Thursday, 18 October 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over the importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG and M rated video- cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of ''X'' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 194 citizens), Mason (from 183 citizens), Robertson (from 91 citizens) and Scott (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr. Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Inquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least the 31st March, 1985 and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 19 citizens), Hamer (from 36 citizens) and Kilgariff ( from two citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Not adopt the X Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Kilgariff (from 29 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: That we hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority the decision of the Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard-core pornography and violence upon people and especially children; That we view with grave concern and deplore the decision of the Hawke Government to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become more widespread during the period of the inquiry. Your Petitioners pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Request the Federal Government to immediately re-enact the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bjelke-Petersen (from 182 citizens) and MacGibbon (from 722 citizens ). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows: That:-the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of the Australian people should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your Petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bjelke-Petersen (from 140 citizens) and Collard (from 60 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority, the decision of the Hawke Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with deep concern, and deplore, the decision of the Government to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become even more widespread during the period of the inquiry. We request the Federal Government to immediately enact laws to ban the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Martin (from 135 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens shows that: 1. the Hawke Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad inquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and, 3. following the report of such a wide inquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from seven 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 phasing out of the recurrent grant to residential colleges will be detrimental to the ability of disadvantaged and country students to receive a tertiary education. That alternative arrangements to fund needy students will be of no net benefit to those students, owing to the higher costs of administering such arrangements. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the recurrent grant to residential colleges be maintained as the most efficient and equitable means of ensuring that all citizens, irrespective of background, have equal opportunity to receive a tertiary education. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Withers (from 86 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. A petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we who use the Hanover Centre, highly value and need the services it provides in its present location and would suffer considerable hardship should it be forced to close or move. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should ensure that the Hanover Centre should remain open in the Carlton Area. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 25 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. We are Australians who support nuclear disarmament. 2. The world is closer to nuclear war than at any time since World War II. This ultimate catastrophe can and must be avoided by ordinary people raising their voices and taking action against the threat of nuclear destruction. 3. We identify with the massive worldwide movement for a nuclear-free future- for a 'freeze' on all nuclear weapons testing, production and deployment, as an immediate first step towards complete disarmament. 4. Australians are not remote from nuclear danger-we are very much involved and threatened. 5. We can contribute to the growing global movement for a peaceful world by opposing Australian involvement in activities and strategies likely to lead to a nuclear holocaust. To achieve this, we call on the Australian Government to: Support actively the United Nations' World Disarmament Campaign and to commit itself never to introduce, or allow to be introduced, nuclear weapons into Australia. Undertake not to update or expand existing nuclear related foreign military installations on Australian territory nor permit the establishment of any new ones. Remove all nuclear related military installations since these contribute to the ability to conduct nuclear attacks and are likely targets in case of war. End all port-of-call and landing rights arrangements granted to foreign nuclear forces including nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered vessels and aircraft. Support the establishment of nuclear-free zones in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, including the banning of all nuclear testing and waste dumping. End the mining and export of Australian uranium. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Senator Jack Evans-Mr President, I take a point of order. I express concern at the terms of the last petition. I ask for your ruling on whether it is adequate that a petition which sets out in some detail a very firm request to the Government to take action on matters related to nuclear-related military installations, the mining and export of Australian uranium and a number of other issues can be watered down to read: 'request the Government to take certain action in support of world nuclear disarmament'. I recognise that the Clerk has a very difficult job in precising a large petition but the terms in which this petition is written do not give any indication of the real terms of the petition that a number of people-over 2,000 people-have gone to the trouble of presenting to the Senate. The PRESIDENT-It used to be the practice, of course, for all petitions to be read by senators presenting them but, because of the great number of petitions that were being lodged and the time that was taken up by reading them, the Standing Orders Committee recommended, and the recommendation was adopted by the Senate, that the practice of the Clerk's summarising the petitions be adopted. That has been the practice and I think the Clerks have done an excellent job in the main in carrying out that task. If Senator Evans wants a petition read, he can seek the leave of the Senate to have it read. However, should he seek another summary to be made by the Clerks, I suggest that he discuss the matter with the Clerks. Senator Jack Evans-I respect and appreciate the difficulty the Clerk has. I would be happy to have him prepare another summary. by Senators Jack Evans (from 581 citizens), Macklin (from 529 citizens) and Mason (from 1,641 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered, the days and hours of sitting of the Senate for the week commencing Monday, 22 October 1984, be- (a) Monday, 22 October 1984- 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; (b) Tuesday, 23 October 1984- 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; (c) Wednesday, 24 October 1984- 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; and the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 10 .30 p.m. on this day; and (d) Thursday, 25 October 1984- 10 am-6.30 p.m. (2) On Tuesday, 22 October 1984, the routine of business be as follows- (a) Petitions; (b) Notices of Motion; (c) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business; (d) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business; (e) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa , as set down on the Notice Paper; (f) At 2 p.m., Questions; (g) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64; (h) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order; and (i) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, aware that if the referendum concerning the interchange of powers between the States and the Commonwealth is passed, it will be possible for the Commonwealth to arrange for the States to imposes taxes that at the moment they cannot impose, such as a retail turnover tax, therefore urges the Federal Government to allocate a certain amount of money to both the Yes and No cases so that people can be made aware of just how dangerous it is to pass a referendum, even if it has a deceptively simple name. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate congratulates Bishop Desmond Tutu on being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and assures him of the Senate's support in his fight against the evils of apartheid. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate is of the opinion that an appropriate tribunal should be established to oversee the Government acquisition of private land with particular scrutiny of- (a) compensation rates paid by the Federal Government in comparison to fair market valuations; and (b) the agreement of, and adherence to, reasonable dates of settlements. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Hawke Labor Government for its failure to honour its previous election commitment that there would be no tax increase on lump sum superannuation. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Hawke Government for deliberately misleading the people over its long term taxation intentions. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the assessments, recommendations and reports of the Royal Bank of Canada, Westpac Consortium and international petroleum consultants Van Poollen and Associates following their respective investigations into gas reserves in Central Australia; (b) calls on the Federal Government to note these reports; and (c) calls on the Federal Government to consider as a matter of priority the construction of a gas pipeline from Dingo, Orange Creek, Mereenie and Palm Valley to Darwin with the possibility of extending the pipeline through to Nhulunbuy and Gove. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) calls on the Federal Government to commission a second inquiry into the viability of the Alice Springs to Darwin rail link project, taking into consideration the recommendations of a report prepared by the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University, and a further report prepared by the Montreal-based Canadian Pacific Consulting Services, both of which were tabled in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on Tuesday, 16 October 1984; and (b) in the light of the defence and development requirements of northern Australia, calls on the Government to carry out this further inquiry without delay. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia) — I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Federal Government for being prepared to submit to the demands of banks to lift the interest rate ceiling on small overdrafts and home loans; and (b) urges the Federal Government not to rush into further deregulation unless it can be certain that small business and home buyers who currently have bank loans can be protected against the inevitable increase in interest rates that would flow to them as a result of such deregulation. Senator REID —(Australian Capital Territory)- I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) registers its abhorrence of the recent budgetary cutbacks which affect immediate and critical, as well as long term, planning and scientific research at Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation; (b) recognises that we are in the midst of a technological revolution which will continue to affect all societies, particularly in industrial, economic, employment and social spheres, and Australia cannot afford to be left behind other nations of the Western world; (c) stresses concern that the Federal Government's off-hand treatment of science and technology could well place our nation into a Third World category; (d) is astounded that the Federal Government lightly accepts an excess of $800m for the cost of Medicare over and above the compulsory one per cent levy, but refuses to consider reshuffling its priorities in other areas to allocate the desperately needed $9m for CSIRO to maintain its basic research programs; and (e) calls on the Federal Government to give urgent consideration to reviewing such critical funding for the CSIRO. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate is of the opinion that, in light of the high unemployment and lack of employment opportunities in outback Aboriginal settlements, the Federal Government should upgrade the Commonwealth employment program in these settlements to create employment in areas such as garden projects, tree planting and road building so that the Aboriginal people, and in particular young Aboriginal people, are able to work and become more self-sufficient rather than remain reliant on pensions and unemployment benefits as their only means of subsistence. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate is of the opinion that- (a) the Federal Government should take note of the submission prepared by the Northern Territory Government and the Alice Springs Municipal Council, in conjunction with the Alice Springs Airport planning consultants, regarding the local ownership proposal for Alice Springs Airport; and (b) the Federal Government give priority consideration to providing funds for the upgrading of Alice Springs Airport to international standard so that the airport can be proved viable and provide the facilities necessary: (i) for the increasing numbers of tourists, both national and international, travelling to and from Central Australia, (ii) for the numerous aircraft, which fly both east-west and north-south in the area, and which emanate from most capital cities, and (iii) to complement the new international tourist destination at Yalara, Ayers Rock. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes- (a) the Hawke Labor Government's failure to provide defensible reasons for calling a general election after just 19 months in office; and (b) recognises that failure as an insult to the intelligence of the people. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —Mr President, I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Deportation and the Family-Human Rights Commission report-pursuant to section 30 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981; together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General relating to the report. 2. Insurance Commissioner-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 125 of the Insurance Act 1973. 3. Amendment to Fisheries Agreement with KKFC Pty Ltd-the Agreement is between the Commonwealth and KKFC Pty Ltd, an Australian company- Document. 4. Public Service Board-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 22 of the Public Service Act 1922. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —Mr President, I table the Government response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on 'Freedom of Information Act 1982-Annual Report by the Attorney-General on the operation of the Act for the period 1 December 1982 to 30 June 1983'. I seek leave, Mr President, to have the text of that statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- On 6 June 1984 Senator Missen presented a report by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the Annual Report by the Attorney-General on the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 for the period 1 December 1982 to 30 June 1983. The Committee's report made four recommendations. The Committee's recommendations and the Government's responses are as follows: PUBLICITY Recommendation 1. The Government should proceed with the recommendations of the Attorney- General to ensure that there is a better knowledge of the Freedom of Information Act, so that the public and public-interest bodies may make full use of the valuable amount of information which is now available for their use. Response Accepted. A survey has been conducted on behalf of the Government by the Roy Morgan Research Centre to assess present levels of public awareness and understanding of the general public's rights under the Freedom of Information Act. The results of the survey confirmed that public knowledge of the Freedom of Information Act is very low. The survey showed that less than 40 per cent of the population had heard of the Act and less than 10 per cent knew how to request access to documents under the Act. The Government has therefore embarked on a major publicity program to promote people's awareness of their rights of access under the Freedom of Information Act to documents of Commonwealth Departments and authorities. The publicity program commenced in June 1984 with the release by the Australian Tax Office of 6.5 million 1984 Tax Guides containing a printed message about FOI. In the months of July and August 1984 the Department of Social Security issued an insert, containing an FOI message, with every pension or benefit cheque posted to its clients. The Department of Veterans' Affairs is considering a similar exercise for its clients. An FOI message will be printed by the Department of Education and Youth Affairs on most 1985 study assistance scheme information booklets and on 1985 notices of conditions of award to successful applicants for study benefits. Consideration is being given to the inclusion of an FOI general information page in every 'white pages' telephone directory by December 1985. It is intended that this page be adjacent to and cross-referenced with the Commonwealth Government section in each directory and that the FOI page become a permanent feature of telephone directory information. The Attorney-General's Department has produced a new FOI information brochure which includes a 'tear-off' FOI request form. Five hundred thousand copies of this brochure have been distributed to all post offices in Australia. Thirty five thousand copies have been distributed by the Australian Tax Office to all tax agents. Thirty thousand copies have been supplied to Government Departments and agencies for distribution by counter staff. Ethnic language versions of the brochure will also be produced. Additional brochures dealing with appeal rights and correction of personal records are also being produced. Arrangements have been made for community awareness seminars on FOI to be held throughout Australia. Seminars have already been conducted by the Attorney- General's Department in Sydney, Brisbane, Townsville and Darwin. Seminars have also been conducted in Melbourne, Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong. The Victorian seminars were conducted jointly by officers of the Victorian Government and the Attorney-General's Department and dealt with both the State and Commonwealth legislation. The Department of Social Security has conducted a series of FOI seminars in Hobart, Launceston, Burnie and Devonport. Further seminars will be held later this year in Western Australia, South Australia and New South Wales. The thrust of all these seminars is at community groups and business organisations: people who can in turn pass the information on to their clients and members. I believe that these initiatives should ensure that the vast majority of Australians will be aware of the existence of freedom of information legislation . A second public awareness survey will be conducted early in 1985 in order to assess the effectiveness of the Government's FOI publicity program. FOI HANDBOOK Recommendation 2. The Government should facilitate the provision of information about Departments required to be supplied under the Act and ensure that the Freedom of Information Handbook is produced and widely distributed at an early date. Response Accepted. The FOI Handbook is a long-term project which is being developed as resources allow. The memoranda included in the publication 'Guidelines to Freedom of Information Act' are being revised by the Attorney-General's Department to take into account changes made by the Freedom of Information Amendment Act 1983 and significant decisions by the Federal Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. These revised memoranda will form the core of the proposed handbook. The Australian Government Publishing Service is conducting a study to determine the appropriate format for the handbook. This study will look at overseas experience in producing publications to assist members of the public to understand and make use of FOI legislation. USE OF EXCEPTIONS, EXEMPTIONS AND TIME DELAYS Recommendations 3. The Attorney-General's Department should carefully monitor the differences appearing in the usage made by agencies of exceptions and exemptions and the varying times taken to meet requests. 4. The Attorney-General's Department should be vigilant in monitoring exceptions and exemptions to ensure that technical defects in applications are not used to frustrate access to information. Response Accepted. The 1983 FOI Annual Report (paragraphs 3.4.1. to 3.4.4.) outlined measures taken by the Attorney-General's Department to ensure consistency of administration by all agencies which are subject to the Act. An inter- Departmental working party has recently completed a review of the statistical monitoring system which was set up to provide information on how the FOI Act is administered in over 400 agencies which are subject to the legislation. The review was conducted against a background of shortfalls in the existing system identified in the Annual Report (paragraphs 3.8.17. and 6.1.) and concerns expressed by agencies about the workload imposed in providing statistics. As a result a new statistical reporting system will commence operation in 1985. It is hoped that this new system will provide more accurate information on the use by agencies of different exceptions and exemptions. Recent improvements to the Attorney-General's Department computer system will permit the Department to make better use of these statistics in monitoring the operation of the Act. The average time taken by all agencies to respond to requests continues to remain well within the 60 day time limit set by the Act. The number of requests in which response time is substantial also remains relatively low. The Annual Report (paragraph 6.4.2.) noted that some agencies experience difficulties in dealing with particular requests because of the complexity of issues raised by requests, because of the large number of documents to which some applicants seek access or because of the need for consultation with State Governments, suppliers of business information or other agencies. These factors continue to cause problems but increasing familiarity with FOI legislation by State government agencies and business organisations should result in a decrease in the time spent by agencies in dealing with some requests. The Act provides applicants with extensive rights to seek review, by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, of agencies' decisions and actions in dealing with requests. It is not, of course, possible for the Attorney-General's Department to monitor the handling of individual requests. Where delays occur applicants have direct remedies under the legislation. There is no general evidence of agencies adopting an overly technical approach to the legislation. In monitoring arguments put by agencies in Administrative Appeals Tribunal proceedings under the Act, the Attorney-General's Department seeks to ensure that agencies comply with both the spirit and the letter of the Freedom of Information Act. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.14) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Although I have not seen the statement, I feel that it is a matter of considerable importance and that we should have a proper debate on it when we have studied it. The previous report was very informative, and I am confident that this one will be likewise. Therefore, I hope that this statement will be studied closely by honourable senators and members and that we shall have a full debate on it at a later stage. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Is it desired to take all these items together? Senator Grimes-I am happy with that course, Mr President, if it will assist. The PRESIDENT —Is it the wish of the Senate that all of the matters under General Business, Notices of Motion Nos 146 to 153 inclusive, be declared formal or not formal? Senator Grimes-Not-- Senator Missen-I ask that No. 148 be excluded from that list and dealt with separately. Senator Grimes-I intend to declare them all not formal. Senator Missen-I take a point of order. That notice of motion is in a different category. The PRESIDENT —General Business notice on motion No. 148 standing in the name of Senator Missen relating to the media reporting of Parliament and its committees, is this formal or not formal? Senator Grimes-Not formal. Senator Missen-Mr President, this notice of motion is not in the same category as the others. I suggest that if it is declared not formal you, Mr President, and the Senate Standing Committee on Publications will be deprived of the opportunity of looking into the matter. The PRESIDENT —At the moment I am ascertaining whether the notice of motion is formal or not formal. It has been declared not formal. At this stage there is no debate on the matter. Senator Missen-I take a point of order. To declare this not formal will deprive you, Mr President, and the Publications Committee of an opportunity to look into the feasibility of a matter. The notice of motion will go to the bottom of the Notice Paper. It will not be dealt with and it will go off the Notice Paper at the end of this session. If this happens, subsequently I will have to ask the Senate to treat this matter as a separate matter. I will probably do so in the non-controversial debate today. I suggest that this is a dog-in-the-manger attitude to take regarding this notice of motion. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. At the moment we are merely going through the process of the Senate determining whether the matters are formal or not formal. Senator Missen-I withdraw the notice of motion so that I will be free to take up the matter elsewhere in this Parliament. Senator Grimes-We will negotiate on this. Don't get up here and put on a song and dance about it without letting us know. Senator MacGibbon-Jackboots again. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Missen, do you withdraw the notice of motion? Senator Missen-I withdraw it. Under the circumstances, what I am forced to do is withdraw the notice of motion now and raise the matter in Parliament later today. Senator Grimes-You would know all about jackboots, MacGibbon, you fascist. Senator Walters-I ask Senator Grimes to withdraw that remark. Senator Grimes-I think that Senator Walters's request demonstrates exactly what the Opposition is about. It is perfectly all right for Senator MacGibbon to say that I go around in jackboots. It is not all right for me to say it even more directly to him. We know that the honourable senator has double standards, but I withdraw. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Chair did not hear the remark that is claimed to be offensive, but if Senator Grimes made such a remark I ask him to withdraw. Senator Grimes-I withdrew. The PRESIDENT —Thank you. Senator Grimes has withdrawn. Senator McIntosh-I take a point of order. Under the circumstances I insist that Senator MacGibbon withdraw his remark, which was heard quite clearly. Senator MacGibbon-I would be happy to withdraw that remark. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator MacGibbon has withdrawn the remark, whatever it was. I call General Business notice of motion No. 149 standing in the name of Senator Foreman relating to achievements of the Government. Is this formal or not formal? Senator Grimes-Not formal. Senator Peter Rae-To save the time of the Senate, can we take the rest en bloc? The PRESIDENT —No. Objection was taken to that- Senator Peter Rae-I was just trying to help. I thought that Senator Grimes might have-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I sought the permission of the Senate to do that earlier. There were two objections and I decided that in the interests of the Senate it should be done individually. Motion (by Senator Jones)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment has completed its report on Land Use Policy, the Committee may send the report to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy President, and, in that event- (a) The report shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (b) The publication of the report is authorised by this resolution; (c) The President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the report; and (d) The President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, shall lay the report upon the table at the next sitting of the Senate. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution have effect notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives. (3) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Motion (by Senator McIntosh)-by leave- proposed: (1) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has completed its report, the Committee may send the report to the President or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy President, and, in that event- (a) The report shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (b) The publication of the report is authorised by this resolution; (c) The President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the report; and (d) The President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, shall lay the report upon the table at the next sitting of the Senate. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution have effect notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives. (3)That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.23) —I do not wish to delay the Senate and I am perfectly happy with the motions which are being moved by leave this morning. I merely want to make the point that the moving of these motions bears out what I think has always been the understanding in this place and that is that the Senate has a continuing life after the House of Representatives is dissolved. The fact of the matter is that the Senate which is not subject to dissolution, although in this election it would be subject to some additions under the provisions of legislation recently passed, is a continuing body. That is relevant at the moment, Mr President, because of the potentially contentious reports which are to be brought down by the Government and are to be published on the Government's initiative through you. I refer to the final report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, and the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge which also may have to report when the Senate is not actually sitting. This may also be relevant to the whole question of the recall of the Senate, and I simply want to put on the record now that the Opposition in accepting these motions accepts them as part of the normal practices and procedures of this place based on the proposition that the Senate continues notwithstanding the election and is able to undertake its own functions other than those functions which require the specific co-operation of the House of Representatives, such as the passage of legislation and so on. We welcome these motions and simply point to their additional significance at this time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Giles)-by leave- proposed: (1) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes has completed its report, the Committee may send the report to the President or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy President, and, in that event- (a) The report shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (b) The publication of the report is authorised by this resolution; (c) The President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the report; and (d) The President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, shall lay the report upon the table at the next sitting of the Senate. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution have effect notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives. (3) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.25) —I ask a question of the Government regarding this matter. I am a member of the Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes that Senator Giles has been referring to regarding the bringing down of its report. I ask: What privilege would that Committee report have in light of what the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) told us yesterday regarding the privilege of the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union being tabled in this House while we are in recess? The PRESIDENT —Order! The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Giles be agreed to. Those of that opinion-- Senator Watson —Is there an answer? The PRESIDENT —It is not for me to answer. Senator Walters —Mr President, I have asked a question. The Minister in charge of the House, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), might at least say she will make inquiries or give me some sort of answer. I have asked a reasonable question and need some indication of what is to happen. A number of people who have given evidence before the Committee require the protection of the privilege that is desirable for every Senate committee report. It is absolutely necessary that they have that. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.27) —At this stage all I can say is that this is a Senate report which has been developed and operates under the same procedures as any other Senate report. There is nothing different about this report from any other Senate report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator Walters —I take a point of order, Mr President. Before you put the question on the motion moved by Senator Giles I was on my feet to raise a point of order. The PRESIDENT —I did not see you, Senator Walters, when I put the question. You are taking a point of order now, as I understand it. Senator Walters —Yes, Mr President. I think the Senate needs an answer on whether this report will be covered by privilege before we say whether it should be tabled during the recess, otherwise all the people who have given evidence before the Committee will run the risk of not having the protection of privilege . I believe that that question must be answered by the Government before we can vote on the motion. We must know whether witnesses who gave evidence before the Committee are entitled to the protection of privilege. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. There was a motion moved by Senator Giles before the Chair. Senator Walters asked a question of the Government arising out of the motion. The Minister answered the question, or purported to answer the question. The motion as proposed by Senator Giles has been put and carried. There is no point of order. [COGNATE BILLS: DRIED VINE FRUITS EQUALIZATION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 CANNED FRUITS MARKETING AMENDMENT BILL 1984 CANNED FRUITS LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1984 CANNED FRUITS LEVY COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 (No. 2) FISHERIES LICENCES LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1984 FISHING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1984 MEAT EXPORT CHARGE BILL 1984 MEAT EXPORT CHARGE COLLECTION BILL 1984 DAIRY PRODUCTS (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 DAIRY PRODUCTS (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 EGGS (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 EGGS (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 EGG EXPORT LEGISLATION REPEAL BILL 1984 LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE)) VALIDATION BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 17 October, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. upon which Senator Scott had moved by way of amendment: At the end of motion, add ', but, in relation to the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1984, the Senate is of the opinion that- (a) the Board should be composed of: (i) a chairperson, who shall be a wheat grower at the time of his or her appointment, appointed by the Minister; (ii) two wheat growers from each of the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, representing the wheat growers of their respective States; and (iii) not more than four other members appointed by the Minister because of their special skills or expertise in relation to the marketing of wheat; (b) all moneys standing to the credit of the Wheat Finance Fund should be paid to the Board as soon as practicable; and (c) in determining the price per tonne for standard white wheat for human consumption in Australia, the Minister should, in addition to the matters stated in sub-clause 32 (2), be required to consider any extra costs to the wheat industry in handling, storage and caretaking of wheat provided to the flour milling industry.' Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.29) —I proceed from the stage I reached last night. I had just started to speak on the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill 1983 or, as it is probably more appropriately known, the export annihilation Bill. I was contemplating the whole purpose of this Bill with some degree of disappointment because, although the Bill was introduced many months ago now, it does not seem as though the Government has yet learnt anything from the information that was available to it then or that has subsequently come to it on the subject. A lot of information has been given but it still has not got through to the Government. It must disturb every Australian to see that the Government has taken so little notice of what has happened in that time. The whole of the future of the country rests on how well the farming sector does. As I mentioned last night, not only does the farming sector produce $15,000m worth of produce a year but also it exports $9,000m worth of it, which comes back as foreign currency for our other needs. To demonstrate the fact that information is available, I will read the headlines from a few newspaper items that I have put together over the period. I will not go to the trouble of naming the newspapers and the dates; I will just read them. They are available if anybody would like to look at them. The headlines read: Why Japan has such a beef over our meat exports Beef: Australia 'squeezed out' in power-play between US and Japan Australia, US threats fly as Japan beef talks deadlock Meat scandal men have been paid $600,000 US-Japan beef talks looking worse for Australia Meat jobs on the line in export crisis EC keeping door closed to beef from Australia Bad vibes from Japan Big drop expected in beef exports to US US cuts into beef exports Dairy industry shake-up may cut US meat demand Freight rates pose Japan meat 'crisis' Australian ships are too costly to take our wheat Thousands of jobs in jeopardy at abattoirs Meat exports facing the chop! Meatworks to halt operations Killing the meat industry State meat industry in crisis This is the classic of them all: Kerin agrees: meat inspection charge isn't helping exporters That is the sort of evidence that is available. Everyone in Australia except the Government can see that that is the case with the meat industry. The Government cannot agree that we are the only country in the world in the major exporting field of meat that puts this enormous tax slug on the producers. It cannot see that by making the product non-competitive it is doing irreparable damage to the markets that we hold and to our chances of gaining new markets. The whole question comes back to our international competitiveness. Anything that we have that can be internationally competitive has to be encouraged in any way possible . Our manufacturers are finding it more and more difficult to sell on international markets. Minerals are causing great concern at present. Can anybody on the Government side please explain why we are working so hard to try to make our last remaining areas of stability non-viable also? I realise that the Government lacks the resources of members with any practical knowledge or experience in this area; this I accept. But with the whizz-kids that it has, with its so-called economists and so on, I think that with the aid of a pocket calculator the Government could soon work out the fact that the answers just do not add up. I will go back to figures which I still use quite regularly. They are from Mr Bowtell of the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council. The Australian meat industry starts $40m a year behind its competitors. On our cost structures we just cannot afford to handicap ourselves to that extent, particularly when we take into account that in 1976 we had 1,700 meat inspectors; we were killing 11 million cattle and 32 million sheep. By 1983 we had 2,200 inspectors; we killed 6.3 million cattle and 26.6 million sheep. The ratio shows that while inspectors went up by 30 per cent the slaughter went down by 40 per cent. I do not understand how we can run this sort of economics and expect to come out in front. We have reached the stage now where about 40 to 45 abattoirs have closed down and, I think at the last count, about 7,500 abattoir workers have lost their jobs. This is a great time to wop on another great tax. This is a great encouragement for industry to become more efficient. We have only to look at the results of this action to see why we are racing into an early election; the Government has to get it over with quickly because the wheel is coming off and coming off rapidly. The Government is presiding over the greatest demise ever of Australian industries. I deplore the fact that we have 20 Bills before us for debate which deal with great industries all over Australia; yet not one Government member is on the list to speak to them. The rural industry is no longer the milking cow of Australia and it cannot be held up to be so. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(10.36) — This morning the Senate is debating 20 primary industry Bills cognately. I would like to make an observation on that before I move on to debate the Bills proper. The first salient point is that this debate on a block of 20 Bills in the dying days of this Parliament reflects very accurately the management practices of the Australian Labor Party in government. Of course, it has always been the practice of the Labor Party to treat Parliament just as a rubber stamp for whatever the boys in the Caucus and the back rooms-the unelected members of the Labor Party-decide. The second salient point about that block of 20 Bills is that they are all Bills dealing with rural industry and this reflects the priority that the Labor Party accords the great rural industries of Australia. As Senator Archer said, these are the industries that provide $9 billion of export earnings and that keep up the standard of living in this country. These 20 Bills have all been lumped together in an unmanageable and undebatable form to be run through in the dying days of this Parliament before an unnecessary and premature election. I do not want to talk about all of the Bills simply because I do not have time. I would like to talk about the wheat Bills but will confine my comments to the Meat Export Charge Bill 1984, the Meat Export Charge Collection Bill 1984 and the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill 1983. That latter Bill has to be considered only because it is a procedural Bill which validates some legislation deficient at the time it was passed. My main concern relates to the two meat Bills. These are iniquitous Bills. One Bill provides for an export levy to be imposed on beef and the other Bill provides for the collection of that levy. Very simply what is going on is that the Labor Government is taxing heavily the export of beef; the industry cannot stand that export levy; we are selling in tough markets in the face of great competition and no other country in the world competing with us on international markets imposes that levy on export beef. They are the points involved in this legislation. They reflect that great Labor belief in tax gathering, the mania that if we have a tax, make it heavier and if we do not have a tax on a property, put a tax on it. That is why we will get a capital gains tax, death duties and all the rest if by any misfortune this Government is re-elected in the new year. There has been no Bill in recent years which has aroused such controversy from the groups affected as this piece of legislation has done. In preparation for this debate I went to the Parliamentary Library and got some Press comment on the matter. I will read the headlines from reputable Australian newspapers. The Australian Financial Review's headline read: 'Meat export levy will keep industry row simmering'. The Australian headline read: 'New export meat tax shocks rural industry'. The West Australian headline stated: 'Kerin draws fire on new meat fees'. The Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council stated: 'Meat exporters say Kerin betrayed industry'. The Australian Financial Review headlined another article: 'An end to Kerin's smooth run'. The Age stated: ' Kerin misled abattoirs on health fees: exporters'. The Australian Financial Review headed an article: 'Meat industry headache: Kerin feels the pain too'. As well, all the interested groups in the industry such as the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council have publications condemning this legislation. The interesting and relevant point is that there is not one word of praise from any informed commentator for this legislation. At the outset of this debate I declare my personal interest. I derive income from the production of beef, and have for some years. I now move to the main features of the Meat Export Charge Bill. It provides for the imposition of a flat charge of $2.55 per head on home and export killed beef in Australian abattoirs where there is Commonwealth inspection plus a specific export component to a maximum rate of 4.8c per kilogram, which is expected to operate as a levy of 2.4c per kilogram on export meat. It is alleged that that levy will return to the Government 50 per cent of the cost of providing the inspection service. For an industry in difficulties, as the beef industry is, an industry which the Industries Assistance Commission in 1983 described as being seriously depressed and likely to remain so for some time, this is an iniquitous imposition. I take honourable senators back through the recent history of export levy charges on beef. When the Hawke socialist Government came into power there was a livestock slaughter export inspection charge of $1.80 per head. That charge remained until 1 October 1983 when it was raised by the Australian Labor Party to $5.40 per head-a huge increase-and in the face of protest from the industry it was lowered in July of this year to an interim figure of $4.35 per head. This legislation alters that again to a figure of $2.55 for all cattle killed plus a figure which is expected to be around 2.4c per kilogram of the boned-out beef in the carcass. The Government and the Labor Party have taken great praise upon themselves because they say that this represents a reduction in the levy. That is a blatantly dishonest claim. They raised the charges in the first place; only a year ago it was $1.80 per head. It went from there to $5.40, then to $4.35 and now it is running at $2.55 per head plus 2.4c per kilogram. In percentage terms that means an increase initially of 200 per cent in the cost of the export kill and an interim increase, when we take the lowered figure of $4.35, of 142 per cent. To claim that the present figure is a reduction is cynical, dishonest propaganda because in fact many of the large export beasts from my State of Queensland, which produces 50 per cent of beef for the export market, will be of such carcass weights that we will be looking at a killing cost as an export levy of around $10 per beast-an increase of over 500 per cent on the rate that existed before. There have not been many successful Ministers in this Labor Administration and I think that the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) would rival the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) for the incompetence with which they have discharged their duties in administering their departments. If one goes around rural Australia and talks to producers, people on the land, one cannot be unconscious of the great bitterness and disappointment at the priority the Labor Government is according them. One cannot be unconscious of the disappointment of being at the bottom of the totem pole of Labor's priorities because rural Australia, with defence, would have to rank at the bottom of Labor's interests. There are no votes for the Labor Party in rural Australia from the time it promised in the election campaign last year to lower the price of fuel by 3c a litre but put it up by almost the same amount within a matter of weeks after the election. I return to the history of this meat export levy. The rapacious increase last year came about after no discussion at all with the industry. Not one person was consulted by the Minister on what should be done. It was a diktat laid down on high. So much for the Labor Party consensus in government. Because it was laid down in such a rapacious and high-handed way, there were protests from everybody involved in meat production. An Interim Inspection Policy Council had to be set up to defuse the issue, after the abattoirs refused to pay the charges. That committee took advice all over Australia. It was a well-constituted and responsible committee. Amongst its many recommendations were that there should be a two-year moratorium on export charges and that the new carcass charge when it came in should be retrospective to last October. The committee pointed out that the average profitability on beef for export was around 2.2c per kilogram, which in the light of the current export levy of 2.4c per kilogram means there is no profit in it for the industry on the average basis. The views of the committee were not considered by the Minister for Primary Industry, the Cabinet or the Labor Government. The Minister, who is an expert in making excuses, originally made the excuse that rural industries were getting a raw deal because he was not in Cabinet when the Government first came in. Since then he has got into Cabinet and the situation has been no different. The Minister then put round the story that he was overruled in Cabinet. Later the truth came out that the Minister did not even take the submission into Cabinet; he did not take in the findings of the expert committee that there be a two-year moratorium. Is it any wonder that the Minister does not go too well in the bush today? The industry is faced with the imposition of this heavy charge when it is in no condition to support it. The rural industry is coming out of one of the longest droughts in history and herd numbers of beef cattle are down from about 33 million to 22 million. As Senator Archer said, since 1979 in excess of 40 abattoirs have closed and over 10,000 jobs have been lost in the industry. Nor is the future very good for the rural industry, particularly the beef industry. The front page of the Australian yesterday carried the headline 'Rural production faces a grim year with 29 per cent decline'. That article dealt with the prospects for rural Australia next year and in part dealt with the fall in beef production. Markets in beef are being lost every day and Australia cannot afford to tax itself out of those markets. One honourable senator yesterday said that holding on to markets was not so difficult but that getting access to them was very difficult. That is very true. If a country is out of a market, it is very hard to get in because of the bargaining that take place between countries. I would qualify that part of that statement to the effect that holding on to markets is not so difficult. It should not be difficult for a competent government, but it is almost impossible for the Hawke socialist Government to retain the market shares of our export industries. The Government does not understand that because commodity prices are down it does not mean that market shares have to be down. Because commodity prices are down, we get less for each unit of beef or coal that we sell. That is one aspect. The area in which the Government is falling down is that it is giving away, through negligence and incompetence, our present share of the market. Mr Kerin and Mr Bowen have a record of indolence which is reflected in an inability to maintain Australia's position. Yesterday's Australian Financial Review contained the headline 'South Korea buying less Aussie beef'. Some 63 per cent of the Korean beef market tenders for 1984 went to Australia whereas once upon a time this country got 95 per cent. Nearly 30 per cent of that market has been given away by Mr Kerin and Mr Bowen between them. The same story applies to Japan, the United States of America and South East Asia. I said at the outset that this draconian levy aims to recover 50 per cent of the alleged cost of providing this meat inspection service. The meat industry has no say in the level of service provided for it. The Government has an open cheque here. It puts on the people it wants, runs the type of service it wants, and then tries to bill the industry for 50 per cent of the cost. It puts in an inefficient system and the producers and the abattoirs have to pay for it without any check or balance on the operations of that government authority. Forty meat works at least have closed in the last five years. Cattle numbers going through meat works in Australia during the same period have declined by 20 per cent, but the number of inspectors employed by this Government is the same as or greater than the number employed five years ago. It is time this country examined very carefully the user pays doctrine which is so dear to the Labor Party's heart. We saw it introduced with disastrous results in the Department of Aviation under the Whitlam Government. The user pays doctrine is the doctrine that applies to the industry paying for the meat inspection charges, but it is a fallacious argument unless two terms are met. The first requirement is for the Government to be able to demonstrate that the user, and not another party in the community, should pay for the service. The second requirement for making a user pays doctrine work is that the user be given some control or at least an effective audit over the service for which he is being charged. That is not done at all in any of the matters I have been talking about this morning. This impost will have a great effect on the beef industry in Australia. The beef industry is very important. We earned roughly $2 billion last year for export beef and 50 per cent of it came from my State of Queensland. There are 30 ,000 jobs involved in export meat works alone. In this international market where we earned that $2 billion last year, we are facing increased competition from the United States of America, Canada, New Zealand and other producers. In the face of that intense competition the Australian producer is the only beef producer in the world being slugged by an export levy on his commodity. On Tuesday night I was talking about the bizarre coal export levy that the Labor Party has put upon the country. I made the point that it was a sectional tax because it affected only one coal company in Australia and that affected the operations of coal producers in only one State, namely Queensland. We have a parallel situation with beef, because beef is the only primary product which is subjected to an export levy. Most other rural industries get some degree of support, although not very much. We are talking in terms of 2 per cent, 3 per cent or 5 per cent. Wool certainly gets support with the wool promotion scheme. Of course, the fat cats of protected manufacturing industry have protection levels averaging 30 per cent to 35 per cent but running up to about 150 per cent in some cases. None of this applies to the beef export industry or to beef production. I believe, and my Party believes, that the export levy charge should be borne by the whole community out of Consolidated Revenue because of the benefits that exports bring to the Australian community. We cite in support of that claim the fact the the United States, Canada and New Zealand, our great competitors on the international market, take the same view. This is bad legislation. It is bad because it is directed against a small but very efficient section of Australia's rural industries. It is bad because it acts against Australia's export earnings. It is bad because it puts those earnings at hazard and must inevitably reduce them, if not eliminate them. If we lose $2 billion of export earnings, the ability of Ministers such as Senator Grimes to pay for pension and other welfare payments will be very severely curtailed, if not eliminated entirely. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(10.55) — Today we are debating a wide range of primary industry Bills which concern wheat, dried vine fruits, canned fruits, fisheries, meat exports, dairy products, eggs and livestock slaughter export inspection charges. Before I continue my remarks, I foreshadow that I will move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Meat Export Charge Bill 1984: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate calls upon the Government to implement a moratorium on charges for 2 years after the date upon which the legislation receives the Royal Assent'. The Opposition totally rejects the actions of the Labor Government on the entire meat inspection issue. The entire affair has been a continuing saga of stupidity on the part of the Government for well over a year, ever since the Government brought down its first Budget last year. It has been a saga which has caused immeasurable damage not only to the export meat trade, but also to the livelihoods of thousands of meat workers throughout Australia. I can understand the Government's total disregard for the people of rural Australia and the primary industries of Australia, but I cannot understand how it can turn its back on 40,000 meat workers who have traditionally supported it. That is what the Government is doing by way of these Bills, particularly the Meat Export Charge Bill. The Government is deserting its supporters. It is completely turning its back on them. It has traditionally done so to people involved in primary industry. It does not care about them; it never has, and the people know that. The fact that these 20 Bills which will impose taxes on primary industry have been introduced six weeks before a Federal election clearly demonstrates to the people of rural Australia that the Government could not care less about them. It is a poke in the eye for them. The Government has more or less said to them: 'We don't want your lousy votes; we can live without them'. The Government will receive the people's answer in the ballot box. The meat trade is worth $2 billion in export earnings each year to the economy. Yet Labor is crucifying the trade by imposing increased costs and charges. Ever since this Government in its August 1983 Budget announced that meat export inspection charges were to be increased, the coalition and the industry have begged and hammered it to change its mind because we can understand what the repercussions will be. It will put 20,000 meat workers out of work and they will have to be employed under a community employment program. I have always considered the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, to be a responsible Minister. He has often told me that he is a small business person in his own right. He must understand the implications of this legislation for the meat workers and rural communities. We managed after a great deal of effort to get the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, to have the Interim Inspection Policy Council look into the whole question of the meat export levy. We breathed a sigh of relief. Everyone thought that the Minister had finally realised what a catastrophe and a fiasco the original idea had been. Everyone thought that at least the Government would listen, and it did reduce the levy from $5.40 to $4. 55. This year the Minister announced another half-baked scheme which amounted to no improvement with regard to the export meat trade. The industry pointed out that far from being an improvement on the original $5.40 a head, the cost of the export inspection levy under the new arrangements would amount to more than $8 a head on export bullocks. That is on top of other, self-imposed, levies in the meat industry. The total levy will now come to $13.58 per export beast. The meat Interim Inspection Policy Council is prepared to pay its way. It says that it is prepared to go along with the Government's legislation. But it cannot at the moment. It has asked for a two-year moratorium. I will tell the Senate why it cannot. Australian meat exports are down by 28.35 per cent. The United States of America has signed a four-year treaty with Japan to increase the quotas they already have from 37,000 tonnes in 1984 to 58,400 tonnes in 1987. The United States was given this extra quota because United States officials went to Japan and fought for it. Vice-President Bush went to Japan three times and fought for his beef producers. But what did we get from the Minister for Trade, Mr Lionel Bowen? He went to Japan once and did not come back with the goods. Australia is losing markets everywhere. Our sales in Malaysia are down by 80 per cent. The Korean market is down by 60,000 tonnes. We are facing a loss of markets all over the world. The Government has to realise-this is so obvious and it should be obvious to every honourable senator on the other side-that we are in a competitive world market and we must compete with other countries. The Government must allow our meat industries to compete on the same terms as all of our other competitors such as Canada, Argentina and the European Economic Community countries. These countries not only do not impose export taxes but also heavily subsidise their primary industries. They even allow meat purchasers extended credit. If the Government wants an industry that provides 40,000 jobs to meat workers plus spin-off jobs for transport workers, box makers and the like-one could go on ad infinitum-at a ratio of four to one, it has to set the charges it imposes on the industry against the jobs and benefits that are provided by the industry. If the Government does not accept the situation it will put the industry in a completely uncompetitive situation. Our wage structures are high, and yet we are still adding on cost after cost. Of course, on top of the export charge cost, an $11 superannuation cost for every meat worker and a redundancy cost will be imposed. The whole meat industry is going to crash around the neck of the Minister for Social Security. He will then have to go out and explain to meat workers why they find themselves painting fences and putting down concrete slabs around country towns. I can assure the Minister that he is not going to win any friends, including the meat workers, in these country towns. The Cattle Council of Australia described the Minister's 20 June statement as ' outrageous' and warned that the 'decision will cause antagonism between the Labor Party and the industry and it will be reflected at the polls'. The Government obviously does not care about that because if it did, it would not be bringing these Bills in six weeks before an election. This antagonism most certainly will be reflected at the polls unless the Government has a late minute change of heart. I appeal to the Government to change its mind because it has one last chance to do so. The answer is simple: The Government must implement the IIPC's recommendation that there be a two-year moratorium on increased export inspection charges. I will come back to that in a moment. However, first it is worth looking back over the record just to see what did actually happen to the IIPC's two-year moratorium recommendation. Precisely nothing happened to this very major recommendation. It was ditched; it was totally ignored. The Minister for Primary Industry never even took it to his Cabinet for consideration. That is a massive indictment of the Minister for Primary Industry. What a classic example that is of just how much this Minister and the Labor Party really think of our primary industry. The Minister, in his statement on 20 June, said that the Government had 'taken into account the arguments put forward by the Council in relation to this recommendation'. That was the recommendation of a two-year moratorium. However, he went on to say that the Government had concluded that 'it could not implement it given the current tight budgetary context'. I suppose the Minister hoped that it would rest there. As I said, this is a shocking indictment of the Minister. This Minister has been racing around rural Australia, round the primary industries, saying: 'Gentlemen, you are perfectly right. You are all great fellows and we all love you. But my mates down in Canberra will not listen to me'. So they put him in the Cabinet. But he still told the people he was getting rolled, that he was standing up for them, that he would fight for them, that he would take up their battles in Canberra and that he would fight for the primary industries of this nation. That is a farce. He has lost every bit of credibility he ever had. If this Government gets back into power not only will it be unfortunate for Australia but it will also have to change the Minister for Primary Industry because his credibility is absolutely destroyed. He has not one friend out there now. Senator Watson —They are all socialists. Senator BOSWELL —Of course they are socialists; we know that. The Minister was sprung by the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council a few weeks later. The AMEFC revealed on 25 July 1984 that the Minister had confirmed to it in a telex- that was not terribly good footwork-that he did not put the two-year moratorium recommendation to Cabinet for budgetary reasons. I quote the words of the Council: This is an incredible position taken by the Minister. The Interim Inspection Policy Council, a body comprising consumers, industry and independent members, recommended a package to assist the meat industry, while accepting the monetary constraints of the Government. The IIPC package was a reasonable approach, but the Minister discarded the critical sections of the package without any consultation with the industry. This makes a mockery of the Hawke Government's stated commitment to consultation and consensus. They are not my words; they are the words of the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council on the Minister's decision not to go to Cabinet. They are proof that the Labor Government does not mean what it says. They prove that the Minister for Primary Industry is a trickster. They prove once again, as we have seen over the last 19 months, that every time a promise is made it is broken. I think we should look at the inspection service inefficiencies. There are 153 meat inspectors surplus to requirements to service the industry. Why should the primary producers of this nation pick up the tab for 153 people who are not required? I am not advocating that they be dismissed; that is not my position. But they should be paid for out of Consolidated Revenue. That cost cannot be pushed back on to the primary producers of Australia. The point was reached where 38 officers were disciplined, and they were disciplined by being given 19 months holiday on full pay. That certainly would not encourage people to toe the line. Yet the primary producers have to pick up the cost for this inefficiency. I see Senator Grimes making notes. I will be very interested in what he has to say. These Bills should have been debated by the Senate when Senator Walsh was here because at least he has some rural background. Senator Grimes is a doctor and is having to fill in for Senator Walsh. I do not think he will know the first thing he is talking about. Senator Walsh was not game to defend in the Senate his Government's attitude. He shot through overseas. I do not blame him. The Government does not have a feather to fly with. There are no other Government speakers on these Bills because they cannot defend their actions because they are all-- Senator Robertson —Because they want to go home. It's a pity a few more of you do not. Senator BOSWELL —So do you. The Whip interjects. If anybody should be defending these Bills it should be the Whip because he represents an area of meat exporters. But there are no Government speakers. Senator Watson —It shows their priorities. Senator BOSWELL —It does. But they cannot defend the indefensible. Senator Grimes will have to try and I will be very interested to see what he does. I said earlier that there was an honourable way for the Government to get out of this mess. Without scoring any political points, on behalf of the 40,000 meat workers and the great primary industries of this nation I plead for a death-bed recovery for the industry, for repentance by the Government. The Government should use a little common sense in the interests of all Australians. Senator Grimes —Tell us where you live. Senator BOSWELL —It is irrelevant where I live because this legislation will have an impact all over Australia. The Government's position has always been the same: It taxes the efficient and then it tries to pick up the unemployed. Having crippled and destroyed the efficient, forcing them to shed jobs, the only defence the Government has is to reduce unemployment by having people paint fences and lay bricks. That is what the Government is trying to do, and it damned well knows it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order, Senator Boswell, you must withdraw that. Senator BOSWELL —I withdraw that. I got carried away, Mr Acting Deputy President . I have strong feelings on this legislation. The only way the Government can save face is to accept my foreshadowed amendment, which I believe will have the support of the Australian Democrats. I know that Senator Harradine will definitely support it. If the Government does not accept it it will be defying the Senate, as well as flying in the face of primary industry, the Meat Inspection Council and the meat workers. Therefore, I urge the Senate to give the foreshadowed amendment all the support it can. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(11.12) —The Senate is debating cognately some 20 Bills relating to the primary industry of Australia. As Senator MacGibbon said earlier , this reflects the low priority that the Hawke Labor Government gives to these measures. The fact is that in the last days of this session 20 Bills are being debated cognately-not separately, but all thrown in together. At the outset I must declare an interest in the outcome of this legislation. In so doing I point out that my close association with parts of the industry gives me a very good insight into the feelings and attitudes of the people who are being attacked by this Government. The problems of the beef industry are symptomatic of the problems besetting Australia's industries in general. However, in one very substantial way they are different. They are different because the major problems that have beset the beef industry are beyond its control. Drought and the Government's policies have contributed to the crippling of this industry. The meat export tax, an example of not only government but also bureaucratic intrusion, is one reason why the beef industry, once a tremendously vibrant and growing industry, is now ailing. Some time ago the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council convened an emergency conference in Sydney. The following reason was given for convening such a conference: The worsening crisis in the meat sector and the grave need for confidence to be injected into the livestock sector. Statistics may indicate the severity of the crisis, but stark statistics can never do any justice to the enormity of the cost to people's lives. An initial recommendation from the Meat Interim Inspection Policy Council for export inspection fees to be waived for two years as an assistance measure was not even submitted to Cabinet by the Ministers for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). Is that not disgraceful? Does it not reflect the attitude not only of the Minister but also of the Cabinet? It reflects the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the low priority that is given to these measures and to this once great industry. What hope has the beef industry really of gaining any relief, assistance or acknowledgment from the Government? What has happened? Forty-four abattoirs have closed and 10,000 jobs have been lost in the beef industry within the past five years. It is well known that cattlemen and producers made a negative rate of return on their income on capital for every year since 1976-77. The position is getting worse by the day. Despite that, there can be no mistaking the importance of the beef industry to this great nation of ours. Altogether it employs over 100,000 people, 29,000 of these directly in export meatworks. A lot of those people are traditional, hard core Labor supporters, men who have been sacrificed by the Australian Labor Party. Last year these export meatworks earned $2.3 billion in export income; a tremendous contribution. It is a great industry and it is helping to meet Australia's balance of payments deficit. The beef industry is primarily export- oriented and approximately 60 per cent of the production of meatworks is exported. But it is given a very low priority by this Government in terms of the effort put in by its Ministers. This simple fact has enormous repercussions for this nation's economic outlook, which we now acknowledge is deteriorating rapidly. It is now becoming widely acknowledged that this is the reason for an unnecessary early election. The pace of economic recovery is expected to slow this year. According to the National Australia Bank as early as last August, the inescapable conclusion is that Australia needs to increase its export orientation. Let me quote from a National Australia Bank document of last August: Growth in non-farm production should remain broadly unchanged, but there will be a contraction in farm output of about 10 per cent. Since August commentators have revised their predictions. Farm output is now expected to contract by far greater amounts. Some people have doubled that figure of 10 per cent; other respected authorities have trebled it. In addition, the National Australia Bank and other economic forecasters have warned of the need for Australian industry to regain international price competitiveness. Despite all this, despite what is known and despite what the Government's advisers must be telling it, the Government has sought to add by one piece of legislation within these 20 Bills, up to $30m a year to the operating costs of this industry-a tremendous amount to a vital industry. Government policies have contributed to the loss of 5,000 jobs in the beef industry. Unless there is a quite radical rethinking of such policies still more jobs will go. This is the tragedy of it all. This Government knows it and it is not prepared to do anything about it. It is prepared to sacrifice jobs. This is not a protected industry but the Government is still prepared to let these jobs go. I think this is something we should not allow to happen. Such losses are not inevitable and by government action they can be avoided. That is the tragedy. The decision to increase meat export inspection charges by up to 200 per cent does not encourage the industry to invest and to create jobs. Moreover, the increase is occurring despite a 20 per cent reduction in cattle and calf slaughtering and a 21 per cent fall in sheep and lamb slaughtering. The figures are likely to fall even lower. Investment in primary industry is always at best risky and, in the present economic climate, these risks have increased. The overall picture for the industry is not a particularly encouraging one and it is not likely to imporve markedly in the foreseeable future. Indeed, even the Industries Assistance Commission made this clear to the Government as early as 1983. Last year meat exports declined by 28 per cent from the levels in 1982-83-the year of the worst drought in our history. Beef exports fell 24 per cent below the levels of 1982- 83, with substantial losses in the United States, Asian, Korean and other important markets. Last year beef production declined an alarming 16 per cent from the depressed levels of 1982-83. The figures for the current year are unlikely to provide any comfort to the producers. The Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) has announced that the Japanese are about to sign a new four-year beef agreement. While the announcement of an impending agreement is certainly welcome, it cannot be thought to herald in any new great age of prosperity for the industry. But what is not told is that some of these new contracts are not exactly the same as previous contracts. Some of them will perhaps require a greater element of lot fed beef, imposing further costs on to the industry, requiring additional expenditure from those who wish to move into this sort of Japanese market. It is proposed that Australian beef exports to Japan will increase by 2,100 tonnes per year until 1987, rising to an expected level of 119,000 tonnes in that year. Yet the truth is that our share of the Japanese beef market will significantly decline in the next four years. That is the hard fact. Despite those figures, one must not overlook the fact that in the first six months of this year meat exports from Australia to the European Economic Community were also down on previous levels Another factor is the excess production from the EEC, which will not only affect Australia's exports to the EEC. The action of the EEC of subsidising production could also result in the EEC dumping its meat on some of our traditional markets. So there is that indirect effect as well. If one examines the ills besetting the industry, it becomes patently obvious that Australia is rapidly declining in importance as a trading partner for many nations. The chief economist of the National Farmers Federation, Mr David Michael, was quoted in the Australian of 16 August as claiming that the Department of Trade-this is serious-was 'hindering trading prospects' for rural commodities. I believe it is appropriate that I raise this in this forum because it is a serious allegation. He went on to say that there existed a real bias within the Department of Trade and the Government against primary industry. The Government must be realistic in its attitude towards trade. There is a very strong rumour circulating in Canberra that the Government and people within the Department of Trade are asking for the resignation of the entire Trade Commissioner Service within the next 12 months. We understand that arrangements may be made for the reinstatement of some of those people. What is this Government up to? That situation is a real tragedy. Some of the people who have moved from private enterprise are now faced with the prospect within the next 12 months of being required to resign. I ask the Government to deny that because it puts a question mark on our future trading possibilities. I think that must also be considered very seriously in the light of the earlier comments by the chief economist of the National Farmers Federation. We need to trade if we are to survive economically and we need to increase our export trade if we are to grow economically. Unfortunately, our falling beef exports are symptomatic of our overall declining performance in world trade. It is the tip of the iceberg. Since 1970 Australia's share of world trade has fallen from 1.7 to 1.3 per cent. Should this trend continue unarrested Australia will become a trading non-entity to the rest of the world. We almost certainly do not possess the domestic market capacity to sustain economic growth while simultaneously suffering a decline in export earnings. It is true that export nations such as Australia are severely disadvantaged by a general decline in world economic activity such as that from which we are now recovering. But how can our exporters even attempt to compete internationally when they are not given any incentive by the Government and are actually hindered by government policies? If one looks around the world one finds places such as New Zealand, the United States of America and Canada-all our principal overseas competitors-contrasting with Australia. They are the recipients of publicly funded meat inspection charges and the like. They get assistance from their governments. What do the beef producers here get? They get nothing but abuse. The beef export industry is being made to suffer because the Labor Government believes that it can raise revenue by imposing new and higher levels of taxation on that industry. The combination of export inspection charges and a 2.4c a kilogram export levy has imposed, in some cases on the bigger beasts, a total increase in charges of up to 500 per cent. That applies to the top end of the range. The industry believes that in the short term there is a compelling case for assistance to be given to it through a reduction, or even a moratorium, to which my colleague Senator Boswell referred, on export inspection charges. There are two essential points. The industry and the Government stand divided. A government that talks about consensus is increasingly driving wedges between it and the primary industries of Australia. The Government has claimed that its revised split fee and export tax of 2.4c a kilogram will represent a 20 per cent reduction over the initial increase in charges to $5.50 for cattle. However, the industry claims that this will only increase fees to a significantly higher level than even the 200 per cent increase. Again, the Government and its advisers have not been in touch with the practical realities of how the trade operates. Let us examine the figures. For large export cattle of up to 300 kilograms the new fee structure will result in total fees of between $9 and $10 a head. The Government has claimed that the additional inspection costs represent less than one per cent of the value of the average beast slaughtered. While this may be true, the implication is that it is an insignificant impost when the increases are up to 90 per cent of the average profit margin of many producers and abattoirs. This is the difference. Gross value comparisons are completely irrelevant. It is the level of profitability that generates investment and employment. But it is this aspect of profitability which the Government has chosen to ignore. It is not interested in profitability; it is looking at the overall gross sale figure and saying: 'This is insignificant'. I remind the Senate that due to the Government's lack of understanding of business, of its need to make a profit in order to generate investment and employment to get this country going, and its failure to recognise these important ingredients, it is falling down. The Government's new policy has cost jobs. It has reduced export competitiveness thereby lowering national income derived from such exports. It has also imposed new hardships on Australian business which has had a serious flow on effect to transport, packaging and other service industries. Furthermore, the cost effectiveness of the proposed uniform inspection services, to be performed under the auspices of the Federal Department of Primary Industry, is spurious. Yet this is a measure which affects both the industry and taxpayers. The Victorian Country Abattoirs and Wholesalers Association has claimed that if meat inspection services were conducted by the State, under a contractual basis with the Federal Department of Primary Industry, $9m could be saved. The Government is not prepared to look at any cost saving measure. Despite additional conclusive evidence the Government has failed to adopt the recommendations of the Interim Inspection Policy Council which proposed a two- year moratorium on increases in inspection fees. So, for the beef industry the legacy of this decision is a continuation of uncompetitiveness in the international market. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(11.32) —I find it remarkable that we are debating cognately 20 Bills relating to the rural industry. Within the seven groupings of the 20 Bills are six pieces of legislation on wheat marketing. There is the Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Amendment Bill 1984, the Canned Fruits Marketing Amendment Bill 1984, the Canned Fruits Levy Amendment Bill 1984 and the Canned Fruits Levy Collection Amendment Bill 1984 (No. 2)-four pieces of legislation; two pieces of legislation on the fisheries industry; two pieces of legislation on the meat industry; two pieces of legislation on the dairy industry; three pieces of legislation on the egg industry; and the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill 1983, totalling 20 Bills. Significant pieces of rural legislation have been bundled together in one cognate debate. As honourable senators can speak on a Bill for only 30 minutes the effect of making this a cognate debate is that honourable senators-particularly Opposition honourable senators-have to express their views and interests on 20 pieces of legislation in 30 minutes, the time normally allowed to debate one Bill. It is very important legislation relating to the rural industry. I find it amazing, despite the fact that the Senate is in the closing days of the session-perhaps it has a week to go-that the Government should take this action and compress this important debate in the way it has. Twenty pieces of legislation have been grouped together in a cognate debate. I think that this is a disgraceful effort by the Government. Perhaps the fact that it is compressing the debate to such an extent is indicative of the way it feels towards the rural industry. There are very many important pieces of legislation here and the Opposition is endeavouring to cover the different aspects. Various senators will speak on particular pieces of legislation and some amendments have been foreshadowed. I shall speak briefly on the Meat Export Charge Bill 1984, the purpose of which is, as stated in the explanatory memorandum, to impose a charge on the making of certain applications in relation to the export of meat and meat products. I shall speak against this Bill because I am well aware of the difficulties that are currently being experienced in the cattle industry. These problems are immense. I believe that many producers in this industry will go out of business. Some have already gone out of business because of the problems they are experiencing. The cattle industry is very significant in Australia, particularly the Northern Territory, which I represent. It provides a good deal of the Territory's income. Indeed, on an Australia-wide basis, meat exports are our fourth biggest export earner. This industry is now in jeopardy. These new proposals have been criticised by virtually all the major associations concerned with the meat industry, including the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council, the Cattle Council of Australia and the Sheepmeat Council of Australia. That is little wonder when one considers the disadvantage to which this proposal will put the export sector of the meat industry. That export sector is the one most exposed to international competitiveness, yet the Government is putting in place a cost which simply is not paid by exporters in other countries. The Government is imposing a crippling tax on the industry and at the same time it is expecting it to be competitive. The move has been seen by some media commentators as a blunder by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, and the Labor Government. In the post-drought recovery boom the Government was wrongly advised on which rural industry was able to take a cut for the sake of budgetary constraint. The mistake was in imposing higher charges on an industry which was contracting, with declining profitability. It is difficult to see what justification the Government could come up with in the circumstances in imposing the new rates for meat inspection. Before this Labor Government came to power the rate was $1.80 per head of cattle. From 1 October 1983 this was to be increased to $5.40 a head, an increase of some 200 per cent. The meat export industry cannot afford that level of increase in inspection charges and if anyone doubts this, he or she has only to look at the facts relating to the situation. For instance, in export meat works 10,000 jobs have been lost since 1979 with further stand-downs likely to occur. This is a constant situation within the industry. It is not over; the stand-downs are continuing and the numbers are increasing. More than 40 meat works have closed in the past five years and cattle producers have made a negative rate of income on capital for every year since 1976-77. The increased inspection costs will add millions of dollars a year to the industry's costs, while meat inspections in Australia's major competitors-the United States of America, Canada and New Zealand-are publicly funded. The Minister, in his second reading speech, made the point that the cost per head of inspection had been reduced as from 1 July 1984 from $5.40 to $4.35. The Minister referred to this as a reduction of 20 per cent. He totally ignored he fact that the figure of $4.35 is still a substantial increase on the previous price of $1.80. Following the uproar in the industry over the imposition of the substantially high charges for inspection, the Government, in an attempt to continue with the facade of consultation and consensus, set up an Interim Inspection Policy Council. We know all about that because it was debated at length several months ago. The Council, which had the support of the Cattle Council of Australia, the Sheepmeat Council of Australia and the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council, made a number of recommendations in connection with the inspection levy and the costs imposed upon exporters generally. It appears that consensus on this matter began and ended with the setting up of the Council because, as I understand it, when it came to the crunch, the Minister would not even put all the recommendations of the Council to Cabinet. In particular, its key recommendation for a two-year moratorium and a retrospective reduction in the charging base back to October 1983, when the 200 per cent increase took effect, was completely rejected. As I say, as I understand it, the Minister did not even put it to Cabinet. I support the recommendation for the two-year moratorium put forward by the industry and I am disappointed that the Minister, who professed to be in favour of the recommendation, was unprepared to put it to his Party colleagues. He probably realised that his Party's blatantly anti-rural bias would have meant that the proposals would never get off the ground. It is the policy of the Opposition not to vote against Government Budget legislation, and therefore I will not vote against this Bill, although naturally the case is there. But I point out that my opposition to this measure is that it will further strain the already difficult situation which is faced by the meat export industry. Only today the Australian carried a story predicting a 29 per cent decline in production in the rural sector over the next year. The story said that Australian meat exports were expected to fall by some 14,000 tonnes to about 425,000 tonnes. I believe that the cattle industry is in a most difficult situation. I shall take a few minutes to review some aspects of the situation as I see it, particularly in relation to the industry in the Northern Territory. The industry is the third largest in the Territory and is probably the oldest in the Territory, if not Australia. First, I wish to look at the state of the cattle industry and its markets. The United States cow price has fluctuated but in real terms it has not altered for the last three to four years. If it were not for the differential between the dollar of the two countries, exporters would not be able to pay present prices. This is superficial and it does not give an assured base for rebuilding the national herd. Japan and Korea are acceptable markets but in this case they do not relate to the Top End cattle of Australia. The Australian cattle number at present is around 22 million, reduced from some 32 million in the 1970s. This has forced widespread competition between the remaining abattoirs, which is returning present day price levels. This is one of the problems now-the fact that the herd numbers are still decreasing. The size of the herd has already dropped by 10 million in one decade and at the rate the situation is going now, with increased costs and the problems that beset the industry, I think we will see-and I do not wish to be a pessimist but a realist- the cattle industry decline more and more if it is not given sufficient assistance and recognition by those in authority. To bring in further charges against an industry which is so beset by high costs and problems is rather ludicrous. The cattlemen are justifiably concerned that if the United States currency softens we will outprice ourselves on their domestic market of dairy and commercial beef, which is now above normal United States slaughterings. One of the greatest difficulties comes about from the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign. The Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association is concerned that the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign-the destocking program-will force many cattlemen, especially in the Top End and other remote areas, off their properties. The Association has made this point to the Bureau of Animal Health and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, using examples of the far north of South Australia and northern Queensland. In these areas property owners have, through no fault of their own but acting on the advice of the departmental veterinary officers, destocked. In practice, this has meant no income for two to three years while the cleaning out of the last infected cattle takes place. The Bureau of Animal Health and the departmental veterinary officers will argue that the destocking program was not forced on the cattlemen but was done with agreement. That does not hold water. The movement restrictions placed on these producers gave them no option. No one wants to address the welfare problem, and the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association policy is that whatever number of cattle are destocked, the same number should be replaced. This is getting to the root of the overall problem. The question to which the Bureau of Animal Health will not address itself is the thorny problem of money. For example, a station could have destocked 4,000 breeders in 1982, at $90 a head. To replace them in 1984 would cost $400-plus per breeder. That is a ratio of about 4:1. The Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association is a new association. I believe it is a very desirable association because it means that the producers speak with one voice. This Association argues that government must pick up the difference and allow an interest-free holiday on the repayment of that amount, until the original turn-off is once again accomplished and interest payments can be met. It could be a further three years before cattle are old enough to be turned off, so the situation is very serious. With the destocking programs, the compensation that has been paid is quite insufficient for the cattle producer to restock. I believe that the problem is growing to quite alarming proportions and people are moving off their properties because of this destocking program. It is in Australia's interests that the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication program be carried out-but not at the cost of putting the industry completely under, when it will be most difficult for producers, particularly the small producer, to survive and once again to raise his head and make his living on his property. As I say, I am very concerned because I have very many acquaintances and friends in the outback, and I see them practically on their knees now. Young people with young families are wondering how on earth they will get out of this situation. They just do not have sufficient finance, having destocked, once again to be able to buy fresh, clean stock, new breeders, at a much higher cost-in many cases, at four times the original cost. The problem is now. The urgency of the situation is that they have no income because they have no cattle. It is a national problem. If we wish to see the survival of many aspects of the industry, the problem must be recognised nationally. The running costs of some of the properties must be met by government in the form of a grant. People cannot pay back money if they have no capital with which to generate an income. If the authorities do not believe in the principle of giving financial assistance to these battlers on the land, that will be the finish of these people. The meat industry will continue to deteriorate, and the national herd numbers will decrease from about 22 million and will continue to fall away. I suggest that there should be long term loans of, say 30 years, with interest-free holidays, until cattle numbers are back to what they were before the destocking. We must also bear in mind that at no time has it been the fault of the people of whom I speak that they have been placed in this predicament. They have merely fallen into line with the desire of the country that the infected cattle should be found and disposed of in the national interest. Even so, having fallen into line, they are now in a predicament-the predicament of survival. The Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association policy is to keep all cattle and buffalo producers on their properties. It says that if we do not do so and they are forced to walk off, the areas concerned will become a feral pool for reinfection with the disease. That is a very important point. An example of this is Mount Dare in northern South Australia, on the South Australian-Northern Territory border. The owner has been forced to sell out and the South Australian Government has purchased the property. It was a very viable station in a very arid area. The family concerned had lived on the property for many years, and the sons had taken over. Under the brucellosis eradication campaign, the cattle were shot out-I have forgotten the figure, but it ran into thousands-to such an extent that the station was no longer viable. The people did not have the necessary money-in some circumstances they did not receive compensation-so they were unable to restock. The foolish thing about the whole situation was that although authority moved in and had these cattle shot out, there are still cattle in the desert, and these cattle may or may not be infected. It is now being recognised that the area cannot be shot out to the last beast, so the situation is much worse than it was previously. What, then, was the whole idea behind this? Here is a station that has been put out of business, like many others. What has been gained if there are infected cattle still in the desert? The Federal Government, the Bureau of Animal Health and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics are procrastinating over this urgent and pressing welfare issue. Perhaps they believe that it is not their responsibility; but if it is not their responsibility, representing government, whose responsibility is it? Are we to allow cattle numbers to continue to fall? Are we to allow people to be forced to walk off the land? Is it desired, for the future of the industry, that people walk off the land and sell up, that cattle numbers continue to decline, and that the industry as we have known it over the years should deteriorate? I believe that the Federal Government, State governments and authorities must act now to stop the further decimation of a herd that is genetically bred for the northern areas of Australia and which has taken a century to build up, so that we shall still have a cattle industry in northern Australia at the conclusion of the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication program. One could continue at length on the whole situation. It is deplorable when one sees what is happening, and I have indicated only a few of the problems the industry has experienced, that we in the Federal Parliament see fit to levy increased costs that very many people in the industry cannot afford to pay. I also regret that, following the inquiry that took place, the Government is prepared to levy increased charges but not to accept the recommendation that there should be a moratorium of two years. If a moratorium is recommended, surely it is in the interests of all to accept that recommendation. A moratorium for two years will allow the industry and the individuals about whom I have been talking to get their house in order to some extent. If they are hit now, beset with further costs, we will lose them. In the interests of Australia and the industry why should they not be given this moratorium which is so necessary? I have pleasure, as I believe it is the most realistic step to take, in supporting the foreshadowed amendment for a two-year moratorium. In conclusion, I regret that this brief debate has had to cover such a large number of Bills which are so important to the rural industry. As I said before, six industries are affected by 20 pieces of legislation. The Opposition is being asked to deal with them in a cognate debate. Each industry should have the opportunity to be heard and to have its problems voiced, as I have endeavoured to do in a small way regarding the cattle industry of Australia, particularly in the Northern Territory. This debate is insufficient; however it is the wish of the Government that this legislation should be bundled through the Senate, and so be it. At least we can be heard to some degree. Amendments are proposed to the second reading of the various Bills and these indicate to some degree the feelings of honourable senators on this side of the chamber regarding the problems faced by the various industries. Regarding the Meat Export Charge Bill, I ask the Government very strongly to consider that part of the inquiry's recommendation that there be a moratorium for two years. If that moratorium, which has been recommended by the very able people within the industry, is not held there will be a further falling away within the industry. Perhaps the big operators, the large business concerns that can attract capital from here and there and move it across the board, will survive. But I am thinking of the small operator, and there are thousands of them in Australia. There are thousands of people living in the outback. There are thousands of young people who have taken over properties from their fathers and probably their grandfathers. It is these second or third generation people who are perhaps more on their knees now than their pioneering forefathers. Unfortunately, some of them are going. It is hard to ascertain to what degree, but the numbers are falling off now. Those people are leaving their properties now. They are having to sell up or they are being sold up. Some of them foresee that in the next year or two, because they have followed suit, particularly in participating in eradication programs and what have you, they will be placed in a situation in which they have a cattle property, no cattle and no financial return. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.59) —Before the Senate are some 20 Bills, all dealing with agricultural matters; all of them important. A number of these Bills impose extra burdens upon the agricultural community. The Government has decided that the 20 Bills should be dealt with in one overall debate in the last weeks of the Senate. As Senator Kilgariff indicated, that reflects the total disregard that the Hawke Labor Government has for the rural industry, indeed its complete overlooking of the vital difficulties that rural industry faces today. It is a contempt for the Parliament and a contempt for the rural community, both the townspeople and the people on the land, that the Government should debate together these 20 Bills. The Bills involve major subjects-wheat, wheat marketing, wheat tax, dried fruits, canned fruits marketing, fisheries licences levy, meat export charges, dairy products, eggs and livestock slaughter . Each of them deserves some hours of detailed debate in the Senate, but that is not to be. The Government has very good reason for wanting to hurry these Bills through the Senate. It does not want to have exposed in detail its own failures in the whole of the field of agriculture. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, made great play last year of the claim that he would be the saviour regarding the world marketing of our agricultural and mineral products. Those of us who have reasonable memories will remember the brave statements made by Mr Hawke when he went to Japan and his assurances to the Australian people that the decline in the export of our products to Japan, and specifically our percentage of the beef market, would be resolved by him. Of course, the Minister for Trade, Mr Lionel Bowen, has said the same thing. I want to produce evidence-not my own evidence, but government evidence; factual evidence-to show that in fact there has been failure wherever the Government should have accepted some responsibility. In looking at these Bills I want to do so against the overview of agriculture and the overview of the Australian economy. Last year the recession in Australia, which had been experienced world wide, had some temporary and small uplift because, firstly, the drought had broken; secondly, the Fraser Government had had the courage to bring in a wage freeze-I pause here to say that it was a wage freeze which the Australian Labor Party attacked violently and criticised violently but accepted gratefully when in office-and, thirdly, there was an uplift in the American economy. That gave some temporary relief to Australia, but it was against a background of decline in almost everything else. There was a decline in production, a decline in earnings and a decline in employment. Only in the last year has there been an uplift in employment in government-that is, in the Public Service-and temporarily in the building industry. There has been a very serious and continuing decline in investment, employment and output in the manufacturing and mining industries. Against that we are looking today at one industry which has offered some solace, some hope for Australia; that is, primary industry. For many years primary industry provided something like 94 per cent of the export earnings of Australia . Gradually mining came alongside it to share the position. In the last few days the Bureau of Agricultural Economics issued a paper which has been before the Senate. That paper says: The net value of rural production in 1984-85 is forecast to be $3,680m, down some 25 per cent on the previous year's figure and representing a decrease in real terms of 29 per cent. I repeat: There has been a decrease in real terms of 29 per cent. In March of this year the Department of Primary Industry supplied additional information in answer to a question I had asked and said that the expected decline would be 24 per cent. So we have evidence that the Department has now upgraded its estimate of that decline. That decline affects not only rural industry but also the whole of Australia. If there is to be a fall in real earnings of the rural industry at a time when it can least afford it, Australia itself will suffer. There are already significant indications of further decline in employment in the rural industry. Those who think that because of the breaking of the drought some great prosperity comes to rural industry fail to understand the significance of the long and painful years of rising debt structures within the industry and the need for some good, quiet years of some profitability in order to overcome the bad years and to put the debt structure into true perspective. What is happening is that there will be a very significant fall in the value of rural production. That fall, taken with the fall in mining, manufacturing and investment, is very severe. This severity of the situation is reflected in the Westpac Banking Corporation's latest Review of September 1984, which states: Recent statistics of retail sales indicate that consumption spending is very weak, not even keeping pace with the underlying rate of inflation. This statement is a reflection of the malaise spreading across Australia which is becoming more chronic under the policies of the Labor Government. I want to put what I have said to the test-that these measures reveal the total failure of the Hawke Labor Government and specifically of the Prime Minister and his Deputy Prime Minister to maintain overseas markets for Australia, to maintain prices and to seek and develop more markets-and I will quote as my authority the Hansard of Estimates Committee C of 3 September of this year. I will refer to my questioning of the Secretary to the Department of Trade, Mr Menadue, and of his senior officers. One would accept that their information would be factual. I asked Mr Menadue, the head of the Department, about the decline in beef exports. Honourable senators will recall that the Prime Minister had given an assurance that he and his Government would stop the percentage decline in Australia's share of the Japanese beef market. Mr Menadue said: The Australian position in the market has deteriorated consistently. In 1976 Australia obtained 83 per cent of beef imports within the Japanese quota. That fell, with one or two exceptions, in following years and now in 1983 it stands at 67 per cent. I asked him: And is it likely to fall below that percentage? Mr Menadue answered: We would anticipate that, yes. Just to make the situation clear I later asked: As I understand it, what you are saying is that for the future and for the foreseeable future, the percentage share of the Australians is falling and is likely to fall? I was referring to Australia's share of the Japanese beef market. Mr Menadue answered: I would think that was a fair prognosis, yes. That is the picture in regard to the Australian share of the Japanese beef market. I pressed on and looked at the individual markets around the world. Mr Menadue pointed to the fact that we were now having difficulties in Singapore because Singapore had relaxed its quarantine controls on foot and mouth disease and other countries were competing for that market. He pointed out that we had falling markets in Korea, and said: Our principal concern is, of course, to keep subsidised European beef out of our own region in particular. I questioned Mr Hall, one of Mr Menadue's senior officers. With respect to the European Economic Community and its effect on the beef market, Mr Hall said: . . . it is expected that beef in store intervention stocks in the European communities could amount to 450,000 tonnes-that is surplus beef overhanging the market-and that this year the Community could become the world's biggest exporter of beef. So that is another threat. Mr Hall indicated that South American beef was now gaining-to use his own words-'good acceptance in Singapore'. I asked Mr Hall a question about the overall tonnage of Australian meat exports. He had pointed out that in years gone by our total meat export figure was about 630,000 tonnes a year. It varied between that high figure and 500,000 tonnes. He cited two figures and said: This year total exports from Australia should be about 470,000 tonnes . . . I asked this subsequent question: Has a projection been made of our export tonnage for the financial year we are now in? Mr Hall replied: It will be 420,000 tonnes. That is a huge decline in exports. I pressed the question as to whether the decline was purely seasonal or whether the problem resulted from a lack of markets for Australia. I asked whether as we built up our herds we could expect more markets. Mr Hall said: If we build up our herds and the markets are not there, our competitors may have them. This is the answer of a senior officer and reflects the Department's despair of its chances of gaining new markets. There has been a decline from 630,000 tonnes of meat exports to 420,000 tonnes. This decline, as Mr Menadue said, has left Australia with a 67 per cent share of the Japanese beef export market and he predicted it is likely to fall and to continue to fall for the foreseeable future. I contrast that with the promises of the Prime Minister and Mr Bowen. I will continue to use not my words but the words of members of the Department of Trade, spoken while the Minister for Resources and Energy was presiding. No challenge was made to their figures. I asked Mr Menadue about wheat. He said: In respect of wheat, in particular, internationally we face a position of oversupply and the lowest real prices of wheat since the Second World War. That in itself is a gloomy situation. Mr Hall said: Again as the Secretary mentioned, prices are probably, in real terms, at the lowest level since the Second World War and any further downward movement of prices would make the situation even worse. These facts which have come from the Department are in contrast with the illusion created by the Prime Minister and Mr Bowen that things are good and getting better. I asked about sugar, and Mr Hall said: As I think you said in your introduction, the sugar price is about US4c a pound , which in real terms is the lowest level ever. What a situation! I asked whether this problem was temporary and whether it was likely to be overcome. I probed further and asked: Why should there be any optimism at all amongst the cane growers of Australia- not just for the next season, but for the next five or 10 seasons in sugar? Mr Hall said: There is a whole host of factors and it is difficult to say why anyone could be optimistic. This will be the case for the next five or 10 seasons. I pressed him again, and he finally said: The outlook is not optimistic at all. I said: The cane growers of Australia at this moment facing those world markets would be selling below cost, would they not? They would be facing a very severe depression. Mr Hall answered yes to that question. I have built up a picture of the response of the Department of Trade to the problems relating to the volume and the price of rural sector products which are exported to the rest of the world to earn money for Australia. Honourable senators should bear in mind that we are talking about the one industry that offers any real hope for Australia now, that has been the backbone of Australia's earnings, an industry which has been efficient and which, year by year, has increased its efficiency to keep ahead of the developing countries. Of course, there is a basic limit to that. Problems emerge in many areas. If I turn to the paper issued by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics I find that the price of wool has fallen. I find that the same situation applies to coarse grains and that the production of oats, for example, is forecast to fall by 40 per cent. I find a deplorable situation in regard to meat. It is not a question of blaming the residual effect of the drought but of looking at world markets. The evidence of the Department of Trade is that virtually wherever we turn, whether it is to Japan, Korea, Singapore or other countries of South East Asia, comparatively our trade position is falling. Nothing is being done to overcome it. The evidence is quite clear that what the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade promised and what they did were totally different. That is the background against which they now, as a government, seek to impose more burdens. Let us look at what has happened and at why no person living in a rural community should support this Government. If ever there was a government that set out to penalise the rural community it is the Hawke Labor Government. It indexed excise. Everybody knows that transport, and thus fuel, are vital to the rural community. Everybody knows that something like 40 per cent of rural costs are transport costs. Therefore, whether on-farm or off-farm, this Government has penalised the rural community throughout. Eighty per cent of all farm costs are incurred off-farm by the penalties that are imposed by others and have to be borne. In this case the Hawke Government made sure that it would catch both the on-farm and off-farm areas. Do honourable senators remember the Australian Labor Party when in opposition sitting in this chamber and bleating that when it got into office it would stop the import parity pricing of petrol and oil and that it would reduce the price of petrol? One of the first things it did was to defy the fall in world prices of oil. In fact, it raised the price of oil and kept it up. What did the Government do then? The shades of Senator Walsh and others should be with us now. The Government said: 'We will reduce the price of petrol. It is wicked'. Yet the first thing it did was to index the excise on such things as beer, cigarettes, tobacco and fuel. It looked at freight equalisation costs from the point of view of its own self-interest. It attacked those basic things. Therefore, it has increased the costs to the community. I am fascinated to read that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics says that the expected rise in farm costs for this year will be 7.5 per cent, a rise which is heavier than the inflation cost of any of our main competing countries. In other words, the costs will be such that they will increase the burden of external competition. There is a limit to what the farmers can do to absorb this burden. What has happened now is a further attack upon farmers. Could there be an uglier attack on members of the farming community or an uglier destruction of their way of life than the so-called pay-as-you-die assets test? Can anyone think of an uglier threat to the elderly farmer who now faces not an income test, such as was the case under the Fraser Government and which he could easily survive, but an assets test? His only way of getting a pension is to pay-as-you-die, to run up a debt to the Government, in other words, to have an indirect death duty thrust upon him. That is the way this Government helps the farmer. Both today and yesterday statements from the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) exposed the possible threats of extra burdens on a community that cannot afford an attack upon its resources, particularly its capital resources. If ever there was a danger it is the danger of the former death duties and pressures on farmers which bore down on them and forced them to sell and to subdivide. Australia cannot afford that in any way at all. Both Mr Keating and Senator Button have said quite clearly that the Government has in mind a total review of all taxes. Both of them have said unequivocally that that review will include capital taxes, that is, capital gains taxes, death taxes and wealth taxes. The fact is that no government sets out to review such taxes unless there is some understanding within itself that the government's accepting all those taxes is a possibility. If there were no possibility that the Government would accept them, if it would not dream of doing so, it would have excluded them as it did belatedly when, after the Gruen report of the Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test was released and it was said that the Government was attacking people's homes, it excluded homes from the assets test. Do honourable senators remember that? But there has been no exclusion at all in the proposed total review of capital gains taxes, wealth taxes, death taxes and so on. That can mean only that the Government is willing to consider that whole range of taxes. That is not good enough. It is certainly not good enough for Senator Button to say that there is no consideration now and no paper work going on with the Government on this matter. The fact is that Mr Keating and Senator Button said that the Government will have a complete review of the matter which will include all these taxes and that they, as reasonable people, will give consideration to the answers. They said: 'We are not excluding those taxes'. If there is one great threat that the agricultural community faces it is the threat of the imposition of any kind of serious capital tax. The assets test is bad enough; it is an evil in itself. It is important for us to understand that the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia have said emphatically that they will remove the assets test; that they will not have a bar of it. Lest there be any reverberations or any seismic activities on the Government benches, let me say this: It is not good enough for the Government to say that it will not do things . Its long list of some 120 broken promises proved that what it said and what it did were absolutely and totally different. Right around Australia authoritative people are saying that next year, if this Government is re-elected, its structure of public spending will be such that there must be a crisis. Senator Button said, and I hope I paraphrase him accurately, that there will be very considerable deficit difficulties in the years ahead. Of course there will be. What does that mean? It means something fundamental. If one has very considerable deficit difficulties one has a challenge to interest rates which rates will consequently rise. The Review published by the Westpac Banking Corporation, in regard to the Budget, states: Indeed, the risks associated with this year's Budget, especially in terms of upward pressure on interest rates, escalate next financial year. In other words, in old fashioned wording, what Westpac is saying is that interest rates will rise next year. Interest rates will rise. Taxes have risen. What Westpac is saying is that, whichever way we turn there is a very great challenge for the future. In fact Westpac is saying that the one thing that the Labor Government has rested on, this magic of the accord, will not succeed. After all, the accord was not made with the whole Australian community. It was a private agreement between the trade union movement and the Government. It was in fact different from what the Government promised. It is an accord which in the end arose out of option A which, on the Government's own statistics, envisages that unemployment will be higher in the years ahead, not lower. Of course, if one looks at the participation rate in employment one sees that over the whole of this Government's time in office the participation rate has fallen. This means that in a real sense unemployment has risen, particularly youth unemployment. Westpac makes it clear, to use its own words, that since 'it will have virtually no room in which to provide any further budget sweeteners', the Government will have no means of trade with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and therfore there is no likelihood of the accord succeeding. What do we have if we pull this together? We have 20 agricultural Bills shoved on us, bundled together, so that they cannot be analysed fully. They are Bills which will add more burdens. Upon exposure we find that primary industry in Australia is in a very serious situation, faced with declining earnings and mounting debt burdens which increase progressively, step by step, under this Government. They are insidious burdens by way of indirect taxes, such as indexed excise, which sneak up on people. There is the insidious burden of the pay as you die assets test. On top of that we have a farm cost rate running at 7 1/2 per cent higher than that of our world competitors. Authoritative economists and observers are saying that next year there will be great pressure on the deficit, a need for a mini-Budget and a need for this Government, with its high public expenditure programs, to increase taxes severely. More and more people are saying that the significant base of those taxes will be capital taxes. I cannot think of an atmosphere which is more threatening to the agricultural community. I cannot think of any greater breaches of promise than the breach of the promise given by the Hawke Government when it said bravely: 'We will go to Japan and slay the dragons. We will make sure that you keep your share of the markets and prices'. In the words of Mr Menadue, that percentage fall will go on year after year in the foreseeable future unless the trends are altered. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.29) —What a remarkable speech we have just heard in the last 30 minutes. The speaker, Senator Sir John Carrick, started, like most other speakers on the other side, by complaining that the Government had 20 primary industry Bills for debate at the end of this Parliament; that we were dealing with them together; that these Bills and these topics deserved earnest and proper debate, and that we were neglectful in not dealing with them separately. Senator Sir John Carrick then managed to speak for half an hour. We were very careful not to take points of order in order to see just how long he would speak. He spoke for half an hour and the only reference he made to the 20 Bills was a passing reference to the fact that meat inspection charges were rising. He spoke about assets tests. He claimed capital gains taxes were to be introduced, without having any evidence to support that claim. He talked about countries all over the world but he said nothing about the substantive parts of this legislation. But that is typical. What can we expect? Senator Boswell and others said that someone like me-I happen to have lived in a rural area all my life, worked in a rural area for most of my life and lived with farmers-had no right to speak on legislation like this because I am a doctor. Of course, Senator Sir John Carrick was an apparatchik in Ash Street in the New South Wales Liberal Party for many years and has been a senator ever since. When he was in government in this place he was a great one for getting up and saying: 'Everything is going to be all right. Everything is booming. Rundle shares are going to go through the roof. We will have oil from Rundle everywhere '. Now he comes into this place and plays the Jeremiah. That is why he is sitting where he is. Senator Sir John Carrick, knight of the realm, is sitting at the back of the Opposition back benches and that is where he will stay. That is all I need to say about Senator Sir John Carrick's speech because it was utterly irrelevant. It was typical of the time-wasting that has gone on in this place, which is the reason why these Bills are being debated together at this late stage. It has been an interesting debate in other ways because we saw Senator Boswell all animated, waving his arms around and getting excited, which is a pretty good effort in this place. Of course, Senator Boswell, who lives in the suburbs of Brisbane, that great rural producer is a representative of the National Party of Australia in this place. I want to say that all my life, from the time when I was born in rural New South Wales, practically from the time when I was aware of what was going on, I heard representatives of the National Party, then the Country Party, say: 'We represent the rural producers of this country. We will see that your industries boom. We will stop the drift to the cities. We will stop decentralisation. We will introduce these subsidies. We will look after your industry'. In my lifetime the percentage of people in the rural areas has declined. There has been an enormous drift to the cities. In keeping with what the National Party's ex-Leader, Mr Anthony, said, what has happened in the rural industries has been that primary producers have had to get big or get out because none of the Liberal-National Party policies ever protected the small farmers that Opposition senators are talking here today about protecting. Senator Watson said that there has been a dreadful decline in the number of abattoirs in this country because of the terrible Australian Labor Party policy. Of the 41 abattoirs that closed down 32 were closed down while the previous Government was in power. At least Senator MacGibbon had the decency to declare his interest, because he gets income from meat production. A couple of others did not do so. Senator Gareth Evans —Squeaky did. Senator GRIMES —Of course: Squeaky always declares everything. At least Senator MacGibbon had the decency to do that. He pointed out that there had been a decline in the percentage of our meat on the Japanese market in recent years. Of course there has been. There was during all the years of the previous Government also. There will continue to be, as Mr Menadue said in his evidence before Estimates Committee C when the estimates for the Department of Trade were being considered. However, I point out to Senator Sir John Carrick that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, in its latest August quarterly review, predicts that our meat exports to Japan in 1984 will be 4 per cent above those for 1983-84, primarily because of the recently negotiated increase in beef quotas which we have in Japan. However the Australian market share of the Japanese beef import market could fall from 66 per cent in 1983 to around 60 per cent in 1987 due to Japan's high quality beef quota which favours the United States of America. That is not due to policies of the Labor Government; it is not even due to those of the Liberal-National Party Government. What bedevils debates on primary industry and other industries in this country is that we get the sort of nonsense that has been spoken here today in this long debate. I will answer at least some of the questions-I hope all of the questions -which were raised by those speakers who actually talked about the legislation. I naturally exclude Senator Sir John Carrick from that because he did not bother to speak to the legislation but gave his usual Jeremiah-like rage that he gives on any legislation in this place. He uses the same words, altering a few of the key words to try to make it appear as though his remarks are relevant to the Bills but in fact they bear no relevance to the legislation at all. He is an embittered gentleman who cannot get over the fact that he is no longer sitting where Senator Button sits. He is an embittered gentleman who cannot get over the fact that honourable senators on this side of the chamber will not put up with the garbage he pours on. Senator Boswell —Come on, stop stalling and padding it out. Senator Watson —Who is the virtuous person who talked yesterday about personal attacks? Senator GRIMES —Senator Boswell and Senator Watson bleat whenever anyone makes a suggestion that they are not all ladies and gentlemen on that side of the chamber. I do not happen to share that view. I am happy to express it as often as I can. As I said, Senator Watson made great claim to the fact that meatworks are closing all over the country. He is right; they have been. They have been closing for some time. I made note of that. It has been the subject of debate in this place for a long time. I repeat that some 32 of the 40-odd abattoirs that have closed down did so during the time of the previous Liberal-National Party Government. What was done about it? I do not remember Senator Watson even making a speech about it. I may be wrong. He may have made one speech. I hope he did, because he is a good and honest man. However, Sentor Watson did not succeed in saving anything. I make the point that the legislation before the Senate will not add anything to the present cost of meat inspection. It will not add a thing . The reason for the large increase-from $1.80 to about $5.40, I think-in October 1983 is that the previous Government did not adjust the rate to accord with the previous Government's 50 per cent recovery policy. It remained at the 1979 level of $1.80 all those years. The combination of services in Victoria which Senator Watson mentioned equally will not add costs. The experience of New South Wales is in fact the opposite. Total savings for the industry are estimated at about $3m. Similar savings are expected in Victoria if the merger goes ahead. Senator Boswell talked as though the difficulty in the meat industry, that the decline in the meat industry, was due wholly to inspection charges. He implied that inspection charges would bring about the demise of this meat export area. There is no economic basis for Senator Boswell's statement. We are talking about a $14m reduction per annum for total exports of about $1,500m. The main reason for closures of abattoirs, as I think Senaor Watson tried to say by way of interjection, has been a lack of stock for slaughter. We happen to be facing a loss of markets all over the world. Certainly there has been a decline in markets all over the world and certainly there has been a decline in the prices available all over the world for primary industry products, as Senator Sir John Carrick pointed out. However, to go on as honourable senators opposite go on is to go on as though the reduction in commodity prices and markets and the terrible activities of the European Economic Community are due to the actions of the Labor Government of this country for the last 19 months. Quite frankly, the Opposition attributes to us power at the national and international level which I only wish we had. I am afraid we do not have it. In fact, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and others point out that the long term prospects are good. The Japanese beef market is continuing to expand with what appears to be good prospects. Our exports to the United States of America, which is our main market, are expected to continue at present levels with an expected 8 per cent increase in prices. Senator Boswell made great play of the fact that there is a surplus of meat inspectors-expected to average 110 inspectors this financial year. I point out to Senator Boswell that, as he advocated, the total cost of these inspectors is borne by the Government; it is not included in the calculations of the charges that we are debating here today. The meat inspectors suspended received hardship allowances in accordance with the requirements of the Public Service Act. The Government determined that the cost of suspended inspectors be borne by the Government and not included in the calculation of these costs in the Bills. Senator MacGibbon informed us that the splitting of the fee between the domestic market and the export market is opposed by all and will add to the costs. In fact, the split fee was proposed by the interim inspection policy council, which was comprised of representatives from industry, unions and government. The recommendation was made on the basis that diversion was occurring from export to domestic works causing export works to go out of business. The Government accepted this recommendation. If we accept the recommendation we get condemned; if we do not accept the recommendation we get condemned. That is typical of the debating tactics of the Opposition. The moratorium on export charges was a proposal that we did not accept. That was discussed by the Cabinet but was not brought to the Cabinet as a firm recommendation by Mr Kerin because of the budgerary situation and other reasons. The reduction of $14m we believe would provide no medium long-term benefit but it is also inappropriate in view of the need for national economic restraint, which we hear an awful lot about from honourable senators on the other side of this chamber. Overall, there will be no increase in revenue gained from the red meat industry . In fact, sheep, pig and some beef and buffalo processors will pay less than the equivalent of $4.35. Producers of heavy cattle will pay more. The proposed system is more equitable than the present system in that the slaughter levy which discriminates against many producers and processors in the domestic market will now not have that discriminatory effect. For some time in this country we have had a policy-not only a policy of the Labor Government, but policies of successive governments-that we have cost recovery in this way. In fact, this export charge is not, as Senator Archer said, a tax just to raise revenue. In fact, it is a charge per kilo based on a detailed breakdown of the actual costs of inspection beyond the slaughter floor which were then directly related to the weight of a product actually exported to derive the per kilogram rate. Senator Archer —It is still a tax. Senator GRIMES —Any charge is a tax. What Senator Archer is suggesting is that we do not charge the meat industry; we charge the whole community. Therefore we should put a tax on the whole community. That is what Senator Archer is advocating. Senator Archer —At last you have started to pick it up. Senator GRIMES —I know what Senator Archer is advocating. He is advocating that the charges be put on the lowest income earning people in this country. Senator Archer is asking that the industry bear none of the costs in this way. If only Senator Archer and Senator Boswell would get excited in this place about people who have inadequate income, who have not got enough to eat and who have inadequate shelter, as they have today about this issue, this country may be a good bit better. Senator Archer —Get out the hankies. Senator GRIMES —It is typical of Senator Archer that he should say: 'Get out the hankies'. Senator Archer wants us to weep for some of his wealthier constituents but wants us to laugh at some of the poor people in this country who would have to bear some of the costs he is talking about here. Senator Archer asked for an explanation as to why the Victorian Government placed an advertisement for meat inspectors in a weekend newspaper when the Commonwealth has so many surplus meat inspectors. The situation was in fact explained to Senator Archer before the debate. To be precise, it was explained to his office on 17 October 1984 when it was stated that the negotiations on the transfer of the Victorian Meat Inspection Service to the Commonwealth were proceeding well but that the Victorian Government still remained responsible for its own service and the Commonwealth could not dictate how or when it advertises for staff. It was explained that in this particular case it was understood that the reason for the advertisement was to provide an opportunity for a small number of Victorian meat inspectors who had been in the employ of the State Service for many years to compete on merit to become permanent. The Commonwealth, State and unions are co- operating to allow staff from both services to work together to enable any of the vacancies that occur to be filled from within existing resources. Senator Archer has had that answer for some time. If he does not have the answer, I suggest that he go back to his desk and look at some of the notes on it. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, until 2 p.m. this day matters of public interest may be raised and discussed by senators, provided that no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia)(12.46) —Mr Acting Deputy President, today I want to make a few remarks about the 1984-85 Budget and the economy generally. The Budget has been subjected to some negative and short-sighted onslaughts by the Opposition, but the Australian public has reacted favourably to its measures . In essence it accentuates the achievements of the Labor Government since it came into office. During this fertile period, new jobs have been growing strongly and unemployment falling. The economy has picked up and is strengthening steadily. We have almost halved inflation; interest rates are dropping and the housing industry is enjoying great buoyancy. The Labor Government has stimulated the economy and stabilised the industrial relations environment to the extent that consumer confidence has been restored, investment has picked up, profits are growing and the level of industrial disputes has dropped radically. The Budget has been well received by the business community. According to a poll conducted by the Australian and Channel 10, 52.8 per cent of chief executives and financial controllers of 231 companies around Australia believe that the Budget will maintain the economic recovery, and 51.9 per cent of them feel that Australia is now entering a period of sustainable economic growth. They are also more impressed by the performance of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) than by that of his Liberal predecessor. Fred Gruen, writing for the Melbourne Age, was of the opinion that this Budget strikes: . . . the right balance between expanding the economy on the one hand and reducing the deficit and the rate of growth of Budget outlays on the other. David Potts in the Australian stressed that it is first and foremost business which has given the Budget the 'thumbs up'. Nobody could argue that a lift in the share market and a fall in interest rates is an indication of an unsuccessful Budget. On the contrary, it is a vote of confidence in the economy, in the Treasurer, and in the Australian Labor Government by the business community of Australia. This vote of confidence has been endorsed internationally by Euromoney, which awarded the Treasurer, Mr Keating, the title of Finance Minister of the Year. The success of Labor's economic policies is further underlined by that magazine's description of Mr Keating as the most impressive Treasurer since the war. This Budget is a progression from the moderate and responsible 1983-84 Budget, and sees the Budget deficit-which I might state is a legacy of the previous Administration, which incompetently mishandled the Australian economy during its time in office-reduced by $3.7 billion. From a situation where Australia was suffering under the worst economic depression since the 1930s, we have seen a considerable regrowth in the economy and an improvement in the lot of the Australian people. From June 1983 to June 1984, our economy grew by an extraordinary 10 per cent in real terms. The annual inflation rate fell from a high 11 1/2 per cent under the Liberals to 6.5 per cent, and is expected to go down to at least 5 per cent during the coming financial year. Unemployment levels have fallen from 10 per cent to 8.9 per cent. In June, it was predicted that over the next 18 months Australia would have the strongest economic growth of any Western country. In September the influential Conference Board of New York observed that our economy was expanding at an annual rate of 15 per cent, and the latest forecasts prepared by the International Monetary Fund foresee Australia's economic growth exceeding that which was predicted when the Budget was first brought down. As Mr Keating says: Australia is back in the international race again. The Budget provides for generous tax cuts which will apply to most wage earners, but which will benefit the low and middle income earners most. Single taxpayers who earn up to $12,500 per annum will be given a tax cut of almost 17 per cent, and taxpayers who earn over $12,500 but not more than $28,000 will gain $7.60 a week. Those earning more than $28,000 will also receive a tax cut, which will steadily reduce as incomes exceed $28,000, so that people earning over $35,000 will gain an increase of $2.79. These tax cuts are quite genuine and they go beyond tax indexation overall, benefiting the low and middle income earners most. Because these cuts are genuine, the Australian Council of Trade Unions has agreed not to claim any wage increases until 1985. Thus the accord has been sustained and Australia's economic recovery can continue. The tax cuts will bring about a significant redistribution of income. The consumer will have more purchasing power and so the economy will be further stimulated. These tax cuts provided for in the 1984- 85 Budget will be of more benefit to the vast majority of workers than the rarely used tax indexation rules brought in by the Fraser Government. Under those rules, workers earning between $406 and $686 a week would gain $7.49 but those workers earning up to $374 a week would gain a tax cut of only $2.30. The total cost of this Budget's tax cut is $2.1 billion, and this is a great deal more than the cost of indexation. So the benefits of the tax cuts to the taxpaying public are, I repeat, very genuine, and perhaps the best feature is that everyone who is a wage earner gets a tax cut. I feel that I must at this stage draw attention to the behaviour of the Opposition in regard to another of the Budget measures-that is, the assets test. This test is designed primarily to ensure that those who can afford easily to live without the pension do not abuse the system, and that social security spending goes in the right direction in the future. The Opposition has represented it as some kind of SS operation whereby the pensioners will be harassed and their privacy invaded. Inspectors will not be entering people's homes, and in fact only abut 40,000 pensioners, or 2 per cent, will be affected. Most will not even have to fill out an assets test form. It is thanks to the Opposition's exaggerations that we have such tragic occurrences as the case of the pensioner couple who withdrew all their savings, fearing that they would lose the pension, and then found themselves robbed; or the piteous letter sent to the Australian Pensioner by a pensioner who had been told that to prove that he had told the truth he would have to strip naked. This atmosphere of panic is unnecessary and unwarranted, and it is irresponsible and cruel of the Opposition to cause such hysteria where it is not justified. I point out that Opposition members were happy enough to support the idea of some type of assets test when they were in government. Their behaviour now constitutes a complete turnaround. In the area of employment generation, the Budget contains provisions for expenditure on labour market programs and services to be increased by more than 10 per cent to the record level of $846m. Compared with the last year of the previous Government we will have increased this expenditure by 146 per cent. More than 320,000 people will be receiving employment assistance through job creation projects or will be given assistance under other labour market programs . The community employment program will have its allocation increased by 44 per cent to $410m and 65,000 unemployed people will be given help from it in the next financial year. I am pleased to see that the community employment program will continue to be directed towards the long term unemployed and other disadvantaged groups. Long term unemployment is still a particular problem. Another area with which I am concerned is that of young people's employment. The special youth employment training program will receive $108.9m, which will give subsidised work experience to about 87,500 unemployed young people. Also, $ 26.2m will be devoted to the community youth support scheme. Other projects will be the adult wage subsidy scheme, trade and skills training schemes and Aboriginal training programs. Since it came to office, this Government has given a great stimulus to the housing industry. Many thousands of Australians have been enabled to buy or build homes they can afford, and the economy in general has been greatly boosted. This is a big contrast to the 20-year low in new dwelling commencements under the previous Government. The 1984-85 Budget makes provision for $1,252m to be spent on housing, which is an increase of 21 per cent on the 1983-84 Budget, and which is up 69 per cent on funding provided by the previous Government in 1982-83. The first year of the first home owners scheme has seen 80,000 successful applicants, expenditure of $220m, and the creation both directly and indirectly of 80,000 jobs. In 1984-85 there will be an increase in expenditure on the first home owners scheme of more than 85 per cent. The Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement will provide a basis for a 10- year program to alleviate housing related poverty. As Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works, I am pleased to see that the Budget provides for an increase of expenditure on public works of 20 per cent. There will be increased expenditure on all major projects. These include $597m of airport works around Australia, $68m of works associated with Commonwealth offices and $30m of works at repatriation general hospitals. In South Australia work will continue on the Daw Park Repatriation Hospital and the Woodside army base. During 1984-85, construction will commence on the Adelaide Airport operations facilities and domestic apron, Pennington Migrant Centre and the Adelaide Commonwealth Government Centre complex, which will provide a boost to the construction industry in that State. Altogether, this Budget is a balanced document which will ensure the continuation of Australia's strong economic recovery. Its tax cuts and welfare measures will further boost consumer demand and, because the deficit is lower, conditions will favour the further reduction of interest rates. Business profits are being substantially restored and the prices and incomes accord has created an environment for the maintenance of appropriate income shares between wages and profits. We can look forward to another year of strong economic growth under the Labor Government, with employment recovery, a stable industrial relations environment, reduced inflation and a more equitable distribution of income. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(1.01) —I wish to take the opportunity in this debate on matters of public interest to refer to a couple of recent reports that have come to light on the proposed rail link between Alice Springs and Darwin. The Senate will recall that in October 1983 the Commonwealth Government initiated an inquiry into transport services to the Northern Territory, in particular the construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway and the accelerated upgrading of the Stuart Highway. The Commonwealth Government stated that it was concerned to ensure that transportation requirements in the Northern Territory were met in an economic manner. Flowing from that an inquiry was conducted by Mr David Hill, Chief Executive of the New South Wales State Rail Authority. It is now common knowledge that it was decided by the Federal Government not to go ahead with the construction of the rail link from Alice Springs to Darwin, despite the fact that the people of Australia, particularly in the Northern Territory, thought that there was no issue on the matter as it appeared at one stage that everyone was in agreement that the construction should take place. However, I now wish to go beyond the period of the Hill report and speak briefly on a couple of reports which have come to light since then, which I shall seek to table. The first is a most interesting preliminary report on the review of the economic viability of the extension of the standard gauge rail service from Alice Springs to Darwin. The report was prepared by Canadian Pacific Consulting Services Ltd. A media report in the Northern Territory News on 18 September this year, under the headline 'Rail report error claim' stated: The Hill inquiry into the Alice Springs to Darwin railway made a major error in the method it used to arrive at a conclusion the railway was uneconomic. That is the finding made by Dr John McPherson, an economist with Canadian Pacific Consulting Services Ltd. The Hill inquiry found the economic costs to the nation in the life of the railway would be hundreds of millions of dollars. The newspaper report quotes Dr McPherson as saying: We are saying that in purely economic terms the railway is roughly a break even exercise. He concluded by saying: The conclusion that Hill came to was that the railway would impose a cost on the nation of somewhere between $250 million and $400 million. The article continued: The methodological mistake Mr Hill made in his inquiry was to look only at the effect of the railway on transport within the narrow confines of the Territory. The article referred to the error in the Hill report. I take this opportunity to refer to another interesting report which has been published recently, entitled 'Defence Implications of the Alice Springs-Darwin Railway'. That paper was prepared by the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University in Canberra. The authors are Desmond Ball, J. O. Langtry and J. D. Stevenson. Honourable senators will remember that when this inquiry took place under Mr Hill it was decided by the Federal Government that there would be no submissions on the project from the Department of Defence. That information was received with amazement by most people. Surely one of the main clients for such a line would be the Defence Department in view of the major part that it would play in the defence of Australia. My understanding is that, while the Defence Department was not permitted to make a submission to the inquiry, it prepared a paper for the Federal Government which clearly indicated, although I understand it has not been made public, that there is a real case for the construction of this line. However, that has not reached the light of day. An article regarding this report, entitled 'Darwin Railway Vital to Defence', in the Australian of 17 October, states: Completion of an Alice Springs-Darwin rail link is vital to the nation's security, and the project should go ahead regardless of cost . . . The article went on to refer to the reports. The report which I am tabling, entitled 'Defence Implications of the Alice Springs-Darwin Railway', was compiled by the head of the Strategic Defence Studies Centre, Dr Ball, and others, including the Centre's Executive Officer, Colonel Langtry, and a former commander of the First Australian Logistic Support Group in South Vietnam. I seek leave to table the two reports I have just described. Leave granted. Senator KILGARIFF —These two reports have been received with interest. They were tabled in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly yesterday. The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory tabled with these reports his statement in relation to them. To save time, I seek leave to have his statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- STATEMENT ON THE ALICE SPRINGS-DARWIN RAILWAY Mr Speaker, I table three reports relating to the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. The first is a review of the economic viability of the railway prepared by Canadian Pacific Consulting Services, an arm of the Canadian Pacific Railroad Company. The second is a review of the defence implications of the railway prepared by the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre of the Australian National University. The third is an environmental assessment report prepared by the federal Department of Home Affairs and the Environment. Mr Speaker, I have spoken in this assembly on several occasions about the Alice Springs to Darwin railway and I think it fitting that my last major statement in this place should be on this subject. Of course, this will certainly not be the last statement I will make about the railway, Honourable members and all Territorians can be sure that I will be saying a lot about the railway in other places in the weeks and months to come. The railway project remains critical to the future of the Territory. This Assembly is familiar with the story of the railway so far-a saga of broken promises and unfulfilled commitments. A shameful chronicle of Commonwealth prevarication and lack of vision that stretches back over 70 years. All Territorians celebrated in September 1980 when, after years of Federal hesitancy and after considerable effort by the Territory Government, the then Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, confirmed that the railway would be completed. Malcolm Fraser subsequently announced the railway as a bicentennial project for completion in 1988. Territorians were assured that this commitment was bipartisan and we had every reason to believe that the railway was to be a reality. In March 1983 Mr Hawke made it a solemn promise. The Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Morris, confirmed that promise. Mr Reeves gave his word that a Federal Labor Government would build the railway. Mr Speaker, we all know what a charade that turned out to be. In a pathetic effort to defuse and confuse the issue we were told that the railway could not be built because the Federal Budget deficit was too large. If that was so, the proper approach would have been to confirm that the railway would go ahead but perhaps over a longer construction period. Instead 130,000 Territorians were asked to pay 40% of the cost-approximately $ 220 million-for a project which has wide implications for national development and defence, and which the Commonwealth has a legislative obligation to meet. The cost to the Territory taxpayer and the cost in services and facilities which all Territorians would have had to forego made that deal totally unacceptable. Perhaps the sorriest chapter of all in the saga was the so-called independent economic inquiry. This inquiry, conceived and imposed on us by the Federal Government, was nothing more than a pretext against which to finally retract the promise that the railway would be built. We accepted this inquiry only under great duress. Our views on the terms of reference were ignored. Our views on the structure and membership of the inquiry were ignored and our views on its timing and conduct were ignored. But even given minimal time to prepare our case, we nonetheless produced a comprehensive three volume submission which was then, and remains now, the most comprehensive assessment of the financial and economic viability of the railway that has been produced. That submission concluded that in economic terms the rail link was viable and its construction would provide economic benefits to the nation. Our submission had the full support of the Northern Territory Labor Party. So it was with considerable anger, but not much surprise, that we received the news that the inquiry had concluded that the railway would not be economically viable and should not be built. This so-called independent inquiry was totally cavalier and utterly irresponsible in its treatment of the very careful analysis of freight forecasts put forward by the Northern Territory. It produced its own ''illustrative projections'' of freight without any justification or supporting argument. The Federal Government could not wait to seize on this report to announce that the railway would not be built. The Federal Minister for Transport had announced that even before I had received a copy of the report. Mr Speaker, needless to say, the Territory examined the inquiry's report very carefully and produced a detailed critique of it which raised a number of criticisms relating not only to the treatment of freight forecasts, but also a number of serious methodological questions. We endeavoured to resolve all of these issues by approaching the Federal Government to obtain further information as to the approach taken by the inquiry, but these approaches were denied. Many months ago we made a formal request under the freedom of information act for access to the relevant papers and documents. The response-after these months-has been 350 pages of so-called documents which are in fact nothing more than Press clippings and parliamentary questions and answers-information that we and the public were already aware of. Our real request has not been met, and it appears that it will not be met. I can only conclude that the request strikes too close to home. The Commonwealth does have a lot to hide in the conduct of this exercise. The shallowness of the independent economic inquiry served only to strengthen our conviction that the railway was not only a viable project, but one which was essential for the Territory and for Australia. However, given the total intractability of the Commonwealth we were forced to move forward on our own and it was in these circumstances that we commissioned the two reports which I have tabled this morning. Canadian Pacific Consulting Services is the consulting arm of the Canadian Pacific Railroad Company. This organisation is an acknowledged railway operator and the consultants have world-wide and impeccable credentials. It runs very successfully a railway system over a country which bears considerable similarities to Australia. We requested Canadian Pacific to review the conclusions of the Hill report and the Northern Territory submission and to provide us with an independent view as to the financial viability of the railway. In particular we asked Canadian Pacific to test the essential conclusion of the Hill inquiry that the railway would impose a substantial economic cost to the Commonwealth. The consultant reviewed all of the material and had discussions with relevant people here in the Northern Territory and in South Australia. At the urging of the Territory Government the consultant sought to meet with Mr David Hill who conducted the earlier inquiry to clarify a number of important issues arising out of the report, but Mr Hill refused to meet with him on the grounds that all relevant information was in the report and suggested that the consultant direct all questions to the Federal Minister for Transport instead. The Canadian Pacific report is available for honourable members to study. I will not therefore deal with its findings in great detail. But I do want to emphasise the conclusion: 'The railway is essentially an economic break-even proposition, likely to neither impose a major economic cost on the Commonwealth, nor provide a significant return'. Mr Speaker, that conclusion is a total repudiation of the Hill inquiry's findings. The report contains an assessment of railway costs and the impact on costs and revenues on various potential freight volumes. It looks at the financial implications of a railway in terms of cost savings in areas such as road costs and road maintenance, and in a very important contribution it examines the appropriate methodology in assessing the costs and benefits of a project of this kind. In that regard, honourable members may recall that in March of this year I said this about the Hill report: 'A major criticism of the report which should be made is of its methodological defects. As an exercise in the appraisal of the costs and benefits of the rail link, it fails to adopt universally-accepted procedures. As a result, its conclusions are wrong. The Alice to Darwin railway is not a freestanding proposal under which trains will simply run backwards and forwards between Alice Springs and Darwin, bringing benefit to no one other than those in that corridor . The line would be an integral part of the national rail system. Indeed, it is the major missing link in such a national system. It follows from this that the completion of the link would generate additional rail traffic on other sections of the national rail system outside of the Northern Territory. Indeed, the report acknowledges that rail has advantages in the area of long-haul transport. The cost benefits of this additional traffic throughout the national rail system must be attributed to the Alice Springs to Darwin railway for the simple reason that, without that rail link, they will not occur. That concept is quite fundamental in any project assessment of this type yet the inquiry chose to ignore it. More than that, it specifically rejected it'. Canadian Pacific has supported that view about methodology and has even pointed out that the Northern Territory submission erred in not extending this principle far enough in some important areas. Mr Speaker, during the conduct of this most recent assessment, Canadian Pacific has suggested that a further review of the engineering and design standards to apply to the railway could be warranted and that significant savings in capital costs might be possible by applying different standards. This is an area in which Canadian Pacific, as railway builders and operators, have considerable experience. We are therefore proceeding to a second phase study and we have asked Canadian Pacific to undertake this task. Mr Speaker, establishing the financial and economic viability of the railway is extremely important, but there are other issues as well. There is the future of northern development, there is the consolidation of the investment which Australia is making in the future of the Northern Territory, there are the more than 2,000 jobs which are at stake. Also at stake are important questions of national defence. The issue of defence was unilaterally excluded from the terms of reference of the independent economic inquiry by the Federal Government. That was just one of the many decisions taken by the Commonwealth which the Territory opposed strenuously. The Commonwealth sought a defence assessment from the defence establishment and an expurgated copy of that was eventually-after considerable prodding-made available to me and to the Premier of South Australia. I read that assessment with interest. It seemed to me to be a fairly unequivocal statement of support for the railway and it emphasised the extreme significance of the railway in contingent circumstances. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence blithely concluded that these major defence issues in no way detracted from the so-called economic findings of the Hill inquiry and that was the end of the matter. So once again, it fell to us to try to produce in a positive and constructive way some further insights into the defence issues. To do this we engaged the strategic and defence studies centre at the Australian National University. The team was lead by the head of the Centre, Dr. Ball, supported by two former senior military officers, one of whom had been Chief of Army Logistics. Mr Speaker, this study once again shows the totally cavalier approach by the Federal Government to important national issues. The report concludes that ''in most defence contingencies, even at medium levels of threat, the availability of a rail link through Alice Springs to Darwin would be essential to the deployment and support of a defence force''. The report provides a very detailed assessment of strategic considerations, including likely threats, warning times, and priorities. It calculated the quantities of fuel and other supplies, personnel and equipment to be moved at various levels of threats, concluded and concerned that road infrastructure lacks the required capacity. It also makes the very important point that infrastructure development and the defence of Australia must be indivisible when it comes to national planning. The study observes that a reliance on road transport to maintain any defence capability in the north and north-west of Australia is totally unacceptable. The report states that 'the strain on the road transport capability is likely to prove intolerable and the necessary support to the deployment of an operational force could not be guaranteed. The availability of a rail link between Alice Springs and Darwin is essential to the timely deployment and subsequent guaranteed logistic support of a force'. One of the key warnings in the report is that against waiting until there is some indication of an impending threat to Australia before developing infrastructure such as the railway. The report notes that the very existence of the railway would be an important deterrent. It also notes the considerable time which would be required to build the railway and the possibility of a major threat developing well within this time scale. Mr Speaker, I commend this report to the careful study of honourable members. What emerges from these recent reports is a much clearer picture about the railway than we have ever had before. The railway is economically viable, it is essential to national defence and it is totally justified by the wider social audit and community issues. The project must proceed and we must continue to confront the Federal Government with the facts. The evidence is clear and the interests of the Northern Territory require the strongest possible bipartisan support for the project. I have said before that I will not rest on this issue until the railway is built. I renew that pledge and I hope that every honourable member will join me in it. Senator KILGARIFF —It is a most interesting statement of the way in which the Northern Territory sees the proposal for the construction of the rail link from Alice Springs to Darwin. I believe that many honourable senators and other people who have been following this saga regarding the project will read it with interest. Many things have happened since then. I recall that in discussions with Dr Don Williams, the General Manager of ANR, he told me: The Tarcoola-Alice Springs line is covering operating costs. That is the line to Alice Springs that comes off the Transcontinental at Tarcoola. Honourable senators will recall that this standard gauge line, which has now reached Alice Springs, was completed some three years ago. This, of course, is an answer to those who say that the line is not viable. Dr Williams went on to say: With regard to the proposed project, Alice Springs-Darwin, ANR believes the link would be capable of covering costs as has been shown on the Tarcoola-Alice Springs section. One sees from the reports that I have tabled the confirmation of this statement; that is, that the line from Alice Springs to Darwin can more than break even. It is unfortunate that since the completion and the publication of the Hill report all work on this very important project has ceased. On 4 September I took the time to inquire of the constructors of the line, the Australian National Railways Commission, as to the situation in September. The telex I received in reply stated: Confirm that planning work has ceased, and no further funding has been provided . I investigated this matter to indicate clearly to people the fact that the planning had reached such an advanced stage that it would be a pity to cease work for the sake of something like $2m, with which the program could have been completed. The telex indicates the work done as at September. It reads: Work completed to following stage: 1. 'Route identification'-i.e. precise alignment selection on paper, completed throughout. Through distance from Alice Springs railway station to Darwin Port is approximately 1430 kilometres. 2. Pegging of line on the ground was not completed. Line actually pegged for total 1060 kilometres, leaving four sections not pegged totalling 370 km: . . . 3. Site investigations and engineering design plans completed to preliminary stage Alice Springs to Tennant Creek and much of Adelaide River to Livingstone Road section. To lesser stage of completion in the other sections which have been pegged. 4. Final environment impact statement completed. I believe that the case for the further construction of the line from Alice Springs to Darwin has not been shelved. I believe that there is a necessity for the line and that ultimately common sense will prevail and in consideration of the extra information and reports that are still coming forward, eventually the Federal Government will acknowledge its responsibility and see that the line is constructed. This morning I gave notice of a motion that I shall move on the next day of sitting. Of course, the opportunity will not come forward in this sitting of Parliament to debate it as the Senate will be rising next week and there is much more business to be dealt with. We will not have the opportunity of debating these reports. I hope that the debate on my motion will take place after the election. My notice of motion states: That the Senate- (a) calls on the Government to commission a second inquiry into the viability of the Alice Springs to Darwin rail link project, taking into consideration the recommendations of a report prepared by the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University, and a further report prepared by the Montreal-based Canadian Pacific Consulting Services, both of which were tabled in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on Tuesday, 16 October 1984, and (b) in the light of the defence and development requirements of the north, calls on the Government to carry out this further inquiry without delay. I recommend the papers that have been tabled in this debate. They are extremely important to the future of this project and, indeed, to the development and the defence of the north. Finally, I refer to an article in Network, the Railways of Australia quarterly, Volume 19, No. 4, for December, January and February 1983. It is by Mr Morrie Gigney, the Australian National Assistant General Manager, Operations and Marketing. The article is entitled 'The Alice Darwin connection'. I seek leave to table this article for the information of honourable senators and other people. Leave granted. Senator KILGARIFF —There is little more to say at this moment. I look forward to the Senate, in the new Parliament, once again picking up the debate on this very important project, the construction of the rail line from Alice Springs to Darwin. I believe that the inquiry that was carried out by Mr Hill has been in very many ways unsatisfactory. It has failed to take into consideration defence and the defence requirements of the north and various logistics and other important information. All in all, the Hill report was a failure and needs a review. I look forward to the Senate picking this matter up in 1985. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(1.14) —I refer to a matter which was raised this morning. Those who were listening at that time might have been quite surprised and might not have understood what it was all about. I had given notice of a motion the previous day and I tried to bring it on and get it passed this morning. My motion, which was subsequently withdrawn, read as follows: That in view of- (a) the totally inadequate reporting by the Australian media of the positive and substantial activities of the Parliament and in particular the Senate and its committees; (b) the need for the public to be advised promptly of the proceedings of this national Parliament; and (c) the small distribution of daily and weekly Hansards of our proceedings, the President and the Publications Committee be asked to consider and report to the Senate on the feasibility of increasing the numbers of persons who may be supplied with daily Hansards, from 10 to 100 for each Senator. One might think that that was not a particularly controversial motion. It called on the President and the appropriate committee, which is the Publications Committee, to consider the feasibility of a proposal to increase the ability of members of the public to obtain the most up to date records of what the Parliament has been doing. Yet when this matter was called on, this morning, the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, called it not formal. The effect of that is to say that it will go to the end of the Notice Paper; that it will not be debated in this Parliament; that it will be wiped away at the time of the election and one will have to start again to make inquiries some time in 1985. I protested at that time about that action. Of course, when the Minister insisted on that course of action, I withdrew the motion so that it would not be on the Notice Paper and I could speak about it later in the day. The Standing Orders of the Senate deny a senator any opportunity of anticipating the discussion of any subject which appears on the Notice Paper. I would have been denied that opportunity because it appeared in the Notice Paper and it would never have been dealt with. So I withdrew it, but certainly not because it was not a matter of importance. I will urge the President and the Publications Committee, notwithstanding that there is no motion from the Senate, to make those investigations and to report to the Senate on what I think is a sensible suggestion that I and some other senators are making, in order to increase the public knowledge of what goes on in the Parliament. I refer to the three parts of the motion. I complain about the totally inadequate reporting by the Australian media of the positive and substantial activities of the Parliament, in particular the Senate and its committees. I do not need to prove this at any length. It is constantly the case that newspaper after newspaper contains mainly the same Australian Associated Press version of what happened in the Parliament during the previous day. Often it is quite accurate, but it is restricted to a few limited subjects. There is no variety in the media throughout Australia as to what is recorded. There is no particular interest by the media in the positive things the Parliament does-the committees and the debates which deal with sometimes controversial matters but which do not come within the area of high politics. There is no abuse or criticism in those debates and nothing on which the Parliament can really be attacked. It is that lack of representation of the positive achievements of this Parliament that I find so offensive and which tend to give the Parliament such a bad name. It is true that there is bad behaviour in the Parliament and that there is spitefulness and other unworthy conduct. At the same time, a lot of good work is done. If I could use that unfortunate word 'consensus' which has been greatly misused in the Parliament, we have quite a bit of it in the Parliament and particularly in the Senate, and that ought to be recognised. I refer, for example, to the reporting of yesterday's proceedings, when a number of speeches were made by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber about the burdens imposed on small business. This was not reported in any way that I could see by the media throughout Australia. Senator Hill detailed many problems in regard to small business, and criticism was rightly made of this Government for what it has not done in that area. I made substantial comparisons between the Government's policies and the Opposition's policies in relation to the reform of regulations and the new policies which Senator Peter Rae and I put down earlier this week. Senator Rae will be speaking on this subject later. That entire debate was ignored by the media; yet it is of substantial importance to individuals-small business men and women throughout the country. The second point I made in the motion was that the public needs to be advised promptly of what is happening in the Parliament. It cannot wait six weeks or more until the weekly Hansard comes out. It cannot find out what has happened from the Press or other parts of the media. The daily Hansard, which is available the next day, is, I think, an excellent way in which people who are concerned about the political process can have an opportunity of informing themselves of precisely what is said in the chambers, including the chamber which is not being broadcast on any particular day. The proceedings of only one chamber can be broadcast, of course, at any time. We are given an allocation of 10 copies of the daily Hansard to supply to interested constituents. Each senator and member is given an allocation of 10 copies and that is totally inadequate. It is a complete abortion of democracy to think that people are not able to read to a much greater degree what is said by their representatives. I propose a very mild increase in that allocation, but I think it is a start. It may be argued, of course, that one cannot get an economic payment for the Hansard. In this case, one does not. Copies can be bought, but very few people are willing to pay the price. Some years ago when I was Chairman of the Publications Committee, the price of Hansard was put up by an enormous degree to make it economic. The result was that the numbers of people who subscribed to the daily Hansard were immediately reduced by 90 per cent. The Publications Committee persuaded the government of the day to lower the price to a more reasonable level, although it was still too great, but those numbers have never returned. So a very small number of people actually subscribe to Hansard and the people who are able to obtain copies on what I might call the free list are people who do not very often have the opportunity to come to the Parliament and see what is happening, but who have the opportunity to read the Hansard and therefore to talk or write to their members of parliament and express their views on the members' behaviour, good and bad, and the issues as they are debated in the Parliament. I do not in any way bring this forward as a party political matter. I greatly regret what has happened in this unfortunate Parliament. I think many of us will be happy to see it end. It is ending prematurely, but the behaviour and the way in which Parliament has been ignored by government and, of course, by the media, will be something that we will long regret. I hope that the next Parliament will be better and that people in the community can read much more about what goes on in the Parliament and do not have to depend entirely upon the media for their information. I make the plea to the President and the Publications Committee to take up this matter, irrespective of the fact that we have made no decision on it. In the few minutes remaining to me, I shall refer to an entirely different matter. It is one that has been before the Parliament and the people for a very considerable time. I raise the very unfortunate situation of the people who fled from the West Irian province of Indonesia to Papua New Guinea some months ago, who are now in camps near the border and who, according to recent reports, may well be returned to West Irian, where they have a very uncertain future. I have spoken in the Parliament before about this subject. I have expressed grave concern at the inability of the aid organisations and the Red Cross to know what is going on and to supervise any return that takes place. I regret that the Government has not been more forthright and strong in this area. Although we have given some aid to the refugees, we have not taken a very strong stand, nor have we given Papua New Guinea the strength to ensure that it will not return people-11,000 in all-who are situated in camps, who fled because of fear of death and torture and who are fearful of returning. Some people will no doubt want to return, but that should take place under supervision and that has not yet been provided for. In the last few days there has been a further statement by the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, Dr Mochtar, about this matter. He is reported, in the Melbourne Herald of 16 October, as follows: . . . the time had come for Indonesia to deal in a firmer and more responsive manner to recent charges made by Papua New Guinea. ''We have been too patient all this time because we were sincere in our attempt to foster close relations with PNG,'' Dr Mochtar said. He accused Papua New Guinea of making too many complaints about Indonesia, adding that some of them constituted interference in Indonesia's internal affairs. Of course, what he forgets is that the people who have fled are Melanesians, like the Papua New Guineans. They are naturally concerned about the suffering which they have experienced. They are fearful about returning. Dr Mochtar went on to speak about the death from starvation of some people who had crossed into Papua New Guinea. I think that was very regrettable. The article continued: Dr Mochtar said Indonesians rebels often committed border violations, 'but the Indonesian government is always the one to be blamed and suffer the losses' . . . I do not think that is true. I believe that the losses have been mainly suffered by the people in the villages. We are aware of the death of Arnold Ap, a very noted Melanesian, who was quite clearly murdered by the Indonesian authorities. Last Monday I put down in this chamber a copy of the report prepared by the Australian section of the International Commission of Jurists following its visit to Papua New Guinea in September. The Australian Government has not in any way commented on this very alarming report. I regret the failure of the Government to comment on matters that are raised in the Parliament. I express my regret to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), who is in the chamber, that, although pre-warned, she or another Minister did not respond to the worries that I have about the Worawa school. But that is another subject. Unfortunately, the Government-- Senator Ryan —There is a meeting about that today. Senator MISSEN —I know. That is why I raised it last night and advised the Minister's Department. Unfortunately the Minister in the chamber at the time knew nothing about the subject and therefore I can offer no consolation to those who are worried about that matter. I make no particular points about this. I hope that the Minister will respond and say something about this matter in the near future. However, I think there has been a tendency by the Government not to respond to matters that are raised by members of this Parliament. I think that this depreciates the position of Parliament. I suggest-and here I might almost be returning to the first theme of my speech- that the Indonesian Government is not entitled to take an arrogant attitude. In fact, it has been very loth to discuss these matters; it has been very loth to allow organisations of a charitable nature to come into the territory and to take part in the supervised return to Irian Jaya of some of the border crossers. I think the Indonesian Government should look in its own quarter for the reason for the poor publicity which it has obtained. Many of us who raise these matters are not hostile to Indonesia. We recognise the enormous problems faced by Indonesia. We want to see better relations between Australia and Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. It does not do to bully; I do not think it will affect us. I hope our Government will continue to take a very strong interest in this matter and respond to the feelings which thousands of Australians have on the very worrying future of the people who have fled one country and are now languishing in Papua New Guinea in need of more attention. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(1.29) —I suppose that at this time of the day which would normally be lunch time I really should be outside this place paying attention to my health. However, I want to take the opportunity of speaking, bearing in mind that the Senate is to sit only this week and a few days of next week. I want to talk about three non-related matters that are certainly non- controversial. They are not matters of any huge import but they impinge upon all of the people of this country. I want to mention again in the Senate the coinage of Australia. About 10 years ago I asked that a silver dollar coin be introduced in this country. Eventually a dollar coin was introduced. A silver one could not be put into circulation because the value of silver has gone up markedly since I first raised this matter. I am now suggesting that as well as a dollar coin we need a couple of others. We certainly need a $2 coin. Assuming that it will take government 10 years to bring in this new piece of currency, I suggest that we should also look at the need for a $5 coin as well. We all know that inflation continues to exist in this country. People who go to supermarkets recognise that inflation, as measured by cost of living increases, is not really indicative of the way that the cost of food is going up. I am not going to argue about whether or not the $ 1 coin has been well accepted in all quarters. However, I believe there is a need for a change in all of our currency. Apart from the $1 coin, all of the coins that are in circulation at the moment are much too large. These coins are based upon the size of English coins. If one wants to make several phone calls one needs something like half a kilogram of coins in one's pocket for a public phone. I believe that Switzerland is a good country to follow. That country has denominations of pfennigs of five, 10, 20, 50 and 100. One franc is equal to 100 pfennigs. Switzerland also has a two franc and a five franc coin. One franc is equal to about 50c Australian and two francs is equal to about $1. So the Swiss have a coin equivalent to about $2.50. Maybe that is what we should be aiming at . Except for the five franc coin, all Swiss coins are smaller than our 20c piece . I believe that a lot of metal could be saved and it would be more convenient if we changed the size of our coins. I do not think it would be a very big deal to do this. However, it is something that should be done. Plenty of notice should be given so that when the change is made people can easily adapt machines -more and more are coming onto the markets-to accept the new system of coinage. Coin operated machines are probably most common with Telecom Australia in respect of phones and, of course, with Australia Post in respect of stamp dispensers. I think that machines of government departments and organisations should be expected to be amongst the first to accept any new coins that are introduced. I raise that matter because I noticed the other day a $1 coin jammed in a postage stamp dispenser at Hobart Airport. Admittedly, the outside of the machine had on it the words 'one dollar'. However, further down there was an indication that the person using the machine should insert five 20c pieces. However, it really is not good enough that the slot for the 20c coins is wide enough to accept $1 coins. I believe that Australia Post should do something about those machines. I mentioned on another occasion that Telecom had just brought out its new gold phone. However, our new gold coin will not fit that phone. Maybe its design is such that it never will. Now that one can dial internationally from public phones, surely those phones should be designed to accept a $1 coin. They should also be designed to allow for the eventuality of more valuable coins being introduced. It seems simple enough to me for that to be done. I also believe that public phones should be designed to accept 10c, 20c, 50c and $1 coins and eventually $2 coins. The metering should be based on the value of the smallest coin that is accepted by a telephone. That is not what happens at present. Telephones take a 10c piece. However, if one inserts five 10c pieces one will get only 40c worth of time because the metering is such that the time taken is deducted in 20c lots. I do not believe it would be difficult to devise a system under which 20c is taken for the initial phone call and the time pulses that come down the line for metering purposes are arranged in 10c units and not 20c units. This is not a difficult process; it is obviously done in other countries. It seems that Australia is just slow in catching up with some of the practices that are used overseas. I believe that public phones should have their number placed upon them. There are times when people want to receive calls on a public telephone and in many countries that can be done. In England, America and Canada, I believe, one can dial to a public telephone where the call can be accepted, and I can see no reason why that is not done in this country. Finally on telephones, it must be nearly time for telephone accounts to show all the subscriber trunk dialling details. I know the system is possible because some of the hotels I have to stay in as I move around the country have systems whereby they can tell me which telephone number I have called, at what time I made the call and the length and cost of it. If it can be done in such places and in America and Canada it is certainly time Telecom got round to doing it in this country. I have heard that the system will be introduced but that there will be a charge for it. That is entirely wrong as well. What other business could send an account which cannot always be verified and expect it to be paid and, if it is not, cut off the service? If a doctor detailed some numbers on my account and could not tell me what they were, or if they did not apply to me, I would have every right not to pay the account. One also has to pay a telephone bill within, I believe, an unreasonably short time. In these days when holidays last for a month a telephone account may arrive on the day after one goes away on holiday. One is supposed to pay it within 14 days, and one can come back and find one's telephone cut off because of the short time available for payment. There is probably a slight carryover time, but certainly the time for paying a telephone account should be at least as long as holidays within the country. Again I say that there should be no charge for Telecom giving an accurate account to those who want it. One might ask why I worry about this. Cases have been brought to my attention of accounts being demonstrably wrong. People have gone away, nobody has been in the house, yet the accounts have been wrong; and Telecom has said: 'I am sorry, you just have to pay it'. Whilst STD calls are lumped in with local calls there will always be a little suspicion as to whether Telecom's bills are entirely accurate. I remember the Auditor-General mentioning 23 ways, I think, in which a telephone account can be in error. Sometimes it was good for the subscriber, but the majority of times it was good for Telecom. The third matter I wish to raise concerns this country having some regard for those who drive within city boundaries. For the nth time I ask the Government to introduce a system whereby a car, after stopping and with due regard to pedestrians and whatever else, be allowed to turn left through a red traffic light. This system was introduced many years ago in the United States as a fuel conservation measure, and it works in crowded places like Los Angeles and New York as well as in smaller towns. When we look at the number of traffic lights going up in this country it feels almost as if the manufacturers are in cahoots with the people who put them up, because they seem to grow like Topsy. If they are to be put up, I suggest that this system be allowed. There is no need for tests to prove that it works, because it works in United States cities, both large and small. We would find that the frustration and the temptation to run a red light would be reduced were this sort of thing done. It would save fuel. I know from tests that we did at university that a car engine which runs when the car is stationary uses quite a lot of fuel. If cars could turn through a red light when no pedestrians were crossing-it is at the moment when the driver's light turns green that the pedestrians tear off and we have to wait for the stragglers to cross-we could ease the congestion caused by traffic in the cities of this country. Were this system to be adopted we could do away with the 'Walk' and 'Don't Walk' signs that so many people around this country pay no heed to except when under the direct supervision of a police officer. There is no need to go to a lot of trouble to do it. It could be adopted nationally overnight. If it is not to be adopted nationally, I urge the Australian Capital Territory to adopt it immediately, as could Tasmania. Of course, it would be better for the uniformity of laws if the country did it all at once, but if the rest of the country will not do it, I suggest that the progressive State of Tasmania certainly do it. These are not matters of tremendous importance. They are perhaps not things that I should raise in the heady atmosphere of an election, but they are matters which affect the average person. They should be acted upon because they would help everyone in this country to a certain degree. Mr Deputy President, I think you will agree that the things I have mentioned are non-controversial. In closing, I am glad that we have this period during the week in which we are supposed to speak on non-controversial matters. I did not regard the first speech today, by Senator Foreman, as non-controversial. Had I not been in the Chair at that time I would have been interjecting or taking points of order about the material of which he was speaking. If we have a gentleman's agreement within the Senate, it should be abided by; and I do not believe it was by Senator Foreman. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(1.42) — I want to speak in this non- controversial debate about a Lions Club project in Brisbane, namely, Lions Christmas seals. For those honourable senators who are lucky enough to be in the chamber, I have here a specimen of them. I pay tribute to the City of Brisbane Lions Club for its idea of bringing into Queensland in the first instance the Lions Christmas seals project. The idea is to buy these seals-they can be bought from post offices-and to put them on letters to seal them. This project is certainly worth while and will benefit intellectually handicapped children in Queensland and ultimately, of course, in Australia through the Endeavour Foundation. The City of Brisbane Lions Club held a function last Saturday morning at which I was privileged to launch these seals. I pay tribute to Lion Oscar Christiansen for his thoughtfulness in bringing this idea to our country. Lions clubs themselves will not gain any financial benefit from the sale and distribution of these seals. The money is going to the Endeavour Foundation. I am sure that all honourable senators and all people throughout Australia will know of the work of Lions clubs. Many people throughout Australia buy Lions Christmas cakes if they do not have time to make one. The money raised from them , in the first place, was to help people with sight problems. That has now been extended and some of the money is also used to help those with hearing handicaps . Only just a couple of nights ago I had the opportunity of going to a White Cane dinner. Members of the Lions Club also participated. They brought many people who have seeing problems to this function and they put themselves out, along with many other service clubs throughout the community. I think of Rotary clubs, Apex clubs, Australian Jaycees and our women's Quota clubs. There are many service clubs. These clubs are all trying to help those less fortunate in the community. The idea of Christmas seals is not a new one. It actually began in Denmark in 1904. So a lot of good things have come out of Denmark over the years. The name Bjelke-Petersen comes from Denmark. I think that is a very good thought. Actually, that was some time ago. It was even before 1904 that Joh's mother came out from Denmark. In 1904 a postmaster by the name of Mr Holboll wanted to do something to raise money for children's welfare in Denmark. Since that idea began millions and millions of dollars have been raised in Denmark through these Christmas seals. This money is being used to support four homes for disadvantaged children. That is where Oscar Christiansen got the idea from. He is a Dane. He saw the seals on letters from Denmark. We have had many letters from Denmark. I have looked at these seals and wondered what the idea was. Last Saturday morning I visited the City of Brisbane Lions Club and I found this out for myself. In these times of great commercialism, profit margins and the big sell, it has become quite easy to breeze through the Christmas season without giving much of a thought to what it is all about. I was once asked what Christmas meant to me and the answer I gave then I guess is still true now. I said: 'Christmas is to me having all the family together for a happy time and remembering the true message of Christmas, the gift of Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world'. I feel that these seals will help to put Christ into Christmas, as the saying goes . We can see the wise men on their camels, the star, the people singing carols, the Christmas tree and the gifts, and the bells that ring for Christmas. There really are some delightful seals. When I was at the Club I promised the members that if I got a chance I would speak about these seals because not only should the people of Queensland know about it but I feel that the people of Australia should also know that the opportunity is there to purchase seals to remind them of Christmas. The Christmas seals program will help those who are less fortunate . Whilst the great majority of us all enjoy good health and loving family homes, many children have not been so fortunate. These children will benefit from the sale of these Lions Christmas seals. I think we would all agree that Christmas is for children and intellectually handicapped children do deserve our love and our help. In Queensland and, indeed, throughout Australia, if these seals go interstate next Christmas, young teenagers, business men or women and even the multinational corporations, can all participate in this simple but effective way of raising money for the Endeavour Foundation. I pay tribute to the work of the Endeavour Foundation and all it does to help not only children but also adults. A tremendous number of people right throughout Australia have been helped by its sheltered workshops. Many parents of handicapped children have been very grateful indeed for the sheltered workshops and what is being done for the young people. I think that the Lions Christmas seal is a great way of helping others. The post office has been very co-operative with these seals. A representative from the post office was at the launching and he said that the post office is very happy to sell these seals through their post offices. I must say that the post offices get a certain amount of commission for the sale but, nevertheless, a person can buy 30 seals for $3. I think it is a very worth while way of assisting others who really do need a lot of help. I am glad that I have had the opportunity in this non-controversial debate of speaking about the wonderful work that is being done through the Christmas seals by the Lions Club, all the service clubs and, above all, the Endeavour Foundation to help people who are not as fortunate as we are. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(1.50) —I wish to speak briefly about the matter of regulation in Australia. The growth of regulation has caused concern to many people who see it as adding to costs and reducing job opportunities, lowering taxes, imposing costs on all sectors of the community and generally inhibiting many of the entrepreneurial activities which might otherwise take place for the development of the country. I believe it is important that we should have regard to the opportunities which present themselves for a complete review of all forms of regulation, that we should engage in forms of deregulation and that we should reform the regulatory process wherever possible. I am conscious of the fact that the Senate has probably paid more attention to this matter than anyone else over recent years. Over the past 30 years we have had the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. This Committee has done an important job in checking the making of regulations to ensure that they did not infringe certain basic civil liberties. I think we need to go a lot further than that; we need to have a much greater parliamentary scrutiny of the regulation-making process. We need to ensure that we can encourage self-regulation where possible provided that adequate steps have been taken to protect public and consumer interests. We should require regulation impact statements with each proposal for new regulations. The regulation impact statements would ensure, when someone is proposing a regulation, that he looks at what other regulation may exist in that general area. This would ensure that when some form of regulation has been created that, at the same time, it is also being terminated, wherever possible, and that existing legislation is not duplicated. Another important step that needs to be taken is to bring together the Commonwealth and the States to ensure that there is an avoiding of the duplication which takes place between Commonwealth and State regulations in many areas of activity. One of the effective ways of deregulation or of regulation reform is to ensure that the right people are involved. It seems to me to be extremely important that the job is not given to regulators. One of the experiences of the former Government was what amounted to an interdepartmental committee and the bureaucrats were given the job which was ultimately nicknamed the razor gang activity. The net result was not a very successful attack on regulation and not a very successful achievement of deregulation because the job had been given to the regulators whose natural propensity is to continue and perpetuate regulation rather than to reduce it. If honourable senators think about it, it is quite obvious that the people who ought to be involved in the deregulatory process are the people who are affected by the regulations, not the people who have a vested interest in the continuation of the regulations. Therefore, an approach which applies the use of the victims of regulations-those upon whom the regulation is imposed pay the cost of it, as well as those for whose benefit the regulation has been created in the first place-would be a good starting point. By the use of a whole cross section of committees in particular areas using the people who are involved with that particular regulation we would be able to get an input into the parliamentary and government process for the purpose of regulation reform and of deregulation, where that is possible. I see all those steps as matters which are relatively urgent, matters which can start the process going in the opposite direction to the way in which it has been going in so many of the Western-style democracies over recent years. The temptation has been to make more and more regulation, to set up more and more quangos or statutory authorities to do more and more tasks on behalf of government rather than letting the community carry out those tasks and giving some assistance to self-regulation where self-regulation needs some assistance to enable it to work. I believe it would be necessary to review all regulation on a regular basis. One proposal which I believe is worthy of implementation is to ensure that every section of government which already has to report, and those which do not have to report, is required to report annually in relation to what they have done with regard to the paper war; what they have done with regard to positively reducing the paper war; what they have done in relation to review of the regulations which come within their area of activity; and what they have done to evaluate whether those regulations remain as necessary or whether they are matters which could be reformed in one way or another. By the very use of that process of requiring people to look at and report on regulations we will get change and reform, even out of the regulations themselves. Primarily I stress the importance of using the victims and the beneficiaries as a starting point in each area of activity and to endeavour to adopt an attitude which enables the review of regulation within the parliamentary process as regulation is going through. There should be a parliamentary regulatory review committee which can have a look to see whether there is not a less regulatory way of going about achieving a particular public good, whether it is really necessary to have that sort of regulation and whether it is not possible to take some of the steps that have been advocated by the Opposition in the policy which I released along with Senator Alan Missen earlier this week, which endeavour, in the sorts of ways that I have mentioned and in a large cross section of other ways, to take advantage of the experience of a lot of the people who have been involved in this parliamentary process as chairmen of committees. For some six years I was Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. That Committee was involved in looking at the whole of the development of the statutory authorities, how they operated and how they proliferated. Senator Alan Missen, former Chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and widely experienced in the whole question of regulation and deregulation, represented Australia at international conferences on the subject. He has a very deep knowledge and has made a deep study of the subject. Mr David Connolly, the former Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, was another person who was involved in the attempt to develop a workable, meaningful, credible, practical and low cost approach to regulation making and, wherever possible, the development of deregulation. I think the document to which I have referred demonstrates the objectives which we have been endeavouring to achieve: Lowering costs and increasing opportunities for individuals in this country; and lowering costs to government, to the community and, in particular, to industry. I think the document indicates that the subject matter has been deeply considered by a quite large committee. I have mentioned only three members of the nine-member committee which prepared the paper. A number of approaches are necessary. No single approach will achieve the objective. A number of workable systems can be introduced to implement the achievement of the objectives. In summary, a practical approach is possible which can achieve, at relatively minimal cost, a trend away from regulation towards deregulation or regulation reform in this country. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to explain that policy which was announced earlier this week . The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with sessional order, I call on questions without notice. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — My question, which is directed to the Attorney -General, refers to answers given by the Attorney to Senator Chaney on Tuesday and to me yesterday about the nature of the parliamentary privilege which will be attached to the presentation of the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to honourable senators and honourable members in terms of the resolution of the House and the Senate of 11 October. I ask: In parts of Australia other than New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, what use will honourable senators and honourable members be able to make of the report which they will have in their possession? Will the media, particularly newspapers, be able to publish details of the report without risk of defamation proceedings? Will newspapers published in New South Wales and Victoria, but distributed nationally, be able to publish details of the report without risk? The PRESIDENT —Order! It appears to me that the honourable senator is asking for a legal opinion, but insofar as she may not be I will allow the Attorney-General to answer the question. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, with respect, I think that is exactly what the honourable senator is asking for. As I have indicated quite frankly over the last two or three days at Question Time, it is a legal question of some difficulty to which I think no absolutely confident answer could be given. I simply reiterate the point that I made yesterday that, as far as communications between you, Mr President, and honourable senators are concerned, there would appear to be no question but that qualified privilege obtains. This means that as long as no malice is involved-I would not expect any suggestion of malice on this matter from honourable senators opposite-questions of liability and defamation will not apply. As far as publication beyond that circle is concerned , in the absence of clear-cut legislation, there are some difficulties in all those other States. It is a matter for careful interpretation of what the legislative provisions are as to what the situation there is. In the absence of an externally initiated report, as distinct from a Senate committee report, being clearly able to be described as a proceeding within the Parliament, it is the case that there is uncertainty about the reach of the privilege that will obtain in the non-major eastern States. Senator COATES —I ask the Leader of the Government whether he has seen the article in today's Mercury headed 'ALP misusing funds: Gray' which reads: Another hitch in South-West dam compensation saga. In this article the Premier of Tasmania accuses the Federal Government of using dam compensation money to fulfil election promises. This follows the letter of the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, this week suggesting certain projects to use the remaining $9m of dam compensation money. Will the Minister ensure that Mr Gray's misrepresentation is corrected and that he is reminded that none of the five proposals was, or is, part of the Government's election commitments, and that all are additional projects which would not otherwise be commenced but which would be of great benefit to Tasmania? Will he also remind Mr Gray that, under the dam compensation arrangements, both the State and the Commonwealth can propose projects and those suggestions are then subject to reasonable negotiation as to which are finally agreed to? Senator BUTTON —The question contains some requests for detail which I do not have, but let me say that Mr Gray's allegations are not surprising in the current climate. It is only a matter of weeks since Mr Gray expressed himself as being quite satisfied with the negotiations between the Commonwealth and the Tasmanian Government. If, as a result of a letter from the Prime Minister, he finds some new cause for complaint, we will certainly have it investigated and I will provide a detailed answer to the honourable senator as soon as possible. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Will the Government introduce national uniform Aboriginal land rights legislation if it is returned to government at the election? Senator RYAN —As I explained to Senator Kilgariff yesterday, the Government has a commitment to uniform principles which it wishes to see implemented in legislation throughout Australia. Where those principles can be implemented by State legislation, that is a satisfactory implementation of our policy. The point about uniformity is the uniformity of principles. The question which I think we should be seeking to resolve is how we can have complementary Federal and State legislation where that is desirable. Where State legislation perfectly properly implements our principles, there would be no need for any further Federal legislation. As we are in an evolutionary stage with regard to some State legislation, this is not an appropriate time to say whether the uniformity of principles will be implemented by Federal legislation covering some States or by State legislation. Senator ELSTOB —Can the Attorney-General advise the Senate whether any consideration will be given to the needs of persons born under the in vitro fertilisation program in the framing of the proposed Bill of Rights? Will the Attorney give an undertaking to ensure that, when a national monitoring of the in vitro fertilisation program is established, the rights of children born under the program, particularly their rights to privacy, are not compromised? Senator GARETH EVANS —As I indicated yesterday in answer to a question from Senator Durack, the terms of the proposed Bill of Rights legislation are not yet settled, but I can certainly assure Senator Elstob that the kinds of considerations he mentioned will be taken into account in the drafting of that legislation. I do not imagine that the legislation will contain any specific provision relating to children born as a result of IVF procedures, but no doubt it would have close regard to those provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which state, among other things, that every person is entitled to equality before the law and to the various human rights and freedoms set out in the Bill, irrespective of distinctions, including birth or other status. No doubt it would also have regard to those provisions in the covenant which provide that every person has the right to protection of privacy from unlawful interference, and to those provisions in the covenant dealing with the rights of a child which provide that every child is entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms set out in the Bill to the greatest extent compatible with the age of the child, and so on. I imagine that all these kinds of rights would apply absolutely regardless of the manner in which a child is conceived. I should add, in relation to the privacy aspects of Senator Elstob's question, that the Attorney-General's Department is, as I have previously indicated, also currently examining the recent privacy report of the Australian Law Reform Commission, and legislation enacted in accordance with the recommendations of that Commission will undoubtedly contain provisions in respect of privacy and personal information of this sensitive kind. As to the second part of the question, I think I should refer to the answer I gave Senator Elstob on this matter on 6 September 1984, which included the proposition that discussions between my Department and the National Health and Medical Research Council as to the establishment of some national monitoring system for IVF are proceeding. The rights of the children themselves are, of course, of paramount consideration when one is dealing with this particular issue. We are taking initiatives in this area, certainly through the preparation of an ordinance for the Australian Capital Territory, to clarify the legal parentage of these children, and through an amendment to the Marriage Act, which unfortunately it looks as though we will not have time to debate this session, to ensure the effective operation of State laws on this topic. Finally, the existing guidelines for researchers in the IVF area which have been set down by the NHMRC require institutions offering IVF to keep a register of all IVF attempts. It should, however, be strictly confidential. The guidelines recommend that only summaries for statistical purposes be made available to outside bodies. So there is a range of policy issues in this area, as Senator Elstob will be well aware. To the extent that it is within the Commonwealth's capacity to do anything about them, we are certainly sensitive to them and are proceeding in the direction that I think Senator Elstob would regard as satisfactory. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I apologise that I omitted to inform the Senate-it was not particularly relevant as it turned out-that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, will be absent from the chamber today. Any questions which normally would be directed to Senator Gietzelt in relation to his portfolio or those he represents should be directed to the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of his sensitivity yesterday, I assure him that I do not ask this question in any pejorative sense. I refer the Minister to the question I asked last week, on 9 October, concerning Australian Customs Service procedures described by Mr Kerry Packer; namely, that it was usual for officials at Sydney Airport to ring Australian Consolidated Press for advice as to the contents of parcels addressed to that company. I note the Minister's comment that he was unaware of the practice and that it was not a general procedure. Is he now in a position to provide the more detailed answer that he promised last week, particularly in respect of whether he considers this practice to be adequate and acceptable? Senator BUTTON —I confess that last week Senator Chaney's question took me by surprise. I was not familiar with even the circumstances to which he was referring. I have subsequently seen a reference to those circumstances in the newspapers. These events to which the Press publicity referred occurred, I think , in 1978. Following Senator Chaney's question to me last week I directed the Department of Industry and Commerce to conduct a speedy inquiry into the matter and to let me know the results of that inquiry as soon as possible. I have not yet received them but I will certainly see that the matter is expedited and provide an answer as soon as possible. Senator CROWLEY —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy been drawn to criticism of the Government's decision to purchase from Queensland Mines Ltd uranium that has been contracted for sale to France? Will the Minister re-affirm the Government's determination to refuse exports of uranium to France while that country continues to test nuclear weapons in the South Pacific? Will the Minister re-affirm the Government's intention to protect Queensland Mines Ltd's profit and cash flow following the implementation of this Federal policy? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Crowley said, the Government decided that Queensland Mines should not send uranium to France to fulfil a contract with Electricite de France because, like every other country in the South Pacific Forum, Australia objects to the continuation of French nuclear testing in the Pacific. As a result of that, the Government quite properly is to come to agreement with Queensland Mines on purchasing the uranium which it would have sent to France, with the first shipment starting this year. We have to come to an agreement with Queensland Mines on purchasing that uranium and therefore compensate the company and the shareholders, with certain provisos that Queensland Mines will be able to repurchase that uranium should France stop nuclear testing should the situation change. Queensland Mines will still be able to sell its uranium to countries which have acceptable policies and acceptable safeguards in this area. I have noticed criticism of the Government from, amongst others, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, for, it seemed to me from the wording of the statement, compensating Queensland Mines. Senator Chaney —That is rubbish and you know it. Senator GRIMES —It might be rubbish, but I, as an individual and as a Minister of this Government, would much prefer to spend money making a gesture or, more than a gesture, to see whether we can cut down the production and testing of nuclear weapons in the world. I would much rather do that than spend the hundreds of millions of dollars that the previous Government spent on killing people, causing havoc and involving this country in the war in Vietnam. I feel much happier about being a member of a government that does this than I would about being in the position of so many honourable senators opposite who were young enough to fight in Vietnam yet did not volunteer. They were happy for the Government to spend all that money. They supported the Government in its activities at that time which rained death and destruction on people in Vietnam. Those honourable senators who were young enough and were not members of this place who vigorously supported the Liberal and National Country Party governments at the time demonstrated what I consider great cowardice. I would rather be a member of a government that takes the stand that this Government has . Senator Button —Some people were infinitely eligible. Senator GRIMES —Some of them were infinitely eligible to go to that war. I will give Senator Walters credit. At the time she was quite happy to send her sons to Vietnam if they were able or willing to go but she is the only honourable senator here who was. There were other honourable senators here who were eligible, old enough and of fighting age to go but they did not. They supported the Government's actions; they quite happily supported the Government spending that money. They now object to the Australian Labor Party Government spending money to try to cut down on the production of nuclear weapons in the world today . In view of the cowardice of honourable senators opposite in the past I am not surprised to hear criticism at all. I am amazed at Senator Chaney who, I suppose at that time, was marching up and down, opposing the Vietnam war. I wonder about other honourable senators who seem to be about my age and who would have been able to go to that war. I am fascinated at the cries from Senator Lajovic on this subject, but I will not go into that matter because it upsets the Opposition so much. However, I am quite happy to be a member of a government that engages in activities-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator GRIMES —It took a long time. The PRESIDENT —Order! I will hear Senator Chaney on a point of order. Senator Chaney —It is about the statement which the Minister has just made. 'It took a long time', was his final remark. The turning of Question Time into a farce by the Minister debating the question in this way is out of order and should be stopped. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to confine his remarks to the answer and not debate the matter. Senator GRIMES —I will, Mr President. Yes, we have made a decision to compensate Queensland Mines if that is necessary. Yes, we have made a decision not to allow the export of uranium to France for this purpose for the reasons I have stated. Yes, I have seen the criticism that Senator Crowley pointed out has come from members of the Opposition. I do not take it very seriously any more than I take the Opposition senators' bona fides when they talk about their concern for the economy of this country or for peace or disarmament in the world. They have demonstrated by their actions over the years that they are no strangers to hypocrisy. Therefore, I am happy to be a member of this Government which does not indulge in that activity. Senator MASON —I am glad to be able to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In many respects it bears on the long answer we have just had from Senator Grimes. It concerns the United States bases in Australia and the United States Central Intelligence Agency involvement in them. Is the Minister aware of comments made yesterday by Dr Desmond Ball of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University that 'Pine Gap is a C.I.A. base, there is no doubt about that'? Can the Minister confirm that the Government is aware of that fact, or has the Government not bothered to find out? Is the Minister aware that Dr Ball described the period since the Labor Government took office in March 1983 as one in which a significant expansion of activity occurred at the United States bases in Australia? Can the Minister confirm that new antennae have been erected at North West Cape and that major extensions to the computer rooms at Nurrungar and Pine Gap are under way? If so, when did these major changes begin? What is their purpose and has the Australian Government been fully informed of these changes? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government is certainly aware of Dr Ball's remarks as they have been reported in the media. In my answer yesterday, given on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the honourable senator's question about the CIA and Pine Gap, I referred to the Prime Minister's parliamentary statement of 6 June describing the general purpose and functions of the joint Australian- United States defence facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar. I reminded the honourable senator of the Prime Minister's explanation that the Government would not be commenting further upon speculation or assertions about these facilities. Obviously it remains inappropriate for me, on behalf of the Minister, to confirm or deny such assertions. However, I am able to reiterate the point that these facilities are jointly managed and operated by the Australian and American governments. I also restate the Prime Minister's assurance that the Government is satisfied that all functions and activities at the joint facilities require and have its full knowledge and concurrence and that the operations of the facilities in no way derogate from Australian sovereignty. In respect of Senator Mason's question about changes at the facilities, I can confirm that a replacement satellite terminal was installed at North West Cape in January 1984. This proposed installation has been public knowledge since 1978 when, as some honourable senators may recall, it was the subject of some controversy in this chamber. In respect of changes at Pine Gap and Nurrungar facilities it is, as I have indicated, the Government's policy neither to confirm nor to deny claims about the operation of those facilities. I would, however, draw the honourable senator's attention to the fact that the former Minister for Defence announced on 5 July 1982 the installation of new computers and research equipment at Pine Gap, and on 8 July last year Mr Scholes announced the construction of a new antenna at Pine Gap. I also inform Senator Mason that replacement computer equipment was installed at the Nurrungar station during 1983. Finally, I can assure him that the Government continues to be kept informed and properly consulted about United States plans for the joint facilities. We are satisfied that the operations of the facilities are in accord with agreed arrangements between Australia and the United States and that these operations support our mutual security interest. Senator McINTOSH —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I note that the Opposition's small business policy released yesterday contains some suggestions about wage policy. What would be the economic and industrial relations consequence of implementing the Opposition's wage policy? Senator Peter Rae —How does it come within his portfolio? Senator BUTTON —I assume responsibility for answering the questions in my role as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Of course, those matters are of considerable concern to this Government because the wages policy of the present Government has been unique in the history of Australia and an integral part of the economic recovery which has occurred. The Opposition's wages policy, as it is revealed sketchily in the small business policy released yesterday, is a recipe-- Senator Peter Rae —And in detail in the industrial relations and wages policy. Senator BUTTON —There was never a great deal of certainty about which Minister prevailed in the course of revealing that policy. Senator Withers —I wish you would stop reading newspapers. Senator BUTTON —Senator Withers is the only person from whom I would accept that advice. The Opposition's wages policy, as revealed in the small business policy of the Opposition, represents a total rejection of the incomes policy approach adopted by this Government. I make the point that it is an approach which has brought both the lowest level of industrial disputation and the strongest economic recovery for many years. The Opposition's policy will have the effect of weakening the role of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and encouraging decentralised bargaining. This would undoubtedly lead to a wages explosion similar to that which occurred under the previous coalition Government about the time of the collapse of wage indexation when the previous Prime Minister put a royal wedding ahead of the implementation of wages policy. That did immense harm to the Australian economy. The proposal to allow the downward variation of award wages and conditions at enterprise levels opens the door, in the present economic context, to intimidation of workers by employers and will be seen by the trade unions as being highly provocative. This does not mean that these issues cannot be continually discussed in the context of legitimate debate about the future in Australia. But the proposal, as enunciated by the Opposition, would be extremely damaging to the economic recovery which has taken place and would encourage greater confusion and industrial conflict and cause, as I said, economic damage. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and it follows the answer that he has just given. Is he familiar with the study of the Bureau of Labour Market Studies on youth wages which was delivered to the Government in April last year? Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Yes, he is, because he referred to it yesterday . Senator CHANEY —Thank you. Does the Leader of the Government agree that the issue of relative youth wages is one of the factors which need to be discussed and considered in tackling the problem of youth unemployment in Australia? Does he further agree, as he has conceded in the past, that labour costs and on-costs are also important factors to be considered in terms of the promotion of better employment figures in Australia? Is he therefore prepared to agree that the matters being put forward by the Opposition are serious and that they need serious consideration in facing up to continuing high unemployment, which is a major long term problem for Australia? Senator BUTTON —On numerous occasions in Question Time in the Senate I have agreed that unemployment is the most important single issue facing this country. I have also said that the Government is very gratified by the progress we have made in 18 months in government in reducing the levels of unemployment. I am aware of the Bureau of Labour Market Studies discussion paper on youth unemployment and other issues. By the way, it was not a document delivered to the Government, as Senator Chaney put it; it was one of a normal series of publications of the Bureau of Labour Market Studies. I recall that one of the comments in that paper-a very important comment-was that to see youth wages as the sole question to be tackled in relation to youth unemployment was a very bad mistake, because it is very easy to pick up the symbolic issues and say 'If we fix that, everything will be all right.' The Bureau of Labour Market Studies went on to make the point that if one did something about youth wages one would encourage distortions in other sections of the labour market, and I think that is an important point for consideration. The question of youth wages in this country, together with a wide range of youth policies which have been inherited from the past, must be given further consideration by government. It is very important that that should happen. Senator Chaney went on to ask me about wage costs and on-wage costs. I said publicly yesterday and I say again that, in terms of continuing economic recovery, governments as well as others must be rigorous about all questions of costs. That inevitably includes wage costs and on-wage costs and a variety of other matters, including goverment charges. In terms of enhancing and speeding economic recovery in this country this Government has reached an historic position with the trade union movement, which is unprecedented in this country, in achieving a prices and incomes agreement. The results of that have been extraordinary- Senator Peter Rae —Disastrous for you. Senator BUTTON —Senator Rae keeps-- Senator Robert Ray —Senator Peter Rae, please! Senator BUTTON —I am sorry. Senator Peter Rae, Liberal, Tasmania, keeps interjecting and saying that these things have been disastrous for somebody. It is a very unpalatable fact for the Opposition, but we have had the fastest economic growth in the world in the past 12 months. That is a question of management; it is not a question of plucking out isolated issues here and there and saying that, if one fixes this or fixes that, everything will be all right. It is a question of overall economic management. To those senators who see themselves in an election mode, this goes fundamentally to the question of credibility. Senator Peter Rae —You will not have it because your cost of administration is double the rate of inflation. Senator BUTTON —Senator Peter Rae's latest interjection is that we will double the rate of inflation. He should talk about that. We have halved it in the last 12 months. Senator Peter Rae —I said that your cost of administration is double the rate of inflation. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Peter Rae is persistently interjecting. I call him to order. Senator Peter Rae —On a point of order, Mr President: I was being misrepresented in the answer that was being given and I was trying to correct that misrepresentation by way of an interjection. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator BUTTON —My point is quite simple; it is only two years of historic memory since this country had a government which presided over rising unemployment, rising inflation and rising interest rates, all at the same time. It was unique in the Western world. But that Government went out of office in 1983. The country now has a government which is presiding over falling unemployment, falling inflation and falling interest rates. That is a complete reversal of what took place two years ago. That is the essential question relating to economic management credibility. Intelligent people in this country- and most of the voters are intelligent-know that that is true. Senator Boswell —What about the drought? Senator BUTTON —The main drought is in Senator Boswell's head. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Button to ignore the interjections and respond to Senator Chaney. Senator BUTTON —I have finished anyway, Mr President. Senator COOK —My question is also directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of current media comment on the subject of deregulation, can the Minister say what the Government has done and what it intends to do on this subject? When considering whether to deregulate, what principles has the Government brought to bear on the matter and what is the Government's record in this area, compared with that of previous administrations? Senator BUTTON —I am surprised that Senator Cook should ask me to make a comparison which will inevitably be odious, as comparisons often are. The Government is very much committed to deregulation in the business sector-- Senator Missen —Since when? Senator BUTTON —I have been asked: Since when? If honourable senators will wait I will deal with that. Senator Peter Rae —Since you lost the battle at the Australian Labor Party conference? Senator BUTTON —I do not know what Senator Peter Rae is doing here. I thought I asked him to stay in the car and bark at strangers, not come in here yapping at me. The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that the Leader of the Government withdraw that remark. Senator Chaney —On a point of order Mr President: It was only yesterday that Senator Button was deeply affronted at being told he had a big mouth, and he sought the withdrawal of that remark. I agree that it is rather ludicrous to say that Senator Button has a big mouth, but I must point out that the sensitivity he showed on that occasion sits ill with the abusive attitude he is adopting in Question Time now. I suggest that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and that you, Mr President, should ask him to be polite and to let his small mouth operate in the areas for which he is ministerially responsible. The PRESIDENT —Order! Last week I made a plea for questioners to shorten their questions and for Ministers to shorten their answers. It appears to me that questions and answers are both getting longer and so, too, are the points of order. I suggest that Ministers, in responding to questions, should ignore the interjections, and that way we would give everyone a fairer go. Senator BUTTON —Senator Cook asked me a thoughtful question about business deregulation. I said that the Government is totally committed to business deregulation and that that task will be difficult but one which we will tackle vigorously and comprehensively. We have to do that. Much of Australian industry is burdened by excessive regulation. These things constitute roadblocks to the competitiveness of Australian industry. Last week a meeting was held between various business organisations, various departments of the Government, and so on , in which we discussed these questions, and it was agreed that there would be an input from the business community and an input from government into an ongoing working party considering these matters. I have had discussions about them with the Chairman of the Small Business Council because regulation is an area which bears excessively on many aspects of small business. The Government's record on deregulation has, I think, been widely applauded in relation to deregulation of the financial sector. It has even been applauded by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr Howard. The applause came from someone who perhaps recognised that in seven years in government he did not quite have the courage to do these things which he so frequently advocated, but which this Government has done. We have an impeccable record in the course that we have taken in respect of deregulation of the financial sector for the benefit generally of industry during the time that we have been in office. That contrasts very sharply with the Opposition's record, to which I referred in passing. I refer to a report in today's Canberra Times of an interview with the Opposition spokesman on industry matters. When asked yesterday about what the former Government had actually done in the area of regulation, Senator Peter Rae is quoted as saying: Yes, I confess that we tried to deregulate but we didn't deregulate very successfully. In another part of the reported interview, he said that the Review of Commonwealth Functions had been 'a disaster'. Senator Peter Rae was operating in an environment in which one company director told him that this Labor Government had done more for business than the Liberal Party had done while it was in office and that he intended to vote Labor for that reason. Senator Peter Rae was also allegedly questioned by other businessmen, one of whom noted that there was a general feeling that the Liberal Party had produced a great deal of rhetoric, but was very weak on substance and performance. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator BUTTON —As you requested, Mr President, I will ignore the interjections. But that is the difference between the appearance and the reality, the appearance of the performance of this Opposition, which has been appalling and which reflects its seven years' appalling performance in government. The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the presidential gallery of former Senator Joe Fitzgerald, who represented New South Wales in a long career in the Senate, and Mrs Fitzgerald. I extend to Mr and Mrs Fitzgerald a warm and friendly welcome on behalf of all senators. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator PETER RAE —By way of introduction to my question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, may I say, Mr President, that at the close of Question Time I shall be seeking an opportunity to make a personal explanation in relation to the total misrepresentation in the Canberra Times. My question concerns the implications for the Australian Customs Service flowing from the false declaration submitted by the Special Minister of State, Mr Young. Has the Customs Service completed its review of the design of baggage declaration forms which the Minister said on 21 August was underway? If so, have any changes been made to the forms, and, if so, what changes? Has the Minister yet checked, as he said on the seventh of last month that he would, as to apparent inconsistencies between the submission to the Black Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration by the Comptroller-General of Customs and the evidence given to the inquiry by Mrs Young? Further, have any new instructions been issued to Customs officers as to revision of procedures following the Minister's admission on the tenth of last month that Mr Young had been treated differently from other people making false Customs declarations and the Minister's apparent agreement with the proposition that the onus no longer rests on those making declarations to be aware of the contents of the baggage? Senator BUTTON —This is a grab-bag Question Time. Senator Peter Rae asked me a number of questions about Customs procedures. The review to which I referred is taking place. But I must say that Customs officers have made a number of inquiries and have really found very few complaints about the matters which Senator Rae raises in his question and to which I have adverted in answer to a question. The matter is being examined by the Customs Service. Insofar as the other questions are concerned, Senator Rae says, for example, that I said that Mr Young was treated differently from an ordinary citizen. I just go back over that and make the point that on 5 July, when Mr Young returned to Australia, I instructed the Comptroller-General of Customs that he was to be treated, in terms of Customs procedures, like any other citizen. Senator Chaney —But he wasn't. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney interjects, with perspicacity-surprising though it may be-that he was not treated in the same way as other citizens. Mr Young was not treated in the same way as other citizens because of one fact only: He immediately put out a public statement about what had happened, and he was then subject to the full glare of publicity and examination, for God's sake, by a committee of the Liberal Party to see what he had done. That was the respect in which he was not treated in the same way. Senator Peter Rae chides me, in some respects in terms of his question, for delay. I make one very important point. After the so-called Paddington Bear affair occurred, the Liberal Party, with great publicity, set up a committee to look into the whole matter, consisting of Mr John Spender, Senator Durack, Senator Withers, Mr Steele Hall, and Mr McGauran. They met on 31 July in Townsville. There, looking over Cleveland Bay, they considered what they would do in terms of their inquiry. They finally decided that they did not have sufficient information to conduct an inquiry. They then made some 15 to 20 requests under the Freedom of Information Act to find out all the information that was available. All of that information was made available to them seven weeks ago. There has been no report from that committee of inquiry set up by the Liberal Party, much vaunted as it was at the time. I do not know why that committee has not bothered to report on that issue, which they saw as being tremendously important at the time. Perhaps their performance on that committee is as lacklustre as it has been here in the Senate . Perhaps Senator Withers is too busy, or something like that. I see that he has gone on to greater things. He has been appointed Mr Peacock's minder for the duration of the campaign. Those who have seen the television show will know who the minder had to look after in that show. I hope that Senator Withers does not find himself in the same role as that. Senator PETER RAE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Apart from the fact that the Minister did not even attempt to answer most of the questions that I asked, does the answer to the small part that the Minister gave, which was about the fact that Customs inquiries show that not many other people had any trouble with the form, mean that Mr Young is about the only person who has had any trouble with the form and that the Government will not change it after all? Senator BUTTON —No, it does not mean that at all. Numerous people have had trouble with the form. Senator Peter Rae —Well, what did you mean? Senator BUTTON —What I said. Senator SIBRAA —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen the remarks of the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, that Australia has had a good year since the election of the Hawke Labor Government? How does that remark compare with the messages of economic doom and gloom by the present Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr Peacock? Senator GRIMES —I did see the interview in the Melbourne Sun-News Pictorial with the former Prime Minister and it worried me considerably when I saw that he said we had had a good year. But then I sat down and thought about it and realised that for once I did agree with him. We have had a good year. As Senator Button has said, in the year we have been in government there has been an increase in jobs of 250,000. The inflation rate has dropped to the levels of those of our Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development partners. Interest rates have fallen and, above all, there has been much increased confidence in this country. All the cries of the Jeremiahs such as Senator Sir John Carrick and the former Treasurer, Mr Howard, all those people who have been wandering around this country saying that gloom and doom are coming, are not believed by the electorate, as the Bulletin shows, and now we find that they are not believed even by the discredited former Prime Minister. The former Prime Minister is not standing for election. If one reads the interview one gets the impression that he is not too keen on his former colleagues doing any good in the election. Therefore, the former Prime Minister is in a position where he can say the truth, simple and unvarnished. He said that we have had a good year. He said that we will have a better year next year and a better year the year after. For the first time, I agree with him. Obviously Senator Lajovic does not agree with his former leader. Senator Lajovic is leaving us soon. He backed the wrong side and he is getting out, as he did in the 1940s. Senator Walters —I raise a point of order, Mr President. Senator Grimes is straying just a little too far from the question. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to respond to Senator Sibraa's question . Senator Grimes —I have finished, Mr President. Senator MISSEN —My question, which is to the Attorney-General, relates to the guidelines on the protection of privacy and trans-border flow of personal data that were adopted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and became applicable on 23 September 1980. Does the Attorney-General agree that the guidelines, which were developed by a group of government experts under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Michael Kirby, the then Chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission, would help harmonise national privacy legislation and, while upholding such human rights, would at the same time prevent interruptions in international flows of data? If so, I ask the Attorney: Firstly, why has the Australian Government so far abstained from adopting the guidelines? Secondly, are we among the very few nations that developed the guidelines that have so far failed to ratify them? Thirdly, will consideration be given by the Government to ratifying the guidelines at an early date? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am perfectly prepared to concede that anything with which Mr Justice Kirby has been associated is likely to be a good thing, but beyond that I am not in a position to give any detailed response to Senator Missen on the terms of his question. I will endeavour to do so as soon as possible. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. What steps is the Government taking to maximise the number of eligible voters enrolled for the coming election and to ensure that voters are made aware of changes to electorates and to the method of casting a vote? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Australian Electoral Commission is undertaking a major advertising program during the next six weeks both to maximise the number of eligible voters enrolled and to inform people of changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. As to the first matter, television, radio and Press advertisements will be used to encourage newly eligible voters to enrol or re- enrol if they have changed their address. This segment of the program will also advise voters of the date on which the electoral rolls close. Press advertisements will also appear in ethnic newspapers. The radio commercials include a last reminder to be broadcast before the rolls close on 2 November. The television commercial will build on the creative approach used in the 1983 enrolment program. As to informing people of changes of various kinds to the Electoral Act, including divisions established under it, the Commission has, with the help of the Department of the Special Minister of State, included divisional names for each voter on the computer program used to produce the address labels for the Yes and No cases booklet for the referendums. As the posting of those booklets commenced this week, advertisements have also begun appearing in the Press and on radio advising voters to look at the wrapper on the booklets for their division names. A similar message has been printed in red ink on the wrapper. A separate section of the advertising program will deal with postal and absentee voting. It will involve two 30-second television commercials. The first will explain the categories of people who will be eligible to vote by post, while the second will set out how people who will be away from their division but still travelling within their State or Territory can lodge an absent vote. In addition, full page advertisements in the national, regional and ethnic Press will set out the same information. The final phase of the program will deal with formal voting. A television commercial and accompanying Press advertisement will cover alterations to the Electoral Act relating to voting for senators. A television commercial will show a presenter demonstrating the two alternative methods of voting for senators and tell voters that a Press advertisement will carry a sample of the Senate ballot paper on which they can practise the two alternatives. Separate Press advertisements will appear for each State or Territory and will carry samples of the actual ballot paper. However, the television commercial will not show candidates names or party affiliations. The radio commercials in this phase will advise voters of the date for the election, changes to voting times, and remind electors that voting is compulsory. The whole of the program utilises the 'Make your mark and make it count' theme used in last year's enrolment program. Senator WATSON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware of an approach made to the Minister for Defence by the executive of the Armed Forces Federation of Australia in regard to the formation of an association or union? Given the serious implications for defence discipline and the platform of the Australian Labor Party on the right of Service personnel to form and belong to an association of their own, will the Government give its support to this new association? Have the defence chiefs warned the Government on the consequences of such action or the formation of such a union? Further, is not this action by members of the forces a reflection of the serious deterioration in members' conditions of service and the decline in morale because of the attitude of the Labor Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no knowledge of or briefing on the matters to which the honourable senator referred. I will endeavour to get him a reply as soon as possible, but it will be one, I am sure, that certainly gives no nourishment to the doomsaying and the general dire prophesies that accompanied the asking of what was otherwise a perfectly reasonable question. Senator WATSON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. If the Minister is in any doubt, would he like me to table some of the relevant papers so that he can be informed appropriately? The PRESIDENT —I do not know that that is a supplementary question. Senator Gareth Evans —If the honourable senator is seeking leave to table something he is perfectly welcome to do so. The PRESIDENT —Does the honourable senator seek leave to table some documents? Senator WATSON —I do. Leave granted. Senator JONES —Is the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs aware of claims by the Australian Capital Territory Teachers Federation that the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority budget has been reduced by over $1m? Will the Minister comment on whether that has happened and, if so, what has been the result? Senator RYAN —I am aware of the claims the Teachers Federation is making. I am at a loss to know why it is continuing to make those claims when those claims are quite wrong. The Federation has had the benefit of several briefings with me when I have explained to it the situation regarding the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority budget. The Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority budget was not cut. In fact, it was increased. It was increased to take account of the need for new schools which will be starting next year and for other purposes. Where there seems to be some confusion in the Teachers Federation is that the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, in its Budget bid for extra staff, made a bid for an extra 29 staff positions. It was not successful in that bid or, I might say, I was not successful in making that bid on its behalf. The Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority had had several significant increases in staff levels over the last 18 months and it had had some significant upgrading of staff over that period. In the final Budget consideration the bid for an extra 29 staff positions was not agreed to by the Cabinet. However, the Cabinet made it quite clear that any adjustments that might need to take place as a result of that bid failing should not affect school-based formula determined staff. In other words, there would be no reduction in the number of teachers or the formula by which teachers are provided to schools; nor would there be any reduction in ancillary staff for schools because that staffing was also formula based. Because the Authority had made some appointments prior to the Cabinet considering its bid for the extra 29 positions, it will need to do some adjustments in terms of reallocation and redistribution of staff. However, the Government has been quite clear in announcing its intention that any such adjustments should not affect school- based staff and should not affect programs. In other words, any adjustments are to be made at head office. Although there may be some difficulty in the Authority making those adjustments, those adjustments can and will be made. I have had several meetings with the Chairman and the chief executive officer of the Schools Authority. I think it is very misleading of the Teachers Federation to claim that there have been cuts. There have been no cuts. There has been no cut in staffing levels; there has been a bid for extra staff which the Cabinet was not able to agree to at this stage. I should point out too that it is now a matter of record after the tabling of the Commonwealth Grants Commission report that government schools in the Australian Capital Territory are funded at a much higher level than government schools throughout the rest of Australia. This is of course a matter of satisfaction for the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory, especially for students who go to government schools, for their parents and for their teachers. I believe that here in the Australian Capital Territory we have the highest standard of public education available in Australia. That is something that I am determined to maintain and something which I believe the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory support. We have that high level of education standards not only because of the much higher level of expenditure on Australian Capital Territory government schools but also because of the dedication and commitment of the Australian Capital Territory teaching service. I would not like my remarks to be interpreted as any criticism of the professional performance of the teachers in the Australian Capital Territory, which is outstanding, and which contributes to the high standard of education available. However, the particular campaign that the leadership of the Australian Capital Territory teachers union has decided to embark upon is misguided in the extreme. It has no credibility, and I am concerned about it because it will undermine the credibility of the Teachers Federation, a body with which I have had in the past and with which I would wish to continue to have a constructive relationship. Senator TEAGUE —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of the Builders Labourers Federation's log of claims circulated in South Australia to employers and contractors in the construction industry? Senator Foreman —Ambit. Senator TEAGUE —This was circulated with a letter of demand dated 11 October 1984 claiming, for example, wage and related payments of $1,450 for a 30-hour week, plus, amongst other things, a $30,000 mortality fund for each worker, and so on. Does he agree that this outrageous 39-point document, even if it is an ambit claim, is totally against industrial reality and is the grossest breach of the prices and incomes accord? Does he agree that the BLF's log of claims is a gross breach of the recent specific undertakings of the BLF to the Australian Council of Trade Unions, to the Federal Government and to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Finally, in the light of this log of claims and because the House of Representatives is not sitting and the Government has been deterred from introducing legislation against the BLF indicated by Mr Willis a fortnight ago, will the Minister now take direct action under section 143A of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to cancel the BLF's registration to protect the construction industry, not least in South Australia, from outrageous claims, threats and disruptions? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the Builders Labourers Federation's log of claims served in South Australia because Senator Teague was kind enough to give me a copy of it. I would probably not otherwise have been aware of it. If the demands in the log of claims which has been served by the Builders Labourers Federation were in any sense acceded to they would appropriately be described as outrageous . I think that over many decades of the history of the industrial system in this country that description could have been applied to numerous logs of claims which have been served by trade unions as ambit claims. Senator Teague asked me whether I regarded the claims as being totally contrary to industrial reality. My answer to that question is yes. He asked whether I regarded them as a breach of the undertaking given in settlement of the building trades dispute. My answer to that question is no, because there is no reason why any union cannot serve a log of claims. If the union took action to insist on the conditions which it sought in its log of claims, yes, I would regard that as outrageous and contrary to the provisions of the accord. In regard to the last part of the question in which I was asked whether action would be taken by the Government under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation, the answer to that question is no, not on the basis of the log of claims, because we still happen to live in a country where anybody can write to anybody else-that is all a log of claims involves-and make any demands which that person wishes. If these demands were acceded to that would mean industrial anarchy and disaster. This Government will not tolerate that from the Builders Labourers Federation or from anybody else. Senator WALTERS —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Is it a fact that the Human Rights Commission commissioned Dr Gabriel Moens of the Law School of the University of Sydney to do a study on affirmative action, concepts, justification and practice? Will Dr Moens's report, which has been with the Commission for about six or seven weeks, be made public? Has the Attorney seen a copy of the report? Are there any implications in the report critical of some aspects of the Government's Green Paper, particularly in regard to targets? Did the Attorney-General communicate with the Commission, which is an independent body, questioning Dr Moens's suitability for the task? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have some recollection of something occurring in relation to the matter to which Senator Walters referred but I am afraid it was some time ago. I will need to refresh my memory and give Senator Walters an appropriate answer in due course. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Sir John Carrick asked me a question about the Australian Federal Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions inquiry into the matter relating to Judge Foord on which I undertook to give him an answer as soon as possible. I now do so. The inquiry by the Australian Federal Police into the matters raised in the material presented by the New South Wales Attorney-General is still proceeding. Its progress was unfortunately frustrated by the sittings of the Senate select committee inquiring into the conduct of a judge. I am advised that Judge Flannery for some reason found himself unable to be interviewed until his commitments to that committee were fulfilled. The Director of Public Prosecutions is working closely with the AFP to ensure the early completion of the investigation. However, several other potential witnesses have yet to be spoken to and the Australian Federal Police has informed Mr Temby that he will have a report within a fortnight. I am told that the report may be somewhat held up, however, because of the illness of one of the persons involved. The decision whether to prosecute or to take other action is entirely a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions, and it is also for Mr Temby to decide what form of public statement, if any, is made. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented in today's edition of the Canberra Times and I seek leave to make a personal explanation in relation to that matter. Leave granted. Senator PETER RAE —I make this personal explanation because this matter was raised in a question during Question Time and I would now like to make the situation quite clear. Previously, I had intended simply to write to the editor of the Canberra Times. In fact I have in front of me the letter which I had drafted to send to the editor in which I have lodged a complaint and made certain suggestions. What happened yesterday at the Company Directors Association luncheon was that I referred to the importance of the regulation, deregulation and reform of the regulatory process policy which Senator Missen and I had issued on behalf of the Opposition parties the day before. I referred to the fact that the large committee which had prepared the policy had analysed the lessons of the past Government and in particular the lessons of the razor gang and had learnt that one cannot use the regulators to be the chief deregulators because that is inherently unlikely to be successful. I did say that I would have to confess that that was not a successful way of going about deregulation. What I was saying was in the context of learning from experience and using people who had experience such as people who had experience with parliamentary committees, for example, Senator Missen, who was Chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Senator Missen was heavily involved in the whole question of regulation-making processes for a considerable period and has represented Australia overseas in that capacity. Another such person would be Mr David Connolly who for a long time was Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. In my own capacity as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations I was concerned with statutory authorities and other areas of regulation making, the form of regulation and the deregulation that should take place. We prepared a policy which I regarded as being credible and workable and would be a successful policy . I also referred to the fact that we had the razor gang problems of regulators being used to advocate deregulation but, notwithstanding that, we had been successful in containing Public Service growth- Senator Robertson —Mr President, I take a point of order. With the greatest of respect, Senator Peter Rae is going well beyond a normal personal explanation. An indication should be given of where the fault lay and a straight response to it made. Senator Rae is debating the issue and putting a party's policy. The PRESIDENT —Yes. I suggest to Senator Peter Rae that he claimed to have been misrepresented and sought leave to make a personal explanation. I ask him to confine his remarks to the personal explanation. Senator PETER RAE —Thank you very much, Mr President. I was endeavouring to say what I said. I was then going to describe the way in which it was misreported. I was leading up to the misreporting. I cannot identify the misreport unless I explain what I said. The PRESIDENT —It makes it very difficult, Senator Peter Rae, and the situation gets completely out of hand if we allow the personal explanation to get too wide . I suggest that you try to restrict your remarks to stating where you have been misreported and correcting the misreport. Senator PETER RAE —I can summarise it by saying that the quotations which appear in the Canberra Times to which the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, made reference were taken totally out of the context in which they were made. I was endeavouring to explain the context in which they were made but have not been permitted to do so because of objection taken by the Government. So I will have to work out another way in which to explain the context of my remarks and how this report takes them out of context. The report was a misrepresentation of what was said because what I was doing was explaining how it had come about that a development had taken place of what I believe to be a successful policy, learning from some of the lessons of the past. I referred to some of the successes of the past. It is a complete misrepresentation to report me as though I were only critical of the past Government when, in fact, I was talking about the successes of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System, the review of Trans Australia Airlines, Australia Post Express Courier and other matters. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Harradine proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The need for the Government to take further action to relieve the unfair and unnecessary burden of youth unemployment. 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 HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.09) —Unless Australian political leaders face up to the social as well as the economic aspects of the unemployment problem the economic costs will pale into insignificance compared with the cost to society of social and political disruption and dislocation. This warning, which I and others, such as the former Director of the Confederation of Australian Industry, George Polites, have voiced over a number of years is as relevant today as it was four years ago. The problems of the jobless are not going away, despite the much trumpeted increase in the number of jobs. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics seasonally adjusted September figures, 628,000 Australians are unemployed, not counting the 116,000 discouraged workers, the 205,700 part timers who would prefer full time work and the 37,500 full timers who are on short time or who have been stood down. Today I concentrate on the plight of the 155,000 unemployed young people from 15 to 19 years of age who are the victims of our refusal to face the facts of unemployment. One in every five of our young Australians seeking work cannot find a job. In my State of Tasmania, 33 per cent of the male youth work force is unemployed, with 31 per cent in areas outside the metropolitan area of Hobart unemployed. Girls from 15 to 19 years of age are not much better off, with an unemployment rate of 25 per cent in areas outside the metropolitan area of Hobart. Almost half of the 155,000 unemployed youth have been out of work for at least six months and over 10,000 of them for more than two years. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard ABS figures relating to the duration of unemployment. Leave granted. The table read as follows- The following chart provides an analysis of the duration of unemployment in Australia both for teenagers and for total unemployed. Unemployed Duration of unemployment (weeks) Age 15-19 Total Under 2 weeks 9,883 34,249 2 weeks and under 4 17,339 56,892 4 weeks and under 8 19,375 64,117 8 weeks and under 13 17,937 58,916 13 and under 26 21,952 80, 478 26 and under 39 33,733 95,086 39 and under 52 8,468 26,284 52 and under 65 7,811 46,904 65 and under 78 974 11,344 78 and under 91 6,791 31,471 91 and 104 546 6,349 104 and over 10,098 92,519 Total unemployed/average duration 154,905 /28.9 weeks 604,61/ 45.5 weeks (Labour Force Estimates August, 1984 from ABS table UX2 GRP 600 Australian Unemployed Persons-Duration of Unemployment (totals do not balance due to rounding) Senator HARRADINE —In the 10 years from 1974 to 1984, the average duration of unemployment for male youths increased from seven weeks to 29 weeks and, for female youths, from eight weeks to 29 weeks. At present over 300,000 Australians have been unemployed for over six months and 92,500 Australians have been unemployed for two years or more. The following table from the Australian Bureau of Statistics labour force catalogue shows the average unemployment duration by age and sex from 1966 to 1984. I seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- AVERAGE DURATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT IN AUSTRALIA Males aged 15-19 Males total Females aged 15-19 Females total Year (in weeks) (in weeks) (in weeks) (in weeks) 1966 2.6 2.8 3.5 3.2 1967 2.7 2.7 3.0 3.3 1968 8.6 7.9 11.4 9.7 1969 7.3 7.9 7.2 6.9 1970 3.9 7.5 6.4 7.1 1971 5.4 6.3 5.4 6.8 1972 6.5 9.5 8.1 9.8 1973 5.5 8.7 10.2 9.8 1974 7.3 6.7 8.1 6.3 1975 12.5 12.7 13.7 12.8 1976 19.5 18.1 17.6 16.7 1977 19.8 21.4 22.3 20.4 1978 19.9 25.4 27.2 27.2 1979 23.0 29.8 24. 9 26.1 1980 21.4 31.7 25.0 28.1 1981 20.2 34.3 23.8 28.7 1982 21.5 33.8 26.7 31.3 1983 32.0 42.5 32.1 39.9 1984 28.6 48.6 29.2 40.1 (ABS The Labour Force Catalogue Nos 6203.0, 6204.0 for various years) Senator HARRADINE —The cost both to the unemployed themselves and to the community generally is enormous. In just 10 years from 1974 to 1984 the Government pay-out of unemployment benefit alone has increased by over 2,600 per cent from $107m to $2.9 billion. We must add to this amount the taxation revenue that has been forgone, expenditure on government-funded projects and subsidies for the unemployed and departmental administrative costs. It has been estimated by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library Statistics Group that the total cost to the Commonwealth of unemployment in 1983-84 was in the vicinity of $4.37 billion. I seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- UNEMPLOYMENT Estimate of total cost to the Commonwealth Government of Unemployment, 1983-84 $m Paid out on Unemployment benefits 2,970.0 Unemployment relief 30.0 Relocation assistance 4.9 3,004.9(a) Payments to States Special Employment Programs (Wage Pause) 97.6 Community Employment Program 243.8 341.4(b) (c) Estimate of personal income tax and Medicare Levy foregone 1,030.4* 4,376.7 *Budget Paper No. 1, p. 139 indicates an average of 619,600 Unemployment Beneficiaries in 1983-84. For the purpose of this exercise an average taxable income of $10,000 has been assumed and the 619,600 ''taxpayers'' would have paid -tax $1,621.50 and Medicare Levy $41.60 each in 1983-84. This figure of $m 1,030 .4 should be treated with caution, as should the total of $m 4,376.7. (a) See Budget Paper No. 1, Budget Statements 1984-85, pages 115, 139 and 140. (b) See Budget Paper No. 7, Payments to or for the States, Northern Territory and Local Government Authorities 1984-85, pages 76, 77 and 168. (c) Not adjusted for income tax claw-back. Also does not include contributions from State Governments' own funds. Senator HARRADINE —The costs associated with the criminal activities of the unemployed should not be overlooked. Statistics of crime in my State of Tasmania for 1983 show that unemployed young persons proportionately committed far more offences than other young persons in their age group. For instance, 54 per cent of offences for breaking and entering by 15-year-olds to 19-year-olds placed before the lower courts were committed by unemployed youth. Seventy per cent of motor vehicle thefts, 60 per cent of drunkenness offences, 58 per cent of fraud cases, 50 per cent of shop lifting, 48 per cent of assaults and 41 per cent of possession and/or use of drugs were committed by unemployed youth. The above economic costs of unemployment, even though they are enormous in themselves, are only part of the total cost to the unemployed themselves and to the Australian community. The total cost including the social and emotional damage will spread over many years and is impossible to estimate. The 621,000 unemployed Australians and their families are under enormous stress. Unemployed bread winners and single persons are losing or have lost their confidence. An unnecessary burden, as indicated in the terms of my matter of public importance, is being placed on marriages and family relations. This surely is a matter of the greatest public importance. It concerns us all-Government, Opposition, Democrats and Independent . Catchcries blaming high youth wages or panaceas promoting job sharing or part time work are just not good enough as answers or solutions to the problem. In regard to the much vaunted allegation about alleged high youth wages, I have figures to prove that, for example, in the retail industry in New South Wales, although the junior wage percentages of the senior wage have increased, the employment ratio of juniors to seniors-that is full timers-is the same now as it was in 1907. In fact if we take into account casuals, juniors far outnumber the seniors. So it cannot be said that junior wages in that industry are a deterrent to the employment of juniors. So far as job sharing and part time work are concerned, of course there is a place for part time work. But is this a panacea? Is this panacea any good for those seeking full time work? I know many workers who would like to share their jobs but, of course, cannot share their pay because they do not earn enough. I sought to bring this matter before the Senate in a purely non-political and non-partisan way. I was prevented from doing so by the Standing Orders because something to do with the Government must be included in the question to be put before the Parliament. What is or has been the Government's response? The Government will say, and I acknowledge, that it has undertaken a number of initiatives aimed at reducing the level of unemployment and providing assistance and training to the unemployed. But I think the Government will concede, as I certainly have discovered after study of the subject, that many of these programs have proved expensive and generally ineffective. If time permits I would like to comment particularly on three programs-the special youth employment training program, the national apprentice assistance scheme and the community employment program. I think time will probably not permit me to go into all of them. But I will make some brief comments on the special youth employment training program. A report published by the Bureau of Labour Market Research in 1983 indicated that over 44 per cent of the program's participants either voluntarily withdrew or were sacked from their positions even before the end of the subsidy period. Unfortunately, figures are not available to show retention rates after completion of the subsidy period. However, many employers have a different attitude to appointees once a government subsidy has elapsed. With respect to the community employment program, it has not provided anywhere near the level of employment initially forecast by the Government. But, besides these programs, the Government has introduced measures to encourage youth to stay longer at school. It has introduced a number of measures. But I would have thought that, if this Government or successive governments were interested in long term employment for youth, they would long ago have stopped the discrimination directed against youth in employment by the Commonwealth Public Service and indeed by the State public services. The Bureau of Labour Market Research report entitled 'Teenage Employment in the public Sector-Where have all the Jobs Gone?' noted: If the age structure of the public sector employment in 1981 had been the same as in 1971 there would have been an additional 50,000 teenagers in the public sector in 1981. From these facts, an inescapable conclusion must be that successive governments, both State and Federal, have sold out our youth during the past 10 years. I am glad to see that the Public Service Board report is coming down today. I will further elaborate on the discrimination that has been exercised against youth by public services under the direct control of successive governments both State and Federal. But overall, and underlying the Government's responses, its major response, when the question of unemployment is raised, is: 'Let us get the economy right and we will get unemployment right'. I heard Malcolm Fraser say the same thing. But recognising all of that, the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Bill Kelty, in an address to the annual congress of the Australian Council of Social Service, reminded his audience that unemployment has increased by 400 per cent in 10 years and that Australia faces the possibility of a 25 per cent unemployment rate by 1990. That is a gloomy prospect indeed and one which should be tackled over and beyond party political point scoring. Faced with this gloomy prospect, should we allow a situation to exist which enables jobs to be destroyed by the wholesale application of automation and technological change? Should we allow a situation to exist which forces people to stay in the paid work force when they have better reasons to be out of the very jobs which could be taken by the unemployed. I remind honourable senators of the terms of my motion which are: The need for the Government to take further action to relieve the unfair and unnecessary burden of youth unemployment. It is in the area that I am about to address that further action should be taken . I believe that too many people at both State and Federal government levels and in industry worship at the altar of automation. Why do we not call a halt to the introduction of job destroying technology in certain areas which were always areas of large youth employment? I do not have time to go into that. What of the other social aspect, of forcing people to stay in the work force when they have better reason to be out of the paid work force? Included amongst those people are persons who desire to retire but cannot because of the substantial loss in their standard of living. Already statistics show that more and more persons over the age of 55 are retiring despite the fact that they are losing out economically. Why do we not understand this desire to retire on the part of many workers in Australia? Why do we not develop programs and policies which will encourage such retirement and leave the jobs for others at the other end of the spectrum? Another group of people, numbering hundreds of thousands, are mothers in the paid work force who have no choice but to stay in the work force because they are forced to do so either through socially created want or through need. They are forced to stay in the work force because family policies have not been properly attended to. They are forced to stay in the work force because they have little economic choice. A fact of life is that tax changes in recent years have particularly disadvantaged families with children. I am not talking of only this Government's policies. The family income earner on average weekly earnings, with a dependent spouse and two children, now pays about 20 per cent of his earnings in income tax compared with the 10 per cent that would have been paid in the early 1970s. The family allowance has not been increased. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table prepared by the Parliamentary Library showing how the family allowance has decreased in value since 1976. Leave granted. The table read as follows- FAMILY ALLOWANCE ($ per month) Existing Estimated at May 1976 (a) May 1984 (b) Loss(c) First Child 15.20 22.80 33.00 10.20 Second Child 21.70 32.55 47.15 14.60 Third Child 26.00 39.00 56.50 17.50 Fourth Child 26.00 39.00 56.50 17.50 Fifth and Subsequent Children 30.35 45.55 65.90 20.35 (a) Actual rates as at May 1984. (b) Rate from May 1984 if May 1976 rates had been indexed by movements in the Consumer Price Index. (c) Difference between Estimated and Existing rates. Senator HARRADINE —The dependent spouse rebate has not been increased, despite the clear undertaking given by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) before the 1983 election. We have come to the stage where Australia must take a good look at the facts of the problem. For far too long the people of Australia have not been told the facts. Of course the truth is that there is a social as well as an economic aspect to the unemployment problem. I agree that we should have regard to the economic aspect, but I believe that concentration on the economic aspect alone will not solve the problem. For my authority I have no less a person than the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, who publicly recognised this fact in an address in his John Curtin Memorial Lecture of September 1983, when he said: The plain fact is that no Government in Australia will now, or in the foreseeable future, solve the problem of unemployment solely through the available methods of increasing the supply of jobs. At least equal attention must be paid to the question of reducing the demands for jobs by helping to provide socially constructive alternatives. What more socially constructive work is there in Australia than the nurturing, care and development of one's own children? So many mothers with dependent children are forced by economic pressures to keep down another job. It is unfair to them, to the young unemployed and to the whole community to allow this situation to continue. What we need is some affirmative action for the young unemployed. In particular, we need some affirmative action in the Public Service . We need affirmative action for mothers and their children. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(3.29) —Senator Harradine has raised a matter of public importance which is of great importance to everyone in this country. I must say this has been a change from the matters of public importance introduced into this place in the last couple of weeks. I accept Senator Harradine's statement that he in fact introduced the matter of public importance in a bipartisan way, even though it is necessary that in the wording of a matter of public importance reference is made to the Government. Before I go through what may be done and some of the things that I and my colleagues believe should be done in this area, I think we should briefly go through the current facts, although Senator Harradine went through them in part. The preliminary labour statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that for September 1984 the unemployment rate among youth aged 15 to 19 years was 22.6 per cent. That means that 55,400 young people aged between 15 and 19 years are looking for their first job. In total 122,900 young people of this age group are looking for full time work. No government of any political persuasion could be satisfied with that situation. Certainly, if we relate the August 1984 situation to that of September 1983 we can see there has been some improvement. The number of young people seeking full time work declined by about 6,500 in that time and the unemployment rate dropped by one per cent. A year ago 148,100 young people were looking for full time work. The unemployment rate was then 26 per cent . Therefore, there has been a fall of 25,200 or 17 per cent in the number of young people seeking full time work and a reduction of 3.4 per cent in the youth unemployment rate. Neither I nor any other member of this Government would consider that situation satisfactory. As Senator Harradine said, the youth unemployment rate is far too high and continues to be much higher than the overall rate of unemployment. It has been far too high for far too long. There has been a greater improvement in the overall unemployment rate over the last 12 months. I point out that the change in that time has been due to two factors: Firstly, the obvious improvement in the economy and, secondly, the actions taken by the Government. These actions inevitably are of a short term basis and inevitably have the sorts of shortcomings Senator Harradine pointed to in relation to employment schemes generally. However, it is a change for a government to do something. Not one additional job was created by the previous Government in the area of youth employment in the period November 1975 to March 1983. There was an increase of 67,000 in the number of unemployed youth in that period. The unemployment rate rose from 15.6 per cent to 23 per cent during that time. As Senator Harradine said, many factors contributed to that situation. I remember quoting the sorts of figures Senator Harradine quoted concerning the Public Service employment of young people. As he said, if in 1981 we had employed the same percentage of young people as we had in 1971 there would have been 50,000 more in employment. At the same time, if in fact we had had the same percentage participation rate in upper secondary and tertiary education in 1981 as we had in 1971 another 20 per cent-I think that was the figure-would have been in education and therefore not on the unemployment books. As Senator Harradine said, unemployment cannot be measured just in economic terms. It is very good for me to be able to point out that in the last budgetary period we spent $330m less than we anticipated we would in the previous Budget. Of course, some of the decrease in expenditure affected the young unemployed. However, as has been properly pointed out, one cannot measure that sad situation just in economic terms. We must consider the short term social effects in regard to the increased crime rate, the increased suicide rate and the increased rate of illness, drug-related crimes and drug use. We also have to consider the long term social effect, the debilitating effect, on individuals of long term unemployment, or for that matter under-employment, and the immediate and long term social effects on families which all too often in recent times in this country have had members of more than one generation unemployed. The tensions and difficulties that arise in such families may not have been experienced by any or many in this place, but those difficulties are very considerable and are reasons enough for us as a society, and particularly for us as a parliament, to take a much more serious look at this problem than we have in the past. As Senator Harradine also pointed out, all sorts of reasons and solutions for the situation we are in are handed out fairly glibly. The most common reason given for the rate of youth unemployment is the one which Senator Harradine mentioned and effectively destroyed; that is, that youth wages are too high relative to other wages. That does not mean that we must ignore wages altogether , but we hear frequently the statement-we heard it from the former Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Stone, the other day-that all we need do is reduce youth wages or allow young people to go on to the market and sell their labour for just what they can get and no more. That not only would not solve the unemployment problem in the way that Mr Stone and others seem to think but also would create social problems which the trade union movement, liberal politicians and enlightened political parties in every country of the world have taken measures over the years to overcome. Suggestions are also made about other factors which contribute to youth unemployment, and we heard some of them from Senator Harradine today. We have heard about the problems of increasing automation and increasing and changing technology. That has an effect on employment throughout the various age groups. It has a particular effect on employed people aged in their 40s and 50s whose technological skills are no longer appropriate to a modern technological situation. We should beware of thinking we can turn back the tide to quite the extent that Senator Harradine suggested that perhaps we could. I do not think he is suggesting a complete luddite approach but it is wrong to think that we alone in the world can stop technology taking jobs in the way that he thinks it does. Rather, we must protect the conditions of those who continue to work and ensure that those who are replaced by or who use that technology are protected. If we concentrate, as seems to be happening lately, on ensuring that the cold hard numbers do not go down, and do not look at the working conditions for the people who will inevitably work with that technology, we are in danger of taking the simplistic approach that he talked about. We must not look at the introduction of technology for technology's sake. When new technology is introduced we must take note with greater care than perhaps we have in the past of the obvious changes that will affect the work force. The second factor which makes Australia stand out from other countries is the extraordinary difference between what the young people in Australia and comparable countries are doing. I refer in particular to the retention rate of the education system. It is generally fair to say that in this country between 34 per cent and 36 per cent of young people aged between 15 and 19 years are in some sort of upper secondary or tertiary education or training, which leaves something like 63 per cent or more either in jobs, if they are fortunate, or on unemployment benefit if they are not so fortunate-and there are plenty of them. We have developed a system whereby far too many young people at the age of 15 or 16 years are presented with two alternatives-either get a job or go on unemployment benefit, however inadequate that might be. That inadequate unemployment benefit-I do not think anyone here would argue about it being inadequate, as it has been for some time-is much better than all or most of the other benefits available and it is for that reason that when we compare Australia with other comparable countries we find that our retention rate in upper secondary and tertiary education and training schemes is almost the reverse of those countries, which in general have some 66 per cent of that group in such education or training. An investigation that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, and I organised into income support for youth demonstrated that we had an almost chaotic situation, with 37 payments for youth, most of them inadequate and nearly all of them inappropriately targeted. As a result, we have this situation where people just go on to unemployment benefit because no other adequate benefit is available. It was because of that we thought we would look further. We thought we would get the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to compare our system with other systems and suggest what we might do about it. That report is about to come down. As a result of that and as a result of our investigations, one thing became very clear: There are no simplistic solutions. Immediately putting up the youth unemployment benefit by a considerable amount will not solve the problem and immediately forcing young people back into the education system somehow will not solve the problem because they left the education system not only because they did not have sufficient money to stay there but also because they found that education system inappropriate for their needs. We also realised that in this country there are just not the facilities and structures for training. This is evident when we compare our apprenticeship system with systems in the social democracies of western Europe. We do not have the structures to make a sudden change to the ratio of retention to employment rates that I mentioned. It is for this reason that we decided we had better sit down and make some proper investigations and take some hard looks at the situation. That is what we are doing. We make no apologies for not solving all the problems of youth unemployment in the 19 months we have been in Government. We accept the criticism of those who say we should have immediately reversed the situation or gone a considerable way down the track towards reversing that situation, but we believe that that was impossible. We believed we were in grave danger of falling into the trap of introducing simplistic solutions to what is a very complex problem and so we have proceeded down the track towards developing good, sound, long-standing policies which can be developed only after we have asked the right questions and got the facts together-something which is often very difficult in this country. The Government suspects that in the long run there will be multifactorial solutions, as Senator Harradine suggests. We certainly have to look at the retiring age; we certainly have to look at the desire of some people to retire before they are 60 or 65 years old. However, I warn honourable senators about overseas experience in this area. In those countries where voluntary early retirement has been introduced with some substantial benefit to enable people to retire early, what has been a voluntary early retirement age has too often become a compulsory early retirement age and people have been forced out of the work force who have not wanted to be forced out. In Birmingham a couple of years ago people were offered I think 80 per cent of their wage if they retired early so their job could be taken by an unemployed youth, and I think six people in the whole region retired. Senator Peter Baume —Alabama or Warwickshire? Senator GRIMES —Birmingham in Warwickshire. The survey of that scheme shows that an incredibly small number of people took up the offer. Senator Harradine said that another solution to the problem would be to remove married women from the work force. Senator Harradine —No, I did not say that. Senator GRIMES —I am sorry. He spoke of changing the conditions so that those who are in the work force and who do not want to be in it can leave to make way for young unemployed. No one would be stupid enough to deny that some women in the work force are there out of economic necessity and, if they received adequate assistance in other ways, they would leave the work force. Therefore, there may be some jobs available. But I suspect, as I believe recent surveys demonstrate, that that is not the only or main reason why women are in the work force. In the past 25 years we have seen in this country social change with increasing numbers of women joining the work force. The increasing educational standards achieved by women have led to their being in the work force not only for economic reasons but also for personal advancement, and so they should be. They seek to advance their lot in the community and, in turn, the lot of the whole community. Therefore, I suggest that any vigorous attempt such as is suggested frequently, usually in letters to newspapers, to force women out of the work force to make way for others, first, will not succeed, and, secondly, will not provide the numbers of jobs some people seem to think will arise. As Senator Harradine said, we do not have much time in these matters of public importance to debate the issues. I could go through the programs which have been introduced, particularly by my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). Those programs have provided jobs. The jobs are frequently short term, but I do not think people should sneer in the way that sometimes happens in this place. As my colleague Senator Button often says, if a person has a job he or she is not too concerned about how long it lasts so long as there is hope at the end of the tunnel. We need to improve economic conditions. We need to change the retention rate in upper secondary and upper tertiary education. We need to take a close look at the education system and at the provisions for training young people. We also need to do all the things Senator Harradine said. For example, we need to look at the impact of technological change and the appropriateness of industry in this regard. I commend Senator Harradine for raising this subject for debate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.49) —It is clear that there is a certain degree of agreement about the severity of the problem raised by Senator Harradine as a matter of public importance. The Senate is discussing: The need for the Government to take further action to relieve the unfair and unnecessary burden of youth unemployment. The emphasis in the motion is on the need for the Government to take further action. It is correct for the Senate to analyse the problem of unemployment as it affects youth and to identify some of the causes. I welcome the reasoned and concerned approach of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). I also appreciate his recitation of some of the difficulties of the so-called quick-fix solutions. Nevertheless, we need to examine in terms of the motion what has happened, what is happening, and what the Government can do now to improve the situation. I suggest that one of the things the Government can do is to undo some of its own policies which have aggravated the situation as it affects our youth. I shall refer to those matters later in my remarks. They include such things as the accord itself, which has virtually institutionalised unemployment for many young people. Senators are mostly middle-aged. They are not subject to unemployment as are many of the young people in this country. On a more personal basis, apart from their responsibilities to their constituencies, many senators are parents. Many of us have seen the problem of unemployment in youth within our own immediate or extended families and have had family members seeking, and having difficulty in finding, satisfactory employment. The problem of unemployment is reaching into more and more Australian homes-into the homes of senators in common with everyone else. It is fair to say that with the altered economic circumstances of the last 18 months-both Senator Harradine and the Minister for Social Security have given us some figures on this score-one fact has not been brought out. The improvement that has occurred in employment has not been shared equally or relatively equally by youth. The relative position of young people in the employment market is now worse than it was 18 months ago. Although the unemployment rate for older people in the work force has dropped slightly-it is a very welcome drop-it has dropped almost not at all for young Australians. It is a very marginal drop in those out of work-from 27.4 per cent down to 25 per cent. It is the small extent of that drop that has left young people in a relatively worse position than they were 18 months ago. One of the tragedies is that many expectations were raised in the rhetoric of the 1983 election. Sadly, those expectations have not been realised. Senator Macklin —That has happened in every election. Senator PETER BAUME —Nevertheless, it is tragic that expectations were raised in such an unrealistic fashion. Unemployment concerns youth more than any other matter. The recent survey carried out on youth attitudes for the Government by Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd reached a number of findings, some of which I shall mention. For example, eight in 10 young Australians admit to being very or quite concerned about unemployment. Unemployment is perceived as being the most important issue for young people. The issue for them is jobs. A large majority-more than 80 per cent of young people-believe that it is difficult to find a full time job in the city or in any area where they live. A large majority, more than six out of 10, overestimate the current level of unemployment among young people. Their perception is that the unemployment situation is very bad. They do not expect unemployment levels to fall in the near future-say, in the next two to three years-and they do not even expect unemployment levels to fall in the more distant future-say, in 10 years time. Those attitudes were revealed by careful testing of young Australians. The extent to which unemployment levels and the difficulty of finding work are overestimated illustrates the fears and doubts associated with the failure to find or to hold a job. The impact of the fears and doubts on young people's outlooks is most clearly demonstrated among the unemployed. They compose a disadvantaged and uninvolved group in our society who do not share as they should in what our society has to offer. Among the youth population studied the unemployed are the most markedly different group. Their mood is one of considerable depression and helplessness. Their lack of money restricts their social life and produces boredom. Many report sleeping in and having nothing to do. Many unemployed young people feel that they have to try to be optimistic about getting a job, but their self-doubts are evident. Importantly, very few are resigned to receiving the dole as a way of life, and there is a general feeling that they are treated by the community as second class citizens, and they do not like it. This survey, like so many others, shows that young Australians want to work. What they need is job opportunities. When a young person is unemployed, the family is under great tension. I will not develop that matter, but honourable senators will know that the families find it difficult to help, to offer appropriate assistance, or to understand or cope with the fact that one member of the family may not be able to find a job. I submit that in spite of the concerned rhetoric on this matter, there is still too little that the current Government has done to assist these unacceptably high levels of youth unemployment. Government policy in this area has been active, but unco-ordinated and incoherent. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, are both on the record as advocating, among other things, commune-style experiments as one means of soaking up young people without jobs. I refer to three specific areas in which the Australian Labor Party has failed in its approach to youth unemployment. Firstly, I criticise some of the programs which have been offered. Youth unemployment programs are shortsighted and short term. I acknowledge immediately the criticisms which Senator Harradine offered of a Fraser Government program- the special youth employment training program, or sweet pea, as some of us call it. That program has come under criticism; I acknowledge that. But the time has come now, in terms of this motion, for new approaches, for re-examination and for alterations in policy. I return to what this Government is doing. The Hawke Government has chosen the option of using short term schemes. Unfortunately, these schemes are palliative in their nature. They do not provide for the long term generation of employment which is critical to any genuine attack upon youth unemployment. It is one thing to say that so many thousands of young people have now had short term jobs. It is equally true, as those of us who are meeting people know, that many of them are coming out the other end of those short term programs and being deposited back in a situation in which there is still no employment for them in spite of their participation in the community employment programs. We have a return to the mentality of some of the schemes of the 1930s which gave the impression of doing something by providing meaningless, short term jobs while still avoiding the long term reality that people need to be equipped with training, skills and opportunities if they are to remain participants in the work force. Recently, the interim report of the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs, known as the Kirby report, commented upon this, among other things, and highlighted some of the key problems. The report pointed specifically to the failure of the SYETP program to deliver on its stated objectives to provide meaningful training to young unemployed people. If that failure is real, let us alter that program. The Kirby report cited the Auditor-General's findings on this program, indicating that 30 per cent of the positions associated with it had a training content of at most four weeks. A further 30 per cent had a maximum training content of between four and eight weeks. In neither case is that enough. In many cases employers are using the scheme as a means of getting subsidised labour in a low or non-skilled job. Quite simply, that scheme turned into a short term work experience program. It does not adequately meet the objective of providing meaningful training that will facilitate long term employment. With that information now before us, regardless of whether the program was a Fraser program, the time has come to change the program, to make it more effective. The Hawke Government program, the community employment program, has been used, I regret to say, largely as part of a pork barrel approach. My colleague Mr Ian Macphee observed in January 1984 that 81 per cent of all the jobs in the scheme at that time were being funnelled into ALP-held electorates. This has meant that unemployed young people in other areas, for example, in country electorates, have not had access to whatever benefits the scheme might offer. Further, the scheme has had an almost exclusive focus on city areas and, again, the problems facing non-metropolitan Australia tend to have been ignored. The second area I wish to discuss is the question of protecting the advantaged. I must say that some of the actions that have been taken since the Hawke Government came into office have been designed to accommodate those who are in work, to accommodate the interests of the powerful against the interests of the unemployed and the weak. The Government has consistently blocked out the problem of youth unemployment. Its commitment to improving the wages and award conditions of employed people in the community-we have seen this in such things as the wage indexation decisions and the superannuation agreements-is enshrined in the accord and works to the detriment of young people seeking jobs. An editorial in the Australian newspaper of 27 September noted: . . . the accord is all about keeping happy the 91 per cent of the workforce-- those in jobs- but it does nothing to relieve unemployment, for example, by allowing scope to change relativities. The inflexibility of our institutionalised wage fixing structure, an inflexibility that has been exacerbated by the actions of this Government, contributes to sustained high youth unemployment. A recent research report of the Bureau of Labour Market Research talks about the compression of junior and adult wages as one factor in the lessening demand for jobs for young people. It says it has a direct impact on the high level of youth unemployment. The report concludes: . . . that increases in youth wages relative to those of other groups decrease their demand significantly . . . In other words, the higher the wages, the fewer the jobs. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development joins the argument and suggests that this kind of abnormal relativity will have an adverse effect upon the availability of jobs. We have to ask: What will the Labor Party do about this matter? This matter of public importance brought forward by Senator Harradine calls upon the Government, recognising the seriousness of the problem, to adopt new approaches in the interests of all Australians. I can indicate what the Westpac Banking Corporation said recently about the accord. It made no bones about it, saying that it was an accommodation of the 'haves' to the detriment of the 'have nots'. Senator Harradine has already referred to the words of Mr Kelty and his prediction of very high unemployment. We want to attack the complacency with which the community looks at youth unemployment. We beg the Government not only to acknowledge the extent of the problem but also to recognise the need for adequate and effective responses and the need for further action now. We seek a co-operative approach which would make it more worth while for employers to take people on and which would provide more arrangements for young people to take on training. The lives of a generation of young Australians will be affected by their capacity to join our society. Central to this is the capacity of young Australians to find, obtain and hold employment. The situation has not improved since March 1983 in spite of the ending of the drought and economic recovery following that of our trading partners. We applaud measures to increase retention in education. We applaud any measures that will help young people to find jobs but it should be clear that this situation remains critical and that the Government has not yet solved it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We welcome this matter of public importance and we ask the Government to receive it in the spirit in which it was offered. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.04) —The matter of public importance we are debating today is: The need for the Government to take further action to relieve the unfair and unnecessary burden of youth unemployment. Senator Grimes, in responding for the Government, has acknowledged that the Government needs to take further action to relieve youth unemployment. The question of whether the burden is unfair or unnecessary raises two separate issues. First, undoubtedly-everyone has agreed-it is unfair. I believe that there is an obligation on senators who say that it is unnecessary to say why it is unnecessary and what can be done about it. I do not think it is good enough to suggest a few haphazard approaches. I do not think it is good enough to say that it is the Government's fault and that the Government should fix it up. It is partly, but it is certainly not solely the Government's fault. The previous Government has also to bear its share of the blame. It is the fault not only of government but also of the community as well. As Senator Peter Baume has already said, the community, by and large employed people, is seemingly not willing in 1984 to make the types of sacrifices and adjustments that may be necessary, to provide room for the coming generation. I do not think it is good enough simply to say that the burden of youth unemployment is unfair and unnecessary without going on to say where we believe the Government ought to be going. The Australian Democrats believe, along with other senators who have spoken, that unemployment is a human predicament, not just an economic predicament. It deals with every family; it deals with the entire community, and operates as a cancer. One has only to look at other countries which have had endemic unemployment to see how that cancer spreads and to see the costs and the misery. That misery is not only visited on the young. It is visited on everyone who comes into contact with them and ultimately it is visited on those who are comfortable and who have jobs. So the battle for jobs must be waged with a fairly grim determination. It is remarkable that when there is a war, money is always found to fight that war. But when we see, as we do today, a disaster which is equal to an invasion, a disaster for the future of this country, there is very little coming together of the country and very little by way of constructive solutions. The Australian Democrats believe that in 1985 the Government must throw out the piecemeal approaches that have occurred in the past. It must throw out the bits and pieces of programs that are directed at alleviating this or that little bit of the problem. Indeed, what we need is a single comprehensive program. We need, in short, an education-work guarantee for every young person between the ages of 15 and 21. That guarantee must be given by the Government on behalf of the community to each of those young Australians that in 1985 they will be either learning something which is socially useful or they will be involved in work which is socially useful. In order to support such a guarantee, the community must accept a fairly wide range of ideas. It must, for example, be willing to accept that all young people have an equal opportunity for education, employment and experience. It must accept that they be given the opportunity for a sound, basic education which will enable them to develop during their lifetime. It must accept that that basic education must not be seen as the end, but as the beginning, of a continuous learning process for individuals, organisations, institutions, government and the community. It must accept that our young people must be multi -skilled, not single-skilled. It must accept that technology has the potential to enhance skills and not simply to deskill the community. In a speech made on 24 September, the French Prime Minister, on behalf of his Government, stated: By the end of 1985 every French person between 18 and 25 will either be at school, university or a school for engineers, or placed in some sort of community or utility work (which is funded by the local communities and they receive a small amount of money for their work) and they will also be granted vocational or professional training. As part of a five-point program, the French Prime Minister pledged that by the end of 1985 his country would have a youth education-work guarantee. Can we do less? The French Government has recognised that the major problem that it is confronting is youth unemployment. The French Prime Minister has pledged on behalf of his Government to tackle that problem. The French Government has failed its people in many things, but in putting forward this program, it has at last come up with a radical solution, a radical proposal, which ought to capture the attention of the French people. I believe it is one which also ought to capture the attention of the Australian people. If one looks, for example, at the retention rate in France, one sees that about 35 per cent of French students in any particular age group complete their secondary school studies. In Australia, the figure is 40 per cent and in Japan it is 90 per cent. The problem does not lie in technology; it lies in the will of the people to undertake and use the resources which are available in the interests of the entire community. Surely, 1985 being the International Year of Youth, this Government, on behalf of the community, could pledge to Australia to make sure that everybody under the age of 21 is undertaking either some form of education or some form of work. I define both of those areas in their broadest sense. Surely then, and only then , will we be giving all young Australians a stake in their community. But as soon as one mentions such a goal, there are cries of 'idealism' and of 'it will cost us money'. Yes, it is idealistic, but it is a realistic goal that can be achieved. Yes, it will cost us money. But the present situation is costing us dearly not only in dollars and cents but also in human lives. Are we going to say that we refuse to pay now and that we would much rather pay twice, three or 10 times as much in the future? That is what we are looking at. We are looking at ever-increasing amounts of the Federal Budget being spent, not on something which is socially useful, but on merely holding the line. It will be spent on police, crime prevention and on a whole range of other subsidiary items. But we could in 1985, in the International Year of Youth, spend it on youth, and on the future of this country. The Australian Democrats would rather see a young person employed or involved in education than have this country pay for unemployment benefits, social security benefits, social disruption, bleak futures and nothingness for so many. Yes, it will cost us a lot, and it will be worth every cent. Let this Government pledge that 1 January 1985 will be a radical day for Australia. Let it pledge that on that day this country and this Government will grow up and take responsibility for our young people. Let it make such a pledge and the election which will be held on 1 December will be worth fighting for. It will be worth fighting for if the Government wins an election on such a pledge. I believe that when this Government came into office one could have expected that it would come up with something different from its conservative predecessors. We could have expected a radical approach to this ever-growing problem. Yet we have not had that. We have had the continuing tinkering, the continuing warmly titled programs, and the continuing band-aid approach, and they will not work; they cannot work. I believe we have an enormously bright future ahead of us. We have the resources, skills, capacities and enthusiasm to take us into the twenty-first century. But are we all going to look forward to the future? Will all the citizens of this country have the chance to buy a home or have a family? Will their children have a bright future to look forward to? How many young people in Australia today can look forward to the future with the sanguine approach most members of this chamber had when they were young? As young people we understood how important the future was to us. It is now very important for members of this chamber, who have a unique responsibility, to tell the younger generation how they feel about their future. We must not let that great Australian attitude of 'We're all right, Jack' overwhelm our capacity to see the type of bleak future which is facing so many people. I believe that this country can afford a youth education-work guarantee. I believe this country can afford to have all its young people under 21 years of age undertaking some form of education or in some form of work. If that does not happen, this country will not be able to afford to pay the bill in human misery and blighted lives. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(4.17) —I wish to speak on the matter of public importance before the Senate this afternoon, to wit, the need for the Government to take further action to relieve the unfair and unnecessary burden of youth unemployment. Senator Macklin has correctly emphasised the enormous social costs of failing to take further action. I do not believe that there is any disagreement whatsoever with that aspect of the matter of public importance. There can hardly be a household in Australia now which has not at some time within the last 10 years felt the pain and frustration of having at least one of its members apparently chronically unemployed. A debate on this subject which might have taken place five years ago would have been operating from a very different base. The knowledge and the awareness in the community of the effects of unemployment must surely be obvious to all. I do not believe that anything is to be gained by scapegoating either those workers who are in employment and whose entitlements, wages and conditions generally are the subject of various cases before industrial tribunals, and very rightly so, or those women in employment who also have responsibilities within the family for young children. It is very clear, when efficient studies of the structure of the labour market are carried out, that there simply is not the transferability between particular groups of employees that some superficial economic theories might make us think. In fact, we should have family policies which take into account the needs of all members of households, whether they are mothers, fathers or children. The support services required for those households are currently under considerable examination as a result of the activities of committees of inquiry of one sort or another. However, I believe it is quite wrong for Senator Harradine to try to recycle the tired old myth that employment of mature women is excluding the young unemployed from jobs which he says would otherwise be available to them. If the group to which he refers were retrenched tomorrow or willingly left the work force, for whatever reason, they would be replaced not by school leavers but by other mature women who are currently at home and anxious to return to the work force. The reason that they would be replaced by mature women is that the work they are doing in the work force is traditional women's work that needs the attributes of mature women-women who have developed the characteristics that employers want for particular types of work. I refer to the ability to deal with individuals, a good nature, loyalty and a capacity to put their requirements second to those of their employers. This is not to denigrate the skills or the abilities or the aptitude of the young. It is simply a fact that these characteristics come with maturity and provide for the employers of this nation a particular type of worker for a particular type of work. Although, as Senator Baume says, expectations amongst the young have been raised, perhaps they have not been so unrealistically raised when one has another look at the Special Australian Nationwide Opinion Study of Young Australians from which he quoted. One finds that, amongst the young, 74 per cent believe that life generally in the next two or three years will improve for them and 19 per cent believe that it will get no worse. So perhaps there is, in addition to the expectation, a knowledge of the fact that things are on the move , that the economy is improving and that their life expectations generally are enhanced. The September 1984 Australian Bureau of Statistics figures on the labour force show a rise in participation rates overall, a rise in the number of employed persons overall, and at the same time a fall in the rate of unemployment and a fall in the number of unemployed persons. The figures show that fewer unemployed young males in the 15 to 19-years age group are looking for work. There is a slight drop in the participation rate which could be read as the possibility of higher school retention amongst that particular age group. We know that technical and further education enrolments are increasing. We also know that the increase in secondary assistance has given families a far greater incentive to keep their children at school. Increased employment prospects are quite clearly shown in those figures. As far as 15 to 19-year-old females are concerned, there was certainly a reduction in the number looking for work for the first time in the 12 months from September 1983 to September 1984. There was a reduction in that category of the better part of 5,000, a reduction in the number looking for part time work, and an increase, once again, in the participation rate from 44.9 per cent in September 1983 to 45.6 per cent in September 1984. I believe that this indicates a number of quite significant factors. It indicates that more young women are staying at school, and this is borne out once again by the retention rate, and that more young women are employed either full time or part time. The relative labour market advantages of young men over young women seem to be narrowing. The unemployment rate for 15 to 19-year-old males dropped from 10 per cent in September 1983 to 8.6 per cent in September 1984, a decrease of 1.4 per cent. The corresponding figures for 15 to 19-year-old females were 11 per cent to 9.1 per cent, or a decrease of 1.9 per cent, that is, 0.5 per cent more than for males. This trend, if it continues, may be an early indication of a changing approach by employers to the desirability of employing workers on the basis of their potential and capacity rather than on the basis of their gender or stereotyped expectations. It is perhaps a little early to start rejoicing at such spring-like precursors. There may be other structural changes occurring. We have seen over the last 10 or 15 years the development of a third labour market. We talk about labour markets segregated on gender lines, but I believe there is now a third labour market which consists of the jobs available for school leavers-in the main, dead-end jobs for the very young. This could account for some of the convergence of the opportunities for those two groups to which I have referred. However, at a time when both male and female employment rates are dropping, it is surely of more than passing interest that gender differences are lessening. These are all indications of the improving economy and the indirect effect on employment opportunities which follow closely on the measures taken by the Hawke Labor Government since its election in 1983. A healthier economy means enhanced expectation for many people and young people inevitably benefit from a much more secure economic environment. Our early initiatives have quickly reversed the catastrophic slide of the Fraser years, those years in which the misery index, as it was called-the inflation rate plus the unemployment rate- rose alarmingly, severely injuring families and individuals and in some cases whole communities. Young people, whether they wish to stay at school or whether they seek independence, have been directly or indirectly the targets of many of our programs. As workers or potential workers they are better off because the rate of inflation has halved, because wages will be regularly indexed, because interest rates have fallen and because Medicare has removed those anxieties that they may have had about medical and hospital costs. Crisis and longer term accommodation for young people was long neglected by the previous Government and our new supported accommodation assistance program, we hope, will provide accommodation for young people who are currently living in sub-standard conditions or who are technically homeless. All householders and individuals have reaped the advantage of the industrial serenity which has followed the prices and incomes accord, regardless of what was said earlier this afternoon about the ways in which that has affected the labour market in Australia. Surely if we are to believe what has been said in this and another place about the dire effects of industrial disputes, there should be some remarkable counter-effects at a time of relative industrial peace. It is evident from the figures that our job creation schemes are having a most beneficial direct effect on employment prospects and the employability of young people. Reference has been made this afternoon to the disappointment of young people when particular employment schemes come to an end. My experience, which is certainly anecdotal but which is based on a wide range of projects of one sort or another, is that young people are coming out of them at the end of the six, nine or 12 weeks of employment a great deal more employable and with a great deal more hope in their hearts. Another serious problem has been that the lack of experience of young people has greatly diminished their chances in the job market. Employers have responded to the various incentive schemes but serious questions still need to be addressed about the practices of employers who willingly employ and/or exploit the very young, make windfall gains but dispense with young workers as they reach industrial adulthood. Point 27 in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs cites a conference paper of the Bureau of Labour Market Research which assessed that net employment gains from the special youth employment training program, a very expensive program which has been operating for some years with only now some sort of proper assessment of its value, range from one-fifth to one-third of total placements. This means that the effective rate of subsidy in terms of creating new jobs may be three to five times the per capita rate, hardly an efficient way of introducing young people into the work force. The practice I referred to before of very many employers taking on very young people and sacking them as soon as they reach industrial adulthood still seems to be done with impunity and is surely a matter long overdue for resolution. Discrimination on the ground of age hurts as much at the age of 18 as it does at the age of 48. Internationally Australia's youth unemployment compares very unfavourably, but so does our rate of retention of young people in the education system. I heartily endorse Senator Macklin's suggestion that we should be looking seriously at something similar to the French or Nordic youth guarantee schemes. I feel quite confident that these will be put forward as alternatives when we receive the report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development expert committee which was asked by this Government to analyse thoroughly the position in Australia with a view to putting forward in time for our next Budget a comprehensive, multifaceted, well thought out, well planned and properly financed scheme which will alleviate and, in the words of Senator Harradine, take action to relieve, the unfair and unnecessary burden of youth unemployment. After the inertia of the Fraser years it was crucial that the problem be clearly identified and a worthwhile and comprehensive set of objectives adopted. I have every confidence that this will be the case. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(4.32) —This afternoon the Senate is debating a very important subject brought before it as a matter of public importance by Senator Harradine; that is, the need for the Government to take further action to relieve the unfair and unnecessary burden of youth unemployment. It is not enough to wring one's hands about the subject of youth unemployment. The Government and the Opposition have said much on the subject, as has indeed Senator Harradine, on a number of occasions in the Senate. The fact is that the problems of youth unemployment in Australia are clearly entrenched, and there are signs that they could get worse. The solution to the problem is not simple and I would not claim, nor would anyone, to have the blueprint for the solution. However, the source of the problem is perceptible in a number of areas. We will not make any progress on the problem, however, if we take Senator Grimes's starting point. Whilst I recognise that much of what Senator Grimes, as Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, said today was genuine, his starting point was false. It is a starting point on many issues with this Government. Senator Grimes said that the employment situation in Australia had improved for two reasons: First, the improvement in the economy as a result, he said, of the Hawke Government's policies and, secondly, Government policies directed to employment. The fact that the Government talks in that way is in itself concerning, because if it truly believes that it has brought about this turnaround in the economy-as it refers to it-as a result of its policies, the future is very bleak indeed. In debate on the Budget delivered in August this year Government spokesmen gave no recognition at all, in reference to economic factors of the last 12 to 18 months, to the effect of the breaking of the drought and of the Fraser Government's wage pause. It needs to be said again that the effect of the breaking of the drought, in particular, last year was to inject into the economy a source of revenue for the Government, for citizens and for the country which was a one-off factor. This year's Budget shows no recognition of that. It assumes that major factors such as that will continue. As long as the Government's policies are predicated on that basis the Government will lead itself and this country into error. That is very serious for a number of reasons. When we look at the very difficult situation of youth unemployment in Australia as part of the general situation, we must have our feet on the ground. It will take more than wringing of hands about the subject; it will take a great deal of courage before this problem is properly addressed if, indeed, it ever is. Senator Grimes is correct when he says that government employment policies are necessarily short term. The sad thing is that there are no indications of any long term programs that the Government might have in mind. Of course, a Hawke Government Minister has already lamented the inability of the Government, particularly in its last Budget, to look at long term factors. It is my personal view that that Minister-the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) -has one of the most important portfolios in Australia today, particularly on the subject of employment and unemployment in the future. There is reason to be deeply concerned about the subject of youth unemployment in Australia. Whilst there has been a welcome reduction in the unemployment rate the ratio of young people looking for full time jobs to adults looking for full time jobs has increased. In other words, the drop in unemployment, such as it is , has had least impact on the young. I do not intend to canvass this afternoon the reasons we ought to be concerned about youth unemployment in the detail in which some other speakers have canvassed them. The reasons for concern have been fully stated. I just want to express my own personal concern, which is long standing and on which I have made speeches on previous occasions here and elsewhere, at the effect on the future of this country of so many young men and women being unemployed. Those young people are the parents of the future. The standards that they will have learned and will convey to their own children will of course be much lower than we might have hoped for or expected in the past. The community employment program and other government make work programs do not address the problem in any realistic way. They are convenient ways to soak up, in the short term, a number of the unemployed and to be able to say the unemployment rate has dropped. However, these sorts of government programs do not offer any long term solution. There is reason for concern beyond the fact that they are just short term programs. The jobs that have been created in the last 18 months in this country have been overwhelmingly in the public sector. The proportion of people in employment in Australia in the public sector, relative to the private sector, has risen very markedly. That is a sign of failure of economic policies. It is certainly not the indication of national economic growth that the Hawke Government keeps on claiming. If there were genuine, sound economic improvement and growth in this country, it would be showing far more strongly in the private sector. If we are to provide jobs simply by increasing the public sector, we all might as well pack up and go home . There will be, in the end, very high taxes, circulating back through the government sector. I know a Labor government does not see anything particularly wrong with this, but the fact is that even this Government's own Treasurer, Mr Keating, has said that we cannot have any real economic improvement without growth and that means growth in the private sector. The short term programs, such as CEP, are doomed to be short term and they are doomed not to solve the problem. It has been pointed out that as of January of this year 81 per cent of CEP programs were in Australian Labor Party electorates . There is absolutely nothing to indicate that 81 per cent of the problem of unemployment, or even of youth unemployment, is in Labor electorates. Indeed, on the Gold Coast in Queensland, which has one of the highest youth unemployment rates, if not the highest youth unemployment rate in Australia, we have an electorate which is anything but a Labor electorate. Senator Robert Ray —Soon to be solved. Senator MARTIN —Senator Robert Ray says it is soon to be solved. I am really entertained by that. Yesterday the President of the Labor Party in Queensland said that he thought magic might win the seat of Moncrieff for the Labor Party. I am not surprised to hear that members of the social Left believe in magic, but that is what they will need to win any seats on the Gold Coast. Senator Jones —Preferences have not been allocated yet. Senator MARTIN —Now we also have somebody, not from the socialist Left, who believes in magic. As I was saying, 81 per cent of the community employment programs have been centred in ALP electorates, which makes one think, with just a dab of cynicism, that perhaps the thrust of that program under the Hawke Government is more directed to holding Labor seats than seeking a genuine solution of the problem. Senator Robert Ray —Turn them into Labor electorates. Senator MARTIN —Perhaps Senator Ray is correct. Perhaps the aim of the Government in concentrating employment programs in Labor electorates and not turning attention to non-Labor electorates is to persuade those electorates to vote Labor to get their share of the pork barrels. The time that remains to me is short and so I will have to deal, only briefly, with some other important points. The matter of institutionalised unemployment, that is, as institutionalised in Labor Party policy, is a matter of deep concern . It is not the Opposition's view, despite what the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) today in Question Time attempted to portray, that the problems of youth unemployment centre entirely on youth wages. However, without doubt, it is a major factor. So long as the Labor Party cannot be realistic about its attitudes on industrial matters, so long as it is tied apparently irretrievably to certain attitudes on industrial matters, this aspect , this one cause-but I emphasise not the only cause of youth unemployment-will remain with us and youth unemployment will remain entrenched. I draw the Senate' s attention to the editorial of the Australian of 27 September which remarked on a report on the international economic outlook published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The editorial stated: Its estimate-- that is, the report's estimate- that the Australian youth unemployment rate will remain during next year at almost 15 per cent takes much of the joy out of the recovery which seems to have become evident in our economy. Senator Peter Baume —I wonder who wrote that? Senator MARTIN —We used to have some comments from Labor Party spokesmen when they were in not in government about who wrote reports. I have not heard them volunteering any comments on this report. The editorial continues: In a reference which is clearly applicable to our situation, if not specifically directed towards Australia, the OECD draws attention to the effect of the inflexibility of labour markets and the downward rigidity of wages in causing the disparity between economic growth and employment growth. While there are obvious advantages, such as a reduction in industrial disputes, in the present ''consensus'' or ''accord'' between government, employers and unions, the report observes that-- quoting from the report- ''the solidarity upon which (consensus-type arrangements) rest may make it difficult to achieve simultaneously greater wage flexibility''. It is that inflexibility which is a major factor in unemployment in Australia and undoubtedly also in youth unemployment. The Kirby report of the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs has been referred to this afternoon in debate. It points out, importantly, that the increase in relativities of award wages for all juniors in the early to mid-1970s was undoubtedly a major factor. The report states: Overseas studies generally show that youth employment falls as their wages rise relative to those of adults . . . BLMR research has found the employment of young males and (in particular) young females falls with increases in their wages relative to those of adults. They are facts. In the past governments have not had reports and statistics available to them in the form needed for those governments to formulate specific policies in those areas. We have all known what the effect of high wages for youth was, but now we have it in report form and it cannot be avoided. Another factor without a doubt is penalty rates. The tourist industry world wide is a major employer of unskilled and low skilled people. It is a major employer, notably in the United States of America, of young workers. It is a good industry for them to start in but the penalty rates in the Australian tourist industry-which even this Government's Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) clearly does not like, are in themselves a disincentive to employers. It is the entrenched attitude in the Australian Labor Party which would quickly disown the tourist Minister, which cannot give one much hope for the future. As I said at the beginning of my speech we need long term programs. The Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, pointed out after the Budget how loath this Government is, unfortunately, to look at long term programs. If we are genuinely to take the sort of action that is necessary to relieve the burden of youth unemployment the Australian Government must face the facts, not be hide-bound by those institutionalised factors I have mentioned, and have the courage to face the obvious solutions. Senator JONES(Queensland)(4.46) —This afternoon we are debating a matter of public importance, the terms of which are: The need for the Government to take further action to relieve the unfair and unnecessary burden of youth unemployment. I think it is worth while noting at this stage that every speaker on either side of the Senate certainly showed some genuine interest and concern for youth unemployment in this country. While I would not agree with some of the points put forward by the various speakers where they argued for a better deal for unemployed youth, I believe that they were genuine in the way in which they argued that matter. I think congratulations should be given to Senator Brian Harradine for at least bringing forward this matter of public importance. Although it is couched in these words 'to relieve the unfair and unnecessary burden', it had to be couched like that because of the way in which matters of public importance are placed before the Senate. He certainly brought forward a matter that really needed to be debated by honourable senators in this place because of the problems facing this country and the problems facing youth unemployment in Australia generally. I believe that one of the points that should be made from the Government's point of view is the Government's economic performance in the recent Budget that was brought down. That Budget will increase the demands within the community and , by increasing those demands, it will increase the opportunity for employment. I suppose it is reasonable to say that it has to show some confidence in economic growth in Australia. It is also reasonable to say that it is very easy for a senator of the Government to claim that there is a certain amount of confidence in the economic growth that is taking place in Australia at the moment. I think it is worth while at this stage to deal with some of the reports from groups within the community that very clearly outline their confidence in the economic growth that will take place in Australia in the future, which I believe will tend to provide better opportunities for youth employment and, for that matter, general employment throughout the community. One of those reports, which I think was referred to by Senator Peter Baume, was the report of the Westpac Banking Corporation. While I believe that there is some criticism of the prices and incomes accord in that report-I will quote from the report in a few moments- it stated very clearly that there is a certain amount of confidence that there will be growth in the economy in 1985. The Reserve Bank of Australia said very clearly in its overview that it had confidence in the Government's economic approach. For that matter even the Legislative Research Service wrote a report which clearly shows the confidence in the Government's Budget strategy and clearly shows that there is confidence in the way in which the Government is setting about trying to relieve the unemployment that exists in this country. Let me just return for a moment to the Westpac Banking Corporation Review. I quote from the Review which is headed 'The Accord and the Budget' where it states: The prediction of relatively strong economic growth in 1984/85 (up 4 per cent in real terms, compared with 1983/84) should be borne out. Moderation in the annual growth rate of wages and prices (both forecast to rise at an annual rate of 5 per cent-5.5 per cent . . . That is the view of the Westpac Banking Corporation which I believe is a very unbiased view of the Government's Budget strategy. Let us go a little further and look at the report and financial statements of the Reserve Bank of Australia dated 30 June 1984. If we turn to the overview on page 1 of that report we find that it states very clearly the Reserve Bank's view of its confidence in the economy or in the Budget strategy of this Government. The report states: In 1983-84 the Australian economy returned to forward gear, with strong growth and lower inflation. The breaking of the drought, the stimulus inherent in the large Commonwealth budget deficit and the turnaround in the stock cycle combined to produce a substantial rebound in domestic demand. A concurrent though modest improvement in the international environment gave some support to exports. The resumption of economic growth, at a pace much sharper than had been expected at the start of the year, meant that Australia's recession was shorter, though no less severe, than in other industrial countries. Wage moderation, helped by the wages pause and the Prices and Incomes Accord, was a major contributor to the general improvement in the economy. The report goes on: Inflationary pressures were reduced and employment rose strongly. So there is an indication that there will be further increases in the employment rate in Australia. The report continues: A significant part of the early fruits of recovery reflected in company profits , forming a basis for future investment. That is the view of the Reserve Bank of Australia which very clearly outlines its confidence in this Government and in its strategy. Let us turn to a further report entitled 'The 1984 Budget', a discussion paper written by Caroline Boyd, James Jordan and Michael Porter from the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University. We only need to read the introduction of that report which clearly outlines the strategy set down by the Government and clearly outlines where that strategy is taking us. The report states: The objective of the government's economic policies, as indicated in the 1984 budget, is the restoration of full employment through economic growth. I think that clearly outlines the government's position in relation to the Budget, its policy in relation to the future of Australia, the opportunities for future employment generally throughout the community and for youth employment in this country. To emphasise this point one needs only to turn to an article written by Kenneth Davidson that was published in today's Age. He was referring to some of the statements made by John Stone but he clearly indicates that there will be an opportunity for growth in Australia's economy and there will be a better opportunity for employment in this country. I quote from Kenneth Davidson 's comment: All that is required is an assumption that the economy will grow by just under 4 per cent, and that inflation will grow about 6 per cent in 1985-86, to give a nominal growth in national production of 10 per cent. That is a forecast that would be accepted as reasonable by most economists who are in the forecasting business. That comment was made by Kenneth Davidson, one of the most noted financial writers of the Age. The growth that is forecast by those reports in the Australian Government's Budget strategy should improve employment for youth and adults generally. Although one can be very concerned with youth unemployment I do not really believe it is very difficult to talk about youth unemployment and not unemployment generally. I believe it is very difficult, from a Budget point of view, or even from a business point of view, to talk in a negative way about youth unemployment and not discuss the possibilities of job availability, employment of the population and general employment throughout the Commonwealth. If we compare the employment opportunities that were provided by the Hawke Labor Government to those provided in the last days of the Fraser Government we see quite clearly that the strategy of this Government is starting to work, and that it will work even better in 1985-86. Since the National Economic Summit Conference in April last year the Hawke Government has created 264,000 new jobs to September 1984. So we are more than half way to creating 500,000 new jobs which we promised to create in our first three years of government. Growth in employment last financial year, 1983-84, was 234,000-the highest number in a single year in Australia's history. That is the sort of result that is coming out of the Budget strategy of this Government. In the last days of the Fraser Government there was a fall in employment of 186 ,000. The number of jobs created in the last five years of the Fraser Government was about the same as the number of jobs created since the National Economic Summit under the Hawke Labor Government. We could go on and make a further comparison, this time on unemployment. The reduction in the number of unemployed since the Economic Summit is nearly 85,000. Since Labor came to office the unemployment rate has fallen by more than 10 per cent, down to 8.8 per cent in September 1984. There was a rise in unemployment of a quarter of a million in the last year of the Fraser Government. The unemployment rate rose to more than 10 per cent of the work force in the last months of that Government. That was happening under the policy the Fraser Government was putting forward prior to the election of the Labor Government. Let us return to the figures for youth unemployment in Australia and consider the prospect. Figures released last week show the general unemployment rate dropped even further in September to 8.8 per cent from 8.9 per cent in August. That is well down on the 10.4 per cent recorded in December last year. At the same time the labour force increased to 7.15 million last month from 7.04 million in September 1983. According to the latest figures, seasonally adjusted, for 15 to 19 year olds looking for full time work, during September the number dropped from 145,000 to 136,000. Let me repeat: In September the figure dropped from 145,000 to 136,000. That is not much of a drop as the Government, honourable senators on the other side of the House who spoke today or honourable senators on this side of the House would like, but a drop of 9,000 in one month shows very clearly that the policies of this Government are certainly addressing the problem of youth unemployment as well as general unemployment throughout the country. The September 1983 figure, by comparison, was 164,000, so there was a drop of 28,000 in one year. The figures have shown a consistent decline over the past year, which I believe shows that the policies of the Government are working quite well in relation both to general unemployment and youth unemployment. Time does not permit me to deal with all the things done by the Government during its period in office which may in some way assist the unemployed youth in the community. The participation and equity program, the community youth support scheme and the increase in apprentice intakes all show an improvement and show the support from the Government in relation to youth unemployment in this country. One of the speakers today mentioned a report, by Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd. One point that was not raised by the previous speaker was the fact that this report was brought about by the action of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). In November 1983 the Department of the Special Minister of State commissioned the ANOP market research organisation to undertake a major national study of the attitudes of young Australians aged between 15 and 24 years. I believe the report on that study, which is now in the hands of the Government along with other reports that were referred to today-the Kirby report of the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report-provide information to the Government which will allow it in the future not only to continue the programs it already has but also to make adjustments and changes to the youth employment programs which I believe, with the projection of the Budget and the future growth of this country, will provide full employment and educational opportunities for the youth of this country. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(5.01) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In the time available to me I wish to refer to a couple of things mentioned in the tenth annual report of the Insurance Commissioner. Item 10 on page 9 of the report, headed 'Continuing supervision of insurers', is one to which I draw attention. The outline of the supervision of insurers embodied in the Insurance Act 1973 is referred to and, as the Commissioner says, this 'relies, in the main , upon the timely submission of monthly, quarterly and audited annual financial and other returns by all authorised insurance companies'. The Commissioner went on to say: The examination and review of the statutory returns forms the basis of the scheme of supervision imposed by the Act. One or two other matters to which he refers I find of interest. He states: One aspect of the industry that has been of continuing concern to my Office has been the standard of accounting records maintained in Australia by certain authorised companies and in particular by certain Australian authorised branches of overseas . . . companies. He states that his officers 'will be paying close attention to the adequacy of accounting records in order to ensure that all companies, regardless of overseas or group affiliation, maintain accounting records in Australia which satisfy the requirements of the Act'. I feel sure that we would all agree that that is essential. It is also of interest that he makes reference to the accounting standards for the general insurance industry. This comment is made: Previous Reports have commented on action taken by the Australian Accounting Research Foundation to develop an accounting standard for the general insurance industry and have noted the appointment of Coopers and Lybrand, Chartered Accountants as project contractors. An extensive questionnaire was prepared by the project contractors and circulated in May 1982 to all insurers to obtain information on the various accounting practices adopted. The results of this questionnaire have been analysed by the contractor and a discussion paper summarising the accounting issues pertinent to the industry is being drafted. The distribution of this discussion paper to interested persons for comment and debate is expected shortly. No indication has been given as to when the development of this vitally important standard may be expected to be finalised. I think it is important that the discussion paper is made available to those who would either need to be interested in the legislation covering the industry or who may wish to make submissions on the adequacy of accounting records in the insurance industry. There are other things referred to in the report, such as the statutory solvency margin of insurers. The question is raised as to whether this is appropriate to all circumstances, and whether the statutory solvency margin, which has regard to both premium income and outstanding claims, may be appropriate for future consideration. Such things as that and the accounting records are of interest, and I think it is timely that the Commissioner has referred to them. The further matter that I find of interest is his comment in regard to specialist reinsurance companies: . . . authorities to carry on insurance business granted to specialist reinsurance companies have to date been subject to special conditions in respect of the time lags associated with reinsurance. These conditions were applied as a result of the industry making representations concerning the difficulties a specialist reinsurer encounters in determining the financial results of its business. The Commissioner's comments show that he is obviously reviewing the requirements of specialist reinsurance companies. He is looking at the time lags. The Commissioner also states: This practice does not satisfy the technical requirements of the Act, is not adequate for the purpose of supervision nor is it adequate for other financial reporting purposes. I would be interested in his future report on specialist reinsurance companies. In particular, I rose to draw attention to the need for proper accounting standards in anticipation of the discussion paper and to our capacity to make some contributions to it for consideration by the Government. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.06) —I will also speak to the report of the Insurance Commissioner. I will not say any more on the continuing supervision of insurers as I believe that matter was adequately covered by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. It is important to look at the performance of the general insurance industry. So much in the whole commercial life of the country is governed by the way in which the insurance industry operates. A matter of some concern to me for some years is the extent of the deficit in the underwriting accounts of insurers. I am relatively pleased to see that this year the deficit has dropped from $430m to $299m. I trust that that is a trend which will continue. It is absolutely essential that insurance premiums be relative to the risk involved and that the insurers show a profit so that they can continue in business. It is important to note that since 1979 the amount paid to insurance companies in fire insurance premiums has increased by 50 per cent. Another trend is that employer liability and public liability have more than doubled in that period. General insurance has more than doubled between 1979 and 1983-a five-year period . Both organised crime and unorganised crime in the fire and burglary areas in particular have become extraordinarily significant. For some time I have taken a particular interest in arson. I believe that we in this Parliament ought to become more and more involved in dealing with the various aspects of it and what it means to the nation. I hope that before too long the Commonwealth, together with the States and the industry, will be able to make a real contribution towards fighting this unnecessary and unwholesome crime. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(5.08) —I wish to speak to one section of the report of the Insurance Commissioner. It refers to item 7 regarding section 113 of the Insurance Act. It is a section which, unfortunately, contains a loophole which may have been used to the disadvantage of a lot of people in the road transport industry. I have taken up this matter with the relevant Minister but I have had a less than satisfactory response from him. It is not that he is uninterested but he has indicated that he lacks the power, and the Insurance Commissioner lacks the power, to take any steps relating to section 113. I will read a brief extract from the Minister's letter, of which he has provided me with a copy, which was addressed to a firm of accountants in Adelaide: Under the provisions of section 113 procedures exist for agents operating within the terms of that section to place insurance business with unauthorised overseas insurers provided, inter alia, that the person to whom insurance cover is to be granted under the contract has acknowledged in writing that that cover may be provided in whole or in part by an unauthorised overseas insurer. In effect, this condition is designed to afford insureds with an opportunity of considering the possible implications of having insurance placed in the overseas market as distinct from insurers authorised under the Insurance Act and subject to the supervision of the Insurance Commissioner. The loophole concerning the transport industry is important because the majority of road transport operators are covered by insurers operating within the terms of section 113. Where an insured insures with a registered Australian insurance company the Insurance Commissioner has control over that company. He can ensure that there is an adequate asset-premium ratio and regulate its business conduct. However, where an insured is insured by an Australian underwriter or another body with an overseas insurer under section 113, the Insurance Commissioner cannot ensure that the asset-premium ratio of that overseas insurer is adequate and he cannot control its business practice. Even if the Insurance Commissioner knows or suspects that such an overseas insurer is not a stable or prudent insurer he does not have the power to act. Authorisation under section 113 does not indicate the approval of the Insurance Commisioner for such an overseas insurer and that is the weakness. The industry may be aware of what authorisation under section 113 means but the insured public is not aware. I believe that the Government has a responsibility to make Australian insureds-the people who are insured under section 113-aware of how this section operates and that authorisation under it does not imply that respectability has been given to the overseas insurer by the Insurance Commissioner. That is the crunch. I therefore ask the Government either to change the Insurance Act or to advertise nationally to educate those people who would be insured under section 113. At the very least, such advertisements should comprise each of the four points I have outlined in my speech. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(5.13) —The tenth annual report of the Insurance Commissioner and the Insurance Act which enables it to be produced are a result of one of the great reforms of the Whitlam Government in 1973 when it passed the Insurance Act. As a result of that Act being passed by the Whitlam Government, for the first time we have active financial supervision of the general insurance industry in this country. The report provides a lot of financial information on trends in the industry. It indicates, for example, that in the year to June 1984 there was a reduction of 17 in the number of companies which were authorised to provide insurance under the Act in Australia. Of course , one of those 17 was the notorious Bishopsgate company, which was placed in official liquidation in August 1983. It had losses of $19m or the equivalent of some 50 per cent of its assets. As pointed out by the Commissioner in his report , the Bishopsgate failure resulted substantially from fraud on the part of one of the principals of the company. The Commissioner's report puts on the record just what a major industry in Australia the general insurance industry is. In 1983 direct premiums totalled $6 ,500m and the book value assets of the industry were over $14,000m. One of the indicators of growth in the industry is direct premium income. During the calendar year 1983 premiums grew 16 per cent for private insurers and over 20 per cent in the public or government insurance sector of the industry. However, it is clear that growth rates are down on those of the previous year. The report also highlights the sheer size of employer liability insurance within the private sector of the industry. Some 30 per cent of all private sector insurance income now comes from employer liability. It amounts to over $1,300m a year. One of the interesting findings in the report is that since 1979 direct premium income for the industry overall-the public and private sectors combined-has been outpacing the rise in the money value of gross domestic product. For example, between 1979 and 1983 direct premium income rose by 81 per cent compared with a rise in Australia's gross domestic product of 61 per cent. Unfortunately, it is not clear from the report just how much of that greater direct premium income came from a larger real level of activity in the industry, that is a greater volume of insurance written, or how much was due to companies increasing their rates and charges. It is quite clear, however, that premium income has been outpacing gross domestic product. One of the disturbing features which I noted on page 30 of the report is the sheer growth in the level of concentration in the general insurance industry in Australia. The Commissioner points out this trend. For example, the top five general insurers in Australia account for 30 per cent of all general business written by private sector direct underwriters. That is a rise from 27 per cent last year. It is very clear from the Commissioner's report that the most concentrated areas of general insurance in the private sector element of the industry are compulsory third party insurance, in which the top five firms account for 100 per cent of the business written; contractors insurance in which 71 per cent of business is accounted for by the top five firms; and employer's liability insurance in which 49 per cent of all business is accounted for by the top five firms. We will all have to monitor the position to ensure that this concentration does not have adverse economic effects through reducing competition and providing less than optimum economic performance for the industry. The Commissioner also points out that there is very high penetration in the Australian economy of general insurance and by world standards the growth in the future will have to come from better management and from the results of overall economic growth. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(5.18) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report from the Public Service Board is of interest because it reflects the changes that have been made to the Australian Public Service throughout the past year. The report is the first that outlines some of the Public Service reforms that were undertaken through legislative framework. The matters I wish to refer to today are the changes that were made relating to controls on staff numbers and the fact that the system of staff ceilings previously used by government to control staff numbers of Commonwealth departments ceased to apply in 1983. Under the recent Public Service reforms, the Department of Finance assumed responsibility for advising the Government on human resource levels for 1984-85 and onwards. That change is of interest. I found it interesting to look at the ways in which the Department of Finance is undertaking that role which now divorces numbers of people in the Public Service from the control of the Public Service Board itself and the ways in which the Department of Finance is aiming to improve financial and related management practice throughout the Public Service in terms of this year's Budget. I was aware of what had been done with numbers in a number of departments and of the new programs that had been introduced. The figures reflected in the cost of administration of government this year were of some interest to me especially when I related the increase in the cost of administration to the increase that had been made in public expenditure through the Commonwealth Government generally. I do not have the figures with me, but they do reflect that the cost of administration had risen something like 5 per cent more than expenditure had risen. As we continue with this new system under which the Department of Finance has control over the numbers of people who are required to administer programs of government, it will be interesting to see how they relate efficiency in administration to programs which are undertaken by government in the future. The financial management improvement program which has been introduced with the goal of encouraging departments and authorities to be more efficient and effective in strategic planning, in the formulation of policy proposals and priorities and in management of programs and activities should result in more efficient administration. I would hope that the results of this financial management improvement program are reflected in the departments into which it has been introduced. These are departments which use large numbers of public servants-the Departments of Communications, Defence, Health, and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs-which have all begun implementation of the financial management improvement objectives. I would hope that as we get future reports from the Public Service Board we will see some reflection of that efficiency in administration in numbers of people who are employed. The other matter to which I draw attention, as we are looking at a Public Service Board report, is the change that has occurred in regard to health and safety and the new role that will be undertaken in that part of public administration. It leaves one wondering just exactly what the role of the Public Service will be in the future when numbers and efficiency of public administration are under the control and responsibility of the Department of Finance and health and safety under the control of a commission. This rather reflects that the Public Service Board will have a more limited role to play in public administration than it has had in the past. I look forward with interest to the result of the financial management improvement program and the other changes that have been made because I think this would make a very interesting study on another occasion when we can have a more detailed debate and discussion than we can have on the tabling of this report. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.23) —I wish to speak very briefly on the Public Service Board report. It is quite coincidental that this report has come down the very day that we have dealt with a matter of public importance-the unfair and unnecessary burden of youth unemployment. On page 158 of the Public Service Board's report we see that the youth percentage of the total Australian Public Service work force reached an all time low of 6.7 per cent in 1983. I have had a look at the previous figures and the youth percentage of the total Public Service work force in 1966 was 22.2 per cent. It fell to 12.2 per cent in 1974 and now it has fallen to an all time low of 6.7 per cent in 1983. That is nothing less than disgraceful. There are plenty of statistics in this report, but it does not reveal the full statistics. I have had to look for some of them and I referred to a review conducted by the Bureau of Labour Market Research last year entitled 'Youth Wages, Employment and the Labour Force'. The remarks I am about to make apply to both the present Government and previous governments. This review found that the public sector employment increased by 29 per cent between 1971 and 1981, compared with a private sector employment growth of only 8 per cent, and currently public sector employment accounts for about 30 per cent of total employment. However, there is evidence that 15 to 20-year-olds not only have failed to share in the growth of public sector employment but also have experienced a substantial absolute decline. In a subsequent report in May of this year, the Bureau noted: From a situation where teenagers comprised three quarters of all appointments to base grade positions in 1966, they have suffered quite significant falls such that by 1982 they comprised only about one quarter of all Clerk Class I appointments, one half of clerical assistant grade I appointments and 40 per cent of typist appointments. The trend during 1983 showed a further decline. Whereas youth comprised 28.2 per cent of new appointments to the Australian Public Service in 1981, this fell to 26.5 per cent in 1982 and to 23.8 per cent in 1983. As I have said, the decline in youth appointments to the Public Service has a corresponding effect on the youth percentage of the total APS work force, and this fell from 22.2 per cent in 1966 to 12.2 per cent in 1974 and to 6.7 per cent in 1983. It might be said that this is because of the professionalisation of the Public Service. That is not so. The Bureau of Labour Market Research addressed that point and shot it down in flames. The Bureau of Labour Market Research, in its report 'Teenage Employment in the Public Sector-Where have all the Jobs gone?' also noted: If the age structure of the public sector employment in 1981 had been the same as in 1971 there would have been an additional 50,000 teenagers employed in the public sector in 1981. Since 1981 the Australian Public Service alone has proportionately reduced its youth recruitment by 5,080 compared with 1971 percentages-that is, per annum. Since the Australian Public Service presently comprises one quarter of the total public sector, it is estimated that the youth share of total public sector recruitment in the last two years has been reduced by approximately 20,000 youths. Added to the 50,000 jobs already lost between 1971 and 1981, this totals 70,000 jobs for youth, or almost one half of the 154,000 Australian teenagers currently unemployed. The Bureau of Labour Market Research report concluded: If youth are unable to maintain their share of employment within expanding sectors of the economy, their employment prospects will be bleak. I request the Government to ask the Public Service Board to desist from its policy of blatant discrimination against youth in permanent Public Service appointments. Question resolved in the affirmative. Assent to the following Bills reported: Automotive Industry Authority Bill 1984 Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1984 Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill 1984 Air Navigation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1984 Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill 1984 Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Amendment Bill 1984 Bounty (Electric Motors) Bill 1984 Bounty (Computers) Bill 1984 Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, I present a further report on Cocos (Keeling) and Christmas Islands administration. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(5.30) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This is a further report on the administration of Cocos (Keeling) and Christmas Islands. The Committee first reviewed matters raised by the administration of the Islands in its Sixth Report on Statutory Authorities which was tabled in the Senate in September 1982. In that report the Committee undertook to advise the Senate of progress made in resolving a number of problems revealed by the inquiry conducted by the Committee in 1982. Today's report meets that undertaking. The Committee has attached correspondence to the report. The correspondence is self- explanatory and, in our view, requires no further comment and raises no matters which require the Senate's further consideration. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, I present a report on the Australian Capital Territory Totalisator Agency Board-Annual Reports 1979-80 and 1980-81; Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority-Annual Report 1981-82; and Poker Machine Licensing Board of the Capital Territory-Annual Report 1980-81. Ordered that the reports be printed. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(5.31) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This report relates to the very late tabling in November 1983 of annual reports from Australian Capital Territory authorities responsible for the control and administration of gambling and liquor licensing in the Territory, and which were referred to the Committee. In this case as well, the Committee has attached to the report correspondence which is self-explanatory and which, in our view, requires no further comment and raises no matters which require the Senate's further consideration. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria) —I present the 225th Report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(5.32) —by leave-Report 225 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts is presented in two volumes-the first, an appraisal of Stratplan, the automatic data processing re-equipment program of the Department of Social Security, and the second, appendices to the report dealing with occupational health and safety aspects of the use of visual display equipment. When the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) announced his Department's complete computer re-equipment program, Stratplan, in June 1983, he recognised that this was a very expensive and complex program and announced that the Government had decided to refer it to the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts for monitoring and report. Stratplan will bring about the replacement of outmoded and inadequate equipment in each State, the establishment of a National Computer Centre in Canberra, the installation of mini-computers in regional offices and approximately 7,000 visual display units throughout the Department. The Minister in June 1983 announced that the cost of the re-equipment would be $100m but information available to the Committee during this inquiry has suggested that that cost may now be as high as $234m. During 1984 the Committee conducted six hearings in which the Department of Social Security presented progress reports and made submissions on specific areas of concern to the Committee. The Committee also visited the Department of Social Security's National Computer Centre in Deakin, in the Australian Capital Territory, and met representatives of the Public Service Board, the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and the Capital Territory Health Commission. The report addresses the important issues arising out of these hearings, particularly occupational health and safety, industrial relations, offset arrangements, the tendering and purchasing processes and project and financial management. The Committee concludes from its investigations that the Department of Social Security has been successful in the implementation of many aspects of Stratplan, such as its purchasing procedures, the installation of equipment in the National Computer Centre and in New South Wales, the recruiting and training of staff, the design of ergonomically sound furniture and terminals and in the initiation of project management methodologies. However, the Committee notes that industrial relations are difficult due mainly to the inability of the Department to provide eyesight and radiation emission tests for equipment that the staff associations demand. This controversy has resulted in considerable delays in the implementation of Stratplan. In this matter the Department is constrained by the Public Service Board which is responsible for setting standards for conditions of service of government employees. The Committee recommends that the Public Service Board consult with other appropriate departments and agencies to establish and promulgate common occupational health and safety standards as a matter of urgency. Common standards may prevent the recurrence of the problems faced by the Department of Social Security which has been required to negotiate at length health and safety standards with staff associations. The Committee has also noted that two of the suppliers of equipment for the Stratplan project have not at this stage met their offset agreements. The Committee regards compliance with offset arrangements as vital to advance the capability and capacity of Australian industry and is concerned that the benefits of the Stratplan offsets may be less than predicted. The Committee has recommended that all offsets agreements be signed prior to contracts being let and may pursue the issue of Australian industry participation and the offsets program as a follow up two recent Auditor-General's efficiency audit reports. The Committee has also expressed its concern over the Department's uncertainty as to the true cost of the project, which I indicated earlier could now be as high as $234m, and has recommended that the Departments of Social Security and Finance together review the total project cost and make a submission to the Committee on this subject. Following this review it is proposed that the Department of Finance oversee the overall costs of the project and regularly report to the Committee. As part of the Committee's monitoring role of the Stratplan project, report No. 225 recommends that the Department of Social Security continue to report progress and problems on a monthly basis to the Committee and the Australian Audit Office. The issue of the health and safety of keyboard operators is an important one, particularly in the light of the current high incidence of repetitive strain injury in private and government employees. With this in mind the Committee has included as appendices to the report a number of documents which were made available to it on the subject of repetitive strain injury. Volume 2 contains a selection of employer and staff associations policies, views on the legal aspects of the issue, selected departmental directives to keyboard staff and selected research. The Committee hopes that this volume will improve the availability of information on this subject. The Committee was heartened by the announcement last week by the Honourable John Dawkins, Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Public Service Matters, of the establishment of a Task Force on Repetitive Strain Injury. This Task Force will be chaired by the Public Service Board and will include representatives of the Office of the Status of Women, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission and the Departments of Health, Employment and Industrial Relations and Housing and Construction. The Australian Council of Trade Unions will be invited to nominate a member to the Task Force. It is hoped that this Task Force will recommend action that the Government as an employer can take to eliminate this serious injury. The Committee wishes to express its appreciation to the staff of its secretariat and others who contributed to the compilation of this report. I thank particularly Mr Vincent Cleary who was seconded to the Committee as an automatic data processing expert. While I commend this report to honourable senators, I regret that copies are temporarily in short supply but they will be available by 29 October. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —by leave-Since this is the last report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts to be placed before this Parliament I wish to put on record some expressions of appreciation. Firstly, I express my appreciation for the work done by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. The Committee was enhanced by her election to the Committee because she brought to it her long experience as a Minister of the Crown and, with this reference, in particular, her experience as a Minister for Social Security. This experience enabled her to take on the responsibility of chairing the extra reference which was given to the Committee; that is, the supervision of automatic data processing installation in various departments. It was a substantial reference. For that reason we must place on record the effectiveness of the first report of the sub- committee which Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle chaired, which was produced in such a short time and without the availability of permanent staff to support it. In due course the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), through a minute, will respond to the report and will possibly raise some questions which will be considered further by the Committee. I served on that sectional committee. My impression is that the Department of Social Security has applied itself-I use the word 'admirably'-to installing this very sophisticated equipment to better serve the public. Although one or two criticisms may have been expressed, the overall impression has been a good one. Although one or two matters may be addressed as to the overall concept, nevertheless we were impressed by the manner in which the Department had applied itself to the installation of the equipment. That brings me to the point that we must thank the Department and its officers for their co-operation in providing for us all the essential details concerning the installation of the equipment which, of course, will be of benefit to other departments which seek to follow the same course. Because this is the last report of the Committee to this Parliament I place on record my appreciation of the work of a member of the Committee who is retiring from the Parliament-Mr Frank O'Keefe. Mr O'Keefe has served the Committee well and in a way that must be expressed with satisfaction. Committees of this sort have an extremely heavy workload. Only the hardy survive. Frank O'Keefe kept to his task in such a way that the Committee was able to operate. It is always useful to have an anchor person or anchor people who provide the means by which committees and sub-committees are established and can operate. I want to place on record the fact that Frank O'Keefe was of extreme advantage to the Committee. I have already made some comments about Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. I add to them the fact that the Committee has been assisted greatly by the membership of Senator Maguire from South Australia. He brings a particular quality to the Committee because he is able to analyse, because of his background and his discipline, a detailed examination of the various references that come before the Committee. We are grateful to him for his participation. I refer also to Senator Watson who has dedicated himself in support of the national interest. Many references that come before the Public Accounts Committee concern themselves with the efficiency of various departments. Senator Watson has always taken the view, as I think the whole Committee takes the view, that Australian industry must receive preference and that it needs to be protected. Any criticism which the Committee might seek to level, in his view and in the view of the rest of the Committee, must always have in mind that Australian industry should not be disadvantaged. We are grateful for that application by Senator Watson. Vincent Cleary was seconded from the Department of Administrative Services to the Committee for this reference. As Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle indicated, he was invaluable to the Committee. I must put on record the gratitude of the Committee to its secondees. He was one. That sub-committee was without permanent staff. I am pleased to say that the Speaker today announced the appointment of an extra Class 9 and Class 7 to the Committee to support the sectional committee , which I hope Senator Guilfoyle will chair in the future. Joint Committee of Public Accounts Joint Committee of Public Accounts Joint Committee of Public Accounts Joint Committee of Public Accounts Joint Committee of Public Accounts Joint Committee of Public Accounts I also wish to put on record the work of someone who was not involved with the Committee itself but who is on the staff of Senator Guilfoyle. I refer to Catherine Byrne, who was responsible for drawing together the material in the appendices to the report. This is a valuable document because it brings together a variety of papers which have been available but which have never before been brought together. The papers which form Volume 2 are the appendices to the first report on occupational health and safety aspects of the use of visual display equipment. It is not normal for the Committee to print its appendices. It costs a considerable amount to print a document of this sort, but it was felt necessary that this material should be available because it deals with a critical area. The introduction of these systems has thrown up rather starkly the problems which arise from certain applications of new technology. Catherine Byrne was responsible for the compilation of that valuable document, which indicates the remarkable effort and support the Committee receives from secondees and from others on senators' staffs. I have not mentioned the secretariat. The secretariat expects to do its work in the manner and tradition of the Public Accounts Committee, so I shall mention no names here. However, I wish to give the members of the secretariat full recognition for the work they have done for the Committee. The enlargement of the Committee will, I hope, enable it to take advantage in the new Parliament of the skills of the new senators and members of the House of Representatives. We will seek to take advantage of their skills to add to the expertise of the Committee. What I have to say may appear to be somewhat self- congratulatory but it must be said for the record. This Committee, like all committees of the Parliament, works in an essentially non-partisan way. There is very little confrontation, if any, on the Public Accounts Committee. The Committee directed itself to examining the Auditor-General's comments on various departments in an endeavour to improve the efficiency of the various departments . I think the example set by the Committee is one that the Committees of both the Senate and the House of Representatives should look to. Perhaps the exchanges that take place in both Houses should be reassessed and they should begin to operate as the sub-committees of the joint committees and other committees do-in a non-controversial, non-partisan and very effective and co- operative way. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator HAINES(South Australia) —I present the official report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to New Zealand in June 1984. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator HAINES —The Australian Parliamentary Delegation's visit to New Zealand between 3 June and 13 June 1984, which was ably led by Mr Barry Cunningham, MP, with the assistance of Ron Wiber as Secretary, and which consisted of members of parliament from both the House of Representatives and the Senate from all political parties, took place 14 months after the Australia-New Zealand closer economic relations trade agreement, known as CER, was finally signed. The concept of CER came into being as a result of a number of negotiations between Australian and New Zealand leaders in 1979 and 1980. A meeting of the Prime Ministers in March 1980 put in train negotiations which were to lead to the adoption of the CER. Decisions to bring Australia and New Zealand closer together had already been taken at the Nareen meeting between Mr Fraser and the New Zealand Foreign Minister, Mr Talboys, in 1978. As one of the decisions to further co-operation and consultation between the two countries, it was envisaged that there should be regular exchange of parliamentary delegations. This delegation was part of the process conceived then. The value of delegations such as this is perhaps not understood by members of the general public. It is frequently suggested that when members of parliament go on delegations to other countries these trips are perhaps nothing more than mere junkets. In an attempt to set this straight I refer to the comments made on 10 October in another place by Mr Cunningham. He said: It became clear during the visit that, although Australia and New Zealand enjoy a very close relationship, it is nevertheless an extremely sensitive and complex one in many areas. This has been borne out by events since the delegation's visit. We have seen, for example: Differences in attitude towards the visit of nuclear fuelled and armed ships of the United States Navy; continuing discussion about the future direction and progress of the closer economic relations agreement; the unfortunate troubles between Australian and New Zealand shearers in Australia; and the possibility of unhealthy competition between Australia and New Zealand in finding overseas markets for agricultural products. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of goodwill between Australia and New Zealand at the higher levels of government in both countries. The delegation is not competent to talk about problems in the Australia-New Zealand relationship which have arisen since its visit. All of the delegation had discussions relating to the economic relationship and defence. In some ways these discussions have been overtaken by events but they were nevertheless valuable, especially regrading the CER. A detailed outline of the delegation's visit is provided in the itinerary attached at the end of the report. However, I take the opportunity to make one or two remarks further to the remarks made in another place by Mr Cunningham about the value of the delegation in regard to both the official activities of the delegation and the individual program undertaken by members of the group. As you would well know, Mr Acting Deputy President, when a delegation goes overseas it is not kept on the go from seven o'clock in the morning until midnight with officially organised programs and visits. Delegation members are given some free time in which they can relax, get over whatever activities took place earlier, or take the opportunity to go beyond the visits that have been officially organised, and all of us on this delegation took that opportunity. Official visits took place with Ministers and with the leaders of both major parties in New Zealand. We therefore saw the Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Fisheries, the Minister for Science and Technology and Minister of Environment; and the Minister of Trade and Industry. All those Ministers were generous in the time they gave to us. They were open and frank in the discussions we had with them and members on both sides-felt that that they had benefited a great deal. We also saw the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Muldoon, and were fortunate enough to spend some time with Mr David Lange who, unbeknown to us and I dare say to him, was only weeks away from becoming Prime Minister. Group visits were also made to organisations and industries with CER involvement or relevance. These included the Meat Industry Research Institute of New Zealand, Lincoln College, the Ruakura Animal Research Station, PDL Holdings Ltd, which has a considerable link with Australia, and the Comalco aluminium smelter at Tiwa Point. In addition, individual members of the delegation took the opportunity, as I said earlier, to further their knowledge of areas of specific interest to them. Mr Cunningham and Mr Mountford held discussions with the New Zealand Workers Union. Mr Cunningham and Mr Chynoweth visited the laboratories of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Mr Katter and Mr Aldred called on defence and local government officials. These were by no means all the activities in which the male members of the delegation took part. My program tended more towards the areas I am interested in, such as women's affairs, health, social welfare and law reform. I was able to arrange visits with a number of the women members of parliament, including the very remarkable Marilyn Waring who has since retired from parliamentary life but who, I feel sure, will continue another form of political agitation in the areas of women's affairs. I was also able to talk to departmental and public service officials, members of statutory authorities and others whose areas covered the interests I share. These included people from the Human Rights Commission, the Department of Social Welfare, the Equal Employment Opportunities Unit and the Advisory Council on Women's Affairs. The discussions I took part in with those people included such things as maintenance collection programs which, I say with respect, Mr Acting Deputy President, are well ahead of those that currently operate in Australia, and apprenticeship schemes which have sought to avoid some of the problems that apprenticeship schemes involving women in non-traditional areas have faced in Australia, particularly the problems that occur when only a single girl or woman has been placed in an apprenticeship in an area which is non-traditional for her sex. We also discussed community of property legislation, which of course many people in Australia have been looking at for a long time, and so on. Given the wide area of discussions that I and other members of the delegation took part in, both at an official and on an individual level, I have to say that what we gained from that visit more than justified it. Indeed, I was so taken by a number of advances that New Zealand is involved in or is looking at in the areas of interest that I have that I returned for a private visit in August to visit the Accident Compensation Corporation, whose Chairman I had not been able to see while I was in New Zealand in June, to catch up with the new Minister for Social Security in New Zealand, Ann Hercus, to find out what she was doing in those areas, and to discuss with a number of lawyers moves they were making for improvement in family law problems in New Zealand. In conclusion, I make some acknowledgments. The delegation was more than grateful to the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Muldoon, to his Ministers and officers of his Government and to the former Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives, Sir Richard Harrison, as well as to the parliamentary staff for their hospitality and assistance in making the visit a success. On behalf of the delegation I extend our thanks and appreciation to the escort officers who accompanied the delegation during the visit, to Mr Jim Blair from the Department of Internal Affairs, Mr Nick Bridge and Miss Cathie Randall from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, all of whom exerted themselves, I suggest, beyond the call of duty to make the delegation's visit enjoyable and valuable. Question resolved in the affirmative. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —I inform the Senate that the President has received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate ( Senator Button), the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney) and Senator Harradine nominating the following senators to serve on the Select Committee on Video Material: Senators Crichton-Browne, Elstob, Harradine, Jones, Walters and Zakharov. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That Senators Crichton-Browne, Elstob, Harradine, Jones, Walters and Zakharov, having been duly nominated in accordance with Resolution of the Senate dated 17 October 1984, be appointed members of the Select Committee on Video Material. [COGNATE BILLS: DRIED VINE FRUITS EQUALIZATION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 CANNED FRUITS MARKETING AMENDMENT BILL 1984 CANNED FRUITS LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1984 CANNED FRUITS LEVY COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 (No. 2) FISHERIES LICENCES LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1984 FISHING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1984 MEAT EXPORT CHARGE BILL 1984 MEAT EXPORT CHARGE COLLECTION BILL 1984 DAIRY PRODUCTS (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 DAIRY PRODUCTS (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 EGGS (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 EGGS (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 EGG EXPORT LEGISLATION REPEAL BILL 1984 LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) VALIDATION BILL 1983] Debate resumed. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.02) —Before we were interrupted I was speaking on these 20 primary industry Bills. I think I had answered most of the questions asked by various honourable senators. Senator Archer raised the matter of the Tasmanian wheat freight subsidy, which is of interest not only to Senator Archer but to all Tasmanian senators and members who have received delegations on the matter. Senator Archer claimed that restriction of the subsidy to costs of shipment from Geelong-Portland was bad for Tasmania because the wheat actually comes from Newcastle. What in fact happens is that high protein wheat from northern New South Wales is used by industrial wheat processors in Tasmania. It comes from northern New South Wales and is shipped from Tasmania. One of the problems the Government faced was that, even with the subsidy being calculated on the Geelong-Portland freight price, Tasmanian buyers are still very well off. That they are still very well off can be gauged from the response of the Victorian millers, who also use the same wheat. Tasmanian buyers will still be well off as out of the total cost of shipment from Newcastle of about $ 35 per tonne, about $32 will be paid for out of the subsidy. That is, shipment from Newcastle is only $2 to $3 per tonne more than shipment from Geelong and Portland. Therefore, I suggest that important beneficiaries of the subsidy, such as Manildra Starches Pty Ltd, Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd and others, will continue to have a considerable advantage over their mainland competitors. If the change had not been made it certainly would have been unfair to the Victorian buyers of Newcastle wheat who would have claimed-and one would have had difficulty in not agreeing with their claim-that they should also get a subsidy for buying Newcastle wheat as the Tasmanian buyers get it. The Victorian millers and buyers therefore demanded restrictions to the Geelong-Portland freight price as was recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission. It was for that reason that the Government took this decision. I should indicate that the Government does not accept the amendment moved by Senator Scott. We believe that the part of the amendment relating to membership of the Australian Wheat Board has little point. We claim that the industry's concern has already been met by the amendments moved by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, in the House of Representatives. The original draft of the Bill contained the Minister for Primary Industry's proposals for a new structure . They were to reduce the wheat grower representation from each State from two to one as well as to appoint additional expert non-growers. Following strong grower opposition to the proposal to reduce grower representation, the Minister introduced an amendment during the Committee stage in the House of Representatives. The amendments that were moved there were supported. Senator Haines —If you get any more enthusiastic you will have a heart attack. Senator GRIMES —That is all right. I cannot get as enthusiastic as the honourable senator did about her trip overseas. The Minister has announced that he will ensure that a review is conducted in about May 1985. The operation of the new Board and the review will involve both the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation and State governments. The result of this review will form the basis of new legislation to be put before the Parliament by the Government to establish the AWB structure to apply from 1 October 1985. Senator Scott also seeks to have the Wheat Finance Fund replaced as soon as possible. It is true that the Fund will not be repaid immediately. However, it will be paid within nine months as follows: About $60m will be paid as soon as the Bills go through and the remaining $100m will be paid after 1 July. I believe the reasons for these arrangements are obvious to everyone here. As to the domestic human consumption wheat price, Senator Scott asked that in setting this price account be taken of the extra costs involved in servicing the needs of the flour millers. The amendment he has moved here is unnecessary as account has been taken of these costs in the price which the Minister has already announced for 1984-85. The price of $195.25 a tonne includes a margin of $16 a tonne above export parity, that is, above the price which the Australian Wheat Board would get if it exported the wheat, precisely to cover these costs. The price is still $23 per tonne less than the 1983 price, which should bring down the price of bread, I am assured. I realise that there are many Bills in this package. That point has been made by many speakers on the Opposition side. I hope I have answered most of the questions raised in this long debate. I thank those honourable senators who took part in the debate and who actually spoke about the legislation. I thank honourable senators for their co-operation in this matter. I commend the Bills to the Senate. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Scott's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Macklin, M. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Mason, C. V. J. Chipp, D. L. Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterDurack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Evans, Jack Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Haines, J. Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Foreman, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C. Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O. Jessop, D. S. Walsh, P. A. Messner, A. J. Colston, M. A. Chaney, F M. Gietzelt, A. T. Lewis, A. W. R. Ryan, S. M. Reid, M. E. Evans, GarethCollard, S. J. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(6.15) —I find myself in the position of having to query the comments made by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) concerning his assertions on the stabilisation scheme and how it operates. There is a request that the scheme be retained in its existing form. It is interesting to note that the industry itself has not asked for any change to the arrangements. Those who pay for the stabilisation scheme have not requested any change. Obviously to change the scheme would have an effect on the industries that rely on it and also on investment and employment. At present there are plans afoot in Tasmania for new industries based on the assumptions that there will be a stablised and regular price for grain, as has existed since the 1930s. One of the big misapprehensions and misconceptions is that the levy has nothing to do with the producers in any way, shape or form. The producers do not pay the levy, they do not have anything to do with it, it does not affect what they get, and it never will. It is the consumer who pays the levy. The levy is an addition to the price of grain. If the system is changed the people who have complained- the growers-will of course be called on to share the cost which now they do not pay. They will pay through Consolidated Revenue. Up till now the arrangements have worked very satisfactorily. There is nothing at all to be gained from seeing it changed in this way except that it will destabilise the current position. Of course, we need to bear in mind that a stabilised price-that is to ensure that the cost of wheat in the capital cities is maintained on a level-has been a desirable aim for many years. It still exists in relation to many products such as sugar and a wide range of groceries. It is not that a stabilised price is unique in any way, shape or form. One area I believe needs looking at is the Australian National Line monopoly on freight. I am always suspicious of a body such as the ANL having a monopoly when it is working for an instrumentality such as the Australian Wheat Board. I believe that the Wheat Board should seek a better price. I believe the freight arrangements should be thrown open to see whether we can do a lot better than we are currently doing now as far as the freight rate is concerned. I am of the opinion that the Minister has been less than adequately informed on this. However, in the meantime I draw his attention of course to the fact that Mr Morris, the Minister for Transport, has said that the present wheat freight arrangements will remain pending the outcome of the review by the Inter-State Commission. At this stage I say that if the matter is proceeded with-I trust it is not-I hope that that relevant part of the Bill is not promulgated until after that inquiry is concluded. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.19) —Like Senator Archer I have received many representations on this matter. I make a couple of points because I think he also has a misconception about the freight subsidy. The people who have complained about the subsidy are not the mainland wheat growers but the mainland flour millers, the Flour Millers Council of Australia- the users of the wheat. They are paying the subsidy and they are the people complaining that the Tasmanians are receiving an advantage in this way because of the subsidy from Newcastle. They are the people who requested that the recommendation for Portland-Geelong freight be the basis of the actual cost subsidy. As all Tasmanians certainly would know the matter has been referred to the Inter-State Commission, so that there is that back-up. As I said the complaint is from the mainland flour millers and the Flour Millers Council. Senator Archer —No, from the wheat growers in Western Australia. Senator GRIMES —That is not my information at all. Senator Archer's information may come from some Tasmanian sources, but it is certainly not my information. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(6.21) —The suggestion that the price is supposed to be so advantageous also needs checking inasmuch as Tasmanian users pay an extra $5 a tonne to cover the handling of the grain by the Grain Elevators Board, they pay all the haulage costs from the silos to wherever they are and they pay an average of about $4 a tonne for delivery into store. Also they pay a premium because they get the wheat that they require. It is certainly not a matter of getting cheap wheat. If there is to be talk of advantage in any way I just do not understand how this arises. The system that prevails and which is so adequate is that at present there is a $47 a tonne added to the price of consumer wheat to Tasmania to pay the total freight on wheat amounting to about 90,000 tonnes per annum. There are all the shipping disabilities and storage problems at the wharf-heads. It is not that the Tasmanians are getting any great bargain out of this. It is just that as from 1939 it was decided, and it has been maintained, that a stabilised wheat price of capital city prices was desirable. This is in line with many other basic products. That is the situation and that is the way it remains. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.23) —I must point out that the change that has been made is that the subsidy or the levy-whatever honourable senators want to call it; we know the Tasmanians do not like to call it a subsidy-is restricted to that cost differential, that cost from Portland- Geelong to Tasmania. However, growers complain about the subsidy altogether and always have. They claim that the subsidy should come out of Consolidated Revenue . That is not what has been changed. The flour millers and the Flour Millers Council of Australia complained and asked that the freight subsidy between Portland-Geelong and Tasmania be introduced. Senator Walters —They don't complain any more than Kelloggs complain. We get all their goods down there at the same price. Senator GRIMES —One minute ago Senator Walters was saying the growers complained . The growers do not like the subsidy at all. The mainland flour millers do not like the advantage that Tasmania gets. Senator Walters —They don't get an advantage. Senator GRIMES —They do complain considerably. That is why the changes were made . That is why the Government made that decision. Senator Walters —The Department needs a brush up. Senator GRIMES —If anyone else but Senator Walters said that I would be worried. The good senator sits here all the time talking about departments and all the public servants and that nobody knows anything but her. I am afraid I do not believe that at all. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment or requests; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 11 October, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bills be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.26) —by leave-I move the following amendments to the Canned Fruits Marketing Amendment Bill 1984: 1. Page 2, paragraph 3 (f), line 21, leave out '7', insert '10'. 2. Page 5, clause 8, proposed new sub-section 21A (1), line 8, leave out '3', insert '5'. 3. Page 5, clause 8, proposed new sub-section 21B (1), line 21, leave out 'the date of its approval by the Minister', insert: '- (a) the date of its approval by the Minister; or (b) 1 July 1985, whichever is the later'. 4. Page 7, sub-clause 9 (1), lines 29 to 41, leave out the sub-clause. 5. Page 8, sub-clause 9 (4), lines 15 to 17, leave out the sub-clause. 6. Pages 8 and 9, clause 10, line 18 (page 8) to line 6 (page 9), leave out the clause. 7. Page 9, clause 11, lines 7 to 24, leave out the clause. 8. Page 9, paragraph 13 (1) (a), lines 30 to 33, leave out the paragraph. 9. Page 10, sub-clause 13 (2), lines 10 to 14, leave out the sub-clause. These amendments deal with a number of issues, and they can be taken together because they are interrelated. They basically concern the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation. The effect of the first two amendments would be to increase the length of the Corporation's existence from three years to five years. The industry itself feels that for the Corporation to be effective in the next short period it would need a five-year span. The reason for that is that the Corporation is to go out of existence and before it does so it is required to draw up a corporate plan. If one thinks of the practicalities of the matter, it is likely that the vast bulk of the three years set down by the Bill is likely to be used up in considering what will happen after the Corporation ceases to operate. The industry believes that a five-year period is probably the minimum time necessary to do anything productive, and after all five years is consistent with the policy that the Government has adopted in other primary industry areas. For example, we have just debated the wheat marketing legislation in which the operation is over five years, and of course we also passed the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill earlier this year. The next group of amendments refers to the relationship between the Minister and the Corporation. Amendment No. 3 would delete the part of proposed new section 21B (1) which reads 'the date of its approval by the Minister' and insert instead: (a) the date of its approval by the Minister; or (b) 1 July 1985, whichever is the later. This is in keeping with the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation legislation, in which the identical terms appear; that is, that the approval of corporate plans is not totally at the discretion of the Minister. In the Bill, proposed new section 21B (1) states that the corporate plan 'shall not come into force until the date of its approval by the Minister', so it does not give much power at all to the Corporation. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator MACKLIN —Before the suspension of the sitting I was speaking to my amendments, which deal basically with the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation. The first group of amendments, Nos 1 and 2, deals with a three-year or five-year period of time. The Bill lays down a three-year period and my amendments seek to extend that period by two years to allow the Corporation to engage in other activities before it brings down the corporate plan. The third amendment to which I was speaking before the suspension deals with the corporate plan over which, as the the Bill currently stands, the Minister would have total control. Proposed new section 21B (1) lays down that the corporate plan 'shall not come into force until the date of its approval by the Minister'. That is in contradistinction to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill which was passed earlier this year and in relation to which the corporate plan was not to come into force until the date of its approval by the Minister or the date of commencement of the period to which it relates, whichever is the later. In the present situation no time limit is set down at which the corporate plan is to come into operation, irrespective of its approval by the Minister. The Corporation is funded entirely by industry funds. To allow the Minister to have the ultimate say in its plans surely must be the first step, possibly a large step, along the road to the control of the Corporation entirely by the Government, and yet I emphasise that the corporation itself is funded by the growers. That seems to be an odd type situation. If the Minister did not approve the corporate plan, our amendment would bring it into effect on 1 July 1985, which is consistent with the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation legislation. The last group of amendments deals with the position of Deputy Chairperson of the Corporation, a post which this legislation creates for the first time. The Corporation has survived since 1979 without a deputy and we feel that, if the Government considers this change to be necessary, it should either move appropriate amendments to recreate this position or, alternatively, support our amendments now and introduce amending legislation after the election. The industry itself does not feel that the creation of the position of Deputy Chairperson is so important that the rest of the legislation to which it has objection should be passed. I seek a response from the Minister on these propositions, particularly the problem I raised about the three-year period and the problem of the control over the corporate plan. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.05) —The Government is not inclined to agree to Senator Macklin's amendments. It is my advice that they have several effects. They would extend the marketing arrangements by five years , not three. I am told by the advisers that strictly they would extend the arrangements by six years. The industry certainly wanted five years; it is my understanding from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) that it would be satisfied with three. It has been adjusting considerably over the last four and a half years. Production has been brought under control and the canners are not now servicing the large numbers of non-viable markets that they were servicing. It seems to us that they are likely to be in a position not to need the statutory control in three years' time. Therefore the Minister and the Government think it is appropriate that the matter should be reviewed in 1987. It is our understanding that there is general satisfaction in the industry with the marketing arrangements being continued for the present. As for the third amendment, the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation is already working on its corporate plan and the specified date of 1 April 1985 provides adequate time for its completion. It would be good to have this completed as quickly as possible to enable the Corporation to get on with its main task of arranging the marketing of canned fruit. The fourth amendment seeks to remove from the Bill the clause dealing with the appointment of the Chair- person, the Deputy chairperson and two additional specially qualified persons. The appointment of the Chairperson, I am informed, was implicitly wanted by the Corporation and was supported by industry; so we are obviously not talking to the same people. Senator Macklin —I did not say it was not; it is the point of whether or not you will restructure the way you have it in the legislation. Senator GRIMES —The Department and the Minister advise me that the appointment of two extra members would strengthen the advice available to the Corporation and the industry, I am informed, sees merit in it. I find it difficult to understand what Senator Macklin is objecting to in the appointment of these people. We believe that the amendments should be opposed. The marketing arrangements would cease in December 1984 as the Bill could not be enacted in time, and we do not think that this is a very sensible way to go about it. Certainly, the matter should be reviewed and will be under continuous review. We are rather surprised at the amendments because we thought that the industry was pretty satisfied with the way things had panned out as a result of the consultation. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(8.08) -I can only say that I have not received indications from the industry that the quite extensive amendments proposed by Senator Macklin are of very serious concern to it. I think the important thing is the element of review by 1987 and I believe that this Bill expands considerably the borrowing powers of the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation. It enables the Corporation to undertake in its own right hedging operations and it achieves certain things that are believed to be of some real significance. Consequently, in the circumstance of an existing review, I do not believe that the amendments should be supported. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Macklin's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 45 —— Evans, Jack Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Haines, J. Mason, C. V. J. Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasBoswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Button, J. N. McIntosh, G. D. Carrick, Sir John Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Martin, K. J. Coates, J. Missen, A. J. Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Durack, P. D. Robertson, E. A. Elstob, R. C. Scott, D. B. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Teague, B. C. Grimes, D. J. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hearn, J. M. Withers, R. G. Hill, R. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment or requests; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Debate resumed from 9 October, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(8.18) -I wish to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984. I formally move: At end of motion, add ', but, in relation to the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984, the Senate is of the opinion that the legislation should not have been introduced until completion of an off-shore constitutional settlement between the Commonwealth and the States formalising areas of fisheries administration'. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.19) —Senator Scott's amendment seeks to add these words to the motion for the second reading of the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984: but, in relation to the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984, the Senate is of the opinion that the legislation should not have been introduced until completion of an off-shore constitutional settlement between the Commonwealth and the States formalising areas of fisheries administration. I am informed that implementation of the off-shore constitutional settlement is still being considered by the Government. A delay in the commencement of this legislation until the off-shore constitutional settlement is completed could delay the collection of levies to support schemes such as the northern prawn fishery voluntary licence entitlement buy-back scheme initiated at the request of the industry. The legislation provides machinery for imposing a levy to support management regimes requested by and for the long term benefit of the industry. The levy will not be imposed without full consultation with the industry. To delay commencement of this legislation until the off-shore constitutional settlement is completed could delay desirable fisheries management schemes for the benefit of the industry which need to be supported by the levies. For that reason the Government opposes the amendment. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(8.21) —I am concerned that the legislation is far more open-ended than I believe is desirable in a case such as this. There is no doubt that the legislation was designed to take care of a particular operation-that is , buy-back system in the Gulf of Carpentaria-and I believe legislation to do exactly that would have been appropriate. When I read some of the clauses and the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) I find that it is extraordinarily wide, and I do not know how it will possible to ensure that it is used for the purpose for which it was originally designed. For instance, the speech says in part: . . . this is a straightforward Bill that does no more than establish flexible machinery for subsequently imposing levies. It is not intended that the fishing industry levy should be a means of raising general revenue . . . the levy will apply only to fisheries in which the Commonwealth has the sole or a major responsibility for managing and will not apply to fisheries for which States are solely responsible. I cannot find the sorts of things that will put any limits on any declaration of any sort. There is nothing in the speech to indicate the sort of level to be charged. In fact the reverse is the case, because the speech says: Levy will be imposed only to fund specific management programs or associated research activities in particular fisheries, after consultation with the segment of the fishing industry and the State or States concerned. That does not mean that agreement has to be obtained from anybody. I have seen many such arrangements where consultation does not necessarily mean agreement. Whilst I certainly support managed fisheries and a lot of industry participation and payment, I really believe that this legislation is far broader than is appropriate. I cannot see who is to determine the appropriate level and cost of management, for instance. I cannot see how much real say anybody is going to have in the management of it. I would appreciate some advice on that point. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.23) —I can understand Senator Archer's concern-how is that for being benevolent?-with legislation of this type. However, I make the following points which I think are important: First of all, the legislation is designed to collect levies on a fishery by fishery basis to fund projects requested by the industry. It is certainly not designed-I think even Senator Archer would admit that it would not be a very efficient way-to raise money for general revenue purposes. It is specifically for this purpose. Senator Archer —I did not allude to that. Senator GRIMES —I know. I can understand the honourable senator saying that he does not want general revenue raising by back door methods of this type. I too would look at legislation of that type with some suspicion. In each fishery the consultation will be with the industry and with the States. Levies will be set, I am instructed, by regulation which may be disallowed by either House of the Parliament. I am sure that those on the opposite side of the chamber will keep a close eye on this. All legislation of this type depends on its sensible operation by government and by the Public Service. It is my understanding that it was designed in this way to provide the flexibility and capacity to assist the various schemes which, as Senator Archer knows, vary considerably across the country. If anyone tried to put on a levy or a scheme which was inappropriate, I should imagine that the scream that would arise from that fishery and the industry quite justifiably would quickly provoke action in this place. Although I can understand any honourable senator's concern about this sort of legislation, in this case it has been introduced following consultation with the industry and I think that will continue. We will provide a means whereby the various support mechanisms which are needed in those industries will be able to be enacted without having to keep coming back to this Parliament every time some industry needs some project introduced. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(8.26) —I am pleased to have that statement in the Hansard. I accept it as it is. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment or requests; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Debate resumed from 11 October, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(8.27) —I move: At end of motion, add ', but, in relation to the Meat Export Charge Bill 1984, the Senate calls upon the Government to implement a moratorium on charges for 2 years after the date upon which the legislation receives the Royal Assent'. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.28) —The Government opposes the amendment. The introduction of an export charge will complement the slaughter charge. It will not increase total receipts in relation to export inspection services. The new system is intended to benefit export registered abattoirs by allowing them to compete for livestock with domestic abattoirs. It will benefit the owners of small stock, particularly small cattle, sheep, pigs and goats, by reflecting lower total charges for the lower costs of inspection of those animals and meat therefrom. It will also benefit considerably owners of cattle who slaughter them in export works for consumption on the domestic market . These beneficial effects should not be deferred for two years. The deferral would have no effect on revenues. The Government would not then be prepared to reduce the slaughter charge from $4.35 to $2.25 per adult beast equivalent. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Boswell's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Macklin, M. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Mason, C. V. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Evans, Jack Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Haines, J. Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Lajovic, M. E. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Hearn, J. M. Jessop, D. S. Walsh, P. A. Messner, A. J. Colston, M. A. Chaney, F. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Chipp, D. L. Ryan, S. M. Kilgariff, B. F. Evans, Gareth Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question, as amended, agreed to. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.35) —I have circulated an amendment to the Meat Export Charge Bill 1984 and I therefore move: That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment in the Meat Export Charge Bill 1984: 'Page 1, clause 2, line 6, leave out all words after ''operation'', insert ''2 years after the day on which it receives the Royal Assent'' '. This amendment would effectively impose the two year moratorium which was part of the package brought forward by the Interim Inspection Policy Council. During the second reading speech debate I raised a number of issues in regard to this. In response to the amendment to the second reading moved by Senator Boswell, the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) said it would disrupt the situation with regard to domestic charges in the abattoirs. This amendment that I have circulated would not do anything of the sort because it is an amendment only to the export part of the legislation and not to the Act which has a collection of charges under the Meat Export Charge Act. So the Government can put the charges on the abattoirs and still have the moratorium for two years on the export. The major reason that anyone would want to bring forward this amendment is that which is spelt out very clearly in the Interim Inspection Policy Council document in relation to this matter. The Council presented a package deal to the Government, which I think received unamimous support amongst all meat producers in Australia, and that is a difficult task considering that in the past, particularly under the Fraser Government, it had not been able to come up with a proposition to satisfy both meat and pork producers at the same time. This package does it, and I think does it well. The Government accepted only part of the deal, and herein lies the problem. Essentially we are talking about fractions of a cent with regard to the profit margin per kilogram, yet in terms of the export inspection charge, we are talking about 1.89c a kilogram. So in the ordinary course of dealings we are looking at something which would overwhelm the profit margin available to an exporter of meat. The Government is now saying that in terms of the manufacturing industry we will have export incentives, and in terms of the meat industry we will have an export disincentive. That is absurd. I do not wish to go into the various other reasons that we rehearsed in terms of the Interim Inspection Policy Council document because I think it is sufficient to rely on the ability of Australia's meat export producers and to say this: They must have the ability to compete in the export market. In so doing they are in a very tight and very competitive market in which fractions of a cent make a difference. The Interim Inspection Policy Council's idea was that by putting the two year moratorium on, our markets would be able to move into a number of areas in fair competition-I wish to emphasise that-with our major competitors because our major competitors do not pay export charges. So by imposing this we are seeking to raise revenue. That is fair enough. But in raising that revenue we are putting our own producers at more than one cent per kilogram disadvantage. That does not make any sense at all because we have to look at the downstream effects, which are basically these: If we cannot find export markets, obviously we lose that part of economic activity in Australia. That affects not only the producer but also many other areas. In my State, for example, many of the people who offer services in the country towns depend on producers. So we have the downstream effect. People who travelled out west during the drought years would know what an enormous contraction of activity took place in those country towns. It affected every person. What we are saying is this: The total effect of this operation is not just that the Government will lose $14m, the figure which the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, gave at the Cattle Council of Australia meeting; by imposing this levy the Government could very well lose in excess of that amount through the loss of economic activity downstream effects and disruption to services in country towns. This move does not make much sense considering the period we are entering. We have had a good growing season. Producers are now on their feet. We have good prices and we have the ability, if we can move in a very strong and vigorous way, to make penetrations into export markets that we have not made before. We should at least give the industry a chance. That is all it is asking for. It is not asking for the export charge to be cut out. It realises the realities of the situation; it realises the realities of budgeting. The industry could not get anywhere with the Fraser Government on this matter so it realises that it is not on that it will end up not paying this export charge. It is saying: 'Let's have the moratorium. Let's have a breathing space. Let's have a chance to really get going so that we can see what we can do. At the end of the two years the Government can come back and look at the situation'. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.43) —With respect, I think Senator Macklin is overstating his case just a little. I understand that it costs over $100 to slaughter a beast. Senator Macklin —What about the profit margin? Senator GRIMES —I am talking about the costs involved in killing and exporting a beast. Senator Boswell —It costs about $12. Senator GRIMES —I am talking about what it costs per beast. The honourable senator is talking about knocking off 2.4c per kilogram per beast on a much larger sum of money. I do not pretend to be an expert on these matters like some honourable senators opposite. Senator Watson —You are getting expert advice. Senator GRIMES —I am getting expert advice and I believe that more than I believe the honourable senator. As Senator Macklin has said, the effect in essence of eliminating this charge for two years will be a cost to the revenue of $28m. It is as simple as that. If it costs the revenue $28m the Government will not be prepared to reduce the slaughter charge from $4.35 to $2.55 per beast equivalent. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has made that clear; the Government has made that clear. I point out that the amount Senator Macklin is trying to eliminate is very small in terms of the total cost of preparing a beast for export. In that situation I do not believe and my advisers do not believe that it will have a catastrophic effect in all the country towns that Senator Macklin has said he goes to and talks to people. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(8.44) —I believe that one or two points need to be added to the debate at this stage. At one stage the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) mentioned that the Government had taken notice of a recommendation of the Interim Inspection Policy Council. I would confirm that it did. What he did not go on to say was why the Government chose a part of the recommendation that would cost money to one section of the producers and leave the rest out. I believe that to take one item out of an overall recommendation is somewhat less than adequate and less than reasonable at a time like this. The proposal that was put up by the Council was, in itself, a package. To pick out an item and say 'we are taking this out of the recommendations' is quite crazy, but still we have come to expect that. Further on the report talks about the case for assistance-not 'disassistance'. It talks a lot about the question of margins. The sort of money that we are discussing is a fine portion of a cent. One only has to look at other primary produce that we sell-for example, sugar or butter-to see that we have taken this into account and we have a domestic price which is in excess of a world price. With this method we will have a domestic price and a world price but they will be the wrong way round. The cost of the meat production is entirely determined by the cost of production based on Australia's domestic costs. But reality is that when we sell the product we sell it on world markets and the more we pad our costs and the more we let them get out of hand, the more disadvantaged we become when we meet the realities of the cold world outside. I do not seem to be able to find anyone in the Government who understands that domestic costs and world prices cannot work against one another indefinitely. Earlier today the Minister made some comments about the Bureau of Agricultural Economics publication 'Trends in the Rural Sector, September Quarter 1984' and I think that his copy must have been incomplete. In respect of meat he mentioned the fact that it was possible that there would be an increase in sales to the United States and Japan. But apparently the first line of that paragraph was missing in his copy because it said there there was a forecast decline of 14,000 tonnes of beef this year. Now 14,000 tonnes represents one heck of a lot of money when it comes to the situation of the industry and the returns that will be distributed amongst the people who are producing in that industry. It is quite inappropriate to hit an industry on the way down. I have never liked levies on exports when one is an exporting country. No other country in the world which is in any significant position in the meat export trade levies its exports with a tax at the point of sale. In the case of every one of our competitors this inspection is paid for by the Government-it does not conflict with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade-as a means of ensuring that producers are able to compete on the world market. I fail to see why we need to try to penalise our industry in this way. Senator Haines —Who put it on in the first place? The Fraser Government. Senator ARCHER —If the honourable senator had been listening she would know that I have already said that we are on a downward trend. I did not like the levy when it was put on, but the market changed. I heard one honourable senator opposite say something today about the failure of the Fraser Government to match its 50 per cent cost. Of course it did not because it knew enough about the industry to know that it could not do that. That is why the policy of the Opposition now is that there will be no export inspection fees when we are back in government. Of course there cannot be export inspection fees. It is the most ill-conceived thing that one could possibly do when one is competing in a world market. It is fundamentally wrong. It assumes a profitability and a capacity to pay which, frankly, just do not exist in any of these areas at present, and it is unlikely that they will exist in the near future. If this is so good and the right thing to do, why are not all of the countries with which we compete doing it? What was the purpose of setting up an inquiry to find out what was the right thing to do, and then to say: 'We did not like the answer so we shall not go on with it'? Of course there was room for an inquiry, and of course the answer was the right one. It is not a matter of whether it will cost $14m. That is peanuts compared with the unemployment cost in the meat industry now. As I mentioned last night, one little meat works that puts off 100 people costs the Government in unemployment relief as much in 17 weeks as the total of export fees for the year. Where is the profit in that? What is the advantage of saying, 'Yes, we collected our export inspection fees', if the place has to shut and nothing will be collected in the future? The Government will not collect $250,000, it will not collect tax from 100 men, and it will have to expend $15,000 a week on unemployment relief. For how long can we run a country like this when we are pouring money down the sink because we have an ideological hang-up about trying to keep people working? It is quite extraordinary and so totally inconsistent with what we are trying to achieve. Minerals are bad; manufactured products are bad. Our rural products must compete, and they are the things we have so much of. We are still talking about roughly 40 per cent of the export market being in rural products. Apparently all we want to do is to nail the producers to the wall. It is these last few cents that are all important for so many of the products of primary industry now. By the time that we have had a bit of a gallop on inflation in the New Year and so on, where shall we go to then? Fifty per cent of nothing is exactly nothing. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.52) —I have heard that sort of thing from Senator Archer before, and I am not doubting his sincerity. I just repeat what the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) pointed out in another place and what many people involved in the industry point out also: The cost of getting a beast slaughtered, dressed, chopped, minced and all the other things and put on to the market is somewhere between $100 and $160. Senator Macklin and Senator Archer may suggest that the charges involved here will reach the level that the Minister in another place called the defining amount of money which will determine whether an abattoir closes down or is financial. We believe , as I think most people believe, that, to quote the Minister again, the honourable senators are having themselves on. There are many other factors which will have a greater effect than this. We are talking about asking an industry to provide 50 per cent of the costs of essential inspection charges. Whether we raise the revenue this way or some other way, the costs have to be met. It was the previous Government's policy to do it this way; it is our policy to do it this way. Therefore, I just repeat that, for that reason, the Government opposes the amendment. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(8.54) —The Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) seems to have some misunderstanding about what the word 'profit' means and how businesses run. I ask him to think about this. He obviously does not understand the meat industry but perhaps we can relate the position we are debating to his own profession. If one's expenses are X and one's overheads are X-plus, one goes broke. That is exactly what the Government is doing to the meat industry. It is taking the last 2c of profit out of the meat industry. Meat manufacturers make, on average, 2c a kilogram profit. That is very simple; I hope that the Minister can understand that. Now the Government is imposing a charge of 2.4c per kilogram. The inevitable result is bankruptcy. Even people in the Australian Labor Party should be able to understand that. There is no way out of it. If one makes 2c and one is charged 2.4c one goes broke. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.55) —My quick and brief response is that with the exchange rate going up and down one can wipe out one's profit-if that is what the profit is-every second day of the week. I suppose the honourable senator is advocating that we go back to fixing the exchange rate. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.56) —The proposition I was putting concerned profit margins. The Interim Inspection Policy Council, a body appointed by the Government, made an identical proposition. It is not one that I alone am putting forward. The body which looked into this matter, which took submissions and examined the industry, came up with a solution which gained wide acceptance by all meat growers. I go further than that, as I did in my speech at the second reading stage. Not only the Council but also the Minister for Primary Industry ( Mr Kerin) holds this view. In my speech at the second reading stage I quoted from a response which the Minister gave to a question he was asked at a Cattle Council of Australia conference on 15 September. A part I did not quote in my speech makes another very interesting point, and it is this: Treasury and Finance basically have the view that inspection costs should be charged, the user pays. There should be a 100% recoupment-that's always their position. So in other words in any budgetary situation a person in my position is fighting to hold the line. There was no way they- He was referring to the Cabinet- would wear a two year moratorium . . . The other problem was the political hazard. 84 per cent of the abattoirs weren' t paying at the time I was being threatened with High Court action and the Senate was obstructing even on a validation Bill . . . quite frankly, this is the first time I have said it, the political hazards of me going forward with a recommendation of a two year moratorium in those circumstances, wasn't very inviting to success . . . So I quite happily admit it . . . It is a decision that I have to live with. I think people who say that this isn't really facilitating exports are perfectly correct. It is not facilitating exports. The essence of the whole proposition is: How are we to facilitate exports? When I suggested the downstream effect, the Minister did not seem to think that there was one. Page 7 of the Interim Inspection Policy Council report refers to a works in Western Australia. It states that the cattle kill of that works will be reduced by an estimated 60,000 per year since the increase in charges of which 15,000 could be directly attributed to diversion resulting from the increase in export inspection charges. That diversion was to the domestic kill. The report states: For each 15,000 head, $405,000 in net revenue . . . had been lost from by- product operations. The failure to earn this revenue was a loss to the community at large as domestic plants in the area could not recover by-products . . . The report seeks to state what the effect will be as it goes down through the community. We are not talking about something that can be overcome. I know that when one talks about fractions of a cent it sounds as though one is not talking about very much. But in a fixed currency, which is what one is operating with when one gets an export deal going, one is not talking about fluctuations in currency at all. Fluctuations are built into the deal itself. We are talking about fractions of a cent. It is all very well to think that we are talking about $160 for a beast to go through the various processing stages. When one has gone through all of that one still has to deal with a profit margin in terms of fractions of a cent. In a tight export market one has to look at every saving which one can make. If one cannot make any savings in terms of costs-farm costs, input costs-one has to look at other charges which are imposed. The industry is not saying that it will not pay these inspection charges: It is simply asking for a two-year moratorium. It is hoping in that time to be able to establish those markets and to convince the Government of the viability of the operation, to show the Government what happens when the export market is increased and to show the rest of the community that it is actually gaining revenue and not losing revenue. If we look at this situation in isolation we see a $14m a year loss: But we cannot look at any of these items in isolation; we have to look at them in the totality of the economic situation. My proposition is that there would be a net gain to the community if we did not impose those charges. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(9.01) — The question of inspection charges on exports has interested me in particular since we had a look at the question of the honey export inspection charges. I have been curious about this subject ever since. I remind honourable senators that when we looked at the question of the honey export inspection charges we found that the people who were purchasing the honey did not require all of the vast array of complicated procedures which kept many bureaucrats engaged in their heavy regulatory activities. In fact, it was possible for Australia to export honey without needing all of those procedures. Senator Macklin —Which government introduced that Bill? Senator PETER RAE —That is an interesting question. I think one could say that it was the same bureaucracy. I wish to add that the problem of meat export inspection charges has been in existence for a long time. Some specific highlights have hopped around the scene kangaroo-like, as it were, which took attention away for a little while from some of the real problems that were investigated by Bert Kelly and his Committee of Inquiry to Examine the Commonwealth and State Meat Inspection Systems. It is unfortunate that we have not got back to the detail of the Kelly report rather than indulging in the aberrant behaviour related to the kangaroo meat substitution problems. The fact is that we have duplication between Commonwealth and State and we have an over-supply of inspectors. We have an over-supply of bureaucrats to deal with the question of inspection. For years now I have had complaints from people actually engaged in that profession to the effect that they are embarrassed to take money for playing cards; that it gets difficult to work out who will work for his hour a day while the others play cards or fill in time one way or another. I think that it is a matter of very considerable concern for the Senate again to just rubber stamp meat export inspection charges at the same time as we are considering the continuation of all sorts of other export development incentives which have been provided to various sectors of industry. Huge public expenditure is being outlaid to encourage exports at a time when we have an industry in Australia struggling to maintain its position against the competition of the subsidised productivity of the European Economic Community under the common agricultural policy which is swamping the world with products which I say flatly and simply are more often than not dumped in the markets of the world to compete against efficient producers such as Australia. Those efficient producers have enough problems trying to compete on a fair basis in the available markets without having imposed on them what is not imposed on a large cross-section of the exporting industries, that is, an extra cost in relation to their export activities. What we do for a large cross-section of exporting industries is encourage, either by the provision of some form of tariff or by other protection, the domestic market, to export or at least withstand competition from other exports. Alternatively, we positively encourage a whole lot of our domestic producers of various products to go out and sell in other parts of the world and we pay them very substantial amounts of public money to do so. When it comes to the primary sector we want a user pays provision to apply. What worries me is that the Department of Primary Industry today is the same Department as yesterday. I do not blame any government for this; I am not suggesting that the Government today is any different from the government of yesterday in relation to the provision of these charges. The Department has not been changed, and neither have its attitudes. It still takes the same sort of approaches as have been adopted in the past. It might be more effective if the Department were to ask about the huge sink that the Cattlemen's Association used to talk about in the middle of the Pacific where the funds were dropped that represented the difference between the export price in Australia and the import price in the United States. Where are the shipping and insurance costs and the extra loadings that have come about as a result of the various types of activities that have apparently been engaged in the export beef market? Why have various people who have endeavoured to inquire into this area been dissuaded from pursuing their inquiries? Would it not be better in the interests of Australia if we encouraged the export market in what is left of our beef industry rather than added further discouragement? Would it not be encouraging to that industry if it thought that some people in government and on both sides of the Parliament had some sympathy for its plight, particularly for the difficulties it has in competing against two things-firstly, subsidised dumped exports in its markets coming from Europe, and secondly, practices which take off the cream, if I can use that expression in relation to meat, of the financial transactions between the export from Australia and the import into the markets which are their destination. I express a continuing concern. It relates not only to honey but also to meat and a number of other agricultural products in Australia. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.08) —I hope Senator Peter Rae feels better now that he has got all that off his chest. I well remember the honey. We all remember honey in this place. The only trouble is that meat ain't honey and honey ain't meat. Senator Boswell —That is about all you know about it. Senator GRIMES —I will tell the honourable senator something he does not know in a minute; he should just hold on. The inspection of meat is essential to its export, as Senator Rae knows, whereas the inspection of honey was not. It is the Government's policy to have a uniform inspection service. We have made progress along that line in New South Wales and Victoria. I pointed out in the second reading speech that the cost of extra meat inspectors, the 111 of them or whatever the figure is, is not added to the costs here. I correct something that Senator Boswell, I think, said. The United States recovers the costs incurred in providing an export inspection service when those services exceed the basic services provided by mandatory inspection for domestic consumption, but the costs are not so great in the United States. That country has a relatively low level of exports. There are charges for meat inspection in Argentina, Ireland, the United Kingdom, West Germany, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Japan. There are even some minor charges in New Zealand. So let us not hear this story that no other country makes export charges of this type. Other countries do. I just say that we reject the amendment and we had better put it to the vote before someone starts making comparisons with cut flowers. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(9.11) —Two points arise that I need to mention. Firstly, earlier in the day the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, was talking about the export inspection fees and who pays them. He said that I was trying to protect the big people at the expense of the poor people and so on . On the question of application of the fees, every export works in Tasmania provides, and most of the export works on the mainland provide, meat both for export and for domestic consumption. So when all or some of the beast is exported, all the cost of inspection is borne by the producer and/or the processor. When it is sold domestically the customer will almost certainly participate in the cost of inspection because on the domestic market the butcher can include that cost. That cannot be done on the export market. In domestic sales the advantage of inspection-there is only one advantage in the inspection and that is entirely to the purchaser; there is no advantage to the processor or the producer-is entirely a social domestic advantage that goes to the people who eat the meat. People, whether they are low income earners, wealthy or whatever, all benefit from the inspection. It could be paid out of general revenue and those who could not afford it would then in fact pay less than they do now. The people who could afford to pay more would pay more. That is the position with the fees, which is completely different from what the Minister was trying to sell us earlier in the day. My other point relates to meat inspectors. Yes, I did see an advertisement in the Australian for four senior meat inspector positions in Victoria, at a time when the Commonwealth is about to amalgamate with the Victorian service. To advertise for four positions at a time when we are already overstocked by about 200 in the Federal field is absolutely crazy. I realise the reason. I rang up the Department. I was given exactly the information I asked for. It confirms my worst fears, that is purely and simply a back door means of putting four people on to permanent Commonwealth Public Service rates before the system is taken over. We certainly do not need four meat inspectors of any calibre. If anybody tries to kid me that the people now acting in those jobs, as temporaries, will not get those positions, I will be most surprised. What are we doing to ensure that we do not overload the meat inspection service with more people who will be absolutely redundant before we start. We already have about 200, on my reckoning . What do we want to make it-204? Who will pay? It will mean another four inspectors at salaries between $18,215 a year and $21,502 a year, plus all the bits and pieces. That is another cost that the industry will be asked to bear. There is no reason in the world why the Victorians at this stage of the negotiations should seek to employ people on permanent arrangements. It is absolutely scandalous if that is going on. I feel for the people acting in those jobs, and who may have been acting in them for some time, I understand. It is quite wrong that the Commonwealth should be seen as the big sponge, picking up these people and putting them on to permanent arrangements. I would like to know whether those people are needed and, if so, why. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.15) -Very briefly I want to say that I agree with the sentiments expressed by a number of speakers on this side of the chamber tonight. I believe that I know as much about this industry as at least a number of people in the chamber. As an Opposition we have gone to very great ends to try to get over the problem of inspection costs. We delayed the legislation and caused a committee to be set up to examine the issue in depth, to discuss the issue with the industry and across the board and to report to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and to advise him. However, almost unbelievably he has taken a stance that bears no relationship whatsoever to reality. He has finally forced himself into a position of being faced with a matter relating to revenue and to the Budget. In those circumstances we are not prepared to move. If we move in this instance we will be asked to move in that direction on a whole range of other matters. We have gone to the ultimate length to try to indicate to the Minister and to the Government that the situation they propose is unreasonable as it relates to the Australian export industry. We have done our very best to convince the Minister that the least he should do is to establish the moratorium that was suggested in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations . The Minister has not done that. I again appeal to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) tonight to take this matter up as a final resort. It would not be an impossible thing for the Minister for Primary Industry to reverse the decision as it now stands; it would not be a precedent. It is only a few weeks ago that as a result of successful urging by the people at the grass roots of the Australian wheat industry and promotion by the Opposition and, indeed, the Australian Democrats that the Minister took a very distinct step in the direction that the wheat industry required him to take. The Minister realised the strength of industry feeling and reacted intelligently in that at least he has postponed that matter until October next year which will enable new legislation to be brought down. New legislation will be brought down as a result of an intensive and in-depth review of the industry. That was an expression of responsibility. Before the Opposition votes against this amendment, which ultimately relates to revenue matters, I appeal to the Government once more to respect the strong recommendations of the Committee, to reverse the decision as it applies to the two-year moratorium and comes to grips with a situation that may well put the Australian industry in a position that will allow it to compete effectively in the international beef markets. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(9.18) —I do not think the Opposition refutes the Government's claim that the additional inspection costs represent less than, say , one per cent of the value of an average beast slaughtered. While that comparison in itself might be insignificant, the Government has failed to acknowledge that the imposition of this slaughter charge decreases by up to 90 per cent the average profit margin of that transaction. When the slaughter levies are so significant-up to 90 per cent of the profit margin-that is when the levy becomes significant. That is what we are arguing about. We are not talking about the relationship of the one per cent to the total value of the beast slaughtered; it is the relationship of this impost to the profit margin of up to 90 per cent. Without that profit margin we get no investment, no employment and the industry is decimated. That is the matter about which we are trying to convince Senator Grimes. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(9.20) —As Senator Scott has said, the Meat Export Charge Bill is a Budget measure. I am delighted to hear the assurance that the Government has not only tried but also will continue in its efforts to avoid the duplication of the inspection process and will achieve a reduction in the cost impost which has been created as a result of that duplication. I do not believe that we will end the problems by any single action at this stage but rather we must encourage the Government to realise that many more problems exist in relation to this industry than appear to have been dealt with until now. This debate is an expression of, firstly, concern as to the future of the industry and, secondly, a hope for greater empathy from the Government with the problems being experienced than is evident at the moment. Whilst the amendment is a nice way of expressing some sympathy, it does interfere with the fundamental entitlement of a government of the day to introduce its Budget measures and conduct its fund raising on a proper basis. If we spent a little more time on making the service more efficient, finding out where the sink is and where the losses are, probably we would be serving the interests of the industry far more effectively than we will be by continuing this debate. For that reason I support what Senator Scott has said. I deprecate the dumping on to our markets by the European Economic Community. I express my concern at the duplication which has taken place in the past, at the bureaucratic attitude towards the necessity for padded inspection services and padded recoveries, and at the confusion which exists in relation to how we cost recovery and how many people in various departments, as well as on the slaughterhouse or abattoir floor, are to be included in cost recovery operations . There does seem to be considerable confusion at the bureaucratic level, whichever government is in office. The amendment will not solve the problem but perhaps a bit of government sympathy and a bit of government activity, which might get the Department of Primary Industry to the nub of the problem, will solve it. I do hope that the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations may continue the inquiry which at one stage it was inclined to undertake into what is really happening in the industry. Perhaps it can even consider evidence from some of the people who have done a lot of work concerning what happens in this industry world-wide, from Argentina to Europe and from the United States to Australia. It may be that if we look in the Hong Kong direction we will find the real answer to the problems. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(9.23) —I express sympathy for the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, who is clearly out of his depth. He has had to carry the can for the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, who conveniently is away at the moment. Senator Macklin —He is doing a good job; he is trying. Senator BOSWELL —He is doing a shocking job. I am sorry for him; he is completely out of his depth. The Minister has indicated that the Meat Export Charge Bill will recover $28m. I ask whether the Government has considered the jobs that will be lost in the industry when it is no longer competitive. That is what the Government should have costed, not just the $28m that it will recover. I wonder whether the Department of Primary Industry can give the Minister some indication of how many people will be put into the dole queues. The number of meat inspectors surplus to needs is around 200, and it is only the tip of the iceberg. The management of any meatworks will testify that many meat inspectors are pushed into meatworks where they are not required just to get them off the surplus list. Even the small meatworks managements say: 'We don 't need all these meat inspectors-they are falling over the top of each other. They've got to put them somewhere, so they're inflicting them on us'. I hope the Minister for Social Security does not find this amusing. Many people out in the community will be worried about their jobs tomorrow if this Bill goes through. I ask the Minister to seek advice from his Department as to how many jobs will be lost if this Bill goes through tonight. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.27) —I thank Senator Boswell for his kind words. I sometimes wish there were a rule in this place that senators could speak on subjects on which they were experts. Such a rule would render Senator Boswell mute. Senator Boswell —It would take you right out of this debate. Senator GRIMES —Once Senator Boswell gets outside the street lights in Brisbane, where he lives, he is lost. He should not be coming into the Senate saying unkind things to me-that is not very nice at all. I assure Senator Scott that I do not sit through debates like this, and I do not listen to what I concede are genuine concerns from Opposition senators, without letting the Department of Primary Industry, which I represent in this place, or the Minister whom I represent in this place know about it. Of course I will draw to the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Department the views which have been expressed in this debate. There has been considerable consultation on this matter. I think Senator Scott probably knows, because he at least keeps up with these matters, that early in October representatives of the meat industry met and had discussions with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Primary Industry, but as a result the situation did not change. A Press release was put out at the time. The Minister for Primary Industry pointed out that the delegation requested a moratorium for two years on the export component of the meat industry charge. Currently there is legislation before the Parliament to replace the existing per carcass charging mechanism with a per carcass levy at the point of export. The proposed alteration to the charging mechanism will not increase revenue to the Government. I am further advised that a two-year moratorium on the export component would not provide a significant long term benefit to the industry. Accordingly, the Government was not prepared to review its earlier decision not to grant such a moratorium. The Government is prepared to consider, on a no- commitment basis, ways in which it might assist the industry to put into place an industry revival package, should such a package be developed by the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Policy Council. That is the answer, but of course following this debate I shall refer to the Minister for Primary Industry the views of Opposition senators. Senator Boswell, in asking how much on my budget these charges will cost, is basing that question on the absolute certainty he has-no one else has it-that the addition of this very small charge in the total percentage of the cost of export meat will result in even more abattoirs closing and people being put out of work. I remind him that in the time of the previous Government some 32 abattoirs closed in this country and put people out of work. I remind him that that happened under what Senator Boswell considered to have been an enlightened government. He should not get up in this chamber, pour out his passions on me, and ask me to go back to work out figures based on a hypothesis that is his and his alone. I also resent the fact that people such as Senator Boswell get up in this place and rave on, saying that there are terrible people in the Labor Party like Senator Walsh, the Minister for Resources and Energy, who is a farmer, and Senator Primmer, who is also a farmer, who have no concern for rural people, and that people like myself and others, who have lived in rural areas all our lives, have no concern for rural people. Senator Peter Rae —You come from the best rural area in Australia. Senator GRIMES —Of course I do. I bought the land where I used to live from Senator Rae and others. That shows how closely attuned to the land we are. The simple fact of the matter is-I say it in a political way but it is a fact-that the Opposition had its go for 23 years and then another seven years. I have not see any great advancement in the rural industries in this country from what were primarily the policies of the Liberal and National parties. I think the problem is that too many people in the then National Party were like Senator Boswell in that they lived in the city and did not know too much about what was going on in the country. I persist with the legislation. I assure honourable senators that I will bring their views to the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry, and the primary industry committee of the Government. I conclude by saying that we resist the amendments. Question put: That the request (Senator Macklin's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 44 —— Evans, Jack Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Haines, J. Mason, C. V. J. Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McClelland, DouglasBolkus, N. MacGibbon, D. J. Button, J. N. McIntosh, G. D. Carrick, Sir John Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Martin, K. J. Coates, J. Missen, A. J. Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G. Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterCook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Durack, P. D. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. Foreman, D. J. Scott, D. B. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hearn, J. M. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jones, G. N. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment or requests; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Debate resumed from 11 October, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.40) -In respect of the Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1984 , I move: At end of motion, add ', but, in relation to the Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1984, the Senate is of the opinion that the Bill should not be proceeded with until early 1985 when the proposed changes to export inspection practices for dairy products are introduced'. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.41) —The Government opposes the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(9.42) —During the second reading debate on these Bills I raised some questions which were not answered earlier and which I would now like to pursue to some extent. The legislation is extraordinarily vague inasmuch as the industry has no idea how the legislation will operate. There is no information at all at this stage about what products will be subject to inspection. People in the industry have not been told, and apparently it has not been determined, whether every product, every batch or every order will be inspected. They are unaware whether inspection will cover both domestic and export manufacture because at the time of manufacture very few companies know whether their product will be all or partly sold. They do not know yet whether samples will have to be made up in one kilogram, 10 kilogram or 25 kilogram bags . They have not yet been able to determine whether separate storage arrangements will be required. They do not know whether inspections are likely to be carried out on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. There are problems, of course, of loss of sequence in keeping samples out then returning them to their rightful place. The factories are to be registered and fees are to be charged but people in the industry have no idea of what scales of registration will be involved. However, it is apparent from the legislation that there are two different classes, depending on the performances of the factory. Of course, that in itself provides room for considerable subjective opinion on the part of various people. Before we give this Bill the clearance that is sought, we should at least be able to tell the industry to some extent the manner in which this legislation will be carried through. Every factory is different, one from the other. Because of the nature of the business, factories are usually in diverse areas. How these inspections will be carried through economically is important. I know that factories in Victoria and Tasmania have been unable to get any information in spite of the fact that trials have been organised with a view to seeing how this arrangement is to be implemented. But as of about two days ago, to my knowledge they were no further advanced towards finding out exactly how this legislation will work. We are being asked to pass legislation although we have no idea how that legislation will work if it does work. Eggs Export Legislation Eggs Export Legislation Eggs Export Legislation Eggs Export Legislation Eggs Export Legislation Eggs Export Legislation Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.45) —Senator Archer has asked me for a considerable amount of detail. I am not questioning his right or his need to ask me for that detail, but quite clearly I cannot give it to him now. I am informed that not all products will be inspected and that, therefore, only those products which are inspected will be charged for. We will not have a general charging procedure. I am also informed that the actual process and mechanism of inspection is at present being developed with the industry, in fact with individual companies. Clearly I cannot give the honourable senator, because we do not have it here, the considerable amount of detail about the timing of inspection that he wants. I certainly guarantee to seek answers to all of Senator Archer's questions it is possible to answer, but I do not have the information here. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment or requests; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 11 October, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bills be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.47) —During the second reading debate I raised some questions in relation to these Bills, particularly the Government's intentions on the hen levy. Is the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) in a position to reply? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.48) —I do not know what the questions were, but these Bills of course are not related to the hen levy. They are solely for the purpose of abolishing the Egg Board. The Government has announced a decision to phase out the hen levy by 1 July 1987. This is consistent with industry plans to reduce to minimum levels of surplus production of eggs. A small component of the hen levy was used for industry contribution to research. Discussions are taking place with the industry on alternative research funding arrangements. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment or requests; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 29 February, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.51) —I would like to make it clear to the Committee that the Australian Democrats continue to oppose this Bill. However, the Liberal and National parties have indicated that they will support it and we do not intend to call a division at the third reading. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without requests; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Debate resumed from 11 September, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(9.53) —The Senate is continuing a debate commenced approximately one month ago on the very important subject of biological control. Biological control as part of the interlocking ecological system will be ensured and encouraged under the Biological Control Bill now before the Parliament. Without this legislation we could find, and have found, that individual concerns may override the net public benefit, resulting in the demise of valuable programs of biological control. The significance of this debate is given further emphasis because the biological control programs are vital for Australia. They are vital because new pests will enter the country; pests are spreading around the world, in some cases at an alarming rate, and it is possible to get better agents for existing pests. Australia is such a large geographic entity that, once established, weeds and pests can proliferate very quickly. The capital intensive nature and the economic importance of our agriculture renders weeds and pest control programs imperative to its success. I commend the important work done by the Division of Entomology within the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The use of biological control has considerable and distinct advantages because not only is it cost efficient, it is also target specific; not only is it non-polluting, it is also energy conserving; and, above all, it is self-perpetuating. Alternatively, chemical, mechanical, genetic and cultural methods of controlling weeds and pests are often very costly, often very ineffective, and sometimes, particularly with chemicals, very dangerous. What is more, biological control is often the only feasible method of dealing with widespread weeds and pests. The cost of herbicides to eliminate Paterson's curse, for example, would be phenomenal, not to mention the other problems which are associated with these methods of control. Biological control can be defined briefly as a technique by which a pest species, usually an insect or a weed, is controlled by the use of its natural enemies, or agents. These agents may be quite varied. They can be parasites, predators or diseases. The important thing is that the testing is usually done initially outside Australia where the agent is in its home environment. But once these tests are completed the agent is still brought into Australia under quarantine for further testing and final checking. When it is definite that no organism other than the target organism will be affected the agent is introduced . I hope that the State and Northern Territory parliaments will move swiftly with complementary legislation to establish throughout Australia a uniform and equitable control program in the public interest without litigation. Biological control legislation is also compatible with the notion of scientific and technological progress. Yet without legislative legitimisation, biological control programs are vulnerable and subject to the whims of self-interested individuals. Giving biological control programs some legal status will give agencies such as the CSIRO security to develop the many and varied potential biological control programs currently in the making. The list of candidates for the future biological control programs will occupy us for decades; it will be an ongoing process. While predominantly restricted to insects and weeds-snails are another example- vertebrate pests can also be targets for biological control programs. Honourable senators will remember the use of the myxomatosis to regulate rabbit proliferation. The facilitation of biological control programs must be accorded priority status in relation to the needs of agriculture. If we can get this legislation on the books, it will have a great deal of universal applicability. It will be relevant and of benefit to the Australian people, to industry and to the environment. I commend the legislation to the Senate. Senator HILL(South Australia)(9.58) —I want to address the Biological Control Bill 1984 but not with the same enthusiasm as some other senators. There are aspects that cause me considerable concern and I want to register that concern tonight. The purposes of the Bill, if I might refer to the explanatory memorandum, are: to provide an opportunity for equitably assessing proposed biological control activities to ensure that they are in the public interest . . . and- to authorise the release of biological control agents . . . As the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) notes in his second reading speech: The Bill is to establish procedures for assessing and, where appropriate, authorising biological control programs in Australia . . . which will ensure that biological control programs that have been indentified as being in the public interest can proceed in accordance with law and without interruption by litigation. In principle one must, therefore, support the objectives of the Bill. They appear sound and, taken at face value, one would see the Bill as a worthwhile piece of legislation. In reality, however, we all know that it has been devised to circumvent a South Australian Supreme Court injunction and to permit the release of three species of insects to control the plant echium plantagineum- Paterson's curse as it is known in some places, or salvation Jane as it is known in my home State of South Australia. The Bill has been devised in such a way that, in all certainty, an application to release insects to control echium will be approved despite the wishes of a minority group of beekeepers and farmers. In their opinion they will be detrimentally affected by the release of these insects. Therefore the Bill is designed to legitimise the majority desire although it will harm minority interests, a minority that until now has been protected by the common law. However, we know that the tort of nuisance is concerned with the protection of rights of the individual and it is that tort that has been used by this group of individuals to protect their interest in this matter. Under this Bill, however, the rights of the individual to be protected to date must be sacrificed if it is in the best interests of the majority. To some extent that is what democracy is all about, and we should not complain in principle about that. But we, in this chamber, must ensure that those minority rights are not being unreasonably trampled upon. We must ensure that the minority receives reasonable protection. I note in passing, for example, that there is no compensation provided in this Bill for the loss that these minority beekeepers and farmers are going to suffer . Therefore I suggest that we should address the other alternatives there would be to the release of insects in this case. Some honourable senators have addressed themselves to the question of chemicals and have spoken about the danger of using chemicals to control pests; such dangers as residual effects and matters of that nature. But chemicals can be isolated. A farmer can rid a particular piece of land of a noxious weed by the use of chemicals. It is not in dispute that a weed can be controlled by chemicals. On the other hand, biological control is different because not only will it rid the first farmer's land of the particular weed or grass but it will also rid the neighbour's farm of that weed or grass. So here we have a classic case of majority farming interests-if I might say, interests that originated a decade ago in New South Wales, when only New South Wales wanted this course of action-which have relentlessly over the years, through debate, through rural and lobby groups and after finally losing in the courts, been able to persuade the Government to take action and been able to persuade all political parties to support this legislation and the release of these insects in relation to salvation Jane, but, of course, at minority expense. It is no coincidence, as you may well have gathered, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, that the particular minority interests concerned in this case are South Australian farmers who, as I indicated, look upon this item as salvation Jane because, although it may well be Paterson's curse in the eastern States, it is salvation Jane in South Australia. But for salvation Jane in some of the drier, more marginal areas of South Australia many a farmer would have been without fodder for his sheep and cattle. Their salvation is, therefore, to be destroyed because wealthy farmers in higher rainfall areas regard it as an inconvenient weed, and that is notwithstanding, as I said, that there are chemical agents available that have the capacity to rid them of it. I particularly want to look at the controversy arising from the differing views of the net value of the plant to agriculture. Although we are told by some that it causes livestock losses, it has in fact considerable value. I will refer to a whole series of research programs that have been conveniently gathered by the Parliamentary Library, and in particular to three different areas in which value is seen by these minority farming interests. The first of those that I have mentioned are the apiarists who led the battle against the biological control of echium, because it is estimated that some 20 to 30 per cent of Australian honey is produced from echium. It is regarded as the most important honey bee resource in south eastern Australia because of its abundant supply of nectar and pollen especially in years when it is the only significant spring crop available for bees. The amount of protein content of the pollen is very significant, I understand, in the restocking of hives after winter. As a matter of interest, the value of Australian honey exports has averaged almost $11m over each of the last four financial years. So it is not surprising that bee keepers have been leading the reaction against biological control of echium. As I have indicated farmers in marginal areas and graziers have seen it as a green fodder crop for sheep. Also, it is supported by farmers and graziers, who have had to rely on it to provide healthy wild honey bees to pollinate various crops. On the other hand, as I have indicated, it has been said that it causes loss among livestock. That is the balancing aspect. However, it appears that as further research is done it may well not be causing the loss that was originally believed. For example, one recent Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation study showed only marginal toxic effects on merino wethers from long term feeding of echium. Of the 10 sheep which were fed 80 per cent echium during the feeding cycle only one developed mild liver damage. As I have indicated it was 80 per cent concentrated feed of this product. All of that leaves me with a feeling of some nervousness. I know-it has also been said in this debate by others-that biological control of rabbits has been successful and biological control of prickly pear has been successful but here we have a divided issue. I fear that those who call the target, in this case salvation Jane, who do not have political clout will suffer at the expense of those in the eastern States who call the target Paterson's curse and do have political clout. I am interested in whether those who have less clout are given a fair go under this Bill. I come to the methodology of the Bill. The Australian Agricultural Council, under the terms of this Bill, would recommend to the authority who is the Minister that echium should be a target. The Minister would publish a notice stating that he is contemplating declaring echium a target. He would call for submissions for and against this move. The Minister would consider the submissions and at his discretion call an inquiry. The discretion is reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and therefore, in all likelihood in this instance, there will be an inquiry. A similar set of procedures exists with regard to the agent organism. The task of the inquiry is set out in clause 38 (3) of the Bill and that is to look at the benefits and disadvantages from the broad community viewpoint. The authority must then report to the Minister. If the Minister, under what will be section 20, is satisfied that harm caused to one sector-in this case it would be the apiarists and the marginal land farmers-would be significantly less than the harm caused to the more well to do farmers in higher rainfall areas, he shall authorise the program to commence. But how is he to measure that program? If he measures it in money terms obviously the minority will lose. If he measures it in numerical terms obviously again the minority will lose. The report of the previous inquiry which has taken place may not even be relevant to the considerations that the Minister must make. In this instance we know the attitude of the Council and we know the attitude of the Minister. Therefore what appears before us is simply a fait accompli. There is no effective right of appeal because under clause 56 there would have to be shown to be an inconsistency, and as the Minister and the Council have different tests which they have to apply it would be impossible to find an inconsistency. I suggest to the Minister at the table, Senator Button, that the Minister who is responsible under this Bill should look at the question of what alternatives there are to biological control. Will those alternatives mean less injury, that is loss, to the minority farmer? I would suggest that both tests should be redrafted to mesh . Not only that, the tests provided should be clarified to make clear that it is not purely a mathematical calculation, that the Minister should have to look at the social, environmental and other benefits, as well as the economic benefits. There are four additional concerns that I have about this Bill. The first is in clause 2 (3) which, I would think, is supposed to provide the definition of ' public benefit'. But it simply produces a circular argument. It says: For the purposes of this Act, organisms of a particular kind shall be taken to cause harm if the control of those organisms would be for the public benefit. That obviously in itself is a nonsense. The main aim of this legislation is to assess public benefit of the biological control of organisms and therefore the Bill should provide a comprehensive definition of 'public benefit' and that definition should include the social, environmental and other benefits as well as the economic benefit of control. The second extra matter to which I draw attention is that although the legislation was designed so that public comment and input would have to be considered for the assessment of target organisms, when we look at the question of agent organisms it would appear that under clause 26 the Authority is not required to publish a request for public comment in major newspapers. Senator Macklin —I have amendments on that. Senator HILL —I am pleased to hear there are proposed amendments on that. Apparently there is some rationale that the public would not be interested in the agent organisms to be released in the environment, or alternatively the public will be treated as being ignorant of the consequences of the release of agent organisms. That is offensive. There is a great deal of knowledge within the universities and without in the community. Before agent organisms are released the matter should be advertised and the public should have the opportunity to comment thereon. The third matter I raise is that the Bill separates in some circumstances the target and control organisms. I suggest that that is unnecessary and unwise. Surely both the target and the organism itself should be considered in the one inquiry and should be interrelated. The Government should give further attention to that matter before the legislation is passed. The fourth additional matter is that in some circumstances there is no requirement for biological control programs to be assessed by the legislation. The Bill was introduced to prevent court action to halt biological control programs, but we find when we look more closely at the Bill those that are deemed not contentious will not come under the Bill and they will not be subject to the same public inquiry procedure. The public scrutiny goes to the very core of this Bill and that should be the case in relation to all programs. The fifth additional matter is that the Bill provides for an emergency declaration of target and agent, and therefore the release of organisms without the need for public comment. I would suggest that there can be no emergencies in biological control programs. Chemical agents should be used if circumstances that are unexpected occur. Biological agents need the thorough consideration that a full public inquiry will give. There are five additional reasons why I express serious concern about the Bill. It is structured to provide a method by which public input to assess biological control can be made. Therefore, as I indicated at the outset, the concept deserves support. However, as I have also indicated, the tests are deficient. They do not provide for a proper evaluation. They do not provide for a proper examination of all other alternatives. They do not provide for a proper balancing of all economic, social and environmental factors. As I have indicated , the definitions are inadequate, and the exceptions from public scrutiny are unnecessary and unwise. Perhaps the deficiencies simply reflect the fact that the Bill is not what it seems but it, rather, a mechanism to override the interests of an agricultural minority whose individual rights have, to date, been protected by the courts. Therefore, I remain concerned. I invite the Government, as I have already done in this speech, to look again at these deficiencies. I know that that will not occur and that the Bill will be passed tonight. But certainly, as one senator, I indicate that I shall carefully monitor the inquiry that we anticipate under the Bill with regard to echium. In that monitoring, I trust that my fears will be proven to be not well founded. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.16) —I speak to the Biological Control Bill 1984 in support of the theory of biological control of pests. I have lived in rural areas for most of my life. I am well aware of the hazards that are open to people in rural situations. Whilst I support biological control, even more I support the adequate protection that is necessary to go with such control. Those who were involved in the 1930s and 1940s in rural pursuits will have undying memories of the problems with the rabbit. People who can remember what the rabbit problems were like in the 1930s and 1940s would have some idea of the tremendous benefit that came to Australia with the introduction of myxomatosis. It was only yesterday that I found a report that Desmond Zwar has written a book called The Dame. It is largely about rabbits, although its immediate focus is on an extraordinary little woman called Dame Jean Macnamara. Dame Jean, a Melbourne doctor, was the nemesis of the Australian bunny, because it was she who introduced the dreaded myxomatosis virus into Australia. She was barely five feet tall, habitually wore clothes and hats that looked like rejects from an opportunity shop, smoked incessantly, worked unceasingly and had more push than a D9 bulldozer. It was 1951 when myxomatosis eventually took hold, and the graziers were estimated to have pocketed an extra $68m in the first year. It is important to remember the work that people such as Dame Jean have done. Those who do not remember what things were like in those days would never know the problems the rabbits then created and what a tremendous thing it was to be free of them down to the control level. Control is the question, because there are very limited ways in which we are ever likely to exterminate or extinguish things by the use of biological control. So that is one of the inbuilt protections itself. I mentioned rabbits, but it is necessary to look a little further, at those people who suffer from very nasty infestations of blackberries, ragwort, capeweed and so on. People also are plagued with rats, mice, lice, ticks, European wasps, lucerne aphids, corbie grubs, lucerne flea and other pests. I do not think that anybody would object if we were able to produce some sort of control for those pests. I feel sure that those people who are suffering from this mouse plague at present could use biological control of mice. We do have to be careful that biological control is not indiscriminate. It must be rigidly organised and controlled. The legislation has to be good enough. I believe there has to be very tight control before anything is attacked by biological means. I believe there is room to do this in the existing legislation . I believe it will be done properly because I do not believe that anybody who is charged with this sort of responsibility would run any risk at all. I have a lot to do with beekeepers in Tasmania. I have discussed this matter with them on many occasions. The simple solution in cases like this is that if we are to deprive people of something that has become an integral part of their operation, something else must take its place. Currently, with the aid of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Forestry Branch of the Department of Primary Industry and the Tasmanian Forestry Commission, I am seeking lists of trees and plants that may serve an alternative purpose. I believe that even in areas such as beekeeping we can look to biological controls of various things, but we do need to consider the rights and privileges that go with these minor groups. Senator Hill, who spoke previously, covered the various issues of the Bill. I will not go over them. I am not attracted to chemicals as a means of control unless they are used as a last resort. They are very permanent and there can be many accidents. I do not like them, although I use them at times. There is a great responsibility on those who are involved and I would at all times wish to keep that before the Parliament and before the people. It will be difficult to fulfil the needs and desires of all the parties. There will always be somebody who wants something when somebody else does not and vice versa. I believe this part of the legislation will require very thorough investigation before action is taken. I do have reservations, but at this stage I think all I need to say is that I do support the introduction of legislation. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.23) —I for my part welcome the introduction of the Biological Control Bill 1984 as it establishes a very necessary mechanism whereby programs of biological control may be authorised for implementation after a process which allows proper opportunity for public discussion and comment. The specific occurrence which precipitated this legislation arose from the attempt to introduce a program of biological control aimed at echium plantagineum, better known as Paterson's curse-- Senator Macklin —Salvation Jane. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Or Salvation Jane, according to one's particular viewpoint. Paterson's curse is a native of the Mediterranean region and western Europe including, of course, Great Britain. It was from Britain that a certain Mrs Paterson is reputed to have brought the plant for her garden in Albury in New South Wales. Paterson's curse is now widely established in all states except , surprisingly, Tasmania, and is proclaimed a noxious weed in the whole of Victoria, and parts of South Australia, Western Australia and New South Wales. The speed with which Paterson's curse spreads was demonstrated in a report on infestations of Paterson's curse in Western Australia, by G. A. Pearce and J. R. Peirce. This compared the infestation of Paterson's curse in 1960 with infestations in 1970. In Western Australia, as I said earlier, only part of the State is affected by the plant. In this area in 1960, 9,354 hectares were infested with Paterson's curse. By 1975, this had increased enormously to 109, 234 hectares. Infestations of Paterson's curse cause major problems for agriculturalists. The plant's competitive nature is such that it can eliminate more useful pasture species. Although Paterson's curse has some fodder value during winter and early spring, it becomes woody and inedible during the critical late summer and autumn season. In Victoria, a committee was formed to examine whether biological agents for the control of Paterson's curse should be released. The Committee in its report, completed in 1978, estimated the potential loss in production to the livestock industry, likely to be caused by competition from Paterson's curse. In north eastern Victoria alone, the committee estimated the production loss to be $4.75m annually, the greatest loss being in the beef industry interestingly enough. This was described in that report as a conservative estimate. Paterson's curse is also known to contain a number of alkaloids which, as other speakers have said, may cause liver damage in animals which may lead to eventual death. Sheep are less susceptible to this effect than horses and cattle, although there is apparently a cumulative effect after sheep have grazed on Paterson's curse for several seasons. Damage caused by Paterson's curse may also be accelerated when animals graze other plants containing alkaloids, such as heliotrope. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, in a Press release issued in May 1984, stated that the effects of Paterson's curse on livestock are not definite, but went on to say: Horses, cattle and sheep poisoned in the field have been diagnosed as poisoned by Paterson's curse after proper investigation . . . A controlled feeding experiment by the N.S.W. Department of Agriculture has shown that pigs may be poisoned in a few months by a fairly low proportion of Paterson's curse in the diet. CSIRO therefore concluded: Farmers making regular use of Paterson's curse for grazing animals should still take toxicity into account. Some alkaloids are also toxic for humans, and low levels of alkaloids have been detected in honey produced from Paterson's curse plants. Mr J. E. Peterson, from the CSIRO Division of Animal Health, in his speech to the second Australia-USA Symposium on Poisonous Plants in Brisbane in May this year, made it clear that at present there was no indication that honey containing alkaloids from Paterson 's curse posed a significant risk for human consumers, although he did make the following point: The risks associated with prolonged low level dosage in humans are unknown, particularly those that arise from the carcinogenic potential of the alkaloids, and are difficult to assess. Of course it is the apiarists, as Senator Hill has said, who have strongly opposed any biological control of Paterson's curse, because of its abundant supply of nectar and pollen for honey bees. The resultant light coloured honey is exported and used to lighten and thus improve the marketability of darker honey. Ultimately, however, the presence of a carcinogenic substance in the honey, at even very low levels, could prove economically damaging to the export industry. The other point is that the eradication of Paterson's curse would leave a niche to be filled by more suitable pasture species. The growth of subterranean clover for example would provide an alternative source for beekeepers. The Victorian committee which reported on Paterson's curse also noted the problems the plant caused the pasture seed industry, because it reduced the production of other seed crops, notably subterranean clover, and made harvesting very difficult because of its woody stems. In addition, the seeds from Paterson' s curse are prohibited from being registered as certified seed in many areas and being virtually impossible to separate from other seeds, that makes farmers understandably very reluctant to harvest seeds from pastures containing Paterson 's curse. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.30) —I refer briefly tonight to a problem which has arisen in relation to enrolments at one of the schools in the Australian Capital Territory. It is the Telopea Park School which has a French- Australian program available from the first year of kindergarten until year 10. It is a new program which has been at the school during this year, the French- Australian program prior to that time having been at the Red Hill Primary School . The matter which has been brought to my attention relates to enrolments in the kindergarten class for 1985. Several parents have contacted me who have had their children at the Red Hill Primary School's pre-school and who expected to be able to send them to the next stage of the French-Australian program at the Telopea Park School. They now believe that they will not be able to get their children enrolled in that program. I understand that although there are three kindergarten classes, each of 16 students, 40 children wish to enrol for 1985 but only 20 places are available. What is causing concern to some of the parents is that the procedure laid down for enrolment for next year, which is to take place on Monday next, 22 October, is apparently to be on the basis of first come first served. That may sound quite reasonable but apparently people are planning to camp at the school overnight to ensure that their children will be able to enrol. Altogether the prospects for the event are rather nasty indeed and undignified to say the least . It may well be that if there is a shortage of places enrolment should be by some sort of ballot arrangement. I would have thought that perhaps there would be some sort of priority for those who have been attending the pre-school at Red Hill. It may be that even then there will be more students than there are places . However, the prospects at present are not a very satisfactory way of resolving how enrolments will work out for next year. There is a suggestion that if the class size were increased from 16 to 22 all the children who wish to enrol would be able to do so. However, I draw the matter to the attention of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). I have sent her a letter referring to the matter but I think that perhaps she should give it her attention tomorrow as this event may take place on Monday. It looks as though there will be about twice as many people as can expect to get enrolments. It is a matter that perhaps should be looked into and defused before it occurs. I hope that tomorrow the Minister will find time to give it her attention. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.34) —I rise, as I did last night, to raise the Syntex International Pty Ltd Customs problem in Melbourne which involves some 27 or 28 other companies which purchased a quota for the import of textiles through a company which was operated, as I understand it, by a Mr Sinclair who has recently left Australia for Germany having charged the people who purchased from him the full price for the goods, the commission which is normal in relation to the use of the quota and the amount of duty which is properly payable in respect of the types of textiles which were being imported, which was a duty of 40 per cent. Mr Sinclair paid to the Australian Customs Service a duty of 2 per cent, declaring that the various items which were being imported were embroidery items , which were able to be imported at the 2 per cent rate. It is alleged that this very wide cross-section of very well known, many of them old and established and highly reputable, businesses were involved unwittingly in a situation where they paid out the appropriate amount for the goods they purchased, but the person through whom they purchased, who was enjoying the benefits of a quota granted by the government system operating at the time, did not pay to Customs the appropriate amount. In fact, it is suggested that he defrauded the Customs of very significant amounts of money. It is suggested that this had been going on for a period of several years-possibly up to five years-over a period when it must have been obvious to the Australian Customs Service, if it was paying attention to what was happening, that an amount of textiles for embroidery was being imported which was far in excess of the total possible requirements of the Australian industry and that some action should be taken. The gentleman concerned-I wish to emphasise this because I understand there was some confusion-had carried on business at an address at 58 Flinders Lane, Melbourne. His name was Sinclair and his company was called Syntex International Pty Ltd. He left the country with, it is alleged, the benefits of his activities amounting to somewhere between $2m and $3m. He has left behind a number of people who paid fully for what they obtained and who fulfilled their obligations as they saw them. They were left in a situation where a subsequent Customs investigation has meant that they are being subjected to a recovery action for the duty which was avoided, not by them but by a person who could be regarded by the law-I emphasise the word 'could'-as their agent. It may or may not be that that is the appropriate way to look at it. The way in which the law in relation to this has been put to the Australian Customs Service is perhaps best described in the words of a letter written by Abbott, Stillman and Wilson, signed by Mr Phillip Sheezel of that firm, dated 18 July 1984, in which he refers to a decision of Mr Justice Windeyer in the High Court of Australia case of Scott v. James Patrick & Co. Pty Ltd, reported in 117 Commonwealth Law Reports at page 242. At page 249 it is stated: It is one thing to say that an act done by a man may be an offence against the law although he had no guilty knowledge. It is quite another thing to say that a man can be guilty of offence because of some act which he did not do, in which he had no part, and which was not done on his behalf, or because of some event over which he had no control and of which he had no knowledge. That is a summary of the case which is put by the 25 to 28 innocent business people who are now concerned that they may be put through the process of extremely expensive litigation by being subjected to an action which could bankrupt many of them for what they believe to have been a totally innocent act so far as they are concerned. It was an act in which they paid fully what ought to have been paid and in which they see that the principal obligation of government, particularly when it is some considerable number of years-anything up to five years-after the event, is to pursue the person who it appears from investigations may have been the principal involved if there was a defrauding of the Australian Customs. The allegation is that the importation was at 2 per cent duty rather than the 40 per cent duty which was payable. The 40 per cent duty was in fact paid by the importers who are now being pursued not only to recover the duty they have already paid once to the person who held the quota but also being pursued for the penalty as well. Their concern has caused them to ask me to raise the matter in this chamber. I raised the matter last night-I gave the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) notice-but something must have prevented the Minister from being here or from instructing the Ministers on duty here how to deal with the matter. I have again given the Minister notice and I am glad he is in the chamber tonight. The matter is of concern to these people. They face the cost of litigation. This small to medium business is subject to the possibility of considerable loss on a significantly disputed point. The legal advice as to what action should be taken has varied quite substantially. These people would like to have the opportunity to discuss with the Minister the problem and the position in which they find themselves. They would like to discuss their position as completely honest and good citizens of Australia-I have no doubt that the largest percentage of them are-subjected to what might be regarded as an extremely unfair risk as a result of the default of another person. This is at a time when, I am told, there is no evidence or assurance that any action is being taken by the Government to endeavour to recover from the person who it is alleged was responsible for the fraud, if a fraud did take place. I do not want to go into any more detail. I am sure the Minister will recognise the sensitivity in the way I have tried to state the case without making allegations which would affect litigation. I have raised the matter because I have been asked by people whether the Minister would kindly give consideration to making time available for them to discuss the future conduct of the problems that have arisen over a period in relation to the events to which I have referred. There has been an attempt to involve the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) by requesting his intervention. As I understand it, the attitude adopted-I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in relation to this-is that this is a matter totally for the Customs Service. On looking at the legislation, I am not quite sure that that is the case. I believe it would be most helpful to this wide cross-section of businesses in Melbourne to be informed of the Minister's attitude. I add that within the matters of complaint there is a tone-as in numerous other cases brought to my attention-of difference in attitude in the operation of the Australian Customs Service in Melbourne and the operation of the Service in other parts of Australia. That is a matter to which I draw the Minister's attention rather than make any further suggestions. If one talks about Hong Kong car imports, Italian fabric imports, this instance or a number of other matters, they all seem to come down to the same thing-that it may be that there is some difference in the degree of sensitivity and the degree of accuracy with which the operation of the law, the carrying out of which I totally support, is in fact carried out. I look forward to hearing from the Minister in relation to this matter. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.45) —Senator Reid raised a matter regarding the transfer of school students between certain courses in different institutions. I will draw that matter to the attention of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). I apologise to Senator Rae; I did not get notice of his intention to raise the matter which he did. Certainly it is a matter which warrants examination on the basis of what he has said, and I will give it that examination. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.46 p.m. The following papers were presented: Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 285. Australian National University Act-Statutes- No. 174-Faculties (The Faculties) Amendment No. 20. No. 175-Faculties (The Faculties) Amendment No. 21. Commonwealth Electoral Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 287. Income Tax Assessment Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984. No. 286. The following answer to a question was circulated: (Question No. 1200) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 October 1984: In respect of the Minister's Department and statutory authorities responsible to the Minister: (a) how many motor vehicles did they own before 2 March 1983; (b) how many motor vehicles do they now own; (c) how many motor vehicles have they purchased since 2 March 1983; (d) what type, size and make of motor vehicles have they purchased; (e) what was the individual and total cost of these vehicles; and (f) for what purpose were the vehicles purchased. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to Senator Reid's question: Department of Aboriginal Affairs (a) Nil (b) Nil (c) Nil (d) Nil (e) N.A. (f) N.A. Aboriginal Development Commission (a) 24 (b) 23 (c) Nil (d) Nil (e) N.A. (f) N.A. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies (a) 22 (b) 26 (c) 7 (d) and (e)- (i) 720 Series Utility, 4 cylinder, 4 wheel drive, Datsun $7,342.50 (ii) Hi- Lux Dual Cab Utility, 4 cylinder, 4 wheel drive, Toyota $6,922.20 (iii) Hi-Lux Dual Cab Utility, 4 cylinder, 4 wheel drive, Toyota $7,919.47 (iv) Hi-Lux Dual Cab Utility, 4 cylinder, 4 wheel drive, Toyota $7,707.67 (v) Hi-Lux Dual Cab Utility, 4 cylinder, 4 wheel drive, Toyota $7,707.67 (vi) Hi-Lux Dual Cab Utility, 4 cylinder, 4 wheel drive, Toyota $7,707.67 (vii) Lite Ace Wagon, 4 cylinder, Toyota $5,245.83 Total $50,553.01 (f) (i) to (vi) Field Research; (vii) Courier Service.