, Nos 7 and 8, on Wednesday Nos 1-4 and 6- 10 and of the papers presented today, Nos 1, 2, 6, 9, 11 and 13. I will accept motions to take note of any of those papers from any honourable senator. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(5.50) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The certificate issued by the Electoral Commissioner on 27 February this year is the first step in the process of redistributing the electorates for the House of Representatives. The new Electoral Commissioner, Dr Hughes, has determined the population of the several States of Australia and has made his determination of the number of electorates to be created for the House of Representatives. He makes it clear that on his calculations eight extra seats will be created in New South Wales, six in Victoria, five in Queensland, two in Western Australia and two in South Australia. That determination follows the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform to increase the size of the House of Representatives. The general effect of that determination is to make the enrolments of the electorates between the various States and Territories more uniform. A redistribution of the House of Representatives is long overdue and should occur anyway, irrespective of any increase in the size of Parliament. For example, in at least one recent Federal election there was a clear lack of correspondence between the number of votes obtained and the number of seats obtained in the House of Representatives by the various parties. For example, in the 1980 elections the conservative coalition parties received 0.2 per cent more than half of the votes but ended up with a majority of 23 seats. That is one example of why a redistribution is necessary. Under the previous set of electoral laws in Australia it was possible to have non-mandatory redistributions of electorates. However, the Fraser Government chose to have no non-mandatory redistributions. There has not been a redistribution of the House of Representatives boundaries since 1977. Consequently, a huge disparity in the enrolments in the various electorates has arisen. The latest figures made available to honourable senators this week for the month of January indicate that the disparity is worst in the Federal divisions in Queensland. The division of Fadden, an outer metropolitan seat, has 106,800 electors, which is 35 per cent above the State average. The rural electorate of Kennedy has 66,000 electors, or 40,000 fewer than the number in the electorate of Fadden and 16 per cent below the State average. So it is clear that in Queensland the Federal boundaries under no circumstances can be construed to indicate that one vote one value applies. We should be fighting for the very important principle in electing our parliament that electors, wherever they live, should have votes of equal value. I hope and believe that that principles will be a central part of further redistributions. The new criteria for redistributions include a provision that over the seven- year maximum interval between redistributions, electorates should have approximately equal numbers of electors; that is, after three years and six months it should be possible to forecast the approximately equal number of voters. That means that the growing areas of Australia which, since the post-war period have been the outer metropolitan areas, should tend to have their initial enrolments set below the averages for their respective States. That is a very important step forward. In the past redistributions have not taken sufficient account of the growth of certain parts of our capital cities. Consequently, within a year or two very large enrolments have resulted in those areas. I mention for example the seats of Kingston and Bonython in South Australia. The redistribution is to be carried out by the Australian Electoral Commission which is reconstituted as an independent body. The determinations of the Commission in respect of redistributions are to be final. There will be no role for parliament in determining the nature or content of redistributions. I think that aspect of independence is a very important step forward at the national level in the drawing of our electoral boundaries. It follows the model set in South Australia, and more recently followed in Victoria, where electoral boundaries have been taken out of the hands of the parliament and put in the hands of independent commissions. Certainly, in South Australia the independent model has worked very well. Both major political parties have been able to win elections under the boundaries drawn by the Electoral Commission in that State. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.55) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. One of the most important reports to come before the Senate for a long time is the Honey Research Committee annual report for 1982-1983. I say that with great sincerity and I also urge honourable senators to read this report because it is typical of this type of report. We must acknowledge that the honey industry, although in itself quite small, is both an industry in itself and an adjunct to many other industries. There is no way that we can do without a very bright and prosperous honey industry. I am impressed by the work carried out by the beekeepers of Australia. I am impressed that the Honey Research Committee works very hard and produces programs year after year on how to improve the industry and the product. I noticed in its 1982-83 program it supported 13 projects for the year and spent $89,668. During 1983-84 it will spend $128,499. I notice in that year its priorities, in order, were: Bee breeding; bee diseases; pollination as a service to horticulture and agriculture; pesticide hazards; bee nutrition; production of honey and hive products; and honey quality. All of those are very important items and demonstrate that it is a grass roots organisation. It considers the things that are fundamental to the industry and fundamental to the way that it fits in with the other areas which are so important, particularly in regard to pollination of seed crops. It is also important that we maintain and support an export industry. It needs to have access to international markets. I find it quite incongruous that on the one hand the Government provides money to support the Research Committee and on the other has produced a Bill to slug the industry for enormous export inspection charges which will more than take back that money . I think it is absolutely crazy. I have had the pleasure of assisting the Tasmanian exporters to form themselves into a Tasmanian honey exporters association. I hope to assist them and their interstate colleagues further in trying to get more help and consideration from the Government in this regard. I commend the industry and the Research Committee. I urge the Government at this stage, before we deal with the legislation, to consider what it is doing to this little industry which is so important to a host of other industries. The apple and pear industry, the small fruits industry, the rape seed industry and the sunflower industry all depend entirely on having an active, enterprising, beekeeping industry. To confront it now with the schedule of charges that is laid down on export honey is quite unreasonable, if we expect it to do so much of what it does more or less for nothing. In many cases the beekeepers cart bees from one end of the country to another to provide a service to other industries for which they get no re- compense. I believe that because of its size and what it does, it deserves a little extra consideration. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) 6.00)-I well recall the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations looking into the proposals for the honey industry export charges. What we found as a result of the inquiry was that in fact the countries which used to require some certification for which an export inspection was made and a certificate issued no longer required such certificates. We were informed by the exporters that they did not need the certificates but that what was happening was that an inspection-which cost money -was being made and a charge made to recover some of that cost, all of which appeared unnecessary. One finds a tendency on the part of the Department of Primary Industry to whisper: 'Oh, well, we will sneak it through another time, sometime when the senators are not watching we will be able to get through some of the things that got knocked back this time'. The matter concerns not just honey but a number of other products. All I say is that if ever I have the chance to be here I wish the Department of Primary Industry to know that I shall endeavour to keep a very good eye on what is proposed and to make sure that some of those that have been put back once will not be slipped through by other methods. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(6.01) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I have followed the activities of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation since its inception in 1966 and I have had quite a lot to do with it. I repeat what I have said before in this chamber: No one single item in the time that I have been concerned with housing, has had such a beneficial effect for people seeking housing in Australia as has the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. I am interested to see that the Corporation has now insured 571,000 loans for total amounts of $13 billion. That makes the Corporation a fairly big business by any standards. It is a great service and it runs alongside some very worthy free enterprise operators with whom I would like to see the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation operating on a fully competitive basis. Of course 1983-84 will be a big year as will 1984-85, largely due to the massive injection of government grants for new home buyers. Make no error, I welcome the stimulus that this is giving to the housing industry and to the people seeking housing in Australia generally. I make a couple of comments however. Firstly, the effect of this injection of funds has been universally, Australia-wide, to increase the price of houses generally by at least the amount of the grant or more. In many places the increases in housing prices as a result of this extra liquidity has meant an increase greater than the amount of the grant. I regret to say it has also encouraged the sale of considerable numbers of houses previously let to people in the lower end of the rental market. Owners of those houses have seen an opportunity to get an artificially high price and have taken the opportunity to cash them in. Regrettably many people who have been tenants most of their lives have had to find alternative accommodation. Also, interest rates have been artificially reduced at present and loans are the highest they have ever been in the history of Australia. The HLIC would confirm that. What will happen when interest rates return to normal and when there is some tightening up in the amount of finance available? How long will the grants scheme last? I am still trying to determine roughly what the backlog in housing is likely to be. I want to know how long it will take to fill it and what will happen when it is filled. Normally when demand is satisfied prices could be expected to come down. I do not want to see or be a party to a monstrous wind-down while we are enjoying what is going on at the moment. I do not think this has yet been mentioned or taken into account by any of the people I have heard discussing the benefits we are currently getting. Also I wonder, with the rise in housing prices that the grants have created, whether we are not going to have to keep the level of inflation high enough to cover any contraction in price that may otherwise occur. I would like to see the Government consider the matters that I have raised. I would like to see the Government put down a paper demonstrating how long it sees the current scheme lasting and how it proposes to bring the scheme back to a level of what will be the run-on figure in the years to come. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(6.07) —I also wish to address some remarks to the 1982-83 annual report of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. The function of the Corporation is to insure the repayment of loans made by lending institutions. The Corporation insures them against default on loans made for owner-occupied housing. It must be made clear that the insurance is not in respect of the asset itself but rather the loan in respect of the asset. By making that insurance possible the Corporation assists home ownership in Australia because it gives lending institutions more confidence in the repayment ability of those receiving loans. It effectively lifts the security of the loans . Specifically the Corporation helps home ownership by boosting loans in relation to property valuations. That is a very important matter. Lenders can then provide more of the actual value of the property as a loan cutting the so-called deposit gap which in recent years in Australia has been a key obstacle to home ownership. Indeed the deposit gap is very much addressed by the present Government's first home buyer's scheme which involves making the grants to couples to purchase homes. In that way it removes the cash down payment or the deposit gap required. At the moment the Corporation has under insurance some 18,600 loans-a large number of loans. It is interesting to note that most of those loans have in fact been made available by building societies rather than by other lending institutions such as savings banks and finance companies. It is very important to note that the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation is a self-financing statutory authority. It operates on a full commercial basis. In servicing its capital it pays a greater return on that capital to the Government as well as paying all State and Commonwealth taxes to which it is subject. Since the Corporation was established in 1965 it has made a profit in every year. The Commonwealth's only role in respect of the Corporation in recent years has been to guarantee its funds. It is striking that since 1978 there have been no increases in the premiums charged by the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. This is a tremendous achievement given the rate of inflation and the increase in price levels in this country since 1978. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation is the largest insurer of residential loans in Australia. It now accounts for some 60 per cent of the resident loans market. It is very pleasing indeed to see a statutory corporation as the market leader in a particular industry. That is a very welcome development. The Corporation itself makes a very big impact on the housing market. In 1982-83 a record operating profit of $8.2m was earned. The Corporation paid income tax into the Commonwealth Budget totalling $3.5m and paid a dividend to the Government in November 1983 of $2.3m. The Corporation is a commercially viable organisation paying a rate of return on its capital and paying taxes to Commonwealth and State governments. I found that one of the disturbing features of this report was the sharp increase in the number of housing loans arrears cases of housing loans in Australia in 1982-83. For example, in Queensland there were 30 per cent more arrears cases than there were the previous year. New South Wales had a 36 per cent increase, and the number of properties in the possession of mortgagees doubled in that one year indicating some of the problems in the economy at the moment-depressed property values, higher unemployment, people's fear of unemployment and their concern about their ability to repay housing loans. I am very pleased that the present Government has repudiated the so-called razor gang re- commendations of April 1981 that the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation be sold. I am also very pleased that in addition during 1983 the Government conferred increased functions on the Corporation to allow it to now insure some loans for commercial properties. That is a great step forward. It is a profitable, public authority and it should be supported by all members of Parliament. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator JONES(Queensland)(6.11) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. One must congratulate the Aboriginal Development Commission on the contents of its 1982-83 annual report and the way in which it has outlined the organisation' s land acquisition, housing grants and a number of activities that the Commission has engaged in during that period. In the short time available to me the points that I wish to make are in relation to land acquisition by the Commission. It is worth while noting that on page 16 of the report, under the heading 'Consideration of land proposals', details of those proposals, as outlined by the Commission, are set out. While time does not allow me to read into the Hansard record all of the details outlined by the Commission I think it is important that one or two of the items listed on land proposals be read out. Some of the important points outlined by the Commission are: . . . the needs of the community or group concerned and the importance of land in relation to its long-term development; the economic and social viability of the proposed land acquisition; the number of people who will benefit directly and indirectly . . . by any acquisition of land. It goes without saying that it is very important to the Aboriginal people that they acquire land. It certainly gives them some base on which to build their community and to get recognition from the rest of the community in relation to the role that they will play in the community where they hold that land. I find it very interesting to look through the report at the number of properties that have been acquired by the Commission on behalf of the Aboriginal people. Without dealing with the Northern Territory, Western Australia and some of the other States, I believe it is fairly important that I should make some comment in relation to the Commission gaining Delta Downs pastoral lease at Normanton in north Queensland. That is a fairly significant acquisition of land because this is the first time that the Aboriginal Commission has been able to acquire a pastoral leasehold in Queensland. This has allowed the Aboriginal Land Commission to acquire a pastoral lease that will allow the Aboriginal people to demonstrate to the rest of the community firstly that they can produce a viable proposition in relation to the breeding of cattle and, secondly, that they are able to produce from that property revenue for the Aboriginal people who will be able to use that property as a base for settlement . This will demonstrate that they have some belonging in the area. Not only will the acquiring of the lease and the development of the cattle property give them that sense of belonging but it will also give them a base which will allow them to acquire a number of sacred sites that are contained within the lease. The report states: In December 1982, the Commission acquired all shares in Delta Downs Pastoral Company and thereby the pastoral lease. The acquisition finally provides the Kurtjar people of Normanton with a land base which is enabling them to maintain protection of sacred sites and to operate a viable cattle enterprise. The pastoral lease is well developed and could generate substantial income. It has nine dams, a number of additional waterholes and a herd of between 16,000 and 22 ,000 cattle. This allows the Kurtjar people to demonstrate to the people of Queensland that they have the ability to manage and run this property and that they can give to the Aboriginal people a reasonable financial return during the time they run it. The other interesting point I would like to make is that it is unique that the Aboriginal people gained this pastoral lease in Queensland because for years the Queensland Government has frustrated any attempts by the Aboriginal people to transfer leases to their Commission or to themselves. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(6.17) —During the discussion on the Aboriginal Development Commission annual report 1982-83 I want to raise a couple of matters which relate to my State of Western Australia. Perhaps the most significant of the purchases that have been made by the Aboriginal Development Commission this year is the Carson River Station which honourable senators might recall was next to the Kalumburu mission which was controlled by the Benedictine Order about which I have spoken on a number of occasions in the Parliament. There was, of course, great reluctance on the part of some members of the Benedictine Order to enter into any discussions with regard to the Carson River pastoral lease. It is interesting to note that it has now been acquired for the Kalumburu community under a leasehold which is jointly held by the Western Australian Aboriginal Lands Trust and the ADC. The original intention was that the Western Australian Aboriginal Lands Trust should be the sole leaseholder. That was a stipulation by the former Government of Western Australia and I believe that that would not have been in the best interests of the Kalumburu community. The property has the potential to carry 20 ,000 cattle and given the enthusiasm of members of the Kalumburu community I am sure that they will make a success of it. It is part and parcel of the self- sufficiency syndrome that is being developed in the Aboriginal community and I think that is of great benefit to the majority of them. I read, I think in Tuesday's West Australian, that yet another property has been acquired by the ADC, the Aboriginal Lands Trust and one other organisation in Western Australia for the Bow River pastoral lease which will also be of great benefit. It is not possible to discuss Aboriginal affairs in Western Australia without raising the situation which obtained at Noonkanbah some years ago. I am sure that I do not need to remind honourable senators of the dramatic effect that decisions of the former State government had on the community at Noonkanbah. I briefly remind honourable senators that this was a station where the State Government determined that a mining company would be allowed to go ahead. After great confrontation with both black and white communities a drilling rig was eventually put through to Noonkanbah. A great deal of distress was caused and the community found itself in an extremely fragile situation. In fact I did not visit Noonkanbah for some 12 months after that because I knew that the people there were quite shattered by the whole experience. It is interesting to note that now drilling at Noonkanbah is going ahead with the agreement of the Noonkanbah community. It is going ahead where the Noonkanbah community first determined that it should so that its sacred sites were protected and so that there was no need for the members of the organisation who were to do the drilling to have any access to the community if that was the community's decision. I always think that it is interesting that that could have happened before. If there had been more co-operation and perhaps conciliation-'conciliation' being one of the in words at the moment-the situation that developed at Noonkanbah during 1979-80 may never have been necessary and perhaps should never have taken place. But it is interesting that the people there do, in fact, now control that land by virtue of its purchase by the Aboriginal Development Commission and the Western Australian Aboriginal Lands Trust. I think it is incumbent on me- especially as I was the one who raised the matter originally in the Senate-to say to the people at Noonkanbah and at Cooanana station on the Carson River that there is a genuine feeling in the Senate chamber that this is perhaps the greatest opportunity for Aboriginal people to establish that they are quite capable of accepting pastoral leases and making their own communities very secure and eventually self-sufficient. They will require the assistance of both State and Federal governments. I would like to think that that will be forthcoming in the foreseeable future but will not be necessary for eternity. Question resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 6.24 to 8 p.m. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.00) —On behalf of Senator Messner, and at his request, I move: That the Senate notes that- (a) the introduction of Medicare will cause an artificial reduction in the Consumer Price Index; and (b) this will adversely affect the millions of pensioners and beneficiaries whose income is linked to the Consumer Price Index; and condemns the Government for its failure to recognise this fact and to take remedial action. In considering this matter we should look at what was promised to the pensioners during the last election campaign. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said unequivocally at the time that he would not be touching the pensioners' pay packets. You will remember, Mr President, that there was considerable debate about this aspect of the election campaign because the previous Prime Minister, as has been proved right, said that pensioners would be better off with their savings under their beds. Let us look at what Mr Hawke promised. We were told not only by Mr Hawke but also by Dr Blewett that pensioners would not be any worse off under Medicare, that they would still have their health cards and would be in exactly the same position as they were under the previous Government . However, that is far from the fact. Because of Medicare this Government has said to the people of Australia: 'You no longer have the right to insure yourself. Therefore, we will stop you taking money out of one pocket to pay your contributions to your private health fund but we will take it from you in tax. We will still be taking the money from you but it will be out of the other pocket so that it will not add to the consumer price index'. Indeed, it will lower the CPI. It will not stop payment of money by the general public; it will just be paid in a different fashion. As a result, the consumer price index will go down by 2.6 per cent. We know that the consumer price index takes into account money paid by individuals for health insurance along with many other costs but it does not take into account taxation. Because of that, the consumer price index will go down by 2.6 per cent even though the cost of goods and services will rise with inflation. How does this affect the pensioners? It is very obvious. When we were in government we brought in automatic rises in pensions in line with the rises in the consumer price index. Twice a year the consumer price index rises and pensions went up as a result. Now they will not go up by the full amount of the inflation rate, the rate by which the price of normal goods rises. The consumer price index will be reduced artificially by 2.6 per cent. I do not think anybody on the Government benches will claim that it is anything but an artificial reduction in the consumer price index. But the pensioners will still pay the increases in their food prices, in their rents and in everything else on which the consumer price index relies. They will not get relief from the costs of Medicare. They don't have to pay for that but as a result of the lowering of the CPI a married couple will be denied $3.90. Senator Grimes —When? Senator WALTERS —When the consumer price index no longer takes account of that 2 .6 per cent. Mr Hawke assured the Tasmanian people on a talk-back program recently in Hobart that the pensioners would not get this 2.6 per cent pension increase. He tried to convince the population of Hobart that that really would not matter because the reduction in the consumer price index would eventually flow through and result in cheaper goods. What do the pensioners do in the meantime? I do not think even Senator Grimes would suggest that the 2.6 per cent reduction in the consumer price index is not an artificial reduction. Senator Grimes —I am not suggesting that it is. Senator WALTERS —Senator Grimes said no. It is admitted. But a pensioner married couple losing out on $3.90 will still have to pay higher prices for their goods. Mr Hawke promised that he would not disadvantage pensioners and the beneficiaries who also get that automatic increase. Indeed, unemployed people and low income earners will also be disadvantaged by that artificial reduction in the consumer price index because they will lose out on the increase in their benefits or wages. I wonder what the unions will say about that. I wonder whether Norm Gallagher will let the Government get away with it. I wonder whether, when the time comes, Norm Gallagher will say: 'It is an artificial 2.6 per cent reduction but we builders labourers will take the cut'. I will be very interested to see what happens. I wonder what the other unions will say and what the Australian Council of Trade Unions will say. Indeed, I wonder what the pensioners will be saying. I also wonder whether Mr Hawke will say: 'Oh dear, I am sorry. We have made another mistake. But then we did say to the country that we would make mistakes. But I am big enough to stand up and tell you that I have made a dreadful mistake, or at least my Minister has made a dreadful mistake'-as he did on the assets test. Senator Grimes —He didn't say that at all. Senator WALTERS —He did say 'We have made a mistake'. Senator Grimes —No. Senator WALTERS —Senator Grimes said no. He said at the National Press Club luncheon: 'We made a mistake. I told you of course that we would make mistakes and we have done so, but to err is human'. It is no use Senator Grimes saying that was not said because it floated across the airwaves of every station in Australia. People know that Mr Hawke said that it was a mistake. The people know that he bared his soul and said: 'We are human. I told you we would make a mistake and we have. The assets test was a mistake'. Senator Missen —That is the only promise he has kept. Senator WALTERS —That and the dam are the only two promises he has kept, but I had better not mention the dam in the presence of Senator Missen. Let us look at the other promises that Mr Hawke made to pensioners and those that he has already broken. He said very clearly in March that he would not be touching the pensioners' cheques. What happened as soon as he got into power? He immediately said: 'We will enforce a strict means test on the over-70 pensioners.' As you will be aware, Mr President, pensioners who are over 70 have worked very hard to make Australia what it is today. All those over-70s who were getting a paltry $ 51 because they were over the income test limit had worked very hard. When they were younger and were saving, their motto was: 'We will put away for a rainy day ; we will look after ourselves'. Indeed there was nothing for which they could put out their hand. They were forced to look after themselves. As you, Mr President, would know, because you are roughly the same age as I am, the idea in those days was to put money away for a rainy day. That was the general philosophy of those who are now over 70. These people had looked after themselves, so when we were in government we said: 'We will abolish the means test for those people over 70' and give a small amount, $51, to those whose income is over the means test. Senator Grimes —Who abolished the means test? Senator WALTERS —It was originally Mr Whitlam who abolished it, and it was continued by our Government. Senator Grimes —Who introduced the new one? I thought that it was your Government. Senator WALTERS —It was abolished by the present Government. Senator Grimes —I thought that your Government introduced the means test. Senator WALTERS —I went around campaigning shortly after the Government abolished it. As I went around, the general consensus amongst this group of pensioners was: 'But why would they do it to us at this age?' It seemed to them that a rather sensible thing to do would be to have said: 'Any pensioner turning 70 from now on will be fully means tested, but we will allow those pensioners who have already organised their finances, to keep that $51. From now on anyone turning 70 will no longer get the $51'. But, no, that was not to be. Many of the pensioners to whom I spoke said: 'But my son has organised my finances. I am in the sort of accommodation that I can now afford, but with that money taken from me by the Government it means that I shall have to change my accommodation'. At their time of life, that is a cruel way of going about matters. As I have said, we have Mr Hawke's promises being broken many times. Another area of the pensioners promises broken category is the superannuation promise. That affects many pensioners. Many pensioners relying on superannuation and on getting lump sums believed Mr Hawke when he said that he would not touch them. They believed, a week before the election and immediately after it, that he would not be touching the lump sum payments. Because that man promised it, many of them voted for him. They have learnt to their sorrow that a promise by Mr Hawke really does not mean anything. Not only did they find that their lump sums were taxed, but those who were over 70 also found that their money was taken from them. I just wonder what those pensioners are now thinking. I often wonder what Mr Hawke thinks of himself as he lies in his bed at night as regards these elderly people, because there is tremendous concern in the community. Many elderly people have no idea where the Labor Government will hit them next. They have worried since August about the assets test that was introduced. Indeed , Senator Grimes had assured them, in terms of one syllable, that it would definitely be introduced. Many of them have altered their finances in anticipation of that. One pensioner came to me about this matter. Her only assets had been some shares. She did not even own a house. Before she came to see me she had sold the shares and decided to buy furniture because she had heard that Senator Grimes had said: 'You can have furniture'. She invested in furniture so that she could leave something to her children. I told her that that action was a bit premature, but she had already done that on the say-so of Senator Grimes. She had already said to herself 'Senator Grimes said that I cannot have that sort of money in shares but I can invest it in furniture', and she had sold her shares. What will the Government do about re-compensing such elderly people? They are people who, as I am sure everyone in this chamber will admit, are very concerned about their finances when they are in their 70s and 80s. For them to be misled by the Government into the sort of shenanigans that the assets test involved was an absolute crime. Senator Robert Ray —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I realise that there may be some relationship between the consumer price index, Medicare and the assets test, but Senator Walters is going on at great length about an issue that is not related to the motion. Senator Chipp —Why don't you give her a fair go. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —There is no point of order. Senator WALTERS —I thank Senator Chipp for his great concern in protecting me. Many other honourable senators want to talk on the motion. Senator Haines is anxious to speak. I believe that I have made the points of particular concern to pensioners. I am sure that we shall find that Mr Hawke will admit another dreadful mistake. I hope that he gives the extra $3.90 to the pensioners, to the unemployed, to the low incomes earners. I am not so worried about Norm Gallagher , but if Mr Hawke gives it to the groups who are not able to pressure him as Norm Gallagher is pressuring him, I shall be very pleased. I shall be interested to see whether Mr Hawke succumbs to the pressure that the pensioners are and will be applying to him. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(8.18) —As this debate is allegedly on the effect on pensioners of the relationship between the introduction of Medicare and the consumer price index, I shall do my utmost to keep my comments to that issue. On 24 May 1983, I asked a question of the Minister for Social Security ( Senator Grimes) as follows: Is it a fact that the cost of basic health insurance is at present a component of the consumer price index? Is it correct that, in the event of Medicare coming into operation, this component will be removed, thereby reducing the CPI by several percentage points? If this is the case, can the Minister say what effect this is likely to have on increases in pensions since they are adjusted twice a year according to the CPI? The Minister responded as follows: Yes, it is my understanding that, with the way the CPI is at present calculated , the introduction of the Medicare scheme or a universal health insurance scheme will in fact result in a reduction in the level of the CPI as it is calculated now. This, of course, will affect increases in pensions as they are calculated now under the automatic indexation scheme. But as the honourable senator would know, the present Government takes as its parameter for the level of pensions a percentage of average weekly earnings. We intend, over the whole period of this Government if economic conditions allow as I am sure they will, to increase pensions as a percentage of average weekly earnings. If by increasing pensions in line with CPI increases we do not reach that parameter, we will adjust pensions so that the situation is dealt with in that way. It took Senator Messner and the Liberal Party something like 7 1/2 months to work out that there would be a problem for pensioners because of the odd, and not to say shonky, way in which the consumer price index is calculated. That is, money expended on health insurance straight from one's pocket or cheque book to a private health insurance fund is incorporated as part of the CPI. When the Government takes the health insurance contribution out of the taxpayer by a tax levy, it is not incorporated as part of the CPI. Nevertheless, that information slowly seeped through to Senator Messner and at some time in December last year or January of this year he must have put out a Press release because that prompted the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) to issue a news release on 4 January 1984 stating: Dr Blewett acknowledged that Medicare will have a substantial downward effect on the CPI in the March 1984 quarter, but said pensioners should not be alarmed. 'The Government is well aware of the potential implications of this for the November 1984 pension increase and will be looking at ways of addressing this in the Budget context. 'I am confident that appropriate measures will be taken. There is certainly no alteration to this Government's promise to improve pensioners' living standards through its commitment to raise the basic rate of pension to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings over a three year period. I just wonder when we will see the first stage of that. Senator Grimes's answer to my question went on at some length and finished with this statement: I believe and I always have believed it to be wrong to fix pensions just by CPI increases because CPI increases vary with the state of the economy and the level of productivity in the community. I think we have to fix a parameter, be it average weekly earnings or some other parameter, so that the true level of pensions relates to some recognisable and true value of the wages of other people in the community. For that reason we will watch the situation. That is all very commendable, but one is forced to ask, some eight months later: 'What have you done about it?'. It is almost a year now since this Government took office. Presumably, although it is by no means certain, it knew what its policy plans were, what its timetable was, what sort of legislation it was planning to introduce, what effect it would have on the community and what the interconnection was between those pieces of legislation. Assuming the Government knew this and assuming that some unilateral decision was not made by a Prime Minister who specialises in unilateral decisions to upset all of that, one is forced to wonder why this area about which the Minister for Social Security was talking on 24 May last year has not been covered. Why is it that the only legislative action directed at pensioners by this Government has been a proposal regarding a punitive assets and income test Bill? I have no intention of speaking about that Bill at the moment. The Medicare levy was introduced on 1 February 1984. As was indicated in Dr Blewett's news release, it will not affect pensions in the first half of this year. It will not-although Senator Walters seemed to imply that it would; I am not sure that she did it deliberately-affect the indexed social security increases in May because they are based on price movements from June last year to December last year. It will, however, affect the November social security increases, as Dr Blewett said, since this will be based on the CPI increases from December 1983 to June 1984. These, of course, are the ones that have been artificially deflated by the effect on the CPI of the introduction of Medicare. The estimated underlying rate of inflation for the period from January this year to June this year is estimated to be in the vicinity of 4.125 per cent. I pause to ponder on the fact that a figure taken to three decimal places can be an estimate. The introduction of Medicare will deflate this figure by 2.7 percentage points. Hence the CPI increase over this period will be 1.4 per cent despite an underlying rate of inflation of over 2.5 per cent higher and pensions , therefore, will increase by 4.1 per cent. Without the Medicare effect on the CPI the basic pension rate in November 1984 is estimated to be $93.13. Using the actual CPI figure this amount will be reduced to $90.71, so anyone on a full pension will lose, through the impact of Medicare on the CPI over that last half of the year, in the vicinity of $2.42. Senator Chipp —Unless compensating action is taken by the Government. Senator HAINES —Indeed, unless compensating action is taken, but we have not had any hint of that yet and therefore we are forced simply to look at the situation as it appears it will be in the latter half of this year. What is worse is that by creating an artificially lower base for future CPI adjustments, unless some other action is taken, the effect of the shortcoming will be continued in the future as a sort of punitive cumulative effect as the lower CPI percentage continues to operate at a lowered amount from the previous quarter. Nobody will be able to catch up at all. Dr Blewett and Senator Grimes maintain that the problem will be solved by moving pensions towards 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. I made the point earlier that I do not deny that this is a commendable aim. In fact, I hope the Government fulfils its promise. However, we may well be faced with an early election this year at around the time when the pension is first affected by the CPI level. We will simply go into an election with yet another promise from this Government that it will increase pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. It is a wonderful timetable. Senator Grimes —We will have a Budget this year. That is when pensions go up. Senator HAINES —I see. Well, I will not hold my breath waiting, but will be delighted if there is something in the Budget to indicate that at least this election promise has not been unilaterally rejected by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in order to push up his ratings from 73 per cent to 75 per cent or some other astromonical figure. Even if that happens, though, it will not be an immediate solution to the problem. I think the Government is aware of this. Whereas Senator Grimes and Dr Blewett talk as if they want to increase the incomes of social security recipients, the effect of Medicare on the CPI must be the opposite. There is no question about it. Social security recipients represent a large proportion of low income units in Australia. As a result of the action of the Government slightly fewer than 2,500,000 people will be worse off. Those low income people will be asked to pay prices in accordance with the real rate of inflation whereas their income will be understated by the application of a bogus rate of inflation to their pensions. One point outside the motion put by Senator Walters, either on behalf of or in disguise as Senator Messner, which will affect pensions and will come as a result of the introduction of Medicare is the real problem facing pensioners and other traditional users of the public hospital system such as the unemployed and other social security beneficiaries, with the Government's insistence on the use of public hospitals in preference to the use of any private hospital care under the basic system. Contrary to every other piece of social security legislation or policy proposal put forward by the Australian Labor Party, the use of public hospitals is allowed and indeed encouraged with no reference to the means of the patient to pay. Dr Blewett put out a Press release at some stage last year giving an estimate of the shift from private beds in public hospitals to public beds in public hospitals. The release states in part: Estimate of shift is based on figures provided by the States. The estimated shift is equal to 16 per cent of private bed days in 1982-83 or 6.6 per cent of all public hospital days. The resulting proportion of 'hospital' patient days is estimated at 66 per cent on average, which is 5.2 percentage points higher than in 1975-76 and 11.0 percentage points higher than in 1980-81, the last year in which free treatment was available without restriction. On past evidence, the allowance for shift is considered to be the maximum likely change. In other words, something like 6 1/2 per cent of pensioners are likely to be deprived of getting a public hospital bed when they want one because there is neither a means test nor any other incentive for non-pensioners to use other than public hospital facilities. A number of pensioner groups wrote to me early last year urging the Australian Democrats not to do anything to upset the Medicare apple cart. When I wrote back pointing out to them that it was not the solution to all their problems and that it would have one or two adverse effects on pensioners, this did not seem in any way to deter their enthusiasm for the scheme. Notwithstanding the fact that they could not see all this, it will seriously disadvantage the elderly, the unemployed, those on the supporting parents benefit and others with low incomes. I believe it is a pity that the Minister for Health's paranoia regarding private practice, both medical and hospital, should lead him to so blatantly sacrifice an already disadvantaged sector of the community. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(8.32) —The Senate is debating the motion moved by Senator Messner in the following terms: That the Senate notes that- (a) the introduction of Medicare will cause and artifical reduction in the Consumer Price Index; and (b) this will adversely effect the millions of pensioners and beneficiaries whose income is linked to the Consumer Price Index; and condemns the Government for its failure to recognise this fact and to take remedial action. The facts are as stated in the motion. The Fraser Government made arrangements for the regular half-yearly indexation of pensions. That arrangement was to reflect the upwards movement of prices to accommodate pensioners' incomes. It was never envisaged that, by some device that altered the market basket of ingredients in the consumer price index, inflation would go up but the consumer price index would not fully register it. The CPI is an index established by an independent body with an arbitary set of ingredients. It has a quaint ingredient that I have always felt is wrong; it takes account of indirect taxes but does not take account of direct taxes. Although direct taxes cost the taxpayer or the pensioner just as much as indirect taxes, nevertheless, the indirect tax is measured in the CPI and the direct tax is not. What has happened is that the partial cost of medical care has been transferred from indirect taxation, that is, payment from the pocket of the taxpayer, into a direct tax levy. The cost to the ordinary Medicare patient-I do not mean pensioners as they do not pay those costs and never have-is the same. The cost, in terms of the direct levy, is not registered in the CPI. We have a situation in which although costs have gone up there is an artificial deflation and freezing of the CPI. There will be a partial wage and pension freeze; that is the simple situation. Although all wage earners will pay more in terms of inflation, as if it had in it the 2.6 per cent or 2.7 per cent, nevertheless, their incomes will be deflated to the extent of the reduction in the CPI. It is not good enough for us to learn that, sometime in November, there may be some kind of device that may lift things up. I listened with interest to the suggestion that, over three years, the Government will move pensions to some 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The Government did not say in its policy speech that it would deflate average weekly earnings. But that is what it will do. In order to get over this jam that it is in there will be some kind of increase in November which the Government will suggest is a movement of the pension towards 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. It will be nothing of the sort! The average weekly wage will be lower than if the full CPI operated. What we are seeing is a confidence trick. There will be some lift all right. Senator Grimes —How is AWE connected with CPI? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The Minister has asked me a question. I will explain the matter to him as he needs elucidation. As I understand it, the Government said in its policy speech that, over three years, it will increase the pension to represent 25 per cent of the average weekly wage. Wages in this country move upwards in terms of the CPI. If the CPI deflates the wage the average weekly wage is deflated. Senator Grimes —I used to hear you say you wanted wages down all the time. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —For the last year the Minister for Social Security ( Senator Grimes) has been a born loser in these things. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said that he has made a mistake in the policies he has brought forward-make no mistake about that. What the Prime Minister said is not what the Minister said today. The Prime Minister said that it was not a reaction by him to the obstruction by the Senate. It was the Prime Minister's realisation that there were inherent defects in the policy. That is in the transcripts of what the Prime Minister has said, not what the Minister has said. We are seeing another confidence trick; we see it quite clearly. The Government is moving towards saying: 'It is true that you did not get your full increase according to the CPI but we will move you closer to the average weekly wage'. There is a chance for the Government to do that. The Government said that it would make this move over three years. That means that each year there would be a lift. A year has come and gone and there has been no such lift. One presumes that we will have a March supplementary mini-Budget in which the Government will introduce pension increases. I take it that the Government's policy speech means what it says. After all, the policy speech stated that there would not be any changes in the structure of pensions, there would be no assets test, there would be no attack on the 70 years of age limit. It said those things. The policy speech also stated that, over the three years, pensions would be moved steadily to reach 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Nothing has happened. The simple fact of the matter is that pensioners will receive less money than they should have to meet the rise in costs. Nothing that anyone says can gainsay that . If a sweetener is put into the Budget to apply from November, mark my words, that sweetener will be represented to be something that closes the gap with the average weekly wage. It will not be true. Although the Hawke Government has said that it opposes wage freezes and partial wage freezes, before the last election it fervently opposed any kind of wage freeze, six months or otherwise. With the introduction of Medicare we will have a partial wage and pension freeze. What is stated in the motion is true. The introduction of Medicare will cause an artificial reduction in the CPI. That is beyond doubt. Clearly this will adversely affect the millions of pensioners and beneficiaries whose incomes are linked to the consumer price index. This idea that the Prime Minister is pedalling that somehow or other if he can pull out a CPI figure that is lower than the reality of prices outside it will, in the long run, reduce inflation in Australia must be one of the rushes of blood to the head. If that is so, if we can cure inflation by artifically deflating the CPI, why not fix it at 4 per cent tomorrow and be in common with the Organisations for Economic Co-operation and Development countries? After all, here is a simple formula. How can this be? The fact of the matter is that the world can observe at this moment the pressure on the prices and incomes accord. The only thing that has been going for the prices and incomes accord this year has been the wages freeze brought in by the Fraser Government. Nothing else has been going for it. Indeed, as the year goes by we will see rising unemployment, we will see that reflected in the coming figures, we will see higher interest rates later this year. They will all press the M3, which was to have been 11 per cent or 12 per cent and has been admitted to be at 14 per cent. Pressures on costs are everywhere. Industrialist after industrialist is saying that the recovery that has been foreshadowed will not happen. Investment in manufacturing is declining and the pressures that are there of a further recession will cram upon those who can least afford it. I commend the motion. It is true that Medicare will cause an artificial reduction in the CPI. It is true this will adversely affect millions of pensions and beneficiaries. Therefore, this Senate should, and will I am sure, condemn the Government for its failure to recognise the fact and to take remedial action . Senator Messner —Mr Acting Deputy President- Senator Grimes —I think the situation is that the motion was to be moved by Senator Messner and was moved by Senator Walters on his behalf. I would have thought that if Senator Messner speaks he is closing the debate. Senator Messner —I am excluded from speaking? The Minister will not allow the shadow Minister to speak on the matter? Senator Grimes —The honourable senator can close the debate. The Opposition has had three speakers on that side of the House. Is it not about time we had someone on this side? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The Minister is entitled to the call. He is not closing the debate. Senator Grimes —I am not closing the debate; Senator Messner will close the debate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I call the Minister. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania) —Minister for Social Security) (8.45)-I do not wish to keep the Senate long. The motion we are debating tonight reads: (a) the introduction of Medicare will cause an artificial reduction in the Consumer Price Index . . . Of course that is right and it is right as it affects pensioners. Every honourable senator here knows that and has said that. The motion continues: (b) this will adversely affect the millions of pensions and beneficiaries whose income is linked to the Consumer Price Index, . . . Of course that is right, if nothing is done about it. Of course I accept that. For Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Walters to suggest that I will not accept that is nonsense. What I do not accept is the next line, which states: and condemns the Government for its failure to recognise this fact . . . I thank Senator Haines for at least doing some research on this matter and for pointing out that, in answer to a question to her in May 1983-May last year-I clearly recognised this fact and I clearly answered that question in the recognition that that was so. That Dr Blewett has done so several times since is also perfectly obvious. To suggest that the Government does not recognise this fact is nonsense. I suggest that to condemn the Government for failing to take remedial action at this stage of the game, having shown that the Government has already recognised the fact, is nonsense. Senator Sir John Carrick is right: If a levy for health insurance is introduced and, therefore, there is a direct taxation situation in which there is an artificial reduction in the consumer price index, of course it affects pensioners if their pensions are linked to the CPI and nothing is done to change that. It has affected them before. It affected them in 1977 when the previous Government introduced a levy and no remedial action was taken. Senator Messner —The full CPI was adjusted; you are wrong. Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator should get his facts out and have a look at them. No remedial action was taken. The second thing to point out-I think it needs to be pointed out to Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Walters, although Senator Haines realised the situation-is that the present system of indexation of pensions to the CPI is exactly the same as the indexation system which has existed since it was introduced in 1976, except, of course for people such as the single unemployed who, until recently, had no indexation because that indexation was taken away from them by the previous Government. That indexation means that the May increases in pensions will be paid on the September quarter and December quarter CPI increases last year. Medicare had no effect on the CPI increases on which the pension increase which is due in May will be based. But of course there will be an effect on the pension increase due in November. The time to take account of that and to do something about it will be in the next Budget. To suggest that the Government is not aware of that fact, when I have been talking about it for a year, is absolute nonsense. Senator Sir John Carrick clearly did not recognise that. Senator Sir John Carrick said the previous Government introduced the consumer price indexation of pensions to protect their value. When Senator Sir John Carrick, who was a Minister in the previous Government, came into office the pensions represented 24 per cent of average weekly earnings; when he went out they represented 22 per cent of average weekly earnings. If that is protection of the value of pensions, the pensioners do not believe it, I do not believe it and no one else here believes it. I happen to think that we should have a serious debate on retirement policy in this country. I think we should do it without some of the wild suggestions that Senator Walters made here tonight. Senator Walters said tonight that certainly she would return to the situation for pensioners aged over 70 years which existed when the previous Government went out of power. That was not a means test free pension, as Senator Walters knows, but to do that would cost $170m in a full year. Of course, she did not say that during her speech. She repeatedly said: 'We want a means test free pension for pensioners aged over 70'. That would cost $460m in a full year. Senator Walters would revoke the taxation changes on lump sum superannuation. Senator Walters cannot stand there and condemn the present Government for introducing taxation on lump sum superannuation without suggesting that she would do what her Leader says she would do and revoke those changes. In the first year of introduction, because they will hardly affect anyone, they will cost only $10m. But in a full year that will get up to $360m. So we are up to over $800m in increased expenditure already. If we add to that the Opposition's refusal to pass the legislation aimed at collecting tax evaded in this country we are up to over $1,000m in expenditure for the sorts of things the honourable senator has said she will do or has done already. The inevitable result of that is that, with an aging population, either taxes have to be increased or the level of pensions has to be kept at an artificially low level. We cannot help those who are reliant on just the base rate pension, we cannot get that base rate pension up, without increasing taxes in some way. That was an aside which was introduced by Senator Walters in her contribution to the debate. The fact of the matter-there is no need to go into any great detail about this motion-is simply this: The crux of the motion is that the Government fails to recognise that the introduction of Medicare and the levy result in an artificial lowering of the indexation factor, which affects pensions. Senator Haines has demonstrated that I was talking about it last May. I have talked about it since and Dr Blewett put out Press statements at least once when he represented me as Acting Minister for Social Security and, from memory, once or twice before that in his capacity as Minister for Health. So we did recognise it and of course we do recognise it. The person who recognised it latest was Senator Messner because , as Senator Haines pointed out, he took from the time we came into government until 17 November to put down this motion. Senator Haines was talking about it last April and May, and so were we. The second part of the motion-the crux of the motion-condemns the Government for its failure to take remedial action. The time to take remedial action is not in a March mini-Budget. It is not affecting anybody. In case any honourable senator looks stunned, Senator Sir John Carrick suggested that we take such action in a March mini-Budget. That does not give us much time, because we have not yet had any Budget Cabinet meetings. I say that the time to take such action is in the budgetary situation. That is when that sort of change was made by the previous Government, and that is when that sort of change will be made by this Government. That is the simple fact of the matter. The Opposition should not condemn the Government for not now introducing some strange legislation outside the Budget context which will affect pension increases next November. Senator Sir John Carrick has been a member of Budget Cabinets. He knows they do not introduce things-- Senator Sir John Carrick —I was talking about the 25 per cent over three years. Senator GRIMES —I will come to the 25 per cent. We have said clearly that we will increase pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings during our first three year term. Senator Sir John Carrick —The first year has gone. Senator GRIMES —I say to the honourable senator that the previous Government said that it would index pensions to maintain their value, and they dropped from 24 per cent of average weekly earnings to 22 per cent. Our first year in government has ended. In our first year in government we have increased the unemployment benefit to single unemployment beneficiaries by $10. The previous Government failed to index them and failed to give beneficiaries an increase. We have indexed the fringe benefit levels for pensioner beneficiaries, something which should have been done years ago. We have ample time to increase the standard rate of pensions to that level. We certainly must do so, because they have been dropped to the present level by the previous Government. But let us talk about the motion. The motion claims that we do not recognise that factor. Of course we recognise that factor. I accept that that factor exists. I have been talking about it for far longer than has Senator Messner. We recognise, of course, that that factor will adversely affect pensioners and beneficiaries if nothing is done about it. But to suggest that we are now condemned for not taking remedial action for something which will not happen until the end of the year is politics of the worst kind. I repeat what I said before: We should have serious debate in this country about social security expenditure in this area, and about the development of a sensible policy. Some honourable senators say: 'Let us do this for $460m; let us do that for $320m'. If we are fiscally and financially irresponsible in our debating in that way, we will never reach a reasonable situation. The first two premises in the motion are correct. I have said all along that of course Medicare will cause an artificial reduction in the CPI, and of course it will adversely affect people. But the crunch part of the motion aimed at this side of the House, that we did not recognise that fact, is patently and demonstrably wrong, as demonstrated by Senator Haines. To condemn us for not taking remedial action at this stage of the game, when such action should be appropriately taken in the next Budget is, I suggest, absolute nonsense and it should be recognised as such. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(8.55) —I thank my colleague Senator Walters for moving the motion on my behalf tonight. Unfortunately I was unavoidably detained. I will answer a few of the comments made by Senator Grimes in the course of his remarks which were quite remarkable. First and foremost, he accused the former Fraser Government of making no adjustment in respect of Medibank adjustments for the consumer price index in 1977. That is patently untrue. In fact, in all the circumstances in 1976, 1977 and at all other relevant times appropriate decisions were made to ensure that the consumer price index took full account of the true cost to pensions and was not adjusted artificially for the effect of health insurance. Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a document prepared by the Education and Welfare Group of the Parliamentay Library Legislative Research Service which sets out that information. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 83/58577 EW1 EFFECT OF MEDIBANK ON PENSION INDEXATION, 1975-76 1. The effect of the original medibank showed in the Consumer Price Index for September Quarter 1975. The 1975 percentage increases over the previous quarter' s CPI were: 1975 March-3.6 June-3.5 September-0.8 (Medibank) December-5.6 (indirect tax rises) (by way of comparison the respective figures for 1974 were 2.4, 4.1, 5.1 ( September) and 3.8). Overall the relevant component of the CPI, 'Health and Personal Care' showed significant changes related to medibank. The percentage changes over the previous year were: 1974-75-25.2 1975-76--18.7 1976-77-75.3 The changes in the overall CPI, 'All Groups', were: 1974-75-16.7 1975-76-13.0 1976-77-13.8 2. During this period pensions were adjusted by Parliamentary Act rather than automatic indexation. Pension rates were adjusted twice in 1975-76 effective on 13 November 1975 and 13 May 1976. Whitlam: In the 1975-76 Budget (Mr Hayden) it was announced pensions would rise in Spring 1975 (November) in line with the CPI (December quarter 1974 to June quarter 1975) with the intention of a further rise in Autumn 1976 (May) in line with the CPI rise June to December quarter 1975. Note: Up until the 1975-76 Budget the Labor Government had used as its target in pension rises an ultimate objective of 25 per cent of average weekly (male) earnings. The stated reason for this change was 'as a temporary measure to ease the pressures of public spending on the economy' (Senator Wheeldon, Senate, 22 October 1975, p. 1403). Fraser Government: In April 1976 Senator Guilfoyle, following Government policy of six monthly pension adjustments in line with the CPI announced pension changes (effective from May 1976) based on the CPI movement June to December quarter 1975. The CPI in this period was lowered by the introduction of medibank but no adjustment was made in pension indexation for this effect. Note: Medibank was later amended and as a result the CPI was artificially raised. Once again no adjustment was made to reduce the impact on the CPI and therefore on pensions. Education and Welfare Group LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH SERVICE 15 September 1983 Senator MESSNER —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator Grimes, a little earlier in his remarks, made clear to us that he had recognised this problem. He may well have recognised it but he has certainly taken no action, and he has certainly given no assurance to the Senate, nor to the people who are most concerned, such as the combined pensioner associations in New South Wales who came to this city in November specifically to make this point at the head of their demands about the assets test and were given no undertaking that it would be corrected. In fact, the reason for my raising the matter in the course of debate in the Budget session, subsequent to the introduction of the assets test, was to make the point that clearly this Government did not know what it was doing because already at that stage more than six months had passed since its election and no promises were made to pensioners, except that a capital gains tax would be levied in the form of an assets test against pensions in a most inequitable and discriminatory manner. For that reason I put down this motion in November. It evoked no immediate action on the part of the Government. But subsequently, by virtue of Press releases over the Christmas period, we flushed out the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) when he was the Acting Minister for Social Security, who gave us a statement, apparently in the early part of January, which indicated that the Government had realised the potential effect of this particular adjustment. Certainly, he did that. But he did not then give us any further assurance that there would be any adjustment to the pension in the way that the Fraser Government had given that undertaking and had carried it out in 1976 and 1977. Following all the complaints that have arisen with regard to the Minister' s handling of pension matters, and, in particular, the assets test in recent times-even the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was forced to override his Minister in these circumstances-it has become clear that the pensioner community has little faith in what the Minister has to say on this matter. Clearly, while he is prepared to say that he recognises the problem, he is not prepared to give any undertakings. For that reason this motion is highly relevant. I have one other point to make; that is, notwithstanding the Minister's present recognition of the importance of the issue-he claims that he recognised it last May-it was left to the Prime Minister in his recent telephone interview in Hobart to indicate to us that the reduction in the CPI will in some way favourably affect pensioners by virtue of the fact that it will reduce the rate of inflation and consequently, it will somehow help them in the way in which they live. The Minister has not indicated that that is so. It was the Prime Minister who gave that kind of assurance to the pensioners of Australia. We all know in this country who is the most powerful person when it comes to making decisions in regard to pensioners. It is not the Minister; the Prime Minister makes a decision and announces it over the head of his Minister whenever he feels so inclined. This is another case of such action occurring. For that reason I am afraid the pensioner community of Australia has little faith in the Minister's undertakings on this matter. Pensioners will not be fobbed off by the kind of statement he has given us tonight which says that the matter will be considered in a Budget context. What the pensioner community wants is a clear indication that in fact this will be corrected. It was only in the last week that I had this very matter raised with me by pensioner groups in Ballarat as a very significant issue which is worrying pensioner groups at present. I make that final point on the understanding that the Minister does in fact recognise the problem and is prepared to do something about it. Having re- emphasised his commitment to a rise in the pension to 25 per cent of the average weekly earnings I believe that we will all be very justifiably looking for some results in that area in the months ahead. I am reminded of Senator Sir John Carrick's analysis of the problem when it is disclosed to us that this adjustment, artificially made by virtue of the Medicare payments, will relate not only to the question of health insurance and the way it affects pensioners but also the way it very significantly affects wage levels in the community generally. As such there will be a double-barrelled effect on the pensioner community. That creates a significant problem. I hope that the Government will pay attention to the motion which in effect is only another way of bringing to the attention of the Government the detrimental effects on pensioners of the particular adjustments which the Government intends to promote in the economy in the course of the next few months. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(9.05) —I move: That the Senate- (a) deplores the decision of the Victorian Government to close (and sell) 4 hostels which were used for the accommodation of more than 200 country students in the Melbourne metropolitan area; (b) condemns the failure of the Australian and Victorian Governments to accede to widespread complaints made by rural councils, student organisations and concerned parents against this decision which is a clear breach of ALP education policy; and (c) urges the Australian Government to reach early agreement with the Victorian Government providing for the continued financing of the hostels so that essential facilities exist for country students seeking to acquire tertiary education. This motion relates to action which the Victorian Government took and is taking this month to auction some four former hostels which last year housed around 200 country students. Three of those hostels are in St Kilda Road and Queens Road. They are central positions in Melbourne and very convenient for students at colleges. The fourth hostel is at Clayton near Monash University. The closure has caused a great deal of alarm and concern by very many organisations of students, country shires and towns and their representatives, church organisations and other people who are concerned at the displacement of hundreds of students. I mention four hostels, but there is some suggestion that the number of hostels may be as much as eight. I think some unserviced hostels were closed at the end of 1982 thereby reducing the numbers. As I understand there are remaining some six hostels altogether that have some 450 students on the waiting list. I trust that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) will let us know the precise number of hostels that are closing this month and those to be closed later so we will know exactly how far the matter is going. I have taken the minimum figure of four hostels and more than 200 students in my motion. Neither the State nor the Federal Government is prepared to accept responsibility now for the resulting accommodation crisis facing Victoria's tertiary students. That is a matter of concern and this motion is an endeavour to ensure that that responsibility is faced at an early date by both governments . As I said complaints have come from all kinds of areas in Victoria since about August 1983. At that time Mr John Radford the Liberal Member of the Legislative Council for Bendigo raised these matters with the State Minister of Education. Since that time Mr Radford, with other people has conducted a very strong campaign. Many people have written to him. Indeed I have with me a very thick file of correspondence which he has supplied to me. These are complaints from student organisations one of which is called HEAT, Hostel Emergency Action Team, consisting of students parents and others led by Murray Bickerdike. This group is working strongly to avoid what is happening now; namely, that students will not have the opportunity this year of taking part in tertiary education because there is no accommodation for them. In addition and since Mr Radford's campaign started the matter has also been raised in this Parliament. My colleague Senator Austin Lewis asked a question in this place on 6 October 1983. He will no doubt be saying more about this. In passing and in dealing with the historical nature of this dispute I quote from a supplementary question when he pressed the matter and used these significant words: . . . does that mean that there will certainly be nothing done for these students during 1984 but that she will be bringing down something for them in the 1984 Budget, possibly to apply in 1985? The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, replied: No, it does not mean that. It means that I will address the problem of these particular hostels when it is presented to me in detail. Whatever her intention that answer has unfortunately turned out to be false. It is clear that the effect in 1984 will be calamitous and that no arrangements have been made for students at all. What is the role played by these government hostels in Victoria? They have existed for some years now. In the first place they were designed mainly for student teachers. Thousands of students came mainly from country areas of Victoria to study at universities and tertiary colleges in Melbourne. They needed to do this because there was not the accommodation in the country towns. Of course, accommodation for other people was freely available perhaps in university residential colleges and halls, but this was not so for students at Melbourne's various other tertiary colleges. The position in the last year was that some one-third of tertiary students came from the country. Unfortunately figures indicate that while I think one-third applied for positions and were offered positions in tertiary institutions only about one-quarter were able to proceed to enrol. So only 25 per cent instead of 33 per cent actually enrolled, partly because of difficulties in accommodation and other cost factors. These matters have been drawn to the attention of the Government by many experts who have studied this area. The position is that over recent years the numbers of student teachers have declined and the emphasis has moved rather to other tertiary students undertaking full time study. I think a majority of people in the hostels are still studying teaching. The dependence has been very much for accommodation primarily for first year students coming in from the country because of the difficulties which they have in settling into a new environment in the city. Generally they are young students who after the first year very often move out into shared accommodation. It is very important for them to be acclimatised to that life and to have the company and assistance of people who are perhaps studying in the same area. One of the significant features of the hostels is that last year 63 per cent of the people in hostels to be closed were women. I do not have to prove to Senator Ryan that women students are a disadvantaged class who surely come within the Australian Labor Party policy as people requiring help. Such people will be great sufferers if this action is taken. It is unrealistic to expect people who want tertiary education to be able to find accomodation elsewhere. They leave their homes. They must have accommodation under supervision and this is what the hostels offered them. They provided fairly low cost accommodation. It is important to realise that these hostels were not for students from wealthy backgrounds as might otherwise be thought. The evidence which has been supplied to me indicates that they came mostly from state high schools or state schools. Also, on the whole, they came from fairly low income families. The academic opportunities which students had will now be denied to many of them. I will read two extracts from some of the many cases which have been brought to my attention. For example, the Shire of Metcalfe has written to the Hon. John Radford in these terms: Those of us who have children at tertiary institutions in the metropolitan area know how difficult it is to arrange for them to obtain private accommodation and we know of the personal problems that can occur when private accommodation is found because it is not always possible for these students to have a room available in which they may study privately. Hostels offer the most suitable form of accommodation for country students and their closing could well have the effect of denying adequate secondary and tertiary opportunities to country students. Another shire, the shire of Marong writes in these terms: Council considers such a proposal represents yet another action by the Government to discriminate against country students and country people in general. By eliminating what is reported to be eight hostels the Government is effectively subjecting students from the country to hardships not encountered by the majority of city students. I move to the next question. If student accommodation hostels are to be closed, what are the alternative types of accommodation? Is other accommodation available that would be equally satisfactory? The answer, of course, is no. The Student Housing Officers' Association has provided considerable evidence of this . There are colleges and halls of residence at Melbourne University and elsewhere which have limited places but their median price is $70 a week and up to $120 a week. Of course last year this Government cut the subsidy for accommodation in colleges by some 25 per cent adding to the difficulties there. Other alternatives, like full board, are hard to find. Offers have dramatically declined in recent years and few of them are to be found in the vicinity of campuses. They are also costly. In public housing the State Government has a program called the shared housing program but the waiting times are so long that it is unsuitable. Generally people are required to take the accomodation for up to two years which may not be what is required. Very often after the first year a student will share accommodation with someone elsewhere. Likewise private rental is hard to find at a reasonable price. What is the attitude taken by the Victorian Government and the Federal Government to this problem? Neither government will accept responsibility for providing tertiary housing in hostels. So far as the Victorian Government is concerned it is interesting to note that the ALP State policy on the sale of property of the Department of Education-which of course this is-is as follows: 1. All decisions about disposal of education land and buildings must be made democratically having regard to statewide policies and needs as well as those at the local level. The procedures must involve the local education community and the statewide education community. 2. No changes must take place without detailed study of the impact of the changes proposed at all levels (local and State). All studies must be conducted publicly. It is quite clear-it has been pointed out by the Hostels Emergency Action Team- that many of these details have been forgotten by the State in its decision to close the hostels. No regard has been paid to needs, nor have the local or State communities either education or otherwise been consulted and nor have they had any part in making the decision. Finally, there has been no public detailed study of the impact of the changes. There does not appear to have been any study at all. The Premier, Mr Cain, when he was Acting Minister of Education wrote to Mr Radford in January. After saying that he had considered the matter carefully and that he was reluctant to do it he stated: The Victorian Government is obliged to assert its priorities which must be on the provision of services to schools. The Federal Government in 1974 accepted responsibility for tertiary education, and this included the provision of student welfare services, the time has now come when the State Government must reduce its commitment in this area. The hostels to be sold have been offered to the Commonwealth Government in the hope that they will continue to be used for tertiary students. Before that letter was written the Minister of Housing in Victoria Mr Cathie passed the buck to the education ministry saying that it was not really housing' s responsibility but that of the Education Department. In this letter the Premier of Victoria said that it is not the responsibility of Victoria but is a responsibility that must be passed to the Commonwealth. It is not as though a big cost is involved in keeping these hostels going. In 1982-83 the cost of a subsidy for the cheaper meals and upkeep of the houses was $500,000. I think that at time that was spread over something like 16 hostels. We are not dealing in a State education budget with anything other than a small pittance in money but it is an enormous thing to deprive persons of the opportunity for tertiary education. I see by the correspondence that in October Mr Fordham the State Minister of Education applied to Senator Ryan's Department for funds. This application appears to have been knocked back. The timing of the State Government's decision is, I think, a very cunning one. One notes that it has been done towards the end of the year. It has given the Federal Government an opportunity to buy the hostels which it will not do. Of course the Federal Government says that it will not bring down its Budget until next August so it has already made its financial commitment for education for 1984. Therefore in the period in between there will be no provision for students. The Federal Government is, apparently, unable it says to do anything to resolve the accommodation crisis facing students. Yet I remind the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs that her Federal policy is one which requires equity of participation for disadvantaged groups. I put it to her that country students and the women students in particular surely come within the area of the disadvantaged. This is an area for which the Government should accept responsibility. All that the Minister is able to say is that she will come up with new proposals for the next Budget but that is not good enough. That is why I have moved the motion. I see that the honourable member for Bendigo, Mr Brumby, who got an unfortunate serve yesterday from his ministerial colleague, on 5 November once again spoke gloriously of the 3,000 new places in tertiary education that this Government is providing. What hypocrisy, what a shameless charade it is, to say that in one breath and to take away the opportunity of education for a number of students in this way. If these hostels are closed and not reopened there will be a clear discrimination against country students and country people in general. It is not surprising that throughout the rural areas there is a great deal of concern. Many country students have already been forced to withdraw from tertiary courses because they cannot find places to live in Melbourne. Material is available from a number of sources which demonstrates that this is so. Mr Vince Callaghan, the student service co-ordinator at the Melbourne College of Advanced Education, believes that about 200 students throughout the State tertiary institutions have had to give up their studies because of this decision. Dr Geoffrey Vaughan, the Chairman of the Victorian Conference of Principals of Colleges of Advanced Education, said that there had been cases of students not being able to accept course offers or to continue their studies because of the accommodation shortage. He further said: It is incongruous for the Government to encourage higher participation rates in tertiary education at a time when there is an acute shortage of suitable accommodation in Melbourne and in country centres. Other experts such as Dr G. Elsworth who wrote a paper in 1982 called 'Rural Disadvantage in Transition to Higher Education' have made it very clear that opportunities for rural students are very poor. They were already bad before this decision was taken. In fact the percentage of students coming from the country-I think the participation rate was 18 per cent for rural males-reduces by the time they take up positions to 11 per cent. So there is already a great loss for people who have talent but who are under a considerable disadvantage because of the additional costs of education in the cities. I point out a couple of other factors. Page 21 of the excellent submission presented quite recently by the Student Housing Officers Association in Victoria to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission states: There seems little doubt that the provision of student housing is a joint Federal/State responsibility. The Federal Government through the CTEC has already set a precedence in this area as it has always provided funds to the Universities to build their Collegiate Halls of Residence and subsidizes continuing operations . . . Likewise, the Federal Government has specific policy concerning a greater equity of participation in higher education for disadvantaged groups. The submission points out the fact that 63 per cent of this group is women. Lest there be any suggestion that these students are rich children from rich families in the country, the Student Housing Officers' Association discovered in its survey that: The profile of country students living in the city hostels is that most come from families earning less than the average income (approximately $360 per week) , nearly two-thirds are in receipt of at least some Government financial assistance TEAS and 83 per cent will need employment, whether part-time, casual or vacation in order to complete their studies. Further, the majority of students in the hostels are female and more than two-thirds of respondents attended State High Schools. In short, these students come from families that are far from wealthy. So I suggest that this has been a disastrous decision by the State Government of Victoria. It is a disastrous decision by the Federal Government and cannot be allowed to fall between the interstices of Federal and State juggling to avoid responsibility. The responsibility is on both Governments to get together and find a way out of this mess. For that reason I have moved this motion. It is a moderate motion because the situation is probably even worse than I disclosed in it. But it is causing tremendous concern throughout the community in Victoria and particularly the rural community. I suggest that it cannot be passed off or left till next year but is a matter which is of urgent necessity for this Government to attend to. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(9.26) —I must explain to Senator Macklin that I rise because I am informed that the time for this debate is almost finished and I feel that I must make some response to what Senator Missen had to say. I do not question the problems and difficulties faced by many students seeking places in higher education in Victoria as outlined by Senator Missen. I do not quarrel with his presentation of the view that there is a desperate shortage of places for higher education. Of course students who have to travel from country areas and seek places in city institutions are faced with enormous difficulties if they cannot find suitable accommodation. I would deny none of the difficulties Senator Missen set out tonight. But I say to Senator Missen that although I agree that the difficulties of these students have been compounded by the decision of the Victorian Government to close down a number of hostels that were previously available for tertiary students, his complaint about this ought really to be directed towards the Victorian Government. The Commonwealth Government does not have responsibility for these hostels. When the Commonwealth Government assumed responsibility for the funding of higher education in 1974 the Victorian Government did not seek any recurrent assistance for these hostels. Of course the hostels are a carry over from earlier times. I understand that the Victorian Government had its own pressures and its own need to rationalise its activities. There is indeed a crisis in student accommodation. Indeed, there is a desperate shortage of low cost accommodation for young people, whatever their circumstances. I submit that probably young people who are not students and who are perhaps unemployed have even worse accommodation problems than those that Senator Missen has outlined tonight. I do not want to get into a position of defending a situation which is not defensible. We need many more suitable hostels for young people, including students. In recognition of that fact our Government has asked the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission to review future arrangements for support for student accommodation. Senator Macklin —They won't report for another year. Senator RYAN —Yes, I am expecting to receive this advice in April of this year. Senator Macklin —But that would be May. Senator RYAN —Senator Macklin and, indeed, Senator Missen in his remarks, suggested that somehow the Commonwealth Government can magically find the money at the end of the triennium after all moneys have been allocated to step in and fill a gap which has been left suddenly by a State Government. It would be desirable for that to happen but it is simply not the case that the finances of the Commonwealth were left in the situation where excess money was floating around which could have been used for these purposes. It is also the case that accommodation problems are experienced by students all over Australia, not just by those who might have found places in Victorian hostels. If we were magically suddenly able to find money to solve the problems of the Victorian Government in respect of these hostels, I am sure that Senator Macklin from Queensland or some other senator from Western Australia or New South Wales could suddenly say: 'We have accommodation problems for our students too'. There is not enough time for me to make a lengthy exposition of our approach to this. I say just a couple of things. The Government is reviewing comprehensively the needs of students for accommodation and, in that light, reviewing the needs of those students who prefer hostels and, those who seek private accommodation. Indeed, it is reviewing the situation of those colleges within universities and colleges of advanced education which at this stage receive a substantial subvention from the Commonwealth. We cannot take a one-off decision in respect of hostels for which we have no responsibility. If indeed we did that would simply be seen as a precedent for other States which also have their problems. I point out too-I think that Senator Missen at one stage used the word ' hypocritical' and I do not want to retaliate in that vein-that the crisis in accommodation, like the crisis of the excess of demand for higher education places this year, is the result of the rundown in capital funding of higher education over a number of years. I am sure that Senator Missen, being an honest and sincere senator, would not deny that. I have the figures here, but time does not permit me to go into them in any detail. But everybody knows that in each successive Budget under the Fraser Administration there was a rundown in capital funding to institutions of higher education. That meant that their capacity to provide student places was greatly reduced. Therefore, the demand for other forms of accommodation-that is, forms other than the accommodation provided by universities or colleges of advanced education-has become consequently greater and greater. This year, as I have pointed out before, we have an enormously high demand for places in higher education. That is something the Government has encouraged. That is something we have welcomed. But we are not able immediately to make up the deficit in accommodation, be it accommodation for study or living accommodation, that we have inherited over seven years. The PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted under sessional order for the consideration of General Business having expired, the Senate will proceed to the further consideration of Government Business. Notice of Motion Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, pursuant to Standing Order 358, there be laid upon the Table all documents containing advice from the Commissioner of Taxation to the Treasurer concerning the desirability or otherwise of the provisions contained in the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1983. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. In Committee Consideration resumed from 6 October 1983. Ordered that the items be considered separately. Item 1. Meetings of the Public Accounts Committee During Sittings of the Senate . Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That the recommendation contained in paragraph 4 of the report be adopted. Item 2. Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate (9.34) —I do not think this item will be dealt with as quickly as the last. I move: That proposed new standing order 36AAA, as set out in Attachment A, be agreed to. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(9.35) —I regard this matter as one of considerable seriousness and concern for the Parliament and the public of Australia. Therefore, on behalf of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, I move the following amendment: Leave out all words after 'That' and add the following words: Proposed new standing order 36AAB (Attachment B) as recommended by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee be adopted. The amendment will be seconded by Senator Tate, the Chairman of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The proposed standing order which was considered and amended by the Standing Orders Committee has been circulated to all honourable senators in the chamber today. Before going into the details of the report before us, practically all of which I regard as extraordinary and inaccurate, I remind this chamber that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee was appointed on 19 November 1981 after a somewhat hectic debate and some divisions. It was appointed on a temporary basis with the same membership as the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. It was appointed on a trial basis and was to report by 30 June 1982. The Committee was given temporary standing orders. The Committee did report, and the ninth report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee of 20 May 1982 sets out the reasons why the Committee, after investigation, decided that certainly the operation of the Committee had been successful. I will say dogmatically that it seems to have been accepted in the Parliament and in the community that the emergence of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has increased the facility of the Senate and that the type of legislation we have passed has been improved by it. Although the then Government was very critical of the Committee's appointment and thought it would hold up legislation, it readily acknowledged some months later that it was not having that effect. Both that Government and this Government since have accepted that it is doing an effective and useful job. The notice of motion given by me on 20 May 1982 was to put the Committee on a firm basis. Unfortunately it does not appear in that fashion in the report of the Standing Orders Committee. In a moment I shall go through the sections of that report paragraph by paragraph to show where it is in error. The motion was adopted on 25 May 1982. The Committee had the same membership but then became a permanent committee of this Senate. It is contingent only upon the necessity for its recommended standing orders to be considered by the Standing Orders Committee and reported upon. It has taken all this time, nearly two years, for the Standing Orders Committee to get debate on this matter before this chamber. I hope that some honourable senators are listening because I point out first and foremost that the Committee has been operating under the Standing Orders- Senator Macklin —We are listening. Senator MISSEN —I know some are, but others are not. It is a Committee of this chamber and perhaps concerns back bench senators more than executive officers. They have a bit of a conspiracy-- Senator Peter Baume —We are all equal senators. Senator MISSEN —We are all equal senators, but unfortunately the conspiracy against this Committee is coming mainly from executive sources. Honourable senators interjecting- The CHAIRMAN —Order! There are too many interjections. I cannot compel attention ; I can compel silence. Senator MISSEN —We have got some scars over the last couple of years from the treatment we have received at the Standing Orders Committee. I shall talk about them tonight. What has to be realised is that those standing orders which have been rejected and mutilated by the Standing Orders Committee are the standing orders under which we have been operating almost for the last two years. I challenge any honourable senator to show that we have misused them or that in any way their use has been shown to be objectionable. As to the Standing Orders Committee, we had a great deal of trouble even getting this report out of it. At the end of 1982, prior to the last election, it will be remembered that I made a somewhat critical speech in this chamber on 17 November. I shall not repeat the criticisms that I was then making at the delays in the Standing Orders Committee work. Senator Robert Ray —You threatened to resign. Senator MISSEN —That is true. I lost my chairmanship with the change of government not long after that, so it would not have made much difference. I want to remind honourable senators of the other factors. The Committee was reappointed on 22 April 1983. The membership, despite the fact that it was supposed to be the same membership as the Standing Committee on Constitutioned and Legal Affairs, has been altered quite a bit since then, because people have wanted to drop out. So we have been in a very awkward position of allegedly having to be of the same membership as the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee but having lots of variations in the meantime. Now comes this report which is the cause of the problems. Let me speak of some of the things in this report. Something is ignored in paragraph 5, in which it is said: . . . in May 1982 . . . the Committee -that is our Committee- recommended a new standing order for this purpose, and this standing order was referred to this Committee for consideration. It ignores the fact that the report was adopted by the Senate without the slightest dissent. What was sent to the Standing Orders Committee was the vetting of the proposed standing order. Senator Chaney —That may mean that no one read it. Senator MISSEN —Ignorance of the law is no excuse, Senator, and I should think that ignorance by senators of reports is no excuse, either. We set out in that report what were the necessities for the Committee, and it was adopted. The Committee report then goes on to speak about the proposed new standing order, the one that was criticised, and says that it: . . . contains a number of provisions which were not contained in the original resolution appointing the Scrutiny of Bills Committee on 19 November 1981, and which are taken from Standing Order 36AA, relating to the appointment and functioning of the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees. That is quite so. What the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has done is to recommend that it should have the same powers, basically, as have those Committees that have been set up since 1970 and not the outdated and very inadequate standing orders which the Joint Select Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has had to work under for some years. It has been in existence for 50 years. I served as its chairman for two or three years. Of course it is so that there are a number of things in the standing orders of that Committee which should not be duplicated. In fact, the Regulations and Ordinances Committee's standing orders ought to be reformed and brought up to date. That is what is necessary-not to send another Committee into the burdens under which it has, therefore, to suffer . Let us look at the various things on page 5 of the report which are apparently concerning some of the members of the Standing Orders Committee. Among them is the holding of public hearings. Every other Standing Committee is entitled to have public hearings. What goes with that is the daily Hansards, and so forth, which are all to be struck out of the standing order. The idea is that it would meet in private. As is said further down the page: . . . the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, which works by deliberating in private upon the legislation . . . It does not always meet in private. It calls public evidence on occasions. It calls witnesses before it. People can attend. But it has no specific right to sit in public or to have Hansards. Those things are put in the later standing orders. One of the other powers that has been objected to is the power to admit other senators. There is a specific provision that we have put in the standing orders, the same as for the legislative and general purpose committees, that other members of the Senate should be able to sit in, where they are interested, and take part in deliberations. They would not vote, but that is exactly the same power that eight other committees of this Parliament have but which was to be denied to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. It is the same with the admission of representatives of the news media into its presence. Furthermore, as to the general power we inserted into this to have advisers, it was suggested that we should have only counsellors, not advisers. I suppose that we might become very extravagant and invite all kinds of people to advise the Committee and that would cause a lot of cost. Of course, the answer to that is that the President has to vet any such things. With counsel, advisers or anyone, he has to be satisfied that such advice is justifiable and that expenditure can be made available for it. There is ample proof; there is no suggestion that this is wrongly used by the other standing committees. Why would it be wrongly used by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee? I had the opportunity of appearing before the Standing Orders Committee last year. Senator Tate was absent at the time and I represented him. There was certainly no indication there of substantial objection. I was asked questions about these matters and asked whether we would use those powers. I said that we had not used a number of the powers yet but that we may use them, although we did not have any plans to do so in the foreseeable future. But it is set out in this report as though we will not use them in the future. The fact is that we may well do so, and there is no reason why the Committee should not have those powers. Senator Crichton-Browne —On what occasions would you use them? Senator MISSEN —Where there is a Bill to which there are critical or technical objections and a lot of public interest in its terms, we may well want to sit in public to allow people to attend. Another thing that we want is to be able to move out of Canberra. Under the standing order which we propose, we could do what other committees can do-sit elsewhere in Australia. Other committees can sit elsewhere outside the country if they get permission. But that was to be denied to this Committee and therefore it could not go to places where there might be particular objection and where, for the convenience of the public, one ought to be able to go to hear people's views. Senator Lewis —If there were a question of retrospectivity, would you be able to call a witness before you to establish whether there was retrospectivity, such as the Commissioner of Taxation, or some such person? Senator MISSEN —I suppose so, yes. I do not think that there would be any reason why we could not call a person for that purpose. I do not think that the matter has cropped up. I think that retrospectivity generally appears on the face of the legislation and we do not seem to have much trouble in finding retrospectivity here, there and everywhere, as the Regulations and Ordinances Committee does with regulations, as Senator Lewis knows. I do not think that one would have very much difficulty in finding it, but one might want to know why it was there and what was the purpose of putting it in. Senator Crichton-Browne —What about policy? Senator MISSEN —This Committee does not go into the policy of these matters. It advises particularly on matters such as retrospectivity, things which might be contrary to the civil liberties of the community, and so forth. Therefore, it asks the Minister why he has put it in. Quite often it writes to him and asks him. So there is no reason why it should not find out from people who would know why there might be a good reason why they should not complain about that retrospectivity. So I suppose that it verges on policy. Sometimes both of those Committees have problems which verge upon policy. The situation is, as I say, that the various powers which were sought by the Committee are available to the other committees of the Parliament, and the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has had these powers for some 22 months now. If they are taken away by a vote tonight, it will obviously be a vote of no confidence by the Senate in the operation of that Committee. I would think that it would be a matter to be taken to the public, to see whether people would accept that this reform, probably the best reform of the previous Parliament in a parliamentary procedure sense, should be truncated in this way. Among the other things being taken away by the proposal in this report is, of course, the power to have sub-committees. Why should the Committee not have sub- committees, particularly if it were able to move-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator Chipp —Mr Chairman, would the Committee be inclined to give Senator Missen a short extension of time? If so, I would be pleased to move it. The CHAIRMAN —It can be done, but of course in Committee honourable senators have the right to speak more than once. It is perfectly in order to move an extension of time. Senator Missen —No, I do not think I require an extension, Mr Chairman. I think I have mainly covered the points I want to cover and Senator Tate will be speaking to this motion. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(9.50) —I speak on this matter as a member of the Standing Orders Committee which I think I can characterise as having approached this topic with an open mind, at the front only, and with a fair degree of good will and favourable disposition towards the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I say at the outset that I think Senator Missen's speech, particularly the last part where he said that it would be a vote of no confidence in the Scrutiny of Bills Committee if the proposal which he has suggested were not adopted and that the Committee would take the matter to the public if necessary, really-- Senator Robert Ray —Would it block Supply? Senator BUTTON —Perhaps. I think that really was a little too much of an over- reaction to the suggestions made by the Standing Orders Committee in relation to this matter. The character of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee-I use the word in its most favourable sense-is not in question in what is suggested by the Standing Orders Committee. We considered the matter for some time. We had a pretty frank discussion about the proposal and then we had the benefit of hearing about it at some length from Senator Missen. It was after we heard from him that we decided that we could not agree with the view that was being put and which is being put in the Committee of the Whole tonight. Senator Missen in the course of his remarks said that he thought he had covered most things, but he really has not covered two points which I think are quite crucial to the decision of the Standing Orders Committee. Before I go to those points I just remind him of paragraph (9) on page 7 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee. It states: Should it appear in the future that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee requires any or all of the provisions in question, it may be appropriate for the Senate to consider the matter again. I mention that only because the Standing Orders Committee was not satisfied in any way that the powers of this Committee would be exercised when necessary and as sought by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The essential point to which Senator Missen did not refer is contained in paragraph (7) where the Standing Orders Committee draws a distinction between a committee such as the Scrutiny of Bills Committee which it sees as akin in character to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, and the legislative and general purpose standing committees of the Senate-those committees which were established, as Senator Missen pointed out, in 1970. There seems to be a number of things in the standing order which the Scrutiny of Bills Committee sought to have adopted by the Standing Orders Committee-proposed standing order 36AAB, which appears as Attachment B in the report-which draw attention, in the Committee's view, to the differences between the class of a committee such as the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the legislative and general purpose standing committees. For example, the last paragraph of the proposed standing order reads: The Committee may authorise the televising of public hearings of the Committee, at the discretion of the Committee, and under such rules as the Senate may adopt . I do not think we have got very far down the track with the question of televising the deliberations of parliament. Plenty of senators, including myself , would be opposed to that course. The strongest advocate of televising parliamentary proceedings with the greatest respect, would not begin with the Scrutiny of Bills Committee as a body which would attract the interest and the ratings of the Australian masses. Senator Missen —But you deny the possibility. Senator BUTTON —Senator Missen says that it is a possibility. I just make the point that I do not think it is a possibility. Senator Missen —No, I said you deny the possibility. Senator BUTTON —No, I do not deny the possibility of almost anything, but I come pretty close to it when I contemplate the Scrutiny of Bills Committee being on television, which is as close as I will ever get, probably. The other matters mentioned in proposed standing order 36AAB are the public hearings of the Committee, the right to admit the media, the right for honourable senators to attend with a capacity to ask questions but not to participate in decisions and so on; that is, to make the Committee's activities much more public and to make it, as it were, something of a showpiece which it is currently not. It has been performing its function best, and very well in my view, as a relatively private committee of the Senate as the Regulations-- Senator Haines —How do you know that? Senator BUTTON —Because I read the reports and they are of outstanding quality. Senator Haines —But you have nothing to compare it with. Senator BUTTON —There is plenty to compare it with. There is the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, which also does an excellent job. Those committees, in my view, and I think the view of other members of the Standing Orders Committee, are very outstanding functional committees of the Senate. They perform very important functions, but they are not functions which, in the opinion of the Standing Orders Committee, should be exposed to the sorts of procedures set out in the standing order suggested by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I think the important point of the Standing Orders Committee report is contained in paragraph (7) of the report. I speak on this matter because whatever results from this debate I would not want Senator Missen to go away from this chamber thinking that the work of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee was anything but admired, as I believe it is, by a vast majority of honourable senators. The importance of that Committee is very much recognised, but the Standing Orders Committee was not prepared to take the next step and say that because we hold that belief these things should follow in terms of the Standing Orders. I think that is the essence of the judgment of the Standing Orders Committee and, I hope, the Committee of the Whole. I commend the Standing Orders Committee's report and the motion to the Committee. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.58) —In general I support the remarks made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). I did not attend the meeting of the Senate Standing Orders Committee when it considered this matter, but I listened to what Senator Missen had to say with very great interest. In a sense I regard myself as the father of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills Committee because it was conceived when I had a very brief flirtation with parliamentary reform before I became a Minister and decided that parliarmentary reform was highly undesirable. I had the embarrassment of objecting on behalf of the Fraser Government to the establishment of this Committee. I must say that I was deeply relieved that the defeat was quick and the success was so obvious. I join particularly with Senator Button in saying that I think there is a very widespread view in the Senate and beyond the Senate that the Committee has functioned very well. I think that is evident from the very significant number of amendments which have been made to Bills because of the Committee's suggestion. It was somewhat ironic that, having opposed its establishment on behalf of the then Government, I was, I think, the first Minister to accept amendments put forward by the Committee, which were directed to Bills which I was looking after on behalf of the then Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nixon. I was impressed by the very reasonable way that both he and his Department responded to the very sensible suggestions which were made by the Committee. The real reason this Committee is needed is that there has been something of a change in the way honourable senators have approached their work. There is a great deal of committee work. I believe that most honourable senators work very hard but I think fewer and fewer honourable senators read Bills. By that I mean read them in the careful way in which some of the former honourable senators such as Sir Reginald Wright did with careful regard to the technical content of the legislation as against the broad policy considerations. I think it is essential for those of us who deal with the great flood of legislation that comes to the Parliament, except perhaps during this session, to have the feeling that there has been a checklist or a checking out of the legislation to make sure that, in a technical sense, we are not unwittingly infringing the liberty of the people we represent. I think it is true that the rather dry way in which the Committee proceeds, with its reliance upon counsel rather than advisers, the fact that it meets in the way in which the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has met for so long and so successfully, gives its reports an authority which a different approach might do something to reduce rather than increase. I certainly accept that, if it could be shown that the Regulations and Ordinances Committee or the Scrutiny of Bills Committee were being hampered in their operations, they simply could not perform because of some difficulty arising from these restrictions, then the Senate would have a duty to quickly examine that to see whether we needed to change the rules. But, having listened very carefully to Senator Missen whose views are worth listening to because he has had a great deal to do with the early success of the Committee, as has Senator Tate who is in the chamber for this Committee discussion, my own judgment would be that his views are worthy of serious consideration. Having listened to him carefully I think that the Standing Orders Committee was right to adopt the approach that it has. I believe it would be better if the Committee proceeded along the track that has already been established knowing that, should there be restrictions hampering its work, because of the value that has been placed on its work by the Senate and indeed by successive governments, any approach to the Senate based on real problems would be likely to receive sympathetic consideration. But I would be full of regret if Senator Missen, Senator Tate, or any of the other people who have succeeded in a very short time in establishing the reputation of this Committee were to regard the view that I have expressed or the views that have been expressed by Senator Button as in some way an adverse comment on the Committee. Rather it is the reverse. I simply think there would be some risks in interfering with a formula which, in the case of Regulations and Ordinances Committee, has been successful for 50 years. In the case of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee it has been successful for a number of years. Indeed that success has far exceeded the ambitions which I initially had for this important reform. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(10.04) —I will be brief. It has occurred to me that I should reply to some of the criticisms of the Senate Standing Orders Committee that were voiced by Senator Missen. Firstly, Senator Missen seemed to be aggrieved because the Standing Orders Committee took two years to come up with the decision. He has taken that somewhat as a personal affront. Having served on the past two Standing Orders Committee I assure Senator Missen that its deliberations are always extremely slow, so much so that at times I get frustrated. We do not just single out Senator Missen for obstruction and delay. We tend to spread that right round to every group which approaches us. I hope Senator Missen does not feel offended because of that delay. Secondly, dealing with Senator Missen's threat to take the matter to the public, I suggest that he does that before the hearings of Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills are televised because he will not get much support after they are televised. I wish to voice my only objection to the increased powers for the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I must say that I was not a partisan in this matter . The whole matter has not concerned me greatly. But I worry about one aspect and that is whether the Scrutiny of Bills Committee will be turned into a circus . It is looking at legislation. If we start televising the hearings, calling public witnesses and moving all round Australia- Senator Crichton-Browne —That is true of all the committees. Senator ROBERT RAY —I am sorry, not all committees look at all legislation that comes before them. What worries me-it should worry Senator Crichton-Browne-is that all legislation will go to this Committee if it goes into public hearings. It will be touted all the way round Australia and all the debate on the legislation will be done through that Committee with all the publicity. People will try to misuse it. It will be very hard initially for people to misuse the Committee when either Senator Tate or Senator Missen is chairing it. But I look to the future, not just the present. It worries me that we will move to a sort of American committee type of system where people misuse committees for their own purposes. Senator Missen —Has it happened with any other committees? Senator ROBERT RAY —In my view it may already happen to a degree with existing committees. But I think it would be a committee that covers all legislation. All legislation is referred to it. It could become a far more serious problem. We could start to get delays in reports of this Committee. The Committee itself has been lauded in the chamber tonight. I presume that it is doing a good job. I must say that I have never concentrated on its reports. I have left that to others. If the Scrutiny of Bills Committee is finding under the standing orders we propose that one or two extra powers are needed, they should be granted. But I do not see any need for the televising of its proceedings. I do not see any need for it to have the right to move around the country. It has been doing quite a good job by operating in Canberra and I think that should continue. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(10.07) —I rise very briefly to talk about the standing orders which are sought for the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills. That Committee, as has been conceded right around this chamber, has proved to be remarkably successful in its short history. I think its success has been somewhat unexpected as Senator Chaney pointed out. There was the initial reluctance, indeed obstinate refusal, of the previous Government to countenance the creation of such a committee. Then again Senator Robert Ray's speech stemmed from a fear on the part of the governments that such a committee would frustrate , impede or slow down the passage of legislation through this Parliament. That has not proved to be the case. In fact I submit that, by the work of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee taking account of those technical but, nevertheless, fundamental matters early in the piece, talking to the responsible Minister, and then ensuring that these matters were fully before the Senate when a Bill came into the chamber, this would probably save the time lags that occurred when Sir Reginald Wright had a flash of intuition that something was wrong with a particular clause and filibustered for several days in order to get the matter sorted out. I believe the Committee has worked in a way which has aided, if anything, the speedy passage through the Parliament of Bills which the Government desires and which can be explained in the face of the report of the Committee. It has not been obstructionist and, as I have said, it has not impeded the passage of legislation. Let us face it, what is really behind the attempt to force a constricted standing order on this Committee is a fear, as was well expressed by Senator Robert Ray, that somehow this Committee will embarrass or impede the Government in putting forward its legislation. Senator Robertson —That is not so. Senator TATE —That is how I heard Senator Ray. I think it is a fundamental mistake on two grounds: Firstly, it should be released that what the Committee is being asked to do tonight is not to empower this Committee to have all these extra powers but to strip them away. In fact the Committee has had these powers for almost two years since May 1982. There has never been a hint of abuse or lack of political commonsense in the making use of these powers. Senator Button —Abuse or use. Senator TATE —As Senator Button has pointed out in his interjection there is a distinction between a power and the use of that power. That is quite right. The transition is made by the judgment of those on the Committee who would have to vote, for example, to allow other honourable senators to participate in the proceedings-not in the voting, but in the general discussion on a particular matter where, for example, an honourable senator may have a point of view to put forward. It is only with the vote of the Committee that these extra powers-that is powers shared by the general committees-could be brought into operation. I cannot see such a committee putting itself in a situation where it embarrassed or impeded the Government by carrying on in a circus-type fashion as feared by Senator Ray. Why would we, as a committee, put our cordial relations with Ministers-which is what this whole process is about-at risk by such a process? I do not think we would. If the underlying fear is that the government might be embarrassed, frustrated or impeded in some way, let us not forget the voting pattern of the Committee. It is a six person committee with the Chairman having a casting vote, and it is unlikely that a government chairman would vote for a process, procedure or the exercise of a power which would involve that sort of situation developing which Senator Robert Ray pointed to. I do find overall the tone of the Standing Orders Committee report a touch patronising particularly in paragraph 7, where it says: It will not be wise to endanger the successful operation of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I find that a little bit too paternalistic or maternalistic, whatever the common word is. Senator Robertson —Fraternalistic. Senator TATE —No, not fraternalistic either. There must be a phrase which covers the treating of the committee as children. I do believe that senators ought to be clear that they are being asked to strip the Committee of a power which it has had for two years, which it has not exercised in a way which is embarrassing or frustrating to the Government or the passage of its legislation and which is unlikely to be used in such a way. It ought to be left to the good sense of the Committee as to the exercise of those powers. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.12) —I want to contribute only a few thoughts. Really what is before the Standing Orders Committee is the task of putting down the right kind of standing order, and an ad hominem kind of argument about the admirable way in which the Committee has operated or is likely to operate is not really relevant. Our task is to identify what we think, for better or for worse, is the right kind of standing order and the right kind of relationship which this Committee should have to other committees of the Senate. I am attracted to the argument put down by Senator Button and Senator Chaney. I might just say one thing about some of Senator Missen's criticisms. It is not really appropriate to come in here and say the Standing Orders Committee is, in some way, not representative of the Senate, and its members in some way have other allegiances or other loyalties. Senator Missen —Representative of the Senate-that is what it is. Senator PETER BAUME —I heard what the honourable senator said and really, as a colleague and a friend, I would like to put to the honourable senator that we are senators too. We are all members of the Senate, and the Standing Orders of this place are as much the concern of one senator as they are of any other senator. It does not matter where one sits. It does not matter what one's position is: The Standing Orders are the same for the whole lot of us. The people who make up the Standing Orders Committee-I am not on the Standing Orders Committee any more-are working for the Senate. I really think it does not help in this kind of debate if a finding is brought down which is adverse to what we might want to do other than argue it upon its merits. This is a difficult situation. Two cases can be made: Firstly, the one which has been argued eloquently by Senator Missen and by Senator Tate and which we understand; and secondly, the other position which has been put down by Senator Button and Senator Chaney. Anyone who votes on this eventually has to choose one of those positions. The fact that they choose one does not mean that they do not appreciate the arguments put the other way, but we are forced, in the end, to come down on balance for one or other view. I think we should just try to keep a level of good dealing between colleagues. I just hope that we will not at the end of this debate be putting criticism on the Standing Orders Commitee for carrying out the task which we as a Senate asked its members to do when we appointed them to that Committee to do the job for us. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.15) —Senator Chaney said that he was the father of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Senator Tate —I have had some phone calls that start like that. Senator HAINES —In all truth it appeared he did not sound as if he was too thrilled at what he had fathered. One perhaps ought to ask whether he had any assistance at all, whether it was an IVF or an AID-- Senator Missen —Or did he have a legitimate birth. Senator HAINES —Whatever way it was, Senator Missen, the child has come out extremely healthy and it is not the sort of retarded child that some of the comments in the Standing Orders Committee reports would make it out to be. It is in fact-I say this with all due modesty being a member of the Committee-- Senator Peter Baume —As you always do. Senator HAINES —Indeed, as I always exhibit, Senator Baume. It is in fact a quite gifted child, considering that it had to fight through some odds simply to survive. Senator Tate is quite correct, the Standing Orders Committee comments in the report are patronising and condescending. Honourable senators talk about whether it is wise to endanger the successful operations of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee in the same sort of tone one would use in talking about whether it is wise to give a child a loaded gun, for goodness sake. There is no reason for taking this sort of attitude. Senator Button's argument that because we have not used certain powers is no reason for us either retaining them or adding new ones is not particularly sensible or rational either. It is certainly not the sort of argument that would be sustainable in real life. We do not argue that about any other sort of area. What this argument is really about and what the whole debate is about is whether this Committee should even exist and whether or not the Executive wants the Senate or one of its committees, particularly one which looks in such close detail at Government legislation, to get too big for its boots. That is basically what this is all about. It is about containing and controlling a committee which has had more success than its father ever thought it would have and certainly, as part of the off-spring, I am very glad indeed that it has had that success. I might add that some of it has been due to the good offices and attention that Senator Macklin has paid to the Committee's early reports in picking up some of the anomalies and infringement of liberties that were pointed out by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. This certainly gave the Committee members in those early stages a bit of a boost when they thought that, in fact, they had been pushed into a back room and were being left to die. So certainly the Committee has developed in a way that perhaps was not anticipated and has been successful in a way that was not anticipated. In fact, I understand that it is now common practice in departments for the bureaucrats to consider what the Scrutiny of Bills Committee would do to a Bill and to clauses in a Bill before it puts a draft to the Minister. I think that in its own right is a fantastic achievement for this Committee. If in any way at all allowing it to retain the powers it has or to expand them can extend the value of that Committee I would give three cheers. It is about time the Committee was treated as a grown up member of the Senate committee system. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.18) —For a moment tonight Senator Button almost sounded very reactionary and conservative to me. I did not realise quite how being in goverment changes ones character. I must say that listening to the debate so far and at the risk of sawing sawdust I am inclined to the view that there is no threat to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee's capacity, confidence, integrity or ability by providing it with extended standing orders which it seeks for itself. It has had standing orders now for something like twenty-two months and there have been no disasters, no embarrassments and no upsets. Nobody sought to demonstrate tonight that by being cloaked with those powers there has been any aberrations that would cause the Government or members of the Committee embarrassment in any way. As an original member of this Committee I know that it was discussed by our side of politics with some reservations. I suspect in the hearts of many people the reservations were that it might embarrass the Government or impede legislation. Of course, all those concerns and anxieties are being found to have no substance. The Committee has performed very well. It has had these powers for 22 months. I do not believe-I can be corrected-that there has been a call for the use of the powers which caused concern in the past. I do not believe it is necessary for the Committee to call for them in the future. I would have thought that government ought not to be frightened about public comment in respect of legislation that falls within the terms of reference of the Committee. In fact, they should encourage it. I understood the Labor Party to have been talking about consensus and public participation. There are Standing Orders which are embraced by all of the other standing committees. I do not believe there have been occasions when there has been concern that they have those provisions. In regard to the arguments put forward by Senator Ray, almost without exception most standing committees can take upon themselves terms of reference which would be just as wide and as encompassing in many respects as those which are enshrined by this Committee. There is no logic in drawing a distinction between this Committee and any other committee, particularly as for the last 22 months this Committee has performed under those Standing Orders which it seeks to have continued for the Committee in the future. I do not believe anybody has put forward an argument so far that they should be removed, except to say there might be some concern for the future, and so far that has not been demonstrated. Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLAND(New South Wales)(10.21) —I rise to speak as the Chairman of the Senate Standing Orders Committee in order to defend the reputation of all members of the Standing Orders Committee. I assure Senator Crichton-Browne that it is not a Government committee. The Standing Orders Committee is a committee of the Senate, representing all points of political view that exist within the Senate. I think it is fair to say that all members of the Senate Standing Orders Committee who were at the meeting heard Senator Missen address the meeting. He was given complete liberty to say anything he might wish to say in support of the claim by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. After he had spoken he was asked a number of questions. After he left the meeting the Committee considered the matter and all members of the Committee, I think without any demur, agreed to the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee. Also, there was expressed at the meeting the highest respect and laudation of the work of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Indeed, I think everyone knows that Senator Missen and Senator Tate were sent by the former President of the Senate- it was subsequently supported by me-to Canada last year to the Second Commonwealth Conference on Delegated Legislation to talk about the work of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. That is what the Senate thinks of the work of that Committee. At a meeting of the Commonwealth Presiding Officers in Wellington last January I spoke highly of the work of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and suggested to those Presiding Officers that they should recommmend to their parliaments that they introduce a form of scrutiny of legislation, as we have in the Senate. I mention that to indicate to all who have spoken in support of Senator Missen's proposition that, as far as the meeting of the Standing Orders Committee was concerned, there was no hostility towards the work that the Committee carried out. The case of the Standing Orders Committee briefly is set out in paragraph (7). The history of the Committee indicates that it was intended to operate, and has in fact operated, in a manner similar to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, which works by deliberating in private upon the legislation which stands referred to it by corresponding with responsible Ministers and by reporting to the Senate. This method of operation has been instrumental in ensuring the success and acceptance of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee during the 50 years of its existence and of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee during the brief period of its existence. If one then turns to page 2808 of today's Notice Paper, one will see that there is a difference between the titles of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee and the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, and the legislative and general purpose standing committees. The two committees to which I refer, the Regulations and Ordinances Committee and the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, are specifically referred to as legislative scrutiny standing committees. The Regulations and Ordinances Committee is world acclaimed for the excellent work that it has carried out during its 50 years of existence. Never once has it had to have a public meeting; never once has it had to have a daily record taken of its proceedings; never once has it asked that its deliberations be televised, or anything of that nature. All of its deliberations have been conducted privately. It has become the watchdog in this Parliament of the rights of individual members of the Australian community. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee, in the short time that it has been in existence, has joined in the excellent work of the Regulations and Ordinance Committee. We have genuinely believed that those two committees should continue to operate in that fashion and, as Senator Button has said, the Standing Orders Committee says that, should it appear in the future that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee requires any or all of the provisions in question, it may be appropriate for the Senate to consider the matter again. I firmly support the recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee because I believe that it is in the interests of the Senate that that attitude be adopted by this Committee. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.27) —I will reply to the comments made in the debate-it is one of the most serious occasions I have known in the Parliament-to try to repair the situation before it goes too far. I believe that the vote on this matter is a vital one. I am sorry that so many back bench members of the Parliament are not present, have not taken part in the debate and do not appreciate what is going on. I want to deal first with some of the individual contributions in the debate. Senator Button —Not harshly, I hope. Senator MISSEN —I regard this matter very seriously. I regard it as a matter of life and death for the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I will fight to the end to see that this Committee does continue and does not go down the track which I fear it may well go down if it is slapped in the face by the removal-and that is what it is-of the powers it has had for some period. Of course the Committee has been praised overseas. Senator Tate's excellent paper on the Committee was warmly received at the Second Commonwealth Conference on Delegated Legislation. As the President had indicated, many other countries may choose to follow the same path. It is now reported that, unfortunately, the Committee's powers will be reduced to the archaic terms of reference of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, which we all had to suffer on that Committee. I was Chairman and a member of that Committee for a number of years. We will find that we are going backwards with the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, instead of bringing forward the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. Senator Button tried to suggest that there were two things to which I did not give attention. The first was that if the powers were found to be inadequate it would be appropriate to consider the matter here again. How often have I head that statement in reports tabled in this Parliament and how little consolation it is. I did not take that statement as being very important. Of course we can come back. But we know that if we lose this battle now we have probably lost it for good. The second thing that the honourable senator raised was paragraph (7) of the report, to draw the distinction between the regulations and ordinances type of committee and the legislative and general purpose standing committees. The President and others have tried to say there is some distinction between them. The secret, of course, lies in the next thing that the honourable senator said. We want to have, and continue to have, the power to have senators come to the Committee and ask questions, and to make it more public or a showpiece-that was what Senator Button said the Committee would become if it had these powers. Senator Robert Ray, who had the honesty to say that he had not taken much interest in the Committee, said that it would become a circus-type committee. Of course, there is not the slightest evidence to back up any of those assertions that it has, or will become, anything of the sort. It will always be subject to the control of the Senate, anyway, if it shows any predilection to move in that direction. Senator Button said that the Committee might become more public. What horror! How terrible! Is it not the trouble with this-it is the trouble, too, with the regulatory process in this country-that it is not more public? The whole system is poor because we do not publicise regulations before the event, because we do not give the public an opportunity to appear before these committees and the public do not know about them. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly- The PRESIDENT —Order! I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.30) —I wish to express the bitter disappointment not only of myself but also of the people of a large proportion of Tasmania over the most recent action of the Federal Government in withdrawing the somewhat farcial offer to do some work to Wynyard Airport. I think it needs to be put in the context that the Federal Government since taking office has not only stopped the west coast hydro-electric power development that was under way but also has cancelled the redevelopment of Wynyard Airport which had commenced, eliminated various water schemes that had been approved and has subsequently rejected other airport development as well. In spite of all those things on the debit side, not one thing has been given in place. The west and north west corner of Tasmania services businesses such as four of the seven major dairy factories in Tasmania, two of the six major abattoirs, one of the four vegetable processing plants, all of the major mines producing tin, copper, zinc, lead or iron ore, the major timber mills of the State, the Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd Burnie plant, dioxide, the pelletising plant at Port Latta and over a quarter of the population of the State. Wynyard Airport is not a Johnny-come-lately or anything else. Wynyard, of course, was one of the places on Bert Hinkler's trip around Australia in 1929. It had its first air pageant in 1932. That was very largely due to, and I give credit to, the late Owen Waterworth who was the main instigator of that airport, realising that Wynyard was of geographical importance in servicing King Island and that it was within distance of Melbourne. As from 1936 W. M. Holyman and Sons Pty Ltd was running regular air services in and out of Wynyard. The figures in favour of the case which have been so totally ignored make the Government's decision an absolute nonsense. On looking at the figures for other airports around Australia I find that Wynyard Airport, now being denied upgrading, handles regularly at least 60 per cent more passengers per year than many of the upgraded airports. Tasmania generally is a very good example of practical decentralisation. The strength of Tasmania, which is largely the envy of other States, is that it has this decentralisation. I find it quite extraordinary that postponement has even been suggested, let alone carried out on the basis of what is loosely referred to as alleged cost. If the upgrading is a matter of cost what is the cost of not doing the upgrading? Non-development is another matter. What would happen with non-development? Would it increase the cost of all those major industries and the 60,000 people involved? Of course it would. Would it tend to cause industry and business to relocate now or in the future. Again, the answer is yes. Would it destabilise land and rental values in the far north west coast? Of course it would. Would it affect the traditional sociological balance? Of course it would. Would it cause much higher costs in perpetuity? The answer again is yes. How do those costs compare with the once-up cost of upgrading the Airport? The cost of upgrading would be minimal compared with the continuing costs. Anybody with half a mind can see that. The decisions that seem to have been taken and some of the ridiculous comments that I have seen in the Press and heard people make are invariably made by people who do not live there and who could not possibly know the position of the area anyway. I do not think there would be anything wrong in those who are responsible for making these sorts of decisions at least taking some notice of the people who live there. If they did I think they would find the decision fairly clear and the reasons very plausible. Wynyard basically is a business airport. It is not very heavy on tourists but it is on business. I believe that that in itself makes the airport very important indeed. None of the major hire car firms even run Wynard as a major depot for tourists any longer. However, business people still use it very heavily. Where else in the world would any government be trying to encourage centralisation. Where are governments not trying to see that people are spread a little more evenly to avoid the large buildup such as we so often see strangling isolated countries. Australia, in particular, is the best example we can find of this. This whole area of Tasmania needs a little encouragement now. I ask honourable senators to remember that it is highly productive in mining and farming, producing vegetables, meats and dairy produce. Right now there is a real problem internationally with minerals. Prices are down, tin quotas apply, money is short and unions in the area are jumpy. None of this is the responsibility of the particular area. It has been caused by external forces. The whole area needs stability and encouragement to see it overcome the current problems. I promise that there is also no boom in the farming area. I ask those who make the decisions whether they have any idea of what the entry into the Closer Economic Relations agreement with New Zealand has done to destabilise the area. Do honourable senators know what the weather has done in the last two or three years? It is drier in that part of Australia than it has been over the last two years which, as anyone would know, has been dry. Do honourable senators know what the increase in shipping costs has done to many of the industries of the area? Maybe honourable senators do not know. I do not really expect that everybody should follow what happens in that area. However, I assure honourable senators that those who live and work in the area and who are trying to maintain their productivity certainly know. As a result of the indecision over the airport several businesses have withheld expansion and development plans. There have been withdrawals, amalgamations and rationalisation while the airport business is still being fiddled about. I understand why some of those businesses have taken these steps right now. It is most unfortunate that as a result of this ridiculous short term decision long term commercial commitments are being made. I cannot understand how the Government could possibly have accepted advice which by any standards is so patently wrong. It is absolutely ridiculous on a whole range of bases, as I have demonstrated. In fact I cannot find one basis to support the pettiness and silliness that has resulted in this decision. Naturally the efforts to right this nonsense will continue. Naturally the present Government representatives for Tasmania will be invited to be identified with their State colleagues in the program to try to put it right. I assure honourable senators that the people of the area will be pleased to continue to press for the right and proper action to be taken. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.41) —I do not want to delay the Senate. What we just heard was a parochial speech by Senator Archer in support of his views on Wynyard Airport. I think I should point out some of the more ridiculous arguments that he used. One of the last arguments that he used was that this was an example of the Government indulging in centralisation. It should be on the Senate record that we have an airport in Hobart, an airport in Launceston and an airport in Devonport which is being upgraded to jet standard because of the farsightedness of the Devonport people. A few kilometres away we have an airport in Wynyard. This is no more an example of centralisation than any of the arguments that Senator Archer used. He pointed out quite correctly that on the north-west coast, particularly the far north-west coast-I suppose I fly in there with a frequency second only to Senator Archer-we have dairy factories, we have timber mills, we have dioxide, we have mining, we have vegetable processing and we have vegetable growing. Senator Archer seemed to be suggesting that because Wynyard Airport was not going to be upgraded those industries would be relocated, that people would pick up their dairy farms and take them away and that people would take their mines away. Senator Archer —Don't be damned ridiculous. Senator GRIMES —That is what the honourable senator said when he made his speech . Senator Archer —You heard what I said. Senator GRIMES —I heard what the honourable senator said. He said that as a result of he airport not going ahead there had been withdrawals, amalgamations and rationalisations. He gave us not one example. The problem is that in situations like this when industries are not doing well, of course they will blame something like this. The honourable senator did not give one example and he should. Senator Archer —I will give you an example. Senator GRIMES —If the honourable senator wants an example of why the upgrading of Wynyard Airport has not proceeded, I will give him one. In 1983 there were 70 ,655 scheduled airline passengers and in 1973, 10 years before, there were 82, 137. People who are using airports on the north-west coast are marching with their feet. In those 10 years there has been a reduction in the number of people who use that airport. Senator Archer knows what the real problem is. The previous Government introduced the local ownership of airports program. I do not argue about it; I think there is a place for it and there is also not a place for it. The people in Devonport realised what was going on. They got themselves organised, got their airport upgraded and did the right thing. The people at Wynyard did not because Mr Groom, the honourable member for Braddon, and Senator Archer told them not to do it; to keep right out of it. If people talk to the locals they will tell them that they were misled by their two local members. They were left out of it. If they had gone into the matter earlier it might have been a different situation. Wynyard Airport may have been upgraded and Devonport may not have been upgraded. Let us not wring our hands in this place and tear out our hair and say: 'This terrible Government is not upgrading Wynyard Airport when it should be doing so and when Wynyard Airport could have been upgraded'. This could have happened if Wynyard's local members had not got to the local people-do not deny it-and said 'Do not have a bar of our Government's proposals', that is, the former Government's proposals. The Devonport people said: 'We will be left in the lurch if we do not'. They went ahead, they were progressive. What has happened? Their airport has been upgraded and Wynyard Airport has not. Wynyard Airport will eventually be upgraded. Of course it will be upgraded, but it will be upgraded in the normal pattern under the normal set of priorities that should be used in this area. To blame all the ills that may exist on the north-west coast on the fact that Wynyard Airport has not been upgraded to Senator Archer's satisfaction now-he was not so interested in it a few years ago -is nonsense. I will refer the details of the matter to the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley). I am sure that the Minister will give the honourable senator an appropriate answer. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania) —Mr President, I wish to speak on a matter on which I have been misrepresented. If the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) can produce one line in which I have stated, or one person has ever heard me say , that Wynyard Airport should not be upgraded I will give him $1,000. Senator Grimes —I did not say that. Senator ARCHER —You did. I do not wish to debate this question. The Minister said that the local representative and I had urged people not to participate in the local ownership plan. I will give the Minister or anyone else that he would rather I give the money to at least $1,000 if he can produce one line or one person to substantiate that I ever said anything other than that Wynyard should adopt local ownership. When the Minister has checked that out with whoever he likes, I will be pleased to accept his apology. I do not wish to have this sort of scurrilous remark passed about me or the cause I am here to sponsor. I will be happy to give him a list of the witnesses- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to withdraw the word ' scurrilous'. Senator ARCHER —I withdraw the word 'scurrilous'. I do not know what to replace it with but, Mr President, you know what I mean. I still object to this type of totally incorrect, wilfully wantonly and deliberately untrue statement. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.47 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 610) Senator Hearn asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: (1)What is the comparative funding for wind energy research in Australia, Denmark and the United Kingdom during the years 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983. (2) What is the comparative funding for solar energy research in Australia and the United States during the years 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983. (3) What is the funding for nuclear research in the areas of energy, health and safety in Australia for 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Comparative Funding for Wind Energy Research in Australia, Denmark and the United Kingdom 1978-79-1982-83 ($Am) 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Australia NA 0.74 0.71 NA NA Denmark 1.57 1.36 2.17 1.53 NA United Kingdom 1.31 2.38 5.92 7.50 NA (2) Comparative Funding for Solar Energy Research in Australia and the United States 1978-79-1982-83 ($Am) 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Australia 6.40 9.31 11.18 8.99 NA United States of America 316.94 375.18 313.85 258.00 NA (3) Funding for Nuclear Research in the Areas of Energy, Health and Safety in Australia The breakdown requested is not available. The figures below show total funding for nuclear energy research. 1978-79-1982-83 ($Am) 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 13.85 22.10 27.03 21.21 NA Footnote: Australian figures have been obtained from Australian Bureau of Statistics publications. International figures have been obtained from publications of the International Energy Agency. (Question No. 622) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: (1) Has the paid agents pilot scheme been completed. (2) Has the evaluation of the pilot scheme been completed. (3) Are copies of the evaluation report available; if so, when will the Minister for Social Security provide a copy of the report. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The pilot scheme for paid agents is still in operation. Currently there are six agents operating under the scheme and their appointments have been extended until 30 June 1984. (2) A report on the operation of the pilot scheme has been submitted to me and is currently being examined. (3) The honourable senator has been provided with a copy of the report.