Wednesday, 27 March 1985 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: Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Legislation To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we strongly oppose the 'A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Jack Evans, because it will adversely affect sporting organisations and small businesses in the A.C.T., it reverses the onus of proof, and represents an unnecessary intrusion by Government into the private affairs of individuals and other groups. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 47 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving 'property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 48 citizens). To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: (i) The financial situation of students enrolled at Australian post-secondary institutions is already extremely difficult and any increase in the financial commitments of students would gravely worsen their financial difficulties. (ii) The imposition of post-secondary tuition fees of comparable levels to those imposed prior to 1971 would force many currently enrolled students to discontinue their studies and deter many persons willing and able at present to undertake post-secondary study from doing so. (iii) Those students and potential students from social groups currently under-represented and disadvantaged in the education system would be most severely affected by the reintroduction of fees for post-secondary education. Your petitioners therefore pray that: 1. Post-secondary tuition fees not be re-introduced for any category of students. 2. Any form of Stamp Duty or similar system of the ''user pays'' principle in education not be introduced. 3. Emphasis should be on increasing access to education by, among other things, increasing student financial assistance. 4. The visa charges upon private overseas students be removed immediately. 5. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs immediately clarify the government's attitude to the reintroduction of post-secondary tuition fees. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Button (from 11 citizens) and Collard (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we 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 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 Senator Mason (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Church of Mary Queen of Peace Klaipeda, Lithuania was the only church permitted (by the Soviet authorities) to be built in post-war Lithuania. That the church was built by the Catholic parishioners from their own resources and with support from overseas Christians. That upon completion of the church building in 1960, the church was not allowed to be consecrated and, in 1961 was resumed by the State for purposes other than religious. That this resumption of the church and the subsequent persecution and arrests of the local clergy and other christians is contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Human Rights. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled request the Australian Government to communicate most strongly to the Government of the USSR the sympathy of the petitioners for the plight of the Lithuanian Christians and ask that the Church of Mary Queen of Peace be restored to the Catholics of Klaipeda for the practice of their religion without interference. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 51 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 Senator Collard (from 240 citizens). Petitions received. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) requests the immediate withdrawal of Australia from the International Labour Organisation (ILO), as unionism as currently practiced in Australia is: (i) an anachronism, (ii) no longer relevant to or compatible with the future development of Australian industry or society, (iii) still compulsory when it should be a matter of personal choice; (a) in making this decision to withdraw from the ILO, acknowledges that: (i) most Australians would prefer to have a job rather than be a party to the ILO, and (ii) bodies such as the ILO, which reinforce the monopoly of labour by unions, are incompatible with basic civil rights; and (c) therefore resolves to congratulate and support Singapore on its resignation from the ILO. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting that the Queensland Government has rushed through amendments to the already draconian Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act, giving police powers to arrest without warrant in situations of so-called harassment of people working in the electricity industry during the present power dispute, condemns that Government because- (a) claims made in the State Parliament by the Minister for Mines and Energy, Mr Gibbs, of threats of violence and arson, are false and totally denied by the employees of the South East Queensland Electricity Board sacked by the Bjelke-Petersen Government in February 1985, and by the Electrical Trades Union; (b) existing police powers are perfectly adequate to deal with any situation that might arise; and (c) this massive increase in police powers is a gross infringement of civil liberties, and points to the fact that Queensland has become a neo-fascist police state. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) recognising that this country is one of the most indebted in the world, with liabilities per head in excess of Argentina, Mexico, Chile, Poland and Brazil; (b) conscious of the fact that we are now spending more on public debt interest than we do on education, and almost as much as we do on defence; (c) being aware of the manner in which our public debt interest has grown from $887m or 4.9 per cent of budget outlays in 1974-75 to a staggering $5,601 or 8.8 per cent of outlays in 1984-85; and (d) taking into account the fact that if any of our major exports collapse the Australian economy will be liable to a most serious economic collapse, calls on the Hawke Socialist Government to recognise the extreme danger of the situation and take immediate action to reduce Government borrowings. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the prediction from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics that the average Australian rural income will fall 29 per cent this year; (b) urges the Federal Government to take immediate and urgent action on the detailed proposal of the National Farmer's Federation to control spiralling farm costs which add an extra unnecessary $16,000 per farmer to the cost of farming; and (c) condemns the Federal Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, for his rejection of an all-States agreement for a national dairy marketing plan which would have ensured stability for the troubled dairy industry. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —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. Supply of materials for pavements at the new Brisbane International Airport-report. 2. Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board-annual report 1984-pursuant to section 46 (3) of the Management and Investment Companies Act 1983. Postponement of Notice of Motion Motion (by Senator Macklin for Senator Mason)-by leave-agreed to: That General Business, Notice of Motion No. 16, standing in the name of Senator Mason, be a Notice of Motion for the next day of sitting. Debate resumed from 20 March, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.07) —The Bankruptcy Amendment Bill is a revamped version of a Bill that was introduced into the Senate last year by the former Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans. It will effect changes to five different areas of the existing bankruptcy legislation. First, in respect of maintenance creditors, amendments will be made to the Bankruptcy Act to facilitate the enforcement of maintenance orders. This will help to alleviate a growing problem recognised in 1980 by the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act which recommended these changes. The Opposition is pleased that the Government has now moved to implement that recommendation and will support it. Under the amendments, failure to pay maintenance due pursuant to a maintenance order for a period of 12 months will constitute an act of bankruptcy. Collection of maintenance and the enforcement of maintenance orders is, as we know, a serious and growing problem. Many maintenance debtors take it upon themselves to flout the orders of the Family Court of Australia, leaving the wives or former wives and children in financial difficulty. This amendment will have the useful effect of inducing these maintenance debtors to pay up and will be additional to the other means of enforcing maintenance orders which have not proved to be entirely successful. The Opposition believes this is a step in the right direction and will support these amendments. The second area of the bankruptcy legislation to which this Bill is directed is to seek uniformity between the Bankruptcy Act and the Companies Act. The proposed amendments create uniformity between the treatment of creditors on the winding up of a company under the Companies Act and the treatment of creditors involved in sequestration proceedings and administration under the Bankruptcy Act. The proposed amendments change the priority of payments made under the Bankruptcy Act and bring them into line with those contained in the Companies Act relating to the order of payments of debts on the winding up of a company. The proposal deals with the supervision and registration of trustees in bankruptcy. Under this proposal the Bankruptcy Act will specify the qualification necessary for a person to obtain registration modelled on the corresponding requirements or the Companies Act relating to liquidators and auditors. The third amendment proposes the introduction of a system of triennial reporting by registered trustees in bankruptcy. Again, that proposal is parallel with the requirements on liquidators under the Companies Act. The Opposition believes that these amendments are desirable. Creditors should receive substantially the same treatment and be subject to the same procedures whether the debtor is an individual or a company. The third area covered by this Bill deals with some minor administrative improvements in bankruptcy administration. In summary, these amendments will assist the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy to obtain reports from registered trustees and facilitate the preparation of the Inspector-General's annual report on the operation of the Act. They will allow the Inspector-General to apply to the Federal Court of Australia for an inquiry into the conduct of a trustee in bankruptcy. They will also permit the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department, rather than the Governor-General, to appoint people to a statutory office which has been created by the Act. This is a routine task. Much legislation requires routine statutory appointments to be made by the Governor-General. The Opposition believes that it is a step in the right direction to remove the requirement that appointment be made by the Governor-General, with its formal and added procedures, and enable such an appointment to be made by the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department. The Opposition will support these proposed changes. The fourth area covered by the Bill deals with the removal of a number of anomalies that have become apparent in light of early amendments to the Act which have been made at different times and in its administration. I do not propose to detail this group of amendments, which may come under the heading 'removal of anomalies'. Suffice it to say that the Opposition will support them. They are designed to improve the operation of the Act and, hopefully, they will have that effect. The fifth area of bankruptcy law to which these amendments relate deals with what the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) calls the modification of decisions by the Fraser Government's Review of Commonwealth Functions, better known as the razor gang. These modifications of those decisions of the former Government and their implementation into bankruptcy law are certainly the most important aspects of this Bill. The provisions of the present Act instituted by the Fraser Government's so-called razor gang dealt with and implemented the privatisation of the administration of the bulk of bankrupt estates. Prior to 1981, when these amendments were made by the Fraser Government, virtually all bankrupt estates were administered by the Official Receiver; that is, by public officials. These officials operate under the control of the Official Receiver and the administration of the Attorney-General's Department. This situation arose because under the legislation as it existed then the courts were required upon the hearing of a creditor's or debtor's petition for bankruptcy to appoint the official receiver as the administrator of the estate on the making of the sequestration order. There was provision, however, in the former law for the appointment of a private registered trustee, usually a practising accountant, if a first meeting of creditors so determined. But that option was rarely exercised and private trustees were prohibited from soliciting or advertising the availability of their services. Prior to 1981, for example, only 13 out of about 5,000 estates under bankruptcy administration were administered by private trustees. I interpolate that the bankruptcy legislation, of course, has always provided for private arrangements instead of bankruptcy proceedings. It provided for creditors to enter into private arrangements with the debtor, and that administration under the Act is administered by private trustees. I am speaking now only of cases in which there was actually a sequestration order made and, as I have said, prior to 1981 there was very little role indeed for private trustees under that administration. The decision of the Fraser Government's razor gang and the implementation of that decision by legislation changed all that quite dramatically and provided the scheme by which the existing system was maintained for all estates valued at less than $10,000; the court was compelled to appoint an official receiver for those estates. Even in those cases, however, the first meeting of creditors could substitute a private trustee. Secondly, and this was the important aspect of the Fraser Government's decision, in respect of all estates valued at more than $10,000 it was mandatory that a private trustee be appointed to administer the estate. As a result of this change, in the following year, 1982-83, more than 1,000 of an estimated 5,000 estates under bankruptcy administration were in fact administered by private registered trustees. This was a major policy decision of the Fraser Government with which the Opposition still agrees. It was a major step in the privatisation policy which was being implemented by that Government as a result of the razor gang decisions. Certainly it is a policy that the Opposition supports. This aspect of the legislation before us will change that principle, and it will be opposed by the Opposition. Since the implementation of the amendments of the Act in 1981 there has been a very much greater role by private administration of bankrupt estates. The Opposition believes that in the overwhelming majority of cases the private registered trustees have performed their duties with skill and dedication. However, no doubt it is true that the registered trustees, unlike official receivers, their counterparts under bankruptcy administration by official receivers, consider their primary function to be the realisation of the assets and the distribution of dividends to creditors of the bankrupt estates. I think they perform that very efficiently. However, the Attorney-General claims, and there is perhaps some evidence to support his view, that some resulting disregard by private trustees of their discretionary duties to investigate and report upon the conduct, dealings and affairs of bankrupts has occurred. So, as I have said, they are primarily devoting their skills and attention to realising assets and distributing dividends rather than simply conducting investigations and reporting on the conduct of the bankrupt. However, I do not think it would be fair to say that this has been a general failing by these trustees who have performed their duties satisfactorily. In the Bill introduced last year by the former Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, the Government claimed to be reversing that decision of the Fraser Government's razor gang. If the Bill as introduced by Senator Evans last year had been implemented there would have been a reversion to the pre-1981 situation, which I have already described, whereby the courts would be required to appoint an official receiver in every case, with the first meeting of the creditors having the right to reverse that decision and appoint a private trustee. Of course, the official receiver would have been responsible for conducting the investigatory and reporting roles in respect of any particular estate notwithstanding that the estate was administered by the registered trustee or an official receiver. Last year the then Attorney-General went so far as to say: Some trustees have engaged in distinctly unprofessional conduct; statistics indicate that many trustees, even most trustees, do not take seriously the investigative and reporting duties which the Act imposes on the trustee of a bankrupt estate. Apparently the former Attorney-General will repeat that wide claim although it seems that the present Attorney-General does not make it. No doubt we will hear more from the Attorney later. This claim has been rejected by the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Australia, the association of private registered trustees. In fact, it has taken the Government to task over that allegation. It has noted that most registered trustees are required by the terms of the legislation to have had prior experience in insolvency matters. Most have derived their experience from working as company auditors and liquidators. They have to have proper qualifications and they do have them. So, as I have said, by and large they are people of good standing and high qualifications. It would be surprising if those comments of the former Attorney-General applied to any but a very few of them. Perhaps that is all he did mean; I hope that is the case. In regard to the allegations of the former Attorney-General, the Association said: Accordingly such persons are professional accountants with a background of investigation into the financial affairs of businesses and corporate entities and individuals . . . it is commonplace however that the reporting has developed in the accounting profession of matters of exception rather than on any reporting conformity. The Association asserted that private trustees do in fact conduct investigations and file reports on matters when further investigation is warranted. The Opposition is prepared to accept the amendments in the present Bill, which are described as a modification of the RCF decision rather than a reversal of it, concerning the ability of the official receiver to conduct investigations if they are not carried out by a private trustee. We do not know whether they are really warranted but if the Government believes that they are, we cannot see any objection to them and they will alleviate the problem if one exists. The Opposition notes that the provisions in this Bill are described as a modification of the razor gang decision. However, the provisions seem to be little different from those in the 1984 Bill. It seems to the Opposition that the provisions in the 1985 Bill will have an effect identical to that which would have occurred in 1984. This Bill repeals the requirement that estates valued at more than $10,000 will be administered by private trustees. If these provisions are enacted in respect of all those estates, the court will be compelled to appoint an official receiver. Although, at the first meeting of creditors they will have a right to appoint a private trustee, that right is rarely exercised at that stage. In practice, the official receiver will be the administrator of the overwhelming number of bankrupt estates, whether they are below $10,000 or above $10,000 in assets. The Opposition is somewhat astounded that the Government described these changes as a mere modification. The former Attorney-General's description of them as a reversal is probably more accurate. The Government has offered no real explanation as to why the privatisation provisions are to be repealed, other than the comment I have already quoted from the former Attorney-General to the effect that some trustees engage in distinctly unprofessional conduct, and most trustees do not take their investigatory and reporting duties seriously. If that is the case, the provisions in the Bill, which the Opposition does not oppose, will enable the investigatory and reporting duties to be carried out by the official receiver if the private trustee does not carry them out. It also gives him power to apply to the court if the trustee is not carrying out his job properly. These provisions seem to be adequate to overcome the objection of the Government to the 1981 Bill. The Opposition supports the provisions, but the Government has not given any convincing reason why the basic privatisation policy should be reversed; except, as we know, the present Government has a socialist philosophy and attitude and it believes that things are done better by public servants and officials than by people in private practice or private enterprise. It is a doctrinaire approach to how Government is best carried on. Senator Gareth Evans —Except in the case of cash bidding and off-shore petroleum leases. Senator DURACK —That is a quite irrelevant matter; we will argue about that on another occasion. It seems to the Opposition that this is another example of the Government's socialist attitudes and philosophy. The former Government in its major review of Commonwealth functions in 1980-81, known as the razor gang, sought to reverse the trend of many years-even of previous Liberal governments-to set up public authorities and officials to carry out work which is properly the role of the private sector and which the private sector does better than government. This seems to be an issue of political philosophy and attitude. We in opposition, of course, adhere strongly to the view that privatisation should take the place of what have been hitherto public functions, wherever that is satisfactory. It has been done here and by and large it has worked satisfactorily. There have been some failings. This Bill has provisions which overcome those failings. In the Opposition's view that is where the matter should be left. Accordingly, although we substantially support this measure, we will oppose two clauses in the Bill which give effect to this reversal of the basic decision of the Fraser Government's privatisation policy. At the committee stage we will oppose clauses 15 and 17 of the Bill, which are the key clauses in reversing that policy. Otherwise, we support the measure. (Quorum formed) Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.31) —The Bankruptcy Amendment Bill 1985, as has already been pointed out by both the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Opposition spokesman, Senator Durack, is a revised version of a Bill which was introduced into the Parliament in May last year and which makes a number of significant amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 across a wide range of areas. As the Minister explained, the amendments follow a review of the operation of the Act and the Government's decision to modify the legislation implementation of the review of government functions decision in 1981. The amendments in this Bill are changes to the 1984 Bill and arise from extensive discussions following the introduction of the 1984 Bill last year. They rectify, I believe, a number of inadequacies in the original version of the Bill. My major concern when the Government introduced the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill in 1984 was that private trustees would have retained little or no role in the scheme of things and that petitioners would have no real choice. As a consequence, I spent a significant amount of time in the middle of last year-in August, September and later on-consulting those people who had a vested interest in the maintenance of private trustees, industry people concerned, the Government and the Attorney-General's Department. The people I consulted included accountants who dealt in this area, lawyers who were involved in the area, representatives of credit bureaux, credit managers of large organisations and so on. Having spoken to those people and determined the clauses in the 1984 Bill that they were concerned about, I was pleased early this year to be able to write to them informing them of the change of heart that the Government had had and the changes that had been made to the 1984 Bill before it was reintroduced in 1985. In that letter, inter alia, I said: . . . the really contentious clauses in the old Bill- that is the 1984 Bill- are to be deleted (namely clauses 13, 19, 20 (a) and 20 (c), 32-34, 37, 42 (1) &42 (2), although the clauses have been watered down. At the end of the letter I pointed out: I would appreciate it if you could let me know as soon as possible if you and your colleagues see any major problems left in the Bill. I had a number of responses. Presumably, those people who did not respond could see no major problems left. Nobody I contacted of the people I had seen around the country last year complained of any significant problems being left in the Bill. The answers I received supporting the changes went along the lines of a letter from a building industry credit bureau which said: We were indeed pleased to hear that you had achieved so very much of what we had sought in relation to the Bill, and we commend you both for your grasp of the subject matter and the manner in which you presented same. Neither I nor my colleagues can now see any major problem left with the Bill. I think it is important to note that those who were consulted believe that there are no major problems left with the Bill. They are, after all, the ones who have to bear the brunt of anything which is done in this Parliament. The various areas in which changes are being effected already have been outlined by the Minister and addressed, to a certain extent, by Senator Durack. I would like to comment on some of them. In particular, I am pleased to note the changes relating to trustees, this area being the main concern I had, as I indicated a moment ago, with the earlier Bill. The amendments to the Act which came into operation in 1981 were designed to encourage greater private sector involvement in the administration of bankruptcies under Parts IV and XI. Experience since that time has revealed a number of disturbing matters to which the Inspector-General's report on the area drew attention. Private trustees appeared to be reluctant to exercise their powers of reporting and examination. There was increasing evidence of undesirable practices by some trustees. Very properly, therefore, the original, now the revised version of the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill, incorporates amendments designed to entrench in the Act the qualifications necessary for a person to be registered as a trustee and allow for a better level of continuing supervision. Other improvements include the requirement for regular reporting and the updating of bonds by registered trustees in bankruptcy. On the other hand, the original version of the Bill gave rise to concern by failing to retain a real role for private trustees. The revisions to the Bill rectify this. I am pleased to note the Minister's statement that it is not the policy of the Government to exclude registered trustees from the administration of bankrupt estates. The new version of the Bill provides a better balance between the undoubted need to subject private trustees to adequate scrutiny and regulation and a continued role for them in the administration of bankrupt estates. To accommodate these revisions, four amendments have been made to section 12 of the Act by clause 4 of the Bill. These amendments expand the investigatory role of the Inspector-General by adding to it a power to investigate the conduct, trade dealings, property and affairs of a bankrupt in respect of both the period before and the period after the bankruptcy. They allow an investigation by the Inspector-General of the performance of duties by a trustee as well as an investigation of conduct. They make specific reference to the preparation and filing of a report showing the result of an investigation and enable the Inspector-General to appoint an official receiver to act as his agent for the purpose of conducting the inquiry or investigation. Clause 10 has also been revised to effect changes to section 19 of the Act. This recasting of the section was necessary to distinguish between those duties that can be performed only by the official trustee or registered trustee and those that can be performed by the Official Receiver even where the official trustee is not trustee of the estate. The result will be as follows: The duties of notification, the ascertaining of assets, et cetera, will be performed by the trustee. The duty to investigate will be performed by the trustee. But where he or she is a registered trustee and has decided that an investigation is not desirable, he or she shall satisfy the Official Receiver that the decision is reasonable. The duty to summon the first meeting would be performed by the trustee. Duties relating to the public examination could be performed by the Official Receiver or the trustee on the same basis as the duty to investigate. Finally, a duty to ensure that a bankrupt files his statement of affairs under section 54 is imposed on the trustee. I believe these revised amendments and those made to related sections of the Act have ensured that private trustees will continue to have a real role and that petitioners will have a real choice. This is the important element. Senator Durack indicated that the Opposition's priority was to the privatisation of the area. Certainly the 1984 Bill introduced by the Government indicated quite the reverse of that and I think was legitimately, as Senator Durack indicated, a sort of socialist doctrine in the area. On the other hand, the 1985 Bill reverts to giving a continuing and viable role to private trustees and does give a real choice to the petitioners concerned. I think that was indicated when I mentioned earlier the sort of response I had after consultation with people involved in this area. At the same time, other amendments ensure that suitably qualified people are registered as trustees and that adequate accountability is required of them. Apart from the areas that I have just mentioned, there are a number of other amendments in the Bill which are to be commended. The strengthening of provisions which give special protection to maintenance creditors is to be welcomed. The removal of anomalies and the achievement of greater uniformity with the Companies Act is sensible, to say the very least. As I have indicated, the modification of the Review of Commonwealth Functions decision is quite acceptable to us now that the problems arising in the original version of the Bill with regard to private trustees have been rectified. At the same time it would be remiss of me if I did not say that a more thoroughgoing review of insolvency law is desirable. The Minister has already pointed out that a review is being undertaken by the Law Reform Commission. But he has also unfortunately commented that any review undertaken by the Government must await the report of the Commission and that this will be some years in the future. I recall having a rather acrimonious discussion with the Minister when he was Attorney-General-- Senator Gareth Evans —Not possible; we were never acrimonious. Senator HAINES —No, but on the odd occasion we got a little scrappy. We discussed reviews of the Family Law Act, particularly following the High Court of Australia decision on Mallet and Mallet. I was met then with the same response, that the Law Reform Commission was undertaking a review of the Act and that it would have to wait until then. However, as I pointed out, in the area of family law the report was not due until the end of 1985 and, given the speed with which things move around this place, that meant that the report would perhaps hit the Senate some time in 1986 and maybe there would be legislation in 1987; in the meantime a number of families would be significantly affected, not only by the Mallet and Mallet decision but also by other sections of the Act which need updating. I would hate to see the problems that still exist in some areas of insolvency law continue for many years in the future, which were the Minister's words, simply because we are waiting on a report from the Commission. The sorts of problems that there are-one or two have come to my attention recently-include the difficulties confronting unsecured creditors. This has been particularly noticeable in South Australia with regard to primary produce suppliers. I am thinking in particular of grape growers in the Riverland whenever a winery goes into liquidation. These people are on the end of the list and frequently receive no payment, yet they work and provide the necessary produce for the wine company to operate and for the wage and salary earners within that industry to get their income. To put them on the end of the line is grossly unfair. We are also confronted regularly with people who get around the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act by transferring their assets to others. The urgency of these and other problems must not be forgotten by the Government. They cannot be batted away to leg on the ground that the Law Reform Commission is investigating the whole sorry tangle. The problems ought to be considered as a matter of some urgency by this Government. If the Government can see fit to make the amendments it has made in this Bill, I think it is not beyond it to look at some other areas where urgent attention is required. In the meantime, the Australian Democrats support the interim measures that have been undertaken by the 1985 version of the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill and only hope that the Government will turn its attention to addressing some of the other shortcomings in the field of insolvency law in the very near future. (Quorum formed) Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.47) —in reply-I am grateful for the general support this measure has received from both the Opposition and the Australian Democrats subject, of course, in the case of the Opposition, to its continuing nostalgic affection for the changes to the legislation wrought by the Fraser Government's razor gang, which the Opposition wants to maintain in place. It would seem that the relative roles of the Official Receiver and private trustees in the administration of bankruptcies are the only issues in the legislation which have attracted comment in the debate from Senator Durack and Senator Haines. Accordingly, I will confine my remarks in reply to those issues. The situation can be summarised briefly as follows: Before 1981, the Official Receiver was responsible by statute for the investigation and initial administration of all bankruptcies. The thrust of the razor gang's changes, which were implemented in legislation in 1981, was to require the appointment of a private trustee, a registered trustee, wherever the divisible assets exceeded $10,000 in value. This was done by requiring a petitioning debtor-that is, someone seeking to make himself bankrupt-or a petitioning creditor-that is, someone seeking to make someone else bankrupt-to file the consent of a registered trustee along with the petition. The initial proposal of the Government, which was introduced by me last year, was simply to remove that and restore the pre-1981 status quo. The present legislation comes forward in not an absolute reversal of the 1981 legislation but rather a modification of it. The effect of the proposal now before the chamber is to make the filing of such a consent optional rather than mandatory. The option will be exercised by the petitioner, whether petitioning creditor or petitioning debtor. It will remain possible for the creditors to meet together and pass a resolution appointing a registered trustee as trustee of the state pursuant to section 157 of the Bankruptcy Act. The reversal of the Review of Commonwealth Functions decision will not, therefore, preclude registered trustees from playing a significant role under the Act. However, what it will do, in conjunction with the other provisions before us, is ensure that the involvement of registered trustees is coupled with proper safeguards and checks. Senator Haines outlined in more detail the way in which this optional reference system will operate. It is necessary, in the light of what Senator Durack said, to explain fully for the record what has motivated the Government to change the razor gang, or RCF, decision. It is necessary to explain why the system introduced by the Fraser Government has not been working and why it needs to be fairly substantially overhauled. The RCF decision was conceived in undue haste. It resulted in some 20 per cent of new estates being administered by private trustees without any measures being introduced to ensure the proper supervision of the work of these trustees. For example, at the time of the reversal, the vast majority of registered trustees had no experience at all in the administration of bankruptcies. A handful of trustees, mainly in Sydney and Melbourne, had experience in administering bankruptcies, but elsewhere there was a total absence of experienced trustees. Despite this, no measures were introduced to ensure that bankruptcies were handled only by those who knew the ropes. As a result, a number of people registered as trustees, but with no experience of bankruptcies, have been guilty of misconduct in their administrations. Let me give some specific illustrations of matters that have been before the courts where misconduct has been squarely determined. On 6 July last year, in the Federal Court of Australia, Mr Justice Beaumont ordered that the registration of David Geoffrey Bradley as trustee be cancelled pursuant to sub-section 155 (5) of the Act. On 2 May 1983 Richard McDonald Chinner, a trustee, presented a petition against himself. On 23 May that year the Federal Court made an order cancelling his registration as a trustee. There were very substantial defalcations and unauthorised payments in the administrations being handled by Chinner at the date of his bankruptcy. On 20 June last year, Mr Justice Sheppard of the Federal Court ordered that the registration of John Ramsay Paul Partridge be cancelled at his own request. This order was made following the commencement of proceedings by the Registrar in Bankruptcy under section 179 of the Act, seeking an inquiry into the conduct of the trustee and an order cancelling his registration. Then again, on 7 August 1984, Bernard Putnin, a registered trustee, was remanded to the October sittings of the District Court of Western Australia. Putnin has been charged as a result of his conduct in apparently acting as a financial adviser for a debtor, and assisting him in establishing trusts to put his assets out of the reach of his creditors, and as his trustee of his subsequent deed of assignment under Part X of the Act. The hearing of these charges is listed for later this year. On 5 March 1985 the registration of Brian Malcolm Dunlop was cancelled by order of the court. Mr Dunlop had been made bankrupt on 5 February 1985 when a sequestration order was made against his estate. There are other individual instances of that kind that one could mention and a number of instances, as I have already mentioned, involving a great many administrations-not just a handful of them-under the Bankruptcy Act being conducted by the persons in question. One other case deserves specific mention, even though it is the subject of a creditor's petition which is before the courts now, and as such should not be the subject of specific reference as to the identities of the persons concerned. It is the case that one of the busiest trustees in Sydney, responsible for some 200 administrations currently under the Bankruptcy Act, is the subject at the moment of a creditor's petition which is based on a debt arising from the trustee's mishandling of an administration under the Bankruptcy Act. That state of affairs was commented upon adversely when the judgment debt was obtained in the Supreme Court of New South Wales last year, with the judge in question referring to the conduct of the trustee and concluding that he was not a credible person. I could go on and on, but I think I have indicated enough instances-I appreciate that individual instances may be just that-and there is a sufficiently widespread pattern of the kind of conduct to which I have referred to have given rise to very grave concern on the part of the Government about the way the system was operating, which we believe justified the measures that we have taken. It is the case-I can document it now-that since the implementation of the 1981 decision registered trustees, generally speaking, have displayed a pronounced disinclination to take seriously the investigative and reporting duties placed upon a trustee in bankruptcy. I made that statement last year. I now back it up by saying that a survey has been taken of estates in which it could be expected that substantive action would have been taken. This revealed that, in the period from 2 November 1981 to 31 May 1983, the Official Trustee conducted public examinations in 19.3 per cent of such estates administered by it; registered trustees held examinations in 5 per cent of the estates administered by them. Also, the Official Trustee filed reports under paragraph 19 (1) (c) of the Act in 24 per cent of such administrations; the corresponding figure for registered trustees was just 3.9 per cent. These figures reveal that one result of the RCF decision has been, whether or not one likes it or can live with it, a double standard in the administration of bankruptcies. Estates administered by registered trustees have been subjected to far less vigorous investigation than estates administered by the Official Trustee. Of course, there will be lots of individual exceptions to that generalisation, but as a general proposition it holds good. The figures that I have put on the record demonstrate that fact unequivocally. The Government's decision, let me finally say, to modify the RCF decision of 1981 does not indicate that the Government is opposed to a significant role in the administration of bankruptcies for registered trustees. We simply believe that the method of implementing the RCF decision was misconceived. We shall seek other more satisfactory ways of increasing the role of registered trustees, while avoiding the pitfalls of the original Fraser razor gang decision. It is expected that the Australian Law Reform Commission will report on this, among other things, pursuant to its general reference on insolvency. An issues paper in respect of that report has recently been issued by the relevant commissioner. This legislation is overdue and thoroughly justified by the situation that has existed on the ground. I commend it to the Senate. (Quorum formed) Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 14-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 15 (Proceedings and order on creditor's petition). Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.00) —As I indicated in my speech to the second reading motion, the Opposition is opposed to this clause and to clause 17, each of which reverses, in essence, the decision of the Fraser Government to require that all bankrupt estates of over $10,000 be administered by private trustees rather than by the Official Receiver. I have indicated that that is the only area of the Bill to which the Opposition is opposed. I restate that opposition and express my disappointment that apparently the Australian Democrats are not prepared to support us in our opposition. In that event, it will fail and a very large role for the official receivers in the administration of bankrupt estates will be restored. Just to give emphasis to the point I am making, I refer honourable senators to the explanatory memorandum to the Bill which was circulated. Under the heading 'Financial Impact Statement' the explanatory memorandum states: The amendments proposed by the Bill will result in an increase in the number of estates administered by the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy. It is estimated that no more than 42 extra staff will be required to absorb the extra workload. The statement that no more than 42 extra staff would be needed is typical of this Government in every respect. In fact, the cost of the additional 42 people will be $1.275m. Anyone with administrative experience would double that amount pretty quickly. So it all goes on under the Labor administration. The cost of public administration as against private activity is enormous. The cost of public servants, hence public administration, under this Government has increased by hundreds of millions of dollars in one year and each year this Government is in office it will be the same. That is the issue we are concerned about. We are disappointed that the Australian Democrats will not support us on this issue. Despite the statement of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), the former Attorney-General, that the Government does not want to squeeze out private trustees, it is clear from experience that they played a very small role in the administration of bankrupt estates. Only the provisions that were implemented by legislative amendment to the Bankruptcy Act in 1981 reversed that position and gave private trustees a significant role. If there were deficiencies in the way in which private trustees carried out their role, they would be rectified in this legislation by other means which the Minister at the table has indicated and which the Democrats have recognised. Those means would be all that would be necessary to overcome these problems and to enable perhaps greater investigation of certain estates and reporting on the conduct of the bankrupt which led to the bankruptcy, and perhaps enforcement proceedings of the Act. Those are undoubtedly proper roles for government officials. But the Opposition does not believe that the ordinary administration of getting in assets and disposing of them, distributing the estate and declaring dividends to creditors and so on, is by any means a necessary or appropriate role for government officials. We seek to achieve a reasonable balance which we think can be achieved by other amendments in this legislation. It is not necessary virtually to reverse the policy of privatisation which had been initiated and implemented by the Fraser Government. We therefore oppose this clause or any other clauses that have that effect. However, as the decision on this issue presumably can be taken in on this clause, if as indicated our opposition to it is not supported by the Democrats, the Opposition will not persist with further opposition in subsequent clauses. This is really the test case of the issue which is between the Opposition and the Government on this Bill. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.05) —Senator Durack is quite correct. The Australian Democrats will not support the Opposition's amendment to delete clause 15 of the 1985 Bill, which corresponds to clause 14 of the 1984 Bill. As I indicated in my speech on the second reading, I consulted widely last year with private trustees and with representatives of organisations and industries which had an interest in the preservation of choice and in the maintenance of a role for private trustees in insolvency law. As a consequence of that, some fairly objectionable clauses in the 1984 Bill were deleted, including old clauses 13, 19, 20, 29, 32 to 34, and 37. A number of others, while not deleted, were significantly amended. At no stage in any discussion that I had with any individual involved in maintaining a role for private trustees was the deletion of old clause 14-that is, new clause 15-raised with me. At no stage did anybody object to it. Indeed, when I sat with those people with a copy of the 1984 Bankruptcy Amendment Bill in front of me, marking the passages to which they had no objection, and those to which they objected, and the clauses which they wanted amended, I ticked clause 14 as being acceptable to those people in the industry. If it is good enough for them to accept, it is certainly good enough for me to go along with. I can only assume that the Opposition has brought forward this last remaining bone of contention from some ideological commitment rather than because the industry wants it to do so. I have no more brief to support the privatisation mania of the Opposition than I have to support the socialism of the Government. What is in the best interests of the people concerned is my major interest. For that reason, we can see no point in proceeding with any additional amendments to the Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.07) —For reasons which I spelt out at some length in my second reading reply and which I have no need here to repeat, the Government will maintain its position on clause 15. We are indebted to the support of the Australian Democrats in that respect. Through Senator Haines, they have played a constructive role, although not always initially to the Government's taste, in securing amendments to the first draft of this legislation that was introduced last year. Senator Durack's continued defence of the razor gang decision can only be described as ideological rather than rational in its content. Senator Haines identified the deficiencies in his position in that respect very aptly. The only new material put on the record in Senator Durack's contribution to the Committee stage of this debate was a reference to the additional costs involved in a significant number of matters reverting to the Official Receiver. The cost of the extra staff involved will be met by, first, the termination of work of the temporary task force of 47 officers, presently working in the branch, to overcome backlogs that largely mounted up during the period of Senator Durack's tenure of the office of Attorney-General. On top of that, additional income will be received by the Government, to some extent from increases in official fees that were not designed for this purpose. Also, more particularly, additional income will come from the increased earning capacity of the common investment fund, or the CIF, which fund comprises the proceeds of the sale of assets in bankruptcies. At present, in the 20 per cent of bankruptcies which are administered by private trustees, these funds are held by private trustees in trust accounts and do not attract any significant interest. That situation will change to the extent that the administrations are run by the Official Receiver. So on all counts-rationality and experience in the field-it would appear that the Opposition's objections to this clause are unfounded. We urge the Senate to vote accordingly. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 26 March, on motion by Senator Aulich: That the following Address-in-Reply be agreed to: To His Excellency the Governor-General May it please Your Excellency- We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. upon which Senator Chaney had moved by way of amendment: That the following words be added to the Address-in-Reply ', but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government's program outlined in the Governor-General's Speech fails to address critical problems facing Australia in that- (a) it fails to reassure the Australian people that the country's defence arrangements within the Western Alliance will be preserved and strengthened following: (i) the Prime Minister's capitulation to internal party pressures on the issue of Australia providing logistical assistance to the United States for its testing of the MX missile, and (ii) increasing uncertainty as to the future of the ANZUS Treaty fuelled by members of the Labor Government, including a Cabinet Minister; (b) it contains no coherent economic strategy at a time when recovery is threatened by: (i) record government taxation and spending, (ii) continuing pressure within the Government for new taxes on assets, (iii) growing demands for higher wages and other extra cost burdens on industry, (iv) the level of public debt repayments, and (v) loss of value of the currency reflecting world concern about Australia's competitiveness and government instability; and (c) it endorses a rigid, centralised wage determining structure which imposes the same cost burdens on commerce and industry regardless of ability to pay.' The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —I remind the Senate that Senator Vanstone is about to make her maiden speech and I ask that honourable senators extend to her the usual courtesies. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(11.11) —Mr Acting Deputy President, as you have so kindly drawn to my colleagues' attention, I have risen in this chamber to make my first speech. I stand here on the very back bench of the Opposition as a new senator representing South Australia. Albeit I have hundreds of grey hairs, at the age of 32 I am nonetheless the youngest member of this chamber. In this regard I am closely followed by Senator Black and then by another member of the Liberal Party of Australia, Senator Knowles. I am aware that the youngest senator ever to take a seat in this chamber was Hattil Spencer Foll, who took his seat in July 1917 at the age of 28. It is interesting that the youngest member of the Senate was a non-Labor representative and took his seat almost 70 years ago. He served this Parliament for 30 years. I cannot move on without making reference to a colleague who was recently returned to the Senate, Senator Puplick, who, I understand, has the dubious distinction of being the youngest senator ever to leave this chamber. Australia is a comparatively youthful country. She has the future before her and it can be a bright one. We have the space, the physical resources and a marvellous mix of human resources blending skills and cultures from many countries. The very sad fact is that the young people in this country are not enjoying the benefits of the enthusiasm and energy that come from believing in the future that this country has and consequently are not realising the opportunities that they have as individuals in this country. As the youngest senator, I feel compelled to address the disillusionment of young Australians. In my view it is an absolute disgrace that a country which has the wealth of opportunities that this country has can tolerate for one minute the degree of disillusionment that young Australians display. Let me outline the picture that young Australians see as they approach the time when they move out of secondary schooling and into their adult lives. They have approximately a one in four chance of getting a job. They have a one in three chance of getting tertiary education. They see a government with a Prime Minister who promised them 'a nation in which all can share fairly in the abundance and all the opportunities offered by this great country of ours' and they see a reality that does not match up to that. Recent polls will have made the Government only too well aware of how disillusioned young people are with it. Young people do not accept the view put forward by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, on 13 November last year. They do not see abundance and opportunities; they see despair. There is despair in the young people seeking jobs. There is despair in the employers battling the flood of on-costs that threaten to drown their employment capacity. There is despair in our aging population, which is terrified that someone in the Government wants to know the value of their curtains and their keepsakes. There is despair in the general community over the burden of taxation and the horrific suspicion that more is yet to come. There is despair in the community at the realisation that this country is living on borrowed money and borrowed time. There is despair at having elected a government that now appears not to know where it is going or what it wants to do. It is a tragedy that there is so much despair in a country that has yet to reach out and grasp the fortune that lies before her. On entering Parliament the Prime Minister rose like a sparkling skyrocket to his current position. The Australian people, particularly the young people, are now looking past the glitter of the Hawke ascendancy to the hard substance of things. What do they see? The first thing they see is that what goes up inevitably comes down, and in a skyrocket's case the descent is not nearly as attractive. They see the despair that I have already outlined. They also see a huge gap or void and they see that in that void should be this Government's plan and this Government's vision, a way out of our problems. If this Government has a vision, it is the best kept secret this Parliament has ever seen: or is it that the Left has one vision, the Centre Left another and the Right another, and that this Government, being stuck with a point in every direction, has ended up with no point at all? Australians now realise only too well that promises are cheap and rhetoric is hollow. Vegemite nationalism is not a program or blueprint for the future. The Prime Minister is very good at being enthusiastic when we win the tennis, he is wonderful at being enthusiastic when we win the cricket and he is excellent at being enthusiastic when we win a boat race. He is a catalyst for what I have already referred to as vegemite nationalism. It is easy to be enthusiastic about winning but what I want to know, what young Australians want to know and what all Australians want to know is: Where is the enthusiasm to tackle the problems facing this country? Where is the enthusiasm to generate meaningful jobs for young people? Where is the enthusiasm to save our industries from being emasculated by restrictive wage environments? I could recite a whole range of tasks that need to be tackled and I could point out that they need to be tackled within the framework of a comprehensive plan. However, I can understand that as this Prime Minister and this Government have no plan with which to tackle these problems, we are perhaps being unrealistic to expect them to be enthusiastic about implementing a non-existent vision. This country has had an overdose of pantomime politics. We do not need any more speeches that sound good; we need ones that are good and sound. We do not need any more speeches that raise people to their feet so much as ones that bring them to their senses. We need enthusiasm to tackle the tasks ahead and we need determination. We also need something that in my view has been lacking in this country for a considerable time and it is a vital element: We cannot achieve our goals without political will. With that will, there are no doors this country cannot open and no limits on the achievements that we can make. The lack of this political will has been particularly evident with successive governments in the area of public excess, waste and failure. Successive governments have been scared off by some taboos or myths. These need to be not only challenged but also shattered. Let me give some examples. The first example I choose is education. We now know that spending more money on education does not mean that we have better educated Australians. Since 1975 the average education expenditure per student in real terms has increased by more than 50 per cent. Honourable senators should ask themselves: Has the quality of education improved that much? The answer must be no. The education budget deserves the closest scrutiny, reappraisal and rearrangement. The second myth is that the Public Service at all levels needs to be permitted the luxury of permanency. My personal view is that there is a level at which the Public Service needs permanency, but that level is considerably high. Disposing of permanency below that level would allow competition to thrive and would cast off the very debilitating net of dead wood that encompasses our Public Service. Allow me to liken the Public Service to a rose bush; I think it is high time that the secateurs came out, the dead wood was cut off and new blooms were permitted to come through. We should let the good public servants be really good. We should not make them waste their efforts fighting their way through fools and dragging the dead wood behind them. We should let the real stars in our Public Service shine. Another area that needs close attention is that of Aboriginal affairs. My colleague Senator Knowles earlier this week outlined with a marked degree of clarity the depth of feeling that exists within this area. These conflicts cannot be ignored and must be resolved. We need political will and wisdom to sort out our taxation system. The Prime Minister's impending summit is nothing more than a means of getting off the hook. If one has no ideas oneself or one has a complete inability to sort out one's own priorities, the best thing one can do is call a summit. This enables one to pass the buck on to the participants in one's pantomine. This summit shows that this Government has run out of ideas and is incapable of setting taxation reform priorities. I believe that no government should take in personal income tax a greater share of each dollar earned than the portion that the person earning it is allowed to keep. A personal rate tax of more than 50c in the dollar is, to my mind, the clearest disincentive to work longer, to work harder and to be more efficient. The next area to which we must address ourselves is that of social welfare. I do not wish today to address any remarks to the entrepreneurs of welfare. I feel confident that we in this chamber all know what should be done with those people who use the system to their advantage and to the disadvantage of those who are in real need. However, the proper utilisation of taxpayers' money lies not only in meeting simple fiscal accountability, but also in meeting the legitimate needs of the people. In this regard I wish to look at the social welfare scene in this country and, more particularly, at the recipients. I refer to some changes in the welfare scene that have occurred over the last decade. There has been a disturbing increase in the number of single parent families-mothers with small children and without husbands or whose husbands have deserted them, who cannot survive and bring up their children without state intervention. There has been an increase in the unemployed and therefore in the number of those on the unemployment benefit. There has been an increase in the number of people on the age pension and the widow's pension. In fact, there has been an increase in the number of recipients of most pensions. I should not need to point out to honourable senators that women are particularly vulnerable in this area. All of these welfare recipients have a limited income. They are all poor. A new identity has been forced upon them and they have become reliant upon the state for their most basic needs. This is a humiliating and dangerous position to put them in. They are becoming the children of the state. They have become institutionalised just as surely as if they had been given a uniform, and we probably have already given them a number. Few have yet adequately grasped or recognised the nature of this new client state-suspicious, more sophisticated, more articulate and yet more helpless, more bitter and more resigned. And so, with the best of intentions, the state has paid out millions in welfare and without realising it, has created this new client state with people trapped by the state-with no future beyond the next welfare cheque. There must be a better way-a way that enables welfare recipients to retain a greater degree of individuality, a way that will free them from the prison of dependence on the state and will enhance the individual's opportunity to set in train his or her own advancement. Mr Deputy President, I have outlined some of the challenges we face. Let me now pin my colours to the mast so that this chamber can see the thoughts that will guide me through what I hope will be many years in this chamber. I am a passionate believer in capitalism. It is the system best equipped to cope with human frailty. It is a shame, in my view, that the proponents of capitalism have failed to market its benefits as adequately as they have marketed is products. Capitalism is a dirty word in some quarters and that is because the Left has hijacked the moral vocabulary of politics. They market their program as being based on a moral creed of selfless sharing, and this is meant to be achieved by the planned subordination of the individual to the well-being of the community. It of course fails to take account of the frailties of human nature. The capitalist system does, of course, take account of the frailties of human nature; it accepts human nature for what it is and makes the best of a bad job. Capitalism, with its corner-stone of individualism, safeguards liberty against the gross pretentions of the state and acknowledges that the energy of personal enterprise is far more productive than the planning of bureaucrats and that the whole community benefits from the greater productivity, innovation and enthusiasm of personal enterprise. I believe the ultimate morality must lie with the individual and, accordingly, that individual responsibility is not an accident or an adjunct of capitalism; it is its moral justification. I have great faith in the individual and I believe we must guard against the misuse of misguided notions of equality that threaten to reduce all Australians to the lowest common denominator. I believe in equality of opportunity, in equality before the law, in equal rights; I do not, however, believe that all men are born equal. This is a misguided notion: Some are intelligent, some not; some are born in fortunate circumstances, others are not so lucky; some are born with musical ability that others will never have. Our differences, our unequalness, is the very essence of our individualism. It is the misuse of the adjective 'equal' and its capacity to take on an all-pervasive meaning that can lead us astray. To one who says 'I believe in equality' we should ask: 'Equality of what?'. I believe individuals are unequal by nature and that therefore unequal rewards are fairer than fair shares to worker and shirker alike. That is, of course, why Senator Button, who is not here this morning, is on the Government front bench and other senators are not. It is an acknowledgment that his talents far exceed those of some of his colleagues, and therefore he is not equal among his colleagues. In addition to being a passionate supporter of the capitalist system, I also hold the adversary system in high regard. We use it in our courts to get as close as we can to justice and we use a variation of it in this Parliament to get as close as we can to good government. It is a privilege to participate in our system of government and I, of course, wish to thank those who were so helpful to me in my passage to Parliament, however bumpy the road may have been. The people I refer to know full well who they are and they do not need to be named. They know how many envelopes they licked and how many telephone calls they made and they know they have my gratitude. I simply take this opportunity to place that gratitude on the public record. I wish, however, also to address some remarks to some of those people who were not helpful-to those who actively worked for others and therefore against me; to those people, the likes of whom are found in many walks of life on both sides of Parliament, who wish to be with the winner and so they tittle-tattle between various contestants and supporters and in doing so display a degree of flexibility that makes the proverbial willow or bamboo appear rock solid. The message to these two groups is this: They also have my unreserved gratitude for the role that they played. I have indicated my faith in the adversary system because it forces each side to put its case to be judged and in this way achieve the best result. Preselections follow the same adversary type of system. Accordingly, my thanks for participating as my opposition go to those people I have just mentioned. Mr Deputy President, opposition provides some wonderful benefits. It provides the challenge that feeds the spirit, the interaction that sharpens the wit, and the debate that heightens the intellect; and of course, there is nothing like the impending prospect of one's own blood being spilt on the preselection floor to get one's adrenalin going. As an Opposition senator it is quite appropriate for me to expand on the reasons I have for being such an ardent supporter of the adversary system. I have already mentioned that such a system results in each side having to put its case as best it can. This has a further result in that a tension sets up between the various sides. The benefits of this creative tension should never be underestimated. It can generate new and interesting ideas and can make a positive contribution to the better government of this country. If in parliament each side puts its case with good faith the process and results of debate can only be enhanced. We should rejoice in the noise of public argument for it is the music of freedom. Mr Deputy President, I have been quick to point out the realistic, albeit depressing, features of Australia today. I have pointed out the disillusionment of young Australians and their consequent lack of hope and vision for the future. I have pointed out some of the problems that force our industrialists to live in the world of today, here and now, rather than mapping out their plan for the future. I have pointed to one disastrous consequence of our welfare state-the creation of a client state with its participants imprisoned by state dependence and having no capacity to plan for their future beyond the arrival of their next cheque. They have been forced into the shortsightedness of poverty. It is only fair, therefore, that I point out some of the aspirations that I have for this nation. I want to see a nation whose governments build individualism and oppose collectivism; who reward enterprise and not apathy; and who encourage the pursuit of excellence and spurn mediocrity. I want to see this nation with a taxation system that is fair to all; with meaningful job opportunities especially for young Australians; where our ageing citizens can feel secure; and with an education system that encourages individuals to realise their full potential. I want a nation where industry can operate without the excessive burden of governments on its back; with an industrial system based on equity rather than misplaced industrial muscle; and with a government that cares more for individual Australians than for its own re-election. Mr Deputy President, this is but a sketch of the aspirations that I have for this nation. Perhaps I can sum it up this way: I want all Australians to be able to cast off the burdens that tie us down with shortsighted mentality. I want young Australians, industrialists, workers, entrepreneurs, the aged-indeed all Australians-to lift their eyes confidently beyond today's horizon and into the future before us. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(11.33) —I am pleased to be able to follow my South Australian colleague Senator Vanstone. I am delighted that she is no longer a political maiden because I have rarely heard a better exposition of all the things I disagree with and I will be delighted to take this opportunity to make some remarks about the things she has said. First of all, I congratulate the new senators who have joined the old chums like myself, who have been here for all of one previous session. I welcome those new senators on both Government and Opposition benches. To this point we have heard a number of maiden speeches that do suggest that a variety of views has come into this Parliament. I must say I am beholden to the clear statements of the Opposition's view of the world we have received, particularly in the last speech. I also make it quite clear that I disagree with just about every point Senator Vanstone made, particularly her emphasis. She portrays, first of all, an example of what is known in my trade as classical transference. The lack of policies that she claims belongs to the Government is clearly a measure of her Party's lack of policies. In all her long lists and sagas she made not one comment about what her Party in government might do. She listed the things she claims this Government has not done and will not do. The success of the Labor Government is acknowledged by its having been returned for a second term. The importance of this in terms of benefit to this country cannot be stated. Not only have two years of Labor government changed the direction of this country as a result of the policies and programs established in that short time but also we see now the possibility for the consolidation and further implementation of those programs that the Government has set in train and wishes to continue. This importance cannot be overestimated, particularly in regard to some items that I will highlight as I make my comments. For example, the introduction and establishment of Medicare are well under way. A further three years of people in this country benefiting from that program and allowing it to become deeply entrenched as part of their lifestyle can only be to the benefit of this country. In passing, there is no doubt too that one should acknowledge yet again that the Labor Government won the election. In some quarters-curiously on Opposition benches-it is sometimes thought that the Opposition won. That is a measure of Opposition members' peculiar view of the world. They do not sit on the treasury bench; they did not win the election. The Labor Government won and has been returned for three years to consolidate its programs. The reason the Labor Government was returned is not unlike the reason it was elected in the first place. It had to deal with the disgraceful economic performance of the Fraser Government and after doing that, after addressing it so successfully in its two years of government, the people of Australia judged that this Government is well able to manage the economy to the benefit of all Australians. This Government came to power with inflation somewhere over 11 per cent and in its two and a bit years in office it reduced inflation to 5.3 per cent in real terms, although if we allow for the Medicare effect it is 2.6 per cent. In fact, if we admit the effect of Medicare and remove it inflation is now down to 5 per cent, one of the great achievements of the Labor Government. The Government's next great achievement was to reduce unemployment. Admittedly unemployment is still high and nobody on the Government benches in the Senate is happy with the figure but at least we can say that unemployment is falling. Jobs are being created to the extent that the Government is well on target towards attaining its initial proposal of creating 500,000 jobs in three years. It is set fair to achieve that claim and at the same time we can acknowledge the fall in unemployment from 10.2 per cent when we arrived in government to just over 8 per cent now in all parts of Australia except Queensland where unemployment, unlike in the rest of the country, is rising. Senator Vanstone's remarks about the importance of free enterprise and the difficulties concerning the contribution of government are curiously misrepresented. I ask Senator Vanstone whether she seriously wishes to give away the government contribution to all those individuals who will ride high on free enterprise and private initiative. Would she like to see private enterprise and initiative take up education spending, managing the whole health system or driving the trains, buses and trams around this country, managing the whole transport system? Does she not consider that the government contribution to industry incentives and so on is not merely a drain on the welfare purse pouring into a bottomless pit but in fact is its contribution to a very necessary part of the private sector? It is about time-I am certainly happy to put it on record-that the Opposition acknowledged that government spending contributes to the success of the private sector and does not necessarily compete against it at all. Senator Vanstone's remarks were nicely old-fashioned, reminding me of the 1950s and not the 1980s. The job creation achievements of this Government need to be acknowledged. We have seen the creation and establishment of 361,000 new jobs since April 1983 and 257,000 of those jobs-that is, over 71 per cent-are full time positions. We are ahead of the 1983 election target. Since July of last year 110,000 new jobs have been created and 75,000, that is, 68 per cent, of those jobs are full time. Last year's Budget target of 150,000 to 160,000 new jobs is well within reach if the present trend continues, and at this point there is no reason to doubt that that trend will continue. The jobs that have been created and the employment growth we have achieved are very much in the private sector. This Government acknowledges very much too the contribution of the private sector to job creation. It unashamedly knows that about 75 per cent of jobs in this country belong in the private sector. It sees the importance of the public and private sectors collaborating and co-operating for the benefit of all Australians; not the tired nonsense Senator Vanstone was giving us about 'all government is bad, all private is good'. I turn to Medicare, which I mentioned before. It is one of the great achievements, one of the great badges of importance, of the first Labor Government of which I have been a member. I see the importance of another three years to consolidate and establish Medicare throughout this country. The most important thing about Medicare is that no Australian now faces financial liability if he becomes ill or depends on health care. Every Australian is insured under the Medicare system. It is fair, it is affordable, it is stable, and people are paying according to their means. Further, it has been promised that the one per cent Medicare levy introduced in the Labor Government's first term will remain at one per cent during its second term. Allied with that, figures are emerging on the people who have been buying private insurance or releasing themselves from private insurance to cover their health costs over and above the needs that Medicare will cover. Those figures are not too likely to change much in the future. That means that 52 per cent of Australians judge that Medicare by itself is sufficient for their health needs, and I think the Government can be very heartened by those figures. The Government does not object to people having the opportunity to buy private insurance over and above Medicare; not at all. In fact, it established that principle of choice as part of the Medicare package. But it is interesting to note how many Australians judge that Medicare by itself is more than sufficient for them. Another achievement, associated with Medicare but not under the health portfolio, has been the establishment of the Occupational Health and Safety Commission. The Commission is still in its infancy, so we cannot look to the gains it has made for the country, but at last there is a central data base and organisation for planning and implementing strategies and policies on the occupational health and safety considerations of workers, paid or unpaid, in this country. I look forward very much to the outcomes of that Occupational Health and Safety Commission, in particular some of the initial projects it is looking at at the moment, one of which is the implications of repetitive strain injury around this country. Another area of interest of mine, of which the Government is very supportive, is the community health program. Whilst some people might argue that there has not been sufficient growth in the community health program, in the Government's first term we have had an increase in funding for the program to bring it back to the real terms of 1975. Those real terms were necessary to establish because of the cutbacks that had been allowed to occur under the seven years of Fraser Government. The community health program can expect to continue to grow in 1985 under the present Government. The Department of Community Services has been established by the Government in this term. The concern of the Labor Government is to provide community services to reach people in the community where their needs are immediate. This is an article of faith for those of us on this side of the chamber. One policy which was implemented, which certainly earned us some brickbats on the way through, was the assets test. It is quite clear that the assets test has proved to be successful. In fact, it will recoup for the Government over $100m, instead of the predicted $30m return, in the first year. That indicates how many people in the community who had other sources of income or wealth were drawing the age pension and benefits. Even with the very generous assets test that is in place, at least some people who have sufficient income of their own will not be supported with the pension in the future, so that the pension dollar can be more appropriately allocated to those who have no other source of income than the government pension. As people have seen the assets test established, they have discovered that many of the fears or anxieties they had about it were unreal. The complaints about the assets test at the moment are very few. They come from those people who have a particular difficulty because of, perhaps, their property arrangements or their lifestyles. The Government is very prepared to consider individual complaints under the exemption clause of the assets test. It has no intention, given the satisfactory acceptance of the assets test, of making any major changes to that test. The test is successful and apart from the money it has recouped for reallocation to more needy people it also has closed a loophole to prevent people from rearranging their moneys so as not only to be provided for in their own right but also to draw government dollars. I challenge Senator Vanstone to address that question. If those people in this country who believe so strongly in private enterprise were less prepared to take less moneys in the form of government age pensions, we would have less difficulty in providing for those people who have no other support or income. Another area of great achievement of the Labor Government, which I am delighted will be continued, is the many initiatives and steps taken in the area of peace and disarmament. The previous Labor Government appointed Australia's first Ambassador for Disarmament to represent Australia in international fora on behalf of this country and on behalf of this Government's policies for peace and disarmament. Australia has just been elected to the United Nations Security Council with, as I understand it, one of the largest ever votes. The Government has been very actively pursuing the establishment of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty discussions. In fact, our Ambassador is one of the people who have worked very hard to enable those discussions to get underway again. This has been, in part, because of the considerable discussion between our Government and America on this issue. It is regarded by the Government as absolutely crucial to the whole peace and disarmament discussion. It is something this Government is totally committed to, and I think it can take considerable praise for its efforts in this area. One of the priority disarmament objectives for Australia is that the comprehensive nuclear test ban discussions be re-established and underway. It is one thing for which the Government will continue to work very strenuously. If one looks at the way the last election was run, one would have thought the Nuclear Disarmament Party was the first to think of peace and disarmament. That is a very large misrepresentation of the achievements of this Government in that area and the achievements will continue. I turn to another area of particular interest of mine-the achievements of the Government in the area of women's affairs. Firstly, the Government introduced and enacted the Sex Discrimination Act, after one of the most remarkable debates in this place. The Opposition seemed to mount one campaign or case of drivel on top of another. We finally saw our way through that debate and the Sex Discrimination Act was passed. I know of no complaints under that legislation. I would allow there may be complaints that I have not picked up, but in all ways it seems to be a very successful piece of legislation that is well in place. In coming to office the Labor Government proceeded to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, again a matter of considerable satisfaction. It is a step by this Government that is worthy of praise. We now have in place an affirmative action pilot program with over 30 companies and tertiary education institutions participating. Part of that pilot project is looking at ways in which policies to redress the current discrimination against women can be overcome. I noted that Senator Vanstone talked constantly about the virtues of the adversary system. The adversary system will work satisfactorily only if the weighting on either side of the scales of justice or debate is equal or near enough to equal. The affirmative action programs are in place or being proposed by this Government, because it knows, as well as acknowledges, that the scales are not weighted equally, that there are people in this country who are discriminated against, who do not have an equal opportunity to take their case adversarily or not to the public arena. Affirmative action programs address those prior steps to allow that kind of equality before the adversaries lock. But I would not agree with Senator Vanstone that the adversary system is the be all and end all. I think the steps in the Sex Discrimination Act outlining the possibility of conciliation as a way to go are very important. The adversary system has a long history, but I do not think it is entirely illustrious. There are many difficulties with the adversary system. There are winners and losers. I do not believe we could argue that the outcome is necessarily always for the best. The important part of that understanding is the acknowledgment of the need for affirmative action programs in various areas where people are not equally able to take their place in our society. It is a great achievement for women and it is a great achievement for affirmative action programs and for other people in our country who are currently being considered in that kind of way. The Government established a much broader consultation with women, replacing the previous National Women's Advisory Council with the National Women's Consultative Council. It has 20 members so there is a much wider representation of groups of women from around the country. Importantly too, the Office of the Status of Women was moved to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, acknowledging the importance this Government places on the Office of the Status of Women and its area of legislation and consideration in its policy areas. Other things can be said about the achievements of the previous Labor Government, achievements that are either in place or in train to be consolidated in the next three years of government. I wish to conclude my remarks by turning to the importance of understanding fully what we mean by reform and what a reformist government might be about. It does not mean that, every day of the week, a new project or a new policy will be implemented or introduced. The important part of a reformist government is not only the initial steps of placing that policy or legislation through the parliaments; it is also the necessary consolidation throughout the community of those reforms. That to me, very importantly, means community education, community participation-if you like, the process of enabling people in our society to understand what those reforms are about, not only prior to their being introduced but also very much after they have been introduced. To that end I have, hopefully, contributed to my part in taking up that process of education. One way in which I have done this, when I appreciated how few people seemed to understand about Federal parliaments, State parliaments or upper or lower Houses, was to prepare with a colleague of mine, Barbara Wiese, from South Australia, what we called the 'Upper House Tea Party'-a tea party being either the Boston Tea Party if one wishes to be political, or the Mad Hatter's Tea Party if one wants to look at farce, either of which seemed apposite to politics. We wrote a script and prepared a matching slide show. We have taken that educational program about the Senate, the upper Houses and what governments do to the people of South Australia. This year we will be doing that further for school children. We discovered the response was quite remarkable. People do not know, but the response to people not knowing is not to call them stupid but in fact to provide the information. We have found that that information provision was very well received. I have also been asked by the Government to convene a committee to look at women and sport. We are preparing to write our report for tabling, hopefully in this session of Parliament. At least at this stage we are on time and under budget. The committee and I have travelled to every State and Territory in this country, talking with women about the problems and successes they have had in sport, and the insufficiency of finances for their facilities, for training and for coaching. We have also examined the sufficiency or insufficiency of media coverage of women's sport. The evidence is quite clear: Women in sport are currently quite disadvantaged. While I do not wish to pre-empt what the committee's report will say, I have no trouble in saying that the summary of the public evidence brought before the committee is that things must change, that they are not too good at the moment. We have also flushed out some remarkable examples of prejudice by sports writers around this country, some of which we are very grateful for because they classically illustrate the point we wanted to make-that such prejudice does still exist. We thank them for their copy and hope to include those examples in our report. It is not often that we get served up on a platter such clear illustrations of the case in point. I think it is very important to continue the process of implementing and passing to people the necessary information and support so that the policies put in place by government are not only implemented but also understood. We have heard the effects of the fear mongering and scare tactics of the Opposition about the assets test. One of the things the Government had to do was not only deal with providing the necessary information and support about the assets test to people in this community; but also to deal with allaying the fear that was hyped up and roused by the Opposition. That kind of public rhetoric does the cause of whichever government no good at all. I think it is a very good illustration of irresponsible opposition behaviour and a very good illustration of the need of reformist governments to accept that they have to deal with that kind of nonsense from oppositions. They may have the rhetoric about how good it is we all work together, but that is not their record to this point. I do appreciate the importance of reformist governments acknowledging how difficult it is sometimes for people in the community, firstly, to cope with change and, secondly, to have the necessary information and support to understand and then respond to those changes. The considerations of the Government this year in approaching the question of tax I think were well summarised in the editorial in one paper I read this morning. It is necessary, everybody agrees, that there should be some tax change. The tax system is insufficient, it is regressive, unfair and desperately needing of change. We ought to do something about welfare. But as the editorial said, after that there is no agreement on this matter. This Government is addressing the process of the important public discussion about the whole question of tax. While it does seem perhaps to be going on too long, worrying some people and becoming confusing, I think that is not necessarily so. It is part of a process of that language being understood by people, of the terms of economic debate being understood by a wider group in the community, and of more people being aware that matters of tax are under discussion. I hope to make my contribution in this area by having a tax forum in South Australia where women may come and talk about tax issues, not necessarily arguing their own case-although given the way humans behave I am sure that some of them will-but, more importantly, allowing people to become used to the language of economics and tax debates, to understand what exactly this piece of tax legislation or that tax provision really is about so that the outcome of the tax summit and the propositions that the Government then puts in place by way of its tax reform will be better understood precisely because of the broad community discussion that has preceded it and, no doubt, will necessarily follow it. I am delighted to be part of the returned Labor Government. I am delighted to take my part in the further implementation of policy that is under way at the moment and to make my contribution to the steps that are necessary to consolidate the reforms already in place. It is, and it will be, a great Labor Government. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(12.01) —I wish to join fellow senators in congratulating the new senators whose maiden speeches we have heard in the last week or so and, hopefully without being patronising, to suggest that the enlarged Senate is also an enhanced Senate. I believe that the quality of senators joining this Parliament is indicative of a very increased interest in parliamentary activity by a range of people who have a very valuable contribution to make to our Parliament. Certainly, their maiden speeches indicate that to be the case. Today I shall address several areas of concern that flow from the Governor-General's Speech, which left a lot of vacuums, many unanswered questions and many areas which seemed to have been abandoned by the Government. (Quorum formed) Before I was interrupted, I was referring to the failure of this Government to live up to its promises or to give any indication that it intends to keep some of the promises it made in the election campaign which helped it to get elected to government. Perhaps for the parliamentary and constitutional purists, constitutional reform is one of the biggest omissions. The Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, said during the election campaign in 1983 that he was going to give priority to the enactment of a national Bill of Rights. In the Governor-General's Speech on 21 April 1983 he announced that his advisers were considering a number of initiatives, including the enactment of an Australian Bill of Rights. So it was full steam ahead at that time. What has happened since then? Senator Gareth Evans did nothing. The person who was seen throughout Australia as the one who was most likely to get a Bill of Rights before this Parliament and before the people of Australia for a referendum was able to achieve nothing. One would think that there is no lower point than nothing. However, it would appear that the new Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, proposes not even to attempt to activate his Labor Party contemporaries to get them moving on a Bill of Rights for Australia. He is quite patently ensuring that we move as slowly as pressures will tolerate. We can forget about any comprehensive constitutional reform by 1988, our bicentenary year, as far as this Attorney-General is concerned. It was suggested in one of the national newspapers this morning that the Attorney-General plans to retire shortly. I have a great deal of respect for him as a man, but in terms of constitutional reform for this country the sooner he goes the better. Let us hope that he is replaced by somebody who is willing to fight for constitutional reform, particularly to set the goal of the bicentenary year for the achievement of major constitutional reforms in this country. God knows, we are well overdue in certain areas for constitutional reform. One of the problems that we have suffered for decades-certainly my State of Western Australia has been suffering a great disadvantage-has been the precedence of State government rights over human rights, individual rights. Until this country gets a human rights Bill and human rights into the Constitution which give every Australian the right to go as far as the High Court of Australia to establish and to maintain his individual rights, we will have those rights stepped on by State governments. Of course, one recognises that the resistance to human rights legislation and reform starts with State governments which see that they may lose some of their power if the ordinary people, the individuals of this country, are given the same rights as ordinary people, as individuals, are given in most other countries in the Western world. Another area of constitutional reform which was promised in 1983 by the Governor-General in his Speech on behalf of the Government was as follows: My Government proposes to place before you a Bill for a referendum on fixed term parliaments, involving the setting of a fixed date for general elections to provide greater stability in the Australian political system. That proposal was supported. The present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said in February 1983: Under my Government, Parliaments will run their full term. One would have thought that, having made that promise and commitment through the Governor-General's Speech, if there were to be a referendum it would be on fixed term parliaments. But no, that was thrown out by a weak-kneed government which bowed to the pressure of its own constituents and pressure groups within its own Party and dropped out the provision for a referendum on fixed term parliaments. It became obvious to us as 1984 went on that, following an election in 1983, the Prime Minister was going to call another election in 1984. So much for a commitment to parliaments running their full terms or to fixed term parliaments being put to the people by way of referendum! Another reform which was promised but which has been left dangling from the 1983 Governor-General's Speech was the following: Legislation will be introduced to ensure that the principle of one vote-one value is clearly established. That promise is lying in limbo because the Government has failed to pick it up. There is no excuse for the Government's total inaction because the Australian Democrats, through Senator Michael Macklin of Queensland, introduced a Bill for one vote, one value. What did the Government do? It made darn certain that the Bill was never debated in this Parliament, never giving the Bill the opportunity to see the light of day in the Senate, because it is afraid to offend the Queensland Premier. It is afraid to offend the Premier of Queensland, who is probably renowned throughout the world as the leader of the gerrymander system. With another electoral redistribution due in the near future in Queensland, one can realise that there is a massive advantage inherent in that single Parliament, controlled by a minority representative group, ensuring that it is kept in parliament by fixing the boundaries, ensuring that people do not have a full value for each vote. I mentioned Queensland in particular because it was a Queensland senator who introduced that Bill, obviously with the objective of having it in place before the next Queensland election, before the next gerrymander could take place. But the Government abandoned its principle of one vote one value and the Australian Democrats' initiative to have that legislation in place before the next election. Regrettably, in Western Australia we also suffer from malapportionment-from an inability of the people to have a full value for each vote. It is probably one of the greatest malapportionments left in the world. A person living out in certain country areas, not just rural areas but mining areas and others, may find that his vote for his State parliamentary representative is devalued to the point of being worth about one-fourteenth of a vote. That is simply not good enough and I now call upon the Government to get behind the reintroduced Bill, introduced for the second time by Senator Macklin of the Democrats, and to ensure that that legislation goes through as rapidly as possible to give all Australians equal value for their vote. Pursuing the subject of electoral reform for a moment, I cannot understand why this Government is not willing to follow one of the most enlightened, fair and just electoral systems ever introduced anywhere in the world, and which is right here in Australia. The Hare-Clark system of Tasmania is a credit to the Government of Tasmania and the people of Tasmania. It serves them well. It ensures that in 95 per cent of cases people are represented in the Tasmanian Parliament by a person for whom they have voted; whereas somewhere between 40 per cent and 45 per cent of the people who vote for representatives for this Parliament do not have in the Parliament a representative for whom they have voted. A proportional representation system would ensure that in nearly every case they had somebody from their electorate with whom they could relate, somebody for whom they had voted, speaking and voting for them in the Federal Parliament. Of course, what we have done is to move in exactly the opposite direction in this Parliament. The electoral reform system which was forced through in the previous Parliament to this one converted a reasonable proportional representation system for the Senate, the upper House in this Parliament, wherein five senators were elected at each half Senate election-an odd number, which is the imperative to proportional representation to make it a true proportional representation system-into a system in which six senators are elected at each half Senate election. Electing an even number virtually guarantees, if there are two evenly balanced reasonably strong political parties contesting the election, that they will get half of the seats each. Senator Townley —That is not always true. Senator JACK EVANS —It is not always true, but the potential for it is there most of the time. The potential for a hung Senate is there most of the time. The intent was patently obvious to everyone who understands the voting system. The intent was to get rid of the minor parties, to get rid of the Australian Democrats, to ensure that we had only major parties in this Parliament. The people of Australia have shown that they reject that system. They not only have elected more Australian Democrats; they have in addition elected a representative from a new political party, and of course we still have an Independent in this House. That is a great thing for the democratic system. That democratic system will be in serious danger at the next and subsequent elections unless people recognise that without the Democrats and the Independents both Houses become a winner takes all Parliament. The effect of that is to revert not to a two party system but to a one party system for 999 days out of every 1,000 because only for one day in every 1,000 do the people have an opportunity to influence what takes place in this Parliament under that system. For the other 999 days the people are ignored if there are no Democrats or Independents in the Senate chamber. Now the people's voice is heard in this Parliament. Their influence is registered. Their influence moderates and modifies the extremists of the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia. It ensures that we do not go crazy in this Parliament because the extremists have control of the Caucus or the Liberal Party's committee. There are many other areas of reform to which the Australian Democrats, and I believe most Australians, will be looking forward if the opportunity is given to us. We were promised tax reform. We have a tax system which is nearly half a century old. It is complex; it is imprecise and, frankly, much of the tax legislation is deliberately aimed at providing benefits and concessions. Some of those may be perceived by parliamentarians as quite legitimate and fair. Some of them are quite deliberate loopholes for friends of parliamentarians. But I believe there is a better system even for the legitimate concessions. We need tax reform to implement that better system because the existing system, with high marginal tax rates, encourages tax evasion and tax avoidance-legal tax avoidance. It introduces the subject of retrospective tax when those legal tax avoidance measures suddenly become quite immoral in the eyes of the community. The tax legislation is in desperate need of reform. What are we going to do about it? We are going to have a tax summit, and I applaud that. I have already made my position and the Democrats' position very clear. We believe that the tax summit is a valuable first step. But if it is seen as the ultimate step we will not have tax reform; what we will have is more band-aids on the existing band-aids. Regrettably, we are already seeing Ministers backing away from real tax reform because there is no commitment to what follows the tax summit; no commitment for action. Whilst it is recognised that we need a comprehensive long term strategy, all that is being spoken about is: 'Let us have a consumption tax; let us shove that in the next Budget. Let us reduce personal income taxes. Let us make a few dramatic gestures; never mind about a comprehensive tax reform. Let us just see whether we can satisfy the majority of voters and as a result of that pretend that we have implemented tax reform'. We will not get tax reform in this country without a commitment from all political parties. That commitment has to start now. It needs to commence with the tax summit. The tax summit needs to have representation from all political parties. We need to get rid of the pre-summit political point scoring by making it immoral for politicians to say what they will not accept at the tax summit, to put their own limits on the debate at the tax summit. Once that is taken away from politicians they will begin listening at the tax summit; they will tune in to the voice of Australia at the tax summit. A joint parliamentary committee, representing all political parties, should be formed. We must get the commitment through the processes of the joint parliamentary committee, which is for all parliamentarians, all politicians and all political parties, to accept that there is a need for tax reform and then work towards it. Once there is the commitment the review system can commence and we can then take advantage of some wonderful and magnificent reports that are lying in dusty pigeon holes still waiting to be implemented. They are waiting for people to pick them up and run with them, make them have the effect that was designed when they were presented. I am talking about the magnificent reports of Asprey, Mathews, Campbell, Head and Groenewegen and also the reports from Meade of the United Kingdom and the Carter Commission of Canada. We can draw on the wisdom of other parts of the world that have similar problems to those which exist in Australia. We will have other inputs from the Economic Planning Advisory Council, the tax summit itself and the submissions that go to it and, of course, the Australian Commissioner of Taxation. All that information could be made available to a joint parliamentary committee which could share the responsibility for producing genuine long term tax reform in this country. As I have already witnessed in my relatively short term in this Parliament, a joint parliamentary committee has the potential for taking party politics out of the parliamentary processes and for reaching a degree of consensus. More importantly, such a committee has the potential to resist pressure from vested interest groups and can come forward, following that, with genuine proposals for long term tax reform to which all political parties have a commitment. That gives us the potential for the tax reform that will take five years or perhaps 10 years to implement, but which will be genuine tax reform and not just band aid, ad hoc tax reform, which we have been getting for the last 50 years and which has just made the matter worse every time we suffer it. The proposal that I now put forward to all parliamentarians is this: Let us start listening and stop shouting and rampaging around the country about what we want and what we will or will not accept. That does not preclude anybody-any individual, any pressure group or any political party-from saying that certain areas of tax reform are desirable. My own Party has a number of areas which we would like to have considered at the tax summit and by a joint parliamentary committee, but we are not going out on a limb and saying: 'This will be implemented or this will not be implemented over our dead bodies'. We want the debate to take place. We want it to be a reasoned debate. We do not want it to be a debate full of threats. We have a number of areas of concern that have to be addressed. The whole subject of capital gains taxes-capital profits taxes might be a better way of describing them-has to be addressed. A number of acceptable exclusions from capital gains taxes are gradually evolving. We can take the fear out of people by universally accepting that there will be certain exclusions. The family home is an obvious one. We would like to see others. I am sure that other parties would like to have other areas introduced as exclusions. We need to recognise that until we modify our existing capital gains tax law-it is there already; it would not be something new-we leave the law open to the slick investors, because tax avoidance is their dream come true. They are growing fat under the existing system. They are able to manipulate their income into a capital income area and avoid paying any taxes at all. Of course, the by-product of that is that investments move into non-productive areas, such as land speculation, instead of areas which produce wealth for this nation. We have a number of other areas of potential conflict. I believe we can achieve consensus out of the discussions. There is already a growing consensus for a consumption tax. I think there is still universal-if it is not universal it is darned near universal-acceptance out in the community at large, with the sole exception of politicians, that a consumption tax on the necessities of life is not acceptable. But let us look at that. People are saying: 'You can tax everything and compensate those who are hit by that tax on the necessities of life'. I have never seen such a system or such a theory put before me which could work, but let us talk about those things. Rather than go through the whole schedule of potential areas for consideration in relation to tax reform, I will conclude with a couple of other suggestions for Government consideration, despite the fact that these items have been put forward by the Democrats in the form of private members' Bills. I appeal to the Government to pick up our private member's Bill for a register of foreign owned and controlled assets in this country. I believe there is concern in the community about the takeover of Australian assets by foreign owned and controlled corporations. Part of that fear is the unknown. The community at large is aware that not even the Government knows what proportion of this country is owned by overseas interests. Of course, until we have such a register moves such as the introduction of 16 foreign owned and controlled banks are frightening to many people. We need to know the degree of foreign ownership in this country. We also have an urgent need to tidy up the whole area of tax avoidance. I introduced in this Parliament a tax avoidance schemes Bill which gives people a degree of certainty that they currently lack. They can register, through the Federal Treasurer, a tax avoidance proposal-it should really be called a tax minimisation proposal-and have it either approved or not approved. If the proposal is approved retrospective legislation against that proposal would be prohibited. If it is not approved it is open to retrospective legislation. There is a very fine line between tax avoidance and responsible business practice. We need to clarify where that line exists. Finally, I put a further suggestion that the Government should look at reducing the cost of petrol in this country by changing the petrol pricing formula. The old formula was introduced for sound reasons, but I believe it has far outworn its usefulness in this country, except as a tax gathering mechanism. The people of Australia are now suffering under the system. I suggest that the formula be revised urgently, immediately, before the next price increase comes about as a result of an artificial formula which applies at present. (Quorum formed) Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.32) —I wish to take just a moment to deal with a couple of matters to which Senator Jack Evans addressed his mind. He seemed to give rather fulsome support to having a Bill of Rights as a bicentennial project. It seemed to me that Senator Jack Evans was suggesting that the rights of individual Australian citizens would not be properly guaranteed unless such a Bill of Rights were passed through this Parliament or, indeed, it formed part of the Constitution. Without going into the relative comparison of the rights of individuals in Australian society or in the United Kingdom as compared with the rights of individuals in, for example, the United States of America, or to use an odious comparison, rights in the Soviet Union-which has a very interesting Bill of Rights-and without going into the question of what Senator Jack Evans means by rights, whether he means fundamental human rights, natural rights, or claims that are sometimes masqueraded as rights, I remind him that in 1973, the then Attorney-General, Senator Lionel Murphy, introduced a human rights Bill. That Bill somehow got lost in the hectic years of 1974-75, but an analysis of it indicated that it sought to implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but with important differences. One change involved the family and its protection. Article 23 (1) of the Covenant states: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. This matter was completely omitted by the Murphy Bill, as were certain provisions in Article 13, which protects parents' rights of freedom of choice in education. The 'right to life' in Article 6 of the Covenant also underwent some subtle rewriting. The question is: What type of Bill of Rights is required? But that is not the only question that should be addressed. We should also examine whether the passage of such legislation would unduly strike at the principle of near democracy; that is to say, that power in a democracy ideally should reside with those groups capable of efficiently performing the functions for which the power is acquired, so that those over whom the power is exercised have closer and more direct control over those who exercise it. In the instant case an overriding Bill of Rights could do just that; it could override certain rights which are traditionally those of State government authorities, State elected parliaments or elected municipal representatives. Of course, this would be striking at the principle of near democracy. I think we should be aware of that fact. Naturally, one must balance the claim, in a democratic society, of 'the majority rules' with the importance of preserving the individual rights of the minority. Possibly the first duty of the majority in a democracy is to the preservation of the rights of the minority. We should also be concerned if a Bill of Rights extends the scope of the non-elected High Court of Australia to impose on the people judge-made laws relating to cherished values or social and community standards, and worse still, if it clothed the non-elected non-judicial Human Rights Commission or similar bodies with these powers, also accompanied by unprecedented investigative powers. I raise these as cautionary questions before we go overboard on a Bill of Rights. Late last year I referred to the fact that the Attorney-General of the time had withdrawn certain reservations to an important treaty. Those reservations were withdrawn without reference to this Parliament or to the people-in fact, unbeknown to the people. It now appears-I believe this is the first time that this has been made public-as stated in the Australian Foreign Affairs Record, on page 1274, that the Commonwealth Government is considering: . . . Australia becoming party to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which gives individuals the right to take complaints of breaches of the Covenant directly to the United Nations Human Rights Committee after exhausting domestic remedies. If that is the case, does that take out of the hands of Australia's democracies and institutions the ultimate control of where we are going and the ultimate responsibility that those institutions should have over the preservation of human rights in this society? Senator Jack Evans —Is that clause included or excluded? Senator HARRADINE —At present, under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, there is an optional protocol which, if it is signed by the treaty state, enables its citizens to go outside the jurisdiction of this country-for example, that of the High Court-and to appeal directly to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. Considering the composition of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, one would not want to allow it to define what human rights are in the first place. Certainly, any country would have to be careful about allowing such a body with such disparate views, some of its members coming from countries which systematically deny human rights, to determine the future of human rights in a country such as Australia. The other point I make is in respect of retrospective legislation. I have given the matter a great deal of consideration. Many unfounded accusations about tax avoidance and tax evasion practices have been hurled around over a fair period. My background makes those practices anathema to me. As Senator Jack Evans would appreciate, I voted to outlaw such practices, but I would not vote for legislation which applies a new tax retrospectively on the innocent and guilty alike. The question of certainty before the law is an important one for a democratic society. If we allow people to get away with imposing legislative retrospectivity, we allow any future government to engage in applying retrospectivity in ways contrary to the interests of the people about whom I am mainly concerned, the workers of Australia. For example, if we apply retrospectivity to legislation, we could enable State governments, or indeed the Commonwealth Government, to delete from workers compensation legislation scheduled injuries or scheduled diseases, retrospectively. Where does that leave the rights of individual workers? I give an example that illustrates the ludicrous nature of such legislation. If a person blows in the breathalyser bag and is recorded as having an alcohol reading of 0.07 per cent when the legal limit is 0.08 per cent and the law then reduces the maximum limit to 0.05 per cent, that person does not expect the cops to go through the books and charge him for blowing into the bag with a 0.07 per cent alcohol reading. That is a clear example of the effect of retrospective legislation. I turn to the Speech of the Governor-General. I deal particularly with the burning question of youth unemployment and the fact that consecutive governments have not really faced up to this problem. Before I elaborate on that, I note that Senator Aulich is in the chamber. I congratulate all new senators on their speeches. I note that Senator Aulich bemoaned the fact that we will have a new senator from Tasmania, Dr Norm Sanders. I point out to Senator Aulich that Dr Sanders will come to this Senate by kind favour of the Australian Labor Party in Tasmania by reason of the fact that the Tasmanian Labor Party allocated preferences to Dr Sanders. Kath Venn, a longstanding labor movement supporter, had over many years served this movement and the nation. She got the third highest vote of any candidate. What killed her was the block vote of the Labor Party going to a person who had destroyed the Labor Government in Tasmania. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator MacGIBBON —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to today's report that the United States Government has written to its North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies and to other countries, including Australia, regarding possible participation in research as part of the strategic defence initiative. I also refer to reports on the midday Australian Broadcasting Corporation news that the Government will reject the invitation. I ask: Has the Government received the request from the United States and, if so, will the Minister provide details of the proposal? If not, is the knee-jerk reaction by the Government simply an attempt to head off a party brawl such as that which erupted at the time of the MX missiles crisis? Finally, why is the Government refusing to consider assisting in a program the aim of which is to eliminate eventually the threat posed by nuclear weapons by a movement to non-nuclear defensive systems? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised that the Government has not received an invitation from the United States to participate in research on the strategic defence initiative, SDI, although one may well be in the pipeline if today's Press reports are accurate. Since we have not received any such invitation, the question of accepting or rejecting it has not yet arisen, so the premise on which Senator MacGibbon constructed his question is not made out. I remind honourable senators, however, that as the Prime Minister stated in Washington on 7 February, the Government does not endorse the strategic defence initiative. I spelt out that same response in much more detail, giving reasons for it, in my answer in this place a few days ago-on 21 March. I also remind the honourable senator that the Government has sought and obtained on two occasions unqualified assurances from the United States that the joint facilities in Australia have no role in research undertaken under the SDI. Senator AULICH —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health seen statements by the Tasmanian Minister for Health which blame the Federal Government's categorisations of private hospitals for the appallingly substandard situation at Ward H of the Queen Victoria Hospital in Launceston? Is the Minister also aware that the Tasmanian Minister for Health appears to be just as ignorant about construction matters as health matters, given his statements that there would be no need for a fire escape to be installed in that hospital as patients and staff could take the lifts in the case of a fire? Senator GRIMES —I have seen the reports in today's Tasmanian Press of Mr Cleary's remarks yesterday and they do not surprise me. I am waiting anxiously for the day when Mr Cleary blames the Federal Government for original sin in this country as he blames it for everything else. Of course we have a problem in Launceston, as we have in other parts of Australia, with people being unable to get their elderly relatives into nursing homes. In Launceston in particular we have the problem-again, it is shared by other parts of Australia-of acute hospital beds being used for long stay, geriatric type patients. For Mr Cleary to suggest that this situation has arisen because of the categorisation of private hospitals, and in particular the categorisation of St Luke's Hospital in Launceston, is nonsense and he knows it. This problem has existed in Launceston for many years and has been complained about by the Launceston General Hospital for at least five or six years. The problem is not just that there is an insufficient number of nursing home beds. That is being corrected by the approval last year of funding for the Masonic Nursing Home in Launceston. The problem is an Australia-wide problem. We have more nursing home beds per capita in this country than is the case anywhere else in the world, we probably spend less per capita on domiciliary care than is spent anywhere else in the world, and too many people are in nursing homes when they should not be there and nursing homes are the most expensive form of accommodation for the aged. I believe that this is known to everyone in this chamber. What we need to do is to get the co-operation of the State governments, the Federal Government and the non-government organisations which run the nursing homes to ensure that their admission policies are such that only people who need nursing home care go into nursing homes, that people who improve in nursing homes are able to be discharged-at the moment it tends to be a one-way street-and that we all co-operate in changing our policy so that the policy is a more appropriate one for the needs of the aged in this country. I found Mr Cleary's comment about the problems at Ward H extraordinary. I knew that he would blame the Federal Government, as he always does, but for a Minister for Health in this country to suggest that it is perfectly all right not to have fire escape provisions in a six-storey hospital because, in the case of a fire, people can get into a lift and go down demonstrates his ignorance. He must be blind. I think that every lift in this country has a sign on it stating: 'Do not use in case of fire'. I hope that Mr Cleary is the one who leads the charge to the lift when a fire starts in the Queen Victoria Hospital. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. In light of the need for the community to understand the difficulties and the necessity for restraint in government expenditure, will the Minister release the details of the forward estimates of income and expenditure for 1985-86, as the Government did for 1983-84? Senator WALSH —Only one of those estimates is my responsibility, that is, the estimates of outlays, and I do have a tentative intention of releasing details of them in May. The other matter that the honourable senator raised concerns the Treasurer and I will refer the question to him. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I ask this question of Senator Grimes rather than Senator Ryan because Senator Grimes, while he may lack expertise in sport, has expertise in the consequences of sport. Has the Minister seen in a book called The Exercise Myth by Dr Henry Solomon claims that exercise can be dangerous? Will the Minister comment on the claims made by Dr Solomon that exercise can lead to sudden death? Further, does the Minister agree that such reports are grist for the mill for those who are only too willing to remain sedentary, lazy, devoted to the soft life or merely defensive on this issue, and that they also create anxiety and/or fear in the community based on significant misinformation and insufficient analysis? The PRESIDENT —I hope that the Minister representing the Minister for Health will give a short-winded reply. Senator GRIMES —That is very easy for me, Mr President. One of the pleasures of coming to this Parliament early in the morning is that one either passes Senator Crowley running across the bridge or sees her in her exercise gear as she comes out of the women's-I think it is-exercise class in which people take part of a morning. Senator Withers —That is sexist. Senator GRIMES —Like Senator Withers, I am one who is well aware of the dangers of exercise. One has only to look at the photographs of the Prime Minister taken after a cricket match earlier this year. Senator Button —And Senator Withers at the Thredbo barbeque. Senator GRIMES —I think that comment is most unkind. The profile shot of Senator Withers at the Thredbo barbecue should have been censored from the newspapers. I think the short answer to Senator Crowley's question is this: Exercise is sometimes good and sometimes bad for us. For someone such as Senator Crowley, who has been exercising all her life, it is obviously a good thing but if Senator Withers and I took up jogging all of a sudden there may well be a necessity for the State governments of Tasmania and Western Australia to replace us very soon. Most things in moderation are good, according to my medical colleagues, and things in excess are bad-not only exercise. It is quite obvious that some of the publicity about the need for exercise has upset people's consciences so much that they have gone out and immediately tried to be marathon runners. Those are the people who, I believe, end up in the mortuary very quickly. I do not think that the book referred to, and certainly the articles that I read on that book, are harmful to the cause of the fitness fanatics in this country, such as Senator Crowley. What we need is a balanced argument. Whatever we think about it there will always be people like Senator Crowley who do a lot of running and keep fit and there will always be people like Senator Withers and me who are more cerebral types and who exercise our minds more than our bodies. Senator Chaney —You mean you think about exercising! Senator GRIMES —Senator Withers and I think a lot about exercising. I think that, as long as the balance is kept and the facts as they are delivered are correct and not biased, we will end up with a balanced argument. However, I am afraid that it will not make much difference to what any of us do. Senator CHIPP —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Is the Minister for Defence aware of operations entitled 'Busy Boomerang' and 'Glad Customer' which involve B52 bombers in Darwin as part of the United States strategic offensive force? What do these operations involve? Will they continue when the B52s are fitted with cruise missiles as part of the United States strategic modernisation program in the coming year? Is the Government aware of the fact that the newer B52Gs will carry short range attack missiles? Will the B1s, known as 'stealth bombers', be part of these operations in Australia? Can the Government give an undertaking that operations Busy Boomerang and Glad Customer involve only non-armed bombers? If this is the case and they are part of the bomber base activities at Guam, where are the bombs unloaded before they enter Australia at Darwin? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not have before me a full briefing on this matter from the Minister for Defence and it may be necessary to supplement what I say on a later occasion in order to give Senator Chipp a full answer. In terms of what I am able to tell him, I can say in relation to Operation Glad Customer that, under a 1981 agreement, and subject to individual approval, B52 aircraft carry out low level navigation training over Queensland, land at Darwin and then undertake sea surveillance and navigation training over the Indian Ocean. Under Operation Busy Boomerang Delta, pursuant to a 1982 agreement, and again subject to individual approval, B52 aircraft carry out low level navigation training over Queensland, land at Darwin and subsequently conduct more low level training over selected low jet routes in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. The United States is not prepared to disclose which of its aircraft are nuclear-armed and which are armed with conventional weapons. Its policy in this respect is identical to that which prevails in relation to ships. Our current arrangements for B52 flights through Darwin are, however, an extension of the low level navigation training flights approved by the Minister for Defence in late 1979 when it was agreed-and I am sure that Senator Chipp will remember this-they would be unarmed and carry no bombs. It is certainly the Government's clear understanding that that is the basis on which those two operations continue to be carried out. I will get further more detailed information from the Minister for Defence if he is able to offer it. Senator CHIPP —I thank the Minister for that reply and for his undertaking. I could not hear perfectly some sections of his answer so I ask a supplementary question in this form: Can he give me a guarantee that the Government is certain that up to this point no B52 has flown over Australian soil loaded with nuclear bombs? Senator GARETH EVANS —All I can say is that it is our understanding that any flights over Australia are being conducted pursuant to the agreement of 1979 which is that such flights would be unarmed and certainly carry no nuclear bombs. We believe that the United States is not in the habit of breaching agreements of this kind and I imagine on that basis I could give Senator Chipp the guarantee he seeks. However, I will ask the Minister for Defence whether he wishes to add anything to that answer. Senator McINTOSH —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to a report in the Age newspaper of 23 March in which the Director-General of the Australian Natural Disasters Organisation disputed a claim based on United States military documents obtained under freedom of information provisions that security procedures established by the Pentagon to clean up after a nuclear accident in foreign countries would exclude local authorities. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether procedures for cleaning up after a nuclear accident involving United States nuclear armed and/or powered vessels in Australian ports have been agreed to by Australian and American authorities; whether local authorities are to be involved in these clean up procedures; and whether local authorities in cities visited by United States warships currently have detailed plans for dealing with such accidents or emergencies? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will give Senator McIntosh such information as I possess, which is not much. On the first point, the United States has accepted absolute liability for any nuclear damage which might result from a nuclear incident involving the reactor of a United States warship. Australia expects that this will involve full co-operation in assisting with clean-up procedures, including assistance with radiation monitoring and decontamination. Australia would expect similar assistance in the event of a nuclear weapons accident. These matters are the subject of continuing dialogue with the United States. I add, of course, that this is contingency planning of the highest order and no one anticipates that any such accident will occur. On the question of local authorities' involvement, the situation is that State authorities would co-ordinate responses to nuclear accidents. However, the Commonwealth Government would provide assistance in the form of capabilities for radiation monitoring, decontamination and related clean-up activities. As to the question about local authorities' current plans for dealing with such accidents, the situation again is that safety planning for foreign ship visits or anything of that kind is the responsibility of State and Territory governments rather than the Commonwealth. Within those jurisdictions, organisations have developed specific plans to cover nuclear reactor accidents. It is my understanding, as briefed by the relevant Minister, that nuclear weapons accidents are covered in general State and Territory plans for emergencies and disasters. I believe that is an answer to Senator McIntosh's question, but if there are any further and better particulars that I can give him about the nature of such plans, I will make further inquiries and see what I can do. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Is it correct, as reported today, that the Minister's proposal for reintroduction of tertiary fees would have returned about $230m a year to Commonwealth revenue? Does yesterday's Caucus rejection of tertiary fees pose a significant budgetary problem for the Government and can the Minister say where he might look to raise the extra revenue? Senator WALSH —The amount of revenue which would be raised by applying a charge depends obviously on the degree of cost recovery which was sought and the level of exemptions. One can get any figure one likes from that between zero and about $2,000m. There is no precise answer to the first part of the question. As to the second part, obviously there are a number of proposals for reducing expenditure or raising revenue. If some of the options are closed off, the others must be pursued in a more disciplined and rigid way. It is not for me to say at this stage where the alternatives will be found, but given the strong opposition to the charging of tertiary fees expressed by at least four state governments I expect that the States will be willing to take their share of the penalty and the consequences of the policies that they have been advocating. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Science. Has he seen a report in the Adelaide News of last Friday referring to Antarctica and headed 'Mawson Huts must be Restored'? What has been the role of the Commonwealth in the restoration of these historic huts, built by Sir Douglas Mawson in the Antarctic at the turn of the century, and has any recent approach been made to the Commonwealth Government for funds to subsidise the cost of chartering a vessel to go to the Antarctic to restore these huts? Senator BUTTON —The Press article in question has been drawn to my attention. Let me say first that the article arises from the putting together of a private expedition called Project Blizzard, which is planning to restore Mawson's hut but which would seek government assistance with shipping costs in carrying out that initiative. Project Blizzard inspected Mawson's hut at Commonwealth Bay last December and January to assess the condition of the building and artefacts, and assistance was provided for that initiative by the Antarctic Division of the Department of Science. A preliminary report from Project Blizzard indicates that the hut appears not to have deteriorated significantly since an Antarctic Division group inspected it in 1978. However, the need for conservation work will be assessed on the basis of Project Blizzard's detailed report, which is expected in June. It is most unlikely that resources would be available to assist with the charter of a vessel solely for Project Blizzard's activities; that is, for the private initiative. The diversion of an Antarctic Division vessel to Commonwealth Bay would be very expensive, given that the area is so far off our normal shipping routes. I am unable to give a final answer on this question because the Minister is scheduled to meet with expedition organisers early next month and presumably from that discussion some agreed, or otherwise, position will arise. Senator DURACK —Has the Minister for Resources and Energy consulted with his State and Territory colleagues about the Federal Government's proposal to introduce a system of cash bonus bidding for oil exploration permits? If so, has he asked them to consider the application of the system to waters adjacent to the State or Territory in which they are interested? What is their attitude to this proposal and why was it impertinent, as Senator Walsh said in the Senate yesterday, for the Premier of Western Australia to express a view in relation to this matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —Some initial consultation with the States has taken place, most recently at the Australian Minerals and Energy Council meeting in New Zealand just a few days ago. The views of the States on this matter were expressed. They vary in intensity, but in respect of all of them it is obvious that a degree of further consultation will be necessary before we go down the path of introducing cash bidding for the allocation of acreages in State-adjacent or Northern Territory-adjacent areas. I made it clear in an announcement a couple of weeks ago on the Timor Sea releases that the Commonwealth has quite deliberately at this stage proposed cash bidding releases only in an area that is wholly and solely within the Commonwealth's area of legal competence, as the legislation now stands-not as the constitutional situation now stands, but under the legislation. It is in everybody's interest to wait and see what the outcome of that first round of bidding is in that particular environment before pressing the matter so far as the States are concerned. I did note what Premier Burke had to say two days ago at the Western Australian conference. I also noted what my colleague Senator Walsh had to say yesterday in this place. It needs to be appreciated that Senator Walsh and Mr Burke have been close friends and colleagues for many years and it would be quite presumptuous of me to contradict any description Senator Walsh might offer of his friend. Indeed, it may well be that in Western Australia the terms used are terms of endearment; they certainly seem to throw them around often enough. Of course, when Mr Burke spoke he was labouring under the disability of not having heard or read the speech I made in Perth yesterday afternoon. I am sure that when he does so it will make impossible any claim of ignorance that one might be minded to make about his understanding of these issues and I am sure that impertinence will be the furthest thing from his mind when he is so armed with this information. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I am wondering whether Senator Evans's reference in his speech yesterday to Mr Burke as Attila the Hun is likely to encourage Mr Burke's support for him. Senator GARETH EVANS —Again in context that has to be understood as a term of endearment. I did in fact say that I thought he was a little too plump to play the role of Attila the Hun but in every other respect he would be perfectly well cast. If Senator Durack happened to read the transcript of that ad lib section of my speech, he would react as calmly as apparently Mr Burke has to the noises that I then made. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. What progress has been made in the establishment of an Office of Aged Care? Senator Chipp —Did that question surprise you? Senator GRIMES —It did, actually. In establishing my new Department, combining those aspects of the Department of Social Security dealing with services and the nursing home sections of the Department of Health, we are establishing an Office of Aged Care. Three problems have to be resolved at the moment, but I believe that they will be resolved very quickly. The first point is that I must go to my colleague on my right, Senator Walsh, and get sufficient staff for the new Department. Secondly, the new Head of the Department, Mr Codd, is drawing up with me a new departmental structure. Thirdly, obviously we will need to recruit staff for the Office of Aged Care. I suppose that a fourth question is whether that office should be in Canberra or in, say, Sydney or Melbourne, where the people we are dealing with actually are. Senator LEWIS —I ask the Minister for Finance whether it is a fact that the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust withdrew from a proposed 15 per cent investment stake in the Alcoa of Australia Ltd Portland smelter. Was this due to the obsessive secrecy provisions of the Cain Government's Alcoa (Portland Aluminium Smelter) Amendment Bill, which prevents adequate disclosure of the viability of the project, or was it because the project's viability is now open to serious question due to the attitude displayed by the Cain Government? Finally, has the Victorian Government sought Australian Loan Council approval to borrow the additional $260m overseas, or will the Federal Government give consideration to bailing out Mr Cain just as it came to the rescue of the Burke Government over the North West Shelf project? Senator WALSH —I am glad that Senator Lewis drew the analogy between the Cain and Burke governments in this respect because I was about to do that myself. They were both victims of stupid decisions made by the previous Liberal governments in Victoria and Western Australia respectively. The Western Australian Government was confronted with a prospective deficit in actual dollar terms of several billion dollars-billion dollars, not million dollars-because of the natural gas contract which Charlie Court forced the State Electricity Commission of Western Australia to sign back in 1980 and which left the SEC with no market for about 40 per cent of the gas it contracted to buy. What is more, if I may say so, Charlie Court insisted on adding, completely gratuitously, another 12.5 per cent on to that contract when he was not required by the joint venturers to do so. In the case of the Victorian Government, a lot of capital was sunk into the Portland smelter before the Cain Government came to office. The Cain Government inherited that difficult situation; it was not responsible for it. As far as I know it has coped with that very difficult inheritance as well as any government could reasonably be expected to do. Senator Lewis asked whether the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust had withdrawn from the project. I do not think 'withdrawn' is really the correct word. The SFIT was contemplating taking some equity in the project and three months ago, I believe, it decided that it would not take equity in it. The fund is now regarded by the Government as autonomous. There is some legislation to go through the Parliament, but I certainly regard it as autonomous, as my predecessor did. Therefore, I do not believe it is my duty to inquire into the investment policy of the members of the trust or to demand to know from them the reasons why they did or did not make any particular investment. The Government's attitude is that, providing the trust complies with the provisions of its enabling legislation-in other words, stays within the law-what it does is its own affair, because it is responsible only for contributors' money, not for government money per se. To my knowledge an application from the Victorian Government for Loan Council approval for extra borrowings has not been made, but I will see whether the Treasurer has anything to add. Senator COOK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Last week I asked the Minister a question on wine sales in Australia since the imposition of a 10 per cent sales tax in last year's Budget. Since then have any new figures on wine sales become available? If new figures have been released, do they show a drop in wine sales due to the tax? Do any new figures support the dire predictions of the Opposition that a wine tax would ruin the Australian wine industry? Senator WALSH —Some new figures have come to light. The sales of Australian wine for the month of January were published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics yesterday. Senator Cook asked me whether they support the dire predictions made by assorted members of the Opposition last year. The answer is no, they do not support those predictions. Indeed, they flatly contradict them and show how stupidly erroneous and irresponsible were the predictions made by the Opposition. Sales for the month of January 1985, compared to January 1984, were up by 5 per cent. That compares to a year on year growth in the year before the sales tax on wine was introduced of 4.1 per cent, so sales are increasing at a faster rate than they were increasing prior to the imposition of the 10 per cent tax. In view of Senator Cook's reference to the claims and stupid, irresponsible assertions made by assorted members of the Opposition last year, I have a few quotations. Senator Messner, on 23 August last year said: . . . as a result of the introduction of this tax there will be a decline of 13 1/2 per cent of its total market. Senator Jessop said: A 10 per cent sales tax on wine will automatically lead to a decrease of aobut 21 per cent in the grape crush of growers. That is the most extreme claim I could find anywhere. Senator Hill said that there would be more than 4,000 jobs lost in South Australia; that South Australian wine growers would lose $15m in income and that the Riverland growers would lose $5m in income. Senator Teague said that the impact of the higher price to the consumer because of the sales tax would lead to a drop in consumption estimated to be 14 per cent. In other words, they showed appalling judgment. They tried to scare the daylights out of wine grape growers in the wine industry, just as they try to scare the daylights out of pensioners or anybody else. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is debating the question. I suggest he bring his answer to a conclusion. Senator WALSH —In summary, I say-in response to Senator Cook's question-that the facts have shown that all the members of the Opposition were widely wrong and, indeed, what they were saying was nothing short of palpable nonsense. Senator PETER RAE —I refer the Minister for Finance to the statements by him relating to the Commonwealth contribution to local government financing. What effect does the Minister expect that the slashing of Federal Government funds to local government authorities will have on local government rates and charges? Contrary to the Minister's statement to the Senate on Monday that 'local government authorities have not increased their revenue raising effort', local government taxation has increased from 1.21 per cent of gross domestic product in the year 1980-81 to 1.28 per cent of gross domestic product in the year 1982-83, which last-mentioned figure is, according to the Minister's Department, the most recent available. I ask further: Does not this proposal of the Minster simply represent an attempt to shift the tax burden so that the Federal Government will appear on paper to be conforming to its trilogy commitments? Senator WALSH —To my knowledge, nobody has talked about or contemplated slashing funding to local government. To my knowledge, nobody has talked or thought about anything less than an increase in real terms in the amount of money that is likely to be paid to local government next year compared to this year. What has yet to be decided is the size of that real terms increase. Senator Peter Rae seems to be implying that there ought to be a 15 per cent real terms increase to local government. If he believes that, I wonder whether he also believes that there should be a 15 per cent increase in real terms in payments to the States and, if not, why not. Senator Peter Rae —I did not mention 15 per cent, or any other. Senator WALSH —He did not say it, but he was implying it. I am not familiar with the figures he quoted. I make the general observation that it is possible to get movements in figures if a particular starting date and finishing date are selected. On Monday I said-if I did not say it, I certainly intended to-that local governments have not increased rating income in accordance with the rise in property values. When property values are rising in real terms, that means economic rent is accruing to land because of its scarcity value. I do not see anything wrong with taxing some of that economic rent with high rates. In other words, the Henry Georgists, although they saw only a tiny section of reality, insofar as they did see it, correctly identified it. I see nothing wrong with taxing the economic rent which accrues to land because of its increasing scarcity value or its value as a positional good. Senator PETER RAE —I have a supplementary question. I ask the Minister to address the question I asked him, which was not related in any way to increases in the value of land, but rather to local government taxation as a percentage of gross domestic product, which must take into account the movements in the economy, including increases in value. I suggested that in the two-year period for which the latest figures are available there was an increase in the percentage of GDP from 1.21 to 1.28 per cent in taxation by local government. Does that not represent an increase in the taxation effort of local government as a percentage of GDP? Senator WALSH —If the figures are correct, of course it does; that is undeniable. However, it does not address the point that land values can increase at a faster rate than nominal growth. Under that situation I see nothing wrong with rates on land increasing as a proportion of GDP. Senator GILES —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen the most recent figures from the Australian Statistician on retail sales? Do these figures indicate anything about the likelihood of achieving the Budget forecasts on consumer spending? Senator WALSH —For the three months ended January, retail sales, which it is true had been sluggish for a considerable time, were 8.1 per cent higher than they had been for the corresponding period of the previous year or after the implicit price deflator had been applied, represented an increase in real terms of 3 per cent or just above. That piece of good news was supplemented today with some very good figures regarding motor vehicle registrations which have, for the three months ended February, been running at an annual rate of very close to 700,000 a year, which is almost up to the peak level which they hit early in 1975. They are almost running at an all-time record level. After running through most of the years of the Fraser Government at a level of somewhere between 550,000 and 580,000 they are now running at an annual rate of almost 700,000. Senator Button —We are going well. Senator WALSH —This is due, as Senator Button suggests, to the growing confidence in the community. This Government is managing the economy very well and the people have come to realise it. Those figures on retail sales suggest that the Budget time forecast for private consumption expenditure, which from memory was 2.75 per cent, is likely to be exceeded. In addition to that, since the National Economic Summit Conference was held in April 1983, some 360,000 new jobs have been created and the rate of unemployment has fallen to 8.3 per cent, despite some increase in the participation rate. Perhaps most gratifying of all is the recent surge in private investment. In the December quarter of 1984, compared with the December quarter of 1983, investment in real terms had increased by 9.4 per cent. The estimate for 1985-86 is some 24 per cent higher than the corresponding estimate for 1984-85. So, both in general and in the specifics, the answer is yes, the Budget time expectations of growth in consumption sales are being more than realised. Indeed all the economic indicators of growth, unemployment, investment and so on show that all the Government's expectations have been equalled or exceeded. Senator PUPLICK —I ask the Minister for Finance: Does the Minister deny that Mr Brian Toohey, editor of the National Times, is correct when he says that a telephone conversation that he had with Senator Walsh was tapped and that allegedly critical comments made by the Minister about his Prime Minister were passed on to Mr Hawke? Senator WALSH —Mr President, I am not going to discuss that matter because I believe it would be improper for me to do so. I can suggest to Senator Puplick, since he has an interest in the possibility of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation tapping telephones and then, quite improperly and illegally, passing on information from security files to use for domestic political purposes-- Senator Sir John Carrick —Did they do that? Senator WALSH —I am about to come to that. I suggest that Senator Puplick ask his colleague Mr Coleman, MP, who in 1970 or 1971 was flogging around to journalists ASIO files which contained damaging allegations about assorted people in the Australian Labor Party to see whether he could persuade the journalists to publish them. I refer the honourable senator to an article in the National Times, I think about two years ago, and an Australian Broadcasting Commission Four Corners program in 1971, when the facts regarding that were set out by a particular person-- Senator Chipp —Did you bucket your Leader to Toohey? Senator WALSH —Senator Chipp should go and send some more conscripts up to Vietnam. That is what he was best at-sending conscripts up to Vietnam. He has the blood of 500 Australians on his hands. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walsh, I ask you to answer the question directed to you by Senator Puplick. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. I will not be distracted again by the interjections of the man who was a Minister in the McMahon Government which sent 500 Australians to their death in Vietnam. I am not going to answer Senator Puplick's question, Mr President; it would be quite improper for me to do so. If he is interested in the subject of the misuse by ASIO operatives, for domestic political purposes, of intelligence information, I suggest he take up the subject with his colleague Mr Coleman MP, who the record shows is an expert on the matter and on so misusing, or attempting to misuse, security information. Somebody has just handed me a copy-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest the Minister withdraw that imputation against a member of another House. Senator WALSH —In deference to you I will, Mr President. Nevertheless, the fact remains that I have the National Times article with me here and I table it. Senator PUPLICK —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Senator Peter Rae —On a point of order, Mr President, before the supplementary question, I suggest that if it is out of order to make the statement it is equally out of order to table the statement, and that the tabling of the statement should be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator Peter Rae —Mr President, you ruled out of order the Minister's statement. Surely there are two ways of making a statement in this place-one is verbally; the other is by tabling a document. Tabling the document which apparently was being used by the Minister was an alternative way of breaching your ruling. The Minister is making a statement by using a document which, apparently, contains a statement which the Minister previously quoted. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister made an imputation against another member of this Parliament. Under standing order 418 I asked him to withdraw that imputation. He did. He then tabled a document from the National Times, which is a publication for which he is not responsible. Therefore, there is no point of order. Senator PUPLICK —Senator Walsh said in his response that it would be improper for him to answer the question. I therefore ask as a supplementary question: Given the fact that the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives on 10 May and Senator Gareth Evans in the Senate on 30 May considered it proper to answer questions about ASIO surveillance and telephone tapping, is it not a fact that what Senator Walsh is saying is not that it is improper for him to answer the question, but that it is merely embarrassing? Senator WALSH —Given Senator Puplick's morbid interest in the subject of the misuse of security information for domestic political purposes, I suggest that, instead of throwing questions at me which have no relevance, he ask, as I said before, his Liberal Party colleague Mr Coleman, MP who is an old hand at the game. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General aware that the Bjelke-Petersen minority Government last night forced further draconian legislation on Queenslanders, giving the police power of arrest without warrant? How many infringements of United Nations and International Labour Organisation conventions have now been breached by this regime in Queensland? What course of action is available to the Federal Government to halt this march towards totalitarianism? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Queensland Government has behaved outrageously in its conduct of the electricity dispute and in the legislative course on which it has subsequently embarked. It has behaved with a complete disregard for the norms of civilised governmental behaviour, not least in its rejection of the independent industrial commission, thus making a mockery of the principle of independent arbitration in that State. It has behaved with complete disregard for individual civil liberties, as would appear to be further reinforced by the terms of the legislation passed yesterday. It has behaved with complete disregard for the principles of rational industrial relations and it has behaved with complete disregard for the interests of the ordinary people of Queensland. I am sure they will react in the appropriate way at the appropriate time. It is clear that there have been in the legislation already passed a number of evident breaches of international conventions, in particular ILO conventions, as was stated in the House of Representatives, in reliance on the Attorney-General's advice, by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, on 21 March. He referred in particular to breaches of ISO Convention No. 98, which is concerned with the right to organise, ILO Convention No. 29, which is to do with forced labour, and ILO Convention No. 105, also on that subject. It is possibly also the case, although I do not have any detailed analysis before me of the legislation in these terms, that there have been breaches of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular of Article 22 concerning the right to freedom of association. As to what might be done within Australia in the context of breaches of international conventions to which Australia is a party, it is clear that views will differ in principle as to the desirability of implementing these standards in national legislation. It is also the case that lawyers may well disagree among themselves, and do, about the technical possibility of achieving the status of at least some of these conventions and rules in national law. However, I think the basic problem, quite apart from the problems I have just mentioned, in going down the legal route nationally is the problem that was identified by Mr Willis in a Press conference on 21 March when he said that any legislation endeavouring to apply those principles of ILO conventions to which I have specifically referred, and where there do appear to be quite explicit breaches, would simply not get to the issues of basic concern in this matter, which are the reinstatement of people who have lost their jobs and the no-strike contracts which are being imposed on workers seeking re-employment with the South East Queensland Electricity Board. Accordingly, the Commonwealth Government has been inclined to take the view that the most productive route in dealing with this matter apart from encouraging in the longer term a political challenge to the overweening arrogance of the undemocratically elected Queensland Government, is likely to be the encouragement of the unions in question and, indeed, of all Queensland unions where appropriate, to become parties to Federal industrial awards so that ultimately a situation can be created where there is a very small State industrial jurisdiction in which the Premier can go around behaving like a vandal and a much larger jurisdiction subject to the much more rational and civilised constraints of Federal industrial law. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Does the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry accept that Australian consumers pay about half the price of other Western countries for dairy products? Does the Minister accept the view of the United Dairy Farmers Association of Victoria that the cost of a short term cut to dairy prices will be at the long term expense of the industry, could result in the loss of 25,000 jobs, could collapse the milk marketing system and may result in a shortfall of supply to consumers? Does the Minister concede that the longer term cost of a shortfall in supply would be inflated prices to the Australian consumer? Senator WALSH —The short answer is no, I do not agree with any of those propositions because they are all nonsense. The assertion is that Australian dairy products are half the price of those in other Western countries. They are, in fact, higher than those in New Zealand, which is a Western country. There are some Western countries where prices are higher. What the Opposition wants to do, of course, is to increase by 17 1/2 per cent the prices paid by Australian consumers of dairy products. That, among other things, is what the Opposition wants to do-to put up the price of butter and cheese by 17 1/2 per cent. Let everybody know that that is what the Opposition wishes to do. If the Liberal Party does not want to do that, I wish it would stand up and dissociate itself from the National Party, which does want to do it. Given the silence so far of the Liberal Party, one can only assume that the Liberal Party also wants to put up the price of butter, cheese and other dairy products by 17 1/2 per cent. That would add directly, as a first round effect, 0.16 per cent to the consumer price index and, of course, clearly would be in conflict with the economic strategy of this Government and, I would hope, the economic objectives and strategy of the Opposition. The other points raised in the question, which apparently are sourced to somebody in the United Dairy Farmers Association of Victoria, that production would drop and that there would be a higher cost in the long term, are all completely nonsense. The consequence of a drop in production would be an increase in the average prices received by dairy farmers without any increase in prices to consumers and, indeed, probably some reduction in prices to consumers. I find it astonishing that the people who claim to be the champions of free enterprise have absolutely no faith in the market economy and will not allow the market to have a role in determining the structure of any industry. We have this massive contradiction whereby the people who say that they are the representatives of free enterprise and that they subscribe to the free enterprise ethos are at every turn attempting to socialise, regulate and regiment production, distribution and exchange. Simultaneously, they say they are the representatives of free enterprise. That is the sort of massive contradiction which, apparently, can be reconciled only within some sections of the Liberal Party and, of course, is no trouble at all to the entire National Party. The problems the dairy industry has are directly attributable to the 20 per cent increase in production which took place during the last five years of the Fraser Government. The marginal production of 20 per cent, or a little more, is sacrificed at almost zero prices on world markets, thereby dragging down the average price received by dairy farmers as a whole. So the basic problem is that there is too much dairy production because of the 20 per cent growth in output that took place in the last five years of the Fraser Government. The answer to the problem by the likes of Senator Bjelke-Petersen-I suppose one would not expect anything better from one who follows the economic voodoo of the League of Rights-is to slug the consumers by an extra 17 1/2 per cent in order to raise marginally the average prices received by Australian dairy farmers without doing anything towards addressing the real problems of the industry in either the short or the long term. Senator TATE —Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General aware of the last stage in the saga between Mr Robert Trimbole and the Australian authorities seeking to extradite him? Has the Government any idea where Mr Trimbole is now? Is there any prospect of our ever seeing him in Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no information on the matter which Senator Tate asks me about. I will seek it from the Attorney-General and see what it might be possible to put on the public record at this stage. Senator JESSOP —I ask whether the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry is aware of an article that appeared early this week in the Australian dealing with the abject failure of the farm summit meeting to achieve any concrete, positive action in the farming sector, with the only commitment being the decision to set up a committee to look at the disputed figure for the amount paid by the agricultural sector as a direct result of tariff protection. Does the Minister agree that Australian farmers need some immediate action to be taken if many of them are to ward off financial ruin? Will the Minister outline what immediate action the Government has in mind to reduce the rising costs faced by farmers in order to ease the crippling cost-price squeeze which is exemplified by the fact that average farm costs have escalated by 41 per cent since 1980-81? Senator WALSH —The source of Senator Jessop's question is the Australian. I have not seen the article. However, it would be unusual if it were accurate, given the calibre of the reporting in that newspaper in recent times. The farm summit meeting, which I think Senator Jessop called it-I have not heard that term before-refers, I suppose, to a meeting which the Prime Minister, the Minister for Primary Industry, the Treasurer and I had with farm leaders on 5 March. That meeting honoured a commitment that had been given by the Government prior to the election and provides an opportunity for Ministers and industry leaders to exchange views. Senator Jessop is correct regarding the imprecise business, if you like, of measuring the effects on the farm sector of the protection of other industries, some of which are agricultural industries, of course, which Senator Bjelke-Petersen approves of. There is a wide divergence in the analysis of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the National Farmers Federation in this regard. I do not know the degree, if any, to which that wide divergence has been closed by subsequent consultation. I will ask the Minister for Primary Industry. On the more general question, agriculture is in one of its recurring slumps; that is true. It had one in 1975 and one in 1969, as I remember. There is a long history of cyclical slumps in Australian agriculture. Every time the slumps occur, of course, there are fairly hysterical claims that farmers will be forced off their land and that sort of thing. We are going through it all again. I suggest that Senator Jessop look at the claims and assertions that were being published around 1970 in the agricultural and other Press. He will be surprised how similar, indeed near identical, they are. The farm sector is in a period of slump; that is true. Senator Jessop asked what this Government has done about it. I can tell him one of the things this Government has done about it: It has got our inflation rate down to less than half what it was when his Government was in power. That is what we have done to the inflation rate. I was a farmer for 25 years. The thing that farmers complained about most-indeed, complained about incessantly-was the rate of inflation. Of course, they had had the unhappy experience of the Menzies Government when in the 12 months ending December 1951 the consumer price index increased by 25 per cent. That was the highest rate of inflation we have ever had. It beat even the record of the Fraser Government which got inflation up to, I think, just under 11 per cent in its last year. We have taken that down to less than half that rate. Another change which has occurred and which will help the agricultural sector is the devaluation of the dollar. I notice that Senator Jessop's former leader, person Y down in the country, wrote an article for the Age about a month ago in which he said what a dreadful thing it was that the dollar had been devalued. I do not know whether he agrees with his former leader and, if he does, whether he wants to punish the agricultural sector more than in fact it is being punished. Indeed the whole tone of his former leader's article on this subject was that the objective of all economic policy should be to maintain the value of the currency. That is called mercantilism. It was an idea popular in Tudor England and popular with the sort of archaic-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is clearly debating the matter. It is nearing the end of Question Time and I ask him to bring his remarks to a conclusion. Senator WALSH —The coincidence of the spectacular decline in inflation since this Government came into office and the recent devaluation of the dollar will help to ease significantly the problems facing the agricultural sector which are caused by the recurring cyclical downturns which seem to be a feature of this industry. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have a supplementary answer to a question asked of me earlier today by Senator Chipp about B52 operations over Australia. As to the last two parts of the question, I believe I gave him short measure and I can add to the answer as follows: He asked me whether the B1 bombers known as stealth bombers will be part of operations in Australia. I am advised that the existing agreement provides specifically for B1 aircraft only to conduct training flights over Australia. The United States of America has not requested that B1 bombers-nor the new advanced technology or stealth bomber which is still under development-be part of these operations. The final part of the question sought an undertaking about the operations involving non-armed bombers and about the operational loading procedures in relation to them, to which I am given the following answer: The United States B52 bombers operating over Australia are unarmed and carry no bombs. The question of the armament carried by these aircraft on other operations is an operational matter for the United States Air Force on which the Minister has no comment. Senator WALSH —On 25 February, in answer to a question from Senator Tate regarding the Auditor-General's report and the non-disclosure of taxable income by way of interest receipts, I said that I would put his proposition to the Treasurer and seek a response. I have been advised by the Treasurer that media attention focused on the $3.6 billion reportedly not disclosed but it is the experience of the Australian Taxation Office that there is no obligation for a substantial part of this income-that is, interest and dividends-to be disclosed in tax returns. That occurs because the dividends and interest are received by family members who do not have a taxable income, non-taxpaying members of the family, or, alternatively, pensioners. In both cases there is no requirement for tax returns to be lodged. Nevertheless the Taxation Office is aware and has been for some time that there is a significant level of evasion. As the Auditor-General noted in his report, it had conducted two research projects in respect of the 1978-79 income year. The best estimates that the Taxation Office has of the tax currently evaded in this area is in the range of $300m to $500m per annum. I mentioned at the time and repeat that resource limitations were imposed upon the Taxation Office during the period covered by the Auditor-General's review. The Taxation Office was not given sufficient resources by the previous Government to do all the things required of it. Arbitrarily imposed staff ceilings and the need to process a growing volume of routine but essential work meant that priorities had to be set and some things had to give. The Government has taken significant steps to redress that situation. Last year we allocated 392 extra staff to compliance work. Of these, 149 were assigned specifically to internal check work, which includes dividend and interest checking. An additional increase of 313 was granted to cope with increases in essential work loads. Finally, regarding Senator Tate's suggestion that withholding tax, of which currently a range applies, be extended to cover dividends, the Treasurer notes that it has wide policy and administrative implications and says that appropriately it is the kind of issue that will be examined as part of the taxation summit later this year. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —by leave-In the Senate yesterday, in reply to a question from me, Senator Walsh said: . . . it has been suggested by some people that former Treasury officials who leaked documents obtained the fringe benefit of Liberal Party preselection for seats in 1975 . . . This was reported in today's Press. The only Treasury official who gained Liberal Party of Australia endorsement for a parliamentary seat in 1975 was me. In 1975 I was endorsed as a candidate by members of the Ballarat Federal electorate committee and was subsequently elected as the Federal member for Ballarat. During the election campaign in Ballarat in 1975 various elements within the local Labor Party accused me of having been the Treasury official who had leaked the documents relating to the Khemlani loans affair, which was one of the numerous affairs that led to the downfall of the Whitlam Government. I denied those allegations orally at that time and I regret that now, after a period of almost 10 years, Senator Walsh's typically vicious insinuations lead me to have to do so again. I do not know whether any Treasury officials leaked documents to the Liberal Party in 1975. If they did, I do not know who they were. What I do know is that, firstly, when I was a member of the Commonwealth Public Service for a period of more than 20 years I never leaked any documents or any other information to any political party. Secondly, the coalition parties which were in opposition in 1975 are aware that I was not a source of any information to them, nor was I ever approached to be such a source of information. Thirdly, the leading figures of the then Labor Government did not at any time seek to suggest that I was the source of any disclosure of official information to its political opponents. The then Treasurer, Mr Hayden, has today confirmed to me 'that he has no reason to believe that I was the source of any disclosure of information'. I thought very carefully before making this statement today. My original inclination was simply to let Senator Walsh's typical outpouring of venom pass without comment from me. However, I feel obliged to make the statement because Senator Walsh has impugned my professional reputation and integrity in a way that I find intolerable. I pay no regard to what Senator Walsh personally may think of me, but I do pay very deep regard to what my professional colleagues, of all political persuasions, both inside and outside this Parliament, think of my integrity. I make this statement, which is the last time I will speak on this issue, solely for that purpose. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation. I did not name Senator Short yesterday, but he has identified himself. He denies that he has ever leaked documents. Of course it is virtually unprovable whether anyone has leaked documents. I do want it noted for the record that Senator Short was in receipt, it would seem, of some other very good information at around that time because he resigned from the Treasury just five days before Sir John Kerr acted and dissolved the Parliament. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-Honourable senators on this side of the House, and I suspect on the other side of the House, have come to expect that sort of thing from the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh. He stands as the only senator in this place who has been censured by the Senate in the last 10 or 12 years. He has a particular reputation. I can say only that as far as the Opposition is concerned, and I believe as far as the public is concerned, what he says reflects on him and not on any honourable senator whom he impugns. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Peter Baume proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: Labor's cold war of attrition against non-government schools. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their place. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.13) —Non-government schools across Australia are full to overflowing. New non-government schools across Australia fill as soon as they are opened. It is now necessary, in many parts of Australia, to enrol children soon after birth if one wants them to get a place in a non-government school. The Hills District Grammar School, which opened only a few years ago in north-west Sydney, already has filled bookings through the 1990s. Places in Catholic regional high schools are filled as soon as they open. I attended the opening of a regional high school in Marayong a year or so ago. It was full on the day it was opened. The regional bishop told me then that he could have filled the school four times over. Furthermore, we learned this week that 24 per cent of the parents of children in government schools in the Australian Capital Territory would prefer to be able to have their children in the non-government system. In view of this obvious support for the non-government school system and in view of parental preference which surveys are now showing, it is necessary in Australia that existing schools in the non-government sector be supported and encouraged. It is necessary in Australia that new non-government schools be allowed to develop and be encouraged to open. The evidence suggests that they would fill as soon as they are opened. The actions of the Labor Government in these areas will affect the opportunities which parents have to put their children into the schooling of their choice. Through administrative means the Government is restricting the access of parents to new non-government schools and is making the life of existing schools more difficult. Any government has an entitlement to promote its own values, but an opposition has a duty at all times to expose and to challenge those values. Here in education we do challenge the Government. We think that the Government has got it wrong in terms of the values it is promoting in education, in view of the attitudes it is promoting, in view of the priorities it is promoting and in view of some of the issues of equity which it is promoting. I want to talk a little about some of the values and the reasons why parents are keen to use the non-government system. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), in her published speeches, has said a number of things. She has said that excellence has overtones of elitism about it. She has said that she is concerned about equality of outcomes in education; whereas we on this side are concerned about equality of opportunity. She has said that she wants to see an education system that should produce 'a sense of self-esteem and identity sufficient to enable the individual to resist manipulation by the massive institutions of capitalism'. So far so good. What she does not say is that she also wants to equip children to resist manipulation by the massive institutions of Labor or government. No, she says, it is only the massive institutions of capitalism, because the Minister's values set is quite well known. It is a socialist values set and the Minister, of course, has no love for the non-government school system. We know that in 1983 the Minister mounted a frontal assault upon non-government schools in Australia. We know, because it is an historical fact, that 41 non-government schools had their funding slashed by some 25 per cent in that year. We know, as a matter of historical fact, that there was a massive reaction, a sense of outrage in the community, at what had gone on in the Government. I remember well the meeting held in the Sydney Town Hall. The Town Hall was packed inside. The 3,000 people who were outside listened to the meeting by way of loudspeakers and watched the proceedings on television screens. I remember the several meetings in Ballarat, Albury, Cowra and Melbourne which the Minister also attended. I am sure that she will not forget them. I remember that the Catholic Church leaders and the operators of the Catholic systems stayed firm with the rest of the non-government sector throughout that battle, saying: 'An attack upon one of us is an attack upon us all'. I know that in the end, after the Catholic bishops called upon the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), Senator Ryan was rolled in Cabinet and a program was brought down to continue to fund non-government schools through a program which has given funds for some four years. I acknowledge that the four-year funding program which has been put down has brought some certainty to existing schools. Some schools will have received more money. The 41 schools which lost their funding have received nothing back. More schools, of course, lost their funding. The Government has brought in a new system of classification. I ask the Minister whether she would care to let us know now the number of schools in each of the categories. We have been asking for them. How many schools are there in each of the funding categories? Is it a fact that some 90 schools have now had their funds slashed as a result of the reclassification? Some schools have received less, but funding has been preserved. The Government has moved from a frontal assault upon the non-government system to an attack, through administrative control and restriction, both on the operation of existing schools and on the creation of new schools. The battle has not ended and it continues. It continues by means of new administrative rules to make life more difficult for established schools. It exists still through a slow down of administration. It exists through the Minister ceasing the operation of some important programs such as forward commitments for capital assistance. It continues by means of the imminent emasculation of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. It exists by means of new rules which are designed to inhibit the establishment of new non-government schools to meet the wishes of parents. Choice is being put at risk. The choice of parents and the expression of that choice are being put at risk in the interests of system efficiency. I remind the Senate that in relation to new schools the Government has laid down new draconian conditions. These will require any new proposed non-government school to give two years' notice. As well as meeting State registration requirements, as well as proving that it is a non-profit organisation, it will have to give two years' notice. New schools will then have to go before a new kind of committee yet to be established and be graded on a priority basis. So new schools which meet all the educational requirements of a State will then be graded by one of the committees of the Minister for Education, as high, medium or low priority. The Government funds to be announced in the middle of each year will then be distributed as far as is possible across those priority groupings. It is entirely possible that by limiting funding within a Budget total, the Government will fund only some of the approved places and that some parents wanting to open a new non-government school will miss out. What is particularly galling is that in some regions where parents are desperate to have new schools opened, they will be given low priority ratings because the Government school enrolments in that area are going down. The Government has actually said that a low priority would be given if a school were being established in an area of declining population. The Government has even gone so far as to say that it will define what is an area of declining population by looking not at the population, but at the enrolments in government schools. This is a stunt by the Government to maintain and ensure enrolments in government schools. The Government says so. In fact, it says that choice is not to be acceptable if it puts the system at any kind of risk. The administrative battle that we have been fighting goes further, even to what has been a very strange and coincidental misuse of departmental moneys. I refer to the pamphlet produced by the Government at the end of last year, which was distributed to every school in Australia at government expense just in time to coincide with the election campaign. It was a political document. It was issued by the Department of Education. It was not authorised, and the Department just happened to issue it coincidentally with the election campaign. I say to the Minister that our correspondence with the Australian Electoral Commission as to whether the Minister or her Department has breached the Commonwealth Electoral Act by what went on is continuing and remains unresolved. The Electoral Commissioner draws attention to the fact that it was a very unfortunate coincidence that this piece of propaganda just happened to be issued at public-- Senator Ryan —Facts. Senator PETER BAUME —Facts and opinion about the funding practices of the previous Government; that was not good enough. It was just one of Senator Ryan's cute little tricks that the pamphlet went out just at the time that her Government was moving towards an election. I wish to use my time to be more specific. Within my State of New South Wales, we have a number of examples of what is going on by way of administrative blockage and difficulty, making the life of non-government school authorities more difficult. Heaven knows what confusion will be added by any new political restrictions which will come under the new guidelines announced last week for new non-government schools. The examples relate to the restrictions that Senator Ryan managed to bring in last year. I should say that the officers with whom I deal in the Commonwealth Schools Commission, who are trying to administer these programs, are good officers. They are working hard and they are not playing politics; but they will do whatever the Government policy calls for. One thing it calls for is a whole range of new requirements, restrictions and definitions, so that any group wishing to relocate a school-just to move it from cramped premises to more spacious premises-must now have it redefined as a new school and will have to go through all the procedure of priority setting. If that happens, it is even possible that there would be no recurrent funds for them, because if the school were relocated, if it was reassessed and said to be of low priority, and if Senator Ryan could not then win through Cabinet enough funds and did not fund the low priority places, we would have the prospect of existing schools which dare to try to relocate being cut off from funds. Senator Ryan —Fearmongering. Senator PETER BAUME —I am sorry, but the Minister has put out the guidelines and I am telling her what the guidelines provide as a possibility. I shall refer to what has been happening in New South Wales. My colleagues will talk about some of the national dimensions of this guerilla campaign, but we have had enough examples from New South Wales to ask the Minister to consider them. I am advised that 17 new schools in New South Wales proceeded with applications to the Commonwealth Schools Commission for permission for funding in 1985. They are open now. They applied for funding permission during 1984. Each of these 17 schools got its application in by 30 June 1984 as was required. These schools were told that they would be informed by 30 September whether or not they would be funded. So they should have been, because they needed the time from September to December to make their arrangements and set their fees. Did this Minister keep that promise? Of course she did not. In fact, not one of those schools was informed by 30 September. I do not know whether Senator Ryan ever intended that they should be. By 30 November, some two months later, only six of them had received information as to whether their funding for this academic year would be coming through. The Government cannot tell us that it is not conducting a guerilla campaign. We have examples of where it has not done the right thing by schools. Another eight schools heard in late January 1985 that funding would be forthcoming. What kind of arrangement is this? The schools were to open at the end of January and in late January they still had not heard from the Minister. I do not know whether the papers had been sitting on her desk for months, but they had not heard whether they were to get recurrent funding for a school year which was imminent. I am further advised that by March 1985 three of the schools were still awaiting a decision as to whether the children would get funding this year. That is almost six months after the declared guideline to which the Minister is supposed to be working for decisions on these schools. I refer to the True Vine Christian Community School at Mullumbimby, the Kangia School at Murwillumbah and the Joseph Varga School. I shall look at the difficulties being experienced by two of these schools. True Vine School made its application for recurrent funding in 1983 and it operated throughout 1984 without such funding because of the failure of the Minister to make a decision on its future. It applied again in mid-1984, and at the beginning of March 1985 it was still awaiting a response. This is a disgrace and it is evidence of a cold war of administrative attrition being waged by this Minister. Joseph Varga school at Randwick has been operating as a pre-school with a good mix of normal and handicapped children. It was to allow those children to go on and to be catered for at the primary level that it applied to extend. It had sufficient students willing to continue but by March 1985 the school had still not received any notification or any resolution of the application it had made to the Minister. This placed the school in a catch-22 position. If recurrent funding had been granted at the time that it was promised, there would have been time for the enrolment of children whose parents were keen to have them come to the school. But those same parents, when they could get no answer in November, December and January from this guerilla warfare being conducted under the control of the Minister, as to whether they would get funding, took their children elsewhere and enrolments at the school are fewer than they would have been. I turn to paragraph 91 of the Connors report, entitled 'Planning and Funding Policies for Non-Government Schools', which states that the area of schooling for the disadvantaged is where the need for sharing and planning of educational provision is most obvious; that is, between government and non-government sectors. It seems that even then, giving an example of a specific school, that is just rhetoric, and anyhow, the need for sharing seems to apply only to the government school sector. What about other schools in New South Wales which missed the 30 June 1984 deadline by just a few days? They were dealt with, though, by the Commonwealth Schools Commission as though their applications were still sound. They received good treatment. They answered further questions and engaged in discussions with the Schools Commission, only to be told in December 1984 that their applications were to be rejected because they were received a few days late. These tactics have meant that two schools, St Pauls at Bankstown and Cringila autistic children's school near Wollongong, have been engaged in a tragic waste of time because of the incompetence of the Minister and the incompetence of the directions which she has laid down for the Department. These are actual examples of schools in difficulty. They have had a six-month waste of time that they need not have had. It is frustrating and makes them wonder why they bother to try to do their job. It is especially interesting to note that no special consideration was given to Cringila autistic school, given the Connors Committee's comments about the general assistance to be provided to schools for the handicapped. We have to turn then to the question of schools seeking to relocate. Here we have a classic example of the bureaucratic war of attrition. I am informed that the Schools Commission currently has before it over 200 applications for relocation. This has come about because of a repressive range of restrictions that have been imposed. A school is now defined as relocating if it buys a property next door. Most schools relocate within half a kilometre of the old campus, yet such relocations must be approved if schools are to be certain that their recurrent funding will continue. In fact, I know of one school that bought the next house but one, only 50 metres down the road, that still had to apply for approval to relocate. The school was told by the Schools Commission that the purchased house would be considered as a second campus. It might be said that that is ridiculous. It is not ridiculous if the objective is to make life difficult for non-government schools. I have been informed that 20 schools in New South Wales applied to relocate, as they now have to do so as not to lose their funding. They all made their applications before the cut off date of 30 October 1984. Some of them made application as early as June 1984. The schools that made their applications before June were told that their applications would be dealt with by September and the others by November. I do not believe that the schools have yet had their answer. Ten schools made their applications before 30 June. None had its applications dealt with by September, none by October and none by November. I could go on with example after example. It is clear that, either by design or incompetence, this Minister presides over a situation in which non-government schools in Australia, particularly in my State, are suffering the effects of bureaucratic obstruction and difficulty. The Minister should give us assurances that that obstruction will be removed forthwith. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(3.32) —The Senate has been subjected in the last 20 minutes or so to a tired and tiresome regurgitation by Senator Peter Baume of his worst examples of hysterical rhetoric that he inflicted on various communities around the countryside in 1983 and early 1984. At that time his motive was, and still is, to stir up trouble between the government and non-government education sectors. If Senator Baume has one recurring theme in his comments on education-I am afraid that he does have only one recurring theme-it is to attack and undermine public education in this country. As far as Senator Baume is concerned, all private schools are entitled to limitless support; all public schools must be harassed, criticised, despised and forced out of existence. It is very tedious. It is not only that, it is also very unsuccessful. The Australian public does not agree with Senator Baume. All surveys known to me show that a majority of people are happy with the choices that they are able to make in education. The majority of people choose public schools for their children. A minority of Australians choose private schools for their children and they, too, report high levels of satisfaction with their choices. Indeed, they are generously supported by the Commonwealth Government in making those choices-more generously by this Commonwealth Government than by any preceding one, including the Government that Senator Baume was once a part of. So what do we have here today? We have Senator Baume, who has been left without a feather to fly with in the education debate since the hysteria that he was involved in whipping up disappeared once we announced our new funding formula for non-government schools. Senator Baume has been left with nothing to say about education because, as is obvious to any of us who have to sit in this chamber day after day, Senator Baume is not interested in the fundamental matters concerning education. He is not interested in curriculum reform. He is not interested in how we can train teachers better to get better outcomes in schools. He is not interested in the plethora of programs the Commonwealth supports through the Schools Commission to overcome disadvantage, be it geographic, physical socio-economic, or based on rates. Senator Baume is not interested in any of those things. His interest is only in trying to whip up trouble between the Government and non-government sectors, in trying to recreate for himself the heady experience of screaming in an hysterical fashion at hundreds of parents who had been mislead by him and others on his side of the chamber into believing that somehow our Government was to undermine private schools. It did not happen. What happened when we developed our new recurrent funding policy? We provided for non-government schools the most stable form of funding they had experienced since this country was settled by Europeans. An eight-year funding plan, worked out on an equitable basis, provides that four years of those funds are guaranteed in legislation for government and non-government schools alike. That was the outcome of the dire predictions by Senator Baume that somehow the private school sector would be brought to its knees. It was never the intention of our Government to undermine private education. It was the intention of our Government to ensure that Commonwealth funds were distributed equitably between the government and non-government sectors and that within the non-government sector we would reintroduce a principle of equity in the allocation of funds. We have done that. People listening to Senator Baume today might think that there is something in our approach to the development of non-government schools that is dangerous or suggests unfair restrictions. I remind the Senate of a few facts concerning our Government's record for new non-government schools. Since coming to office our Government, with me as Minister, has granted funding approval to 164 new non-government schools. This figure excludes relocations and extensions. The funding of 164 new non-government schools in a two-year period can hardly be described as putting the screws on as guerilla warfare. In case honourable senators are wondering what the level of financial commitment such expansion in the non-government sector represents, the total recurrent grants to these schools for the two-year period is estimated at $50m, and capital grants paid or offered to these new schools are estimated at about $30m-that is $80m for new schools started under this Hawke Government-yet there is still this hysterical, dishonest, distorting outburst from Senator Baume, who is trying to get back the heady days of the Sydney Town Hall rally, one of the more disgraceful public performances that I am aware of in recent years. The total dollars to be spent on non-government schools by our Government over the next four-year period is $2.517 billion. That is an enormous amount of money. Everybody is very well aware these days of how difficult it is for the Government to make massive public expenditures of that order, yet we have made that commitment-secure, set in legislation for four years-of that vast amount of money to support the schools outside the government system chosen and supported by the various community groups. There has been no greater evidence of our good faith towards that sector than that series of decisions. All schools will benefit from our four-year funding plan. The most needy schools-for example, the category 12 schools-will receive real increases of up to 37 per cent in per capita grants over the period. Our scheme provides incentives for increased private effort, compared with disincentives in the past. Our new non-government schools policy announced last week, about which Senator Baume is now trying to make cheap political capital, will provide for greater planning and a more systematic approach to the provision of educational services in this country. Our planned, positive and sensible approach to the financing of non-government schools and other relationship to government schools is a complete turnaround from the ad hoc, unplanned and negligent policies of the previous Government. Where we believe in a balanced development of the dual system of schools, the previous Government indiscriminately poured buckets of money into one part of one sector only, that is, to the wealthier schools in the private sector. Everybody else did very badly. Senator Teague —That is not true. Senator RYAN —Senator Teague is challenging that assertion. Let me back up my assertion with some facts which were supplied by the Schools Commission. It is a body to which Senator Baume accords the highest credibility, so let us not have any arguments about the facts. From 1976 to 1982 general recurrent grants to government schools were cut in real terms by 6 per cent or $19m. The previous Government actually cut funding to the schools which educate 75 per cent of the nation's children, which was absolute negligence. Capital grants to government schools were cut in real terms by over 35 per cent; that is, $88m was cut from grants to government schools over this period. Honourable senators may have thought that all sectors were faring equally badly and perhaps it was necessary for the Government to make those cuts, but that was not the case. From 1976 to 1983 per capita grants for the wealthiest non-government schools increased by about 120 per cent. Whereas the recurrent and capital grants to government schools were being cut, the wealthiest non-government schools-the schools that least needed government assistance by any definition-had their grants increased by 120 per cent. What happened to the poorest schools in the private sector? Certainly they got some increased funding but only 60 per cent. The wealthiest schools in the non-government sector got a 120 per cent increase in funding; the poorest schools got only a 60 per cent increase and, of course, funding for government schools-the public schools that are available to all children in all parts of the country regardless of the children's ability, background, race, religion or anything else-got cut. That is the situation that the Government inherited, that it the situation from which it had to start moving in order to redress inequities and that is the situation about which Senator Baume tried to create absolute hysteria amongst parents and teachers in the non-government sector. What did the Government do? It restored the balance. It certainly did not diminish in any way any provision for education but it did some redistributing. In 1984 the Government provided for a real increase of 2.8 per cent-- Senator Teague —Don't trust politicians. Senator RYAN —These figures were supplied by the Schools Commission and the honourable senator has heard how much Senator Baume trusts the Schools Commission. There was nearly a 3 per cent increase in real funding. That increase was made up of a 5.6 per cent increase for government schools, which had fared so badly, a 1.5 per cent increase for non-government schools and a redistribution of funds about which we heard a great deal from Senator Baume. Redressing that balance is something for which the Government makes no apologies; it is something which I now think is widely accepted throughout the government and non-government sectors alike. Subsequent to the first reorganisation, the Government is now committed to total general recurrent outlays to non-government schools for the next four-year period of $2.517 billion. At the same time, the total general recurrent outlay for government schools will be $1.456 billion, which is a more balanced situation than the one the Government inherited. That outstanding record of equitable and generous treatment to both sectors was widely acclaimed throughout the non-government sector at the time. It was very disappointing for Senator Baume to have to face up to that but he had to because that treatment was widely acclaimed as being fair and equitable and giving the schools the stability and security that they wanted. Why in the face of those facts did Senator Baume come in here today with this hysterically worded matter of public importance about a cold war of attrition? He did so because the Government has announced a new approach to the planning and expansion of the non-government sector. It is an approach which is based in its entirety on a report received from a panel of commissioners of the Schools Commission, again a body for which Senator Baume professed only a few minutes ago to have the highest regard. Senator Peter Baume —My praise was for the officers. Senator RYAN —I must put that on the record. Senator Baume now wishes to withdraw his praise for the Schools Commission; his praise is reserved only for the officers. Apparently the commissioners are under some suspicion from Senator Baume. Who are the commissioners who drew up this report which is being described as guerilla warfare and in other exaggerated terms? One of them is Sister Denise Desmarchelier, who is a principal of a Catholic school in Western Australia. In fact, I think it is the Catholic school which is the choice of Senator Baume's colleague, Senator Chaney. She is a very well regarded educationist, a person totally and absolutely involved in the Catholic education system. She was one of the commissioners who brought down this horrendous report! Another commissioner was Mr Vin Faulkner, Planning Officer of the Catholic Education Office in Victoria and a former Deputy Chairman of the National Catholic Education Commission. He is another of the authors of this report about which we are hearing such draconian criticism. Another commissioner is a person who Senator Baume probably knows very well, Professor Ronald Sackville, who is Co-Chairman of the Australian Co-ordinating Committee of Jewish Day Schools. He is another of the authors of this report which the Government has adopted in its entirety. The other two commissioners were the chairperson, Lindsay Connors, who is the Acting Chairperson of the Schools Commission, and Mr Doug Swan, who is Director-General of the New South Wales Department of Education. If one were trying to assess the panel in terms of crude numbers, the non-government sector certainly had the numbers on that panel. However, it was not necessary to go into a crude numbers procedure with regard to the report because it was a unanimous report. The five commissioners consulted widely throughout the non-government sector and drew up a unanimous report which had the in-principle approval of all organisations in the non-government sector. This is the report which the Government intends to put into legislation and about which I made a statement last week. It is a report which provides for rational planning of the expansion of the non-government sector. Anyone would think from Senator Baume's remarks that it had something to do with restriction. It is a plan for expansion; that is what it is all about. It is about how to manage the growth of the non-government sector in such a way as to be fair to the people who start schools, fair to the people who have already invested a lot of time and energy in building up schools, be they government or non-government, and fair to the children themselves. Those children deserve better than what has happened to some children in the past when Senator Baume was Minister for Education and schools were set up by inexperienced groups and immediately got massive Commonwealth funding but, within a few short months, collapsed with disastrous effects for the children, who then had to be replaced in other schools. Senator Baume cannot deny that under the libertarian, ad hoc approach of his Government this kind of thing happened. Nor can Senator Baume claim that that kind of disruptive experience is good for the children. It is certainly not fair to the schools from which the children are withdrawn or the schools which have to re-accommodate the children. It certainly involves a waste of public and private money and private effort. Nobody's interest is served by an ad hoc, ill-planned approach to something as important as starting a school. The fact that the Government has had as a policy since August of last year 24 months requirement for notice to be given of a new school seems to me-I am sure it does to all reasonable people-to be a perfectly reasonable approach. Anybody who has had anything to do with a school knows that one could not properly plan, organise and get a school started in less than 24 months. The task is simply too big. If one does hire a hall somewhere, put a few kids in it and start a school overnight, the likelihood is that that school will not last very long. The Government now has a new approach to the planning of the expansion of the non-government sector. It is an approach based on the broadest possible consultation with that sector and other interested parties. It is an approach which led to a report which was a complete consensus document and a report which has not, in its contents, been criticised by any major non-government group. Certainly reservations have been expressed from some quarters about how it will work out in practice, but I think that the principles of co-operative planning between the government and non-government sectors and of rational use of scarce resources to prevent unnecessary duplication or to prevent the collapse of schools, have not been challenged by anyone. The only challenge has come from Senator Baume, who chooses to ignore all the good work done by those commissioners, all the co-operation and constructive effort of the various groups in the community who made submissions to that panel and the benefits that will flow both to existing schools and to schools as they get established in this rational and properly planned way. Senator Baume chooses to ignore all this in the hope that he can whip up a bit of a frenzy and attract a few votes for himself over the next few months. I am afraid that Senator Baume's attempts will be just as unsuccessful as they were in 1983 and 1984 because the new arrangements will provide a much higher degree of satisfaction to all people seeking Commonwealth funding than the previous arrangements ever did. I must make another comment on the implication of the line Senator Baume takes on this matter, not only here in the chamber but publicly. He seems to suggest that there should be no limit at all on the funding of non-government schools. His very distorted and selective response to a report that has just come from the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority about the sort of choices that people make in the Australian Capital Territory was simply to say that there should be more money for private schools. That is his sole contribution to education policy. We think that there should be more money for all schools. We believe that all schools in Australia are entitled to support from us and we are providing that support. But we know, too, that there are limits to public spending and because we recognise that and we are not going to pretend that all people can have exactly the amount of dollars that they have decided to ask for, we have brought down properly worked out, balanced and equitable policies which will bring about an unprecedented period of harmony and co-operation for schools throughout Australia. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.53) —The matter of public importance brought forward by the Opposition today is: Labor's cold war of attrition against non-government schools. This is a topic which we have discussed on innumerable occasions in the Senate in the past few years. I am not at all sure that throughout the rather protracted debate a great deal of additional light has been thrown on the problem. Certainly what has occurred is a heating up of the political context and presumably political parties find that useful. Whether or not it assists kids' education in schools is neither here nor there; if one can get a few votes out of it, I suppose it is worthwhile-hence the cynical values that exist in political parties and the way in which the population outside views politicians and how they abuse various factors which occur in the community. It is a pity that we are debating this issue again. When I look back at the matters of public importance in education debated during that last three parliaments, I find that there have been no matters of public importance debates on the following subjects: The education of isolated children; migrant language education; adult illiteracy, which is widespread in our country; Aboriginal education and the problems of cultural interchange; disadvantaged programs for the mentally and physically handicapped children in the community; pre-school provision; technical education for young adults preparing them for the workforce; retaining needs of adults; further education provisions; and college and tertiary education. That is a sorry history when time and again we discuss this particular topic as though it were the only matter of public importance in education in Australia. Senator Teague —Why don't you bring in one yourself? Senator MACKLIN —We get only one. If Senator Teague knew anything about the arrangements in this place he would have kept that comment to himself. The Opposition does not want to discuss these important matters. That is patently the record. People do not want to discuss that extraordinarily wide range of matters of public importance in the area of education. Unfortunately we are having another go at resurrecting a brawl between two important sectors in schooling; that is, the private and public sectors. I would have thought that the settled situation is that we will continue in Australia to have two sectors involved in schooling. I believe that principle is accepted by all political parties represented in this Parliament. That the bulk of recurrent funds to both sectors will be provided by the public purse is a position which has been accepted by the Liberal and National parties and by the Australian Labor Party. Therefore, what we have now come down to is nibbling at the margins for the sake of a political debate. I think that the advances that have been made in the past few years have been made almost solely despite that debate and not because of it. The advances that have been made have been made by the people who run those two sectors talking to one another and discussing their mutual problems. They have discussed the difficulties of teaching children in 1985 whether it be in a private school or a government school, the difficulty of coping with the social stresses which are being imposed more and more on our families and the recurrent problems that gives to teachers in the classroom. Then there are the problems that teachers have in confronting the needs of pupils in the classroom and the needs the teachers themselves have in updating their own information base and in coming to grips with new technologies and new information. Those types of problems do not know any boundaries. They are experienced by teachers and pupils regardless of whether it says on the gate of the school that it is the local parish Catholic school or the local State school. By and large the children who are in those schools come from identical backgrounds within Australia. They come from backgrounds in which their parents are struggling hard to make ends meet. They come from parents who want the best for their children and the best future that is available for their children. Quite frankly, the vast bulk of Australian parents are fed up to the back teeth with what politics is doing to education in this country. They want an end to the acrimonious debates in this Parliament. They want agreement on what is wanted for all our children because they are all citizens of this country. It is not a matter of grasping from one group and giving to the other or grasping from the other group and giving it back; it is a matter of coming to some type of settled agreement about the fact that we have enormous problems with the educational system in this country, enormous problems in the schools and enormous difficulties in terms of the regeneration and redirection of educational institutions. Essentially the problems of the Catholic, independent and state schools are identical and ultimately they are not a matter of money. Ultimately they are not even a matter for the school structure itself; they are a matter for the society finally to agree on what it wants out of those institutions. One of the major problems that most people have is that almost everyone alive in Australia today has gone to a school at some time in their life; hence, they fail to realise the very short history that schools have as educational institutions. Schools, as they are presently constituted, are not of very long duration. It may well be that the pressures being imposed upon schools now will mean that they may not exist in their current form for too much longer. There are already signs in various parts of the world of the breaking up of education systems under the types of pressures, strains and demands that are being placed on them. Quite frankly, schools can do well without the type of silly debate that goes on in this place. Most teachers can do well without this sort of thing. The last report brought into the Senate, concerning the establishment of new non-government schools, was formulated by a panel, the majority of whom were from the non-government sector. One would not know that, even after having read the report, unless one turned to the front of the report to see that that was the case. In other words, most people working in the area now have got down to bedrock; they know that most of the recurrent funds will come from government. They have got down to discussing how it is that we can co-operate in a far better and more effective way to help as many children in this country as possible get the best education they can out of the dollars available. A lot of rhetoric, discussion and high-flown speech making is indulged in for public consumption in an endeavour to drum up a little political support and probably a few votes here and there. I re-read in preparation for this debate a speech that I made in this chamber on 9 September 1982, during the time of the Fraser Administration, and I wonder whether or not, if the suggestion I made in that speech had been taken up, we would still be having these debates. I suggested that if the people actually involved in education, who do the hard yakka at the work face as distinct from all of those celebrated amateurs who wander around the place telling everybody else what best to do with their lives, were allowed to get together without the Press-with all due respect to the Press-and to have a long discussion about their needs and what agreements they could reach, there would be very few difficulties that they could not resolve by the end of the day. In all the meetings I have had with administrators and teachers I have found a concurrence of views, not a disparity. I have found that their major concern is for the kids in this country, and we are indeed blessed by the vast majority of teachers and administrators we have in both of our education systems. Their knowledge and understanding of what is required would easily overwhelm the differences which politicians attempt to construct for them. I would have hoped that such a conference could take place; I still hope it does take place. It need not be held in this chamber or in the other place; indeed not even in Canberra, and certainly not with the Press in attendance. There could be a wide-ranging discussion of needs into the 1990s and to the year 2000. The problems currently emerging, which are pressing not only on secondary school teachers but also even on upper primary school teachers, have to be addressed at some stage. We have to address these real educational problems and not the peripheral piddling things that we in this chamber spend most of our time discussing. The only point I wish to make in terms of any war of attrition-I make it as forcefully as I can-is that there is an enormous amount of intersection between the two systems in Australia. It is not possible for those systems to exist apart. They exist together and they have an effect one upon the other. I give a trite example, but it is an example from the work face, of what actually happens in order to show that this interaction is acknowledged in the classroom. Currently in Australia private schools, in whatever State they are, establish their own criteria for expulsion. There are a considerable number of expulsions from private schools, as there are from state schools, around Australia every year, for one reason or another. State schools in every State are obliged by law to accept any children who present themselves. Hence, if students are expelled from a local private school they can move down the road and go to the local state school. I happened to be the teacher in the example I have in mind, so the incident is very acute to me. Three children arrived from the local private school and came into my grade 10 industrial class that had at that time 37 kids, though I should not call them that because they were young adults. Most of them were much bigger than I was even though they were still under the age of 15 years. These new students were amongst the most disruptive people I had ever met and destroyed the education opportunity for the bulk of that class for a fair time. Senator Aulich —What did you do? Senator MACKLIN —Ultimately they were expelled from that state school as well. I imagine they are now in Boggo Road gaol at Her Majesty's pleasure. The point I am trying to make is that there is intersection. Whilst that example may seem trite, it happens to be the type of thing that teachers constantly have to confront in the classroom. The exclamations and whipping up of dissent do not help teachers in those circumstances; it does not help the education of the children; and it does not help the parents who are only looking for the best future that they can get for their children. For goodness sake, let us in 1985 agree to differ on whatever it was that we got upset about in the past and try to direct our ample talents in this place towards trying to map out a national education plan that will help every child in this country through to the year 2000. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(4.06) —In this debate on funding for schools I have been preceded by the Liberal spokesman on education, Senator Peter Baume, the Labor Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, and the Australian Democrats spokesman on education, Senator Macklin. I agree with my colleague Senator Peter Baume that last Thursday's announcement by this Government of its total acceptance of all the recommendations in the report on 'Planning and Funding Policies for Non-Government Schools' amounts to a further serious step in the cold war, the war of attrition, that the Labor Government has launched against non-government schools. Senator Macklin made two major points. He made the first with some degree of sentiment-I trust it was entirely genuine-and said: 'Let us get past talking about money and resources and past a polarised debate about money going to schools; let us talk about the real issues, the children in need of remediation, the method of teaching English in schools, the needs of multicultural communities, adult illiteracy, the requirements of Aboriginal schools and so on'. I agree entirely with him. I am sure that Senator Ryan and Senator Peter Baume, the former Minister, also agree that they are vital issues. Senator Zakharov, who will follow me in this debate, was once a counsellor in schools and is very much aware of problems that exist at every point of the education system. I refer Senator Macklin to the last three or four major reports of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, not least the one put down a few months ago on all the language issues in Australia. It is a mine of suggestions and of positive input. I make the distinction for Senator Macklin's benefit that these recommendations were supported not just by me, as a Liberal senator, but by Labor senators and Liberal senators who were fully involved with the evidence taken. They brought that constructive set of suggestions to this Senate and to the Government, as well as to the profession-indeed, to the schools, higher education authorities and all those employed in this field. I would love to debate those issues of substance at great length but let us not, out of sentiment, put aside what I regard as an even higher priority issue-the resources made available within Australia for educational purposes. Without the resources, schools, universities and colleges do not exist. The second point Senator Macklin made concerned the argument-the slanging match, as he called it-between the Government and the Opposition and in regard to which he prefers to sit on the side benches. He concurred with the Government last Thursday that the adoption of the recommendations contained in the report was a brave new step. I could not believe it. He has no credibility in putting forward such a view. He said that this was nibbling at the margins for the sake of a political debate. Senator Ryan —Absolutely. Senator TEAGUE —Senator Ryan agrees with Senator Macklin. I profoundly disagree, and let me tell you why. In 1983 when the Government, true to its policy and basic philosophy, wanted to cut back non-government schools and bring about uniformity and equality of outcome-I take the phrase from Senator Ryan's own speeches-and to take up the philosophy of the Australian Teachers Federation, the Marxist and socialists in the Labor movement, it wanted a certain outcome from political philosophy. I am not surprised by that, but when it started to implement that policy it was resisted because we did not want to see non-government schools denied resources. We want to see government schools and non-government schools flourish, according to Australian families' own decisions. When the Labor Government philosophy was being enacted in 1983 by Senator Ryan as the new Minister, there was uproar in this country and in the chamber. As a result of what Senator Macklin calls nibbling at the margins, or just fomenting a political debate, as a result of that argument-it was a big argument-the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) stepped in and said to his Minister: 'Despite the momentum of your decisions in 1983 and 1984 implementing Labor Party philosophy, I will pragmatically declare that there will be an eight-year funding regime that will give real increases to government schools and non-government schools'. That was just prior to the election last year. It was done to try to win back some of that middle ground, because 25 per cent of the Australian public are directly involved with non-government schools and another third of the Australian public wants to be involved. Fifty per cent of Australian families want their children to attend non-government schools, because they believe they will have a better educational outcome, better discipline and more substance in their education. Senator Ryan —What do you believe? Senator TEAGUE —I refer you directly to the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority report entitled 'The Choice of Schools Study'. It was in the headlines with some flourish on Monday of this week. Pages 5 and 15 of that report show that, of the 67 per cent of families whose children attend government secondary schools, one-quarter would prefer that their children attend non-government schools. Because of the policies of this Government the barriers are too high and are making those non-government schools available only for the elite or for families who go to great sacrifice to allow their children to be enrolled in those schools. The waiting list is still enormous for non-government schools but last Thursday's decision of this Government effectively put up the barriers to real new funding for non-government schools. When we take the 33 per cent of families involved with non-government schools and add a quarter of the other two-thirds, we see that 50 per cent of the families in the Australian Capital Territory would prefer their children to attend non-government schools. The issue of debate in 1983 was perceived rightly by the Prime Minister as an issue that could alienate very substantial numbers of votes from his Government, so he stepped in and announced an eight-year plan which saved the bacon. Senator Ryan was using that as her argument here today. She says: 'There is no dispute. Our record is better than yours in supporting non-government schools'. This is what she tried to maintain. Is she able to sustain her argument? No, she is not. The Prime Minister stepped in with this program. One of Senator Ryan's predecessors, Mr Dawkins in another place, was the shadow Minister for Education. In much the same way, he was faithful and true to Labor Party philosophy on schools funding. He went about the country alienating lots and lots of people in the middle ground, so the Leader of the Opposition of the day, Mr Hayden, put in, not the Centre Left spokesman, Mr Dawkins, but Mr Hurford. Mr Hurford was the shadow Minister for Education in the last months before the 1983 election. After Senator Ryan alienated not only this Senate in terms of the argument Senator Macklin complains about, but also the public at large, Mr Hawke from the Centre and Right of his Party stepped in and smoothed the waters until the election. So we have seen an on-again, off-again approach of divergence to and from Labor Party philosophy on schools funding. Can Senator Ryan-or, for that matter, Senator Aulich, who has enormous experience in the education system in Tasmania, or Senator Cooney, who is about to speak in this debate-deny that there are greater numbers of persons within the Labor Party who want to annihilate non-government schools than there are in the Liberal Party? I do not know anyone in the Liberal Party who is putting forward that view, but many people in the Labor Party are. I am not saying they are a majority, but they are a significant lobby within the Labor Party that cannot be put aside. Maybe they are not in Senator Ryan's faction, but they want to deny the opportunity for non-government schools. That is a point on which the Government in office has diverged-on again, off again-and the decision last Thursday to put down every kind of barrier before the Government will provide capital funds for new non-government schools is the continuation of a war of attrition. We will, bit by bit, application by application, administrative decision by administrative decision, make it difficult for there to be any new non-government schools. Last Thursday in a debate on this subject-Senator Ryan was absent at the time-I made some remarks along the lines that this decision is really to stop any real growth in enrolments in non-government schools. Senator Ryan wants to say to her own Party: 'We have put on the ceiling, we have put up the barriers; there will not be new non-government schools; they will have to go through this series of vetoes; they have to give two years notice; they have to show they are financially viable, but with increased stringency. Of course, they will have to meet the regulations of the State' we agree with this part 'in terms of educational standards. They will have to show that they will not interfere with the enrolment of any other neighbouring school. They will have to be established only in growth areas'. All of these vetoes will continue the attrition against non-government schools. I believe, contrary to Senator Macklin, that this argument-an argument between the Government and the Opposition-is not a trivial matter. It should be persisted in and we will persist in it because we want the Government again to turn around. The on-again, off-again dialectic has to go back off again to allow the legitimate concerns of Australian families to be met. When there is an increasing pressure of applications from parents to enrol their children in schools of their choice, why should a big brother government apply a bureaucracy to stop, put barriers, put vetoes, against the choices of individual families? Senator Ryan, with Brownie badges all over her, said: 'We have given $50m in capital funds in the course of the Hawke Government to new non-government schools'. I put it to the Minister that the majority of that money was already in train through commitments made by the former Fraser Government. Under the Minister's first guidelines for non-government schools she backdated to the date of the election in March 1983 no new capital funding for non-government schools. I put it to the Minister that the majority of the money allocated was grants that had already gone through the stages of prior commitment in the Fraser Government period. The second matter is that Senator Ryan claimed that from 1976 to 1982-during the period of the Fraser Government-that Liberal Government increased funding to non-government schools in recurrent terms and there was a real decline in the funding to government schools. 'Horror, horror, horror', she said. I put a question to the Minister and to the Senate: What about the enrolments? How is it possible for it to be otherwise when the enrolments in non-government schools during that period were increasing so rapidly because Australian families were exercising their right of choice? When there is a percentage link, a non-government school can gain only a certain per capita percentage of what a government school is receiving. A non-government school can receive only 20 per cent or 30 per cent of what a government school is receiving. Therefore, I ask the Minister to put it in per capita terms. I believe that in this attack upon non-government schools the Government is again buying an argument with the Opposition. We will defend the right of Australian families to enrol their children in schools of their choice. This debate will continue. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(4.22) —I would like to refer first to a few of the matters that Senator Teague has raised. It always seems to be my fortune in educational debates to speak directly after Senator Teague. Senator Teague used Australian Capital Territory figures on parents wishing to send their children to non-government schools. The first point I make is that I hardly think the Australian Capital Territory, with the highest per capita income in Australia, is a random sample. I would not put any basis on figures that related purely to the Australian Capital Territory. I do not know whether other figures exist for other States. Senator Teague —In South Australia it is higher. Senator ZAKHAROV —I wonder why the honourable senator did not use South Australia as an example in that case; it would have suited his argument better to do so. The other point I make in reference to that is that even if most parents did want to send their children to non-government schools-I argue that it is not so-that does not prove that non-government schools are better, deserve more funding, deserve feather-bedding or anything else. I have been the butt of many letters on this issue, as no doubt other senators have been in the last couple of years. I know members of the Opposition and their supporters have gone to great pains to try to convince people in the general public that non-government schools provide a far superior education to that provided in government schools. I deny that claim very emphatically, from long experience as a student and as a parent in both systems and as a teacher of the sorts of students to which Senator Macklin referred in government schools, which have to take allcomers. I was interested to hear that in Queensland there are some expulsions from government schools. There are very few expulsions in Victoria. The school that I taught at for about 15 years never expelled a student, but we accepted plenty who had been expelled by other schools, including some who I know for a fact ended up in the sort of way that Senator Macklin predicted for some of his former students. Earlier Opposition senators raised the question of new schools that have not been approved for 1985. Senator Peter Baume —Very few. Senator ZAKHAROV —Yes, there have been very few. I understand that there have been two main reasons for such delays. Firstly, they may have submitted late information on either enrolment or financial information, or they may have had a negative impact statement from the State authorities which necessitates referring back for comment before a final decision is made. Another question which was raised was the definition of a 'relocation'. I understand that a relocated school is defined as 'a new school only if it involves new and/or increased enrolments since March 1983'. No relocation has been rejected for funding; almost all relocation referrals have, in fact, been dealt with very speedily. To come back to what I intended to say, to put this matter of public importance in its political perspective, it is necessary to look at the record of the previous Fraser Government in the distribution of funds between government and non-government schools. That is the only real comparison that should be made. Let us have a look at the record of the Fraser Government: Between 1976 and 1983, the proportion of the Commonwealth Schools Commission funds which went to government schools fell from about 64 per cent to 47 per cent. I remind honourable senators again that over 75 per cent of all students are in government schools, even though Senator Peter Baume may think that many of them are there reluctantly. So if that 64 per cent was inequitable, certainly 47 per cent was disgraceful. Senator Teague —What about the State governments? Senator ZAKHAROV —I will come to that later. Over the same period capital funds for government schools were cut by 76 per cent in real terms. Again, between 1977 and 1983 total Commonwealth funds for non-government schools increased by 83 per cent while funds for government schools declined by 11 per cent. Much of the rhetoric from members of the Opposition refers to the needs of the less affluent non-government schools compared with the needs of the high resource, wealthier schools. In fact, in debates last year one would have thought that every student at a non-government school had impoverished parents and that most of them were in the needy schools. Let us look at what they did in practice. In the period 1977 to 1983, per capital grants for those high resource schools increased by about 120 per cent, which is twice the rate of increase for the low resource non-government schools. At the same time-I have direct experience of this, having worked for 17 years in government schools and as a parent of government school students-the conservative State governments were favouring non-government schools in a similar way. I remember one classic announcement by Lindsay Thompson, the then Victorian Minister for Education, that no more high schools would be built in Victoria ever. While assistance was being given for the establishment of schools of very doubtful educational credentials, which I will be talking about shortly, assistance to government schools in Victoria declined markedly under conservative governments. It is a tribute to the teachers and other members of school communities that educational standards were able to be maintained in spite of deplorable physical conditions and frequently inadequate staffing levels. Opposition speakers in these repetitious matters of public importance that we seem to be having on this topic often imply that the Commonwealth is the only source of funding for non-government schools. There are, of course, two other sources. All States provide per capita grants-these are not always on a needs basis-and most provide interest subsidies on loans for buildings. On average, across the States the Commonwealth provides about 37 per cent of general recurrent expenditure for non-government schools. The Commonwealth also provides about a third of the capital expenditure of non-government schools. These figures certainly do not indicate a war of attrition. The other source of funds for these schools is, of course, private-contributions from fees, donations, bequests and, in the case of some Catholic schools, from donated services of staff. I have been talking so far about the past and the present, but a war of attrition also implies future action. So we need to look at the Government's plans for future support for non-government schools. Some facts which have often been stated before in this chamber and elsewhere clearly need restating. They are these: No non-government schools will receive less money this year than they did in 1984; most will receive more, particularly those in greatest need. The Government has introduced real stability and security into funding arrangements. Many schools and systems in the non-government sector have welcomed the fact that they can now plan ahead over at least a four-year period, probably an eight-year period. The needs principle in non-government funding is being applied in a much more equitable way, taking into account the total private incomes of schools and introducing a 12-category scale for fine tuning, which was asked for by many of those schools. There is allowance for negotiation if schools believe they have been wrongly categorised. Non-government schools will have access to the new basic learning programs at a primary level, as they have already to the participation and equity program. I also point out that they receive a lot of hidden support in services which are available to all schools, both non-government and government schools, such as curriculum development at the Federal level and, at the State level, counselling and guidance services, which are available to all students. Increased public accountability, which is strangely objected to by some people who expect strict accountability in other areas of government expenditure, such as social security, will benefit non-government as well as government schools and will make for a fairer sharing of the available funds. Total Commonwealth funding for schools in 1985 will increase by $23m for government schools and by $12m for non-government schools. That is, nearly a third of the increase will go to a quarter of the students, again hardly a war of attrition. I remind honourable senators that the panel of Commonwealth Schools Commissioners which reported on planning and funding policies for new non-government schools consulted extensively with the non-government school sector and authorities throughout Australia as part of the development of the guidelines. Public criticism at that time, from memory, came mainly from the government sector, which believed that it had had less opportunity to consult. We heard some criticism today of the guidelines relating to the establishment of new schools and new places in existing schools. These guidelines relate to proper planning procedures concerning local need and preventing disruption of enrolment patterns in existing schools. Some schools set up in the days of the previous Government have closed because this planning was not done, at a financial loss to the Government and to parents. Far more importantly, it has created educational disruptions to students, particularly in country towns where there are few alternatives. The planning process involves the States as well because they are responsible for the provision of government schools and, very importantly, for the registration of new non-government schools. I wonder how many honourable senators are aware of the educational policies of some of these schools. 'Educational' may be the wrong word. Probably 'instructional' is better. I refer in particular to schools applying the Accelerated Christian Education methods, commonly known as ACE schools, where children spend hours of the day in carrels, on their own, plugged into tape systems which play programmed lessons of very doubtful educational value, with little human interaction and certainly no encouragement for discussion, debate or-shock, horror-critical thinking. Senator Aulich —Alone with God. Senator ZAKHAROV —Well said. These schools frequently are staffed, in part at least, by unqualified staff. The States need to be a lot more critical and vigilant about registering such schools. Parents may have the right to choose, but children have a right to an education in the true sense of the world. The planning process at State level also needs to be upgraded in many cases. Too often, future needs are calculated on the short term basis of present population without due regard for future growth. A few years ago, the school at which I worked was told that figures of the Department of Education showed that enrolment figures would not increase. When enrolments continued to increase, the school co-ordinated a proper assessment of the future need by getting together government departments, community groups, local government and relevant State bodies to look into factors such as building permits and land rezoning. Clearly, if one is looking at future needs one has to look further back than the primary school or even the pre-school level. One has to look at what will happen to the population. Figures produced by this process demonstrated what the local community had been claiming all along and resulted in the establishment of a new secondary school to relieve existing schools with exploding enrolments. That is the sort of process which I believe should go into the planning of any projected school. That is allowed for under the guidelines. Finally, this whole debate, which seems to be continuing on a cyclical basis-at least it has done over the last two years and probably will continue to do so, I fear-is really about maintaining privilege for some sections of the community that are already privileged in that they can afford to pay. Most parents in the community-leaving aside whether it would be their choice or not if they could afford it-cannot afford an education for their children at the high-resources, non-government schools. Every time conservative governments increase the slice of the cake which goes to non-government schools, thereby reducing the slice for government schools, they are denying the right of a reasonable and good education to students in government schools. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(4.36) —This afternoon, as a matter of public importance, the Senate is debating the continuing war of attrition by the Australian Labor Party against non-government schools. It is no exaggeration to compare this folie de grandeur of the Labor Party with the Hundred Years War because the Labor Party has been fighting the non-government schools for the 85 years since Federation. We only have another 15 years to go before we reach the 100-year mark and will have had a century of this pointless, destructive, totally unnecessary war against a group with a long and honourable history in providing education in Australia and supplementing Australia's assets. The importance of what the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia are doing this afternoon does not lie in the fact that we are bringing a factual approach to education. It does not lie in the logic we are bringing to the socialist arguments that are put forward by the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats in support of these policies of attrition against an honourable sector of the Australian education system. What we are doing is asserting again the traditional belief of the Liberal Party and the National Party in the importance of education for all Australian children. Those children are our future. We on this side of the House believe that it is necessary to have both a first class government school system and a first class non-government school system. In my own State of Queensland, over 23 per cent of children go to non-government schools-about 113,000 children. Over 400 non-government schools receive recurrent grants. From those figures it follows that 77 per cent of the community in Queensland in the school age group go to government schools-nearly half a million students. We raise this Labor policy today not only for the benefit of non-government schools but also for the benefit of government schools because they are vitally involved in the debate. The point that has to be made is that while Labor pursues this ideological warfare against non-government schools it puts all its energies into it and fails to do what needs to be done to lift the government schools. That is the key to the whole point. By pursuing these outdated arguments, this vendetta, with all the passion of some Middle Eastern holy war, the Labor Party neglects to do what is required of it, which is to lift the standing of government schools. I am speaking this afternoon not just in the interests of the 25 per cent of Australian parents who send their children to non-government schools; I am speaking just as passionately for the rights and needs of the 75 per cent of Australians who send their children to government schools. We cannot afford to have a second rate education system. We need both the government and non-government schools. As I said earlier, non-government schools, despite the attacks of the Labor Party, have a long and honourable place in the history of Australian education. That means that we in the Liberal Party and the National Party support a dual system of education, a system whereby parents have choice, even if, in exercising that choice, as Senator Zakharov affirmed, the parents of those children have to make a great sacrifice to pay for the privilege of sending their children to non-government schools. Our record on this is very clear. It is a positive record of tangible achievement. When we were in government we supported a fair and just dual system of education. Our belief is that the future of Australia lies in the minds of our children. We have always had a dual system of education in this country. Right from the start of education we had independent grammar schools and sometimes church schools first onto the scene in a district in parallel with government schools. It is important to remember that when education started in Australia government schools did not have a monopoly, nor was the presumption made that government schools would have a monopoly of education. It was a matter of the community getting in and providing for itself as best it could-with church schools, private independent schools or government schools, whatever the need was. People today are sending their children to independent or non-government schools for the same reasons as they did originally-for spiritual or religious reasons. Regrettably some other parents do it because they believe their children get a better education at non-government schools. It is their right to make that judgment. They make that judgment because they think that higher ethical standards are taught to their children in non-government schools. Some think that there is more discipline in those schools and that, to some degree, parents can become more involved in education in non-government schools other than in the fund raising capacity that is their lot in government schools. The point is that the Liberal Party and the National Party have been sensitive to and have recognised the aspirations of members of the Australian society to select to which schools they want to send there children. I talked about the tangible proof of it. I go back to the greatest Prime Minister in Australian history, Robert Gordon Menzies. He started to support and develop education in Australia with the granting of interest-free subsidies on interest payments to loans to schools in the Australian Capital Territory and followed up with increasingly imaginative moves into supporting non-government schools in the country. We had the provision of libraries and of science blocks. Ultimately we reached the stage, not as the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, said of unlimited resource support for non-government schools, but of agreement of a formula of a per capita grant to private schools of 20 per cent of the cost of educating students at government schools. We recognise the democratic right of that taxpaying 25 per cent of parents to get a modicum-not all of it-back in return for the load they were taking off the public school system. As I have said before, Labor has always opposed this. One of the few things that Mr Whitlam did that were correct was to recognise this fact. He kept the dogs from barking about the non-government school system. But they burst forth under Mr Hawke. The first phase of the battle opened against non-government schools when we had the infamous 25 per cent cut against the so-called 41 wealthy schools. Senator Ryan cannot comprehend that it is not a fact that schools are wealthy. There may be a few wealthy parents but the schools themselves intrinsically are not wealthy in Australia. The Government then was prepared to extend its program of cutting more and more support for non-government schools. At the same time it broke the indexed link between the per capita grants to non-government schools and government schools. But the community rebelled and with an election coming on the Government cut and ran. It promised to live and let live and not harm the non-government schools. But, having got through the election, it has now reverted to type and we have now entered the second phase of the battle, which is a covert operation characterised by deceit and deception. The Minister stacked the Commonwealth Schools Commission. She gave to the panel that produced this report on 'Planning and Funding Policies for New Non-Government Schools' terms of reference that dictated what the findings of the report would be. It is blatantly dishonest for the Minister to come in here and chant the curriculums vitae of members of the panel. The panel had nothing to do with it. The hands of members of that panel were tied. Given the terms of reference, they had to make this report in the way they did. Putting it in plain language, the key to the matter is that the Government is to blame for what is in the report. It virtually told the Commission what to write. More importantly, it has accepted-the Minister has affirmed this in this place-the findings of that panel 100 per cent. If the Government did not like the report, it had every right to reject it. But the Government loves it because it fits in with its ideology. This report makes it virtually impossible for non-government schools to expand or be created in the future. All the bureaucratic obstruction on earth is put up to do this. Senator Peter Baume went through a long list of hazards and obstructions that have been put in the path of schools in New South Wales. After all this bureaucratic maze that is put in the path of them, we finally have the belt and braces approach of setting up a priority system, not with one or two grades but with four different grades so that the Minister has unlimited power to say: 'Look, I am sorry but we just do not have the money this year and you have a low priority'. The effect of this is to deny through a bureaucratic glacier any development of new non-government schools in this country and progressively to make life terribly difficult for those who are still left in the system. We on this side of the Chamber would like answers to two questions: Firstly, why are non-government schools so popular with the community? Secondly, why is the Government doing what it is doing? Instead of setting up panels to block the non-government schools and legislating against them, the real question to be asked is: Why are non-government schools growing? In the 10 years between 1972 and 1982 non-government schools increased their enrolments by 100,000 or 17 per cent against a growth of 60,000 or only 3 per cent in government schools. If one talks to any association of non-government schools one finds that they are deluged with people wanting to get their children into such schools. Senator Teague reported the fact that 25 per cent of parents in the Australian Capital Territory who are sending their children to government schools would prefer to send them to non-government schools. The real question is: Why? They wish to do so because they do not like the social engineering in some of the Labor States that is going on in the schools. They do not like the militancy of the unions. They know, as every good educator knows, the importance of peace and constructive planning in education. Education cannot take place in political ferment. Yet political ferment is the stock-in-trade of those radical teachers' unions in Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory and the Australian Teachers Federation. I come back to the point of why people do not want their children to go to government schools. The Government should fix that problem before it goes to war with the non-government schools. The second question is: Why is the Government doing this? Is it trying to save money? That really cannot be true because the non-government schools carried a load of $834m last year in capital and recurrent costs. If the Government wanted to save money it would encourage the non-government schools. The real reason for the Government's action, as Senator Zakharov said, is that the Left of the Labor Party sees non-government schools as a haven of privilege, as a resource for the elite. Nothing could be further from the truth because most people who use non-government schools in Australia are very poor and they make great sacrifices to send their children to those schools. What this Labor Government should be doing is trying to see the whole picture and recognising the importance to Australia of a decent primary, secondary and tertiary education and putting its resources into that. In my State of Queensland we have a shortage of 20,000 places in tertiary education this year. There are 20,000 young people who have come through primary and secondary education and who cannot get into universities or colleges of advanced education because this Government will not put the resources into providing for them. Not only will the Government not fill those places, denying those people a fair go in life, but also it is not giving us enough money in Queensland to compete with New South Wales and Victoria. If we were funded at the tertiary level in Queensland in the way that Victoria is we would be able to take 6,000 of those 20,000 students and give them a career in life. I call on the Labor Party to abandon this pointless cold war against non-government schools and to accept the basic tenet that the Australian community wants a dual choice, that parents want to be able to send their children to either a government school or a non-government school. Children deserve the right to a first-class education in both school systems. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.50) —I begin by making some comments on the statements made by Senator MacGibbon. He referred to what was, in effect, an attack on the professional ability and, perhaps, integrity of two groups. The first was those who prepared the Commonwealth Schools Commission report. They are listed in the report and they include the people about whom the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, spoke; that is, two people from the Catholic section, one being a nun, and Professor Sackville from Sydney. Secondly, he also attacked the integrity of teachers who are employed in government schools. In that context I say this: Since I became a member of the Senate I have noticed some tendency for people to be attacked on their professional integrity. There was an example of that this afternoon. I certainly did not agree with what was done on my side; nor did I agree with what was done on the other side of the chamber in attacking the people who have prepared the Commonwealth Schools Commission report and the teachers in the government sector who have given consistent and good service over many decades. Of course there are faults. There are faults in any system, but it ill becomes anyone debating this issue to attack a particular group in a particular sector. In my view, we will not get to any settlement of this matter while that sort of thing goes on. The robust words used by Senator Baume in his matter of public importance-'Labor's cold war of attrition against non-government schools'-set the theme for the debate. Later in his speech he converted the cold war of attrition to a guerrilla war. Senator Macklin thought that it was a phoney war. I think it was Senator MacGibbon who then had us in a 100-year war. The reality, it seems to me, is that there is no war at all. If I ask any member of the Opposition-Senator Baume, Senator Teague or Senator MacGibbon-whether there should not be a public sector in education and whether there should not be government schools they say no, there should be. They would join with me, all being decent men, in saying that the government sector ought to be encouraged. Whether we like it or not, that is where most of the pupils in Australia are now being educated. That is the area in which most pupils have been educated since Federation. Let me make it quite clear that at this stage I am not in any way detracting from or denigrating the non-government sector. It is a sector for which I have the highest respect and a sector that I have used. One of the problems in the debate that comes from the non-government sector-I am sure that it is not intended by it-is that unfortunately it creates the very bad impression that it wants to, as it were, tear down, throw away, derogate from, be done with, the government schools. Naturally, when that occurs there is a reaction which is then interpreted by those who initiated the attack as an attack on the non-government sector. That is not so. As Senator MacGibbon said, Mr Menzies began a situation which has developed to where a lot of taxpayers' money, government money, is now going to the non-government sector. Everybody agrees about that. They might disagree about the amount. I acknowledge the contribution that Mr Menzies and his Liberal Government made. But is the Liberal Party of Australia now willing to acknowledge the great contributions made by the Australian Labor Party, particularly in the 1970s when Mr Whitlam and the Government which he led saved, in effect, the systemic system, the Catholic system, throughout Australia? That is a fact. We can all come into this chamber and discuss the contributions that our various parties have made to education, but it gets us nowhere. It has reached the point, as it were, of extrapolating certain events and figures and using them to make an attack on a situation which has been created on an almost bipartisan basis. The Opposition has raised a debating point today. Senator Macklin expressed disappointment that this matter was put forward again for debate. Perhaps one can understand that. On the other hand, it is a debating point, if you like, which is of interest and continues to be of interest to everybody in Australia who has children and who might have children going to school in either the government or the non-government sectors. It is well for us to consider those matters. It has been said: 'Look, this Government has discouraged the growth of non-government schools'. That is put as a criticism of the Government. Later in the debate it was put as a criticism, in some way which I could not quite apprehend, that there has been a growth in the number of enrolments at the non-government school level. If that is so, it must be indicative of the fact that over the years this Government has encouraged the freedom of choice of which people speak. I want to say something about freedom of choice, because that is a phrase which is used often in this debate. It is something which I think should be brought into proper perspective. The freedom of choice in Australia is a limited one. It is limited to those who are equipped with not only money but also a culture and background in this community which enables them to use schools other than government schools. I am sure that every honourable senator on the other side of the chamber would have great sympathy for those people. What about the situation of the Turkish migrant woman, with three children, who works on an assembly line or on a food processing line in the western suburbs of Melbourne whose husband is on workers' compensation and cannot work? What freedom of choice is there for that person? Many people are in that situation. It seems to me that that is the real problem which we have to face. As Senator MacGibbon said, it is all very well to say that more money ought to be provided for non-government schools, but where is the money to come from? That is a catch-cry. That cry is often echoed in this place and in the other place. Where is the money to come from? That is a proper question to ask in this context. Are we, in the interests of non-government schools, to take money from the government school sector? Who will say that is what ought to happen? If people say that that should happen, from where should it be taken-from what part? Should it be taken from the western suburbs? Should it be taken from those schools which provide education for the children of the Turkish woman of whom I have spoken? Should it be taken perhaps from schools in the eastern suburbs, around the North Balwyn area? Is that where the money should be taken to go to the non-government schools? If we do that, is it not likely to create resentment? The real problem in all this is to set a system of priorities to work out our priorities and guidelines as to how the money is to be spent in the most efficient way and in the interests of the children. As I understand it, that is the very purpose for which the panel of Commonwealth schools commissioners was appointed. That is the very purpose for which that panel brought down this report. There might be matters in this report with which people disagree and about which people might make trenchant criticism, but in making that criticism why should they go to the point of saying: 'It is the philosophy behind it that has led to this'? Why should they impute evil motives to those who prepare the report? Why should they impute evil motives to those who put it forward? Why cannot the debate proceed in a logical, calm and collected fashion? Why cannot people say: 'In this case you are wrong. We accept your bona fides. We accept that you are trying to do the best thing but we think you are wrong on this point'. What happens instead is that a debate is launched in which the actuality of the problem is not discussed but motives are impugned and a house of cards, representing people's motives, is erected and then knocked over. The reality is that those motives that people attack do not exist. Somebody said earlier in the debate that the Australian Labor Party philosophy is against aid to non-government schools. Labor Party philosophy is clearly not against it because it gives it. That point was realised by other honourable senators and it was then said that more people in the Labor Party are against public funding for non-government schools than in the Liberal Party. Where does it get us? Should we go around and count heads, line up every Liberal Party member in the country and every Labor Party member, have a show of hands and then have a division? Of course we should not. We look at the reality of the funding provided-provided most generously by this Government. The figures were given by the Minister for Education in her speech, and very impressive they were. If one looks at them in terms of what has been given not only to non-government schools but to education as a whole-that seems to me to be the proper sort of question to ask-one sees that this Government properly has a great regard for education. It is not for us to debate whether money is going to the government sector or the non-government sector. The question is whether money, tuition and learning are being given to all children, not the children who go to non-government schools or so-called wealthy private schools. I interpolate here that it has been said that there are no wealthy schools. That might well be right; but, certainly, many schools come closer to being wealthy than others. That is the real problem. In any event, it is a matter not of dividing people up according to the school to which they went, but of dividing them up in accordance with need. I go back to my recurring theme. Senator Peter Baume —Would you direct resources to needy parents more than to non-needy parents? Senator COONEY —That is a very fair question. I would direct resources, as presently available, to needy schools, because I think there are problems in administering the money that goes to needy parents. The difficulty in directing resources to needy parents is that many of them are locked out. There are parents in the western suburbs of Melbourne-Braybrook and further out-where there are really no schools available of the nature that the honourable senator might be contemplating. For that reason I would direct the aid to the needy schools rather than to the needy parents. I concede that the point raised by the honourable senator is one that ought to be examined. It is on that basis that the whole question should be examined in rational debate. Senator Baume and I have fallen, I hope, into the category of having a rational debate, rather than debating in the emotional way in which this debate has been conducted in part, with allegations of ideological warfare, socialist philosophy and so on. The fact that money is being spent and large resources are being given to all schools gives the lie-if we like-to the proposition that there is ideological warfare. The only warfare is that waged at every level at the moment and in every sector where money has to be spent: How and where is it to be spent? We might as well talk about the war of attrition against industry, against defence and against any other sphere in which the Government spends money. It comes down to people saying, 'We are not getting enough money for schools'-but that is the plea that any department or body that wants government money would be addressing to this Government. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.05) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report deals with the supply of materials for pavements at the new Brisbane International Airport, and it reviews the actions of the Department of Housing and Construction in the matter of the supply of crushed rock by Blue Rock Quarries and the legal actions that ensued when the Department terminated its contract. The author of the report, Professor Stevens, of Melbourne, a Professor of Civil Engineering, found in general that the action to terminate the contract was justified. The fact that Professor Stevens was required to report on this matter has accentuated concern in Queensland as to just what is going on in the management of the Brisbane Airport contract. Professor Stevens makes this point in paragraph 2: It is concluded that certain deficiencies existed in the Specifications when considered in a legalistic rather than in a technical sense. It is apparent that close attention should be given to prescribing the form and content for projects of that magnitude. Professor Stevens was saying that, while the Department was entitled to cancel the contract with Blue Rock Quarries, some of the blame from a management point of view clearly rests with the Department of Housing and Construction. There is increasing concern in Queensland about the new Brisbane Airport. The construction of the airport was undertaken years ago by the Liberal Government. It is important to Australia, given the congestion we have at Sydney and the fact that Melbourne is a long way away from the tourist traffic, if people want to go to the Great Barrier Reef and so on. There are two levels of concern. The first is at the way in which the Labor Government has cut back public funding. We wonder whether that cutback has had an influence on the management. In the 1983 mini-Budget, the first thing that the Labor Government did was to chop $20m out of the budget that had been approved for that year for the Brisbane Airport. We had the fatuous comment by Mrs Darling, the local member, that that cutback just meant that the landscaping of the airport would be deferred-not delayed. A sum of $20m for landscaping takes some feat of imagination to comprehend. But then, in the 1984-85 Budget only $61m was allocated. The Minister for Aviation at the time, Mr Beazley, announced that there would be constructional delays because of the funding cutback. At another level, however, there is concern about the management by the Department of Housing and Construction as to the way the project is going. In a letter to the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), reported in the Courier-Mail, the Government Whip in the other place, the Labor member for Griffith, Mr Humphreys, made several points. I shall quote them-not out of context and not attributing an incorrect meaning to them. He said that the Blue Rock Quarries case: . . . points very clearly to major bureaucratic bungles within the Department. He further said: As the economic managers of this country, we-- talking about the Labor Party-- have a responsibility to ensure effective administrative decision-making. Finally, he made this point: An out-of-court settlement to Blue Rock of $750,000, plus extra legal costs, as a result of poor decision-making will be seen rightly by many as an unnecessary burden on the Australian taxpayer. It is common knowledge in Brisbane that many contractors have gone broke. The word of mouth figure on that is that probably a couple of hundred sub-contractors for the Brisbane Airport have gone broke as a consequence of being involved in the construction. It is also said that a great deal of money is owed to some of the principal contractors. It is up to this Parliament to look at the accounts and management of this new airport to find out just what is going on. The easiest thing is for the Minister for Housing and Construction to come clean and give an honest report as to what are the difficulties and what is happening there. Failing that, the Senate will have to take it up in Estimates committees to get to the bottom of this matter. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.11) —Senator MacGibbon took advantage of the report dealing with the supply of materials for pavements at the new Brisbane International Airport to raise a number of matters which need to be answered. He also took advantage of that report to make a wide ranging attack on the Government's integrity in respect of the provision of resources and facilities at the Brisbane International Airport. he attempted to suggest that the Government was rather lax in its handling of its responsibilities in this matter. I am advised that the Department of Housing and Construction entered into four contracts with the Blue Rock Quarries for the supply of crushed rock for the Brisbane Airport. Naturally, the Department accepted the lowest tender. I understand that all this happened in February 1983, prior to the Labor Government coming to office. Whilst I concede that Senator MacGibbon made some reference to that, I think it ought to be stressed that this Government has acted with alacrity and integrity on this matter. There was some concern at the ability of the supplier to perform, but the contracts were let by the previous Government on the basis that the specifications would allow the rejection of any unsatisfactory material. It was obvious by the time 1983 had passed that a problem existed. The Department of Housing and Construction, under the leadership of the previous Minister for Housing and Construction, commenced rejection of material from the Blue Rock Quarries which was intended for use in the car park sections of the new Brisbane International Airport. The Blue Rock Quarries then commenced legal proceedings against the Department. Subsequently, the Supreme Court found that on the basis of the wording of the specifications the Department was not entitled to reject. At that point, the Department accepted and paid for the materials under that contract as decided by the court and used them in the non-critical areas of the car park. Subsequently, the Department appealed and lost, again on the wording of the February 1983 specifications. I emphasise that in no way was the present Government culpable in these matters. We have now reached the critical point of the story. I believe the allegations made by Senator MacGibbon need to be answered. The Department then did not accept further samples of materials for the more critical areas of the access roads, taxiways and runways of the new airport. The Department said that the material contained weathered material, was not hard and durable, and ought not to be used in the International Airport construction. It is all right for members of the Opposition to talk as though they had suddenly discovered there was something wrong. Surely they have by now woken up to the fact that there is some significance in the date to which I have referred. In February 1983 the matter was in the hands of the Fraser Administration. At any rate, in 1984 a tough position obviously had to be taken and the contracts were consequently cancelled. The Blue Rock Quarries then instituted legal action against the Department of Housing and Construction, claiming $1.3m worth of damages. In November 1984, on the advice of new counsel, the Department settled out of court for three-quarters of a million dollars. Obviously the Minister was concerned at the payment of $750,000 by the Department on the February 1983 contracts. The Minister was concerned that the original February 1983 specifications were totally inadequate and that it had cost the Commonwealth $750,000. But I stress that it was not the fault of this Government. The new Minister, Mr West, ordered an independent inquiry, which was conducted by Professor Stevens, the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Melbourne. It is the intention of the Government subsequently to table that report. Briefly, the Professor found that the Department had acted properly in rejecting the material and in cancelling the contracts. He rejected any suggestion of any deviousness on the part of the Department or the Commonwealth. He further found that the specifications relied upon were inadequate for their purposes. After reading his findings, I believe that the Department, in reviewing its specifications, will ensure that in future they will be both technically and legally adequate. I believe, therefore, that in instructing the Department the Minister carried out his responsibilities correctly-in respect of the consultancy, the tendering process and the contract administrative processes of the Department. Therefore, the Government has acted properly in the way in which it dealt with the International Airport in Brisbane. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —Mr Acting Deputy President, under standing order 410 I claim to have been misrepresented. I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Senator MacGIBBON —At no stage in my brief talk on the Brisbane International Airport did I reflect on or make any unfavourable inference about the integrity of the Government. I am concerned about its competence, but its integrity was not challenged by me. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.16) —I raise briefly a matter connected with the supply of materials for the Brisbane International Airport. It is not encompassed totally within the paper before the Senate. The issue raised by Senator MacGibbon, particularly in view of the three-quarters of a million dollar payout, raises some problems. I am not convinced that the materials were necessarily within the specifications, but then again I certainly do not wish to raise any issues with the Professor of Civil Engineering, Professor Stevens. The point I raise concerns the Department of Housing and Construction and its method of giving and letting contracts. That is the more important issue raised in this final report. I believe that Professor Stevens has dealt with a single item, that is the Blue Rock Quarries problem, and has not necessarily broadened his ambit to look at the letting, but more importantly the recalling, of tenders constantly for the new Brisbane Airport. In general, on a number of occasions, tenders have been called for, people have submitted tenders, the date for submission of such tenders has closed, and then technical reasons have been disclosed for re-letting those tenders. In the commercial world the problem immediately arises that all one's competitors now know the full costing operation that particular companies engaged in those tenders had put forward. Hence one finds consistently in the letting of tenders for the new Brisbane Airport a grinding down of the price. That may be fine in terms of revenue, but it is an abuse of the tendering system. In particular, it is very difficult for smaller companies, which are invariably squeezed out by that use of the tendering system. Invariably the people who remain in are the very large, expansive companies which are able to absorb possible losses on one part to get gains somewhere else. The item before us, on the supply of materials by Blue Rock Quarries, a smaller concern, is mute evidence to how those smaller companies are squeezed mercilessly in these types of operations. Unless the tendering system is followed in a correct and fair way we will find consistently in terms of government operations that only the very large companies will ever have a chance and that the smaller companies might as well not bother. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(5.20) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. (Quorum formed) The annual report of the Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board is yet another milestone in Australian public life. It is the first annual report of the Board, which was established by Act of Parliament. The Board first met in 1984 and the management and investment companies program was introduced during the financial year 1983-84. The aim of the program is to boost high-growth industries in this country, particularly those which use innovative technology. I believe that there is a very great need for this sort of development in our country. On a number of occasions the Minister for Science, Mr Barry Jones, has highlighted the fact that many countries have a much higher proportion of their export products incorporating high technology than does Australia. Therefore they are gaining some comparative advantage over us. Australia ranks very low according to its proportion of exports which involve high technology. Under the arrangements with the Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board, the Government allows a 100 per cent tax deduction to investors in management and investment companies-MICs. The Government budgets to lose $20m annually to revenue as a result of this tax deduction, which can be seen as a form of government investment in high technology innovative companies. During the financial year in question-1983-84-the first seven MICs were licensed. They included a number of large companies, such as BT Innovation Ltd and West-Pacific Investment Co. Ltd, the two largest. By the end of the year the seven licensees had raised some $32m from an approved capital of $50m. It is very important to note that, of the $32 m which was raised, some $12m came from individuals. Most of the balance came from companies. The MIC program was ultimately derived from the Espie High Technology and Financing Committee report about developing high technology enterprises in Australia. That report was commissioned by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and it saw two important Australian obstacles to rapid development in these areas. It saw an absence of appropriate sources of venture capital and it saw a widespread lack of management and commercial skills within Australian enterprises. This program should be applauded because it begins to address those matters. The MIC program aims to overcome the lack of capital available for young, high-growth technological businesses in our country. MIC investment companies can invest in business entities if the latter meet at least three of the following criteria: The use of innovative technology; export orientation, and Australia has had a very poor performance in that field from its manufacturing industries in particular; international competitiveness; potential for rapid growth and potential for creating skilled employment in Australia. Of course, the last factor is very important indeed. If Australia is to make progress we must increase the skill base of our work force. Other criteria for investing in particular business entities include the fact that the businesses must be high on research and development and must have 100 employees or fewer, or $6m or less in net assets. As I have mentioned, the businesses must be expecting rapid growth. The MIC program requires companies to expect an annual sales growth of some 20 per cent a year, which is a high figure but no doubt a number of small businesses in the country have that sort of potential. Among the other criteria for investment is the fact that the businesses chosen must give some emphasis to areas such as computer software and must, in some cases, have scientific orientation. As well as raising capital, MICs have been out in the market place seeking investment opportunities. By the end of the financial year in question some 400 investment proposals had been put to the MICs. One company had already been certified as being eligible for funding. That was a computer company which made portable computers. Since the end of the financial year a further three licences have been granted and the level of capital approved has been increased from $50m to a total of $71m. A very large and significant start has been made to this most important program to boost the high technology growth industry in Australia through the agency of small business. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.26) —The Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board aims to promote those Australian businesses using innovative technology. Both venture capital and management skills are available to small business through this organisation. Companies which have fewer than 100 employees and which have been carrying out their primary activity for less than 10 years are eligible for support. The management and investment companies program is a step in the right direction. However, it may not be offering enough. Experience overseas, particularly in America, shows that the small business manufacturing sectors have gained considerable benefits from such programs. The American results show much improved employment opportunities and longer term viabilities in small scale enterprises. The MIC program in Australia is hamstrung mainly by the small number of companies which meet the eligibility criteria. This is the result of the high mortality of such ventures within a few years of their start. Many small companies go broke when they try to do anything innovative in Australia. Research and development is the life blood of industry. Let us not waste or spill a single drop of our research capabilities. We need to extend the MIC program. The MIC program is unrealistically lowly funded. The report of the Espie High Technology and Financing Committee recommended that a minimum equity base of $200m be established to meet the capital needs of small entrepreneurs. We have nowhere near this base. The Government permits a 100 per cent tax deduction for investments in MICs up to the paltry value of $20m in forgone revenue. The end result is that precious few highly innovative enterprises will receive injections of risk capital. The other arm of the Management and Investment Licensing Board's activity is the setting up of venture companies to provide risk capital. In this case individual investors in venture companies are helping the Government by providing the capital needed and the Government just offers the vehicle by which this capital can be distributed. Individual investors have contributed $12.1m of the $32.7m capital raised for MIC ventures to 30 June 1984. The Government can give long term support to small enterprises in three ways. Firstly, it can do so as the major purchaser of technological equipment and services and of manufactured goods. In the 1981-82 year it let contracts to the value of $625.6m for the Australian Telecommunications Commission, $526.2m for defence and $231.9m for housing and construction alone. A lot of this money went overseas. Secondly, the Government can make known its requirements several years in advance so that manufacturing industry in the areas of agriculture, computers, education and training services is able to meet the contracts when they come up. We need long term planning. Thirdly, tax incentives cannot be turned off and on yearly. Investors get caught once and once only. It will be years before significant returns flow into the Australian economy from the management and investment companies program. We must act now to secure the future. We may have to forgo tax revenue of the order of $20m a year. However, this is a very small price to pay to ensure a healthy and innovative small business community. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(5.32) —I, too, wish to address a few remarks to the first annual report, the 1983-84 annual report, of the Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board. Many of the things that I was going to say have been rendered unnecessary by the model exposition of the purpose of the MICs given by Senator Maguire and supplemented by Senator Vigor. The legislation which created the licensing board and the Espie High Technology and Financing Committee report which preceded the legislation had substantial bipartisan support in this Parliament. It is necessary to put that on the record even though the Australian Democrats might say that the legislation, introduced by the then Minister for Science and Technology and brought into this chamber and carried in our first year in government, does not go far enough. The legislation aims to address a significant problem in Australian industry: Given the structure of Australian industry, how do we encourage more innovative development at the leading edge of high technology? This is an area that we need to get into in order to maintain our position in the world market and to ensure a future growth in the manufacturing sector that will still provide export income for Australia, generate employment here and make sure that the base of skills available to our economy is at least at world level if not higher than in other comparable countries. This annual report indicates that in the first year of operation of the Licensing Board seven MICs were established, more than $20m in tax revenue was forgone and $32.7m was generated because of the Government contribution to the private sector to ensure that a number of enterprises that would not otherwise have had the chance got off the ground. When we talk about problems in the economy we often generate too much gloom about the difficulties. It often seems as if there is an endless litany of insurmountable problems. It should be said and said very frequently that there are, however, reasons for being extremely confident and optimistic about the innovative and entrepreneurial skills that are available in Australia. There are many small companies established principally by technicians or others associated with computer development which get off the ground because someone has a very good idea and turns his development skills into making it a marketable product. Since the idea comes from technical expertise, these people often lack the finance to continue that good start and the necessary administrative and managerial skills to market the commodity and win a place in the market. Too often in the past we have seen good ideas developed by Australian technicians being bought off by foreign countries and sold back to Australia when, with a bit of intelligence, we could have developed that idea ourselves. This program aims to ensure that young, innovative experimenters, technical people and others, particularly in the computer field, are given a chance to make their companies work, become competitive and grow. In the concluding minutes of my remarks I want to refer particularly to a Victorian computer manufacturer, Computer Manufacture and Design Pty Ltd, which has shown, in my view, an innovative idea about developing technology and which has concluded an agreement with Telecom so that it can compete with multinational computer companies and have a national maintenance and installation network through the Australian Telecommunications Commission. This is a small company, but by reaching a workable arrangement and contract with Telecom it has been able to sell its product and tender with major multinational companies, knowing that Australian technical expertise through the Telecom organisation is available to help install and maintain the product. That is a very useful development. I commend the report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia) —On behalf of Senator Tate, I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills, Alert Digest No. 2, dated 27 March 1985. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate to the Bill. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a first time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.38) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave not granted. Senator GIETZELT —The purpose of this Bill is to authorise an additional voluntary contribution by Australia of $60m towards the resources of the International Development Association, or as it is commonly known, IDA. Established in 1960, IDA is the concessional lending arm of the World Bank. It assists its poorest member countries by providing long term, interest free loans to promote their development. The resources of the Association come mainly from subscription by the industrialised countries, pledged in periodic general replenishments. Honourable senators will recall that the target for the seventh replenishment of IDA's resources, IDA-7, which is intended to cover commitments during the period 1985-87, was agreed by donors at $US9 billion. This represented a considerable decline in real terms from the $US12 billion which was provided under the sixth replenishment, but was the maximum attainable in the face of the decision by the United States of America not to contribute to a higher figure. Australia, in common with other IDA donors, considered the result to be gravely inadequate given the needs of the Association's recipient community. Australia was willing to support proposals by the World Bank to establish a supplementary fund but it was not possible to obtain international donor agreement to such an exercise. Last year this Parliament passed the International Development Association (Further Payment) Bill authorising a contribution of $A200m to the seventh replenishment of IDA. At that time, the Government indicated that it was considering how best it might further assist IDA to overcome the reduction in assistance levels to the poorest countries implied by the low level of the seventh replenishment. During passage of that Bill Senator Grimes informed the Senate that the Treasurer had announced at the International Monetary Fund/ World Bank annual meetings in Washington that subject to Government approval, Australia would further respond to the needs of IDA recipients by making a voluntary and unilateral special contribution to IDA. It was further stated that this voluntary contribution would be a very substantial increase on our pledge of $A200m to ADA-7. We have chosen to make our additional voluntary contribution direct to the general resources of IDA rather than to a recent voluntary multilateral funding facility for sub-Saharan Africa which has been joined by some other donors. Not only will sub-Saharan Africa benefit from part of this contribution roughly equivalent to our notional multilateral share of the facility for Africa, but the poorest countries of our own region and elsewhere will benefit substantially too. The World Bank has expressed appreciation for Australia's action in announcing its intention to make a special contribution to IDA, and has stated that this is fully in accord with the Bank's own preferences and priorities. Australia has the option of paying its $60m contribution either in cash or by lodging non-negotiable, non-interest bearing promissory notes encashable on demand as and when funds are actually required by IDA for loan disbursements. In accordance with past practice, and in line with the practices of most other members of IDA, we propose to lodge promissory notes, and to effect the lodgement in 1985-86. This will spread the impact on the Budget over about 10 years starting with a small encashment in the next financial year. Honourable senators, the impoverished countries of the world depend upon IDA for development assistance on concessional terms. Australia's voluntary contribution will emphasise our commitment to assist the poorest countries; it will also underline the importance we attach to IDA as a source of development assistance for these countries. This Bill therefore provides Australia with the means to achieve these major humanitarian objectives through established cost effective means. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —For the information of honourable senators I table the following papers: 1. Particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure for the Service of the year ending 30 June 1985, and 2. Particulars of Certain Proposed Additional Expenditure in respect of the year ending 30 June 1985. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.45) —by leave-I move: (1) That the Particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure for the Service of the year ending on 30 June 1985 and the Particulars of Certain Proposed Additional Expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1985 be referred forthwith to Estimates Committees for examination and report. (2) That the Committees consider Proposed Additional Expenditure in the Estimates Committee groupings agreed to by Resolution of the Senate of 22 February 1985. (3) That the Committees report to the Senate on or before Friday, 10 May 1985. For the information of honourable senators, it is proposed that Estimates Committees A, B and C sit on Monday, 15 April 1985 and Estimates Committees D, E and F sit on Thursday, 18 April 1985, from 2 p.m. Should it prove necessary, further sittings could be held on Tuesday, 23 April 1985, between 8 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.46) —One of the difficulties with Estimates committees is that very often they clash with other committees. For example, the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform is sitting on 15 April from 10.15 a.m. I understand that it is scheduled to sit for the whole day. I have some ongoing matters for investigation concerning certain departmental estimates. I take this opportunity to make the point that I will be attending, as a member, the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and I may have to come in a little later to some of the Estimates committee hearings and ask questions a little out of turn. I make that point at this stage so it will be understood at that time that it is not of my choice to do that; it is because these sorts of meetings very often clash. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.47) —in reply-Only half of the Estimates committees will be meeting on that day; so I am sure that any committee will have adequate membership to carry out its proper functions should it conflict, as Senator Harradine suggests, with sittings of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 27 February, on motion by Senator Giles: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(5.48) —When the report of the Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes was last considered on 27 February I had a few moments at my disposal at the end of the debate to highlight my interest in nursing homes and the services they provide throughout Australia. This report highlights a growing need in the community. Recommendation 2 (b) in chapter 1 states: That a one third increase of current (30 June 1984) nursing home beds by 30 June 1996 be adopted as a maximum overall ceiling increase of nursing home beds during that period. It is important that we pay attention to that recommendation because of the growth in our community of the numbers of older citizens. I am attracted also to the part of the report which gives some demographic information and projected age population statistics. Paragraph 1.29 on page 15 of the report states: . . . between 1947 and 1982 the proportion of the Australian population aged 65 years and over rose from 8 per cent to 9.8 per cent. By the end of the century the projected aged population is expected to be about 11.9 per cent rising to approximately 15.8 per cent by the year 2021. In Australia today different types of nursing homes provide care for the aged in our community. The church organisations, which are non-profit making, and some government institutions provide some services in this area. The private nursing homes and private hospitals are an integral part of the provision of this type of care and should be encouraged. Last year I wrote a series of letters to Dr Blewett, the Minister for Health, and also to Senator Grimes in his capacity then as Minister for Social Security, demonstrating my concern that some people residing in nursing homes do not require intensive or even medium nursing care. These people could probably be accommodated in other types of accommodation. When I raised the matter in the Senate in the adjournment debate there was a threat that 11 rest homes in Adelaide would close. These rest homes provide boarding-house type accommodation with limited non-qualified specialist attention. The management and staff of those organisations ensure that the people who live there take the medication prescribed by their doctors and help them with their shopping needs, hairdressing facilities and so on. It is a relatively non-medical role; nevertheless, it is quite significant. There was a threat that these 11 rest homes would close, which would have meant that about 300 of their residents would have been compelled to go to public hospitals or other nursing homes, if possible. The problem is that in that sort of circumstance accommodation in nursing homes is just not available. I suggested that perhaps 20 per cent of the patients who are presently accommodated in nursing homes do not require nursing care and they could be accommodated in another facility such as a rest home. If the Government has regard to the request by the rest homes in South Australia, and, no doubt, in other parts of Australia, that it should provide a subsidy of up to $4 a day, certainly it will relieve the situation. Of course, the Government will have to have regard to the standards of that accommodation, if it is the will of the Government to do that. I estimated that 20 per cent of people in nursing homes at the moment could be accommodated elsewhere. Senator Grimes suggested that a more accurate number would be 25 to 30 per cent in some States of Australia. That problem needs to be dealt with. Although we like to think that old people can be looked after in their own homes, when one partner of a married couple dies it is not always possible for the other to remain in his or her own home and accommodation is sought elsewhere. In view of the points made in the report, I reiterate what I have said about rest homes and suggest that something needs to be done about the problem. I raised the matter with Senator Grimes on 10 September 1984. In his letter to me-I am not certain of the date-he said: Careful consideration needs to be given to both cost and policy implications of extending subsidies to organisations operating hostels for profit. The study of private hostels being undertaken by my Department-- to which he referred in another letter in January-- will assist in consideration of this issue. If a study has been undertaken by his Department, it is important that the Government issue a report to the Senate as soon as possible giving the information about the problem and the way in which the Government proposes to tackle it. We have to look very carefully at this problem and find alternative satisfactory accommodation for patients occupying beds in nursing homes who could be otherwise accommodated in the rest homes, as I have suggested. A lot of people who go into rest homes seem to be physically and mentally fit. I mentioned senile dementia and how slowly but insidiously this occurs. A patient who is admitted to a rest home may seem to be mentally and physically normal, but in a very short time might suffer from senile dementia, become incontinent and require nursing care. It is an important subject and I ask the Government to respond with some information on the inquiry that has been made into this subject as soon as possible. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.56) —I support the remarks of my colleague Senator Jessop on what he called rest homes. In Victoria such homes are called special accommodation, which is simply full board in a residential building which has been approved by the Government. Three meals a day are provided to the inmates and care is taken to provide the inmates with their medication. Services are provided by way of general practitioners calling regularly, and there are other such facilities. There is no government subsidy for this sort of accommodation. I believe, as Senator Jessop does, that it is a matter of grave concern. The Government should be applying its mind to helping the people in this sort of accommodation. The accommodation ranges from converted homes in which, I am ashamed to say, one might see four or more beds in one room and, perhaps, elderly people living in what I would call not very pleasant circumstances, to much more pleasant accommodation especially built for the purpose with rooms similar to those in motels. One person has his own bedroom with an adjoining bathroom with shower or bath facilities. There is a separate dining room and if it is specially built, there would probably be both a day lounge and a night lounge. There is no government subsidy for this type of accommodation. As a result, the free market forces push up the prices into various categories. The sort of accommodation where up to four people might share one room-I must say, that is unusual; the most is usually three people sharing one room-is provided to two people for just about the amount of their pension. Maybe they are left with a few dollars for personal expenditure. A lot of these people have very little expenditure at this age. They can survive perhaps on what is left out of their pension plus what they receive from relatives, friends, or even from the person running the home. As I say, that is one type of accommodation that would be covered by the pension. The sort of accommodation to which I am referring is motel-type accommodation, which is so much better, and the cost would range from $140 a week to perhaps $210 a week. I have heard of even more expensive accommodation. Honourable senators should think about that. I suggest that that is very reasonable for accommodation at a motel which provides three meals a day. The price ranges from $20 to $30 a day for full board. That accommodation is, in effect, keeping people out of hospital. If they went into hospital the cost would be in excess of $250 a day for 24-hour a day care. A lot of people in this community wish to remain independent of their families. They do not wish to become a burden on their families. As a result of their efforts and the efforts of their spouse they own a house, probably a furnished house. They might have an old car and a few other assets, but the house is about the extent of their assets. Such a person, who is perhaps living alone because the spouse has died, finds it difficult to maintain himself and desires to move into the sort of accommodation I am talking about. The only way he can do it is to rent his house. These people then try to get about $140 a week income from their house and what they think they will get from their pension. Immediately they lease their house for any sort of a decent rental, that affects the revenue they get from their pension. They then have to seek a higher income for their house. They find themselves then in the position that the more they get from the house the less pension they get. Senator Gietzelt —That is on the income test. Senator LEWIS —I am talking about the income test; I am not talking about the assets test. These people are then pushed into a situation in which they are unable to get enough rental from their house to enable them to pay for full board in decent accommodation that they need to move into. Therefore, far too many of them seek the cheaper type of accommodation that I have mentioned before. They move into a converted home, sharing a room with one or two other people. In view of the sacrifices that they have made to get their house and their genuine efforts to keep out of hospital-24-hour a day care in hospital would cost the Government an enormous sum-I think it is worth while looking at how we can help these people. The only alternative is for them to sell their house and then try to get an increased income from the investment. But many of them do not want to sell their house because they have lingering in the back of their minds the idea that one day they might be well enough to go back into their home. Many hundreds, indeed thousands, of these people around Australia are put into this very difficult position because we have set this income test on pensions which creates a problem for them in trying to maximise their revenue to get the best sort of accommodation in rental homes. It is a matter of grave concern to them and, I know, to the people who run these homes. They are not trying to exploit old people as some people think. I suppose there may be a few people who are like that, but mostly the people who run these homes are caring and concerned people who are worried about the elderly. They are also trying to make a living out of utilising an asset such as a home. The difficulty that is created for people who try to maximise their revenue to get decent accommodation and each time they maximise their revenue their pension is cut is, I think, a matter which ought to be of grave concern. I am pleased to see that Senator Grimes is in the chamber. I hope he will be able to tell me the Government's answer to this problem Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.05) —When this debate was adjourned earlier this afternoon, I had indicated that we must be careful about the overenthusiasm that is rampant in some areas of the Bill of Rights. I had indicated that we should be concerned if such a Bill extends the scope of the non-elected High Court of Australia to impose on the Australian people, in effect, judge-made laws relating to our cherished values and social and community standards; worse still, if it clothes the non-elected and non-judicial Human Rights Commission with these powers, accompanied by an unprecedented investigative authority. We must treat that matter with a great deal of care. The lastest proposals of the Government-I believe their status is still that of proposals, although the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) may advise us otherwise-are to make Australia a party to the optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which gives individuals the right to take complaints of breaches of the Covenant directly to the United Nations Human Rights Committee after exhausting domestic remedies. I believe that that is a step that is qualitatively different from the steps that have been taken thus far, including the step that was taken by the Government to introduce domestic legislation on the dams case, which have relied on the external affairs power. What if that had been unsuccessful? Had the protocol been signed, would that have given an opportunity for somebody, for example in Tasmania or anywhere else in Australia, to appeal to the other committee? Of course it would not have done so in that particular instance because it was dealing with a world heritage area, but had it dealt with areas such as the family or other areas, it may well have done so. I had congratulated the new senators. I had indicated, however, that Senator Aulich, in his speech after he moved the Address-in-Reply motion, had bemoaned the fact that a new senator, Norm Sanders, will grace this chamber from 1 July 1985; that is only by kind favour of the Tasmanian Branch of the Australian Labor Party and those people who control that Branch, by reason of the fact that Kath Venn stood for Parliament. She is a long-standing supporter of the Labor movement in everything that the Labor movement has stood for in traditional terms over many years. She is a great worker in the community and a former deputy leader of the Labor Government in the Legislative Council in my State. She received the third highest primary vote of any of the candidates. She received thousands more primary votes than did Mr Sanders. However, Mr Sanders was elected on the distribution of preferences, particularly on the distribution of block preferences, that is, votes where people simply placed the number one in the square beside the name of the Australian Labor Party. Mr Sanders was virtually elected by the people who exercised that vote. While talking to a great number of Labor supporters in factories throughout Tasmania, I pointed out that that was the situation. Without exception, all the voters I spoke to were not aware that by placing the number one in the Labor box they would be electing Norm Sanders. They felt very concerned and upset about it. They felt, and still feel, that they were conned. This situation occurred because the Government with the support of the Australian Democrats voted to institute this new voting system. I voted against this proposition. It was not my system; it was the Government's system. I was forced to register my name to ensure that there was a box for me. It was made perfectly clear that the candidate was Kath Venn. It was the Government's legislation, and the Government will have an opportunity of doing something about it. These matters will need to come before the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Let it be perfectly clear that the controllers of the Tasmanian branch of the Labor Party made sure of the election of Norm Sanders to this place. That may be their choice. He was quite obviously their choice above Kath Venn, a long-standing worker for the rights of the ordinary person, a community worker and a former Deputy Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council. They preferred to elect a man whose vote brought down the Labor Government in Tasmania. That was their choice. However, they imposed that choice on all the other Labor voters in Tasmania who voted number one in that box. I would like to see a situation whereby that sort of locking in, if you like, of preference votes would not be permitted because it is not a true reflection of the preferential system. Take my own situation as an example. I was forced to go back to the previous election to see how people voted for me, to see how they extended their preferences. Half of them extended their preferences to the Labor Party, half to the Liberal Party. On the basis of that, I had to register two tickets. The same thing applied in a number of other States. There is no way that anybody voting number one in that box would have known where his preference was going. One cannot call that a preferential system of voting. I defy anybody to call it a preferential system of voting. Yet the Act says that there shall be a preferential system of voting for the Senate. Enough of that for the time being. It would be interesting to see someone take a challenge to the High Court of Australia over the results of an election in which there were dual tickets. It would be very interesting indeed to see whether it resulted in a preferential system of voting. I repeat that this voting system was initiated in this chamber against my wishes and has now resulted in substantial informal votes for the House of Representatives. If there is one method of voting for the Senate and another for the House of Representatives, of course there will be informal voting. I indicated that I wanted to speak once again on the very burning question of youth unemployment. I have spoken on this subject probably more than anyone else in this chamber. I started doing so some years back. Last year I moved an urgency motion on the question of youth unemployment. Suddenly, people are starting to realise that there are problems. I have warned of them for some years. Specifically, I have indicated the failure of governments to address the problem in the area over which they have control, namely, the Public Service. I draw attention to the fact that notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name points out that the annual report for 1983-84 of the Public Service Board tabled in the Senate last year shows that youth recruitment as a percentage of total annual recruitment of the Australian Public Service has fallen to an all-time low. It notes the disgraceful situation that persons under 21 years of age constituted 22.6 per cent of the Australian Public Service staff in 1966, falling to 12.2 per cent in 1974, and falling further to an all-time low of 6.7 per cent at December 1983. That disgraceful situation has been allowed to develop. It is still developing because of the policies that are being adopted by the Public Service Board in respect of part time employment and its other recruitment policies. The Public Service Board has a discriminatory policy against youth. It is nothing less than that. I notice that the Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters (Senator Walsh) has just walked into the chamber. Instead of venting his spleen in the chamber, let him address the question as to why he is presiding over a situation whereby youth recruitment, as a percentage of total Public Service recruitment, has reached an all-time low. Why is the Public Service Board discriminating against youth? Why does not the Minister recommend to the Public Service Board that it cease its discriminatory action against youth? The Minister goes out to the public and makes fine speeches about what the Government will do about youth unemployment. The Minister for Trade and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs (Mr Dawkins) does the same. Yet neither does anything about it. They allow youth to be discriminated against in the Public Service. Furthermore, they fail to create a climate within the general community wherein youth can be employed. The situation has developed over some years, but it still persists and it is getting worse. In relation to youth employment, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has 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. Senator Walsh is boasting about the increased number of jobs that have been created. Let us analyse those things. A substantial number of part time jobs have been created. The number of full time jobs is not increasing in the manner required to absorb the number of unemployed and the school leavers who are likely to be unemployed. As the Prime Minister said: 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 alternative or 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 hold down another job. It is unfair to them, to young unemployed people and to the whole community. It is due in large measure to the failure of the Government to index the family allowance, to increase the spouse rebate as was promised and to reduce the enormous tax burden on the one-income family. In addition, there is a great deal of pressure on youth in today's climate. I mention drugs. Indeed, I refer to a government funded body, the Youth Affairs Council of Australia. Its executive director, Michael Clohesy, has an interesting record previously of propagandising homosexuality. As part of its forward program for the 1985 International Youth Year it was developing-I do not know what is happening to date but Kath Venn brought it to the Minister's attention-plans to develop networks of young homosexuals, initiating a process of empowerment and pressing for sex education content to include an affirmation that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally valid lifestyles. This is at a time when an epidemic of acquired immune deficiency syndrome is raging. Yet we have a government organisation promoting this sort of thing and developing plans for it. It is time that the Government stood up for the family. If it does not do so, there will be real problems in this society. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(6.23) —First of all, I wish to join my colleagues who have spoken in the Address-in-Reply debate by congratulating the new senators who were elected in December. I have noted several of their speeches and I believe they have contributed extremely well. There are seven new senators from the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia, including Senator Parer who replaced the then Senator Martin, now Mrs Sullivan, who was elected from Queensland to the House of Representatives, five new senators from the Australian Labor Party and one new Australian Democrat senator. I particularly compliment Senator Vanstone, who made her maiden speech today and demonstrated her interest as the youngest senator in the chamber, as she described herself, in matters relating to young people. I am sure that Senator Harradine's speech will attract her attention because she shares his concern, and our concern, for the problems of unemployed youth in our community. Of course, the Hawke Government had an unprecedented honeymoon for 20 months leading up to the election in December. During that period the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Government followed the economic path determined by the Fraser Government with respect to the wage pause and successfully brought inflation down, which was the objective of the Fraser Government when that concept was initiated. The Government was also assisted last year by the breaking of the drought, with the consequent economic benefits that this had on the rural community. Of course, when the rural community starts to smile, the rest of the community also has a psychological fillip as a result. This has always been the case. For some reason or other-I have not yet worked out how-Mr Hawke also managed to fly in the face of Caucus on many of the decisions he made. However, in spite of all this, his euphoric dreams did not come to anything. He suggested that the Government would have a 50-seat majority at the election last year. The people of Australia certainly proved that to be somewhat of a nightmare because he has only a 16-seat majority in the House of Representatives. The honeymoon for him is now over. It has been demonstrated on occasions since the election that he has been confronted by his Caucus, which I believe is his Achilles heel, and has been reprimanded and informed that the Caucus must be consulted. Consensus decisions-that seems to be the popular expression these days-as far as the Caucus is concerned must apply. The Caucus is slowly but surely plucking Hawke's tail-feathers. In the eyes of the public he is a deflated shadow of his former self. He does not know what his right wing or left wing will do or say, or what the Centre Left will do either. During the election campaign much was made of the tax summit concept, to discuss the much vexed and argued question of restructuring the tax system of Australia. This has been an ongoing problem since 1970 when the first committee that I am aware of was formed to deal with that. I refer to the Asprey Taxation Review Committee, from which certain recommendations flowed. But not much has happened. I am critical of successive governments in this respect. It seems that the tax summit may be in trouble already because rumblings are coming from the Australian Council of Trade Unions and other parts of the community. Nevertheless, I hope that some constructive suggestions may flow from those discussions and that we can see some positive direction in tax measures introduced for the benefit of the people of Australia. Of course, during the election campaign we heard of the proposition of capital gains taxes, so-called wealth taxes, which I prefer to refer to as taxes on savings because that is exactly what they are. Capital gains tax is not a wealth tax; it is not a tax that would affect wealthy people in the community. It would affect the average wage earner and so it is a tax on savings. We also heard of the possible reintroduction of death duties. Here again, that is a retrograde double-dipping sort of taxation which affects not the wealthy of the community-far from it. Senator Walsh —Why is that? Why is it double-dipping? Senator JESSOP —Well, the people have paid taxes all their lives and have put money aside- Senator Walsh —But the people you represent do not pay taxes. Senator JESSOP —Just a moment. I suggest that the honourable senator be careful about what he says. The truth about the death duty measure in South Australia when it existed was that over 95 per cent of the revenue so derived came from estates of $50,000 or less. If we are dealing with wealthy people, we are looking at three to five per cent of the population being in that category of leaving an estate of over $50,000. We, as an Opposition, warned of the detrimental effects of these tax measures. Senator Walsh —Tell us what you said about the wine tax. Senator JESSOP —The Government put a 10 per cent tax on wine and so government revenue has gone up, but lots of consequences are flowing from that decision. I do not believe the Government has been totally honest in that matter. I will remind it about that in due course. But talking about the capital gains tax, in November last year I wrote a letter to the editor of the Australian, which newspaper was kind enough to head it up in this way: 'A tax that gains and gains'. My letter read: It appears that there is a significant body of opinion among the A.L.P. and the ACTU favouring a capital gains tax, the latest support coming from the Australian Democrats who say such a tax is ''essential''. It is being said that Australia is the only country in the OECD which does not have a capital gains tax. I drew attention to the history of this tax in the United States of America when, in the late 1960s, President Johnson required more finance for the Vietnam War. He lifted the capital gains tax from 25 per cent to 48 per cent. My letter continued: The result of this was that the inflow of new capital dropped from $171 million in 1960 to $97 million the next year and continued down to a low of just $17 million in 1976. Similarly, the number of new small companies floated on the stockmarket slumped from about 900 in 1969 to none in 1971. In 1978 the tax rate was cut back to 28 per cent and the new venture capital raised went from $39 million in 1977 to more than $4000 million last year, with the tax rate now being 20 per cent. A capital gains tax would have a marked effect on the incentive of local and overseas companies to invest in Australia, not to mention the disastrous effect it would have on our rural and mining industries. The question I posed at that time was: . . . if ''consensus'' achieved the introduction of a capital gains tax under a Labor Government, what assurances can be given to small business, farmers, companies and the community in general that the decision makers of this country will not progressively increase the rate of such a tax as further means of gathering revenue? I suggested that history shows that Australia cannot afford to take that chance. I noticed that not long ago, in Los Angeles, Mr Hawke addressed a dinner meeting or a luncheon meeting of the Australian-American Chamber of Commerce which, I might add, was the brainchild of the Hon. John McLeay when he was our Consul-General in Los Angeles and which met with a lot of success. After 18 months or two years of effort, he was able to attract some 300 or more business people to join that association. Since that association was established significant speakers have addressed its meetings, including the former Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, and the most recent one being Mr Hawke, the Labor Prime Minister of Australia. I heard an extract from that speech on AM or one of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation programs. He said that Australia welcomed the introduction of foreign investment in this country. I remember when I first became a member of the House of Representatives in 1966 the Labor Party deplored the introduction of foreign investment in Australia. So I am glad at least to see that the present incumbent Prime Minister recognises that Australia cannot develop our resources effectively without the assistance of foreign investment. I hope that the Government will have a very close look at the effect that a capital gains tax had on the influx of capital into the United States of America, as I have just illustrated in the reference to the letter which I wrote last year. Primary industry is in a state of chaos at the moment. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) said that a cyclical factor is involved in the rural communities and that from time to time they suffer a depression. That is quite true. My question today recognised that the cost of rural production has increased by an average of 41 per cent since 1980-81. I wanted to know what the Government intended to do about it, because it is clear that something needs to be done if we are to continue to rely upon our rural industry to attract export income. I note a Press release that was attributed to the National Farmers Federation. Mr McLachlan said in that statement that the NFF's submission had not asked the Government for handouts or special concessions, but to get its heavy foot off farmers' necks. The statement said: We gave Mr Hawke a plan of action and a timetable to implement major changes which will enable agriculture to further develop its huge resources. Mr Hawke gave NFF an undertaking to consider four major points raised by the farm costs submission: A commitment to consider a short-term IAC enquiry on the scope for some reduction in tariff levels in view of the Government's concern to see the gains of devaluation retained and not swallowed up in inflationary increases. The National Farmers Federation gave a balance-sheet to Mr Hawke which showed that every Australian farmer was penalised by more than $16,000 a year as a result of domestic subsidies, including unjustified components such as tariffs, wages, interest rates and transport costs. The second undertaking that Mr Hawke gave was to consider speaking to State Premiers on the possibility of some combined approach on State issues affecting farm costs, including transport regulations, public borrowings and State taxes on fuels. I will talk a little more about public borrowings in a moment. The third undertaking was that the Government would seriously consider, as a part of Budget formulation, the removal of various tariffs, taxes and excises on vital inputs used in agriculture. The fourth was an agreement to get the Industries Assistance Commission, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the Treasury and the National Farmers Federation to establish the statistical underpinning to the cost of tariff protection. I said that I would mention public borrowings. In last year's Budget $5.6 billion, $5,600m, was the cost of servicing interest on the public debt. It is a very important area to give consideration to and, therefore, this makes export industries, such as the agricultural and rural industries, quite important. Senator Bjelke-Petersen the other day referred to the penalties that the rural community and other industries pay for irresponsible strike action. Last year in New South Wales members of the Transport Union went on strike because they did not agree with the way the handling facilities were being administered. From memory, it was a demarcation dispute. The strike cost Australia dearly in export income and export credibility. They are vital to the economic progress of our country if we are to get our balance of payments into proper perspective. The other strike involved the loading of wheat. This was estimated to have cost the Australian Wheatgrowers' Federation millions of dollars. It involved an objection by the unions concerned to the introduction of another shift which would provide jobs for other people desperately in need. The unions adopted a selfish, irresponsible attitude on that occasion, resulting in a cost of millions of dollars to the wheat industry It is about time that we made the irresponsible trade unions aware of their importance in providing jobs for fellow Australians who are in need of employment. They have to recognise their responsibility to the Government and to the community at large and the importance of their trying to restore the credibility of Australia as a reliable trading partner in the eyes of the world. One only has to go overseas and talk to people who want to buy our coal and our other natural resources to find that they are turning elsewhere, to countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Canada and South Africa, all of which are reliable producers and are reliable with respect to the delivery of goods. But at present our credibility is suffering because of the matters to which I have referred. Apart from the need to encourage and develop our rural exports, there are other areas that we have to develop. One of them is our uranium. There is a lot of emotive argument about uranium mining and the nuclear fuel cycle generally. As an environmentalist I am concerned that we recognise the scientific, environmental and engineering facts associated with the production of energy through uranium. In our region, countries such as South Korea, Taiwan and China are embarking on an expanding program of nuclear power development. Australia has to recognise this now. I am glad that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has come into the chamber. I am sure that he recognises the need for Australia to get into the international market that is available and will increasingly become more available and more profitable to us, which should be important to the people of Australia. It will help in creating jobs, balancing our trade and reducing the interest on our public debt. I am sure the Minister recognises that the Asia-Pacific region offers Australia tremendous opportunities in view of our natural resources and our rural products and the fact that there are two billion people in that part of the world. Many of them are looking to Australia, small though we are in the eyes of the world, as an ally in trade and with some admiration because of our technological initiatives. The Government must have a very close look at the future of Australia with respect to the Asia-Pacific region. It is very important for us to develop some sort of an economic community arrangement in our part of the world for the benefit of Australians in the future. I was in Europe last year. The object of my visit was to examine the problem of the disposal of high level nuclear wastes, which worries a lot of people. I found that people in France, Britain and Germany who are using waste disposal technology involving the vitrification process are quite satisfied with that form of disposal. The object of the borosilicate glassification process is to cool the highly radioactive, extremely hot residue from nuclear power stations. The introduction of borosilicate amalgamates the waste with glass. After a cooling period, this is able to be buried at depths of about 500 metres in geologically stable land or under the sea. This is environmentally satisfactory overseas. The second generation storage facility will be of tremendous interest to Australia. The synroc process, I am informed, will be regarded overseas as a second generation storage facility in 10 to 15 years' time. This technique is interesting. In the Gabon region of West Africa two billion years ago, six nuclear reactors commenced operation naturally in a concentrated deposit of uranium ore. The nuclear chain reaction, started spontaneously by the presence of water, continued for hundreds of thousands of years and finally ceased. During the long reaction, fission products, together with trans-uranium-that is, elements heavier than uranium, such as plutonium-were formed inside the ore body. The radioactive products of these naturally occurring reactors have long since decayed into stable elements. These ultimate wastes have been discovered inside the ore deposit. Because of their location it is known that there was little, if any, movement of radioactive wastes during and after the nuclear reaction. These rocks, which have been stored for two billion years in the presence of water, these high level waste elements such as plutonium-which has a half-life of about 24,000 years, I believe-are the basis of the synroc ceramic rock storage technology which was invented by Professor Ringwood at the Australian National University. He has synthesised this ceramic rock which has been so successful in nature and this will certainly mean a lot for Australia in the future. This technique is now being developed at Lucas Heights. The plant to produce this substance is almost finished. As we have no high level radioactive material here to check it out industrially, the Government and the departments concerned are working with Japan and the United Kingdom so that they can test this facility. This will be quite important to Australia in the future. The advantage of this process over the glassification technology, according to Professor Ringwood, is that high level waste can be permanently disposed of in the form of synroc in a fifth of the time at a depth of four kilometres in one metre diameter drill holes. It can withstand temperatures of over 200 degrees centigrade and has a much greater storage capacity, storing up to about four or five times more than the present process. One need not worry about the recovery of plutonium for the making of bombs. The type of plutonium that is derived from domestic power stations is not the type that is used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. That is a special process, requiring, I think uranium 239, which can be more economically produced in a far smaller reactor than the ones that are used for domestic power stations. Because of the depth at which it is buried, it would be quite difficult to retrieve and use. It is buried four kilometres below the surface. At the moment, technology is advancing so rapidly that the nuclear waste of today will be the nuclear fuel of tomorrow, with fewer environmental problems. Another environmental point that could be made for the benefit of those people who are concerned about environmental matters associated with the nuclear fuel cycle is that at Biblis, which is about 50 or 60 kilometres from Frankfurt, there are two nuclear power facilities, which I visited. One has a capacity of 1146 megawatts and the other 1240 megawatts. These units use for cooling purposes the waters of the River Rhine. For years it had not been possible to catch a fish in the River Rhine. The inhabitants of the area were fascinated because, due to the oxygenation of the water being used in the cooling process, the waters of the Rhine have now been purified to the extent that for the first time in many years people in that area are now catching fish. That is a fringe benefit that is very important to any environmental consideration of the problem. In Australia today we should give serious consideration to the future. We should look at desalinating sea water and the brackish waters of Australia. I believe that by the year 2050 our water resources will be fully committed and we will have to look at new technology, such as the high-temperature nuclear fission technology using thorium and uranium, which has been developed in Germany and which I believe will be able to be utilised in the form of waste heat for the desalination of water. We have to make some far-reaching decisions about this question very quickly. Debate interrupted. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 to provide for the granting of exploration permits by way of cash bidding, and for related purposes. Debate resumed. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(6.53) —In the time that is available before 7 o'clock I will begin my speech on the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General's Speech opening the new Parliament. First of all, I welcome the new senators, especially those in the Labor team from Tasmania, Terry Aulich and Ray Devlin. I regret that John White was not also one of those who were successful. A little earlier this evening Senator Harradine expressed his regret about Norm Sanders becoming a senator in July. He suggested that his candidate, Kath Venn, should have been elected in Norm Sanders's place. He made the point that Dr Sanders, when a member of the State Parliament, voted in such a way that a State Labor government fell. I point out to Senator Harradine that Mrs Venn, at the election before last, encouraged electors to vote for non-Labor candidates. So his candidate is not totally pure on that matter. I will try to put the record straight about the how to vote arrangements in Tasmania. Senator Harradine knows that the Labor Party has generally taken the view that, all things being equal, the simplest ticket is the one which we generally adopt. For the first time in living memory, I think, the Labor Party drew the first position on the ballot paper. We made the how to vote card as simple as possible by going across the ballot paper. Senator Harradine may regret the result of that as far as his candidate is concerned, but the prime factor is simplicity. I also point out about the voting method that if we had optional preferential voting, which is our preference, there would be no need at all for parties to extend preferences in their how to vote pamphlets. People could, if they wished, extend their preferences according to their choice. If we had optional preferential voting that could still happen. We were not able to bring that in. The compromise result of the double ballot paper was what we had. We know the consequences of that as far as House of Representatives informal voting went. But it was not the prime wish of the Labor Party to have that system. Having referred a few moments ago to the new senators in this place, I wish to make reference to a new senator who made her first speech today, Senator Vanstone from South Australia. She gave us a spirited defence of capitalism and, if I am not quoting her incorrectly, complained that the Left had hijacked the language of morality. She said that she opposed the rights of the individual giving way to those of the community. But I think she and others who make these simplistic suggestions should remember that the community is made up of many individuals, of many real people. It is nonsense to say that somehow or other the individual is crushed or forgotten about when one talks about the general responsibility of government for the community as a whole. She and others are arguing in defence of selfishness. She did it very strongly, and from her point of view she did it well, but I disagree with her. It can be said, though, that the enlarged Parliament has brought many more well-qualified members and senators who obviously will make a valuable contribution to this place. In particular, the extra numbers will help us spread the heavy Senate committee workload which has been building up over the years. I turn now to the Governor-General's Speech. As he said, the last two years have seen the success of the Labor Government's programs to revitalise the economy. That job is not complete. There is still a lot to do. For example, there is a continuing problem with unemployment of youth and the not so young. Continuing action is necessary. I will come back to that issue later in my speech. I talk first about taxation. As we all know, 1985 is the year of major tax reform. Honourable senators will recall that 10 years ago, in 1975, there were what now seem to be some relatively minor reforms but which were, at the time rebates were introduced in the Hayden Budget on August 1975, quite major changes. Debate interrupted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being nearly 7 o'clock, under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(6.59) —I rise to speak in relation to the matter of local government finance. I mentioned to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) that I proposed to raise the matter. By way of introduction to what I wish to say, I refer to the fact that in May 1984 the present Government established an inquiry into local government financing. That inquiry is still continuing. It is being chaired by Professor Peter Self. In February of this year the Department of Finance made a submission to the inquiry. Page 4 of that submission states: The Labor Party's policy platform currently contains a commitment to provide financial assistance to local government including an annual allocation of at least two per cent of personal income tax receipts in the form of general revenue grants and specific purpose grants and loans. That is a clear commitment by the present Government in its policy platform to the maintenance of the allocation of 2 per cent of personal income tax receipts which was introduced by the former coalition government. The present Government did not go to the last election with a policy for increasing the rate burden on property owners. It did not go to the last election with a policy for decreasing local government revenue. In fact, it went to the last election without a tax policy at all, but that is not the major point I wish to debate. The Government went to the people with a policy that it would have a taxation summit and after that it would review the general situation in relation to tax. The Government most certainly did not say that it would not abide by its platform of continuing the payment of 2 per cent of personal income tax receipts to local government, it did not say that it would cut local government revenue and it did not say that it would grab for itself any windfall that might arise rather than pass it on in accordance with its policy and in accordance with the practice which had been established and which local government had every reason to expect would continue. The Minister for Finance has frightened every section of local government with most incredible statements in answer to a question by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle last Monday and a question by me today. Some of his statements were more than a little extraordinary. In answer to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, the Minister stated: It ought to be noted that, on present estimates, if the existing arrangement for local government is continued into next year it will get a nominal increase in funds of around 20 per cent and a real increase in funds of about 15 per cent. I do not believe that an increase of that magnitude, 15 per cent in real terms, a far higher increase in funds than local government has ever before received, can be justified in the present tight budgetary situation. Senator Walsh —Do you believe it can be? Senator PETER RAE —If the Minister will listen to me, I will make my comments and will probably get through the whole of this matter more quickly. The Minister's comments were reported in the media, such as the Sydney Morning Herald of the next day under the heading 'Extra 15 pc for local government not justified, says Walsh'. The Age of Wednesday, 27 March, carried an article under the heading 'Rates rise threat over council funds shortfall'. There were a number of other similar articles, such as the one in the Australian Financial Review headed 'Local government to clash with Canberra on cash', giving some indication of the sort of concern that exists. What do we find? We find that this Government anticipates that it will receive a real increase from personal income tax receipts of, in nominal terms, 20 per cent or, in real terms, 15 per cent. However, it says: 'We will pocket the lot. We will plunder the public purse but we will not let local government have its agreed share. We will pocket the windfall gain which we would otherwise have paid to local government'. This is a measure of this Government's preparedness to plunder the public purse, its preparedness to pocket the plunder, its selfishness towards local government, its indifference to the plight of property owners, who already pay hefty rates and land taxes, and its lack of interest in those who have to rent property as, undoubtedly, any increase in rates on land will be passed on. If this Minister wants to be fair, perhaps he should consider passing on the full 15 per cent of tax collected to local government. If this is regarded as being too much, he should come to an agreement whereby local government will give a percentage of that amount to ratepayers by way of a tax cut, by way of a percentage rate remission. That would mean that some sections of the community would obtain some tax cut from what otherwise would be an unfair, unjustified windfall grabbed by the present Government. All the Government can do, if it continues to behave as it apparently proposes, is prove without any possible doubt that it is not only the biggest spending, highest taxing government since Federation but also that it is a government which is prepared to act in direct breach of the firm commitments it made in its policy platform and repeated in its election campaigns and in assurances given to local government. This must be seen in the light of what this Government has been doing to local government. It has been encouraging local government to join in employment schemes to assist in the creation of employment. There is nothing wrong with that but it is an extra cost to local government. It has been pushing for a home and community care for the aged program which again would be carried by local government. Again, there is nothing wrong with that but it is something which would cost local government extra funds. One finds that the Confederation of Australian Industry argued in its submission to the Economic Planning Advisory Council that it wants local council rates brought down. The Confederation regards that as an important aspect of the cost with which industry is burdened and part of the cost of the uncompetitiveness of Australian manufacturing industry. Yet this Government wishes to pocket the windfall derived from the huge increase in the money received from the personal income tax which is paid in this country. This is notwithstanding the fact that in May last year the Government established, and is still continuing with, an inquiry into local government financing. Although the inquiry was established in May last year this Minister, through his Department, has only just made-in February this year-a submission to the inquiry as to what in his view should happen to local government financing. If his Department made the submission only in February this year he cannot blame the inquiry for any dilatoriness. The Finance Department's submission to the national inquiry did not suggest any particular major change in local government roles. Rather it suggested that local councils continue to take a significant role in the provision of facilities of a variety of welfare and recreational types as well as infrastructure. It has been proved in the past that local councils are, in many cases, the most cost effective bodies for carrying out a certain range of activities. By the Department's own admission, the statistics which it gave in its submission were considerably out of date and it is possible to obtain some later details. Earlier today I cited some figures-I have now extended them further-in the question I asked. I had hoped, if the Minister had been here earlier, to show them to him before I spoke. However, I am now sending him a copy as I wish to incorporate them in Hansard. I shall explain them. The figures show that from 1977-78 to 1982-83-it is agreed by everybody that 1982-83 is the last year for which figures are available-the percentage of gross domestic product which is reflected in local government taxation has varied. In 1977-78 as a percentage of GDP it was 1.287. It dropped to 1.209 and, in the most recent year, it went back to 1.278. Those are calculated on a consistent method of calculating the comparative figures between local government taxation and gross domestic product. That is why in the table that I propose to have incorporated in Hansard it is shown under the column headed 'New'. This refers to the new and consistent system of calculating. The 'Old' column shows variations and only goes up to 1980-81 because of the change in the system of calculation at that time. I seek leave to incorporate that table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- % LG tax GDP Year LG tax GDP New Old 1977-78 1164.2 90.476 1.287 1.287 1978-79 1263.8 102.653 1.231 1.231 1979-80 1399.4 115.759 1.209 1.202 1980-81 1595.0 132.112 1.207 1.180 1981-82 1817.2 149.277 1.217 1982-83 2090.1 163.599 1.278 Senator Walsh —What is the difference between the 'New' and the 'Old'. Senator PETER RAE —There was a change in the system of calculating both the GDP and the local government taxation amounts. In the column headed 'New' the figures are all calculated on a consistent basis, using the formula which has applied since the year 1980-81. Senator Walsh —Why doesn't it go beyond 1980-81? Senator PETER RAE —The old formula was changed in 1980-81. I have had the figures calculated on a consistent basis from the year 1977-78 through to 1982-83. The figures show that local government has not reduced in any substantial way the percentage of GDP which it obtains by way of local government taxation. In other words, it has not reduced its effort in relation to taxation. That was the claim which was made today by the Minister when he was answering my question. He said: On Monday I said-or if I did not say it, I certainly intended to-that local governments have not increased rating income in accordance with the rise in property values. He also said: When property values are rising in real terms, that means economic rent is accruing to land because of its scarcity value. I do not see anything wrong with taxing some of that economic rent with high rates. In other words, the Henry Georges, although they saw only a tiny section of reality, insofar as they did see it, they correctly identified it. I see nothing wrong with taxing the economic rent which accrues to land because of its increasing scarcity value or its value as a positional good. Later on the Minister said by way of amplification: However, it does not address the point that land values can increase at a faster rate than normal gross domestic product growth. Under that situation I see nothing wrong with rates on land increasing as a proportion of GDP. I find that rather extraordinary economics and I also find it factually inaccurate. The position with regard to valuation is that all of the rating is as a percentage of the valuation of land and land is revalued to take account of inflation. Revaluing varies from State to State; some do it annually and others do it every several years. So great was the rate of change that during the recent boom in New South Wales the State Government saw fit to peg the level of rates in relation to value of property because of the property boom and because it regarded as unreal the extent to which rate growth was taking place. But there is a steady incremental growth, as is evident in the increases in total rate income and the consistency in the amount as a percentage of GDP which is obtained by local government as rate and other revenue obtained by similar methods. Therefore, the position is that the Minister has confused the issue and has alarmed every local government in Australia. He has also made some factually inaccurate claims and has suggested a breach of the commitments given by his Party in its policy platform and its election campaign. It now proposes to plunder the public purse and pocket the proceeds for itself. I believe that it is appropriate that attention should be drawn to that situation in the adjournment debate. It is a matter which calls for a responsible consideration by the Minister, action by him to stem the alarm which has been caused and some consideration of the equity of the provision which should be made, including the suggestion that I made that if the Minister believes that there will be such a vast increase and that it is not reasonable for it all to go to local government, it should be passed on to local government on the condition that local government passes it on to the ratepayers. Perhaps that is a way of achieving some form of tax cut in this country. If not, let us see some other form of tax revision. Let us not have a situation in which there is a breach of undertaking and a pocketing of an amount which is legitimately due to local government and which will not be passed on if the Minister has his way. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(7.18) —I wish to take a few minutes of the Senate's time on the adjournment tonight to talk about a few minor administrative matters relating to Commonwealth Government inscribed stock, colloquially known as 'Aussie bonds'. I am not reflecting in any way at all on the Government in bringing this matter forward. The administrative procedures come from the Treasury and I imagine that they were put in place by the previous Government. For all I know, they might reach right back into the depths of antiquity in Australian Treasury practice. The first point I raise is the nature of the scrip certificate that one receives when one buys Commonwealth Government inscribed stock. It comes on a very light piece of paper, which is roughly square and pale green all over. The details on it, the name of the purchaser and all the other information, are just typed on in ordinary typescript. It is quite at variance with the appearance of the stock certificates that are issued by public companies in precisely similar circumstances. The Commonwealth Government certificate is a different shape, it looks totally different and instead of being a solid piece of parchment it is a very flimsy piece of paper. It is very easy for it to be overlooked and not recognised for what it is, a scrip certificate. I would imagine it is reasonably easy for it to be forged. I think that there are checks and balances against that insofar as the certificate cannot be negotiated for cash. Anyone who wishes to cash this stock has to do so through the register in the appropriate way. I think that changing the form of the certificate is a simple administrative procedure which could and should be undertaken. The second point I raise in relation to these stock certificates is that if one buys a block of $1,000 worth of bonds and for some reason one sells $500 or $600 worth, one applies through an unambiguous channel to redeem that stock. But the important point is that the Commonwealth Government does not call back the scrip certificate. In other words, if that certificate is made out for $1,000 or for $100,000 and $500 worth is sold, the certificate is not altered. That is markedly at variance with the procedure of holding stock in a public company. If one holds $500 worth of BHP shares and sells $200 worth, one must surrender the old stock certificate and have a fresh one issued, endorsed with the balance of $300. Because of the way in which these certificates are drawn up they have the potential to be mislaid, leading to an unnecessary degree of confusion for their holders. That would be easily avoided simply by changing the practices in the Treasury. The other major concern I have relates to the payment of interest. Until about a year ago, all one received was a Reserve Bank of Australia cheque in the mail. At present, at the six-monthly intervals when interest payments are due holders get a Reserve Bank cheque, and a perforated part, or counterfoil, is attached to it. It is a plain white piece of paper containing some very sparse, typed information. From memory, it has on it 'Commonwealth Government Inscribed Stock', the date on which the cheque is issued, the series rate, the principal amount, the interest and a few things like that. Most importantly, it does not have on it the name of the person to whom the cheque is payable. Again this provides the potential for people to overlook these interest payments when it comes to filling out their annual tax returns. This is particularly the case for elderly people or people filling out tax returns for them. This little counterfoil, which does not look in any way like the counterfoil that one receives with dividend payments from public companies, could easily be mislaid or overlooked. I request that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) take up the matter with the Treasury so that a more substantial form of stock certificate is issued to stock holders, so that certificates are recalled when part of the stockholding is sold and so that a more detailed counterfoil is issued with the six-monthly interest payments. If it is not too great an expense, I think it would be reasonable to request that the Treasury issue an annual statement of interest payments, because it is a matter of law that such payments must appear in taxation returns as part of the income received by stock holders. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(7.22) —I wish to speak for a few moments on prices for dairy products. Today I asked the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, a question about this matter and I think we can see from his answer the real reason for Labor's dairy plan. It is clear that Labor has rejected the national dairy plan supported by all State governments and the industry because it wants to extend the price freeze on dairy products which commenced in December 1982. Senator Walsh more or less accused the Opposition of wanting to slug consumers with a 17 1/2 per cent increase in prices for dairy products. However, I point out that, in spite of the wage freeze introduced by the Fraser Government in December 1982, wages have increased by 16 per cent under the Australian Labor Party-Australian Council of Trade Unions prices and incomes accord. It seems to me that the Labor Party has one rule for the unions and another for the farmers. One could say that it is a government of double standards. Labor is prepared to drain the last drop of blood out of the dairy farmers of Australia while under the accord it fully indexes wages to take account of inflation. Senator Walsh suggested in his reply to my question that market forces should be allowed to settle dairy product prices. I feel that he ignored the fact that world prices for dairy products are distorted by the huge surpluses generated by highly subsidised production in the European Economic Community. There is no doubt that Australian dairy producers are amongst the lowest subsidised producers in the world. Labor's Kerin dairy plan is a devious plan to freeze dairy prices. The Government forgets that the plan will be enormously costly to taxpayers as a result of the estimated loss of 20,000 jobs. I mentioned this yesterday when speaking on the Address-in-Reply, but the Minister was not here to hear about it. Senator Walsh —Who wrote this for you? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I am quite capable of writing my own speeches. The Minister forgets that because 20,000 jobs will be lost there will be an unemployment benefit bill of $2m a week. I put these facts before the Senate because I feel that the answer the Minister gave me this afternoon was quite wrong. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(7.25) —Just for the record, Mr Deputy President, I want it to be noted that Senator Bjelke-Petersen acknowledged out of her own mouth that she was in breach of standing order 406, which says that no senator shall read his speech-for 'his' read 'her', under the Acts Interpretation Act. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That is a matter for the Chair, Senator Walsh, not for Ministers. Senator WALSH —She said it, Mr Deputy President. I am not complaining about it and I do not ask that the Standing Orders be enforced; I just draw attention to the fact that she said it. I did not hear the beginning of Senator Peter Rae's speech, so I make just a brief comment on a couple of the things he said. Senator Peter Rae —If you did not hear it I would be quite happy if you left it until you have been able to read it and replied tomorrow night, for instance, rather than now. Senator WALSH —I do not know whether I can get the information that quickly; I have a few other things to do. I will have to get the Department to do an analysis if Senator Rae really wants a definitive reply. If I understood Senator Rae correctly, he said that because land is revalued fairly regularly the increasing property or land values are caught up in the rating system. That is true only if the rate itself remains constant and if the revaluations reflect the actual price of the land. Senator Peter Rae —I did not ask you, but if I may do so by way of interjection: Do you know of any place where there have been reductions in the percentage rate? Senator WALSH —In the actual rate? Senator Peter Rae —Yes. Senator WALSH —No, I do not know of any off the top of my head. Of course, whether the revaluations really reflect the market price of the land may be open to some doubt and of course at all times they are somewhat behind the actual market values of the day. I do not think it is at all uncommon for them to be several years behind. It has been shown in recent years-undoubtedly it would happen again if there were a 15 per cent real increase in Commonwealth payments to local government-that, as Commonwealth money comes in, State money goes out. That has happened in the past and I have no doubt that an increase in Commonwealth funds of that magnitude would evoke the movement away from local government of State funds. I noted when reading a Press report or two that some newspeak is being employed in this campaign. Reports refer to proposals to slash funding to local government. As I said in reply to Senator Rae this afternoon, there is no such proposal to slash funding to local government-indeed, there are no proposals, no ideas even, by anyone, so far as I am aware, that there would be anything less than some sort of a real increase. So let us wipe from the agenda this nonsense about slashing payments to local government. As a more general comment about what Senator Rae said, it seems to me that he is running along with the normal Liberal Party practice in that he says that it is a great idea for governments to reduce spending as long as it never actually happens. While supporting the abstract proposal of reductions in government outlays, every time a particular proposal that might have that effect is put up the answer seems to be that it must not be done. Senator Peter Rae —You are just trying to cut somebody else's spending, not your own. That is my complaint. If you want to cut spending, cut your own and not local government spending. Senator WALSH —Local government does not have to cut spending; it can make its own choice about that. As I have told Senator Rae before, there is no proposal, thought or gleam in the eye of anyone, as far as I am aware, that there would be other than a real increase. To be fair to Senator Rae, I do not think he has spoken in this way but to talk about slashing funds to local government is to resort to newspeak. I note from the speech Senator Bjelke-Petersen read out-whoever wrote it-that she wants to put up the price of dairy products by 17 1/2 per cent and she wants to add 0.16 per cent to the consumer price index. She wants to put up the price of butter, cheese and everything else by 17 1/2 per cent and increase the CPI by 0.16 per cent in the process. I have also noted that there is no sensible proposition in her speech. She ought to tell whoever wrote it for her to pay attention to this, if that person has the brains to work it out. I have also noted that there is no attempt in the speech she has just read to address the question of the dairy industry surplus production, which is the cause of the low prices being received. One can only assume that she is proposing that the industry's present problem, which is caused by the extremely low, or negligible, marginal value of its product, should be solved by increasing prices to the domestic consumer, by retaining a pooling arrangement which pays an average price to producers, which is not the true marginal price but a price sufficiently high to encourage them to increase production. That is the policy Senator Bjelke-Petersen's Party followed for five years when it was in government and that is the fundamental cause of the problem in the industry today. Senator MacGibbon's speech was rather technical. Frankly, I did not understand it; so I will seek a response from the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.32 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Census and Statistics Act-Proposal No. 2 of 1985-List of Names and Addresses of Agricultural Establishments for Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Act-Price Determination, dated 22 March 1985. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 13) Senator Puplick asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: Did the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, through the Assistant Secretary, Legislation, inform the Australian Duty Free Operators Association Ltd that steps would be taken 'by last July' 1984 to promulgate regulations to prevent the improper use of the words 'duty free' in relation to retail sales; if so, why have no such regulations yet been promulgated and when may they now be expected? Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The then Department of Industry and Commerce did, by letter dated 22 May 1984, inform the Australian Duty Free Operators Association Ltd that it was anticipated that regulations to prevent improper use of the words 'duty free' would be promulgated by late July 1984. That letter also informed the Association that the particular regulation referred to was a part of a comprehensive set of regulations to govern operations of duty free shops and that the making of those regulations was dependent on legal identity being given to duty free shops by the bringing into operation of the relative provisions of the Customs and Excise Amendment Act 1982. The forecast made in the letter of 22 May 1984 was, in hindsight, over optimistic. As a result of unforeseen considerations arising, particularly in relation to projected provision of limited inwards duty free shopping facilities on airports, it has not been possible to promulgate the regulations as yet. I cannot give any precise forecast on when promulgation may now be expected but it is anticipated that action to bring into operation the duty free shops provisions of the Customs and Excise Amendment Act 1982 will not be very much further delayed. When the proclamation to do this is made, the regulations will be simultaneously promulgated. (Question No. 14) Senator Puplick asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: Has the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce published any guidelines to define the precise meaning of the words 'wholly or principally' as used in section 17 (1) (e) (ii) of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act; if so, what are those guidelines; if not, what interpretation are they being given by the Department? Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: My Department has not published any guidelines to define the precise meaning of the words 'wholly or principally' as used in sub-section 17 (1) (e) (ii) of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act. In the event of any dispute under the Act, including in relation to the sub-section in question, the Act is available for private litigation by the parties concerned. It would therefore be a matter for the court as to what interpretation it might wish to give to the words 'wholly or principally' in sub-section 17 (1) (e) (ii) depending on the circumstances of each particular case subject to litigation at the time. Sub-section 17 (1) (e) (ii) provides a ground for non-renewal of a franchise agreement for the retailing of motor fuel if the franchisor proposes, in good faith and in the normal course of business, to redevelop the marketing premises wholly or principally for purposes other than the retail sale of motor fuel. If the ground for non-renewal of the franchise agreement is because the premises are to be used 'principally' for purposes other than the retail sale of motor fuel, that is, a continuing function of the redeveloped premises is to include the retail sale of motor fuel in some capacity under a prescribed agreement, then the new sub-section 19 (1A) provides certain protection for the former franchisee dealer. In this case, following the rebuilding, restoration or redevelopment of the site (as the case might be) the former franchisee dealer is to be offered an opportunity to remain at the premises under a new agreement, on terms no less favourable than those which might be offered to other persons. The prescribed agreement offered is to be either a franchise agreement or an agency agreement. Redevelopment is not available as a ground for non-renewal of a franchise agreement where the converse situation applies, that is, where the entire or principal use of the redeveloped premises is to be the retail sale of motor fuel. (Question No. 40) Senator Chaney asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 27 February 1985: (1) What is the average effective rate of protection for manufacturing industry. (2) What is the average effective rate of protection for manufacturing industry excluding the passenger motor vehicle industry. (3) What is the average effective rate of protection for manufacturing industry excluding the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. (4) What is the average effective rate of protection for manufacturing industry, excluding the passenger motor vehicles and textiles, clothing and footwear industries. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Industries Assistance Commission has calculated the following rates of assistance for the year 1981-82. More recent figures should be available shortly. (1) The average effective rate of assistance to manufacturing industry in 1981-82 was 26 per cent. (2) The average effective rate of assistance to manufacturing excluding the passenger motor vehicle industry was 23 per cent in 1981-82. (3) The average effective rate of assistance to manufacturing excluding the textiles, clothing and footwear industries in 1981-82 was 20 per cent. (4) The average effective rate of assistance for manufacturing excluding the passenger motor vehicles and the textiles, clothing and footwear industries was 17 per cent in 1981-82.