Monday, 22 April 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that, on Friday last, accompanied by honourable senators, I waited upon the Governor-General and presented to him the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency's Opening Speech agreed to by the Senate on Wednesday, 17 April 1985. His Excellency replied, as follows: Mr President, Thank you for your Address-in-Reply. It will be my pleasure and duty to convey to Her Majesty the Queen the message of loyalty from the Senate, to which the Address gives expression. Yours sincerely, Ninian Stephen The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned who have great concern for the protection of the unborn child, call upon the Government to reject the Vinson Enquiry recommendation that an Abortion Clinic be established in Canberra. And your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will reject this recommendation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 124 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 Senator Button (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That we condemn that Australia should assist the United States of America by participating in the testing of MX Peacemaker missiles, or any similar weapons, from Australian shores. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: 1. seek to reverse this deplorable decision and, 2. ensure that Australia's commitment to a Nuclear Free Zone in the South Pacific be maintained. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reynolds (from eight citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that. 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a 'first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The 'joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the 'joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Cooney (from 252 citizens) and Zakharov (from 72 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens shows: We are concerned that the Australian Flag be retained in its present form. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate stop any changes to the design of the Australian National Flag without the prior approval of the Australian citizens at a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Short (from 25 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot guarantee that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Not adopt the X Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 29 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in 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 187 citizens). Petitions received. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —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 Superannuation Act 1976 and the Superannuation Act 1922, and for related purposes. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (1) As a matter of national food security, upholds 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 available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes; (2) Recognises 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 and that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has resulted in the subordination and curtailment of public breeding programs in many countries; (3) In view of the aforementioned, recognises that any system giving 'property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust; and (4) Rejects the majority recommendation of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources on plant variety rights, that 'the Commonwealth consider the introduction of a PVR scheme in Australia'. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, contingent upon any senator being refused leave to make a statement to the Senate, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent that senator making that statement. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I note the encouraging recognition by the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, that there has been a developing tendency for workers to take strike action in essential services and that that is something which is going down very badly with the public. I ask the Minister: Does this recognition herald some readiness on the part of the Government to take action in this area, a matter which is of immediate practical importance, given the disruption of transport services to Queensland which has already occurred, and given the fact that Telecom Australia and other employees are meeting later this week to consider the possibility of further industrial action which may well give rise to disruptions of essential services? Senator BUTTON —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has made some comments about the right to strike in public instrumentalities and essential services. I heard some of those comments this morning. I take it that they are the comments to which Senator Chaney was referring. I am now asked whether the Government intends to take action in this area, which was precisely the question I was asked last week in several forms. For example, last week I was asked whether there had been disruptions of services by Telecom and Australia Post in Queensland-it was suggested that there had been-as a result of the dispute in that State. I have been advised by the management of both bodies that no bans were placed by employees of either body directed at affecting postal or telecommunications services on Friday, 19 April. Since then, the Minister responsible has checked and that has been found to be correct. Senator Chaney asked whether the Government, as a result of Mr Willis's remarks, is prepared to take action. I make the point again, as I did on several occasions last week, that the Government has been concerned to find a conciliation of this dispute, to have discussions with the Queensland Government and to precipitate discussions between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Queensland Government. That view was supported by an officer of the Confederation of Australian Industry on radio this morning, who simply made the point that ultimately the dispute would be resolved by negotiation. The Opposition has a very macho view of its role in this matter. In answering questions last week, I again made the point that what one has to be concerned about in industrial relations are results, not chest-beating rhetoric. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the results in respect of one of the instrumentalities which were the subject of questioning of me last week-Australia Post. Honourable senators should listen to the figures in regard to hours lost in Australia due to industrial disputes for Australia Post. In 1978-79, 136,000 hours were lost; in 1979-80, 27,000 hours; in 1980-81, 173,000 hours; in 1981-82, 323,000 hours-all under Liberal governments. In 1982-83, 14,000 hours were lost; in 1983-84, 19,000 hours-less than one-tenth of the level of industrial disputation in Australia Post under this Government compared with what it was under the Fraser Government. Yet the Opposition is still going on with the silly, mindless, chest-beating rhetoric it went on with in its previous seven years in government at the same time as it did nothing. That is the problem it has. As I said last week, it is sad to see the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives walking out to the end of a limb on this issue when he will be cut off by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, the heir apparent. It is a question of results in an industrial relations approach, not a question of empty rhetoric. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I am grateful to the Leader of the Government for answering a question I did not ask. But I ask him again: Given that there has been disruption of transport into Queensland and that further meetings of unions are planned for tomorrow and Wednesday, is the Government prepared to take any action at all to try to prevent the disruption of essential services to Queensland? Senator BUTTON —I answered this question about six times last week. I repeat the answer: The Government has taken a wide range of actions in trying to bring this dispute to the conference table, and it will continue to do so. Senator BLACK —Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of media reports from Brisbane last Friday in which the Queensland Premier was quoted as saying that the Federal National and Liberal parties now had the ammunition to force an early Federal election over the Queensland power dispute and that such an election was needed urgently? Could the Minister comment on these assertions to assist the Queensland Premier, who seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that Federal election boundaries are gerrymandered in the same way as Queensland electoral boundaries and that the Federal coalition parties require only 38.9 per cent of the vote to regain the treasury bench? Senator BUTTON —My attention was drawn to the comments made on this issue by the Premier of Queensland. I suppose it could be argued, looking at it from his narrow point of view, that the National and Liberal parties might have the ammunition, but looking across this chamber I say to honourable senators that they might have the ammunition but they do not have the troops. I certainly would not recommend such a move in any shape or form. It is only five months since the Premier of Queensland was saying on the hustings what a disgrace and what a waste of money it was that an early Federal election was being held, and that he was totally against it. As I recall, he enjoyed using some good rhetoric at the time. He said it was a waste of $20m of taxpayers' money to hold a Federal election long before it was due. He is now saying, in April of 1985, when it suits him, that it would be an excellent idea to have an election. This is part of the desperate attempt by the Queensland Premier-- Senator Chipp —Why do you waste time talking about the moron? The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to withdraw that statement. Senator Chipp —I withdraw it, reluctantly, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to withdraw. Senator Chipp —I withdraw it. Senator BUTTON —I suppose I do waste time, to put it in Senator Chipp's terms, in talking about the moron but that is because I am incited to do so by other people of not much greater intellectual capacity. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I suggest that the Leader of the Government also be asked to withdraw the word 'moron'. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Leader of the Government to withdraw. Senator BUTTON —I withdraw. I come back to Senator Black's question. Senator Chaney —Tell them what percentage vote the Labor Party got in Queensland. Senator BUTTON —I am asked by way of interjection what percentage vote the Australian Labor Party got in Queensland. Perhaps the honourable senator ought to have a look at the Liberal Party vote in Queensland as well. The point I was making was that there are very great inconsistencies between the Premier's statements of last year and those he is making now when he says he seeks an early election, as there are differences in his approach to this issue itself. Only a year ago he was urging truckies blocking Sydney to get on with it and he was encouraging them in every respect to blockade Sydney. Now, he says he is seeking a Federal election as a result of alleged bans placed on the State of Queensland. Senator PETER BAUME —My question to the Minister for Education relates to a question I asked her recently on the future of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. Did the Minister meet with the Prime Minister and representatives of the National Catholic Education Commission, the Australian Parents Council and the National Council of Independent Schools on Wednesday, 17 April, at which time the future of the Commonwealth Schools Commission was discussed? Did the Minister put to that meeting that her proposal, entitled 'Transfer of Administration of General Recurrent and Capital Programs from the Commonwealth Schools Commission to the Department of Education', had the almost unanimous support of non-government school groups? Is it a fact that by the end of the meeting the Prime Minister had determined for himself that the non-government school groups represented were unanimously opposed to the dismantling of the Schools Commission? Finally, did the Prime Minister instruct the Minister to revise her proposal to take account of these discussions before she took them to Cabinet? Senator RYAN —Senator Peter Baume seems to have a highly coloured account of one of the consultations the Government has undertaken on this matter. It is the case, as Senator Baume has set out, that there was a meeting between the Prime Minister, me and some representatives of the non-government sector, as there have been meetings between me and representatives of the non-government sector and representatives of the government sector on this matter over the last few months. It is the case that at that meeting some reservations were raised about the proposals which, from memory, centred on matters such as the desire of the non-government sector to continue to have access to the Commission, and to the Department of Education on policy matters, and to be reassured, which they were, that the public reporting role of the Commission would continue. At the end of the discussion the Prime Minister and I said that we would take note of the matters raised, and the matter is still under consideration. I do not expect that we will make a final decision on this matter until some crucial stages of the budgetary discussions have been concluded. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister to address the last part of my question. Was she instructed, at the end of the meeting, to revise her proposal to take account of the matters raised in the discussions before the matter was taken to Cabinet? Senator Robertson —What cheek; what impertinence! Senator RYAN —It certainly is an impertinent question, as my colleague pointed out. As a matter of fact, it is certainly not the case. There were no instructions. The Prime Minister and I discussed the matters that were raised and obviously, as it was the purpose of the meeting, those views will be noted. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is the Minister aware of reports last week of an American Airlines Boeing 727 aircraft losing one of its engines during a commercial flight? Does the Minister have any further information about the causes of the incident, as this aircraft type is the mainstay of Australia's domestic airline fleet? Do the Australian aviation authorities intend to investigate the incident further, or take any actions in the matter? Senator RYAN —The Minister advises that he is aware of reports concerning an American Airlines Boeing 727-200 series aircraft which lost its No. 3 engine in flight on 16 April 1985 between Dallas and San Diego. The Minister was advised that a stage two engine landing was made at San Diego and that no injuries or further damage have been reported. Weather conditions are reported not to have been a factor. There was also no indication of engine anomalies prior to separation. The engine has since been located and is being examined by United States authorities and Boeing. The Department of Aviation is in close contact with the Federal Aviation Administration and the Boeing Aircraft Company concerning the incident. Any recommendations from them regarding action on Australian aircraft will be followed as appropriate. Engine attachment bolts are already subject to mandatory inspection on Australian aircraft. The Department of Aviation will continue to keep the matter under close review. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs a question concerning the glaring inconsistencies of the anti-apartheid actions of the Fraser Government and also the Hawke Government. Given the gravity of the disclosure that 17 people were shot in the back by police while trying to escape in the recent massacre, why will the Government not undertake to cut all possible links with South Africa? In view of the fact that the Government still has not been able to justify or at least deny giving an $11 million tender to South Africa, will the Minister please enlighten me on the logical difference between an Australian company with Government consent, say, manufacturing $200,000 worth of cricket balls and selling them to South Africa, and not allowing Graeme Wood and others to receive identical sums of money to go to South Africa to hit them? Senator Aulich —Wood would run them out anyway. Senator CHIPP —Let you pro-apartheid people stand up and be identified. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chipp, will you ask your question. Senator CHIPP —If there is no money in it you object to it. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chipp, please ask your question. Senator CHIPP —I am getting sick and tired, Mr President, of-- The PRESIDENT —Senator Chipp, if you do not ask your question I shall have to ask you to resume your seat. Senator CHIPP —Is the Government aware that it is guilty of the same hypocrisy as Mr Fraser and his Government, who allowed Nareen wool to be sold to Russia while suggesting all kinds of boycotts against the Soviet Union at the time of the invasion of Afghanistan? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not think Senator Chipp can claim the right to make allegations of hypocrisy or less than total opposition by this Government and every member of it to the apartheid regime in South Africa. We have made our opposition clear, as clear as it possibly could be, by all our actions over the years and we will continue to do so. There is, of course, a continuing debate on the whole question of economic boycotts, as well as boycotts of sporting contact with South Africa. The reason that sporting boycotts have assumed such a prominent place in the whole world's armoury of responses to the apartheid regime in South Africa is clearly the enormous significance attached to sporting contacts with the outside world by South Africans, by the South African Government and by, it appears, the whole South African culture. As such, a sporting boycott has a graphic demonstration effect as to the rest of the world's repugnance. The difficulty about unilaterally imposing economic sanctions or trade boycotts, which has been felt by successive governments, even ones as firmly com- mitted-at least as far as the leadership was concerned-to an anti-apartheid position as the Fraser Government, is in making any such boycott have any impact at all on the target country, South Africa, rather than simply on the boycotting country, in a situation where that boycott strategy is not adopted and shared by other major trading nations. Mr Hayden's statement in the Parliament on 18 April last on the whole question of a code of conduct for commercial dealings with South African companies and interests makes clear the nature of that dilemma. It also makes clear what we are doing about it, both in the sense of supporting quite specifically and overtly economic boycott strategies in the United Nations and in terms of implementing a code of conduct relating to arrangements entered into by present Australian businesses and South Africa. It is a matter, as so often in government and in the real world, of producing policy responses which not only are emotionally satisfying, but are likely to have some impact. That has been the strategy that we have adopted in the past and the Government remains open to constructive suggestions from all sides of the political spectrum as to how best we can translate our repugnance of what is going on in South Africa into effective moves to change the system there. Senator CHIPP —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his reply. Can he now confirm or deny that a Commonwealth Government department, the Department of Housing and Construction, let a contract of about $11m last week to a company essentially owned totally by South Africans? Senator GARETH EVANS —Everybody else seems to have been asked that question in the last couple of days, but I have not and I do not have a specific brief on it. I shall seek an answer as soon as I can and hopefully give Senator Chipp an appropriate response. Senator COLSTON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister able to confirm reports that the Queensland Government, through its Minister for Health, has indicated its desire to withdraw representation on the Federal-State Co-ordinating Committee for Nursing Home Accommodation in Queensland? Did the Queensland Government state any specific reasons for desiring this withdrawal? If such a withdrawal is effected, what alternative representation arrangements will be made? What effect will the Queensland Government's withdrawal have on the processing of applications which are currently before the Committee? Senator GRIMES —Yes, the Queensland Minister for Health, Mr Austin, wrote to me in February saying that he is not prepared to have his State officers participate in any further Co-ordinating Committee meetings as they are currently structured. He said that the reason for this was that the Committee's previous recommendations had not been approved by the Commonwealth; in other words, some of the Commonwealth-State Co-ordinating Committee recommendations which had been forwarded to the Federal Government had not necessarily been accepted as is. The interesting thing about that is that that situation has existed for a long time. The Co-ordinating Committee's recommendations are not necessarily followed to the letter by the Commonwealth Government, which, after all, is funding these nursing homes; nor have they been in the past. Mr Austin also questioned the appropriateness of the Co-ordinating Committee as a mechanism for integrating and co-ordinating the total range of aged care services. I am keen to have an input from the State Government. I think it is important to have State Government representatives on the Committee, as we have in every other State. Before we considered making alternative arrangements, I wrote to Mr Austin, a couple of weeks ago, asking him to reconsider his decision, and I await his response. A Committee meeting was held last week, on 18 April. I told Mr Austin that the results of that meeting would be forwarded to his Department so it can make any comments before any decisions are made by the Commonwealth. It is important to have a co-ordinated approach to aged care and nursing homes, and therefore it is important to have a State government input. If Mr Austin continues to refuse to allow his officials to attend these committee meetings, I dare say we will have to look at alternative mechanisms of representation. Senator PETER RAE —I direct my question to the Minister for Finance. Whilst acknowledging the need to review the whole Commonwealth superannuation scheme, I refer in particular to the Minister's letter of 4 April last to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory Government in which he advised that the Commonwealth has unilaterally decided that it will not be meeting its agreed employer contributions to superannuitants in the Northern Territory Government who are members of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme, and that this is retrospective to 1 July 1984. Does the Minister agree that the letter is a flagrant breach and repudiation of the written agreement between his predecessor and the then Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, signed by them on behalf of their retrospective governments in October last year? Does the Minister agree that the letter also cuts across the terms and conditions of the memorandum of understanding regarding superannuation for employees who transferred to the Northern Territory Public Service? Will the Minister advise how these employees, with established entitlements under the Commonwealth superannuation fund, will be affected by his refusal to honour the Commonwealth's obligations? Will the Minister review his decisions? Senator WALSH —The answer to the last question is no. Mr Dawkins wrote a letter in October last year, I think, which was non-specific about the arrangements which would apply. The previous memorandum of understanding, initialled by the Fraser Government, was symptomatic of the type of fiscal irresponsibility that left this Government facing a prospective deficit of $10 billion when it came into office. It has no legislative backing. In other words, it was never ratified by Parliament. I must say I am astounded by Senator Peter Rae. In a reasonably rational way, I concede, he puts the argument in the Senate that this is a States House which exists to protect the interests of the States against the depredations of irresponsible Commonwealth governments. This was a perfect example of the need to protect the interests of the States against the irresponsible fiscal behaviour of the Fraser Government in the way it recklessly handed out money-it distributed money like confetti at a wedding-in the Northern Territory. Far from being hard on the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth in fact paid-I think the term is the emerging cost, but I will put a caveat over that because I might have confused the two types involved here-on an annual basis, in all the time between 1978 and July 1984, the cost of superannuation for Northern Territory public servants. That was not an arrangement which could continue in perpetuity. Under that system, under which the Commonwealth met the bill explicitly for the superannuation liability and also, of course, for the Northern Territory as a whole, the Northern Territory Public Service exploded to the point where it now embraces one-third of all persons employed in the Northern Territory. The comparable figure for the States is about one-quarter. After adjustments for changed transfers or changed definitions, the Northern Territory Public Service has been growing since 1979, which is when the transfer took place, at a rate of 3.6 per cent a year. I know that in one recent year the Commonwealth Public Service grew at a faster rate than that. In 1983-84, because of the full year effect of decisions made by the Fraser Government, the Commonwealth Public Service grew by above 4 per cent. However, the long term growth rate for the Commonwealth Public Service is far below the 3.6 per cent growth rate in the Northern Territory. I also point out that, if that 3.6 per cent growth rate were allowed to persist in perpetuity, within 174 years the number of persons employed in the Northern Territory Public Service would equal the present total work force of Australia. As with the money, so it was with the bodies. That is worth repeating; if that compound growth rate were allowed to continue indefinitely, in 174 years the number of people employed in the Northern Territory Public Service would equal the present work force of Australia. If one wants to look at it in terms of money, there is a slightly different concept. If one were to extrapolate into the future the five-year average of the growth of Commonwealth payments to the Northern Territory and growth of gross domestic product of Australia, one would find at the end of that calculation that within 137 years Commonwealth payments to the Northern Territory would consume the gross domestic product of Australia. In other words, the Northern Territory would consume the entire output of the Australian economy. I should add that that is something which could never happen; it is a mathematical extrapolation. Nevertheless it is true, and what it draws attention to is that the fiscal irresponsibility of the Fraser Government, as it applied to the Northern Territory, has produced the most bloated and feather-bedded Public Service in the country. There was never any legislative backing for the scandalously generous arrangement that the Fraser Government entered into-with, I add, the full support of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, who now purports to be fiscally responsible-and it had to stop. The only thing in doubt was when it had to stop, and this Government decided that there would never be a better time to stop it than now. Senator PETER RAE —I ask a supplementary question. I just wonder whether the Minister will come back to the point. The point is: Does it not repudiate the agreement made on 25 October 1984 by the present Government and his immediate predecessor on behalf of this Government-not the previous Fraser Government-and the Government of the Northern Territory? Senator WALSH —No. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Has the Minister seen an article in last Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald headed 'Welfare State survives, despite critics'? Does the Minister share the optimism of the report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that 'overall spending can at least grow in pace with real economic growth'? Is he concerned that Australia spends only 18.8 per cent on welfare compared with the OECD average of 25.6 per cent? Senator GRIMES —I have seen the OECD paper on welfare expenditure in OECD nations. Over the years the percentage figures have remained fairly constant, with a couple of exceptions. When we take welfare expenditure as defined by the OECD-which is expenditure on public health, education, pensions, unemployment allowances and compensation-Australia expends as a percentage of gross national product about 18.8 or 18.9 per cent, as Senator Child says, compared with the United States figure of 20 per cent. It is about a percentage point under the amount expended by New Zealand and of course is considerably less than the amount spent in the social democracies of western Europe, such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and the Federal Republic of Germany. In recent years, as Senator Childs would know, there has been considerable concern in Europe about the aging of the population of Europe, which is occurring at a much faster rate than it is in Australia, and about the increasing problems of unemployment and the lack of economic growth. As I remember, considerable concern was expressed in the last OECD report that this would be a great problem in Europe. It was considered not to be a great problem in Australia because of our relatively low percentage figure and the fact that our population is not aging as fast as is the case in Europe. In fact, economic developments in Europe, including the strengthening of its economies and changes in policy, have caused the OECD to be more optimistic about the situation in Europe, as well as being optimistic about the situation in Australia. The significance of those figures, which come out regularly, is that the myth that this country is amongst the big time spenders in all these areas is quite clearly wrong. Even more wrong is the myth that the economic woes and difficulties that we might have had in the past were due to a huge percentage of our expenditure going on social welfare, education and the like. That has never been so and it is certainly not so at present. In fact, some of those countries that spend considerably higher percentages of their gross national products on such expenditures have done considerably better than us in the economic stakes and particularly in the unemployment stakes in recent times. Unfortunately, I suppose that even in the future those who, for their own vested interests and to maintain some of the myths, continue to put around the story that our problems are all due to our expenditures in these areas will continue to do so and the people who deny this-such as the discredited former Treasurer, Mr Howard, who to his credit persistently denies it-will in fact not be listened to. These figures show, the report shows and all indications over recent years have shown, that this country can well afford its level of expenditure in this area. Indications from other countries and the performance of other comparable countries in the OECD show that in the future, when we have had more economic recovery, we may well be able to afford to expend more than we do now. The figures demonstrate, as they do every year, the factual situation. I just wish that more people would take notice of those figures and those comparisons. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. What is the Government's estimate of the additional full year cost of all overseas debt servicing-Federal, State and local government-due to devaluation, and on what Australian dollar value is the estimate based? Senator WALSH —I may be able to get a note on that. I do not have the figures but I will endeavour to obtain them for the honourable senator. I should make the point, however, that the overwhelming majority of Australia's overseas debt is private debt and not government debt-and particularly not Commonwealth Government debt. I have a note here now which might give some more information. It relates to only one year. Total gross overseas borrowings for 1984-85 have been about $1,350m. I stress that that is gross overseas borrowings. I do not know what the net figure is, nor do I know the details in relation to the other question the honourable senator has asked. I think it is worth putting on the record that government debt owed overseas, as a proportion of total overseas debt, is quite small and that Commonwealth debt owed overseas is an even smaller proportion, of course, of government debt owed overseas. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I state by preface that I wonder why a government would not know this matter, since it affects the putting together of a Budget. Incidentally, I asked about debt servicing, not the total figure of overseas borrowings; in other words, the annual repayment that would be necessary to service a debt on those borrowings. Will the Minister also include a estimate of the extra amount owed due to private borrowings? Can I have the answer at an early date? I remind him that he still owes me an answer on another question which is six weeks old. Senator WALSH —Senator Sir John Carrick might be surprised that I do not have those figures in my head. I am not particularly surprised. Firstly, I do happen to be the Acting Treasurer, as of about six hours ago, I think. I am not normally responsible for this matter; the Treasurer, Mr Keating, is. I have enough trouble keeping in my head the astronomical figures about Northern Territory Public Service growth rates, the growth rates of Commonwealth payments to the Northern Territory and how long it will take the Northern Territory to destroy the Australian economy if that is not terminated. I have all those sorts of figures to keep in my head and I do not carry around for instant regurgitation all the figures about overseas debt liabilities, particularly when I do not have any direct ministerial responsibility to do so. I cannot say that I will ask the Treasurer, but I could say next week that I will ask the Treasurer to try to get that information. Since I am currently acting for him, I will see whether I can get it, and I will also look into the other matter to which the honourable senator has referred. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister for Finance seen a report by the National Australia Bank in Monthly Summary, March 1985, in which an article by N. E. Renton examines capital gains tax? The article states that under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and sections 25 (a) and 26 AAA Australia has already a capital gains tax. Does the Minister agree with this claim? Can he say what revenue is recouped under these sections? Can he say whether these sections are adequately and/or sufficiently implemented to earn the title of a capital gains tax? Senator WALSH —The simple answer to the question is, yes, Australia does have a capital gains tax under both sections 25 (a) and 26 AAA. I get these two sections confused sometimes. I do not know which is which, but one of them is a tax applied on a capital gain which is realised within 12 months of the date of acquisition of an asset and the other is a tax levied on capital gains which accrue over a longer period if the Commissioner of Taxation deems the taxpayer to have been a trader in property. So the answer is, yes, Australia does have a capital gains tax. I do not know how much revenue is generated by either of those capital gains taxes, but my expectation is that it would not be very great. Senator MISSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Government concerned about allegations in relation to the recently launched advertising campaign by CSR Ltd aimed at increasing the consumption of sugar, as reported in the Melbourne Herald article dated 15 April this year? In relation to that campaign, I ask: Firstly, what is the attitude of the Government to recent allegations by Rosemary Stanton, consultant nutritionist to Weight Watchers Australia Pty Ltd and the New South Wales Government-a curious combination-that the consumption rate of 45 kilograms per year was far too high and that food advertised on children's television programs was 93 per cent for fat, sugar and salt, and only 1 per cent for fruit and vegetables? Secondly, does the Government agree with the recent statement by dietitian Matthew Steele that Australians eat, on average, almost a kilogram of sugar a week, providing no fibres, vitamins or minerals? Thirdly, is the Government concerned about the high rate of consumption of junk food, which includes a high sugar content, in Australian diets? What action has the Government taken or does it intend to take to inform Australians about the dangers of high sugar consumption? Senator GRIMES —The Department of Health, the Minister for Health and the Government are concerned about sugar consumption levels in the Australian community and therefore must be concerned about the present campaign to increase the consumption of sugar. The Government and the Minister certainly agree with nutritionists such as Rosemary Stanton that Australians on average eat too much sugar-some of us look as though we do-and that advertisements promote too much food containing large amounts of fat, sugar and salt rather than the fruit and vegetables to which Senator Missen referred. The Department also agrees with Matthew Steele's statements concerning the extraordinary amount of sugar Australians eat-something like one kilogram a week. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has recently indicated that it seems that this level of sugar consumption is being maintained. It is for this reason, and because of the concern of the Government and the Department of Health that Australians eat more food of a high nutritional value, more food with fibres and other supplementary items, that a set of dietary guidelines for Australians has been developed. These guidelines include one which talks about how to avoid eating too much sugar. These guidelines and other nutritional material about problems of high sugar consumption have been widely distributed throughout Australia and will be distributed in the future. The Government cannot do much about the sort of campaign that is being conducted at the moment encouraging people to eat more sugar, but it is certainly the Government's role-the Government believes that it should take up that role-to educate the community generally on a more nutritious diet and on the dangers of eating excess sugar, particularly as a substitute for other foods. The Government will continue to produce documents of this type. It is my understanding that Dr Blewett and his Better Health Commission will be ensuring that this important aspect of the health of Australians will continue to be developed and widely publicised. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. With reference to the serious situation in Sudan, where reports indicate that one million children may starve, I note that the new Government has summoned envoys from 40 countries to plead for international help to feed the 22 million population. Was Australia one of those 40 countries? In view of the fact that food reserves from a poor 1984 harvest are likely to run out in Sudan by July this year, will the Government give urgent consideration to providing aid? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the Australian Government was not one of the 40 countries whose envoys were summoned by the new Government of Sudan. This financial year the Government is providing $1.8m in food aid, through the World Food Program, as emergency relief aid for the Sudan. That shipment is due to arrive in the Sudan in early June. Naturally, the Australian Government is concerned to help alleviate the suffering and hardship being borne by famine victims and refugees in the Sudan. We are committed to playing our part in providing urgent relief to ameliorate the present need in African countries suffering severe food shortages, including Sudan. I am further advised, in a later briefing note, that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has today approved an accountable cash grant of $500,000 to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for its emergency fund for refugees in the Sudan. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is addressed to the Acting Treasurer. I appreciate that he may not have these figures in his head, but I ask for broad estimates today and details later. Given that the Government seems to have accepted that the Australian dollar will remain undervalued and could fall even further, will the Minister provide the following information: What increases in repayments on foreign loans undertaken by the Commonwealth Government and Commonwealth enterprises will be borne by Australian taxpayers at the current exchange rate? To what extent were hedging procedures undertaken by the Commonwealth Government and by Commonwealth enterprises to insulate Australian taxpayers from the effects of unfavourable currency movements? Finally, would the Minister estimate the extent to which increased activity on Australian share markets, following deregulation, represents a substantial increase in foreign ownership of Australian enterprises, which can now be bought at bargain basement prices, given current exchange rates? Senator WALSH —Senator Evans uses terms such as 'bargain basement prices'. Firstly, it is not appropriate for me to speculate about whether the dollar is undervalued or overvalued. Secondly, if I did know for certain that it was undervalued or overvalued, or if Senator Evans knows, as he appears to believe he knows, for certain, that it is currently undervalued, he could make a real killing on the forward exchange market, and since he is leaving the Senate too I suggest he might turn his hand to that in his retirement. People might have hunches about these things but the reality is that nobody knows for sure. If people do know, they are certainly wasting their time here. The first part of the question is almost identical to the information that Senator Sir John Carrick sought. I will see that the honourable senator gets a copy of that. The second part was: To what extent were hedging procedures undertaken? I do not know that either, but it is my belief that governments do not make a practice of engaging in hedging procedures at all, but that is subject to confirmation. In reply to the final bit, regarding a substantial increase in foreign ownership, at this stage it is impossible to say whether that has happened. Ultimately statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics will come out which will either confirm or refute it in a direct sense. At some time before that, I believe, figures showing the amount of capital inflow in the months of March and April should be released. Although there will not be a direct correlation between those two different measurements, if there has in fact been a large increase in portfolio investment in the last couple of months one would expect the foreign capital inflow figures to give some indication that that has happened. Senator COOK —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a report in the Sydney Daily Telegraph last Thursday that the Government has approved the provision of new office accommodation in Sydney to the former Governor-General, Sir John Kerr? Is this report accurate? If it is accurate, can the Minister say how he, as Finance Minister, sees spending for this purpose fitting in with the Government's general expenditure priorities, particularly those in favour of the most needy sections of society? Senator WALSH —My attention was drawn to that Press report last week and I asked for some information on it. It appears that it is basically correct, although some of the language used may be a bit extravagant. I am informed that the rental cost for the new accommodation is somewhat above $32,000 per annum and the fit-out cost has been currently estimated at $17,000, following some discussions with Sir John which scaled down his original ambitions. I know that Sir John was previously located in the Commonwealth Government Centre offices in Chifley Square, Sydney, and it is difficult to assess what the cost of rent there was as no rent is paid because the Commonwealth owns the building. I have been told informally that when in the Commonwealth building in Chifley Square he was adjacent to the office of the survey department of New South Wales through which he used to lurch regularly or occasionally and it was considered that he might damage some of the sensitive and valuable equipment therein. I do not know whether that was one of the reasons behind the decision to move him, but I will see whether there is any further information to supply. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to an article which appeared in today's Sydney Morning Herald headed 'Senator Evans attacks US defence policy', wherein Senator Evans claims that the United States Star Wars plan is naive, that the only coherent approach to nuclear weapons is the Hawke Government's policy, that the present policy of mutually assured destruction is morally indefensible and says: We-- I presume the Labor Government-- reject Mad I and Mad 2 but embrace the logic of common security to maintain nations' deterrent capacity while arms-reduction talks go ahead. I ask: Since the present Labor Government is on the record as supporting the United States position in respect of the nuclear deterrent, and that that deterrent can only be described as the policy of mutually assured destruction, how can the Minister claim 'we reject MAD 1 and MAD 2'? Secondly, when will the Government put on the public record a reasoned and detailed argument justifying its opposition to the 'naive' strategic defence initiative, or do those reasons not exist? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is not all that much scope for subtlety in speeches to Australian Labor Party conferences at the best of times. There may have been even less last weekend. Moreover, might I say that whatever subtlety there was in my speech was rather lost in its transcription by the Sydney Morning Herald. I do not ascribe any incompetence or ill-will to the reporter in that respect. I think it had more to do with the sub-editor, particularly whoever it was who was responsible for a lurid and, in the context, quite absurd headline. Anyone who heard me make that speech-certainly a number of those who booed me at the end of it-would have been under no illusion at all that what I was doing, so far from mounting any sort of attack on the United States, was making a very forceful defence of the Government's peace and disarmament strategy and what flowed from that so far as our relationship with the United States is concerned in ANZUS matters, nuclear ships matters, the joint facilities and so on. I was, of course, explaining that there are, however, differences of opinion between us and the United States Government on a number of matters, not least the strategic defence initiative, commonly referred to as mutually assured defence or, in my particular shorthand which I have used before in this place, MAD 2. I was making the point that a close and working defence, military and political relationship with another country by no means implies that that relationship will always be uncritical and that was not the nature of our relationship. As to the detail of the speech, to the extent that it was detailed, there was nothing whatsoever different in that speech from that which I have put before the Senate and used in this place on a number of occasions, not least at considerable length in my speech on Senator Chipp's Bill on 25 February when I identified these various concepts and indicated where the Labor Party stood in relation to them. The matter that Senator MacGibbon draws attention to is the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. Let me make it clear that in saying that we rejected MAD 1, or mutually assured destruction, I was talking simply in terms of mutually assured destruction as a strategic doctrine which is an end in itself, that doctrine which says that the best way to avoid nuclear war and to go on avoiding it in the future is not to strive for arms reductions or anything of that kind but to go on with the escalating arms race spiral. In that sense we reject it and, indeed, President Reagan, I think, has gone on record as rejecting it over and over again in recent months, saying that there must be a better way. That is what has led him to adopt the doctrine of SDI, which is based on a quite different strategic concept, that is to say, mutually assured defence. Senator Chipp —Just as mad. Senator GARETH EVANS —It may well be just as mad. That takes me to the next point. That is something on which reasoned arguments of men and women can differ. I have indicated that the Government has said, through the Prime Minister and senior Ministers on several occasions, that we do not endorse the concept of SDI. I have also said at the same time, and I repeat it now, that it is a morally far more defensible concept than mutually assured destruction. The big $64 question is whether it can ever work. I have indicated a number of reasons as to why, in our view, as presently advised, we do not think it can, and why it is likely to contribute more to the destabilisation of the strategic environment than to a greater stability. These are matters upon which, I repeat, reasonable people and reasonable allies can have differences of opinion without in any way signifying any fundamental problems in the relationship. In that respect, I conclude by saying that I have just come to this Question Time fresh from having lunch with you, Mr President, and with the United States Ambassador and his senior officers stationed here. I can assure the Senate that relations, both governmental and personal, are alive and well, notwithstanding the report in this morning's paper. Senator MacGIBBON —I ask a supplementary question. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that he was helping the American alliance. Can we have an assurance that he will not give that help again in the future? The PRESIDENT —Order! That is not a supplementary question. Senator GILES —Can the Minister representing the Attorney-General inform the Senate whether the recent review of maintenance payments in Australia has been considered by the Government? Are any proposals being developed towards the establishment of a central collection agency? Senator GARETH EVANS —It will be recalled that because of the Government's concern at the ineffectiveness of maintenance enforcement systems in most parts of Australia, I, as Attorney-General, established the National Maintenance Inquiry which looked comprehensively at the best systems in this country and overseas and made certain recommendations for the establishment of a national maintenance enforcement agency. The report of that inquiry was released for public comment on 7 February of last year and during the course of last year a great deal of discussion took place about it with a number of interest groups within the community that had various reactions to it. The report recommended that a new independent agency be established and that the systems presently in place in South Australia and Western Australia, which have achieved substantial success, should be integrated with and not superseded by that agency. I am told that the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, is now considering both the report and the public comments which have been received on the report and will be making recommendations to the Government in due course. I am unable to say what the time-table is on this matter, but I can assure the honourable senator that consideration of it is still very much alive. Senator JESSOP —I ask the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs whether she is aware of an organisation called Teachers for Peace, which promotes anti-nuclear propaganda in public and private schools in South Australia. Is she also aware that there are cases where teachers have been ridiculing and victimising students whose fathers are working for uranium mining companies? Senator Chipp —What a shocking thing to do! Senator JESSOP —I am sure that Senator Chipp would be concerned about that. What assurance can be given by the Minister that the inclusion of peace studies in the curricula in schools, anticipated for next year, as I understand it, will guarantee a balanced view of the nuclear debate and associated issues? Can the Minister assure the Senate that teachers will be required to present both sides of the issues, allowing children to form their own decisions on this subject? Is it a fact that part of the money from a $3m program for the United Nations International Year of Peace in 1986 is to be used to promote peace studies in schools? Is this to be used to provide current and balanced views of the nuclear debate for the enlightenment and benefit of the teachers dealing with this important subject? Senator RYAN —I am not aware of the organisation called Teachers for Peace. I certainly have not had brought to my attention any incidents of the kind suggested in the honourable senator's question regarding teachers harassing students. I point out to the honourable senator that the question of the administration of schools in the States is a matter for State governments, and it would be unlikely that such matters would be drawn to my attention even if they were taking place. I suggest that if the honourable senator is concerned about matters apparently occurring within South Australia, he should take it up with Mr Arnold, the Minister of Education there. Our Government supports the development of peace studies. The national Curriculum Development Centre has recently decided to fund two such developments, one by the Catholic Education Office in Victoria and the other within the New South Wales Department of Education. In both cases the proposals will be subjected to exactly the same stringent requirements, in terms of content, methodology, properly defined outcomes and properly defined evaluation procedures, as any other subject on the school curriculum. It seems to me that there is a strong case for saying that any study of history or any study involving literary criticism-indeed, any subject on the curriculum-lends itself to some value judgment on the part of teachers, being a range of values, attitudes and so forth stemming from their home circumstances. It is very important that teachers develop the curriculum in a way that makes it very clear to the students that value judgments are at work and that those value judgments are based on certain philosophies. There is no particular reason why peace studies should be more vulnerable to prejudiced teaching than any other humanities subject on the curriculum. In deciding to endorse the development of peace studies by the Curriculum Development Centre, I was very well aware of the values debate that has gone on in other countries where peace studies have developed and become part of the curriculum. In the United Kingdom and the United States there have been very contentious, high profile debates-involving in the United States debates in the Congress-about the development of peace studies. So there was no naivety or oversimplistic approach to the development of this subject. It is the case that young people, when they are asked in surveys and polls, demonstrate a great concern about the possibility of nuclear war and nuclear weapons, and express grave fears about the elusive nature of peace in our time. Because young people, particularly in their teenage years, have such an obvious interest in and concern for matters such as disarmament, peace and the role of nuclear weapons in either deterring or promoting war, I think it is appropriate that properly developed curriculum materials should be made available for studies in schools. I conclude by saying that the question of what goes on to a curriculum in a particular school is not one for the Commonwealth Government; it is a question partly for State governments and partly for government and non-government school authorities. I know of many examples where councils in non-government schools and government schools, with the involvement of parents, teachers and students, have actively sought such curriculum materials. The teaching of this subject in its many forms is in its early stages. I can assure the honourable senator that, via the Curriculum Development Centre, the Commonwealth Government is taking a close interest in these developments. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. I seek leave to have the list incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Commonwealth Grants Commission-Report on Tax Sharing Relativities 1985-Vol. 1 and 2-Pursuant to Section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973-A copy of the seven volumes of working papers of calculation and explanatory text (comprising more than 4,000 pages) which accompany the report has been made available to the Parliamentary Library for reference purposes. 2. Document relating to the 1984 Redistribution of the States and the A.C.T. into Electoral Divisions-Pursuant to Section 75 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. 3. An investigation of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme-Report by the Inter-State Commission Volumes 1 and 2-Pursuant to Section 10 (3) of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975. 4. Australian Heritage Commission-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to Section 43 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975-Together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment relating to the report made in the House of Representatives on the 18 April 1985. 5. An Australian code of conduct for companies with commercial interests in South Africa-Text of a statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs made in the House of Representatives on 18 April 1985. 6. Operation of the Fishing Industry Act 1956-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to Section 8 of the Fishing Industry Act 1956. 7. The Queensland Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act 1985-Report by the Human Rights Commission-Pursuant to Section 9 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 22 April, from Senator Lewis: Dear Mr President Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- That in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to provide leadership on economic policy and to act effectively against industrial disruption despite its obligations to the trade union movement. Yours sincerely (AUSTIN LEWIS) Senator for the State of Victoria Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.10) —I move: That in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to provide leadership on economic policy and to act effectively against industrial disruption despite its obligations to the trade union movement. The crash of the dollar is no longer a serious matter; it is now very, very serious. Those are not my words; they are the words of the Finance Editor of the Australian, Mr David Potts, who said at the weekend: It is more than a coincidence that since the ACTU's blockade of Queensland was announced, the dollar has been falling once again. Not only did Mr Potts have something to say about that over the weekend but today in the Australian Financial Review, the Editor of that newspaper said: . . . there is no doubt that the decline of the dollar is based on much more than speculation. It represents a major reappraisal of the course of Australian economic policy, and the prospects for the Australian economy. The editorial in the Australian over the weekend was headed 'The time has come for the leader to lead'. That is exactly what the Opposition is talking about today because we have moved as a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to provide leadership on economic policy and to act effectively against industrial disruption despite its obligations to the trade union movement. This Government appears unable or unwilling to take any action at all in two areas. The first is in relation to the economy where confusion and uncertainty seem to reign supreme. The second is in the protection of people, the Australian people, from militant industrial action. As to the economy, as a result of the wages pause instituted during the last year of the Fraser Government, as a result of the recovery from the drought and as a result of the recovery in the United States of America, 1984 proved to be a year of strong economic growth. I put it to the Senate that this Government has wasted that strong economic growth by lack of leadership, by confusion and uncertainty. We ask this Government where it stands on a number of fundamental questions which are concerning the business people, and indeed all the people of this nation. Where does it stand in relation to the Australian Council of Trade Unions claim for catch-up of 9.1 per cent in wages allegedly lost on the wages pause? We have heard nothing from the Government in regard to that claim, notwithstanding that Mr Simon Crean and Mr Bill Kelty continue to assert that there must be some sort of a catch-up. People looking at our national affairs are wondering where the Government stands on this issue. As to the devaluation of the dollar and the wages claim, again by Mr Crean and Mr Kelty, where does the Government stand in regard to the possible discounting of that dollar in the next wages claim? Again, the ACTU is currently pushing a productivity claim. Again we find that the Government is all confusion and uncertainty because again there is no answer from it as to where it stands on productivity. Let me point out that the evidence is that to November last year, ordinary time earnings increased almost twice as fast as award rates. Little extras being paid to those who are in employment, such as holiday loadings, superannuation, redundancy payments and such things, lead to more and more unemployment in the private sphere. Where does the Government stand in regard to tax policy? Clearly it does not know where it stands because it is calling a summit to find out where it ought to go. Ministers are arguing publicly about what their faction believes the Government's policy should be. The Government is in utter confusion and the economy of this nation is dwindling because of the Government's failure to give any leadership or direction in these areas. Why is the Government in this situation? As we pointed out at the time, in 1982 the Australian Labor Party entered into an election gimmick, purely and simply for the purpose of the election which it knew was on the way. That gimmick was called the accord, a reason whereby it could claim that there would be industrial peace and harmony and therefore it should be returned to government. That gimmick has blown up in the Government's face. It is locked into an agreement with an uncontrollable partner, a partner which continues to take advantage of whatever opportunities are presented to the Australian economy. As a result of that, the opportunities presented to this nation, because of the devaluation of the dollar, the recovery from the drought, the wages pause, and the United States recovery, have been lost. We have what is, in effect, a Mad Hatter's tea party, a situation in which Ministers, somehow or other, can claim the right to speak privately, not as Ministers, even when talking directly about their portfolios. I give an example of what I have just said. Last Thursday, the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, said at a conference in Sydney: There would be opportunities for demonstrating moderation in claims in relation to exchange rate effects at the next wage indexation hearings and in relation to productivity-related pay increases. That is precisely the sort of leadership that we are asking the Government to come forward with. In other words, in relation to exchange rate effects on wages, at the next wage indexation hearing this Government will be saying, 'There must be moderation', and similarly it will be saying so in relation to productivity-related pay increases. That is what Senator Walsh said publicly, but can the people of this nation rely on that? Not at all. When Senator Walsh is asked a question in the Senate, he must answer truthfully, and then we get a different situation. On 19 April 1985, as reported on page 1256 of Hansard, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asked him whether this could be taken as an indication that the Government would be doing something or other, and Senator Walsh said: No, it cannot, because no decision has yet been made by the Government. So we have this crazy Mad Hatter's tea party where Ministers are able to say things publicly as if those things are what the Government is intending to do, and when nailed in the Senate, where they must answer truthfully, they say, 'Oh, they were only my personal thoughts on the matter; in fact, the Government has not made a decision on it'. Of course, because the Government has not made a decision, the dollar is affected. Look at what is happening to our nation as the dollar goes right down the gurgler because this Government is failing to give the leadership to which this country is entitled. I turn to the question of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Last December he suffered a major election shock. The result of that shock was to turn to faction shock as the factions within the Labor Party started to lead on and to show the Prime Minister that as he was no longer carrying the sort of popularity that he had previously carried they would demonstrate their power to him. What did we see after that? We saw the MX missile fiasco. In the United States, our Prime Minister had to back down publicly because of the actions of the left wing of his own Party and the known actions of the militant unions in Australia. That humiliating public back-down by the Prime Minister caused people around the world who are interested in investing in Australia, particularly people in the United States, to have a look at Australia's national affairs. What did they discover? They discovered the confusion and uncertainty about the economy that I have mentioned previously, and they found a shambles in our industrial relations? Why did they find a shambles in our industrial relations? Again, rather than honourable senators taking my words for it, let me turn to some of the editorial opinions. I turn to the Australian Financial Review of Monday, 11 March. Under the heading, 'The future of the unions', the Editor stated: It has become common for the leadership of the union movement to accuse of ''union bashing'' anyone who questions their role, prerogatives and power in an industrial situation, and who suggests that there might be room for reform which would require the unions to accept some kind of discipline and legally enforceable standards of behaviour. That is the situation. Any time anyone in this country suggests that the unions ought to come under some form of control, he is accused of union bashing. The Editor started to talk about the situation in Queensland with Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, the Premier of Queensland-this was back on 11 March-and he stated: . . . he is fighting for the simple principle that unions (and, indeed, industrial tribunals) have a responsibility to the whole community; and government should have the final say with respect to their own employees at least. Let us look at the Government's own employees. This Government, when it came into office, revoked the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act and quite deliberately put itself in a situation of utter weakness in relation to its employees. How did the employees react to that? They said: 'Here is an opportunity to take advantage of it'. A situation arose where the Public Service unions refused to collect money. This happened just at the time of the MX missile crisis. People overseas had started to look at our economy, to see the difficulties that we were facing, and then suddenly saw that, in addition to those economic difficulties, the Government's own employees were refusing to collect the Government's money. Then, at the time Mr Nakasone of Japan visited this country, we had the Hunter Valley rail strike. At the absolute height of its ruination of our economy, Mr Nakasone was talking to the Prime Minister about exporting our minerals to Japan. The sorts of demands from the union movement which are creating the problems in this nation were very well summed up, again by Mr Potts, in the article I referred to previously when he stated: For the devaluation of the dollar to boost the economy real incomes have to fall. We in the Opposition acknowledge that real incomes have to fall for this economy to be boosted. The Government fails to accept that proposition. Mr Potts continued: The question is whose: the unions have made it clear enough that it won't be theirs, and by continuing to run a Budget deficit, the Government is saying it won't be its, either. While this conflict is being fought out behind the prices and incomes accord, the dollar stays weak and we hand over our national assets to foreigners on a golden platter. Not only do we do that but, in addition, we make it absolutely impossible for our unemployed people to face the future with any confidence. The nation has now run into the Queensland blockade. It is a situation in which an elected government is endeavouring to ensure that services are provided to the ordinary people of this country. I ask the Government: Where does it stand in relation to a person whose refrigerator is put out of operation and the food goes bad? Is that not the sort of thing that this Government ought to be concerned about? It is certainly the sort of thing that the Queensland Government is concerned about. Where does the Federal Government stand with regard to people who wanted to move into and out of Queensland while the transport workers with their action tried to bring the Queensland Government to its knees? Where does the Federal Government stand with regard to its own Telecom employees who this week are meeting to discuss the Queensland situation? Again, I turn to what the editors say in some of the newspapers. In today's Australian Financial Review, it is stated: The unions have not hesitated to demonstrate their neglect of the fundamental problems of the Australian economy-- . . . . . . . We are seeing the effects of a response by the rest of the world to the clear failure of the Government to come to terms with a union movement which is not able or willing to concede that the Australian economy needs to go through a period of substantial, and inevitably painful, readjustment. Rather it is prepared to fight for its 'hard-won gains' in terms of power and real wages, without regard to the cost in unemployment or our international trading position. In an article in the Canberra Times of 16 April, headed 'Condoning an illegal act', the Editor said: If the Federal Government does not act to prevent the blockade, it will be implicitly condoning an illegal act by its de-facto coalition partner . . . By that he meant its partner in the accord. In relation to prominent churchmen who have spoken out in favour of the right to strike and the threat to civil liberties posed by Queensland's five new Acts, the editor said that they 'would do well to contemplate the extent to which existing industrial law and practice have eroded civil liberties in Australia'. So here we have a situation where the ACTU is squeezing the economy for the benefit of those people who are currently in employment. The elected Government of Queensland has had to face a blockade and it looks as though it will have all sorts of drastic pressure applied to it by the ACTU in an attempt to have it change its legislation. We have this terrible situation facing the nation, and what happens? We had absolutely no leadership from this Government for week after week and then finally, this weekend, Mr Willis came along and slapped the ACTU on the hand with a feather. All he did was say to it: 'You really have to be very careful about exercising this right to strike; otherwise the non-ALP governments will take some sort of action against you and that will appear to be legitimate action'. He did not suggest that this Government would take any action against the ACTU or that this Government might even consider taking any action against the ACTU. Last week in the House of Representatives our Leader, Mr Peacock, offered to put the CE(EP) legislation back on the books within 24 hours. All that the Government could say was that it was some sort of a gimmick. The truth of the matter is that the people of this country demand that the Government take some action to stand up to the union movement; that it take some action to ensure that the union movement does comply with the laws. We want this Government to take some action to ensure that the people of Queensland are not blockaded. They are entitled to receive the normal, ordinary essential services with which people all round the country are provided. Why should the people of Queensland be attacked by the ACTU? Mr Deputy President, I say to you that the desperate need for leadership on the part of this Government in regard to both economic policy and industrial disputation is a matter of urgency. I hope that as a result of this debate in the Senate the Government sees its way clear to do at least something for the people of Queensland. Senator JONES(Queensland)(3.29) —This afternoon we are discussing the following matter of urgency put forward by Senator Lewis: The need for the Government to provide leadership on economic policy and to act effectively against industrial disruption despite its obligations to the trade union movement. Senator Lewis talked about the record of the Government and the trade unions but I believe that during debate on this matter of urgency we should look at the record of the Opposition parties when they were the Government of this Commonwealth of Australia. In particular, we should look also at the industrial record of this Government as opposed to the industrial record of the Opposition, the previous Government. The other point I make about Senator Lewis's contribution is that he read out a number of editorials that he believed put forward his point of view, but it seems to me that he was very selective in his quoting of those editorials. He was also very selective in the way he put them forward this afternoon. One of the very real problems that tend to come out of this debate is that members of the Opposition-I think this is a reasonable criticism of them-always seem to take the opportunity, whenever it arises, to talk down the economy in an attempt to bring down people's confidence, which causes some problems for the Government and the Australian people generally, instead of debating the question that is before the Senate. Members of the Opposition take great delight in talking down the Australian economy at every conceivable opportunity. It does not matter to them whether they cause damage abroad and create a crisis of confidence. If they believe they can score a political point, they will endeavour to do so, regardless of the danger they cause to this country. At this stage it is worth while looking at the Opposition's record in relation to the economy in Australia. If one goes back a short time, one can see very clearly that the Opposition, through its action, was certainly doing nothing to help the people in Australia. The Opposition's record is quite clear: It presided over double digit inflation and double digit unemployment; Australia had the first negative growth in 30 years. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), as did Senator Lewis here today, talked down the exchange rate in the 1983 election for base political motives. Let us go a little further and look at what the Opposition did during its period in office. The Opposition talks about Australia's international competitiveness. Competitiveness is the result of 30 years of government, not just the last two years of the Labor Government. Thirty years of government builds the competitiveness of a country. We have had 30 years of Liberal government and two years of an Australian Labor Party government and this Opposition has the audacity to talk about our lack of international competitiveness. The coalition's industry policy history is a long saga of failed protective plans within the steel industry. The car industry was left in tatters. It was a shambles. The ALP, during its two year period in office, had to try to pick up the pieces and restore some semblance of order to the car and steel industry. One could say that the coalition's crowning glory was the 1981-82 wages explosion. Wages rose at an annual rate approaching 17 per cent. I will repeat that: The coalition crowning glory was the 1981-82 wages explosion. Wages rose at an annual rate approaching 17 per cent. The Opposition today has the audacity to talk about the Government not being able to give leadership within the economy and on industrial matters. In a moment I will go through the record of the Opposition, compared with the record of the Government. The facts are that the Australian economy is in sound shape and that very real recovery is being maintained. Sound management by this Government, which inherited an $8 billion deficit from the now totally discredited Fraser Administration, has turned the situation around. This Government will continue to see that the situation improves. What are the facts of the economic position? I will provide the Senate with a genuine review of this picture, not the hotch-potch of half truths and criticisms that were just put forward by Senator Lewis. Despite the bleating of the people in the ranks of the Opposition and the media, the Government has never shared their pessimism regarding the domestic economy. Recent developments have underlined the correctness of the Labor Party's optimistic outlook. There are a wide range of indicators that provide a very clear confirmation of the healthy and, indeed, robust state of the Australian economy. The picture across the board is one of strengthening private consumption and of fixed business investment and continuing improvement in labour market conditions. I will go into a little more detail. There was strong growth in the value of retail sales in the three months to January. They were up 3.7 per cent, the largest increase since the three months to October 1981. Retail sales are now growing very solidly in real terms. In the three months to February, new motor vehicle registrations rose by 5.3 per cent. It must be taken into account that this followed a record level of registrations in 1984. Real private new capital expenditure rebounded by nearly 4 per cent in the December quarter and expectations point to strong real growth in the first half of 1985. The strength of investment in private housing has now been a major feature of the present recovery. There is an upturn of no less than 38.7 per cent from the position Labor inherited from the previous Government until the September quarter. The private dwelling construction industry remains active and buoyant and a major part of the recovery planned by this Government. Total employment is up by 110,000 since the start of the present financial year and with 361,000 new jobs since April 1983, the Government is well on target to achieve its stated ambition of 500,000 new jobs in its first three years of office. Inflation has fallen and is continuing to fall. Unemployment is down and job vacancies are up. Does this paint a picture of a flagging economy? Of course it does not. Senator Lewis attempted to link Australia's economic performance with the performance of the trade union movement. In that, at least, I agree with him. Because of the highly responsible attitude adopted by the trade union movement, in marked contrast I might add to that displayed by the Premier of Queensland, the level of industrial disputation is the lowest for a number of years. If one looks at the record of industrial disputes, it is quite easy to see that the Labor Government has a very strong record in relation to the lessening number of industrial disputes in Australia. The prices and incomes accord has been so successful in reducing the level of industrial disputes that the number of working days lost throughout Australia in the 12 months to the end of December 1984 was the lowest for over a decade. In the 12 months to the end of January 1985, 1,326,600 working days were lost due to industrial disputes in Australia. This was 245,600 fewer days lost than in the 12 months to the end of January 1983, representing a national decline of 15.6 per cent. I believe the record speaks for itself. In Queensland the picture is substantially different. The number of working days lost due to industrial disputes in that State actually increased by 108,100. This represents an increase of 83.9 per cent. I will repeat that: The increase in Queensland of 108,100 working days represents an increase of 83.9 per cent, a marked departure from the national trend. The number of working days lost per 1,000 employees throughout Australia increased by 6.4 per cent between the 12 months to the end of January 1984 and the 12 months to the end of January 1985. However, in Queensland the number of working days lost per 1,000 employees increased substantially, by 80.2 per cent over the same period. So I believe that it is very easy to see that the sort of disputation that is taking place in Queensland is certainly adding to industrial disputes and to the number of working days lost in that State. The trade union movement freely and willingly entered into the spirit and the letter of the prices and incomes accord. The accepted spirit of consensus, which I believe has taken hold in Australia like a huge breath of fresh air, replaces the confrontationist policies which so pockmarked the dark days of the Fraser Government and which are continued by the Premier, Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen. Of course, it is always possible to provoke industrial action for selfish political ends. That is what has been happening in Queensland in the past few months. The actions of the Government in that State, firstly in stirring up a fairly low key power dispute by sacking 1,002 workers in that industry and, secondly, by proceeding with a string of highly objectionable fascist-inspired pieces of industrial legislation designed broadly to smash the trade union movement out of existence, are now largely discredited. Indeed, all thinking people now realise the seriousness of the course towards destruction upon which Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen and his Cabinet have embarked. I refer honourable senators to report No. 12 of the Human Rights Commission on the Queensland Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act 1985, perhaps the most savage, inhumane and illegal piece of legislation ever pushed through an Australian parliament. After pulling the Act to pieces virtually clause by clause, the Commission found that it infringed a number of articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These include the use of forced or compulsory labour and the infringement of the rights of workers to join trade unions. These matters were raised in this place some time ago by a number of my colleagues, who said that legislation had been put through the Queensland Parliament that would bring about the use of compulsory labour. We believe that at that stage it was an infringement of civil liberties and an infringement of the International Covenant. We now have the Human Rights Commission in its report No. 12 backing up the fears that members of this House expressed in this Senate some time ago. I commend this excellent report of the Human Rights Commission to every member of the Senate, in particular to those opposite who just might, with a little bit of luck, learn something from it. It recommends that the inconsistencies in the Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act should be brought to the attention of the Queensland Government with the object of persuading that Government to repeal the Act, or at least amend it to limit its operation to emergency situations, in a manner consistent with the observance of human rights. I do not believe that the request of the Human Rights Commission goes beyond the point of believing that there should be some resolution to industrial problems. I believe that it goes to the point that legislation brought forward to try to resolve industrial problems should be brought forward in such a way that it resolves them and does not cause a situation of confrontation between the unions and the people involved in a dispute. When I use the word 'people', I mean the consumers. We have a situation where the Premier of Queensland has been requested by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in a telex to meet with the Federal Government and the trade unions to discuss the problems that exist and to try to bring about some resolution to the industrial problems. I have not heard many honourable senators on the opposite side of the House asking that that meeting take place. I again say that I cannot see what is wrong with sitting around a table in an attempt to resolve the industrial dispute in Queensland, to try to resolve the position that has developed, in the best interests of the trade unions, the consumer and, for that matter, the Government, the country and the economy at large. Senator Reynolds —But the Queensland Premier doesn't want that. Senator JONES —No, he does not believe in conciliation or arbitration. He believes in confrontation. The Human Rights Commission also said that, if the Queensland Government does not repeal the Act or bring it into line with Australia's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Commonwealth Government should consider introducing legislation which would make the provisions of Article 8 of the Covenant applicable as part of Australian law. We, as an Australian Government, are signatories to the Covenant. I add that in the course of our becoming signatories to that Covenant agreement was reached with the various States of Australia, including Queensland, to Australia becoming a signatory to the convention of the International Labour Organisation. This would have the effect of converting the obligation resulting from the annexation of the Article to the Human Rights Commission Act into a specific Bill of rights provision, having the force of law. It would make it possible to challenge in a court the validity of any inconsistent State legislation, such as that which I believe now sits on the books in Queensland. The Commission also recommended that consideration be given to amending the Human Rights Commission Act to allow the Commission to receive and to inquire into complaints of infringement by the States of Article 8 of the Covenant, which declares that no one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour, as they are now required to do under the State Act. This, of course, is in direct contrast to the thrust of the Queensland legislation. As I have said, the economy of the nation is in good hands after eight years of total mismanagement by the previous discredited Fraser Liberal-National Party shambles of a coalition. I believe that we should look at the overview set out in the report entitled 'Outlook for the Aviation Industry', an information paper printed in March 1985. I believe that that overview shows very clearly the position of the Australian economy and the role that the Australian Labor Government has played in bringing that economy back to a reasonable position of competition with economics throughout the world. I quote from that report: The sharp recession in the Australian economy which commenced in early 1982 bottomed out in the June quarter 1983. Since that time, the economy has rebounded strongly. Important factors in the recovery in 1983-84 were the substantial fiscal stimulus, improved economic and trading conditions internationally, a bumper year for farm production and, importantly, a sharp slowing in wages and prices which enabled the recovery process to proceed more swiftly than would otherwise have been expected. If we had not had that recovery, if we had not had that slowing of wages and prices, I do not believe that we would be able to say that the trade union movement in Australia has been reasonable in accepting the accord when it was put forward, which allowed a slowing down of the wages process in Australia. The report further states: The pick-up in activity strengthened and broadened as 1983-84 progressed. In the second half of the year, private business fixed investment increased and private non-farm stock building turned from decumulation to accumulation. Inflation, by all measures, declined substantially during the year, due largely to moderation in wages growth. Again there is a mention of the responsibility of the trade union movement in relation to wage growth in the Australian economy. It continues: Employment grew strongly and there was a reduction in both the level and rate of unemployment. I could continue to read through that information paper and find a view that the Australian Government has managed the economy well. Even the Opposition's attempt at talking down the economy today will not halt the growth of the economy under the Hawke Labor Government. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(3.47) —I am very disappointed that no Minister has been in this House in the debate so far and it appears that there will be no Minister for the remainder of the debate. I now see the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) is standing in the wings ready to make his entry and I welcome that entry. This is a very critical time for Australia and this is a vital subject for the Australian Government and for this Parliament. I believe that it is important for us to have the ears of Ministers and for the messages that are coming from this Senate today to be transmitted to the Government of the day. The Australian Democrats endorse the matter of urgency, which is in the following terms: The need for the Government to provide leadership on economic policy and to act effectively against industrial disruption despite its obligations to the trade union movement. There is such a need. It is a matter of urgency and therefore we will be voting in favour of this motion. Of course governments should be providing leadership-leadership on economic policy and leadership which would effectively minimise industrial disruption. But we have to ask: What kind of leadership? I would like to spend a few minutes looking at the alternatives that have been provided by recent governments. During the Fraser era we had a very predictable, very easily read, type of leadership. Everybody was aware of what was going to happen. We were going to have confrontationism, which was destructive to our economy and destructive to our industrial relations system. We were going to have a degree of brinkmanship that took any major, or even some minor, industrial disputes right up to the precipice until finally somebody had to back away. In contrast to that I think the Hawke years have so far been far from predictable. In fact there is a lack of positive moves coming out of the Government in a number of areas, particularly those that have already been discussed this afternoon. Although the Government gives good rationalisation for its lack of effectiveness, its lack of involvement in many of these areas, I believe the country is looking for a form of leadership which it currently lacks. The problem for this economy is often not what stand the Government is taking but whether the Government makes a stand at all. I want to stress that leadership does not necessarily equate with intervention. The solution is not merely a matter of government intervention to support, for instance, the Australian dollar; there are many other steps that this Government could be taking. If I have time I would like to look at some of those. The difficulty that this country is facing at the moment is that the Australian Federal Government's position seems to be that it is taking no stand on the current industrial dispute in Queensland. On the one hand it is taking no stand against the misuse of the criminal law by the Government of Queensland in its deprivation of civil rights to its people and its destruction of the industrial relations system, and on the other hand it is taking no stand against the unions in terms of the secondary boycotts that we saw last Friday. We, the Australian Democrats, want a maintenance of essential services but we want those essential services maintained with a limited right to strike, while upholding everyone's civil rights. Not just unionists but non-unionists have civil rights when it comes to the matter of a strike affecting everybody, particularly through secondary boycotts. What may well happen, out of the Queensland dispute, is an exacerbation and a spreading of that dispute across Australia. So it becomes urgent that the Government does act to prevent the spread of that dispute. We have to look a little bit deeper than just an inactive government; we have to look at the reasons for the inaction, and they become patently obvious. This Government consistently takes no action, makes no decision against two major powerful groups in this community, the unions-the Australian Council of Trade Unions-and big business, because it is trying to be all things to all people and, of course, it is finding that it cannot be. It cannot keep all of the promises, fulfil all of the obligations that it has made to the protagonists in certain areas. Because of that it is being perceived not just in Australia but internationally as politically weak and indecisive and people are now asking: 'What are this Government's policies? Where can we look to to find out the direction that this Government is likely to take?' We cannot look to its policy statements. If we looked at its uranium policy statement and at what it has done with it, we would have to assume that it will turn its other policies on their heads each time it makes a decision. We cannot even follow the announcements made by its Ministers. Many of us believed the Treasurer (Mr Keating) when he said that there would be up to six foreign banks introduced into this country to spread the competition, but when the pressure was put on him from the international banking system that six went up to a massive 16, which did not just modify the banking system in Australia, it virtually changed it overnight. Senator Button —That is a lot of rubbish, Senator. Senator JACK EVANS —It is absolute fact. I would like the honourable senator to come into the debate later on and deny that the Treasurer promised us six and gave us 16. If he still maintains that that is rubbish, I will provide him with the proof. What we have is a government which is not even following its past rhetoric. Its past rhetoric would have us now paying about two-thirds of the current price for each litre of petrol, but it maintains a policy introduced by its predecessor despite its vigorous opposition to that when it was in opposition. We have a government whose Aboriginal land rights policy is thrown out the window every second day because a pressure group is able to impose its will on the government of the day. We have a government whose policies on defence seem to be changing daily. Who knows what its policy will be next week on MX missile tests? Who knows what its policy will be next week on foreign investment? Because of that indecision we are going into a tax summit with an almost total lack of commitment by the Government to implement any genuine tax reform, with a declining interest in the summit itself because people are losing confidence in that summit, and, as a result of this Government's backing away from tough issues, a feeling of uncertainty about where this Government is heading in terms of its tax policies, because after the tax summit no plans are known, there is no timetable and there are no means of implementing what will come out of the tax summit. There are no guarantees that anything will happen after the tax summit except that we will have a few more band-aids in the 1985 Budget in August. Senator Cook —You have to respect the right of the parties to have a summit and to have their say. Senator JACK EVANS —Indeed, that is why I applauded from the outset, and continue to applaud, the concept of the tax summit; because I believe that it is a magnificent opportunity for the people of Australia to have some input. The question that I am raising is: Is there any commitment to the Government to act following the tax summit, because we have seen each straw man argument put up by one member of the Government shot down by others, either within the Government or pressuring the Government to ensure that there will be very little change in Australia's tax system? Senator Cook —It is called debate. Senator JACK EVANS —It is debate, but the honourable senator is missing my point. Internationally it is being seen as a wishy-washy, no policy, no direction and leaderless government, and that is what this debate is all about. We need that leadership, we need that direction and we need to know which way this Government is pointing Australia. The Government has had and used every opportunity to blame the cause of Australia's slide in its economy on what happened at the end of the 1970s and early 1980s, when we had a government, the Fraser Government, talking up the economy to the point of a quite farcical situation in this country where a resources boom was virtually promised to every Australian. Those high expectations led to a massive wages push, following which we had what amounted to an economic collapse in the country. The wages push had to be followed by a responsible measure, and I applaud the Fraser Government for its wages freeze. But the wages freeze was taking us nowhere. After the wages freeze the Fraser Government had nowhere to go. Once more I applaud this Government for converting the wages freeze into a wages pause as a result of the accord, which was good for Australia. It enabled this Government to establish and obtain reasonable economic growth. Again, I applaud this Government for the economic growth policies it has implemented and followed through. However, we still have the potential for disaster as a result of the current industrial dispute. I want to talk briefly about this industrial dispute and then offer a suggestion. Industrial disputes in this country are best resolved through consensus. I have no quarrel with that approach by this Government. Under the Fraser Government the number of disputes averaged 2,266 a year. Under the Hawke Government they average 1,877 a year. Under the Fraser Government, working days lost averaged 2,400,000 a year. Under this Government, they average 1,300,000 a year, down from 2.4 million to 1.3 million-a magnificent achievement. I seek leave to have the figures that make up those averages incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 1. Number of Disputes (Yearly Figures Only) Fraser Government 1976 2,055 1977 2,090 1978 2,277 1979 2,042 1980 2,429 1981 2,915 1982 2,060 Total 15,868 Average per year 2,266 Hawke Government 1983 1,788 1984 1,965 Total 3,753 Average per year 1,877 Therefore, under Hawke the average number of disputes per year is 400 (approximately) less than under Fraser. 2. WORKING DAYS LOST: ('000) Fraser Government 1976 3,799.2 1977 1,654.8 1978 2,130.8 1979 3,964.4 1980 3,320.2 1981 4,192.2 1982 2,158.0 1983 January 105.5 February 102.4 Total 21,427.5 Yearly average 2,989.8 Hawke Government 1983 March 1,098 To December 1984 1,305.9 Total 2,403.9 Average 1,311.21 Fraser total 21,427,500 Yearly average 2,989,800 Hawke total 2,403,900 Average 1,311,210 Senator JACK EVANS —I thank the Senate. What we need now is genuine leadership, not just from the Government but from the whole country, particularly our political leaders. I call on the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Messrs Peacock and Howard, to stop deliberately destabilising this economy and denigrating Australia's prospects. While they may think they are talking to Australian voters only, they are being heard by international bankers, international traders and international governments. Mr Peacock should be using his good offices right now to get Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen to draw back, just as the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, is pressuring the Australian Council of Trade Unions to draw back. Unfortunately, Messrs Peacock and Hawke seem to suffer from having albatrosses around their necks-on the one hand, the Joh Bjelke-Petersen Government, and, on the other, the ACTU. There is a problem with the Bjelke-Petersen leadership. It is aggressive. It is non-negotiable. It will not negotiate. Meanwhile, everybody suffers. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen is emulating Margaret Thatcher, who beat the miners in the United Kingdom but who destroyed her country's economy in the process. That is the lesson for Australia. Do we want to go down that path? Do we want union confrontationism to spread around this country to the point where the unions are destroyed, but so is the economy? God help us if we go down that path. This motion states that the Government needs 'to act effectively against industrial disruption'. I ask the following questions: What would the Liberal Party, which moved this motion, have the Government do? Would it get this Government involved in a State's industrial dispute? Of course not. Would it legislate to uphold International Labour Organisation conventions by making Bjelke-Petersen laws illegal under Australian Acts of Parliament? No, it does not want that. Would it have the Government publicly attack its own, the ACTU, from which it draws its power, as we saw over the weekend? Of course it would want that to happen, but would the Liberals attack big business? Would the Nationals publicly attack the mining companies? No. This Government must act effectively to resolve industrial disputes, not exacerbate them. The Government should work with the States to endeavour to prevent industrial disruption, particularly giving attention to essential services. I offer the good offices of the Australian Democrats to this Government and to the Bjelke-Petersen Government to resolve the current dispute and to establish guidelines to ensure that there is no repetition of it. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(4.04) —I rise to support my colleague Senator Lewis. However, before I make the comments I intend to make, I address some remarks to Senator Jones and Senator Jack Evans. Senator Jones gave members of the Senate who are present a barrage of statistics. However, he did not give us an explanation for two things. He did not give us an explanation for what is either this Government's incapacity or its unwillingness to ensure industrial peace in Queensland. He did not comment on or give us any explanation of why, despite all the figures he provided, the international judgment on our economy is not good. The floating dollar tests that international judgment. The falling dollar proves it. The Labor Government may think it is doing well but the rest of the world does not agree. I ask Senator Jones what he says about the comment of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), which appeared in this morning's Australian. The Minister-Senator Lewis has already referred to this quotation-said: Too easy resort to strike action in the provision of essential services provides a clear atmosphere in which the kind of legislation used by the Queensland Government and the kind of attitudes expressed by the Federal Opposition attain legitimacy. For Senator Jones to have made the comment he did and Mr Willis to have made the comment I quoted shows yet again the factionalism and disputes within the Australian Labor Party. Senator Jones went on to describe what the Human Rights Commission has to say about what is happening in Queensland but not what the Government is going to do about it. Leadership requires more than reading reports. The Government should put its money where its mouth is, but it simply does not have the nerve. The honourable senator asked: What is wrong with offering talks to the Queensland Government? However, he did not tell us why that offer was not made to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Is that all this Government can offer to solve this dispute-a few talks? That is no kind of leadership to be offering in this desperate situation. Senator Jack Evans —How else are you going to solve it if you do not talk? Senator VANSTONE —Senator- Senator Cook —Fines and penalties don't work. Senator VANSTONE —If the honourable senator does not mind, I have the call at the moment. I will do him the good service of listening to him when he has the call. Senator Jack Evans went on to cite the reduction in hours lost under this Government due to industrial disputation as compared with the number of hours lost under the Fraser Government. They are very impressive statistics when one looks at them on their own. However, Senator Evans did not tell us the price of the sweetheart arrangements with the ACTU to get that result, the cost of that agreement to individual Australians, to entrepreneurs who are out there trying to earn an honest dollar for themselves and, in doing so, creating employment for other Australians against the growing tide of on-costs, the backdoor way out of the accord. Senator Lewis referred to the article which appeared in the Australian on 20 April under the heading 'The time has come for the leader to lead'. It is my suggestion that none of us hold our breath. The article concludes: If Mr Hawke leads strongly the party and the unions have got to follow. They have no other leader who can keep them in power. It is up to you Mr Hawke. That is quite true, but what is the Prime Minister doing? There are two areas in which we need leadership most at the moment. The motion before us highlights those areas-the economy and industrial relations. The falling value of the Australian dollar is a very clear measure of the declining confidence in the Australian economy. It is a measure of declining confidence in the managers of that economy. Who are those managers? Obviously, the most prominent are Mr Hawke and Mr Keating. What a downhill slide these two gentlemen are on! Mr Hawke's plumage was, some time ago, strong and colourful. He had many feathers in his cap. He was the great negotiator, the great conciliator. He was swept to the top of his Party when he entered Parliament. He was swept to power in 1983. He was Mr Seventy-two Per Cent. Unfortunately the plumage is now not so attractive and the feathers are falling out. This is not only unattractive for Mr Hawke; it is unattractive for all Australians. The 1983 election cast a new light on this picture. It was the first sign of a loss of confidence. Then we had the MX missile saga. How embarrassing and degrading, not so much for Mr Hawke but for this nation. How belittling for us, and a dent in our national pride, to have one of our leaders having to fluctuate on the decisions and the agreements that he makes with other countries because he cannot control his Party, or, should I rephrase that- Senator Button —I think you had better. It could not be understood the first time. Senator VANSTONE —Perhaps if the Minister paid more attention he would understand what I am saying. Senator Button —No, try again; rephrase it. Senator VANSTONE —I will rephrase it. I will say that perhaps Mr Hawke had to alter that decision because he had lost the confidence of his Party. I could go on with a long list of the sorts of things that have created this loss of confidence. However, the simple facts are that we should really let the people decide. Domestically that has happened. As honourable senators all know, Mr Hawke is no longer seventy-two per cent or whatever he was. He is down in the fifties now. Internationally, the judgment has been made on our dollar. It has fallen to an all-time low. The other party in what is not so much a leadership contest but a duo is Mr Keating, the winner of the Euromoney's Finance Minister of the Year award. Big deal! Mr Keating has won an award from a magazine. However, that does not do anything for the Australian dollar. I refer honourable senators to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of Saturday, 20 April, headlined: 'Keating's Wall Street honeymoon over'. The article states: They-- meaning the international community-- are asking where the earnings are going to come from, whether the Government can manage itself, what it is doing to bring the economy back to a realistic long-term growth. Well may we ask: Can the Government manage itself and what is it doing or going to do to bring the economy back to realistic long term growth? Why is the value of the dollar so low? This morning Mr Ken Williams of the Confederation of Australian Industry, on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's AM program, said: There is little doubt in the minds of the business community that the low value of the Australian dollar reflects two specific factors. One is the decline in control of the Labor Party on its own affairs in Australia and secondly, the fact that we are persisting in costing ourselves out of world markets. Let us take a few minutes more to look at what another paper has to say. The Australian Financial Review, in this morning's editorial, under the headline 'The dollar's ill wind', states: The message which we are getting loud and clear is that the Australian economy is no longer held in much respect by the other major countries and businesses with which we deal. The article goes on to say that the rest of the world can see: . . . the clear failure of the Government to come to terms with a union movement which is not able or willing to concede that the Australian economy needs to go through a period of substantial, and inevitably painful, readjustment. This loss of confidence in the dollar and the economy has been added to by the Government's indecision with respect to a major part of any economic policy, and that is the taxation system. For months on end various Ministers, members of the Government and various other people in the community have been trotting out their preferred tax package. We all await the tax summit. In my view, it is the biggest lucky dip in which this nation has ever participated. Younger honourable senators may remember the last time they took part in a lucky dip. Inevitably, one was not satisfied with the prize one received. I do not believe that it is the function of the summit to decide what the tax policy of this Government should be. I believe that this Government should be offering leadership and showing the way, and it should be declaring now what its intentions are in that area. The Government should also be making its intentions clear with respect to the next national wage case. Will it support wage discounting to cater for the effects of the falling dollar? The ACTU says no. Let us not forget that Labor does not run this country alone. It is in a coalition with the ACTU, de facto though it may be, but it may as well be de jure because when the ACTU calls, Bob Hawke answers. The grip that that body has on him and this Government renders him and the Government impotent. Recent events in Queensland have shown just how true this is. I refer honourable senators to an article written by Paul Kelly in the Australian of Friday, 19 April, in which he said: The danger for Mr Hawke in the present situation is his political impotence, which is a condition that no Prime Minister can long tolerate. Politics is about power and the leader who lacks the capacity to wield power will soon find his position undermined. We all know what happens to a drover's dog when it loses the capacity to keep the sheep in line. Hawke's impotence, Labor's impotence-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! I have not interrupted before, but it is normal courtesy in this place to refer to people by their correct names-Mr Hawke, or Dr so and so. Senator VANSTONE —I am sorry, Mr Acting Deputy President. Mr Hawke's impotence-Labor's impotence-creates a lack of confidence in our dollar and allows union irresponsibility to rise to its full height. That is why the Government allowed the situation in Queensland to reach such an unfortunate state. That is why it has let union demands override it. That is why the unions got away with refusing to collect government moneys. The Government has been made impotent by the ACTU stranglehold. The Government's corporate model, the model that takes account of the Government, the ACTU and big business and forgets individual Australians and individual States, is pulling this country down because it does not work. Let us look at what Mr Willis had to say, as reported in the Australian this morning. Referring to the Premier of Queensland, he said: . . . the Premier had introduced a battery of anti-union laws which denied basic democratic rights and civil liberties and were an over-reaction to the problems. What we do not find in that report of Mr Willis's speech is what action the Government would take or has taken, and that is because it has not taken any action. If the Government had solved the problem in the beginning and had stepped in and used its powers, Queensland would not be in the position that it is in today. We have had no action. We have had no leadership and, accordingly, we have an unstable dollar and an unstable industrial relations system. What is the Government doing? It is doing absolutely nothing and in my view, that is a national disgrace. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(4.16) —Today we are discussing an urgency motion on economic leadership and industrial affairs which has been moved by Senator Lewis. I think it is very important in discussing motions such as this that we look at what the Government inherited when it came into office some two years ago. It is very important to set the context for these sorts of motions that are moved by Opposition spokesmen. In 1983 when we took over the treasury bench there was the prospect of a $9,600m deficit for 1983-84. Senator Messner —Absolute rubbish! Senator MAGUIRE —That is very well documented in an excellent book by Mr Paul Kelly called The Hawke Ascendancy, in which a very gripping discussion occurs on the development of that $9,600m deficit. In each Budget Speech that Mr Howard made while he was Treasurer, the deficit was underestimated. At the time this Government came into office, we found that the unemployment level was over 10 per cent. That was despite the promise made by Mr Fraser at the beginning of his term that there would be jobs for all who wanted work in Australia. There was 10 per cent unemployment, which was a complete negation of that election promise. We had rampant inflation at the time we took office. It was double digit inflation because the rate applying in this country was 11 per cent. That was despite the policy of Mr Fraser and Mr Howard to fight inflation first. We made enormous sacrifices in the name of that policy, but on coming into office we still ended up with double digit inflation. The Liberals cannot come in here and talk about economic leadership. They cannot claim the mantle of economic leadership because the only claim that they can make is that they led us into a slump-they led us down not up-nor can they talk about being better economic managers than the members of the Hawke Government. The public no longer believes that. Opinion polls show that most people in the community now believe that the Australian Labor Party is a better economic manager than was the Liberal Party and that it provides better leadership for the economy. One of the first moves we took on coming into office was to convene the National Economic Summit Conference, which represented a range of groups. It met two years ago this month in the House of Representatives. From it developed a general consensus on economic policy. The principal goal and objective developed at the National Economic Summit was that in Australia we should pursue policies to fight inflation and unemployment simultaneously. This goal was unlike that of the Liberals, who had a simple remedy-when prices rose, they simply depressed demand and raised unemployment. Following the National Economic Summit, life was given to the so-called prices and incomes accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. That was a key step forward from the stop-go economic management policies of the Fraser-Howard Administration because what the accord did was break with the past. It enabled us to stimulate the economy in that we expanded demand in the domestic economy but with reduced inflationary consequences. That was a very big step forward and a direct result of the leadership supplied by the Labor Party in Government. Of course, the accord was a big step forward for the trade unions because for the first time it gave formal recognition to the concept of the social wage rather than just the money wage. When this Government came to office it gave new life to the wage fixing machinery of Australia and brought about a return to centralised wage fixing through the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Under the Fraser-Howard Administration a decentralised wage system had developed and, in conjunction with the resources boom in the early 1980s, costs rose enormously in the community. Certainly, in containing costs, the Liberal Party cannot claim economic leadership. It is relevant to pose today the question about wage fixation in Australia under a possible Liberal government: What sort of wage fixation machinery would be in place under a Liberal administration? Would we have a centralised wages system, as supported by Mr Macphee, or would we have a decentralised wage fixing system, as supported by Mr Howard and the so-called dry faction in the Liberal Party? I asked that question last week in a debate in this place but got no answer. The Liberal Party is unable to supply any leadership to the people of Australia on the question of what it would do about wage fixing machinery. This Government has also restored wage indexation in Australia. Not only does that protect employees against price rises, but also it provides predictability for employers in respect of wages costs. We all know that under the Fraser Government wage indexation was suspended. We have enabled a pause to occur in the consumer price index as a result of the introduction of the universal health care system, Medicare, with its associated effect on price levels. The introduction of Medicare brought about a situation where price rises were held down. The trade union movement accepted the discounting of wage rises for the introduction of Medicare. At the time, the Opposition scoffed and said that that was a technical adjustment, but I certainly did not receive letters from small businesses saying that it was a stunt or a joke. They knew that they were benefiting from lower labour costs as a result of the introduction of Medicare and its effect on the consumer price index. This Government, on taking the treasury bench took a key initiative in the establishment of the Economic Planning Advisory Council, following the 1983 National Economic Summit. For the first time in peacetime we had an economic planning mechanism in this country. It is important to note that since World War II Australia's economic performance had been very dismal indeed. For 20 years under the Menzies and Holt governments Australia slid down the league of per capita incomes to sixteenth position, from a point at the end of the Second World War where we were in the top half dozen countries in the world in per capita income. One of the reasons that Australia fell down the per capita income table in the post-war years was the sheer lack of economic planning machinery. When one looks at the performance of those economies that have exhibited high growth in the 40 years since World War II, it is very clear that those which have had the highest growth rates have some economic planning machinery in place. It is important to note that EPAC as currently constituted not only has representatives from business and trade unions, but also represents the three levels of government, small business, welfare groups and the rural sector. The previous speaker in this debate claimed that somehow this administration was a corporate administration that ignored other levels of government and small business, but they are very much part of EPAC, Australia's planning machinery. The 1983 economic statement made provision for the Government to put the Australian income tax base back on a correct footing. That income tax base had been eroded under the previous Government by the introduction of many rebates, concessions and hidden items. That 1983 statement made provision for the Government to take steps to remove those hidden taxation expenditures from the tax base and to put our income tax system back on a sound footing. Senator Messner —What were those? Senator MAGUIRE —I refer Senator Messner to the dividend rebate which his Government introduced. Mr Fraser said that he would provide an incentive for small investors to receive a rebate. When we got into office we found that the rebate applied to all investors, including the very wealthy people in this community. That is the sort of thing that had to be removed from our taxation system. In the 1983 Budget we introduced a controlled stimulus to the Australian economy over the previous years, while reining in the prospective $9,600m deficit left by Mr Howard, the former Treasurer. Part of our strategy was to expand public sector activity. At that time the private sector was very flat, with low investment expectations, and there was seen to be a need to boost public sector activity. The 1983 Budget gave emphasis to the areas of housing and public works. Under the Liberal Administration there had been a severe rundown of capital equipment and there was an urgent need for Australia's public facilities to be upgraded. We also gave priority to the vital area of housing, where we are talking not just about shelter but about a major national industry and a major employer. The housing industry is very labour intensive, and for that reason we decided to provide a major stimulus through the first home owners scheme. The community employment program was introduced to supplement the impact of a general lift in demand resulting from Budget policy. The community employment program involved an allocation of $300m a year. It was designed to help the long term unemployed in the community and to reduce those pockets of unemployment which would not be removed quickly by a general increase in demand. Since that time we have taken further measures in the economic field. We have provided further leadership; we have opened up the country's financial markets; we have floated the Australian dollar; and we have introduced for the first time, I think, economic and financial planning for the public sector at the national level, through the concept of the trilogy. It is in fact a form of economic planning for the government sector. The Hawke Government has provided leadership in the industrial relations area through a policy of consultation and discussion of the issues, not a policy of confrontation. That is a very important contrast to be made. We in Australia do not believe in confrontation in the industrial relations area, we do not believe in punitive action nor the introduction of anti-democratic laws, as have been introduced in Queensland. While the Queensland Government under the Bjelke-Petersen Administration confronts, the Hawke Government consults. Let us look at the results. The number of working days lost in Australia due to industrial disputes in the 12 months from January 1984 to January 1985 fell by 15.6 per cent, according to the Bureau of Statistics, while in Queensland the reverse applied. There was not a decline in days lost due to industrial disputes but an 83.9 per cent increase. Under the Bjelke-Petersen Government, Queensland has been going against the national trend, with increasing days lost due to industrial disputes. Australia now has the lowest level for 16 years of industrial disputes and days lost as a result of industrial disputes. Under the Hawke Government we have seen an enormous range of economic achievements. We had 10 per cent real economic growth through the 1983-84 financial year-the highest in the world. We cannot do much better than that. It is probably not feasible to obtain more than 10 per cent real economic growth, but we achieved it in 1983-84. Growth continued at 5 per cent to December 1984, very high growth indeed in real terms. We now find a situation where consumption and investment spending in the current financial year are outstripping the Budget forecast. That is a very big improvement in economic activity as a result of the achievements of this Government. Looking at the labour market situation, in the 12 months to March 1985 there was a 2 per cent growth in employment in Australia. In the same period, from March 1984 to March 1985, total unemployment fell by 4.1 per cent. They are major achievements in the economic field. In the building industry, the number of new dwellings commenced in the September quarter 1984 over the September quarter 1983-the latest figures available-went up by 27 per cent under this Government. That is an enormous real rise in building industry activity. The value of retail sales is up. As Senator Jones pointed out earlier, the value of retail sales is outpacing inflation. We have real retail sales growth in Australia for the first time in years. Look at the motor vehicle industry. We now have a situation of 11.9 per cent growth in the number of registrations of new motor vehicles in this country. That is a big rise over previous levels of activity in the key motor vehicle industry in Australia and is a tremendous achievement. Investment is growing in Australia. We now have 2 per cent more investment in this country than we had in 1983. Those are very big achievements in the consumption and investment areas. Let us look at the bottom line, the bottom line being the number of bankruptcies. Under the Liberal Government bankruptcies were at record levels in this country. Senator Messner sits there and laughs about this, but it is true. He, or at least his profession, probably did rather well out of the high rate of bankruptcies. It can be stated unequivocally that in 1984 in Australia as a whole the number of bankruptcies was 8.2 per cent below the 1983 level. That 8 per cent reduction would have been much larger but for the appalling situation in Queensland where there was not a reduction in the number of bankruptcies, in fact there was an increase of 26 per cent. This pulled the national figure up to minus 8.2 per cent. All these figures show a fairly strong range of improvements in the Australian economy as a result of leadership. Senator PARER(Queensland)(4.31) —I rise today to support my colleagues Senator Lewis and Senator Vanstone in the matter of urgency debate about the degree of confusion and uncertainty which abounds in Australia because of the total absence of leadership on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Government. This is caused by the obligations of the Government to the trade union movement. Senator Jones, in his speech, referred to this urgency motion saying, and I quote: 'Government record, the trade union record'. He did not contest the fact that there was no difference. What a damning implication which, in itself, supports this matter of urgency. He went on at great length about the past and that, I believe, is the trouble. We are talking about the present and the future, whereas we seem to have a government that is intent on living in the past. Senator Jack Evans of the Australian Democrats seemed to have a dollar on the trifecta. He talked about an inactive government, nasty unions and bad Queensland legislation. Senator Button —That would be a new posture for him, Senator. Senator PARER —I think that this is the populist attitude that we have all come to expect from the Australian Democrats. I quote from the Australian Financial Review editorial of 22 April: . . . there is no doubt that the decline of the dollar is based on much more than speculation. It represents a major reappraisal of the course of Australian economic policy, and the prospects for the Australian economy. We have witnessed the almost total collapse of the Australian dollar. Not only is there uncertainty within Australia, but there is also the strongest possible reaction overseas due to this country's present lack of direction. We have seen the Government's refusal to deregulate labour markets despite its floating of the dollar and its deregulation of the financial system. Our centralised wage system is a millstone around the neck of the Australian community as we continue to live beyond our means. Again I quote from the editorial in the Australian Financial Review: The essential element-- referring to the Australian economy-- in this is the recognition that the Hawke Government does not seem to have either the ability or the will to carry any further the process of deregulation where it matters most-in the labour market. We have seen enormous growth in the non-productive government sector at the expense of the private sector, which carries more and more of the economic burden forced on it by increased government spending. No wonder the people are sceptical about the Government's ability to deliver on this so-called trilogy. Business recognises that the forthcoming tax summit is a farce. The Australian Labor Party simply does not have a tax policy: It has several tax policies, depending on which day one reads the papers and who the latest Minister or faction is who is making a statement in the area concerned. People are legitimately concerned at the prospect of capital gains taxes, wealth taxes, death duties and gift duties. However, the Government simply will not say what it intends to do. It has been suggested to me that it does not know because Simon has not said yet. The people of Australia are really only interested in how much they are taxed, not how the taxes are raised. The real problem, the level of government spending, is not on the agenda. Cutting government spending is the only way to move in the direction of real reductions in taxation. The efforts of the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, in this area seem to have fallen on deaf ears in his own Party and even on his own front bench, whose members tend to brag from time to time about their defeat of him. Despite some success on the part of the accord in holding down wage levels, although this may be questioned in relation to growing labour on-costs, it has its price. While the Prime Minister was attempting to tell the Japanese what a reliable supplier we are, the country was being hit by a prolonged railway strike in the Hunter Valley which prevented coal from being shipped to overseas markets. Similarly, in recent weeks we have seen in the Bowen Basin a prolonged strike simply over where a bonus should be paid. It was eventually settled by arbitration, but the question is why there was a strike. I think that there are a group of people in the trade union movement who tend to think there must be a strike in order to soften up the opposition, even though it is totally unnecessary. The Government's own Public Service unions recently refused to accept a Government-supported Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission decision, causing enormous delays in the collection of revenue. The Government stands idly by during a massive attack on the people of Queensland by the Australian Council of Trade Unions because of the refusal of a union to guarantee the delivery of essential services. Queensland is a sovereign State and has the right to make laws in that State. People who do not like those laws can challenge them in the courts if they are thought to be illegal or can vent their anger at the ballot box. These are the guarantees of our democratic society, not the weapons of industrial blackmail. Instead of firm government action, we witnessed blockades and black lists that have been condoned by the Government. This same Government refuses to pass legislation to prevent its own employees from engaging in industrial reprisals on the people of Australia. The Prime Minister now admits that he will accept the Queensland legislation as long as it is not used. In other words, in saying this he recognises that the people of Australia are fed up with disruptions to essential services and that something must be done. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) now argues that unions should not abuse the strike weapon. But what has the Hawke Government done about it? Absolutely nothing. The question of using section 45D of the Trade Practices Act has been raised. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) last week claimed that the legislation had never been used. He must have forgotten the fact that in 1977 Utah and the Australian Government used this legislation to gain an interim injunction to restrain the Seamen's Union of Australia in its actions in not handling flags of convenience vessels. The injunction was obtained and the subsequent High Court appeal by the union was thrown out. With all our financial problems, the miners unions are now meeting in Brisbane this week to plan a strategy to disrupt the coal export trade because those companies happen to be on the hit list of 51 companies. The coal export trade at present cannot afford such an attack by the unions. As I have said earlier, we have already had the Hunter Valley attack at the time of the visit of the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Nakasone. Our Prime Minister at the time told us that we were a reliable partner with whom Japan could trade. We have had a three- or four-week strike in Queensland in respect of the bonus and now the unions are talking about going out again. This is suicidal for our economy, yet the Government stands by and says and does nothing. Senator Cook —That is not true, Senator. The Government has said quite clearly that it favours negotiation to settle the Queensland dispute but Joh will not come and negotiate. You would be better off encouraging him to do that. Senator PARER —I will answer that point in a second. Mr Hawke takes his orders from the ACTU, and this is where we have our major problem today; we are not too sure which part of the ACTU, especially if one looks at last weekend's actions. He will not say what he will do about discounting consumer price index wage rises for the devaluation of the dollar. He hedges over the possible granting of productivity wage increases, despite their likely inflationary threats. It is little wonder that business and the community, both here and overseas, have such little confidence in the current direction-or lack of it-of the Australian economy. There is no leadership on vital national issues. Our trading partners perceive a government in disarray, unable to take tough economic decisions and to deal with industrial anarchy. The decisions of government are taken by factional brawling and by union leaders. What will our overseas markets make of a union declaration of war on a State of the Commonwealth? This Government is seen for what it is. It is reduced to settling internal party disputes by fist fights. If this is an example of consensus and accord, it is little wonder that those who initially welcomed the spirit of the 1983 summit are now asking whether the accord is worth the costs. In conclusion, I quote from the Australian of 19 April, which states: . . . the flip side of the Accord is that the Government assist the ACTU when it fights a battle deemed as decisive for its union power and principles. This is the Accord's political underbelly which Mr Hawke has pretty successfully disguised so far and which Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen has effectively exposed. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(4.41) —It seems that the Opposition is so persuaded by its case that the last two speakers on the Opposition side have declined to use their full time and finished five minutes early. However, that does not in any sense detract from the Government's answer to this matter of urgency. It is, today, a matter of urgency that is being proposed in the Senate-not, as it was last week and earlier, a matter of public importance. The significant difference about today's debate is that a vote will be taken at the end of it. Rather than just a general expression of opinion, we shall see where individual senators stand. After dealing with the content of this matter of urgency, I want to come to a proposition that I would put honestly and, I hope, sincerely, to the Opposition: That is, that those Opposition senators who are concerned about civil liberties, those of them who have, during their careers, come to be commonly recognised as small 'l' liberals, should vote with the Government on this matter of urgency, because otherwise they will be placing themselves in a position of giving de facto recognition to major adverse actions taken by the Queensland Government against civil liberties, and, on the record of where they, as senators, have stood in the past, they will be making a mockery of some of the very sound and proud stands that they have taken in defence of the rights of the individual and general rights in the community. The Government is taking this urgency motion very seriously, even though it would appear that the debate on this matter of urgency, a serious matter in itself, is led from the Opposition side by the most junior senators, supported by two of the most junior senators in this chamber. If that is the degree of importance that the Opposition attaches to a matter of urgency, one can assume only that it is not a very serious matter of urgency at all and that, in fact, it is what the speeches of the Opposition betray it to be-a political stunt, a sleazy vote-getting opportunity. It does not address the issues. The Government is deadly serious about its management of the economy and about industrial relations in this country. Last Thursday the national accounts came out. One need not go much further than an analysis of what the figures revealed to see, as all the headlines around the country reported, that the national accounts indicate strongly that the Australian economy is beginning to improve even more, that the emphasis has been shifted from government sector stimulus to private sector stimulus, that investment from the private sector is lifting, that our inflation rate remains low, that our growth figures are coming on track nicely, and that what this Government set out to do when it took power-to provide a fiscal stimulus to the economy through the government sector and then withdraw to allow the private sector to move in and take over-is occurring. I cite the headlines of several newspapers: 'Economic news good', said the Australian of 19 April, while indicating that the dollar stays down. The Age said: 'Dollar at new low despite good economic news'. The Australian Financial Review ran a special headline. It dealt with the dollar, but it said, 'despite a strengthening economy'. We are witnessing a resurgent domestic economy, but a falling dollar because it seems that international money markets are unable to come to grips with the subtleties of Australian economic growth and to make judgments-which they may well make from the textbook of the political opposition which the Opposition propounds-on mirages and false assumptions. All commentators are united in the view that the Australian dollar was overvalued under the previous Administration. It is now emerging, in my view, to be undervalued, but I believe there is absolutely no need to panic, as this Government has said. If we were to panic, we would be repudiating the courageous decision which this Government made, and which the previous Government refused to make because it lacked the political courage-the decision to float the dollar. We made that decision. In all the cries coming from the Opposition now, is it asking us to end the float, or to make it a dirty float, by intervening to prop up the dollar? The Opposition is not saying any of those things, because it recognises that the economic choice of floating the dollar was the right one for the health of this economy. Opposition senators do not have the courage to say now that it was not right, but what they then turn their attention to are the inflationary effects that it might have in terms of the CPI. In terms of the CPI and what will happen to future wage growth by the inflationary impact of a falling dollar translating itself into higher domestic inflation, I can tell Opposition senators not to worry. The Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Government have already had discussions about it. The fact is that the impact of the falling Australian dollar will not show up in the CPI for several quarters. Also, when it does show, it will be very slight. Also, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has made clear in a number of very recent, very strong and powerful, and very persuasive addresses to the business community, there are ways and means of lightening the impact of that inflation on the CPI in such a way that we will not translate the fall into an inflationary upward spiral, for the very good reason that we have with the unions an accord. Moreover, it is an accord which has, since this Government came to power, enabled economic growth-as opposed to a negative economic growth under the previous Government-and economic growth which has meant that wages have risen but that inflation levels have remained down. That is the achievement of the accord. It has worked for the last two years because it has been effective. Just because there is a problem now is no reason to say that it is time to jettison an overall strategy which has the flexibility and the responses to the market that are necessary to make sure that what the national accounts showed last week continues and that we have economic growth. However, one ought to contrast the performance of the Commonwealth's economic management with that of the Queensland economy. Earlier in this debate, my colleague Senator Maguire very capably listed 11 key indicators, all of which told the sorry tale that while Australia was doing better in every area, Queensland was doing worse, and if Australia's overall economic performance is down, it is because the Queensland economy has pulled it down. That is the real reason. I do not intend to repeat the long recitation of key indicators that Senator Maguire has caused to appear in Hansard. They are there. It is a record of which the Opposition knows; it is a record to which the Opposition never addressed itself. Whilst there may be special factors in Queensland that affect that State's economy-international commodity prices are at a low-such factors also affect the Western Australian economy, because that State, like Queensland, is a trader in agricultural products and minerals. But if one made a comparison between Western Australia and Queensland, as Senator Maguire did for Queensland, one would find that in the Western Australian case the indicators are up. Western Australia on every front is performing positively. If we have two similar economies trading in two similar commodities and one is down and one is up the question is: What is wrong with the domestic management of the economy which is down? That brings us to Queensland, to Joh, to this strategy and to what is at the hub of this debate. What is at the hub of this debate is that in Queensland the economy is sagging because it is mismanaged. The Queensland Government must soon bring in a domestic Budget which will increase government costs and charges. Next year it will face an election and it wants to divert public attention, so it has engaged in promoting what was a routine industrial dispute, properly able to be handled by the State Industrial Commission, into a national issue. We have the old scapegoat approach of diverting the eyes of one's constituency from the real problem. That is what is happening in Australia. Moreover, the Queensland Government has done it in such a way that it has now come clean and announced that its real purpose is to try to unseat the Hawke Government. What an extraordinary statement that is by the Queensland Premier. Just five months ago we received the mandate of the Australian people yet this megalomaniac, the Queensland Premier, wants to deny us the mandate we have received to continue with the effective economic management of this country that we have so far pulled off. (Quorum formed) I notice that the Opposition does not want to hear the arguments, so it is eroding my time by calling quorums. It is the Opposition's motion and its members should be here to support it. However, let me turn now to the Queensland dispute. It is claimed by the Opposition that we are doing nothing. That is an absolute misstatement of the case. We have called for negotiations. The Opposition would be better minded to support that call for negotiations because in its heart of hearts it recognises that the only way this matter will be resolved will be by proper negotiation. I now ask a number of honourable senators from the Opposition benches to indicate whether they will consider supporting the constructive face of this motion by joining the Government in the vote that will shortly be taken and voting down the motion in order to support what the Hawke Government has done in calling for negotiations and to allow the Prime Minister, who has an enviable record of industrial conciliation, to use that experience and skill to the benefit of resolving this problem for Australia. I give that invitation on the grounds that, if Opposition senators vote for this motion, they will be voting for de facto approval of some of the laws that the Queensland Government has enacted. Senators Chaney, Missen, Puplick, Hill, Guilfoyle and Rae-I would have included Senator Vanstone before I heard her address-have records as senators who support basic human rights; they are regarded universally as little 'l' liberals. I ask those honourable senators, given that the legislation enacted in Queensland does not go to emergency powers but to ordinary powers that would be provided to the police and the Government, given the gerrymander and rorting of electoral laws that have occurred in Queensland, and given their notions as decent human beings of democratic rights for Queensland electors, to consider supporting the Government in three areas. The legislation in Queensland is basically an offence against the separation of powers; it is basically a reversal of the onus of proof and it is basically in part a gagging of freedom of speech. In those three areas, as little 'l' liberals, they should find common cause with this Government in voting that legislation down. On the issue of the separation of powers, the Commission made a decision. The Commission is separate from the Queensland Government; it is not a government agency; it is independent from the Government. It made a decision and the response of the Queensland Government was to avoid that properly constituted independent authority, the Commission, and to enact legislation to set aside the Commission's decisions and to bring in new legislation. What an offence against democracy! On the issue of reversal of proof, in Queensland one has now to prove that one did not do something. What has happened to the longstanding basic British policy that one is innocent until proved guilty? The burden of proof in criminal proceedings-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.56) —Firstly, I commend my colleague Senator Lewis for bringing forward today this very important motion of urgency. It is indeed an urgent matter that the Government is failing to provide leadership to the Australian people in a time of crisis such as we now evidence by the falling Australian dollar and, the collapse of confidence in this Government and in the industrial framework over which it claims to have a monopoly of power. Consequently, it is leading this economy into a disastrous state. This nation is indeed facing a crisis of confidence. It is a lack of confidence not only in the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) but also in his Government's policies. Today we heard Senator Maguire tell us at great length about some of the great virtues of the so-called Hawke Government in managing the economy. But what did he omit? Let us just consider one of those very important points which stem from the failure of this Government in leadership. The most important aspect that we face at the moment is the colossally high real rate of interest in this country, which has gone up by some 500 per cent in the last year. Real interest rates are the measurement of the nominal interest rate normally payable on bonds, debentures and things of that kind after allowing for inflation. A year ago that rate was 1 1/2 per cent. It is now over 6 per cent. That is the highest real interest rate seen in this country for 50 years. The result of the existence of that interest rate will be quite clear to this Government, and perhaps even to Senator Maguire within a short period because of the major disincentive that that causes to businesses and to individuals who are faced with the purchase of big ticket items. Such people will determine that they will not purchase and, consequently, that flows through to the economy with a slackening of demand and eventual unemployment. Of course, that is the sort of consequence which Senator Maguire fails dismally to address, as does every other honourable senator on the other side of the chamber. Indeed, we are not surprised because Government senators are well known for not getting behind the Government and facing up to the facts when they are brought to their attention. We see the Government divided into at least three parts. We need no other example of that than the events of the weekend in Victoria with the slashing and cutting that took place. I was going to say ducking and weaving but it was in fact quite the opposite. The film Rocky was shown on television in Canberra last night. I guess that was run for the special reason of instructing Australian Labor Party senators from Victoria on how to use their fists. Clearly there are major divisions within the Australian Labor Party all over Australia and those divisions are becoming clear not only to the people of Australia but obviously, also, to the people from overseas who are investing in this country and who are trying to assess the future direction of Australia's economy. It is that loss of confidence, coupled with a loss of faith in this Government's policies in regard to the MX missile issue, amongst other things that is leading these investors to understand that this Government has lost control over the affairs of the nation. That more than anything else is obviously having a significant effect upon the value of the Australian dollar. But there are even more fundamental reasons for the fall in the Australian dollar which demonstrate the lack of leadership of the Australian Government. Those reasons go right back to the arbitration system and the system of wage fixation as we know it in this country at the moment. Costs in Australia have been running rampant. We have heard statements to smooth over this problem; the Government has told us how little the level of wages has grown in relation to the growth in the rate of inflation over the last year. It says that wages have grown by only about 2.6 per cent in the last six months or so but the truth of the matter is that businessmen find when they do their profit and loss accounts that labour costs have risen by more than 13 per cent. One of the reasons for that is the huge increase in on-costs attributable to such things as workers compensation payments and other amendments to the award system. This Government tends to ignore those costs but they are occurring all the time. Those costs are destroying jobs in Australia; they are destroying opportunities for young Australians to get jobs and are forcing more and more middle-aged people into unemployment rather than enabling them to work right through to retirement. I make just one point about the Queensland blockade. It is highly significant that, as demonstrated by what happened last week, this Government has once again failed to give any leadership in relation to the Queensland problem. Once the Australian Council of Trade Unions announced that it would blockade Queensland last Thursday the dollar fell very heavily indeed on international markets. I think it fell by three cents, in United States currency, on the day of that announcement. That again was an indication of the failure of this Government to come to terms with the real problems and the widespread and well-held perception overseas that the Government does not have control of itself or of the nation's affairs. The automatic consequence was a collapse in faith in the Australian dollar. These are the things with which this Government has to come to terms. We cannot really expect it to do that; we know how bad the divisions within the Australian Labor Party are. They are on the front page of the newspapers every day. How can the Government be expected to provide leadership for the nation when the Prime Minister and his cohorts cannot even provide leadership for their own party. That sort of thing is very clear to Australians and, unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly clear to the rest of the world. The so-called trilogy which this Government has set down as its target for achievement in the current financial year-not to increase the taxation revenue as a proportion of gross domestic product, not to increase expenditure as a proportion of GDP and not to increase the deficit as a percentage of GDP beyond a certain figure-is becoming increasingly unobtainable and consequently the perception on the world scene and in Australia amongst businessmen is that it will not be achieved. Again the Government is undermining its own statements about how it will achieve the objectives it has set itself, so is it any wonder that the Australian people are losing faith in this Government? It cannot provide leadership and it is riven by division. We know that morale amongst Labor members is extraordinarily low. They have lost the fight and certainly they cannot continue in this way in their present state. Probably the best thing that the Prime Minister can do for the nation is resign his office. Having said that, again I commend my colleague Senator Lewis for his forthrightness and for his deliberate action in bringing this motion to the attention of the Senate today and I move: That the question be now put. Senator Harradine —Mr Deputy President-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Harradine, no debate on this matter is allowed. Senator Harradine —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. This debate still has five minutes to go and I wish to speak. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question is that the question be now put. It is in the hands of the Senate whether it decides in that way or not. Question resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion (Senator Lewis's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Macklin, M. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Mason, C. V. J.Brownhill, D. Messner, A. J.Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J.Chipp, D. L. Parer, W. R.Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E.Evans, Jack Scott, D. B.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Sheil, G. (Teller)Haines, J. Short, J. R.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E.Jessop, D. S. Vigor, D.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S.Lajovic, M. E. Watson, J. O. W.Lewis, A. W. R. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Giles, P. J.Black, J. R. Grimes, D. J.Bolkus, N. Harradine, B.Button, J. N. Hearn, J. M.Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M.Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F.Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M.Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Georges, G. Zakharov, A. O. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Coleman, R. N.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Gietzelt, A. T.Kilgariff, B. F. McIntosh, G. D.Townley, M. Tate, M. C.Chaney, F. M. McKiernan, J. P.Puplick, C. J. G. McClelland, Douglas Original question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.14) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I believe that this is a matter of great importance and seriousness, particularly to the States of Queensland and Tasmania. The recommendations that are made in this report are such that the report would be a proper subject matter for full debate and not simply for the very temporary consideration that can be given to it during discussion on this aspect of the proceedings. The recommendations have been made in a rather narrow perspective and have already been overtaken by other events, such as the proposal for the tax summit and the proposal for the slashing of the 2 per cent personal income tax revenue which has been previously paid to local government and which is not now going to be paid to local government, if we can believe what the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) has not denied in this chamber when the matter has been debated. In fact, he has asserted that he will be seeking to make a very substantial cut. It is important to look at the report in the context of the Hawke Government announcements, and then retractions, the speculation relating to capital gains taxes and personal tax cuts, the possibility of broadly based indirect taxes, the reduction of payments to local government and the proposals to seek greater contributions to employment and welfare programs by local government, all of which will affect, very significantly and very seriously, the extent to which the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission is either relevant or already totally and absolutely out of date. I hope that we will be able to identify some of the ways in which this Government proposes to go about a review of gross expenditure and expenditure allocations. This will enable us to get a better idea than we did at Question Time this afternoon on such things as the amount of approximately $50m involved for the Northern Territory. There has been a unilateral disowning of an agreement which was made last year between the Federal Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Tuxworth. The agreement that was made in October and November of last year was that there would be continuation of an arrangement which had been entered into that there should be a joint review. This review made some recommendations and there was an acceptance by both sides. This involved the continuing assumption of a liability on the part of the Commonwealth for a contribution towards the cost of the superannuation scheme operating in the Northern Territory. In a unilateral statement made by the Minister, apparently that is to be just wiped out and forgotten. The Federal Minister for Finance is suggesting that that is no longer binding, although from what I can see of the correspondence to date a clear, binding agreement was made at the time. I do not wish to spend the whole time debating that matter at the moment, but it is one of the aspects of how this Government will go about funding for local government and how it will go about funding for State governments and Territorial governments before we can have a real debate on the recommendations of the Grants Commission which in some ways, I believe, are totally fallaciously based but which certainly involve cuts for Tasmania which would be more than that State could conceivably digest. The Tasmanian Government has been able to reduce the deficit and to make some responsible budgeting. It has made quite substantial cuts in its expenditure. Apparently it is now to pay the penalty for economic management responsibility. It is doing the sort of thing that we have heard the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) talk about. He has been talking about getting some rationality back into industry and some rationality into a whole lot of other areas of economic activity. It is proposed that Tasmania will pay a penalty for economic management responsibility. This could lead only to the recreation of huge deficit budgeting which would be irresponsible from a national as well as from a State point of view. Under these recommendations, Queensland would almost certainly face a similar problem. Quite obviously we need a lot more facts before the matter can be debated properly. I, therefore, seek leave to continue my remarks later. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There are other honourable senators who wish to speak on this matter. Senator PETER RAE —I am sorry. I had looked around and I had not caught the eye of any honourable senator. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —At least one honourable senator has caught my eye. Senator PETER RAE —I am sorry. That being so, I conclude by saying that I believe this matter should be discussed in more detail when further information is available of the type which I have very briefly outlined which is not taken into account and which does seriously affect the way in which the recommendations should be dealt with. I make the final point that these- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. In view of what the honourable senator has said, when all other honourable senators have spoken I will adjourn the debate in order to give him the opportunity to speak at a later stage. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.19) —Mr Deputy President, as Senator Peter Rae has said, with some extended latitude on your part, this is far too complex a report to be discussed in five minutes when it comes before the Senate. It is a very important report though because if the Commonwealth Grants Commission findings are accepted, the honourable senator has pointed out that the consequences will be very severe and very unjust to Queensland and to Tasmania-the smaller States. The history of the Grants Commission has to be borne in mind by the Senate, particularly as it is the States House. The Grants Commission was set up to to provide an equivalent level of basic services to the citizens of all Australian States, irrespective of whether they are small States or whether they are high density, wealthy States. It did not set out to provide everyone with a Rolls-Royce or a Mercedes-Benz. It just set out to provide an adequate level of roads, schools and other basic facilities to the States. Different States have different problems. My State of Queensland has some very real problems because it is the most decentralised State in Australia. It has more large towns than any other State in the country. It is a very big State, second only to Western Australia in geographic size, and the cost of providing an adequate road service, schools and all the infrastructure of society, is very expensive. With a smaller population base we simply cannot do this without some support in the form of the Grants Commission's recommendations for Queensland. One has only to drive around Victoria to realise the enormous difference in the standard of living Victorians enjoy compared with that in Queensland. If honourable senators on the other side of the chamber drove round Queensland with me on those impossible roads, became aware of the extremely high fuel cost, the high cost of car repairs and, regrettably, the very high death rate because of the poor standard of those roads, they would realise what I am talking about. I say that particularly to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, who is isolated in his cocoon in Victoria. The things the Grants Commission does not measure in its economic assessment of Australia are the intangible things such as the effect of tariff protection. Victoria has extremely high levels of tariff protection because it has a large secondary manufacturing base. Queensland does not have a big manufacturing base. As a consequence, when times are difficult and we are in a period of recession, as we are at the moment, unemployment is higher in Queensland because it does not have the cushion of tariff protection supporting its industries. So Queensland loses in all ways. The bottom line of the whole equation is this: Average weekly earnings in Queensland are less than they are in Victoria and New South Wales. We are working hard to lift them, but we simply ask for our fair share of Federal tax revenues to make up for the big problems we have because of geography and low density population. After all, we are the major export earners in Australia. We do not make money by taking in one another's washing. We make it by selling coal or manufactured products on the overseas market, and in that respect Queensland leads Australia. The red herring that is often drawn across in relation to this Grants Commission is that the Queensland Government chooses to raise its taxation revenue internally in ways that are different from those of other States. The principal way in which it does this is by the rail freight on the coal producers. I happen to think that the levies on rail freight are far too high. They are operating in a way that is counter-productive to the best interests of the coal industry. However that is a decision that the Queensland Government is perfectly entitled to make under a federal system. The Queensland Government is raising what taxes it can in the ways it chooses to do so. It is not a valid argument to make before the Grants Commission to say that because we do not pay 50c on a packet of cigarettes in Queensland, the State is not being taxed in the way it should. It is time we took a national view of where we are going in Australia and got away from the sort of parochial views that are endemic in Victoria and New South Wales. It is time we started to look for a basic level of adequate services for all Australians. I conclude by saying that I hope that once more reason will prevail with the Grants Commission, because on two previous occasions it has brought in fundamentally unsound reports which have been rejected. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.24) —The Commonwealth Grants Commission has proposed that there be a change in the relative amounts of grants to the States in this financial year. This will result in Queensland and Tasmania having their share of grants cut by $77.4m and $39.9m respectively, while grants to South Australia, will go up by $15.5m. It is good to see Senator Maguire in the chamber because for the last two weeks he has castigated Queensland about its economy. I point out to Senator Maguire that, on a per capita basis, Queensland is down the drain by $277m in Federal funding, not only through the Grants Commission but also in the areas of education, housing, Aboriginal housing and Medicare. If Senator Maguire takes that into consideration and goes back and does his sums again and comes up with the right answer I will be interested to listen to him. Every person in Tasmania will be disadvantaged by $92 and every person in Queensland will be disadvantaged by $30. I can understand Senator Peter Rae getting upset about his constituents in Tasmania. Something has to be done about this. Of course, only the free enterprise States have had their Budgets cut. Senator Robert Ray —By whom? Not by our stooges. Senator BOSWELL —By the Grants Commission. The Grants Commission has failed to take into account the situation in Queensland. It does not make allowance for Queensland being the most decentralised and the second largest State in Australia, with the accompanying higher costs of providing services throughout the State. It ignores the fact that Queensland is Australia's largest export earner, with 23.7 per cent-nearly 24 per cent-of all exports. It therefore earns more than its share of export income. Queensland's agricultural sector every year subsidises the mainly southern-based manufacturing sector to the tune of $16,000 per farmer in the payment of tariffs to protect manufacturing industry. Those figures are essentially correct. The present downturn in the sugar industry has left some Queensland towns with acute short term economic problems which deserve Federal aid. In addition, infrastructure developments are still proceeding faster in Queensland than in any other Australian State and they require government-funded services to complete their growth. The most compelling reason why Queensland should not receive any cut in the Federal grants allocation is the enormous shortfall it already suffers. As I mentioned earlier, Queensland is already short-changed by over $250m by this Federal Government. That is almost $100 for every Queenslander. On a per capita basis, Queensland is under-funded by nearly $20m in housing allocations, $53m in tertiary education funding, $6.5m in housing grants, $27m in road funding, and $1m in community youth support scheme allocations. Then there is the Medicare disaster, where we are down $52m. Yet the Grants Commission is recommending that Queensland be short-changed by another $77m. I call on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to overrule the Grants Commission. Queensland senators had a meeting in Queensland and brought forward a joint resolution. The signatures on that resolution are those of Senator Collard, Senator Bjelke-Petersen, Senator Boswell, Senator MacGibbon, Senator Parer and Senator Macklin. We had the support of all non-Australian Labor Party senators. We all know that Queensland Labor Party senators are not concerned with standing up for their State. I remind them that, under the Constitution, their first duty as Queensland senators is to represent their State and to see that it is protected in the Commonwealth system. They have missed the boat completely by their inaction. None of them was prepared to stand up for the State. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard this joint resolution of all the non-Labor senators in Queensland. Leave granted. The document read as follows- RESOLUTION FROM JOINT QUEENSLAND SENATORS MEETING HELD IN BRISBANE ON 9TH APRIL 1985. 1. That this group of Queensland Senators objects strongly to any proposal by the Commonwealth Grants Commission to cut state funding to Queensland. 2. The proposed cut of $77 million is unacceptable as it fails to take into account the special needs of Queensland. These include Queensland being the most decentralised state with high costs in communication and provision of basic community services. Queensland has a low manufacturing base therefore is not subsidized by the high levels of protection as are New South Wales and Victoria. 3. Calls on the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke and the Treasurer, Mr Keating to reject the recommendations of the Grants Commission-as did the Fraser Government in 1981 and 1982-because it is unrealistic and unacceptable. 4. Seeks a firm assurance from Mr Hawke and Mr Keating that Queensland will not be treated inequitably as will happen if they follow the recommendations of the Grants Commission. 5. Seeks changes in the guidelines to the Grants Commission set by the Federal Government to ensure such discrimination is not repeated in the future. Agreed to by Senators: Collard, Bjelke-Petersen, Boswell, National; MacGibbon, Parer, Liberal; Macklin, Democrat. Senator BOSWELL —I thank the Senate. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.30) —The importance of this report, the Commonwealth Grants Commission report on Tax Sharing Relativities, is to be found in the fact that that on 30 June this year the present legislation for the distribution of tax sharing and health grants, that is, the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act 1981, is due to expire. I agree with what Senator Peter Rae said, that it is important that an opportunity be given for a full scale debate on this document before the Senate rises. There are a number of recommendations in this document which purport-no, lest that be thought of as a reflection upon the Commission itself or the members of the Commission- which seek to go to the terms of reference which were given to the Commission. Those terms of reference are set out in Attachment II of the document that we have in front of us, in a letter to Mr Justice Else-Mitchell from the Special Minister of State, Mr Mick Young, on 10 February 1984. Those terms of reference are, inter alia: 1. Pursuant to sections 16 and 16A of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973, I hereby refer to the Commission for inquiry and report, by 31 March 1985 at the latest, on the question of the per capita relativities for distributing tax sharing grants which the Commission would regard as appropriate to apply after 1984-85 to: (a) a distribution of tax sharing grants among the States only; and (b) a distribution of tax sharing grants among the States and Northern Territory with the Northern Territory being treated on the same basis as the States. What the Minister then said to the Commission was: 2. The Commission's assessment should: (a) be based on the application of the principle that the respective tax sharing grants to which the States are entitled should enable each State to provide, without having to impose taxes and charges at levels appreciably different from the levels imposed by the other States, government services at standards not appreciably different from the standards provided by the other States; and (b) take account of- (i) differences in the capacities of the States to raise revenues; and (ii) differences in the amounts required to be expended by the States in providing government services of a comparable standard. Having considered those terms of reference the Commission has come down with a recommendation which, in effect, as Senator Rae said, means that Tasmania will get some $40m or thereabouts less than it could have expected under the current provisions. Quite frankly, I have been in negotiations with governments previously in respect of State incremental payment schemes and the like and this question has always been raised by governments at that time. Workers in the State of Tasmania have been able to point to the action that has been taken-not necessarily by the Grants Commission, because honourable senators will recall that on the last occasion, as Senator Aulich said, the Premiers Conference overrode the Grants Commission recommendation. We have always been able to point to the Commonwealth legislation, which I believe sought to implement those principles which are contained in Mr Young's letter more adequately than they are sought to be implemented by the recommendations of the Commission. I see that my time has almost expired. I believe, as Senator Rae said, that we should indeed have an opportunity to have a full scale debate on this when consideration has been given by all of those concerned in the States as to whether this recommendation will enable the States to undertake services to the public without undue inordinate pressure on people of one particular State by comparison with the burden shared by citizens in other States. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(5.35) —It was said by Senator Boswell that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) should overrule the directions or recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I simply want to point out that we cannot have it both ways: Either we play this by way of a political game, if that is the right term, or we set up these commissions to bring down reports upon which we act. It is not good enough to set up bodies and, when they bring down decisions which are adverse to the way we want to deal with things, simply reject those decisions. What is the point of setting them up in the first place? We might simply then talk from our sectional interests-we are a sectional chamber in the sense that we are States' parties-but if we want to be seen to be independent, to be governing in the interests of Australia, we must take notice of the commissions that we set up. If we are going to accept principles it is important that we stick by those principles. It is no good setting up a commission, giving it a set of principles and then ignoring those principles if they are not to our liking, the same as with the Commonwealth Electoral Commission, which was set up to make fair boundaries. A lot of the problems in Queensland would be solved if it had set up a commission to give fair distribution to the people in Queensland. Senator Boswell —What has that got to do with the Grants Commission? Senator COONEY —It has a lot to do with the Grants Commission, and I will tell Senator Boswell why. The honourable member has said to the Prime Minister: 'You must ignore those principles that were set up to guide the Commission'. That is what is happening with everybody from Queensland. They are ignoring those principles which should guide proper democratic government. As was said by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in America in talking about legislators dealing with electoral distribution: Legislators should represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not by farms or cities or economic interests. I simply say this in answer to Senator Boswell: The principles that should guide us are the principles which bring about the better entitlement of people, the freedom of people and the better representation of people, which is not being done in Queensland at the moment because all sorts of principles, except the right principles, are used to rob the people-I say that advisedly-of Queensland of their ability to return a government which is democratically elected. If that government was democratically elected I think honourable senators would find that a lot of the problems that now-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Cooney, you are getting very wide of the subject. Senator COONEY —Yes, I understand, Mr Deputy President. I simply want to use this as a comparison with the sort of situation that was raised by Senator Boswell. I will conclude on this note: If that was done in Queensland a lot of the problems that are presently there would be solved. I want to use that to correct the impression that Senator Boswell gave that the recommendations of commissions should be ignored in the interests of political gain. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.38) —I am delighted that Senator Cooney rose to speak as a senator from Victoria. From his moderate tone honourable senators may gather that Victoria has not done too badly out of the recommendations. From the impassioned comments of some of my colleagues it will not be very difficult to work out which States have ended up on the short end of the recommendations. Senator Robert Ray —Are you saying they are crook? Senator PETER BAUME —Not at all. I am about to make the point. It has been said by some cynics that in politics matters of principle are matters of money. It has also been said that matters of high principle are matters of a lot of money. These Commonwealth Grants Commission recommendations in fact are matters of high principle because they involve the distribution of certain moneys between the States on some basis other than on a per capita basis. I have been here long enough to see a number of reports come in from the Grants Commission and to see on each occasion the representatives of those States which stood to lose money, recommending that the Commission's report be put aside and that the decision be made on some other political basis. It seems to me that there is one valid ground of criticism with which people may come to the Senate, and that is to say that the basis on which the Grants Commission works is a basis which they wish to question or that the formula which the Grants Commission uses is not an appropriate formula. But they cannot come here and argue that, having put it out to the umpire, as Senator Cooney says, the recommendations are, ipso facto, ones which should be rejected simply because they disadvantage a particular State which an honourable senator might represent. I have been here when several Grants Commission reports have been presented and on each occasion have seen the recommendations of the Grants Commission, which by the way have had a marvellous constancy about them in the way they have sought to recommend action, set aside by different governments on the grounds of political pressure. We have sent the Commission to do a job. It has sent back a message. The message is a message which some people do not like. I am concerned only that now they may try to kill the messenger, as one response to the report. Whatever else they do, it is not fair to put Mr Justice Rae Else-Mitchell and his Commission under attack because people may not like the recommendations. I am perfectly prepared to accept that certain honourable senators may think that the Grants Commission has been given the wrong brief. That is all they can argue. They cannot come back and say: 'What we are really against, irrespective of the argument, is that our State came out on the short end'. That is to argue that relativities between the States never alter and that the formula which was put into place some 30 or 40 years ago is the only one which can remain. I can think of few problems more difficult for a government to face than the response to a Grants Commission report. This has not been a report from the Government. It has been a report from the Commission. I agree with honourable senators that it requires longer debate. However, as someone from New South Wales, which I understand has been in Grants Commission terms a donor State from the beginning, I say that we are very interested to see how the debate unfolds. However, we would like to see it unfold on the basis of some generosity for Mr Justice Rae Else-Mitchell and his Commission. I suggest that those who wish to attack the findings of the Commission do so on the basis that it was given a wrong brief, not that it did not do its job properly. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(5.42) —I rise to remind some honourable senators of the reasons the Commonwealth Grants Commission was set up in the first place. Primarily, it was to avoid the unwholesome and very damaging squabbles that occurred between the States and the Commonwealth Government year after year. It has worked, I think, fairly well. The only trouble, as Senator Peter Baume has pointed out, is that there has been an attempt over the years at Premiers Conferences to override what appeared to be some fairly objective recommendations by the Grants Commission. Secondly, we know that the Grants Commission was set up to get some form of objective measure in tax sharing arrangements to avoid the sort of parish pumping and gross dereliction of economic responsibilities that occurred in some of the States. Let us face it, we have had some most unusual Premiers in various States over the years-we still have one in Queensland-who have had some most unusual viewpoints about what balancing the Budget is all about. To be quite frank, all of us in this chamber should be concerned about some of the things the Queensland Premier said before some elections. The interesting thing he said before one election was that any electorate which voted against the National Party of Australia, that did not return a National Party member, deserved what it got by way of loss of privileges and economic advantages. In other words, it would not get the schools, the hospitals and so on that it was entitled to simply because it voted the wrong way. It is that sort of policy that the Grants Commission was designed and set up to overcome. I was also interested in some of the comments of Liberal Tasmanian senators. Some years ago, when I was a Minister in the Tasmanian Government, I raised the question of the Grants Commission's recommendations of the day. I mentioned that Tasmania would be severely disadvantaged by something like $65m. The support I received at the time was nil. In fact, I was abused in this chamber and in the House of Representatives by various Ministers of the day. I remember the now discredited John Howard, the Treasurer of the day, who described me as a liar because I indicated-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time under Sessional Orders for the consideration of the Government papers has expired. As discussion of the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, has been interrupted, that item will automatically go on the Notice Paper. As there will be no General Business on Thursday, I will give an opportunity to honourable senators who wish to move to take note of the papers to do so, provided they immediately move the adjournment of the debate. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.44) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.45) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.45) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.46) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.46) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.46) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present the report relating to the construction of new Commonwealth Offices, Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Ordered that the report be printed. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I inform the Senate that the President has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate relating to the membership of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator Bjelke-Petersen be discharged from further attendance on the Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes and that Senator Brownhill, having been duly nominated in accordance with the resolution re-appointing the Select Committee, be appointed a member of the Committee. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill. Debate resumed from 19 April, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.49) —I support the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill 1985. I support any action that will assist soil conservation in Australia and any help that will remedy the land degradation that Australia is experiencing. Australia suffers from the misconception that it is a food bowl-both at home and abroad. Australian rural producers are efficient and provide 40 or 45 per cent of our export earnings, which contribute greatly to the economy. Unfortunately we have an old and fragile soil composition. Climatically, we experience the diversity of wind erosion, flooding and extremes of temperature. Erosion causes continuing loss in the productivity of agricultural land. It is also costly, and it causes damage to public facilities such as roads and bridges and to water resources. At the outset, I point out that the consequences of soil erosion have long term major implications for the nation's economy. Consequently soil conservation measures in the various States have to be directed at the diverse problems of wind erosion and salinity damage and, in Queensland, the erosion caused by the intensity of the rain. It is quite common in my home State of Queensland to have five or six inches of rain fall within an hour. This carries the topsoil from the farms and the grazing stations and deposits it in the creeks. Ultimately, it finds its way down into the rivers. Unlike the southern States, where higher rainfall coincides with winter crops, Queensland receives most of its rain during the months of October, November and December when the winter crops have been harvested and before the summer crops have been planted. In the last two decades, Queensland has seen an increase in areas under crops, as is the case in many other places in Australia. A great proportion of that land requires soil conservation measures. The soil conservation service in Queensland has been quick to adopt the latest in technology, using laser equipment and computers to deal with and plan conservation measures. It is doing very commendable work in the area of soil conservation. The Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill provides assistance for conservation projects undertaken by the Commonwealth, the States, individuals and organisations. The Commonwealth has been involved in soil conservation in an administrative role since the end of the Second World War, but the States have the prime responsibility for soil conservation and have played an active role in this area for many years. This Bill gives the Commonwealth a legislative basis for involvement. The Commonwealth's role, as envisaged by this Bill, is to enhance the States' input. The Commonwealth's contribution is to be part of the States' efforts to maintain and increase their own contribution to soil conservation. It was good to note that the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), in his second reading speech, gave a commitment on behalf of the Commonwealth to co-operate with the States in their soil conservation activities. On that point, there is some concern in Queensland and, I believe, in other States, that this could be an invasion of a State's responsibility; however it is a proposal that we are prepared to accept in the interests of land conservation. Land use is the responsibility of State governments, but there is obviously a national interest involved when the conservation of the soil and its long term effects on the nation's economy are concerned and, clearly, the Commonwealth should have a financial input in helping the States to conserve their resources. This Bill establishes a Soil Conservation Advisory Committee, consisting of five to seven members. The Committee is to advise the Minister on the Commonwealth's strategies and priorities and on the proposed agreements and arrangements for project funding. Conservation projects will be funded after a written agreement is signed by the project proposer, whether that proposer be a Commonwealth or State department or organisation or an individual. This agreement sets out the financial accountability terms and controls relating to the manner of a project's operations and conditions, which must be met before the funds will be paid. The Soil Conservation Advisory Committee that this Bill establishes will consist of five to seven members. There are to be two members representing State government departments and one member from the relevant Commonwealth department and as many as four members described as having 'experience in, special knowledge of, or educational qualifications relevant to soil conservation'. Another concern I wish to express to the Senate is that the four people nominated to the Committee have a rural or primary industry background. I would hate to see this Committee get into the hands of special interest groups. As the Bill indicates, the Committee will have a number of additional members apart from the State government members and the Commonwealth representative. Control could get into the hands of some interest groups such as a greenie group or special conservationist groups that are not prepared to face the reality of the situation. Senator Peter Baume —Will you accept some soil scientists? Senator BOSWELL —Yes, certainly I would accept such people. The four non-governmental members could hold the balance of power on that Committee. I suggest that some of the four members come from a rural or primary industry background because most erosion concerns the agricultural sector, and the philosophy is held that landholders must bear the cost of the soil conservation measures. It is most necessary that producers have a say as to how land degradation problems should be treated. It would indeed be unfortunate for the well-intentioned national soil conservation program if its direction were to fall into the hands of those special interest groups that I mentioned before. It is to be noted that the Bill does not clearly state the length of time for which allocations will be made for projects. It provides that projects will be selected on an annual basis. As the Minister no doubt appreciates, soil conservation schemes often take lengthy periods to be completed and involve the commitment of personal and equipment. Many of the projects envisaged in the national program would require three to five years work before completion. It is to be hoped that continuity of funding will be possible under the annual selection process proposed in this Bill. The Federal Government's financial commitment to soil conservation is applauded by everyone. It is noted that this commitment is not supported in this Bill by a specific commitment at least to a minimum level of Federal Government financial assistance. Of the allocation of $4m committed to the program this year, Queensland will receive approximately $610,000, which it will be able to use to employ 16 people to help with soil conservation project work in that State. If the objectives of the national conservation program which this Bill encapsulates are to be supported, the landholders and the general public must be made fully aware of the importance of and their personal contribution to soil conservation. Effective soil conservation measures will cost enormous sums of money. A joint Commonwealth-State study published in 1978 found that just over half the area under agriculture and pastoral use required treatment for land degradation if productivity was to be maintained on those rural and farming areas. Capital works alone were estimated to require the expenditure of $2,000m at today's values. If we are not prepared to accept that, the alternative is to lose productivity. This figure alone illustrates the enormous costs involved. At the same time that this national program is educating the landholder and the public on the need for soil conservation measures, it is also putting an enormously costly obligation on the landowners and the farmers of this nation. Independent studies taken amongst rural Australians have shown a high degree of awareness of soil conservation needs and improvement procedures, and their willing participation in State-run soil conservation programs is very high. If the landowner, however, is being asked to contribute to soil conservation measures he must be given the financial incentive by the Federal Government in the form of reduced interest loans and greater tax deductions and rebates. This is an area in which the Commonwealth could also make a positive contribution to soil conservation by assisting the landowner and farmer. In recent years the farmer has found his costs increasing, with higher wage bills, loss of international markets and lower returns in general. Farm incomes will fall this year by a massive 29 per cent. In many cases, the landowner, despite a great commitment to soil conservation, may find that he simply cannot afford to implement soil conservation practices because of the costs involved. Assistance should be provided to the affected farmer by means of a combination of tax rebates. I am referring to a farmer who has a taxable income. The income earned by many people in rural areas is below the taxable level. At present, the average annual income of a farmer in Australia is $7,000. In the case of those people in the rural areas, and those involved in primary industry, who do pay tax, those deductions would be very much appreciated. The national soil conservation program is in its second year of operation. To date it has proven to be useful in creating general awareness and providing assistance for the implementation of measures to counter soil erosion in co-operation with the States. Under the national soil conservation program to date, the State authorities have borne most of the responsibility for distributing funds for projects in their own States under acceptably defined guidelines. It is hoped that the new arrangements for funding provided by this Bill will work equally well. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(6.00) —In this session of Parliament we have sat through the introduction of one of the least consequential bodies of legislation I have seen in my seven years in this place. Perhaps bold initiatives will come from the Government as the session draws to a close, but I somehow doubt it. This is happening in a nation which faces probably one of the most serious bodies of crises it has faced since World War II. They are problems which are gradually increasing and closing in on society. The shortage of money, the necessity for financial constraints, the fall of our dollar and the fall of our productivity are all due to what one can describe only as a series of leaks in the ship in which we are all travelling. One of these problems is the subject on which we are now speaking. It is a great pleasure for me to see that the question of the need to conserve soil has come forward in this session of Parliament. The Australian Democrats would agree that the most urgent action is required to halt the accelerating deterioration of the quality of soil in Australia. At first that must sound like a pious remark with which we would all agree-like the fact that motherhood is great-but it is rather more than that. There are those who would say that soil conservation is a boring, tedious subject. In fact it is not, because every one of us depends for life on the few fragile inches of topsoil on this planet. Australia has a lesser resource of topsoil than virtually any other country in the world. It is a resource we tamper with at our peril. If we do not starve to death as a result of the lack of topsoil, then perhaps our children or grandchildren will. It is of that order of importance. All over the world there is an increasing demand for food and more and more is required of us in export grains. More and more areas of the world are not self-sufficient in food. We therefore have a responsibility to the future in this very grave and serious area. As with so many of these things, the situation is worse than most of us suspect. Dr Brian Roberts, Dean of the School of Applied Science of the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education in Queensland, has estimated that while the rate of natural soil formation in this country is approximately ten to 15 tonnes per hectare per year-manufacturing soil is a very slow process which can in no way be hastened-the rate of loss from soil erosion, salination and general degradation of the soil is up to perhaps 300 tonnes per hectare per year. That is very much like overspending money. It is like having a chronic, gross overdraft at the bank which increases all the time, except that, in the last analysis, one cannot eat money; one can eat only the products of the soil. Far too little effort has been made by the Government to awaken the people of this country to this danger and the necessity to do something about it. I commend the Australian Conservation Foundation, which has this year identified soil conservation as a major problem of society. I hope that it can secure the support of the people of Australia. Members of the Australian Conservation Foundation have been listening to this debate, which indicates the degree to which they are on the ball. They have asked me to repudiate the contentions of the previous speakers that the ACF should not be represented on the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee. Soil conservation is rated by the ACF as number one priority, with good reason. It has written to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) seeking participation in any future review. We say that that is absolutely right and proper and that its input, having been one of the few successful ones in this community, ought to be heightened rather than otherwise. We should recognise that at least the Australian Conservation Foundation has made some effort to bring the people of Australia the idea that this is an important-- Senator MacGibbon —Rubbish! Senator MASON —Senator MacGibbon said 'Rubbish'. That is an entirely unjustified comment. Senator MacGibbon —All the bits of paper that have come into my office from the ACF are about rainforests, free rights for druggies, and things like that, but it has never taken a public position on soil conservation. Senator MASON —Senator MacGibbon has not taken the trouble to do his homework or he would not say that. I find it extraordinary that an honourable senator should get up in this place and not have an understanding that an initiative of this kind has been going forward. There is another tragic aspect of this, and it is very important indeed. Senator MacGibbon has not heard about the ACF initiative and the work that is being done, and probably many other people have not heard about it either. The reason for that is that the media in this country are interested in dissension, trouble, the latest crime and things of that kind. An important problem of this type does not get the amount of media coverage it should. Because of that, very little has been done to overcome this problem since the first national assessment of soil erosion was made in 1970, which is 15 years ago. A decade and a half has passed without this problem being in any way brought properly to the attention of the public. The Government knows full well that if the people want something badly enough, if they understand a problem sufficiently, they will insist that sufficient money is brought forward for the problem to be dealt with. It is like reafforestation. It is intolerable that any community should lose trees faster than it plants them, and it is equally intolerable that it should lose topsoil faster than it is replaced. The national soil conservation program is a good start. The Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill, which has provision for financial assistance to the States, Commonwealth departments and other institutions for soil conservation, is a further step in the right direction. We support it, as we would support any initiative of this kind. The Australian Democrats raised this issue in the Parliament six or seven years ago, and we have been raising it on and off ever since. I have spoken on this matter no fewer than six or seven times in the Senate over that time. The point I make is that what we are doing now is too little too late. A small effort is being made in a direction where a massive effort is required. Part of the problem is the existence of so many State and Federal bodies with interests in soil conservation. Sometimes I believe that we as a nation are hag-ridden with overgovernment. This is another one of those situations where lengthy debates and difficulties with the division of power between the States and the Commonwealth lead to a lack of action. It is something we can accept as a truism, something that will go on forever in this country, but I hope that will not be so in this case. In this area of importance, I hope we might be able to get ourselves to the stage where there is co-operation between the States and the Commonwealth for the common good of this country. Unfortunately, up to now it has been a question of division of power-who does what, and which public servant is in charge of this, that and the other. Although this is not the only area of that kind, it is one of the most important. The problem of so many Federal and State bodies with interests in soil conservation arose many times before the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment in its inquiry on land use. I was a member of that Committee and I recall witness after witness pointing out the grave difficulties of co-ordination in this area because the States and the Commonwealth were in on the act. This, of course, tends to lead to a buck-passing situation in which everyone thinks someone else is doing something about the problem, where the complexity of individual and joint responsibilities make action difficult and therefore improbable. It is that improbability of action which is one of the millstones around the neck of this country-the lack of a clear definition of the respective rights and duties of government of the States, or of any form of government, if it comes to that. I suggest that it is quite erroneous for us to have a situation in which Federal Parliament and the State parliaments are seen as separate power groups, which they are. Really, we should have a rational situation where the Federal Government has quite clear responsibilities within which it operates, the State governments have clear directions for their operations and, beyond that, local government has clear and definite areas of responsibility. Other countries have managed to achieve this. It has been done in France where there is a government with departments. I do not recommend that necessarily for this country because we are a very much larger country, but at least there has been an attempt to get the mechanisms of government right so that they work. We have not yet done that in this country and the question of soil conservation is one of the most serious matters in this area. The Soil Conservation Advisory Committee with its proposed role of co-ordination of Commonwealth efforts in relation to soil conservation, amongst other things, should be a definite step in the direction of simplifying the bureaucratic tangle in this area. The Australian Democrats believe that that should be very much its first priority-that it should get to the stage where action is possible. Meanwhile, the quality of our topsoil deteriorates every day. This is due to a large extent to the means of agriculture. Dr Brian Roberts, whom I mentioned earlier, estimates that the topsoil on the Darling Downs is disappearing at the rate of one centimetre a year. At this rate the Darling Downs will be useless for most sorts of crop production within 30 years. That relates to the areas that are at present under cultivation, as most of the Downs are. The Darling Downs are one of our most valuable heritages from nature. When we consider that figure of 30 years and set it against the fact that it is 15 years since this problem was identified, with very little having been done about it, we begin to get some idea of the enormity and the urgency of this problem. It is a matter of great urgency for government and it should not be underestimated simply because land in Queensland is still being cleared for new production at the rate of some 80,000 hectares a year. How long can that go on? We will get to the stage again where we will exhaust our natural bank balance to our discredit. The other point is that whereas one can restore most things in this world fairly easily with money and effort, one cannot restore topsoil in this way. If one destroys the soil one simply cannot restore it quickly. It is gone forever. This is part of a world problem, which is perhaps even worse and more aggravated in other parts of the world because of the sheer pressure of population on the diminishing resources of the soil. I wish again, because I think it is very important, to refer briefly to what is perhaps an unusual aspect of this problem as it exists in my own State of New South Wales. It is a fact that all products of life contribute to the topsoil; when we die we go back to it and our natural wastes go back to it, or they should do. I refer now to the crass and quite criminal decision that has been made by the State Government of New South Wales to spend millions and millions of dollars in piping sewage from Sydney and Newcastle miles further out to sea instead of returning this material, in a properly processed or composted form, to the land. This is one of the enormities of government. We talk about all sorts of things in this place and the New South Wales Parliament debates many issues hotly, but that issue is one which concerns and touches the very future of the people of New South Wales and the very future of humanity as it occupies this continent. About a decade ago I was in Shanghai, China, looking at those beautifully organised rural communes around the city, which feed it and many other parts of China. This is a highly organised and very well disciplined form of agriculture and it is well worth seeing. If any other senators ever go to China I suggest that it is far more important to see such communes than to look around Peking. The sewage of Shanghai is composted and used entirely by the surrounding communes, which are the food bowl of that great city. I spoke to the gentleman who was called, in the quaint terminology of the cultural revolution of that time, 'a responsible member of the revolutionary committee'-basically he was the mayor-and he pointed out to me that it would be impossible to sustain the population of China unless this were done. The people of China would die unless the wastes of the city were composted and used. I looked at that fairly thoroughly and I could see nothing objectionable in the process. There was no smell, no disease or anything of that kind. The Chinese have that situation under control. They are doing what is natural and proper for what is called in the cliche 'spaceship earth'-they are returning to earth what they are taking from it. If one does not do that, one fails at one's peril. To undertake the bizarre step of spending millions of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money merely to pipe sewage further out to sea in the hope that that will prevent it from being washed back onto New South Wales beaches, as it is now, often in its raw state, is quite crazy. Senator Watson —Have you not heard of Werribee, in Victoria? Senator MASON —In other parts of the country these things are not done. Someone just mentioned Victoria. There are areas where very reasonably, very rationally and very successfully sewage is composted and returned to the land. Our situation in Australia is really only an extension of that in China, where the people would die if they did not carry out this kind of operation. Just because we can manage for the moment does not mean that we can continue in the same crass and stupid way in the future, the way which the New South Wales Parliament is forcing on us now. We live on this planet in a state of symbiosis with living and growing things and it seems to me the idea that there is something foul or bad about sewage being returned to the land is a Victorian concept which we should consider doing without. The gross indecency or stupidity is that those people with so-called finer feelings say that the sewage should be piped out to sea. That is disposing and dumping at sea every year probably thousands of tonnes of our topsoil, because that is what it amounts to. If we take things from the soil and the residue is wasted, we will have a situation in which that soil cannot be replaced quickly or easily. What this all adds up to is an immediate, drastic and very expensive problem throughout Australia. We must face up to the fact that it will be very expensive to deal with it properly. Many chickens are coming home to roost from the past. Land clearing, agriculture and grazing are not the only causes of soil degradation. Recreation, urban development, mining and manufacturing all leave their mark. In fact, no comprehensive statistics are available in Australia of the effects of these activities on soil degradation or, indeed, of the effects of soil degradation on these activities. That is a step forward which we must take, and take soon. The fact that water resources can be affected, the pollution of streams and rivers, the increase in flood frequency and intensity due to bare, eroded soil surfaces which are partly sealed by rain action and the gradual filling of dams by erosion products are all major problems. Are we going to be immune from them here? Of course we are not. In China for centuries the Yellow River, which is called 'China's scourge', took millions of lives; the river changed its course and eroded more and more of the fertile rice lands. Those problems have been recently overcome by the Chinese through an enormous program of afforestation in the upper reaches of the river and control of the river's flooding by building hydro-electric plants. That was a massive commitment in capital terms for the Chinese Government but it did not flinch from the task, any more than we should flinch from it if we want to maintain our proper obligations to the future. Land and water degradation lead to a decreased habitat for flora and fauna and, in extreme cases, to the absolute extinction of plant and animal species. That is something that we have accepted in the past-the fact that it is good enough that these creatures with whom we share this planet should be wiped off the face of the planet permanently. That is a very platonic view arising from the ancient idea-still from Plato-that man is somewhere between the angels and the devils and that everything here on this planet is here to serve our purposes. I suggest that that is a fundamental arrogance that we can very well do without. We should recognise that everything on this planet justifies its existence, or should do so. Those who destroy or contribute towards the destruction of any species on this planet are vandals of the worst order and in history in the future will be just as much looked at as vandals as those who burn cities and libraries. There is no difference whatsoever between them except that, after all, flora and fauna are living things; a library can be rewritten and a building replaced but the living species, and their diversity on this planet, are miracles of life and cannot ever by replaced once they have disappeared. I suggest that we should be concerned about this. It should be one of our motivations as a society to see that this problem is reasonably and well taken into account. Where the soil is degraded by salination-that is, where soluble salts accumulate on the surface soil-these problems become particularly acute. Of course, this can happen as a result of irrigation, as in the Murray River Valley where salts and irrigation water are retained in the root zone and also are transported there by a rising water table. There can be changes in the pattern of water consumption by plants, as when native woodland is replaced by annual crops. This can also happen by evaporation of surface water from soil made bare by cultivation or grazing and by over-use of water in irrigation areas and a failure to use those irrigation waters properly. Again, I think one has to look at the allocations of water to people farming those areas. In the past there has been a feeling among traditional farmers that, because one has a certain amount of water, one has to use it. But the proper way of handling this on irrigated land of that kind is to make sure that no more water is put on than is absolutely necessary. Salination, whatever the cause, may kill the native vegetation and many commercial crops and pasture species. That is what motivates people. It is not until we find that we cannot grow anything on land any more that we do anything about it. That is an appalling attitude for any society to take. We should deal with the problem of salination before it arises. That is not impossible. There has been plenty of experience in the world to tell us what sorts of agriculture and irrigation cause these problems. It is a question of using that experience and doing something about it. Vegetation on salinated land is restricted for quite some time to just those species of plants which can tolerate high concentrations of salt. This has obvious disastrous effects on natural local ecosystems and on the potential economic return of the land. It is interesting that the Australian Institute of Marine Science in Townsville, of all places, when I was last there was carrying out a very interesting area of research into salt tolerant plants. Perhaps this can give us an answer. If we can get to a situation where we have useful plants that tolerate salt, it will be possible for us to use those areas again. That may well be a better alternative than some of the things that have been suggested so far. Some of the ideas that have been seriously proposed have involved no less than canals virtually from the irrigated areas right to the sea-almost another Murray River dug from the centre of the continent right through to the coasts. I think we have to find, through science or better methodology, an easier way than that of overcoming the problem. In 1983 the Department of Home Affairs and Environment published a booklet on land degradation in Australia. At the end of the booklet this conclusion appears: Progress toward treatment and prevention of land degradation has been slow. Some progress has been made: e.g. data collection, some increases in funding, limited publicity and increased environmental awareness. But much more is needed before land degradation in Australia is even contained. An actual reduction would require substantial effort and resources over several decades. That identifies the true nature of the problem we face. Let us not muck around with it or say that we are doing something sensible when in fact we are not. I will quote the strategies in the booklet: Strategies toward the control of land degradation include: expansion of catchment or group soil conservation projects; That in itself is a useful and important area of practical work which needs to be undertaken soon. It continues: use of all related government policies and programs by inclusion of conservation objectives and incentives; promotion of appropriate land use and management; and promotion of public awareness. I commend those words to honourable senators. In conclusion, I wish briefly to mention the promotion of appropriate land use and management. One of the real problems we face in this country is a consensus on land use. It is absurd that, whenever an environmental matter comes up, there is confrontation between a group of environmental greenies, if one likes to call them that-I am one myself-and some established interest. That is madness. It is an extraordinary situation for people in a civilised society. There should be a considered land use inquiry which would lead to a virtual consensus in the community on how various exploitative undertakings could be carried out. We should know what environmental parameters are permitted so that everybody-the environmental movements and the organisations themselves-know what it is they are doing and what guidelines they should operate within. It is an extremely wasteful process when large numbers-sometimes tens of thousands-of concerned citizens have to have meetings, collect money and march in streets as in the case of the Gordon below Franklin dam. A massive amount of public attention was devoted to that. There is some sort of feeling on the part of government that this waste of community assets is justifiable. In other words, political action is taken only when literally tens or hundreds of thousands of Australians get up and say that something has to be done. That is an enormously wasteful way of looking at things and it is an extraordinarily crazy attitude to be taken by a government. In other words, in a decent reasonable society there should be a mechanism available which tackles the problem before then. Hopefully, the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment will continue into the future this massive task of a reasonable consensus on land use. I do not in any way understate or underrate the enormous amount of work that is required but I also do not understate its importance. We should aim to get to a stage where we know exactly where we are going in all areas of endeavour so that in future we have the reasonable expectation of a continuing society which is becoming more rather than less prosperous and which is increasing or at least maintaining its natural resources rather than diminishing them. I can think of very few things more worthy of the Government's effort. If we cannot guarantee that what we are given when we are born into this world is at least maintained until we leave it, we will fail ourselves and all future generations. Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 8 p.m. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(8.00) —Speaking to the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill 1985, I start by quoting from paragraphs (1) and (2) of the outline in the explanatory memorandum, because they set out very succinctly what the Bill is about. They are as follows: (1) to provide a statutory basis whereby the Commonwealth can contribute to soil conservation nationally by providing financial assistance to the States, Commonwealth Departments, other institutions and individuals for this purpose. (2) to establish a Soil Conservation Advisory Committee comprised of members nominated by the Commonwealth and by the Australian Soil Conservation Council, to recommend priorities, strategies and conditions for expenditure of funds provided under the Bill, and to provide advice on soil conservation in general to the Commonwealth, and to report annually on the operation of the Bill. The importance of soil conservation to Australia cannot be over-emphasised. As other speakers on this Bill have said, it is the most important environmental issue facing Australia today. Needless to say, none of the environmental groups or protest groups have recognised that we have a problem with soil conservation; but then, they are always much more interested in Ayers Rock, rain forests and things such as that. Whilst on the subject of rain forests, I suggest that maybe one of the ways of constructively tackling the problem of disappearing rain forests is to talk about soil conservation. Undeniably, there is very high soil loss in those high rainfall areas on steep slopes which are covered by rain forests. Despite what Senator Mason has said, in all the seven years I have been a senator I never heard that august body the Australian Conservation Foundation say one word about soil conservation. It has certainly not sent me one bit of paper about it. It is very keen to send paper concerning the Daintree River and the dams in Tasmania, and all the other important issues of life and death with which it has become so passionately involved. But I have yet to hear, directly or indirectly, one word from the ACF in relation to this most important of all Australian environmental issues. It is known that Australia is a very arid land. We know we have a problem with water conservation. We have invested a lot of money over the years on that problem. Parallel with the shortage of water, we have a shortage of soil. The topsoil in Australia is extremely shallow, and it is that productive sector of soil, the topsoil, that feeds all of us and gives us a very big export income. Compared to that of other countries, the topsoil in Australia is very sparse; it is very meagre. I well remember flying over the United States, from coast to coast, for the first time about 25 years ago. It was in daylight, and the thing that struck me, having flown across Australia beforehand, was the agricultural productivity of that vast country. There are over 3,000 miles of farmlands, all the way except for some desert around the rockies; thousands and thousands of miles of rich productive soil. Of course, there are places such as the Dakotas, where the topsoil of the black soil plains, the wheatlands and the prairies goes down to 40 feet. There are millions of acres of this. Unlike England and unlike Europe, we do not have those vast areas of productive topsoil that the other continents have. Not only is the soil that we have very sparse; it is very readily lost. It is readily lost through the action of wind and rain. When it is being lost through rain, in low rainfall areas it is a slow process; but it is very rapid and dramatic in some of the high rainfall areas in my State of Queensland. As I have said, the soil provides us with our food. In Australia, 45 per cent of our export earnings comes from agriculture or rural production. That comes from only 1.2 per cent of the Australian population. It is a pretty fair comment to make that the 98 per cent of the population who are not involved in food production give very little thought to the problems of soil erosion, and it is probably fair to say that the majority of land users, that 1.2 per cent producing the food, do not have as a high a level of consciousness as they could have of the problems of soil erosion. The Opposition supports this Bill and will vote for it. I would enter the qualification-because it has not been done in the Senate previously-that was entered by the honourable member for Gwydir, Mr Hunt, in another place, when he said: The Opposition is not committed to the establishment of a Soil Conservation Advisory Committee or to the statutory nature of this legislation. In other words, we shall review the situation in due course when we regain office, in six months or 12 months time, whenever this Government falls. We see great importance in supporting these practical steps that are embodied in the Bill to control soil erosion. We see a need for this at a Federal level. The States vary in the interest that they have shown in soil erosion. But it is a national problem, because just as one cannot run a soil conservation program on one farm-one really needs to be looking at a watershed or a valley catchment areas-so one has to be looking beyond State boundaries and planning and co-ordinating it on a national basis. That is why we support the legislation on a national basis. My own State has some excellent legislation on soil conservation, but it is said that no one in Queensland has ever been fined for breaching the legislation. The great problem with these erosion measures is that one has to have a regional co-operation from all the producers in the particular area. It is no good having 20 farmers on the Darling Downs, where soil erosion is a serious problem, supporting the legislation that is on the books, and one or two farmers in the district not supporting it. It all depends on the geography of the particular area, but it is not an uncommon situation to find that one or two farmers-probably because they know the local member of parliament or something like that-decline to co-operate and, in the absence of the enforcement of any legislation, the procedures adopted by the other farmers are very much compromised. What are the origins of soil loss? In Australia they relate to two broad categories: First, to State legislation and management practices; and, secondly, to the landowners' management practices. Generalising in a very broad way, those two groups have operated in the past out of ignorance and sometimes out of greed. Much of the State legislation, up to recent times, was based on the very simplistic view that it was best if land was cleared and only grass was growing on it. I know that in my own State it was a condition of the granting and the maintenance of grazing leases in the cattle industry that land clearance programs had to be undertaken. Many cattle properties in Queensland were cleared on this basis-and cleared, I think, to their long term detriment. Whilst most of the cattle lands are in low rainfall areas, the removal of timber from the hills and ridges-because very little land is perfectly flat-involves and predisposes towards erosion over the years, even though that rainfall might be quite low compared with rainfall on the coast. Happily, those practices are no longer persisted with by the Government in the way in which they were in, say, the first 60 or 70 years of this century. The governments at the time simply did not know any better. But the governments do know better now; they see the consequences of it. Much the same situation applies with respect to land-holders. There is no doubt that the average land-holder wants to pass on his possessions, in the form of his property, to his children, and he wants his children to derive a living from it every bit as much as he has done. Most of the sins have been sins of omission, not committed with a wilful intent for short term gain. However, as I mentioned earlier, the problem is very widespread. It exists throughout the length and breadth of Australia. To illustrate its extent, of the 7,500 farms on the Darling Downs-an area that I know quite well-it is estimated by the responsible agricultural authorities that at least 84 per cent of those farms need to practise some degree of soil control. Another problem, apart from the widespread nature of soil erosion, is the immediacy of erosion in high rainfall areas. I refer again to my own State and to the problems of the sugar industry. It is estimated that a third of all assigned sugarland in Queensland is affected by erosion; that is, of in excess of 350,000 hectares of land cultivated for cane, 117,000-odd hectares have an erosion problem. Over 50 per cent of recently developed land in the State has a soil erosion problem, and the loss of soil from sloping land in high rainfall areas can be dramatic. For example, it has been recorded in tests in the Mackay area that soil has been lost at a rate of between 42 tonnes and 227 tonnes per hectare on trial sites. At that rate we would end up with no soil at all after a year or two. At Innisfail losses of up to a staggering 300 tonnes per hectare have been recorded. I would like to quote briefly three sentences from the Australian Sugar Journal of March 1983 in which, in a special paragraph on soil erosion in the central district, it stated: It has been estimated that about 40,000 hectares of cane land in the Mackay-Proserpine region are at risk from soil erosion. Some 40 percent of the central district's cane land had serious erosion problems requiring soil conservation measures. There are pockets of bad erosion all over the district. The answer to this problem is to arouse the level of awareness in the community through a public education campaign, the object of which would be to prevent this erosion happening. Any soil conservation measures take some effort and some money, and if we look at it, as previous speakers have, in terms of the whole nation we are dealing with truly huge sums of money. However, as the Chinese say, a journey of a thousand miles starts with one step, and the simple steps open to all landholders do pay off. Simple practices such as building contour banks, of ploughing furrows parallel with the contour lines rather than against them so that channels are not created in which water can pick up velocity, of grassing the channels that must be provided on the slopes so that we do not have the scouring effects of high velocity water flows, of leaving stubble and of retaining bushes and other vegetation on slopes are all simple measures which cumulatively over time have a great effect in slowing water velocity, which is the key element in high rainfall areas that leads to soil erosion. It would be quite improper for me to close on the note on which the previous speaker closed-one of doom and gloom. He said the measure before the Senate was too little too late, and that the world was collapsing all around us. I take the opposite view to that because I think it would be improper not to recognise the great advances that have taken place in rural Australia in the last 10 years. Sure there is a long way to go, but we have certainly broken the former position of ignorance in the community. There has been a commendable increase in awareness, and corrective measures have been taken all around rural Australia, both by landholders themselves and State governments. The Queensland Government is paying a 50 per cent subsidy on erosion work in hazard areas and, of course, the Federal Government allows some tax concessions. What has been done has been successful. It shows that it is possible to arrest this problem, and it is a problem that we must arrest because no landholder wants to be deprived of his livelihood and Australia certainly does not wish to be deprived of its export earnings. Least of all do we want to be in a position where we will have to import food. It is a big task because this is a big country, but it is a task that is well worth undertaking. I commend the Government for bringing this Bill forward because it provides the assistance to soil conservation that we so desperately need. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(8.15) —In large areas of Australia much of the country has been eroded, is eroding or is at risk of erosion. Therefore an acknowledgment by the Commonwealth of this problem, by way of a statutory form of giving financial assistance for soil conservation, is indeed welcome. The Bill before the Senate, the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill, does two things-it authorises financial assistance for certain soil conservation projects, and it establishes a national soil conservation program and a Soil Conservation Advisory Committee to advise the Federal Minister for Primary Industry. A recognition that 90 per cent of the agricultural and pastoral area of New South Wales needs some type of soil conservation indicates the enormity of the problem. This Bill is but a small gesture to a massive national problem where the gap between soil degradation and conservation is widening. Soil erosion is but one part of the soil degradation crisis facing Australia; soil compaction, salinity and diminishing soil structural conditions are other aspects of the degradation processes. Unfortunately Australia is a drying continent. Since the Ice Age, forests and an adequate rainfall have covered diminishing areas. The process was gradual and was due to three factors-the changing world climatic conditions, the continental drift, and Australia's latitudinal position placing it in the dry climatic belt of the southern hemisphere. Unfortunately soil erosion in Australia was not officially recognised as a problem until the mid-1930s when some research work was carried our in the Victorian mallee. The arrival of the white man, with his overstocking of the native vegetation with sheep and cattle, his excessive use of fire and his applying of European-style agricultural techniques to often fragile soils has hastened the erosion problem. These delicate Australian topsoils have been loosened and degraded with the result that huge wounds have been opened up across the earth; roads and railway tracks damaged; streams, rivers and harbours polluted and clogged; and environmental and recreation values diminished. Even city folk in the eastern seaboard cities are not unaccustomed to dust storms resulting from drought and disturbance by wind of the light textured soils unprotected by vegetation. Land has traditionally been regarded by European society as an indestructible object for ownership and use. A land owner was free to use and manage his land as he wished. But these attitudes are now changing. The idea of stewardship is spreading; in other words, we have an obligation to consider the needs of future generations. The land's limitations and fragility are becoming more appreciated. It is now recognised that the rate of topsoil formation is very slow. Australia's land resources are limited in spite of our large land mass. No more than 10 per cent is arable; 5.8 per cent is under extensive cropping and we all know that only 4 per cent is under native forests. There is now increasing concern over the quality of Australia's land resources. In 1975, half of the land used for agriculture and grazing was shown to need some form of treatment for degradation. Educational programs, changes in land management practices, structural earth works and support for tree planting are all necessary to arrest a major national problem. I believe there is a role for the most humble members of our society. There is a role for the wider community, not only the land owner. How can people participate? For example, if people wish, they can support the Greening Movement of Australia in all its valuable work of encouragement and support that it gives to the planting of trees. This legislation is welcome for there is a need for a co-ordinated approach in the allocation of resources. I believe it is now up to the States to enact uniform or complementary legislation to ensure that there is a uniformity of attack against the problems of soil erosion and to make sure that we transfer concern into concerted action. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.21) —Although I have had a lot of experience dealing with dirt over the last two years, this is the first time in my parliamentary career I have found myself dealing with the subject of soil conservation. Being the sort of person who normally goes to pieces once I get out of sight of telephone poles and paving, it is perhaps not altogether appropriate that I should be speaking here tonight in substitution for the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). Nonetheless, given the unanimity of support there is for this measure around the chamber, I guess there is not terribly much I can do to muck it up at this stage. The legislation basically provides a statutory basis for Commonwealth participation in combating one of the major problems facing this nation in the natural resources area. It is gratifying to have the bipartisan support of the Senate on this most important initiative of the Government. I nearly fell over backwards to hear Senator MacGibbon actually commending the Government for this initiative, which made me immediately suspicious that there must be something the matter with it, but I do suspect, having heard him and Senator Watson in the last few minutes, that there is genuine warmth of support for this measure and I repeat that we are duly grateful for that. The legislation will reinforce the current efforts of the Government through the national soil conservation program to provide a stimulus to the national soil conservation effort to act as a catalyst in attracting increased funding from the States and a greater awareness of the problem on the part of individual land holders. It should be made clear in that respect that the Government does not intend taking over the constitutional responsibilities of the Senate in this area or centralising all soil conservation activity and administration in Canberra. The States will continue to utilise the experience and knowledge they have acquired over the years in this area and the Commonwealth will promote co-ordination and co-operation for the national good. I think in this respect I should say that it is not appropriate, in our view, for the Commonwealth to include in the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill a fixed allocation each year for soil conservation, as some honourable members have perhaps understandably urged. Flexibility will be required to meet demands as they arise and it is neither possible nor desirable in our view for the Commonwealth to attempt to shoulder the entire responsibility for soil conservation. During the debate honourable senators have covered a number of quite wide-ranging issues concerned with the soil and its preservation. I do not intend to comment on all the matters that have been raised, even if I were competent to do so. However, perhaps I should say on behalf of the Government just a couple of words on the question of the membership of the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee, which did attract some comment. It is our view that adequate allowance has been made in the Bill to convene a group of people with practical, technical and professional knowledge of the problems of soil erosion and land degradation. We do not think it would be desirable or appropriate to exclude from membership, right from the outset, any particular sectors of the community and identify, as some honourable senators would appear to have liked us to do, their inappropriateness for that representative role. I simply say that I have sufficient faith in the wisdom, competence, judgment and the sensitivity of my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, to believe that the best people for the job will be appointed. Finally, the conservation of the soil is clearly in the interests of present day farmers in maintaining their productivity. It is in the interests, moveover, of future generations of agriculturalists and the community at large both in ensuring the nation's continued economic prosperity and of course, in, conserving the environment for future generations. This Bill is concrete evidence of the Government's commitment in this area and its determination to tackle effectively this problem which, as honourable senators have correctly recognised, is one of the most pressing facing the nation today. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 18 April, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(8.28) —The Senate is debating the Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill 1985. I must say I had thought the Bill would come on for debate a little later this evening, but I am very pleased that a Bill that has had such enthusiastic attention in the lower House is now before us. I think to understand the attitude which is adopted by the Opposition to this Bill, it is necessary to have an examination of the history of the support which has been given to this particular industry over the relatively recent past. Injection-moulding equipment has been reviewed by the Industries Assistance Commission and the Temporary Assistance Authority on at least seven occasions since 1974. Although it is not a massive industry, it is certainly an industry that has received a good deal of attention. The latest IAC report was finalised in 1984. Assistance to the industry has been steadily reduced from high levels over the past 10 years or so. There was a tariff of 55 per cent until July 1973 when, of course, the then Government, the Whitlam Government, introduced its 25 per cent across the board tariff cut and that reduced the amount of protection down to 41 per cent. In January 1975 the 55 per cent duty was reinstated, which I suppose tells us something about too sudden changes that come without warning and without a realistic assessment of industry's ability to adjust. That rise in duty in January 1975 back to 55 per cent was because temporary additional duty of 14 per cent was imposed following the report of the Temporary Assistance Authority. In late 1975, following a further Industries Assistance Commission report, the 55 per cent duty was confirmed as the long term duty rate. There was a further Commission report in 1978, and at that time the Government accepted a 15 per cent duty and a recommendation of the Commission that there should be a bounty rate which would start at 45 per cent of value added and reduce by 10 percentage points every year. Pursuant to the 1978 Industries Assistance Commission report, the Government set a course for this industry which involved its having a diminishing level of protection over a period of years, with the bounty due to terminate in May 1984, leaving the industry with a relatively low rate of tariff protection at 15 per cent. In early 1983 there was a further Temporary Assistance Authority report. Following that report the Government decided to pay an additional bounty of 20 per cent until a long term decision was made. In November 1984-we are getting up to the decisions which are reflected in this legislation-after a further IAC report the Government decided to accept the Commission's recommendations for a duty rate of 15 per cent, with a renewed bounty at 20 per cent of value added for two years and 10 per cent for a further two years. We have had a series of reports and recommendations and a series of decisions in which various governments have given tariff protection, reduced it, restored it, reduced it and added a bounty, diminished the bounty, restored the bounty, and so on. It is not a particularly encouraging history because, in the face of all that attention and all those decisions and the fairly considerable protection that has been given to the industry, the number of companies involved and the contribution of Australian manufacture to market share have continued to decline. In 1975 there were four manufacturers, with Johns Consolidated Ltd being the largest. By 1983 there was one, that is, a company called Battenfeld (Aust) Pty Ltd, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of a large West German producer. I mention that the only producer is foreign owned but I do not suggest that that should alter the attitude we adopt to the degree of protection it should be granted. I do not think that is a distinction that needs to be drawn or that, in economic terms, is properly made. The fact is that we have one manufacturer, located at Albury, which employs- Senator Peter Rae —Along with Borg-Warner, which is selling all the transmissions for all the London taxi cabs. It is one of the success stories. Senator CHANEY —That is true. In any event, this company, which is located at Albury, has about 80 employees, only half of whom are involved in the manufacturing process. Production has declined for that company from 28 machines in 1979-80 to 20 machines in 1982-83, although I am advised that production has increased marginally since then. Johns Consolidated, the company which had previously been the largest producer-this is detailed in the IAC report-ceased exports in 1982 and Battenfeld has not exported over the past three years. Again I am advised that the export potential of this industry has increased as a result of a fall in the value of the dollar and a buoyant world market. Imports to Australia have continued at very high levels. In 1979-80, 177 machines were imported, and I remind honourable senators that in that year Battenfeld manufactured 28 machines. In 1981-82, 272 machines were imported, and in that time-I do not have the figure for Battenfeld immediately to hand-imports fell to 186 in 1982-83, when Battenfeld produced 20 machines. The major sources of imports have been West Germany, Japan and Austria. As I said before, the local producers' share of the market continued to decline. It was 67 per cent in 1979-80 and was down to 28 per cent in 1982-83. By late 1982 Battenfeld, the now remaining producer, believed that its share was 16 per cent. It estimates its share to have been 24 per cent in 1983-84 and, under the proposals which are now before us, it plans to reach 40 per cent of the market by 1988. I have gone through that history because it seems that we have something of a small example that is worth examination by the Senate as we consider, for the second time in this new Parliament, the issue of industry assistance. It is important to note, in regard to the attitude we take to the Bill, that the Industries Assistance Commission considers that the long term assistance-that is, the 15 per cent tariff that is in place-is a justifiable tariff. The Commission also considers that the economic conditions of the early 1980s adversely affected the industry's adjustment difficulties and that the evidence suggests that local manufacture could eventually be competitive with no more than tariff assistance. The basis of the IAC's recommendation is that there should be this four years of additional bounty assistance to give the remaining company time to become competitive with the tariff assistance of 15 per cent. It is perhaps also worth observing with respect to this industry that in the view of the Commission there are no grounds for additional assistance for defence or strategic reasons. The Bill has caused some concern to members of the coalition because it gives continued assistance on what appear to us to be the most marginally justified grounds, given the history I have just outlined. Whilst the Opposition does not propose to vote against this legislation, which implements the decision to grant the further bounty assistance, it is a matter that concerned us and we had to consider very carefully the various factors that come into play. The Opposition sees the bounty decision that has been made by the Government as a little puzzling in light of the preferred stance of the Government and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) on industry policy. We find, of course, that Senator Button has tended to make clear that he sees the need for Australian industry to become more outward looking. For it to become more outward looking it must be much more competitive in world terms. I would like to quote a number of remarks Senator Button made in October 1984 in an address to the Australian Business Congress to bring out the sort of reasoning that leads me to say that the decision was a little surprising, given the views the Government has adopted towards industry support and restructuring. At that time Senator Button said: The solution, of course, propagated by the protagonists of the so-called industry debate was to ignore these issues- these were the various issues he had outlined- which are positively related to industry's capacity to compete, and to concentrate on raising or lowering the tariff as a means of rectifying these problems. The consequences of this to Australian industry have, in my view, been serious indeed. He suggested that industry was at the crossroads and that we had to consider new directions. He went on to say: . . . the essential elements of those new directions must be- 1. To provide a suitable environment for the transition to be made from past policy emphases to new policy emphases; 2. to encourage a number of attitudinal changes; 3. to address the questions of competitiveness to which I referred, and particularly the inhibitions on the competitiveness of Australian industry; and 4. to consider a whole range of Government policies which have relevance to the question of economic growth and industry competitiveness. I am in broad agreement with the sorts of comments that were made by Senator Button in that speech. Indeed, if we examine the debate that has taken place on this Bill in the House of Representatives, and in particular the speech made by Mr David Connolly, who represents me in the lower House, we see a great deal of attention given to the range of government policies that are of relevance to the question of economic growth and industry competitiveness. It is an unfortunate fact that whilst in opposition we cannot address that great range of issues which do need attention, and that is indeed one of the reasons why we see it as being necessary to support this legislation, or at least not to oppose it-because there is little that we can do to meet the many problems which no doubt Battenfeld, in common with other companies in manufacturing face, whether it is the labour market, the high cost of services or whatever. In any event, I simply make the point that if, as the Government claims, it is concerned with providing an environment for change, and with a general policy framework which is conducive to the restructuring of industry, and also with allowing industry to be internationally competitive, it seems to us that this Bill is evidence that the Government is in fact directing more attention to the traditional issue of protection than it is perhaps to the more fundamental issues which bedevil Australian industry. I think it is very important that industry debate should not become bogged down into a very arid debate about the precise level of protection which might be required. I am heartened in that view by what was said by the Business Council of Australia in an extensive article which it published in October last year on revitalisation and structural adjustment of the Australian economy. I quote from page 5 of the Business Council Bulletin of October 1984: When asked specifically to address the issue of reconstruction and revitalisation of Australian industry we took the view that we should not simply perpetuate the old, tired, and inappropriate debate about how much of this or that industry we should have, and the optimum level of protection. With respect, I think that is a very sound approach for the Business Council to have adopted. I would like to quote two other brief passages from that same document. It said on page 6: The proper emphasis we believe, for this stage in our country's development, should be on removing obstacles and roadblocks to restructuring and revitalisation and providing appropriate motivation for innovation and enterprise rather than on central determination of sectors for growth or decline, or selective application of policy instruments to achieve desired change. A little later on, on the same page, it said: Attitudes and demands which inhibit change, (or make it too expensive) will have a most damaging effect. Again I would respectfully adopt the sentiments contained in those extracts that I have read. It does seem to me that the sooner we get down to realising that to have a successful industry policy we have to remove the whole series of obstacles and roadblocks that face Australian industry, the better it will be. I think that to concentrate the debate too much on the tariff when those industries which are reliant on tariff protection are subjected to so many other disadvantages within the Australian economy and are not enabled to be more competitive, is a disservice to Australia and certainly will do nothing to advance the interest of manufacturing industry. I think I have made it clear that the Opposition has very strong doubts that a further extension of bounty is warranted, given the history of tariff and bounty protection and the history of decline in the industry to the point where there is one remaining manufacturer in this country. On the figures shown in the IAC report it appears that the Australian manufacturer has a small proportion of the market although it hopes to expand its share and thereby improve its competitive position, and it hopes to resume exports. In the Opposition's view there are many barriers in the way of Australian manufacturers being competitive. For many industries the most significant barriers lie in the area of labour practices and wages policy. Out-of-date labour practices frequently comprise barriers to efficiency and hence competitiveness. Wage costs are inflated not merely by wage increases unrelated to profitability in any particular enterprise but by the rapidly expanding problem of on-costs, which substantially inflate the true costs of labour. There are substantial other penalties imposed on Australian manufacturing by excessive government charges and costly government services which are provided by government monopolies which are themselves shielded from competition. As a result, the charges for government and semi-government services have consistently risen faster than the general inflation rate. Transport-a substantial cost component in most industries-has its cost inflated by government restrictions, monopolies and duopolies. This is made clear in the Opposition's industry policy. We see an assault on all of these areas as essential if Australian industry is to be made more competitive, and we believe that Australian industry will respond to the challenge of the future only if those barriers are reduced and if the tax burden is reduced so that there is real incentive for investors. Our reservations about this particular measure of industry assistance can be summarised as follows. First, the protection granted in the past has not succeeded in producing a healthy growing industry, rather the reverse. The number of companies involved in the share of the market has steadily declined. We hope that the more recent information indicates that the decline has been reversed. One would hope that would be the result of this further chance that the industry has been given. Second, the industry being protected is the producer of intermediate goods. By that I simply mean that the goods which are produced by this industry are in fact used by other industries to produce things which are purchased by consumers. Of course any inefficiency in this industry, any unnecessary costs in this industry, will be passed on ultimately to those who use those goods and to the ultimate consumers who follow. It is true, however, that the current Bill, by extending a further bounty, does not inflate the cost of machinery to the downstream producers. The overall tariff-15 per cent-of course does and it must be doubtful whether that is in the interests of the competitive position of the downstream producers. Not that this Bill raises the issue of the tariff directly at all, but one issue which I think always has to be considered in these debates is the extent to which the protection being granted may increase the burden on those who produce goods for ultimate consumption by individuals in the community. The third matter which concerns us is that the number of jobs involved directly in the manufacturing process is very limited. Although, according to the IAC report, the company employs 80 people, perhaps half of those are directly involved in manufacturing. In light of these points the IAC report is rather puzzling in its recommendation that further protection be extended. Notwithstanding this the Opposition believes that it should not seek to defeat the Government's proposal, although we doubt its wisdom. While we are in opposition we are unable to tackle the many other problem areas that I have mentioned and we are reluctant to impose random elements of our industry policy when we are not in a position to implement the whole. We accept that the bounty proposal is temporary and scales down in the second two years of operation. We would certainly see this as the final opportunity for the industry to establish itself on a competitive basis in Australia and we would expect that this legislation represents the final bounty to the industry. If I may conclude my speech on a more positive note, I would express the optimistic view that Australian manufacturing industry can prosper and grow. However, I believe it will prosper and grow only if there is a determined government effort to remove the great range of disabilities which currently face Australian industry. The great difficulty for Australian industry at the moment is that it is cursed with a government which has a number of fundamentally defective approaches. It is of course the highest taxing government Australia has seen, and one does not have to spend very much time with industry to know that the tax burden is one important element of industry's problems. We have a government which is unlikely to tackle the monopolies and government regulated transport systems, which add enormously to industry's costs. We have a government which has shown itself to be a prisoner of the prices and incomes accord, no longer a master of its destiny when the Australian Council of Trade Unions' interests conflict with those of the Government. The sad fact of the matter is that the rigid wage system with which industry is afflicted and the rigid maintenance of out-dated labour practices in so many sectors of Australian industry are the sorts of problems which this Government is simply unable to tackle. One could go on and on in listing the areas which are unlikely to receive effective action from this Government, but it is the view of the Opposition that it is necessary for government to be chasing and in fact achieving results in all these areas if we are to give Australian industry an even chance. It would not be the intention of the Opposition to focus the industry debate on the issue of tariff in the way that perhaps it has been too tightly focused in the past. We believe that the appropriate levels of tariff protection will be properly comprehended by the Parliament, the community and industry itself only when industry is freed from some of the shackles which at present bind it, when its competitiveness is improved in other ways and when it is given a fair deal. It is the intention of the Opposition to press the Government on these matters and to return to government at the next election with a comprehensive industry policy which guarantees a return to competitiveness in Australia in a way that has not been achieved in the past. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(8.50) —The Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill 1985 is, in itself, perhaps a relatively minor piece of legislation. It provides for the continuing payment of a bounty on the value-added components of locally produced injection-moulding equipment and parts thereof. The rate of bounty payment will be 20 per cent in each of the two years after 23 November 1984 and 10 per cent in each of the succeeding two years, concluding on 9 October 1988. The maximum amount to be paid by way of bounty in these four years is limited to $2m. The bounty will be paid almost exclusively to the Albury-based firm, Battenfeld (Aust.) Pty Ltd, which is a 100 per cent owned subsidiary of its German parent company. Battenfeld is the only remaining producer of injection-moulding equipment. A decade ago there were about five such producers. Battenfeld was left the field to itself in 1983 when the then only other producer, Johns Consolidated Ltd, went into liquidation. Battenfeld also imports injection-moulding equipment from its parent company. In 1982-83, the last year for which I have statistics, 37 per cent of the value of Battenfeld's sales of injection-moulding equipment comprised the sale of imported equipment. Battenfeld appears to have less than 20 per cent of the Australian market. Imports, primarily from West Germany, Austria, Japan and Italy, comprise the other 80 per cent. Of course, part of that 80 per cent comprises machines imported by Battenfeld. Battenfeld employs approximately 90 people of whom, as the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, has said, less than half are engaged in the production process. The rest are employed in administration, sales, distribution and servicing. Injection-moulding machines are used by the plastics processing industry. The industry also uses blow-moulding machines. There is a wide range of each of these types of machines. Each type and sub-type has a specific use. In passing I mention that any future inquiry into injection-moulding machines in Australia ought to look at the wider range of machines used in the plastics processing industry. That is the background to the industry, a small industry employing fewer than 100 people and about to enjoy a bounty, provided, of course, at the taxpayers' expense, of a further $2m over the next four years, in addition to a bounty of more than $5m received by the industry over the previous four to five years. The bounty, although said to be very significant to Battenfeld is minuscule when one considers government spending as a whole. So why did this seemingly minor piece of legislation receive so much attention from the Opposition in the House of Representatives last week, in our Party room and, I might say with some interest, in the Press? It seems to me to have received this attention for two main reasons. The first is that, quite frankly, the Government has made what can only be judged to be an absurd decision in this matter. I will come back to that in some detail in a moment. The second reason is that the Opposition is using this Bill, as it will use similar opportunities, to make known its views on industry restructuring and on the policies it will adopt when it returns to government in 1988, 1987 or earlier if the Government's recent performances are any indication. Before coming back to the specific substance of the matter before the Senate, I shall comment briefly on some of the media reporting of the matter that has occurred in recent days. Comments in respected newsletters such as Inside Canberra, in business journals such as the Business Review Weekly, and in daily newspapers such as the Australian Financial Review and the Australian today have given the impression that there has been some battle or division within the coalition parties on this issue, that somehow there has been a fight between the so-called dries and the so-called wets within the Opposition. Incidentally, such terms have no sensible meaning. They really should be discarded in the context of any professional analysis of different streams of thought within the coalition parties. Senator Gareth Evans —Won't either group let you in? Senator SHORT —Senator Gareth Evans would be a notable absentee from both groups. Media reports of a split in the Opposition parties on this bounty proposal are, in my view as a closely involved participant, being chairman of the Opposition's industry, technology and commerce committee, simply not correct. There was no opposition amongst coalition members to the view that the Government's decision to continue the bounty arrangement is a bad decision. There was no opposition to the view that if the coalition parties had been in government we would certainly not have made the same decision as the Labor Government has made. There was no opposition to the view that the coalition parties should not positively endorse the Government's decision. There was debate on the question of how best to handle the Bill from a parliamentary point of view. We had two options. One was formally to oppose the Bill. The other was to allow its passage but to register our concern and use the occasion to draw attention to the stupidity of the specific decision and to some relevant broader issues. The coalition parties chose the second option for several reasons. Those reasons included considerations relating to the conduct of the Senate, the fact that the Bill relates only to the bounty element of the assistance provided to the industry and does not cover the 15 per cent tariff duty which also protects the industry, the relevance to this industry of the Industries Assistance Commission's still to be completed inquiry into the chemical and plastics industries and the fact that there is no precedent for defeating such a single-issue industry assistance measure as this. So the specific handling of this Bill in the Parliament was a matter of judgment. However, I repeat: There was no split on the correctness or otherwise of the Government's decision. We think it is a bad decision. We also doubt whether the recommendations of the IAC which the Government accepted were in line with the argumentation and logic contained in the IAC's own report. I shall look now at the history of this industry and its treatment by government. I believe that it is a classic case of the application of protection to a new or infant industry which has continued over the years even though the infant has failed to grow up. It is a classic case of how not to go about the sensible and viable development of the Australian manufacturing sector. The industry has been the subject of five IAC inquiries and two Temporary Asistance Authority inquiries in the past 10 years-that is, seven inquiries in 10 years. Prior to 1973, the industry enjoyed tariff protection of 55 per cent. In July 1973 that figure was reduced to 41 per cent as a result of the Whitlam Government's 25 per cent across the board tariff cut. However, in July 1975 the tariff was restored to 55 per cent following a TAA inquiry. Later in 1975 the IAC recommended a reduction in the tariff to 25 per cent, phased in over four years. The Government, however, rejected that recommendation and retained the duty at 55 per cent. In 1979 the IAC recommended that the tariff be reduced to 15 per cent but that a 45 per cent bounty be introduced, which bounty should reduce by 10 per cent each year to 5 per cent in 1983 and to nil in May 1984, leaving thereafter only the tariff assistance of 15 per cent. The then Government accepted this recommendation. In 1982, however, the industry, which then totalled only two firms-Johns Consolidated and Battenfeld-sought additional temporary assistance. In January 1983 the TAA recommended that additional temporary assistance was not justified, but the Government rejected this advice and in June 1980 granted an additional temporary bounty of 20 per cent, making a total bounty of 25 per cent because the industry still had the previous long term 5 per cent bounty. It had that bounty in addition to the 15 per cent tariff, pending the outcome of the full IAC inquiry to follow. The IAC inquiry was completed in 1984. It recommended that the 15 per cent tariff be retained and that a 20 per cent bounty apply for each of the next two years, reducing to 10 per cent for each of the subsequent two years and terminating completely in October 1988. The Government accepted this recommendation, and it is the bounty element of the Government's decision which is the subject of the Bill we are now debating. So what the Government is doing in this Bill is to maintain the additional temporary bounty granted in 1983 but at a slightly lower level for the next two years-20 per cent compared with 25 per cent-before reducing it to 10 per cent in 1987 and 1988. The bounty is now scheduled to terminate in October 1988 rather than in May 1984, as was envisaged in the earlier 1979 government decision. In other words, this decision represents a considerable increase in the long term protection afforded the industry between 1983 and 1988 despite the fact that most of that protection will terminate on that date. One would be entitled to assume that there are good arguments for such a generous decision, but search as I might, I can find none. The main argument advanced by the IAC seems to be that the sole remaining producer, Battenfeld, will be able to achieve sufficient market share over the next three or so years to be able to compete effectively with imports by the end of 1988 with the assistance of only a 15 per cent tariff and that therefore the bounty assistance is justified in the interim. Where is the evidence to support this optimism? I find it difficult to see any. Battenfeld is looking to achieve a market share of 40 per cent. That would require more than a doubling of its present market share, a share which has declined progressively over the past several years. So a 40 per cent market share is extremely unlikely. Even if Battenfeld did double its output, on its own evidence, its costs would fall by only 13 per cent. That is hardly dramatic. In 1974 when there were still several local producers, they argued for short term assistance on the grounds that it would allow them to implement rationalisation plans and to become more competitive. It did not happen. In 1975 they argued that higher long term protection was justified to enable them to undertake necessary re-organisation. It did not happen. In 1978 the IAC accepted that continuing high assistance was justified because the then two remaining producers said they were rationalising their activities to become more competitive with imports at a lower level of assistance. They cited specific details of planned research and development production and export programs. These did not happen; on the contrary, one of the two firms, Johns, went broke in 1983 and the remaining firm, Battenfeld, ceased exporting in 1981. Battenfeld has been struggling to survive even with the generous assistance provided by users and by the general taxpayer. In recent years the company's profitability, even with this assistance, has been about one-fifth of the average for manufacturing industry in Australia. In other words, the highly generous assistance provided to this industry over many years has not improved its relative competitiveness-its market share has been progressively eroded-nor has it assisted employment in the industry. Employment has fallen progressively for more than a decade. Battenfeld acknowledged at the IAC inquiry that it has limited prospects of utilising latest technologies and no scope for introducing the latest computerised numerically controlled machine tools with robotic handling systems. The IAC in its latest report on the industry stated: . . . there appears to be little scope for further improvement to the structure of the industry. There is virtually no prospect of developing an export market, with the possible exception of New Zealand. Perhaps the most damning paragraph in the IAC's latest report, which the Government has accepted, is to be found on page 17. It states: In evidence to previous inquiries, local producers claimed that they had restructuring and developmental plans in train that would enable local manufacture to become competitive with imports at more moderate levels of assistance. Battenfeld now claims, however, that it needs assistance of the same order as recommended in the Commission's 1978 report for a further period of five years commencing 1984, ''to achieve the aims envisaged by the 1979 decision of the Government''. Surely, the above facts provide very strong evidence that this bounty proposal to give Battenfeld a further $2m of taxpayers' money over the next four years-that is about $28,000 per person employed by the company-is simply a classic case of throwing good money after bad. But there are other facts which should be brought out too. In the past few days I have spoken with three plastic processing firms which, collectively, were large users of Battenfeld injection moulding machines. One of the three firms, Fallshaw Holdings Pty Ltd, was willing to have its name mentioned by me this evening. The other two preferred to remain unidentified. All three had the same story to tell independently of each other. In summary, they said that, firstly, they would never buy a Battenfeld machine again. They would not do so for three main reasons, the first being that in many cases the machines were overpriced; the second, that in most cases the machines were inferior in quality to imported machines; and, the third and most important reason was that Battenfeld's maintenance and servicing facilities were totally unsatisfactory in quality of servicing, due partly to demarcation disputes amongst unionised service employees from different unions and, partly, to the lack of skills of those employees. There were also delays in obtaining emergency spare parts because of Battenfeld's policies on holding stocks in Australia. Two of the three firms said: 'Battenfeld has gone backwards as a company over the past two years'. Machine reliability is of critical importance to users. All three firms now consider that they have this reliability, which they did not have with Battenfeld. Another consideration which should be taken into account is the very real need in Australia to avoid taxing the inputs to user industries in the form of raw materials and intermediate goods. The plastics industry in Australia suffers from very high raw material costs because of the protection afforded local manufacturers. New Zealand plastics manufacturers, for example, pay 50 per cent less than Australian manufacturers for their raw materials because the New Zealanders can buy on the world market. Injection-moulding machines, to which the 15 per cent tariff applies, are another added cost burden, yet the plastics industry in Australia employs 30,000 to 33,000 people, compared with fewer than 100 in the injection-moulding machine industry. The tremendous wage and wage-related costs experienced by Australian manufacturers, including Battenfeld, of course, as a result of the failure of the Government to do anything to tackle the iniquitous wage rigidities that confront Australian producers, are another major cost obstacle for our manufacturing sector. Unless the Government starts to adopt a coherent approach towards its overall economic management and industry policies-I take Senator Chaney's point that it should include not just assistance policies-and unless it takes a firm approach to its wages and industrial relations policies, no amount of the fine talk or rhetoric that we have become accustomed to hearing from Government Ministers will do one jot towards restructuring industry in Australia to put it on a viable, internationally competitive base. I say to the Government that it is time to stop the fine talk and get on with some action. When the Government does take action, I hope it is more logical and reasoned than the action envisaged in this Bill. Senator Chaney said earlier that the Opposition looks forward to continuing to participate in debates of this nature on industry policy in Australia. There are few more serious and important issues facing this country. We will obviously have our differences of view as to the best way of tackling the problems that lie ahead, but the encouraging start we have made in recent weeks in opening up the debate, in this chamber and elsewhere, is a good sign, and I hope we will be able to continue in the vein in which we have commenced. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(9.15) —The history of the Australian manufacture of injection-moulding machines has not been a happy one. Events over the last 10 years have seen the demise of employment and the exodus of manufacturers, to the point where there is but one company left, Battenfeld (Aust.) Pty Ltd. This company is reputed to apply high technology techniques, but it is not so up to date as to use, for example, computer technology in controlling its machines. However, there are some aspects where this sole producer of injection-moulding machines has not really lived up to some of its undertakings or maintained some of the high standards that are now expected of a modern manufacturer operating in Australia. The Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill, by allowing the maintenance of a 15 per cent tariff and at the same time extending bounty assistance, adopts the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission. We on this side of politics believe that it is only right that appropriate protective measures applying in a manufacturing sector are not withdrawn suddenly or without adequate notice. Naturally, there has always been some concern over the level of assistance to industry, which is not always defence-related. On the other hand, we have to recognise that the sole operator left is a decentralised firm which operates away from the capital cities. I think it is appropriate that the Government give further consideration to some of the social, as well as economic aspects of its decision-making on protection and to who can survive and who cannot. It concerns me that industry debates are dominated by an undue attention to the tariff. It seems that these debates are unbalanced in that so many commentators, economists and others seem to apply this notion of protection exclusively to the manufacturing sector and conveniently ignore the myriad of protective mechanisms that are available, for example, in the tertiary sector-transport, public services and so on. It is unfortunate that some commentators and editors have taken the speech of the honourable member for Bradfield, Mr Connolly, and given it a bias towards what they term a 'dry Liberal philosophy', which few of us in this Party could detect in that speech. Mr Connolly's approach and address was most balanced. In today's Australian one writer tried to create a great deal of mischief in this area. I know that my colleague the honourable member for Bass, Mr Warwick Smith, has a more balanced view than that portrayed by Mr David O'Reilly. We sometimes wonder where they get their information. It is always expected that there will be robust debate about appropriate directions in the trade area. The fact that Australian manufacturers export only 8 per cent of their production indicates just how far the manufacturing industry here is behind other comparable countries with similar living standards. For example, in Scandinavian countries manufacturers often have over 50 per cent of their production exported. When we examine goods and services exported as a percentage of gross domestic product, we note that Australia ranks twenty-first of the 24 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. It is interesting that in this OECD comparison it is the smallest countries that are the most open to foreign trade which perhaps have the best performances. Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland, Ireland, Norway, Austria, Iceland, Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, West Germany, New Zealand, Britain, Italy, Canada, Portugal, France and Spain all rank well above Australia. We must encourage our manufacturers to become more export-orientated. In so doing, we must create a climate within which they can operate to develop their full potential as exporters. We must encourage them to apply high technology to their present practices. The emphasis by the present Government appears to be on trying to get new technology industries at the expense of encouraging existing industries to apply high technology practices. There is, therefore, a need for a great deal of deregulation to occur. We recognise that Australia is a high cost country. It is not only our high wage costs that are a problem for our exporters. Some of those countries I mentioned earlier, such as Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries, are also high cost countries but at the same time, they are high exporters in terms of GDP and percentage of production to export. The difference between Australia and those countries is in productivity. Our productivity is low. We also have a very high on-cost which is impeding progress. On the other hand, I believe the trade union movement has a very heavy cross to carry in this area because all too often it has taken advantage of some of the protective mechanisms that have applied in order to unduly enhance the level of wages to the point where, in terms of the IAC, industries have suddenly become uneconomic in the course of time. There is a need for some deregulation, but the important feature is the lack of emphasis which we in Australia put on productivity. We are falling behind in our standard of living. The direction of our future trade is very much towards Asia. In Asia they are concentrating on wealth creation rather than wealth distribution. We must change our priorities. It seems strange that Government members should be talking about imposing capital taxes because at the very time that we want industry to be restructured a capital gains tax will lock industries in to existing occupations, rather than allowing the money to flow to higher risk and new areas. Therefore, capital gains tax is restrictive; it locks industries in to existing businesses rather than allowing capital to flow to new areas because of the high cost of the tax. It seems strange that a Labor Party in Australia favours a capital gains tax which inevitably encourages foreign investment to move in and take over because of the lack of ability of Australians to accumulate capital through savings and apply it to investment processes. The emphasis must come back to capital. Given the future direction of Australian trade, which is towards the Pacific area and the new economies of Asia-for example, Taiwan had the highest growth in gross domestic product per capita last year of more than 10 per cent-our standards of living are falling. The trend of the trade indices is disturbing. Our high interest rates will cause problems of declining profitability. This change in the mix of trade, of our exports and imports, away from Europe and towards Asia, means that unless we can develop a stronger manufacturing base, there will be enormous employment problems. If we apply the strict theory of comparative costs, Australia, which is good at producing minerals, an area where commodity prices are often low and unstable, and which is good at producing agricultural products, can, it is true, sell some of these products to Asia and, in turn, can import Asian manufactures at a comparative advantage. But the question is: What will we do with that large section of often unskilled people in Australia? It was the manufacturing base which enabled us to sustain the large increases in our population following World War II. We must be very careful that we do not completely abandon our manufacturing industries to the detriment of a more open economy. We must open it up more than we have in the past, but we must do it appropriately. It must not be done too dramatically because in the process of change, if it is too severe, people get hurt in the meantime. I believe that we will continue to have robust debates on these matters but I appeal to the media to make sure that they present an accurate and balanced view of any party's position in relation to this debate. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(9.25) —I thank the Senate for its support for the Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill 1985. In so doing, I say quite frankly that I share some of the doubts and criticisms about the Government's decision on this matter. I have been to the Battenfeld (Aust) Pty Ltd establishment in Albury-Wodonga. Since we first came into government there have been temporary assistance applications in the Industries Assistance Commission report which we have essentially adopted with some slight variations, and it is a matter of concern that one has an industry of this kind which is now the sole manufacturer in Australia, which is really not growing in strength or in its share of the market and which, as I think Senator Short pointed out, has no prospect of entering into any export markets. Also, it has been plagued by a number of debilitating difficulties. One extraordinary thing that has been mentioned in the second reading speech is the fact that, as I recall, in 1983 the Department of Defence indicated that it felt that as a matter of defence capacity it was essential that we have an injection-moulding manufacturing establishment in Australia. I do not want to do anybody an injustice, but when I was asked about this matter some six months later, the Defence Department's view had changed and it felt it was no longer necessary to have this capacity. I think the Defence Department view changed yet again-for the second time-and it then expressed the view that it was desirable to have this capacity in Australia. I apologise to the Senate for not researching more thoroughly the relevance of Defence Department views to these industry matters and how they were arrived at by that Department. One of the more encouraging things, one of the best things, about this decision is that it has a sunset provision; it is for a very limited period and the rate of assistance which is operating-the tariff assistance-is lower than the manufacturing average now. The bounty is only for a short, defined period and it is phasing down. Then there is a sunset provision. We should have the opportunity of seeing how the company performs in a non-recessionary situation. It suffered very much from the recession. It is one of the Government's understandings in this decision that the performance of the company will be very closely monitored by my Department with a view to looking at its longer term future after this assistance package runs out. This debate has been a very good vehicle for members of the Opposition-and I say this in no critical sense at all-to grapple with this question. I have seen some of the comments made in the House of Representatives and I have heard what Senator Short and the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, have said tonight. I very much appreciate what I regard as sensible attempts to try to look at the problem in respect of a company of this size and significance and the level of assistance which is provided for it. All I can say is that on balance the Government felt that there should be a further opportunity given to this company in the circumstances which I have outlined. It is the sole capacity Australia has in terms of this machinery and on balance we felt it should be given a further opportunity. If the sum involved were much larger, the argument about resource allocation and so on would become far more significant. In another way, I suppose one could say against that that if one multiplied the Battenfelds of this world across the industry spectrum of Australia one would get quite a spread of resource allocations. These sorts of industry assistance measures would add up to something quite significant across the spectrum. On balance the Government made this decision and I have nothing further to add. I listened not unsympathetically to some of the criticisms which were offered. I understand them; we went through all of them in the course of reaching this decision. We reached it and time will be the judge of the wisdom of that decision. On balance, we came down on that side. I thank honourable senators for their support and comments. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(9.31) —I wish to add a little to what has been said. In addressing the short title of the Bill, I wish to speak about some of the more general questions involved. When we are debating some of these measures designed to provide bounties or tariff protection of one form or another to industries which have problems, there is a tendency to forget that there are also industries in Australia which have done a tremendous job in placing Australia at the forefront of industrial development. There are industries in Australia which do not require any special protection either by way of bounties or by way of tariffs. When I was listening to Senator Short, I thought: 'What better example could one have? There is Senator Short who until recently was involved in a company which used to enjoy about 300 per cent protection but which has now ceased to need the sort of protection which it was getting and has come down the scale. Improvement is taking place'. These sorts of changes are encouraging. I am referring to sheet glass. It would be hard to find anything more typical of London than a London taxi cab. Yet the new London taxi cabs all have a transmission which was made at Albury-Wodonga. When one thinks of that, one starts to think that there is another success story for Australia. Senator Button —It may be because they are old London taxi cabs in the sense of technology. Senator PETER RAE —They do a rather good job. We can look at some of the other things which Borg-Warner (Aust) Ltd at Albury is doing in competing in the American markets. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, will be as familiar as I am with the details. We can look at the case of Germany, a country of high technology, particularly in relation to its application to machinery and motor vehicles. A very large number of Germans are driving around Germany in motor vehicles which have an engine made at Fishermens Bend in Australia. Senator Button —Competitively, in world terms, or as a result of intra-corporate trade? Senator PETER RAE —This is the thing that I wanted to come to. This is the part that I wanted to talk about-the unreality of the debate which can take place if one is not careful and one talks in straight terms of what is protection given by one country. When one thinks of the number of non-tariff measures which could be introduced-some 22,000 have been identified altogether, ranging from health restrictions to safety restrictions-and which are supposed to be for one purpose but which are as often as not for another purpose entirely, one starts to realise that the debate can be very sterile if we do not recognise that what has been done in this country has resulted in the development, notwithstanding considerable difficulties, of a very effective manufacturing industry in many areas. We have also developed a manufacturing industry which needs to be brought into the real world of competition and given an opportunity to compete. This is where another important part of the debate needs to take place. We need to look at the conditions under which companies operate, in trade terms, in employment terms, in transport terms, in insurance terms and-I come to the interjection by Senator Button-at the intracorporate relationships where there are multinationals operating in a variety of countries and where it is very difficult to be able to say that the trade figures, which are apparent on the face of them between one country and another, really reflect the capacity of the industry in that country to produce competitively as if it were able to operate in a cocoon. It cannot. As my colleague Senator Watson said, too often industry debates tend to be subject to undue attention to tariffs. We should be looking at things such as employment conditions, whether penalty rates apply, what sorts of insurance arrangements and transport arrangements apply, what sorts of opportunities there are for transfers and what sorts of opportunities there are for the companies and those involved in the total amount of trade to be able to engage in practices which can make figures appear to be quite different from what they would be were it not for the engagement in those practices. We are talking about a company which has obviously had a chequered history. I accept what Senator Short has said, what my Leader, Senator Chaney, has said and what Senator Button has said, that here is a company which most people would regard as testing the limits of one's patience but for which there is a reason for continuing to say: 'Let us give it a further opportunity'. That is the attitude that has been adopted. But what we also need to do is to say, while we are talking about that, that this is not typical of what manufacturing industry in Australia is about. It is also about leading the world in a number of areas. It is also about leading the world in competition, given a fair go. It is also about our trying to change our domestic policies so that our manufacturers have an opportunity to be able to compete in the world. When I have heard the Minister talk about things such as penalty rates and some of the other problems, I have been encouraged to think that we may be able to compete on a basis which is fair and comparable with that of other countries. I mention here the Poitiers principle, which related to what the French did to the Japanese in regard to videos. They required videos to be taken in through the city of Poitiers which, as everyone knows, is well away from the coast and which had one customs station. All the trucks that were bringing in videos had to line up there and it took a very long time to get through. If we were to apply the same sort of principle, we could adopt a policy in which we gave absolutely no tariff protection to motor vehicles but under which we required them to come in through Port Hedland and be driven to the point of sale. But we have not done that. I believe we have been one of the most honest and straightforward countries and one which has done the least to engage in the sorts of sleight of hand and back door methods of providing protection. I do not think that some of the criticisms that I hear of Australia are entirely fair. I refer to the extent that we have not engaged in the indirect non-tariff measures of protection, but have reduced the up front obvious tariff measures. I give credit to the previous Labor Government for what it did, as well as to the former Liberal and National Party coalition governments for what they have done over a period, and to what the present Government through the present Minister is doing. This country is doing something of which we can be proud, but we are not giving enough encouragement to many of the people who would like to have a go, who would like to be able to try to compete in the manufactured goods world. As probably the best positioned country in a variety of ways in the major growth area of the world, we have an opportunity to take advantage which is second to none. I read of the growth that is taking place in relation to the telecommunications industry, and I think of what is happening with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Telecom Australia, and the extent to which, perhaps, we ought to be paying a little more attention to the huge growth that will take place there and the impact that decisions they will take will have on the future of Australian manufacturing production. I then start to think about the complaint being made now by the National Farmers Federation, suggesting that too much protection is given to Australian industry. I have regard to the fact that the publication of the Department of Trade, 'Australian Basic Trade Statistics', points out not only that has there been a very significant reduction in the average effective rate of assistance afforded to Australian manufacturers, but also that the average effective rate of assistance afforded to Australian agricultural activities in 1981-82, which is the latest year for which the figures are available, was 9 per cent, having been reduced from 21 per cent 10 years previously. Then one thinks of what Europe and its common agricultural policy have done to Australia and the extent to which the Europeans have provided effective protection. One finds that whilst we have gone in one direction, some of our major competitors have gone in the very opposite direction. Whilst they have destroyed our sugar market, we have played the game and have seen our sugar producers placed in the most incredibly difficult position. I do not want to trespass by talking for too long to the short title of the Bill. I wanted to talk briefly about bounties, because it is important that we recognise that whilst we are providing bounties occasionally to some industries that have some problems, we also have some sectors of the manufacturing industry that are doing extremely well. I refer, in conclusion, to one industry that was mentioned earlier today-the manufacture of cricket balls. It happens to be an area of manufacture for which Australia has developed an expertise and a major percentage of the world market. One of the members of the family that has been the chief producer of cricket balls for the world spent five years working out the technology necessary to convert from hand sewing to machine sewing. That was a five-year investment by that family company, leading to a situation in which Australia has been able to continue to hold its leading world position as the manufacturer of cricket balls, as well as in the manufacture of other sporting equipment. But again, it is something that we have done extremely successfully. One could go on to talk about all of these sides when talking about a bounty Bill. I believe that we tend to concentrate too much on talking about the failures and the problem areas and not enough on talking about some of the areas in which, with a bit of encouragement, we would find that we would get a greater recognition, in either world leadership or the opportunity to get close to it. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —In case it is thought that I missed it, I should state that we have just heard really a second reading speech. Most of what you mentioned, Senator Rae, was not pertinent to the short title. I urge honourable senators, in the future, to make such speeches at the second reading stage. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(9.44) —I do not wish to be led down Senator Rae's path of vicissitude. Of course, Senator Rae is right. When he says what he has said, he directs attention to a very important issue, because what he is saying, in a sense, is that the environment must be right. The fact is that the cricket ball company to which he referred, and a dozen other companies to which I could refer in exactly the same way, have succeeded because of attention to two things. Good management and good marketing have done it, irrespective of whether or not the environment is right. Those sorts of companies will continue to do it. There are many of them about. What we must be concerned about is getting the environment better so that there can be more of such companies that can do it by good marketing and good management, in a better environment. I wanted to make that comment because I appreciate the constructive point that Senator Rae was making. Unfortunately, perhaps there are not enough of those. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a first time. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave, Mr Deputy President, to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to repeal the National Welfare Fund Act 1943. Welfare and social service payments presently met from a trust account ledger head called the National Welfare Fund will in future be met directly from standing appropriations of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the specific acts authorising the particular payments. The National Welfare Fund was established as a trust account by the National Welfare Fund Act 1943 with amounts provided from general revenue, as a vehicle for making various welfare and social security payments. From 1945 funds to meet these payments were provided from social security levies specifically earmarked for this purpose. However, in 1952 the legislation governing the National Welfare Fund was amended to permit the National Welfare Fund to receive funds directly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund equal to whatever expenditure had to be met from the National Welfare Fund. The amounts provided for welfare and social service payments were thus no longer directly linked to levies. The National Welfare Fund effectively then became no more than a ledger head in the accounts through which payments were made. So, in other words, since 1952, expenditure on welfare, although made through this account, did not depend on it for funds. It was a policy decision of the Government of the day which determined how much would be spent on welfare, and has been so ever since. From 1976 there has been no continuing balance in the National Welfare Fund and payments from it have been matched simultaneously by payments into it from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The process of transferring funds into a special account which are then simultaneously paid out of it has been time consuming and wasteful of scarce resources. It has been criticised by the Auditor-General in his report for the year ended 30 June 1981 as a mechanism that served no useful function entailing significant and unnecessary accounting work. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations have been consulted and agree that the National Welfare Fund serves no useful purpose. The new accounting procedures are designed only to remove an inefficient and anachronistic process and are consistent with other initiatives by the Government to improve financial management in government. The change to the accounting procedures has no bearing on policy issues relating to welfare payments, i.e., the way in which recipients are paid, or the quantum of funds allocated by the Government to social welfare. I would like to stress this: These changes will have absolutely no effect on the amounts available to the Government for social security purposes. Other than the administrative savings which will result from the new procedures this legislation has no financial impact. It is intended that clauses 1, 2 and 5 of this Bill, which provide the mechanism for the continuing payment of welfare and social security benefits, come into operation on the day the Bill receives royal assent. The remaining clauses of this Bill will come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation, the tentative target being 1 July 1985. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Debate resumed from 19 April, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.48) —The Supported Accommodation Assistance Bill has the support of the Opposition, although at the Committee stage we shall be moving an amendment which would have the effect of bringing into the area of parliamentary disallowance or otherwise the guidelines which will be used by the Government in the course of its negotiations with the various States, and through, them with the voluntary and non-government organisations in determining the share of funding that they will receive under these various programs. I shall come to the reasons for that a little later. I start by setting down some of the history of this legislation. The origin of this Bill lies in a review of existing emergency and crisis assistance for homeless men, women and youth initiated by the Hawke Government upon its election in March 1983. Previously the three programs being administered by the new SAAP program-the youth supported accommodation program, the women's emergency program and the general supported accommodation assistance program-had been administered on an ad hoc basis. They had grown over some years, each in its separate way, and with different arrangements via the States. In the past the main arm for Government assistance in the area has been grants made under the Homeless Persons Assistance Act 1974. Under this program the Commonwealth makes grants towards the capital and operating costs of non-profit voluntary welfare organisations and local government bodies which provide temporary accommodation, meals, welfare and services for homeless people. In 1979, following a meeting of welfare Ministers, the Fraser Government initiated the youth services scheme. This program provided funding for emergency accommodation and related services for adolescents aged up to 18 years. Funding under the scheme supported youth refuges, family boarding services for adolescents, accommodation, referral and information services, detached youth workers and bond and loan schemes. The third arm of government support in this field was the women's emergency services program which was established in July of 1983. This was designed to assist women's refuges, half-way houses and refuge referral services. The announcement last year of the new SAAP program resulted from a Government review of all those services, including an evaluation of a report on youth emergency accommodation services entitled 'One Step Forward-Youth homelessness and emergency accommodation services'. I believe that some of the thinking that emanated from that report may have stemmed initially from a previous report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, of which the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) was a member, which dealt with homeless youth. Last year the Minister, then Minister for Social Security, informed the Parliament that the review had found that there was no logical basis for those arrangements then pertaining whereby some programs were administered and funded by the Commonwealth and others administered and cost-shared by the various States. There is no overall planning and programs are unco-ordinated and unnecessarily complex. The review recommended that a new Act provide funding to the States and Territories and embody a five-year Commonwealth-State agreement covering such matters as guidelines for the operation of programs, including protection for youth and women's refuges, funding arrangements, including a matching and guaranteed base level of funds from the Commonwealth, and the establishment of Commonwealth-State co-ordinating committees which would also include representatives of the relevant non-government organisations. The Act as proposed by the review would incorporate three proposed new programs. These would be administered by the States and again the costs would be shared with them. These programs comprise a youth supported accommodation scheme, the women's emergency services program and a general crisis accommodation program. They would cover the whole range of crisis accommodation needs in the community. While new funding arrangements were to be hammered out with the States, that was an area of considerable concern as far as the States were concerned and it remains so as the States will be taking on an increased share of that burden. In November last year the present Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes-then Minister for Social Security-made a joint ministerial statement on behalf of himself, the then Minister for Housing and Construction and then Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. In that statement the Minister said: The major objective of the Commonwealth's involvement in crisis accommodation programs is to provide a range of services to meet the needs of the homeless, and those facing other crisis accommodation situations such as eviction or domestic violence. He went on to say: Arrangements need to be logical and practical to assist non-government sector involvement, to ensure needs are met in a cost effective way, and to help the co-ordination of Commonwealth and State action. The Opposition agrees totally with the general thrust and direction of that statement and with the thrust and direction of the supported accommodation assistance program. Nevertheless, we are concerned about a number of points. First and foremost, I am not at all certain in my own mind-I look to the Minister for an explanation of this-why the legislation is being introduced before the full details of the operation of the program and the various sub-programs have been finalised. It is fairly clear from the questions that were asked of the Minister on this matter at Estimates committee hearings about a week ago that there are many unresolved matters involving the Commonwealth and the States. Many of those matters bear directly on the concerns of those in the welfare area who are providing services for people in this category. Indeed, even the Minister would acknowledge that there is widespread concern amongst service providers as to the future direction of the programs as a whole. The Bill authorises the payment of some $27.2m specifically for these three programs and it represents, as far as the Parliament is concerned, a blank cheque insofar as arrangements between the States and the Commonwealth in respect of the various grants to be made available to the non-government sector have not yet been completed. In particular, too, we are concerned about the status of some 67 services which are funded under the present homeless persons assistance program and which were to be included in the new supported accommodation assistance program but which apparently have been excluded at this time. This surely demonstrates that point we are making-that the Parliament is being requested to authorise payment of some $27m without the details of those projects to be excluded having been finalised. I understand from the Minister's comments at the Estimates Committee hearings that the 67 projects were left off the list of suggestions which came forward from the States, although this remains subject to negotiation by the States and the Commonwealth. The Minister did provide the Estimates committee with a list of the various bodies and projects comprising those 67 organisations which at the moment are being weighed in the balance, if that is not to put too fine a point on it, in the determination of final funding. The Minister, to his credit, did say that there would be carry-on finance for these organisations pending final determination. The point I make is simply that that is not good enough in the circumstances such as we have where these organisations have no guarantee as to their longer range funding. The organisations are listed and many of them have been involved in the support of homeless persons over a long period. They have vast experience in the field. I refer to organisations such as the Wesley Central Mission, the Salvation Army at St Peters in Sydney, the Salvation Army Foster House, the Society of St Vincent de Paul, the Matthew Talbot Hostel, the Sydney City Mission, Swanton Lodge Homeless Persons Hostel, Our Lady of the Sorrows and so on. A number of organisations are well established and well recognised in the community for their good works. As I say, they have enormous backgrounds and experience in dealing with the problems of homeless persons. Indeed, they perform a magnificent service to the community. It is to the credit of the Minister-- Senator Grimes —Are you worried that their funding is actually at risk? Senator MESSNER —I will come to that point. To the Minister's credit, he displayed evident concern about this matter at the Estimates Committee meeting the other day and he made the point that their funding was not under threat in any way for the time being. I think I have him right. Senator Grimes —They are not at risk. They are Commonwealth programs. The States do not want to accept them. I think I explained that. Senator MESSNER —Yes, the Minister is continuing the funding under the old program for the time being, as I understand it. The point we are concerned about is that the Minister was unable to say to us what the situation would be when arrangements were finalised between the States and the Commonwealth. It is here that the doubt lies. Looking forward to what I understand to be the eventual subsumption of the present program into the new supported accommodation assistance program, we have the doubts and concerns about the operation of these traditional organisations to which I have referred. I hope that the Minister may be able to assist us with his view of this matter because it is not at all clear that there is any longer term commitment to the operation of these organisations beyond the point at which determination of the final agreement with the States will be concluded. That brings me to the point as to why the Liberal-National Party Opposition is concerned to move the amendment that I will be moving during the Committee stage of the Bill. Its aim is to seek to have the Government table in the Parliament the guidelines by which the funding arrangements to non-government organisations will be made by agreement between the States and the Commonwealth, thereby making them subject to disallowance by the Parliament. I believe that to be a thoroughly proper way of attacking the problem and I will develop the argument about accountability and so on a little later. Let me go on with some of our other concerns about the new program. The anxiety expressed by a number of other service providers, particularly the women's emergency area, that their funding may be totally subsumed or even lost in the large program, is one that comes through time and again in discussions with community organisations in the field and in delivering services in this area. Again, we sought assurance and information on these points during the hearing of Senate Estimates Committee B last week but the final points I reiterate which are of concern are that the national guidelines are agreed but not finalised and that the sub-program guidelines are obviously still to be finalised. The inclusion of these 67 services to which I have just referred, which are presently excluded from SAAP, will depend on those State guidelines being established and the outcome of joint reviews in each of the States. The Minister spoke at some length in the Estimates Committee about these reviews but was unable to give us any final conclusions as to how those reviews will result in payments to various individual organisations or otherwise. I think he did go so far as to say that there may well be some organisations included while others are excluded. It is that very real concern that I voice on behalf of organisations generally receiving funding at the moment. They need some security in terms of the Minister's guarantee on this matter. I must say that it does seem there has been a very considerable muddle in the handling of the Commonwealth Government's negotiations with the States and in dealing with various non-government organisations over the introduction of the new program. There certainly is confusion in the minds of the State governments and the organisations of which I have spoken as to what the Government's intention is and how it will achieve the objectives that it set down. In the most general of terms the objectives that it has stated, which are that it seeks to co-ordinate and obtain better administration of the various programs and bring about efficiency in this field and deliver better services to the community, are laudable aims which we, in the Opposition, support undoubtedly. But our concerns still remain following the Minister's answers in the Estimates Committee and his lack of commitment to funding arrangements beyond the finalisation of certain funding agreements still to be concluded. I return to my original point I need to make about this series of programs: Why do we need this legislation now? As the Minister has stated, the guidelines have not yet been concluded by agreement with the States and there is not yet in place a final method by which the distribution of the funds to various non-government organisations will take place. The Bill seeks a blank cheque for $27.2m without any conclusive statements at all as to where the money will end up. Why is it that the Government needs the legislation now? In many ways the situation is similar to that of the new home and community care program which is still on the drawing board with the Government. Again, it is conducting negotiations with the States over the introduction of that program. That particular program had the support of the Opposition when it was originally announced in the Budget last year. But now we find a similar muddle in the negotiations with the States and the non-government organisations. I must say that this is generating very considerable and widespread concern right across the community. In the case of HACC, there is an even deeper concern; that is, that people were misled as to the original arrangements about the funding and consequently feel let down by the Government's finally bringing to reality a program which is considerably shorter in terms of new money than people were originally led to believe. As with HACC, I believe there is very widespread concern about the supported accommodation assistance program. I will quote the legislative time-table for the home and community care program which was referred to in the Estimates Committee by Ms Scott, the Assistant Secretary of the Community Care Branch in the Department of Community Services. She said: We propose to conclude agreements with the United States so that the program can be introduced from 1 July. There will be a proposal for the introduction of legislation which would be expected to be passed during the Budget session. At that point I intervened and said: Is that different from the supported accommodation assistance program insofar as you need legislative approval ahead of expenditure for the next year? Ms Scott said: There is an appropriation item at the moment that permits expenditure under the home and community care program. That will be maintained until the legislation is in force. The point I make here is that that pertains also to the question of the supported accommodation assistance program and, indeed, money is available under the various sub-programs as they exist at the moment, and that can continue. I cannot see what is the rush for this legislation. I come now to the point about accountability. The Government, in this legislation, has left the Opposition with very little room to manoeuvre in the interests of service providers. I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that, with such a fundamentally changed program as this one represents, there will be a great deal of concern and confusion in the community. It really has to be handled like eggs in order to ensure that people properly understand the whole program. We believe that, for that reason, there is a very effective case to be made in favour of providing for parliamentary scrutiny of this situation along the lines of the amendment I shall move later. Obviously, if we sought to delay the passage of this legislation, which is a blank cheque at this point, it is possible that the Government would argue, rightly or wrongly, justifiably or not, that the Opposition was holding back, restricting the development of the program and denying benefits to people who need them. We do not want to be seen in that light at all. Indeed, I make it quite clear that, as I understand it, money can already be made available under another head in the appropriation legislation. Short of taking that kind of drastic action, we are unable to control the situation from the point of view of how those organisations may be protected in particular cases. Therefore, we will be moving to have the sub-program guidelines subjected to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance if necessary. That is the point of the amendment I will be moving later. I think this is quite a reasonable thing to ask for in the circumstances, bearing in mind that community groups are very concerned about the new program and its developments and that this represents such a fundamental change of direction. Consequently, it really should be handled with the greatest of care. This new idea of parliamentary disallowance would be merely an audit check. It would act as a brake on any rush towards a sudden change of direction without the power actually being utilised in any way. It might be that the disallowance would never come to pass. The point is that it would act as a brake so that the Government would be able to think carefully about the distribution of funds and know that, if it decided to take action that was not in the best interests of the community, it could be prevented from doing so by appropriate action in the Parliament. Indeed, it is a question of restraint. Accountability of that kind is present in many different pieces of legislation that have been passed by this Parliament over very many years. It has proved a very effective way of ensuring that the best interests of the community are served. I believe that this amendment, if carried, would take with it a certain audit, a certain accountability, that would be built into the legislation and would ensure that the guidelines of these new programs were drawn in such a fashion that all community interests were taken care of and expressed in terms which would lead to solid community support for the whole of the supported accommodation assistance program rather than for individual parts of it. Consequently, it would carry with it a great deal of credit, even for the Government at this time. I suppose that only in the most extreme circumstances, if I am permitted to use that language, would such legislation be disallowed by this Parliament. It certainly would not be done in any sense of spite or in a recalcitrant way. Rather, it would be done in circumstances where there is proper consideration of the issues, in conjunction with discussions with the Government and other parties in the Parliament to ensure that the best interests of the community as a whole were served. It is not the intention of the Opposition to be obstructive in any way. Rather it is the Opposition's intention to help the Government to develop an appropriate piece of legislation which will have wide community support. I conclude my remarks by merely reiterating that, in general, we support this legislation. We believe that its main aims, which are to better co-ordinate the programs that are currently being operated by the Government for the assistance of homeless persons, will be more effectively carried out on such a proper basis. We believe that that will prove to be so, notwithstanding what we see now as some very real difficulties as the Government moves into a transition phase for the institution of this new program. Clearly, it will have significant advantages in many areas, but I repeat that the widespread community concern about this new program should receive the deepest and most proper consideration by the Government. I hope that it will see the sense of our very modest but, generally, very commonsense amendment which we will be moving in the Committee stage to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of the eventual guidelines under which funds will be distributed. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(10.16) —I rise to support the Supported Accommodation Assistance Bill 1985, which is before the Senate this evening. I preface my remarks by stating my disbelief at Senator Messner's contribution to this debate. In concluding his speech in this place he talked about the brakes and checks on a piece of legislation that he regards as quite reasonable. It seems to me a very curious way to approach support of legislation. Formal arrangements exist for those brakes and checks at the best of times. As any examination of this legislation will show, it has been a very proper and appropriate attempt by the Government to introduce rationalisation to a fragmented and inadequate provision for homeless people under three particular headings. Yet Senator Messner talked about how all those useful provisions to rationalise and to bring some order, where previously there was fragmentation, should be watched very carefully in case this Government was being a little less than proper and that maybe we might have to put on the brakes and block the purpose of the Bill. That is quite a remarkable way to talk about a piece of legislation, but that is not unlike Senator Messner on previous occasions. This legislation addresses agreements that will be arrived at to provide, in particular, assistance for accommodation in three areas or sub-categories-the general supported accommodation sub-program, the women's emergency services sub-program and the youth supported accommodation sub-program. Those honourable senators who have had the experience of working in the community know full well of the need in those areas. The number of homeless people in our community is rising and, in particular, there is a horrifying increase in homelessness amongst young people. I suppose that, in some ways, the presence of youngsters amongst the homeless has shocked our society and drawn attention not only to their presence but also to the homeless older people whom we might have been accused of becoming used to and disregarding. I hope that that is not this Government's position and that this Government should not be seen in that position. It is precisely because this Government is aware of the need to provide for homeless people that it has introduced this piece of legislation. It is an umbrella to make provision for homeless people of all ages and, in particular, to attend to the increased homelessness amongst young people and the needs they have. Included in that provision is what was previously known as the women's emergency services program. I want particularly to refer this evening to some difficulties, more imagined than real, for the women's emergency services program. The imagination of people in that program was very lively, particularly late last year, when they published advertisements in a number of States. I cannot speak for all States but I am certainly very aware of the provision in my State of South Australia. The shelters ran advertisements that claim, amongst other things, that women's refuges had been ignored by the Labor Government and were advantaged by a Liberal government, that in fact there had been no consultation with State government or Federal government and that they felt very angry and dissatisfied with the outcome of the provisions, as they understood them, under the supported accommodation assistance program. It was a matter of some curiosity to me that no matter how we spoke with the women, the problems they raised seemed to persist in their minds. It has been a long process and a persistent effort has been required to make the women involved in the women's emergency services program, and in particular those in the women's shelters, feel that their needs have been heard, that their claims for assistance have been accommodated and that the provisions under this piece of legislation will be no less but, in fact, as the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) has said on a number of occasions, will be more, both in hard dollars and in the range of support services that the Bill will accommodate and address. The women in the shelters movement were particularly concerned that this was an accommodation program and therefore not going to provide them with the necessary support and back up that they had established over many painful hard years of grind without very much funding to support and provide for the women in the shelters. It was a very important point that they raised. It was something that they feared had not been recognised and a number of us had to make a considerable effort to allay those fears. But it was a clear misunderstanding. At no time did the Government, in its proposals for this legislation, require that women's shelters would have any cutting off of services that had been arrived at or were being provided in the shelters. The word 'support' matters as importantly as 'accommodation' in all of these categories but most particularly when we are talking about the women's shelters. It is important to know that the women's shelters have struggled. It is easy to understand how they can fear, even at this stage, even with this Government's commitment and even with the increased funding from this Government under the women's emergency services program, prior to the increased funding under the supported accommodation assistance program as proposed-that what they had fought for for so long was still vulnerable and it was possible to have it all taken away. I believe that fear has been allayed. I believe the women in the women's emergency services program now know that it is not the case and that the Government's claims of commitment are real and that they do not have to continue to worry about whether their program will go on. What they should turn their attention to is the items listed as very important by the Government, under the heading of the 'women's emergency services sub-program' section of this legislation. The Government is quite clear about what is needed in this area because it has consulted at length with the women in the emergency services program. In particular, one area that the women from the women's shelters movement have highlighted, and which the Government is aware of, is the problem of staff arrangements and salaries for staff provisions in the shelter movement. It is still a matter of discussion and continuing negotiation. As in other areas of the provision of community services, it is very difficult to arrive at an award that adequately and equitably covers the people working in that area. We have the very comparable difficulty in the provision of child care in other than official pre-school or educational school facilities. That is a matter of current negotiation with the Government and in the same way the salary provisions for the staff working in shelters is one of the highest priority items for negotiation between the Government and the shelters. Although considerable steps have already been taken to arrive at a more satisfactory provision of salary and description of jobs for people working in the shelters, more needs to be done and eventually an award will have to be established and negotiated and the proper provisions of holiday pay, superannuation, compensation and other matters will have to be finalised for the women in the shelter program. Those are matters of considerable importance. They address the people working in the shelters. The Government has, as a priority concern too, the provision of the care of the women who come to the shelters in need, not in need of a job but in need of the provision of care that the shelter movement offers. When I last spoke to the people from the shelter movement I was advised by them that 80 per cent plus of the women who come into women's shelters come as a result of domestic violence. Usually that domestic violence is aimed at the woman; that is, the wife leaves the marriage because she can no longer stand being beaten, but sometimes the domestic violence extends beyond the woman to include the children. At this stage I cannot be clear, and I do not believe the data is yet clear enough for any of us to be clear, whether the domestic violence figure of 80 per cent includes the children in every case. But we can be quite clear that 80 per cent of the women seeking attention in women's shelters come because of domestic violence in their original home. It is a matter of difficulty for some people to recognise what happens to women when they seek entry to a shelter. They are acknowledging that they can no longer stand the problem in their homes. They admit at last that something must be done, either for their own care or for the care of their children, and very often there are children involved. There is remarkable evidence of how long women will submit to domestic violence for all sorts of reasons, largely economic constraints, of course, but when it comes to violence to their children, the women can also see that this is now the time for them to make a move. So they come to the shelter. They are people who have submitted to violence, not on one occasion but over a considerable time, and when they arrive at the shelter they are usually exhausted, both psychologically and physically, and for some days may be in need of considerable immediate care and support. One of the things that the shelter women report is that the women who come to the shelters do not know what to do when somebody in the shelter smiles at them and says hello. They are used to a confrontationist, violent approach from the people they know or live closely with. They are not used to pleasantness and politeness. They have to learn how to respond to civility. From all accounts it does not take them long at all to learn to respond, but for a time after arrival in the shelters-usually a matter of days, not longer-the immediate needs of the women are for support and assistance to discover that it is possible to live peacefully and not to be bashed up day after day or night after night. That is their first need. They have made their break from home and they need that kind of support when they first make it to the shelter. They also invariably need to contend with the difficulties of a marriage break up, the difficulties of finances, the difficulties of travelling and of getting the children to school and doing all the normal living requirements from somewhere usually not near to home. It is a matter of some privacy. Where shelters are located is not publicly announced, though of course women can find them if they really try, and that leads to another problem. It is a matter of fear for those women that they will not be found. They are often found and so the shelters provide them with that kind of support against a violent man. I will elaborate in more detail on the pattern of what happens to women when they come into the shelters, the very clear pattern that emerges of what happens from then on. The story is told so often now that the shelter women feel very confident of it, on the evidence of the many cases they have now seen over the 10 years or more that we have had a shelter movement in this country, told so consistently that it needs to be documented and told very widely. First of all the husband, on realising that his wife has left him and realising that she will have told somebody why she has gone, that is, that he has been beating her, usually is overcome with grief and remorse and desperately needs to absolve his guilt. He tries to find his wife and make peace. When he finds her he says 'Let us please get together', begging her to come home and so on. There is enormous pressure on the wife to return to the home, and this is seen in every case of marriage breakdown following domestic violence, although that is not to say it does not happen in other cases of marriage breakdown. It may well, but in terms of domestic violence-- Debate interrupted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.30) —Tonight I raise a matter which must be of concern to many people, particularly Aboriginal people. I refer to the maladministration of the National Aboriginal Conference which has been so clearly revealed by the Auditor-General's annual report recently tabled in the other place. The goings-on in the NAC have been described by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, as representing severe deficiencies in financial administration. I believe that many members of the NAC-Aboriginal people-are very genuine and perhaps did not realise what was going on. At the same time, I believe that there are members of the NAC who should be looked at very closely. Individual instances of what has happened in the NAC can be described as flagrant abuses of position and public funds. More than that, they are an abrogation of the Conference's responsibility to represent the Aboriginal people. To take some examples of the sorts of things that have occurred, the Auditor-General has reported that deficiencies included the fact that a significant percentage of the pay claims and supporting invoices which the office of the Auditor-General desired to examine were missing. Four cheque forms had also apparently been taken without authority and fraudulently negotiated. Significant deficiencies were noted in the system and procedures for the processing of payments of travelling allowances. There was a significant failure to comply with directions given by the Minister in relation to the purchase of motor vehicles in 1983-84. Several amounts approved for payment did not appear to have been authorised by the terms of the Conference's charter, rules and accounting arrangements. They included payments to some employees of accumulated flexi-time. At least 40 payments classified as salary advances were, in fact, in the nature of small, short term, interest-free loans. They included 22 payments of parking and speeding infringements. Perhaps that is minor, but it is part of the list. They included the payment of travelling allowances to members' wives, totalling some $3,150, and the hire of a bus for members of the Conference for a day trip to the snow-perhaps another minor thing, but part of the list. They included the hire of a rent-a-car from June 1983 to approximately February 1984 at a cost of some $4,200 and the payment of membership subscriptions to the Trans Australia Airlines Flight Deck Club and the Ansett Golden Wing Club for the then Deputy Chairman and two staff members. These amounts, approved for payment but which did not appear to have been authorised by the terms of the Conference's charter, rules and accounting arrangements, have been indicated by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. They are only a number of a very long list of instances of misuse of funds which were set aside for the establishment of a body which would provide a national voice for the Aboriginal people. The NAC was supposed to provide that voice. It had the opportunity to show that the Aboriginal people could manage their own organisation efficiently and effectively. It should have been a vehicle for promoting Aboriginals as responsible and capable people, as most of us know they are. However, the abuses of privileges which have occurred have not done any of these things. They have, if anything, damaged the reputation of Aboriginal people and organisations. I hope that the new organisation which the Government proposes to replace the NAC with, from 1 July this year, will be able to perform the tasks which the NAC was supposed to perform without some members feeling the need to abuse their own people and misuse funds which are set aside for their benefit. Not just the financial administration has been mismanaged in the NAC. The whole matter of Aboriginal representation has never been satisfactorily resolved. In the Senate last week the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, acknowledged that the electoral boundaries of the NAC were not based on communities and that that had caused some difficulties. That has been obvious from the operation of the organisation. I am pleased to see that this fact has at last been recognised and that the new organisation is to be based upon Aboriginal communities. It has been one of the problems of the NAC that many Aboriginal communities felt that they were not represented by it and that the actions which it took were as a result of political bias. The ramifications of Aboriginal representation on the NAC have been considerable and have caused immense difficulties. The first is the difference between, as I see it, the urban Aboriginals on the NAC who are many generations removed from their Aboriginal tribal ancestors-those urban members of the NAC who have lived to quite a degree as city dwellers and who have been brought up and are used to the sophistication of the city-and their outback cousins whose lifestyle is very different and who have felt out of place to quite a degree in the environment of the NAC. Because of the electoral system thrust upon them by government, many of the elected NAC representatives did not represent the authority of the tribal elders and were not recognised as their representatives. In that light they did not have the right to speak on behalf of the Aboriginal people. Many of the outback Aboriginal people I speak of-the tribal elders, the landowning group, the traditional owners-felt that they were not represented. Many debates have taken place in this place regarding this matter. They had very strong feelings in this regard. They believed that government did not and is still not heeding them. They believe that they are not being heard. One can go out into the bush into the tribal situation which still exists and hear these very fine old Aboriginal people still say that they are not being heard. They ask government to hear them. Now the Government has that opportunity. Some communities refused to participate in NAC elections because they rarely saw their NAC members other than at election time. Perhaps that also applies to our system of government. It is a criticism that cannot be levelled only at the NAC members. The other problem is that decisions that were taken by the NAC, such as that to boycott the Brisbane Commonwealth Games, were taken without any reference to the Aboriginal people. Many Aboriginal people felt very strongly regarding that episode. Senator Ryan has referred to the NAC as an experiment which has not been entirely successful. I think she will not find much disagreement with that proposition among the Aboriginal people who must feel very let down by the recently revealed details of how their representatives disposed of NAC funds. For that matter the Australian community will not disagree either. I hope that we can all take heart from the fact that it has been seen the NAC has not worked. I hope that we can count on the Government to ensure that the new organisation does not fall prey to the same arrangements, whereby money was spent without control and accounting. I certainly hope that the Minister will ensure that the person or persons responsible for fraudulently negotiating the missing cheque forms referred to by the Auditor-General are, if they can be located, prosecuted. There should be no question of those people obtaining positions in the future as representatives of the Aboriginal people. I believe it is important that the new organisation start with basically a clean slate and that it must not be tainted with the unfortunate and embarrassing misuse of public moneys which has gone on in the past. In the new organisation, I believe that government will need the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job. Senator Archer —The patience of Lot. Senator KILGARIFF —That is quite true; it will need the patience of Lot. If this new Aboriginal organisation is to achieve results, the Government has much to consider in its organisation, its framework, its responsibility and its representation. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(10.41) —Mr Deputy President, the matter I wish to discuss is a small one, but I consider it important. I believe that there is a move by the Joint House Department to deprive the attendants of their chairs. It may be a small thing but, nevertheless, I consider it to be important; in fact, I could get quite excited about it. It seems to me quite unacceptable that the Joint House Department should consider taking away from the attendants, who have to put in long hours, the comfort of sitting down occasionally or, for that matter, of sitting down while on duty and getting up only when required to do so. I would have thought that instead of taking away their chairs they would have been provided with better chairs because some of the chairs, especially those on the lower levels of this building, are quite uncomfortable. I am serious about this. The Joint House Department ought to reflect on the fact that there would be quite a deal of opposition from honourable members and senators if it tried to impose that sort of hardship on our attendants. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Georges, I know nothing of the matter to which you refer. I will bring it to the attention of the President. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.43) —I wish to raise the problem experienced recently by a young Australian Capital Territory constituent. I do not wish to mention his name because I do not think it is in his best interest. He applied to the Royal Australian Navy for an apprenticeship either as a motor mechanic or as a fitter and turner. Let me assure the Senate that in this story I intend to recount the Navy has been totally helpful at all times and the criticism I have relates to what may or may not be going on inside Australia Post. It does not involve the Navy. This young man received a letter on 15 April advising him that he should attend that day in Sydney for an interview in relation to his application for the apprenticeship. The envelope was postmarked 4 April. In fact, it took nine days to be delivered in Canberra. He immediately contacted the Navy and he was offered an appointment in June. That would mean that he would miss the intake he was seeking to get into and would place him, if he got in at all, in the January intake. The Navy offered to arrange an appointment for him in Melbourne which, realistically, would have been at his mother's expense. It then looked further into the matter and is attempting to arrange an interview out of sequence, in a sense, in Sydney. I repeat that there is not the slightest doubt that the Navy has done everything it possibly could to rectify the situation which arose as a result of a letter taking nine days to get from Sydney to Canberra. This is not the only incident I have heard of recently of mail taking a long time to be delivered, especially from Sydney to Canberra. I do not know whether the problem lies in Sydney or in Canberra, but I am sure that the Senate will recall hearing stories last year when mail was taking a great deal of time to be delivered and caused great problems to business, especially in Canberra. Since then, of course, the cost of posting a letter has gone up by another 3c. Hopefully, this young man will get his interview and get into the Navy. If he does not, he may always wonder whether it was the mess up over the interview that caused him to miss out. I suggest that there is enough stress and trauma for a young man attempting to get an apprenticeship these days without the stress of finding that a letter turned up on the day that he was supposed to be in Sydney for the interview. It would be a pity if we had to tell the Navy that when it sends out a letter for an interview, three days later it should send a telegram saying: If you have not received a letter, you had better ring up and find out what was in the letter you did not receive'. That is just too absurd when one thinks of the cost of sending letters and telegrams. I think we are entitled to expect that a letter should get to Canberra from Sydney and be delivered in less that nine days. I hope that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) will look into the present situation and the Australia Post's involvement in this incident regarding the delivery of mail between Sydney and Canberra so that this type of incident does not happen again. I repeat: It is not the Navy which has in any way been at fault. It needs to be commended for the effort that it has put into trying to solve the problems that have arisen as a result of the late delivery of its letter. This is not just a one-off late delivery. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.47) —I wish to raise a matter concerning private hospitals in north-western Tasmania. I need to respond to comments passed in this chamber by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) in answer to questions so that the facts of the matter or an alternative version of the facts may be made known. I shall go back to June 1984 and will quote briefly from correspondence relating to this matter that indicates that the information from the Minister for Health in Tasmania is somewhat different from that which has been suggested. The difficulty is that the matter started with a simple request from the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, that matters relating to public hospitals should be put in writing. That was done quite readily. On 3 October, the Tasmanian Minister for Health, Mr Clearly, wrote a letter to Dr Blewett in which he said: You will recall that you wrote to me on 4th June, 1984, on matters relating to private hospitals and in particular, on matters relating to increases in private hospital bed numbers. The letter went on to cover other matters that were involved. The last two sentences stated: I now seek your formal advice and direction as to whether you are prepared to grant approval-in-principle for one or two of the private hospital development proposals in the region. The Tasmanian Government does agree that there is a clearly expressed public demand for private hospital services in the region and accordingly I seek your urgent advice on this important matter. That letter was dated 3 October, and it went to the Federal Minister for Health, Dr Blewett. On 13 November 1984, Dr Blewett answered that letter and said: I refer to your letter of 3 October 1984 concerning two separate proposals to develop private hospital facilities in the North West area of Tasmania. He later said: Under the terms of section 23J of the Health Insurance Act 1973 an application for approval-in-principle is required from the proprietor. No applications from the intending proprietors have been received by my Department and I would naturally need to examine these before making decision on either proposal. Sub-section 23J (1) also requires that the category of a new private hospital be specified in the certificate of approval-in-principle. You have not addressed this issue in your letter, and consequently. I consider that this matter also would require discussion before I could make a decision. The letter further states: An assessment of the need for new private hospital beds must necessarily take into account the availability of existing public hospital beds in the region. I will, therefore, need the opportunity to examine relevant data in relation to bed/population ratios for the North-West region. That is fairly clear. There is no problem there about knowing what it is that Dr Blewett required. He listed the things he required: That the application be made to him; that he would need to examine this before making a decision on either proposal; and that it was his decision. Then he went on to say: . . . this matter . . . would require discussion before I could make a decision. That was Dr Blewett. He talked about the assessment of need. There is not one thing there that he asked of Mr Cleary, until the last sentence, which says: As a related issue, I would also appreciate some clarification of the State Government's plans in relation to the Ulverstone Hospital and the likelihood of a third proposal for a private hospital in that location. That is the only thing he asked for, so at that point everything was perfectly clear. On 26 November, Mr Cleary again wrote to Dr Blewett. He said in part: I have now advised both groups interested in private hospital developments to apply direct to you for approval in principle under Section 23J of the Health Insurance Act . . . Dr Blewett did not ask that Mr Cleary do that, but Mr Cleary did it anyway as a means of getting the matter cleared up. He said in the same letter: You indicated in your letter that you would need the opportunity to examine the relevant data in relation to the bed/population ratios in the North West region and while I expect your own Department has some fairly up-to-date material on this matter, I would be happy to answer any specific requests for information that you may have. You also sought clarification of the State Government's plans in relation to the Ulverstone Hospital and the likelihood of a third proposal for a private hospital in that location. On this matter I can assure you that the State Government has no intention to sell the Ulverstone District Hospital for use as a private hospital. The last paragraph stated: In any event I would expect that in the very near future that both groups will be supplying you with full detailed applications for approval in principal. I reiterate my previous comments to you that there is an expressed demand for private hospital facilities in the region and an early decision on this matter would be appreciated. I believe that makes the matter absolutely and totally clear. Canberra was in no doubt at all about the question of whether the Tasmanian Government would or would not sell the Ulverstone Hospital. It was under no doubt at all that the applicants would be making applications for a licence. That was all right up to that point, but then in March of this year we finally had Senator Aulich putting up a nice, low full toss on the leg side for Senator Grimes, who of course gave it the full treatment. He treated it with real gusto and extravagance and with references that simply do not stand up. I read the question: I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether he has seen reports in the Advocate indicating that he has said that the Federal Government would be prepared to give approval in principle to the establishment of a private hospital in Burnie. Can the Minister say whether he has been quoted accurately by Mr Talbot of Australian Hospital Care Pty Ltd? I will read only portion of the answer. Amongst other things, Senator Grimes said that the State Government, wishing of course to divest itself of public facilities, would prefer that a private hospital be in Ulverstone, by selling the Ulverstone Hospital to private interests. That is absolutely and totally incorrect, and Senator Grimes knew it was incorrect. He continued: First I said that the Federal Government would consider giving approval in principle to the establishment of a private hospital on the north-west coast of Tasmania. I said that I did not favour any particular site and I did not suggest that we would favour any particular site. I also told them that such recommendations would be considered when the State Government made recommendations to the Federal Government on where that hospital should be and by whom it should be operated. Nothing at all in the correspondence to this point has raised those issues. There was a letter from Mr Cleary in which he asked the Federal Minister whether there was anything else he needed to know. Senator Grimes went on with the gratuitous insults, when he said: The difficulty is that the State Government-and particularly Mr Cleary, the State Minister for Health who has great difficulty in making up his mind about anything . . . He went on in this vein. This was totally uncalled for and not in accordance with the correspondence or the facts in any way, shape or form. He continued: When the State Government makes a recommendation, the Federal Government will consider it . . . The ball is at the feet of the Tasmanian Government at present, not the Federal Government . . . Clearly, from the correspondence I have read so far, anybody can see that that is not the case. When I heard that question, it was at about that point that I decided I should try to get an idea of where the fault lay. I had been talking to people who were interested in the hospital proposition, so I rang some of them. I rang Mr Cleary's office and asked him for information and copies of the correspondence. On the next day, 28 March, Mr Cleary wrote another letter to Dr Blewett, which states in part: I note with some concern that my offer of the 26th November to answer any specific request for information has not been taken up. The Tasmanian Government is hopeful then that since its offer to answer specific requests has not been taken up, that the Commonwealth has compiled the information it needs for the decision making process. Later in the same letter he states: Should the Commonwealth decide to fulfil the expectations of Northwest Coast residents by giving approval-in-principle to either of the two private hospital development proposals, then the Tasmanian Government is willing to issue a reciprocal private medical establishment licence under the Hospitals Act 1918. The Tasmanian Government will only issue such a licence to the project approved by you as Commonwealth Minister. Finally, the letter states: If you intend convening a meeting with officers from my Department I and my officers would appreciate the courtesy of a copy of the complete information the Commonwealth has collected to enable you to judge the merits of the proposal from the viewpoint of size and location of facilities and range of services. I would also appreciate a copy of the criteria under which the Commonwealth will assess the relative merits of the two proposals. If in fact you have not yet developed a mechanism for handling this matter I must express concern given the intense public interest in the proposals and my earlier request for an early decision. That was through to 28 March. By that time there was a little movement in the air, and a reply came from Dr Blewett the following day. In its entirety, that letter states: Thank you for you letter of 26 November 1984- I remind honourable senators that this letter is dated 29 March- concerning the proposals to develop private hospitals in the North West of Tasmania. I apologise for the delay in replying. Mr Talbot, Executive Officer of Australian Hospital Care Pty Ltd, formally requested approval-in-principle for the Burnie project in December and Mr Eastaugh only very recently submitted his request for approval-in-principle to establish a hospital at Ulverstone. I am advised that officer level discussions have been arranged between our Departments to consider the two applications. I consider it hardly desirable that both proposals be considered together, as it is unlikely that two hospitals could be justified for that area. Which hospital, if any, that receives approval should be based on the assessment made by our Departments. Thank you for advising me of your position in relation to the Ulverstone District Hospital. That is all very well, but we had that comment from Senator Grimes on 26 March, when clearly Dr Blewett let him down very badly by telling the truth in a letter. Having accumulated what information I could, I then decided that I would give Senator Grimes the benefit of the doubt and that I should clarify the matter by asking a question myself. On 18 April I asked this question: I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Recently the Minister answered a question concerning the establishment of a private hospital in north-western Tasmania. He gave the impression that the reason there had been no progress since a letter of 26 November from the Tasmanian Minister for Health was a lack of co-operation and a lack of information requested from the Tasmanian Minister by Dr Blewett. If this is the Minister's view, can he outline what lack of information there has been over that period and indicate whether the information, as suggested, has not been provided? This produced the following reply: We have had a lack of information from the Tasmanian Minister for Health. Last Friday I met with a syndicate of people who wished to establish a private hospital in Ulverstone. I previously met with a group who wished to establish a private hospital in Burnie. I told both of those groups, and the Minister for Health has told both of those groups, that before considering whether we will approve the establishment of a private hospital on the north-west coast of Tasmania the information we must have, as we must have from every other State because public and private hospitals are primarily the responsibility of the States, is the view of the Tasmanian Government. We must have the view of the Tasmanian Government first of all on whether it thinks it is appropriate that there be a private hospital on the north-west coast of Tasmania. If so what size that hospital should be and how such a hospital may fit in with the public hospital facilities which are already provided there. I know of no views having been received from the Tasmanian Government or the Minister for Health in Tasmania, certainly until a couple of days ago, despite repeated requests by the Federal Minister for Health that we should have such views. Any attempt by the Federal Government to interfere with the running of hospitals in Tasmania or any other State would create considerable reaction from the State Government concerned. In every other State, when there has been a request to approve the establishment of a private hospital we have had the views of the State government on the site, the size and whether the hospital should be there at all. This is the first occasion that Dr Blewett or anyone else can remember when a State government has simply refused to give a view. I believe the reason is not hard to see. All of us who know the north-west coast of Tasmania-Senator Devlin, Senator Aulich and even Senator Tate-know what happens there. The State Government is very reluctant to give its views on anything for fear of offending the people of Burnie, Devonport, Ulverstone, Smithton or anywhere else. However, it happens to be the responsibility of the State Government and the State Minister to give a view and to give us some information, and we will continue to request it. To expect the Federal Government to make decisions on such an issue when the responsibility for the State hospital system, public and private, is primarily that of the State Government is nonsense. It may be nonsense, but it is not as big a nonsense as that answer which raises a whole lot of issues which, as the correspondence clearly shows, have never been raised between Dr Blewett and the Tasmanian Government or the Tasmanian Minister for Health. Senator Grimes's grandiose comments in his reply, such as 'despite repeated requests by the Federal Minister for Health that we should have such views', the correspondence clearly demonstrates that those views were never, at any stage, sought. He says that this is the first occasion that Dr Blewett or anyone else can remember when a State government has simply refused to give a view. Of course it has not given a view, it was never asked for it. It is an extraordinary business to have such a statement before us. I do not understand what Senator Grimes intends to gain by trying to grandstand in this manner, but it is my opinion that it has been a deliberate attempt on his part to mislead the Senate on the negotiations that have been transpiring between the Tasmanian Minister for Health or the Tasmanian Government and this Government. It may be only grandstanding to him, it may be sensationalism, it may be just extravagance on his part to suit his own ego, but the position is that it has resulted in his making statements which have led to a situation that could discredit a man who is an extremely fine Minister of the Crown and who has done absolutely everything he has been asked to do. I am sure that when the matter is raised in the House of Representatives, Dr Blewett will have no option other than to report the facts as I have and to demonstrate that Senator Grimes has taken this extraordinary attitude for reasons best known only to himself. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.05 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Canberra College of Advanced Education Act- Statute-No. 57-Courses and Awards Amendment 1985 Defence Act-Determinations 1985- No. 18-Reserve Allowance No. 19-Defence Force Rental Expense Assistance Allowance and another No. 20-Temporary Rental Allowance Drug Trafficking- Corrigendum to Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, dated 25 February 1983 First Home Owners Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 39 Fisheries Act-Fisheries Notices- No. 139-Prohibition relating to the taking of scallops from proclaimed waters in Bass Strait No. 140-Prohibition relating to the taking of prawns and shrimps in the Gulf of Carpentaria Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 38 Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1985- No. 12-Mental Health (Amendment) No. 13-Medical Practitioners Registration (Amendment) No. 16-Crimes (Amendment) (No. 2) No. 17-Court of Petty Sessions (Amendment) No. 18-Court of Petty Sessions (Amendment) (No. 2) No. 19-Evidence (Amendment) States Grants (Territory Education Assistance) Act- Direction under sections 37 and 41-Approval of Additional Building Projects and Subsequent Directions, dated 20 February 1985 Direction under section 41-Variation Schedule for Building Projects, dated 27 February 1985 The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 9) Senator Puplick asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: Does the Government support the principle of Australian travellers being able to purchase duty free items prior to their departure from Australia. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Yes. (Question No. 10) Senator Puplick asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) What discussions were held by any Minister of the current Government with representatives of the duty free industry prior to the announcement of the Government's decision to proceed with legislation to facilitate inward duty free shopping. (2) What revenue does the Government anticipate receiving from the introduction of inward duty free shopping. Senator Button —The answers to the honourable senator's questions are as follows: (1) The Hon. Kim C. Beazley, then Minister for Aviation, met with representatives of one of the major national duty free shop operators on 9 May 1983. I met with the same people together with representatives of another major operator on 29 November 1983. I understand that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism also held extensive discussions with representatives of the duty free industry prior to the announcement of the Government decision. (2) Prospective annual revenues from IDFS have been estimated at $5m. The decision to introduce IDFS was not based solely on revenue gains and there will probably be some Customs duty and sales tax forgone. However, in reaching its decision the Government was very much aware of the benefits which will be created by the generation of employment, increased safety aboard aircraft and fuel economies for airline operators. (Question No. 11) Senator Puplick asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: Was an Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC) established, initially under the chairmanship of the Department of Industry and Commerce, to examine the merits of inward duty free shopping in Australia; if so: (a) why did that Department relinquish the Chairmanship of such an IDC; and (b) was the IDC allowed to proceed to the point of submitting a report and/or recommendation to the Government; if so, what were the recommendations of the IDC; if not, why was the Committee not allowed to conclude its work, and what was the cost to revenue of the work of the Committee to the date of its termination. Senator Button —The answers to the honourable senator's question are as follows: Yes. (a) As the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism in conjunction with the Department of Aviation was the proponent of Inwards Duty Free Shopping it was more appropriate for that Department to chair the IDC. (b) The Interdepartmental Committee which the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism chaired did not proceed with a report on inwards duty free shopping. The results of the Committee's deliberations were incorporated in a joint Cabinet Submission by the Ministers for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, and Aviation. The Committee incurred no costs other than salaries of officials and support staff included in approved establishments of participating Departments. (Question No. 94) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) What Australian army personnel were stationed in Britain during 1983. (2) Can the Minister for Defence detail the times at which Australian Army personnel visited Britain during 1983; and the purpose of those visits. (3) What Australian Army personnel were in Britain when American cruise missiles first arrived there in 1983. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (i) 8 members posted to military staff appointments; (ii) 51 members either under training or posted as staff to training establishments; and (iii) 23 exchange personnel. (2) (i) (a) Aug-Dec 83 Exercise LONG LOOK-An annual short term individual exchange of personnel between the British and Australian armies-designed to broaden the military experience and knowledge of selected Army personnel; (b) 15 May-15 Jun 83 Exercise NORTHSTAR/SOUTHERN CROSS-An annual reciprocal sub-unit exchange between Australia and the United Kingdom which is designed to increase expertise; and (ii) 24 Jan-27 Feb 83-Inter allied Conference of Reserve Forces; 3-28 Jun 83-Project RAVEN Review (deals with the contractual buying of Army's new range of combat net radios); 20 May-19 Jun 83-Counter terrorist and Special Action Forces Operations; 16 Jul-1 Aug 83-Commonwealth Survey Conference; 24 Sep-10 Oct 83-Update Military Transport Doctrine; 30 Sep-17 Oct 83-Leopard Tank Users Technical Working Group Meeting; 14-30 Oct 83-6th Army to Army Talks; 6-22 Oct 83-Electrical Power Sources Meeting; 8 Oct-9 Nov 83-Chief of the General Staff Visit; 4-21 Nov 83-Army Operation Research Meeting; 2-27 Nov 83-Air Defence Systems Discussions. (3) (i) 8 members posted to military staff appointments; (ii) 43 members either under training or posted as staff to training establishments; and (iii) 23 exchange personnel. Senator Button —On 19 March 1985 (Hansard, page 383) Senator Boswell asked me, in my capacity as Leader of the Government in the Senate, a question without notice concerning the provision of assistance to the sugar industry. The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Across the board assistance to cane growers, such as the provision of a floor price of $240 per tonne, has been rejected by the Government. While the high cost is one problem, estimated in excess of $80m in a full year, there is also the concern that such assistance would not get to the heart of the industry's current problems, nor get the right kind of assistance to growers most in need. Nevertheless, the Government is committed to the continuation of an efficient and viable sugar industry and is aware that something needs to be done urgently about the current position of millers and growers. The Prime Minister and the Queensland Premier met in Canberra on 1 April and agreed that a working party consisting of Commonwealth, Queensland and sugar industry officials be established to report to both Governments within 100 days on a Plan to assist the industry's return to profitability. For the first time ever, the combined resources of the Federal and Queensland Governments and the industry will be applied in a concerted attack on industry problems. This is an encouraging outcome and the Government remains confident of a very constructive result for the industry.