Friday, 10 May 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Pornography To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG, and M rated video-cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of ''X'' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as is duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 118 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions bring to its notice and due to have effect from the 21 March, 1985 the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's Bill for the abolition of the Assets Test. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the passage of the Social Security and Repatriation Assets Test Abolition Bill to repeal the Labour Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 55 citizens). Petitions received. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-Last night I apologised to the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) and to the Senate for misleading it in connection with the dismissal of members of the Parliament House Construction Authority. I confirm and repeat those apologies. Afterwards, I was telephoned by an Australian Broadcasting Corporation journalist-and I thank him for doing so-who said that he believed that he would have been the original source of the information I used. He told me that on the day when the Minister announced the dismissals he, the journalist, had telephoned one of those dismissed and had been told by that person that this was the first he had heard of the dismissal. The journalist had endeavoured to contact the other dismissed gentleman but without success. The next day the story was run as a news item on the ABC which is why so many of us heard and remembered it. The journalist advised me that neither he nor the ABC had received any denial of the story from the Minister or his staff. I place no blame on the Minister or his staff for not denying the story. They may not have heard it or had it brought to their attention. Also, I recognise that they have much more important things to do than run around denying stories of journalists. They may even have considered the story and decided to let it go through to the keeper on the basis that the decision had already received enough publicity without adding to it. Likewise, I also considered allowing this story to go through to the keeper, but on reflection I decided that it would be wise to let it be made known because so many of us had heard it. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria) —I present the report of Estimates Committee A on the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the service of the year ending 30 June 1985 and the particulars of certain proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending 30 June 1985, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator ROBERT RAY —I also table additional information received by Estimates Committee A and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator GILES(Western Australia) —I present the report from Estimates Committee B on particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1985 and the particulars of certain proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1985, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator PRIMMER(Victoria) —I present the report from Estimates Committee C on the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1985 and the particulars of certain proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1985, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. I move: That the report be printed. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.06) —I support the motion but I indicate, as Senator Primmer is no doubt about to advise, that material was received from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation subsequent to the time the report was prepared. That material shows quite clearly that the ABC now admits that it misled the previous Estimates Committee A, which is now Estimates Committee C, in respect of the provision of entitlements for homosexuals on the same basis as those for married couples. It is a very serious matter. I know that this is not the appropriate time to deal with it; I simply flag it now because it was a very serious and deliberate misleading of an Estimates committee on two occasions. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PRIMMER(Victoria) —I also table additional information received by Estimates Committee C and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland) —I move: That the order of the day for the presentation of the report of Estimates Committee D be postponed until Wednesday, 15 May 1985. Estimates Committee D is seeking this extension of time to enable the National Aboriginal Conference to appear before the Committee. The NAC did not appear with other witnesses during the hearing for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The Committee has been advised by the NAC that it is preparing responses to a number of questions and would welcome the opportunity to appear before Estimates Committee D. Therefore, the Committee wishes to provide the NAC with an opportunity to appear before it and it is therefore seeking this extension of time to allow such a course to be followed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —I present the report from Estimates Committee E on the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1985 and the particulars of certain proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1985, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON —I also table additional information received by Estimates Committee E and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales) —On behalf of the Chairman of Estimates Committee F, Senator Georges, I present the report from Estimates Committee F on the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1985 and the particulars of certain proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1985, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: (1) That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by Message No. 60 of the House of Representatives relating to a reference to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. (2) That the foregoing resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by Message. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(9.11) —I support the motion of concurrence moved by the Manager of Government Business (Senator Grimes). It is a reference to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts of work that is of an on-going nature that is required by the Government. I believe that the Public Accounts Committee is equipped to undertake this work in accordance with the reference that is proposed. I urge the Senate to support the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.12) —I was prevented, because of other duties, from hearing the second reading debate but I understand that a number of amendments have been proposed by Senator Collard, one of which will be replaced by a Government amendment covering the same matter but it will incorporate some consequential amendments as well. There are some further amendments of which Senator Collard has given notice which will not be accepted by the Government. I thank those who have participated in the debate and wish the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1985 a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 9-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 10. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.14) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 4, proposed new paragraph 33B (b), lines 1 to 3, leave out the proposed paragraph, insert the following new paragraphs: '(b) to decide whether provision should be made for the appointment of alternates of members of the Board referred to in paragraph 34 (1) (c); '(ba) if the Committee decides that provision should be made for appointments of that kind-at the request of the Minister, to select persons to be nominated for appointment as alternates of members of the Board referred to in paragraph 34 (1) (c); and'. (2) Page 4, proposed new paragraph 33E (b), line 21, before 'written', insert 'if the Committee decides that provision should be made for the appointment of alternates of members of the Board referred to in paragraph 34 (1) (c)'. (3) Page 4, proposed new sub-section 33F (2), lines 35 and 36, leave out 'industrial relations', insert 'grain movement logistics'. (4) Page 6, proposed new paragraph 33I (1) (c), lines 2 and 3, leave out the proposed paragraph, insert the following new paragraph: '(c) the President of the National Farmers' Federation or a person nominated by the President of the National Farmers' Federation, and one other person nominated by the President of the National Farmers' Federation;'. (5) Page 6, proposed new sub-section 33I (2), line 7, leave out 'and the President of the National Farmers' Federation'. (6) Page 7, proposed new section 33K, line 14, leave out 'or the President of the National Farmers' Federation'. (7) Page 7, proposed new paragraph 33K (b), line 21, leave out 'Association', insert 'Federation'. As I indicated earlier, these amendments incorporate the amendment moved by Senator Collard, but also the consequential technical amendments which are required because of the major amendment moved by Senator Collard, which gives the Selection Committee the right to nominate the alternate grower members of the new Wheat Board, a majority of the Selection Committee being drawn from the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. Senator Macklin —I imagine that the Minister is now moving his first amendment-that is, to clause 10. Senator WALSH —I seek leave, Mr Temporary Chairman, to move amendments 1 to 7 together. Senator Collard —One, two, nine and 10. Senator Macklin —They deal with the same argument. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Jones) —Clause 10 is before the Committee, and amendments to that clause are all that can be moved at this stage. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(9.17) —Perhaps I may interpose here, Mr Temporary Chairman. We can talk about them all, anyhow. There has been consultation between the Government and the Opposition, and with parliamentary counsel. As regards the Government's amendments Nos 1, 2, 9 and 10, Nos 1 and 2 run as they are, and Nos 9 and 10 are consequential on 1 and 2. The Opposition is not opposing those amendments. They are in line with what we are trying to get at. Since parliamentary counsel has looked at them, I understand that there has been consultation with the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation and the Federation is happy with those amendments as they stand. So, to keep the record straight, I guess that we have to handle amendments Nos 1 and 2 now, and amendments Nos 9 and 10 afterwards; but the latter are consequential on amendments 1 and 2. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Is there any objection to moving the amendments up to No. 6, all to clause 10? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.18) —Apparently, for technical reasons, it is necessary to move amendments Nos 1 and 2 together. Therefore, I seek leave to withdraw amendments Nos 1 to 7 inclusive that I moved earlier. Amendments-by leave-withdrawn. Senator WALSH —I now seek leave to move amendments Nos 1 and 2 together. Leave granted. Senator WALSH —I move: (1) Page 4, proposed new paragraph 33B (b), lines 1 to 3, leave out the proposed paragraph, insert the following new paragraphs: '(b) to decide whether provision should be made for the appointment of alternates of members of the Board referred to in paragraph 34 (1) (c); '(ba) if the Committee decides that provision should be made for appointments of that kind-at the request of the Minister, to select persons to be nominated for appointment as alternates of members of the Board referred to in paragraph 34 (1) (c); and'. (2) Page 4, proposed new paragraph 33E (b), line 21, before 'written', insert 'if the Committee decides that provision should be made for the appointment of alternates of members of the Board referred to in paragraph 34 (1) (c)-'. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.19) — Mr Temporary Chairman, I have circulated some amendments, one of which refers to the deletion of some words which are contained in the original new section and are retained in the proposed amendment by the Government. They are the words 'at the request of the Minister', which occur in the original Bill at new sections 33B (a) and 33B (b). The amendment that I had proposed originally would, I think, in conjunction with the amendments to later clauses, have simplified the matter considerably, since in new section 33E the Minister is given a range of powers already with regard to the appointment of members of the Board and the nominations, which would have had the same effect as the rather elaborate amendments which are now proposed. I do not intend pressing ahead with the first amendment that I have circulated. However, I believe that what we are now about to substitute is a very confusing way of doing something which could have been done much more simply by eliminating the first clause. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.20) —I am advised that Mr Kerin is willing to accept that amendment but not the second amendment that has been circulated in Senator Macklin's name. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.21) —Perhaps I can clarify the point I was making in terms of the first amendment. The effect of the amendment is actually achieved by the Government's own amendments Nos (9) and (10). Unless the Government wishes me to move that amendment, it seems to me that it would be far simpler to leave it out. I now realise that having it in has no effect because of the Government's own proposed amendments to its Bill. There is no point in going on with the amendment. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(9.22) —Because of what has gone on, we are in complete agreement with the Government's amendments Nos (1) and (2). The amendments are in line with what we are trying to achieve. Amendments agreed to. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.22) —by leave-I move: (3) Page 4, proposed new sub-section 33F (2), lines 35 and 36, leave out 'industrial relations', insert 'grain movement logistics'. (4) Page 6, proposed new paragraph 33I (1) (c), lines 2 and 3, leave out the proposed paragraph, insert the following new paragraph: '(c) the President of the National Farmers' Federation or a person nominated by the President of the National Farmers' Federation, and one other person nominated by the President of the National Farmers' Federation;'. (5) Page 6, proposed new sub-section 33I (2), line 7, leave out 'and the President of the National Farmers' Federation'. (6) Page 7, proposed new section 33K, line 14, leave out 'or the President of the National Farmers' Federation'. (7) Page 7, proposed new paragraph 33K (b), line 21, leave out 'Association', insert 'Federation'. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(9.23) —As I have indicated, these amendments are in line with what the Opposition is after. Amendments Nos (3), (4), (5) and (6) are consequential upon each other. Amendment No. (7) is different. Yesterday the Parliamentary Counsel made an admission that it was a mistake. It is not often that we get such an admission from him, and he cannot defend himself either. It is a mistake that has been picked up. The Opposition does not oppose the amendments. I might add that my amendments Nos (4) and (5) seek to insert new sub-sections (1A) and (1B). It would make sense to deal with amendments (3) through to (7). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.25) —To Senator Walsh's amendment to insert new paragraph 33I (1) (c) I move: Leave out 'the President of' (third occurring). The reason I have moved this amendment to the Government's amendment is that the clause, as amended by the Government, would read: The President of the National Farmers' Federation or a person nominated by the President of the National Farmers' Federation, and one other person nominated by the President of the National Farmers' Federation. I believe that really ought to ensure that the second person should be a nominee of the National Farmers Federation, not a duplicate nominee of the President of the National Farmers Federation. It is a matter of technicalities. I presume that the President of the National Farmers Federation would not stay in that position for very long if he proposed to put up a second person. But the first person is actually an ex-officio position held by the President of the National Farmers Federation in his own right, or by his own personal nominee, who, of course, would not necessarily have to be a member of the National Farmers Federation. It would be a personal substitute. I believe that the second position was not meant to be an additional substitute for the President but rather an additional person nominated by the Federation-not nominated by the President of the Federation in his personal capacity. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.26) —The Government sees the amendment as really quite unnecessary. Whether the legislation states that the person should be nominated by the President of the National Farmers Federation or by the National Farmers Federation the Government believes is of no consequence. But I would like some indication of the official Opposition view on this. As we believe it is of no consequence, we see no point in forcing a division on the matter. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(9.27) —I have discussed this briefly with Senator Macklin. I must confess that once again I agree with the Government at this stage. I do not see it as an issue of any great moment so we will not support the amendment. Amendment (Senator Macklin's) negatived. Amendments (Senator Walsh's) agreed to. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(9.28) —by leave-I move: (4) Page 6, after proposed new paragraph 33I (1) (d), add the following new paragraph: '(e) 5 wheat growers, one from each of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia, nominated by the respective State Affiliates of the Australian Wheat Growers' Federation.'. (5) Page 6, after proposed new sub-section 33I (1), add the following sub-sections: '(1A) The members of the Committee referred to in paragraph (d) shall not participate in the deliberations of the Committee or vote except in respect of the nomination by the Committee of the persons referred to in paragraph 34 (1) (d). '(1B) The members of the Committee referred to in paragraph (e) shall not participate in the deliberations of the Committee or vote except in respect of the nomination by the Committee of the persons referred to in paragraph 34 (1) (c).'. My reason for moving these amendments follows consultations with the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. Its idea is that there be a core committee which would sit with the five Australian Wheatgrowers Federation nominees to select the three specialist or expert members. But when it comes to selecting the member from each State, the Federation would like the Bill to be amended so that the core committee would sit with members from each State to select that one State representative. Anyone who has had anything to do with the wheat industry would know that it operates very much on a State by State basis. There is much parochialism, as there is indeed in many other areas, within the wheat growing industry. To overcome the problem or any future conflict, it has been suggested that that core committee sit with the five members just to nominate the specialist members of the Australian Wheat Board and that the core committee then sit with the five representatives from each State to nominate the one person from that State who will be that State's representative on the Wheat Board. That, very briefly, is the intent of my amendments. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.30) —The Government does not support amendment No. 4 moved by the Opposition. That amendment proposes an increase in the grower membership of the Australian Wheat Board Selection Committee from five to 10. The Government sees that as quite unnecessary and something that would make the Committee quite large and unwieldy. If the objective is to enable grower members to have a majority on that Committee, that is already provided for in the Bill. The Government sees no point in unnecessarily expanding the number of grower members of that Selection Committee from five to 10. Because of its view on Senator Collard's amendment No. 4 as circulated, the Government is therefore also opposed to his amendment No. 5. Both amendments are incompatible with the objective that this Government has sought to achieve. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(9.31) —I will explain the situation. Although I do not think my eloquence will persuade the Government, I would like the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) to understand what we are about. We are proposing that five additional members sit with the core members of the Australian Wheat Board Selection Committee in electing the specialist members. That is all those additional members would do. The core committee, plus five members from each State, would then select one person from each State. The Committee would not consist of the five original members plus five additional members from each State. The Committee would consist of just the core members and, for example, five members from Queensland who would select one representative from Queensland. The same situation would apply to New South Wales and so on for those States participating. The five members from the Wheat Board with the core committee members would just select the specialist members. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.32) —The amendments moved by Senator Collard certainly have the support of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. However, we do not propose to support the amendments for the following reasons: The original proposition of the Government was to provide that the Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, the President of the National Farmers Federation and five wheat growers nominated by the Australian Wheat- growers Federation shall be on the Australian Wheat Board Selection Committee. Undoubtedly those five wheat growers will be chosen by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation on a geographical basis. Undoubtedly one person from each State will be selected. Therefore, it seems to me that within the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation itself the intent of the amendments moved by Senator Collard will be achieved if the Federation wishes to achieve it. I think it is inappropriate to use the legislation to overcome internal problems of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. We all know there are difficulties between the States. That is something that is likely to continue not just in this industry but in every industry. In some ways the interests of the wheat growers in different States diverge in significant ways, depending on a variety of factors, and hence within the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation there are some considerable differences in view. I think, however, that Senator Collard's proposal would not necessarily achieve the results he would hope for in a more effective way than the current organisation would do. As I see it in practical terms, when the Australian Wheat Board Selection Committee meets, the nominee put forward for Queensland by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation undoubtedly would have the major say in choosing the person to represent Queensland on the Board. I think it is decidedly unlikely that the representatives from the other States would seek to appoint a person from Queensland different from that chosen by the Queensland grain growers. That is likely to be so for each other State. Hence the proposition that Senator Collard is suggesting is useful is already covered by the legislation and it really depends on the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation to achieve it. The structure would enable the Federation to achieve it if it wishes to do so. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.34) —It seems a pity that Senator Macklin takes the view that he does. After all, this is a simple, straight-out proposition which is the objective, as I understand it, of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. All it attempts to do is to bring the final selection from each specific State closer to being the total province of the people in the industry who belong to that State. That seems a perfectly sensible and logical approach. I think it is a pity that, in this circumstance, we shall not be able to adopt the recommendations and desires of the industry itself. I think Senator Collard's amendment should be supported on the grounds of logic and on the grounds that it represents the desires of the Wheatgrowers Federation. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Collard's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Missen, A. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R. Chaney, F. M. Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Sheil, G. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Short, J. R. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Townley, M. Jessop, D. S. Vanstone, A. E. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Watson, J. O. W. Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. McClelland, DouglasBlack, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J. Chipp, D. L. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. 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. Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Jack Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Haines, J. Walsh, P. A. Jones, G. N. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Coleman, R. N. Carrick, Sir John Button, J. N. Knowles, S. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Messner, A. J. Georges, G. Rae, Peter Zakharov, A. O. Walters, M. S. Grimes, D. J. Reid, M. E. Evans, Gareth Question so resolved in the negative. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 11 (Membership of Board). The CHAIRMAN —There are two amendments, one from the Opposition and one from the Australian Democrats. To clarify matters, I propose to take first the Opposition amendment, which has the effect of leaving out the words and inserting others. If that is carried, we can discuss the words; if it is not, the other amendment could be considered. The question is: That clause 11 stand as printed. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(9.44) —I move: (7) Page 10, proposed new paragraph 34 (1) (d), lines 7 and 8, leave out the paragraph, insert the following new paragraph: '(d) 3 other members each of whom has had extensive experience at a high level in finance, marketing or grain movement logistics.'. The basic thrust of our amendment is that the Board should comprise three members rather than four, each of whom has had extensive experience at a high level in finance, marketing or grain movement logistics. The CHAIRMAN —The question is: That the words proposed to be left out by Senator Collard's amendment be left out. Those of that opinion say aye, against say no. I think the ayes have it. The question now is: That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.48) —I had proposed to move: (2) Page 10, clause 11, proposed new paragraph 34 (1) (d), leave out '4', insert: '3'. The principal reason for this change-it really is the crucial change to the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill-is to have an effective grower majority on the Australian Wheat Board. The problem surrounding this change goes back to the Wheat Marketing Bill of last year, as I suggested in the debate on the second reading. Some considerable unrest and concern arose last year when we were discussing that Bill about the structure proposed then by the Government. I believe the Government has gone a long way to accommodate the industry with regard to the restructuring of the Board. The two-stage process now means that the growers have control over the selection panel and that they will be able to appoint the people they believe have the necessary grower contact, as well as the necessary expertise. I do not think there is any general disagreement over the way in which the Board is composed. However, my proposition to bring the membership down from four to three really gets down to the much finer point of the actual majority which is available at any meeting of the Board with regard to the decisions which have to be made. I certainly understand the Government's proposals. A great deal of money rides on the decisions of the Board. The Government is concerned about some of the decisions which have been made by the Australian Wheat Board in previous years. However, while accepting those concerns, I believe that sufficient growth in the number of expert people on the Board will still be achieved if there are three rather than four other members, moving the weighting back in favour of the wheat growers, the producers and the industry itself. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), in his original proposition, argued very strongly in favour of the Board having on it people with extensive experience in finance, marketing and other types of operations within the industry. I believe that this can be accommodated just as well by having three other members as by having four. Hence I do not believe that the proposition we are putting damages in any way the Government's desire to have that level of expertise available on the Board. The only dissent concerns the matter of maintaining that effective grower majority. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(9.51) —I am not sure who is moving which amendment, but the amendment moved by me has the same effect as Senator Macklin's proposed amendment-three other members rather than four. As I understand it, we now have the wording right. I will just read it out so that everybody is sure of what we are doing. The amendment that I moved and Senator Macklin supported-it has the same effect as the amendment that Senator Macklin was to have moved separately-reads in part: 3 other members each of whom has had extensive experience at a high level in finance, marketing or grain movement logistics. The words 'finance, marketing and grain movement logistics' pick up the further amendment which was circulated by the Government. This, as has been indicated, serves to bring the number of specialist members on the Australian Wheat Board down from four to three, as requested by the wheat growers, and makes sure that the wheat growers have a majority on the Wheat Board. I notice that many of the primary industry Bills coming through seek, in a not too subtle manner, to give the Government a fair measure of control on all these boards which pertain in one way or another to rural industry. The Opposition does not support the thrust of those moves. As to the Wheat Board in particular, as I indicated in my speech in the second reading debate, no taxpayers' money whatsoever is involved. The Board is a completely wheat grower-funded organisation. It is funded by levies on the growers. An underwriting scheme is in place but it is longer than anybody can remember since taxpayers' money was used in any underwriting schemes. It is essential that the wheat growers themselves maintain a majority on that Board. That is what this amendment is all about. As to whether the Board needs three or four specialists, sometimes we can have too many specialists on these organisations. In this instance I think three will be more than adequate and will maintain the wheat growers' domination of the Board. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.54) —I move the following amendment to the proposed amendment: Leave out '3', insert '4'. That is in accordance with the Government's original intention. I gather from the comments that have been made that the Australian Democrats will support the Opposition amendment. Is that correct? Senator Collard —We are opting for three. Senator WALSH —In that case I will not press it to a division. I just want to put on the record the reasons for this Government amendment. It has been ensured, both in the original legislation and in the amendments carried so far, that the five grower representatives or their alternates will at all times have a majority on the Board. That is not really the issue at stake, but the Opposition's proposed amendment, which evidently has the numbers to be carried, simply reduces the number of people with technical expertise on the Board. For that reason the Government is opposed to it, and the Government's opposition has been expressed by way of the further amendment which I have just moved. Amendment (Senator Walsh's) negatived. Amendment (Senator Collard's) agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 12 and 13-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 14 (Alternate members). Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.55) —by leave-I move: (9) Page 11, proposed new sub-section 36A (1), line 10, leave out 'The Minister may', insert 'If the Committee decides that provision should be made for the appointment of alternates of members referred to in paragraph 34 (1) (c), the Minister shall'. (10) Page 11, proposed new sub-section 36A (5), line 21, leave out 'may', insert 'shall'. These amendments are consequential to amendments already agreed to. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(9.56) —As I indicated previously, we support the amendments, which are consequential to previous amendments. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Debate resumed from 9 May. The Bill. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(9.57) —I wish to speak briefly on the National Welfare Fund Repeal Bill to which an amendment was moved to the second reading motion last evening on behalf of the Australian Democrats. If carried it would have amended the detail of the Bill. The amendment was for the introduction of a national superannuation scheme which is both universal and portable within 12 months of the repeal of the National Welfare Fund Act. I was not aware until after I have spoken in the debate on the second reading that the amendment was to be moved. It was unfortunate that I was then not given leave to speak briefly to explain that the Opposition, while being-- Senator Puplick —Where are the real democrats? Senator PETER RAE —I was refused leave. I wish to explain that the Opposition, not having had the opportunity to consider the matter in any detail or to discuss such an important and fundamental matter as national superannuation to be introduced within 12 months, was certainly in no position to vote in support of such a demand on such short notice. That is not to say that the Opposition has not done a tremendous amount of work in relation to superannuation generally, both public sector superannuation and the question of some form of national superannuation. Coalition party committees have spent a very considerable amount of time looking at this matter which is certainly on the Opposition agenda for policy development action. I would not have thought that such a discussion was relevant to the Bill before the Committee. I do not propose to go into the history of all the problems of national superannuation. However, I believe that it is important that we debate this matter at an early stage. Rather than adopt this ambush tactic, I would have hoped that the Australian Democrats would have decided to raise the question of national superannuation by proposing a matter of public importance which would have allowed us to debate this subject in some detail. I am not suggesting for a moment that national superannuation is not something which the Opposition regards as being of very great importance to the future of this country. The amount of unfunded liability in respect of Commonwealth superannuation alone adds in the order of $3 billion to the undisclosed deficit which this country experiences. That gives us some idea of the order of magnitude of the problems with which we have to deal. The need for some sort of superannuation scheme to be worked out, if such a scheme is possible or practicable, has concerned a large number of countries. Senator Grimes, when speaking in the debate last night, gave some of the history and the experiences of a number of European countries in particular. I am reminded that Sir Robert Menzies was led to resign at the end of the 1930s as a result of the failure of the then Government to fulfil its commitment to the introduction of a national superannuation scheme. This has certainly been a problem for a very long time, in respect of which the Opposition has done a considerable amount of work. We had a committee working on it when we were in government and we have a committee working on it now. We will certainly be developing proposals on the whole question of superannuation as soon as possible. But it is not something for which there are any sudden or easy answers. I believe it is unfortunate that the debate on this matter has proceeded in the way it has in this chamber. I have now explained why, firstly, I did not speak yesterday on a Democrat amendment which was moved at the second reading stage because I did not know about that amendment until after I had spoken in the debate. Secondly, I have explained why the Opposition voted as it did-not because it lacks a sympathy or a will to tackle the problem of national superannuation but because it or any government would not be in a position within 12 months of the repeal of the National Welfare Fund Act to introduce a national superannuation scheme which was both universal and portable. Obviously, universality and portability are important. I remember Sir John Gorton, when Prime Minister, introducing plans, I think in 1971, for the portability of superannuation. Many attempts have been made in this respect. The very lengthy history of this matter gives us an idea of the complication which is involved. The amendment that was moved yesterday was unduly simplistic and I believe did not do justice to the importance of this subject. I thank the Committee for the opportunity which I have had to explain why the Opposition took the attitude that it did yesterday. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Debate on the subject of superannuation is not relevant to the Committee stage of this Bill for an Act to repeal the National Welfare Fund Act. I have shown tolerance to Senator Peter Rae because of the circumstances which arose last night but it would not be appropriate now, during the Committee stage of this Bill, to have a debate on the merits or otherwise of national superannuation. I ask other honourable senators who intend to speak in this debate to confine their remarks to the clauses of the Bill rather than speak on the general principles of superannuation. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.05) —I hope that I will be given the same indulgence to speak on this matter, following the line of reasoning that was extended to Senator Peter Rae. I am also concerned about what happened last night. I believe that the record needs to be put straight. Senator Rae has spent the whole of his considerable time in this Committee debate talking about that. I wish to clarify the record because Senator Rae did have a copy of this amendment and it is completely erroneous for him to suggest that he did not. As I understand it, copies of the amendment were distributed during the afternoon. Senator Rae, his colleagues in the Liberal Party of Australia and his Party Whip all would have had copies of this amendment. If their system is not organised so that they can ensure that the shadow Minister handling this portfolio is made aware of the fact that there is an amendment which has been tabled some six hours before the debate comes on, that is a problem that they have to resolve. It is not a problem that the Australian Democrats need to take on board. Senator Peter Rae —We will just apply the same rules in future if that is the way you want it. Senator JACK EVANS —The Opposition already does that. Indeed, this week our Party Whip sent to my office an amendment in relation to my shadow portfolio responsibilities which was distributed in this chamber. There is another important factor which needs to be borne in mind. Yesterday, at the request of Senator Rae I reduced a 30-minute speech to eight minutes so that this National Welfare Fund Repeal Bill could be dealt with last night. I did that at the request of the Opposition shadow Minister. I cut out a lot of important material from my speech to do so. One should recognise the ploy of Senator Rae last night. At 10.25 p.m. Senator Rae asked for leave to speak on the Bill with the obvious intention of delaying the vote so that he could consult with his party. Having restricted my rights as a senator by requesting me to reduce my speech from 30 minutes to eight minutes Senator Rae, having spoken himself for a lot longer than eight minutes, then sought time to extend the debate beyond 10.30 p.m. and therefore abrogated the very situation that he had set up earlier in the evening. I find that reprehensible, not the fact that he was refused leave to speak a second time during the second reading debate on this Bill. It also needs to be recognised that just as the division was being called, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle indicated to a number of us in this chamber that she knew which way the Opposition was going to vote; so I am surprised that Senator Rae did not know which way the Opposition was going to vote on my amendment. Mr Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence in allowing me to set the record straight because there was a lot of confusion last night and there were a number of accusations made that Senator Rae was not getting a fair go. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.08) — Some extraordinary allegations have just been made which I flatly deny. I was personally not aware of the existence of the amendment. Senator Jack Evans can say until he is blue in the face that I was aware of the amendment, but I am the person who knows my state of knowledge, not Senator Jack Evans. It was not delivered to me. Something like a thousand pieces of paper sit on my desk in a normal day. I did not look through the whole lot. If I was negligent in not looking at every piece of paper, I plead guilty to that. As to the second allegation, I flatly deny that there was any chicanery, trickery or anything else. Senator Jack Evans —I am not suggesting that. There was never a hint of that. Senator PETER RAE —I must have misunderstood. I had every expectation and intention that the matter would be dealt with last night. I did not attempt by any subterfuge to put off the debate or to put off the vote. I was going to speak very briefly only. When I sought leave I said that it would be an extremely brief statement. Therefore, I refute absolutely any suggestion that I was endeavouring to prevent the vote being taken. Senator Chipp asked me whether we would support the amendment and I said that if he wanted to put it off until next Monday I would be in a position to have consulted the shadow Cabinet and the party as to whether there was any support forthcoming for either that motion or any amendment of it. Senator Walsh —It was another magic amendment, was it? Senator PETER RAE —I do not want to reflect on a vote or to infringe the Standing Orders, but I simply want to reply to the allegation which has been made. There was certainly no attempt to prevent a vote last night. An offer was made in good faith. It was not taken up. I am disappointed that I should hear in this place the allegations which have been made. I was disappointed at the action taken. I have always tried to make sure that the Australian Democrats were informed of anything in which I was going to be involved. I had expected to be treated similarly. If on some occasions the Democrats have not received the consideration to which I believe everybody in the chamber is entitled, all I can say is that I am sorry. I find it regrettable to be in a position in which, apparently, the argument being put is that two wrongs make a right. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.12) —The deregulation of certain sections of the Australian financial markets has necessitated some legislative changes. The Bill before the Senate, the Banks (Shareholdings) Amendment Bill, is one of those in that it seeks to ease current restrictions in some areas to accommodate the entry of 16 new banking operations into Australia. One provision in the Bill is the raising from 10 to 15 per cent the voting shares an individual shareholder may hold in any one bank. I for one welcome the Government's new-found enthusiasm, which is directed towards making the private sector more competitive and opening up new fields of finance to Australian customers. I have doubts as to whether the full consequences of the opening up of the financial system to 16 new banks have been fully appreciated by the Government. I hope that in this opening up of the Australian banking system to some of the largest overseas banks the Government does continue its thrust in making more open competition in all fields and that it does not leave untouched some of its sacred cows, which operate in a very protected and monopolistic environment. Very often activities associated with government operate in what we might refer to as a mother's nest situation, with the fledglings being pandered to and fed by government while at the same time they make little effort themselves to be efficient or to go out to be part of a competitive and forward-looking world. All the new entrants are prudentially sound and are capable of providing considerable benefits to the Australian people. They will provide services ranging from shopfront branch networks incorporating extensive retail banking, services to rural and small businesses, housing finance, and specialist operations in wholesale banking. Of course, there will be considerable advantages. For example, the National Westminster Australia Bank Ltd will concentrate on the corporate area and will draw from its parent company's expertise through that parent's position of being the largest of the British clearing banks, with world assets topping $100m. Barclays Bank will concentrate on trade finance in the wholesale areas. The Deutsche Bank will undoubtedly follow its holding company's lead in the provision of finance to the resource sector. Australia-Chinese trade should further be assisted through access to the large Chinese market, with the expertise to come from the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. Although these changes will benefit some, they will positively disadvantage others in the finance area. For example, some of what are known as the present thrift institutions will be the first to notice change over the next few years following the entry of the 16 new banks. The smaller banks, savings banks, building societies and credit unions will readily fall into this category. Now is the time for them to reorganise their activities and to merge and be associated with national integrated computer networks. Unfortunately, these thrift institutions will get very little sympathy or support from the Government. Though such institutions may not be challenged directly by the entry of banks such as the Bank of Tokyo, the Bank of Canada, or JP Morgan Associates, other banks will pose more direct threats. My list is not conclusive, but as an example the Bank of America's association with the G.J. Coles network and the Chase AMP Bank are but two which will throw direct and new challenges through their competition in the retail area. Undoubtedly some new capital will be introduced into Australia, but only a certain number of Australian dollars are available to banks in Australia. With the increase in the number of banking institutions, I believe that the smaller banks will suffer from the entry of foreign banks. There will also be a danger that the greater amount of capital and backing of these foreign entrants undoubtedly will bring a great deal of political clout. Further, there will be considerable pirating of accounts as the new banks attract investors. It is not inconceivable that in the short term we could see price wars as the new banks make bids, sometimes desperately, to win depositors. Although in the short term this will be beneficial for the customer, it could force out some of the smaller banks and banking type institutions. Therefore, it is not surprising that already there have been rumours of further rationalisation involving the National Australian Bank joining forces with the ANZ Bank. Should the new banks proceed to win business on the basis of higher rates to depositors on the one hand and lower than commercial rates to borrowers on the other hand, I believe that Australia's traditional institutions, if they are not careful, could be deprived or starved of loan funds. A more prudent policy by the Treasurer would surely have been to have opened up the banking system more slowly to international competition. But, having been duchessed around the world capitals with gratuitous accolades, it is not surprising that Paul Keating is seen by some to be sacrificing his home nationals to the whims of the sometimes ruthless international community of money market operators. Surely a more Australian approach initially would have been to restrict the entry to those sectors where there are obvious gaps and where international expertise could have opened up new trade rather than throwing open challenges to some long standing, often non-profit, organisations in the financial area. In the face of the aggression in the market place from the new banks many of the traditional non-profit organisations will be forced to amalgamate, to change the nature of their operations or to face bankruptcy. It is a desperate choice. The Westpac Banking Review of March 1985 is significant in that it comments that the existing banks, to remain competitive, will need to reduce their costs further and take full advantage of the opportunities arising from both deregulation and advances in technology. Non-bank financial institutions are in a more difficult position because of their borrowing costs and their finer profit margins. In this respect finance co-operatives and merchant banks are in a particular risk situation. Their share of the financial system and assets is likely to contract as the impact of greater competition becomes apparent. Closures of too many of the traditional institutions could have a disastrous impact on the economy, particularly in decentralised areas. The consequences of this will be that as the traditional institutions, including some of the bigger banks, shed staff and close uneconomic branches as they mechanise and centralise there will be certain distortions and there will be closures. I believe that these costs essentially will be felt by the small businessman and particularly by people in decentralised areas. Certainly it is the cities that will benefit. Traditionally savings banks and building societies have been a great source of home building funds, but I can foresee that under a deregulated regime there will be no reason at all for savings banks to exist. Depositors will be urged away by higher interest rates and thus less funds will be available to the home buyer. We have already witnessed a degree of volatility in the banking area with the recent announcement that the Australian Bank Ltd has posted a significant loss. That was due evidently to a very significant increase in bad debts and the decision by its board to write off those bad debts. Such a disturbing result so early must give some sort of indication of what can follow. In other words, we must expect greater incurring of and writing-off of bad debts as some of these new banks chase new business, chase depositors and make uncommercial loans to borrowers. I can foresee the continuation of a trend evident in Australian society. Over some time we have witnessed the larger becoming stronger and the smaller weaker, and this will not be restricted to financial circles. I believe that change without adequate forethought and haste without direction result only in hurt and dislocation to many people. This legislation may be good in its intent but I believe it is very bad in its execution. However, the Opposition acknowledges the need for change and the need for this legislation. Therefore, it has the support of the Opposition. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.24) —The Australian Democrats have been consistent in their opposition to the massive entry of foreign banks to this country. We believe that the repercussions will have a deleterious effect on the economy and more particularly will reduce the effective control of the economy by the elected government. To put into perspective some of the arguments against the entry of foreign banks, particularly 16 in one hit, we need to look at their impacts. The first and most significant, which we are already witnessing with the prospect of the entry of foreign banks, is an increase in interest rates. Theoretically, competition should reduce interest rates in the long run but, of course, in practice competition does not necessarily have that effect. Australia is a classic illustration of that. Interest rates have been consistently lower in our controlled banking system compared with the interest rates in the United States of America which has a deregulated banking system. We need to recognise that, even though the theory may be acceptable that interest rates may not be as high in the long run, what happens in the meantime in the short run? The Australian people ought to know those short run effects of 16 foreign banks being allowed to come in, and their impact on Australian interest rates. The facts are quite irrefutable. Interest rates are already rising because of the Government's decision to admit foreign banks, and there is worse to come. Do not imagine that we have already reached the peak. The payoff to our domestic banks for admitting foreign banks is for the Government to lift controls on those interest rates. Hence, we see right at this moment pressure on interest rates going up and up. The first step has already been taken. Small businesses with overdrafts and people with personal loans have already been abandoned by this Government to the market mechanism at a time of a general interest rate increase. This already brings into doubt the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the Australian Labor Party conference in 1984. Honourable senators may recall that in arguing for a change in ALP policy on foreign bank entry the Prime Minister stated: The questions of foreign bank entry and interest rate deregulation are very much separate issues . . . They are not separate issues. Domestic banks cannot compete with foreign banks unless they are freed from interest rate controls. How can it be claimed that they are separate issues? If that was not so foreign banks would monopolise the most profitable areas of the market at the expense of the domestic banks. It is a political reality that the Government is not going to allow that to happen, at least in the short term. The next deregulatory measure will undoubtedly be for the Government to lift interest rate ceilings on home loans and, to quote the quotation of 1984, as sure as night follows day that will happen. Home loan interest rates will be deregulated and current and prospective buyers will be forced to pay the same interest rates that businesses currently pay. I doubt that many people in Australia have any idea of the impact on their mortgage repayments that that is likely to have. Of course, home owners do not have the ability to claim interest payments as a tax deduction, so they do not get the alleviation that businesses get when the Government in fact pays up to 40 or 50 per cent of that expense by way of tax deductibles. Home owners are going to be forced to suffer the full effects of the interest rate increases without deductibility. The Government might decide to make interest rates tax deductible, but at such a massive cost that it is obviously out of the question in the short term. Foreign banks are going to be difficult to control. They are huge transnational corporations and despite our Government's assurance that they will be required to comply with Australian laws, regulations and prudential standards, I ask: Does the Government really believe that it can control a bank like Citibank which has been investigated by the United States Congress for illegal currency dealings and tax avoidance? I will detail the activities of Citibank to put this in context, because this is one of the 16 banks which the Government has invited into Australia. However, Citibank is not the only culprit. Many of the foreign banks have already taken advantage of the different tax rates between countries. Senator Peter Rae —Were they found guilty in those investigations? Senator JACK EVANS —I will come to that. The growth of off-shore banking centres in the Bahamas and Cayman Islands is a response to the tax havens in those countries. Banks which have subsidiaries in tax havens are able to engage in a form of transfer pricing. The method is quite simple. For practical purposes, a local subsidiary lends to an Australian with funds raised in Australia. However, on the books of the foreign bank's subsidiary a loan is recorded to the tax haven branch and the tax haven branch makes the formal loan to the Australian borrower. In this simple way the profits are recorded in the tax haven rather than in Australia. Let us realise that foreign banks could lead to greater financial instability within our system. The term 'financial instability' hides the gut problem, which is that when a bank fails the depositors lose their money. That is the bottom line of instability in the banking system. The Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, which is eight times larger than our Westpac Banking Corporation, had to rely on United States Government intervention to save it from bankruptcy last year following a run on deposits fuelled by rumours of insolvency. The foreign banks, which unwisely invested their depositors' funds in Third World countries, also threatened, and in some cases still do threaten, the viability of the world's financial system. According to the World Bank the total debt of developing nations stood at about $970 billion last year. Argentina, Mexico and Brazil collectively owed nearly $250 billion. Because their debts have now been rescheduled they can continue to borrow to enable them to pay off their interest debts on past loans. Hitherto Australian banks have stayed out of this quagmire of deceit, corruption and fast bucks. They did not chase the profits in that way. They are now not threatened because of massive bad debts as a result of being controlled by the Australian Government. I again ask the question: Why do we need to import this madness into Australia at the very time when most countries are beginning to realise that foreign banks are impossible to control? We must remember that if a bank looks like failing governments are then faced with allowing the financial system to collapse or using taxpayers' money to bail out the bank. That is the only option available. The taxpayers pick up the tab or one allows the whole economy to collapse. We need to remember that normally governments opt for the later alternative and the taxpayers pay for banks' mismanagement. I will touch on something that is very relevant to this debate right at this moment and that is the exacerbating effect that foreign banks have on our unstable exchange rate. Since early this year we have watched the rapid devaluation of the Australian dollar. We must realise how susceptible our currency has become to speculation. Foreign banks are in a position to readily transfer funds from currencies they expect will devalue to currencies they expect will appreciate. The effect of, say, a foreign bank getting out of Australian dollars is likely to generate expectations of declines in the value of the Australian dollar. These expectations are likely to prove self-fulfilling as the pressure to get out of the Australian dollar causes falls in its value. It certainly seems likely that other people dealing in foreign exchange would closely watch the behaviour of large international banks from which they would then take their lead. As a result of this measure the Australian dollar will become even more volatile to the extent that its value will be determined more by speculative monetary flows than the real underlying forces which reflect trading strengths, cost advantages and other factors that are normally taken into account. As a result, Australian businesses will be exposed to international competition and will be unable to make rational investment and production decisions. They will constantly have to look over their shoulder to see not just what is happening but what the speculators are dreaming up and what is likely to happen. Furthermore, a volatile Australian dollar will impose either unwarranted gains or losses, bankruptcies et cetera, on businesses which enter into long term contracts set in foreign currencies. Let us look at what has happened over the few weeks since the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced that 16 foreign banks would be allowed into this country. Senator Haines —More than he first said. Senator JACK EVANS —It is a lot more than he first said. We were looking at four, five or six foreign banks being allowed into Australia until the Treasurer suddenly became frank and had to reveal the truth that the number would be 16. It has to be more than a coincidence that at almost the same time there was a massive devaluation of the Australian dollar. That has to be more than a coincidence. Senator Watson —The MX missile- Senator JACK EVANS —If it was only a coincidence, what a dream run for the foreign banks which, six months ago, were able to buy into the Australian financial system when the Australian dollar was at its lowest value imaginable. Nobody would have dreamed six months ago that it would get down to 62c as against the American dollar. Suddenly 16 foreign banks are allowed into our system. Obviously these wanted to buy in at the bottom possible price-bottom it was at 62c-and they need it to stabilise just a little before they consolidated their operations in Australia. The foreign banks will probably settle for 75c Australian as against the American dollar and will let things stabilise. It is coming back up to that now. This is the sort of volatility about which I was talking a moment ago. I am not sure whether it is fair to blame the five American banks that are coming to Australia for all of this, as has been implied by the interjection that the MX missile was the cause of the volatility of the Australian dollar. If that was the cause it would be quite natural for the United States banks to put pressure on the Australian dollar to pay back Prime Minister Hawke, and that is exactly what has happened. I am sure that Senator Watson does not really believe that that was the real cause; that the United States banks, in response to the United States Government's displeasure at Mr Hawke's decision on the MX missiles, then put pressure on the Australian dollar to have it devalued. There may be a lot of people in this country who do believe that, and, who knows, Senator Watson may be one of them. I do not know. I will make a few comments on the economic and social morality of two of the banking institutions that the Government has seen fit to invite to Australia. Honourable senators will not be surprised to know that one of them is the company to which I referred earlier. I promised Senator Peter Rae that I would give a bit more detail. Here it is chapter and verse. Citicorp has been investigated in the United States by a House of Representatives sub-committee. This is what it found: Citibank engaged in shady practices which have accounted for a major portion of their profits. In order to maximise profits Citibank has avoided prudential reserve requirements, evaded tax and generally circumvented and nullified banking and tax regulations. The House of Representatives sub-committee report concluded: The profitability of Citibank's German operations appear to depend disproportionately on its ability to evade domestic reserve requirements. The House sub-committee staff argued: The cumulative mismatching of deposits and loans placed the bank in an illiquid position where the bank's exposure relative to its capital was high. Let us realise the significance of this. Fundamentally, in Citibank's drive to maximise profits by illegal activities it held more money in deposits maturing early-that is, liquid liabilities-than it had in short term loans-that is, liquid assets. However, by underreporting the size of its local lendings in many countries, Citibank deprived itself of an important safeguard. Central banks provide liquidity in the event of unstable market conditions, but this facility is generally restricted to the official scale of operations. By the falsification and underreporting of its operations, Citibank in effect closed this possible avenue of support in times of crisis. As the world's largest trader in foreign currencies, Citibank makes money speculating on the daily changes in the rates of countries' currencies. When a foreign country limited the amount of money a bank can use for such purposes in order to discourage destabilising speculation Citibank would merely transfer some of its currency holdings outside that country. As a result, Citibank would increase its chances of making speculative profits and would pay less tax since it would record the transactions in the tax haven of the Bahamas, for instance, and not Europe. The crunch question is: Does Australia really need to recruit another professional currency destabiliser and tax avoider into the heart of our financial system? Do we need that additional destabilising effect? Senior Citibank officials, up to and including Chairman Walter Wriston, knew about these activities but did not stop them. Monetary regulations of nations are ill-equipped to deal with evasion such as that practised by Citibank. That is the difficulty which we are about to enter. I remind the Senate that the countries which were not able to control Citibank included Germany, England, France, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia and, possibly, Saudi Arabia. In both Germany and the United States, Citibank's evasions undermined the monetary prudential regulations established by those governments to ensure stable financial markets and to safeguard local depositors. This cannot be just brushed aside. We cannot ignore this. We are inviting one of the world's international law-breaking organisations into this country. We are inviting it to come to Australia to operate as a bank. As a result of Citibank's evasions, depositors' funds were put at risk. That is the essential ingredient. We are looking at Australian depositors' funds which will be put at risk. We are saying: 'Look, forget its track record, it will behave itself here'. Citibank's questionable transactions have carried great risks not only for Citibank and its depositors but also for the global financial system. Citibank is one of the largest banks world-wide and the largest player in the Euro-dollar interbank market. It is not just an ordinary bank. When Citibank gambles, the entire financial system is at risk. That is not the only example. I promised honourable senators two just to illustrate the point that this Government is inviting economic monsters into the country. The Bank of America's Guatemalan report states: Bank America has never felt that it was either moral or practical to withhold flows of capital and credit to the people of a country-flows that they need for their development-simply because, in addition to all the rest of their problems, they have a non-democratic government. This rationale contains two basic flaws. Firstly, the Bank of America in Guatemala-like commercial banks that lend to South Africa or Chile-does not provide capital and credit to the people but only to a small segment of the populace-the very segment with the most money and power. Secondly, these funds do not go for the people's development. By and large, the wealthy Guatemalan businessmen who receive loans from the Bank of America engage only in a certain kind of economic activity-one that is large scale and export oriented, not small scale and aimed at serving the needs of the people of Guatemala. The majority of Guatemalans do not need fancier hotels. They do not need more massive agricultural plantations supplying products to the United States market. Their needs are simple-food and land. They do not get any help from the Bank of America to obtain these. The Bank of America began operating in Guatemala one year after the United States-backed military coup in 1954. According to Amnesty International Guatemala has one of the worst human rights records in the world. Much as it may wish to say otherwise, the Bank of America cannot excuse itself from its share of the responsibility for maintaining the current repressive character of Guatemalan life. Those two illustrations of the potential influence of the 16 foreign banks that we are allowing to enter this country give the reason for the Australian Democrats' great concern since the announcement was first made. The Australian economy is not just about to be internationalised. It is about to be taken over by the international banking system. We have seen evidence, over many years, of the influence of foreign banks on this country. I quote a person whose words might be most appropriate in the context of this debate when it comes to international control through the banking system of this country's economy: 'You ain't seen nothin' yet'. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.47) —It has been indicated that the Banks (Shareholdings) Amendment Bill 1985, which we are now debating, is part of a package of legislation which will be necessary to enable the expansion of the number of banks in Australia through the introduction of foreign banks. One of the steps being taken in this respect is that the present Act limits any one shareholder or group of related shareholders to less than 10 per cent of the voting shares of a bank. The reasoning behind this is that a widely dispersed shareholding is a good prudential measure which will help depositors and that, I would think, would not be widely argued. However, to assist in the introduction of foreign banks and in the development of Australian banks, it is regarded that some change may be made and, therefore, it will provide for an increase in the size of individual shareholdings, which may be held without the Governor-General's express approval, from 10 per cent to 15 per cent. That is a significant and an important change in the ramifications which it will have as to the facilitation of the operation of the banks and it is regarded as still providing a sufficient protection to depositors in relation to those banks. There is also provision for the Governor-General to grant exemptions to the limit when it is in the national interest to do so. That is something which will be done only in special circumstances and will be made known when it is done. It requires the Treasurer's approval for changes in shareholdings in a bank which takes new or existing shareholdings of a person beyond 10 per cent but within the 15 per cent threshold, and it generally allows a more flexible approach to the provisions of the existing Act. This is a Bill which the Opposition supports as part of the total package of deregulation of the financial sector. I think it is important for me to talk briefly about the history of the deregulation of the financial sector to be able to place this in its context. The Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System was composed of some extremely well known and highly qualified and experienced people in the financial system. The Committee reported on 29 September 1981 making a wide cross-section of recommendations for the freeing up of the Australian financial system and for making it more competitive, more efficient and less costly. The recommendations could hardly be said to have been implemented in undue haste. It is now May 1985 and those recommendations were brought down in September 1981. The recommendations would not have taken the Australian financial world, even the whole financial world, or the Australian public by surprise. The Opposition, when in government, had instigated the inquiry. A program of deregulation in relation to the financial system was part of the proposals for the development of the Australian financial system of the former Treasurer, Mr Howard. It was part of the former Government's planning in relation to the development of the Australian economy. At the time there were those honourable senators, now in the present Government, who held the sort of views which have just been expressed by Senator Jack Evans and which I can describe only as views which are held by people who are frightened of the dark. They are the sort of views which are as outmoded as those views that we exist in a trading world in which we can be an island unto ourselves. We exist in a trading and financial world economy, whether we like it or not. If we want to participate and be successful we have to recognise the fact that our systems must be made consistent and work with the systems that operate in other parts of the trading and financial world. If we do not do that we fail at our cost. I think it is important that having listened to the quite incredible statements by Senator 'I am frightened of the dark' Evans, I should read some sections of the 1981 Campbell Committee report. Paragraph 25.7 states: Underlying the discussion in many parts of this Report is the Committee's firm belief that adequate and vigorous competition is an essential requirement for the efficient operation of financial markets. The Committee has reason to doubt that the level of competition in banking is at present adequate to ensure maximum efficiency and maximum benefits for all consumers of banking services-- I pause there to say that what had been happening was a contraction in the number of banks and the amount of competition. Quite understandably, there had been a move for amalgamation in some of the existing Australian banks. Whereas 100 years ago there were a very large number of banks in Australia we had then reached the stage where the number of trading banks were very few and the number of savings banks had not been increasing. The major development that had taken place was, I suppose, among the credit unions and pension funds. I return to the development foreseen by the Campbell Committee. It stated in paragraph 25.11 that: Foreign banks offer a more immediate prospect of providing an effective competitive stimulus (particularly in the shorter term following deregulation of the banking system) than the potential domestic entrants because they: already have the resources and banking expertise (especially in international trading and foreign exchange dealings) necessary to establish wide-ranging banking businesses in Australia; are often operating non-bank financial intermediaries in Australia (in some cases with a branch network, although less extensive than most banks), and thus, like many large non-bank financiers, face lower economic barriers to entry than some other potential domestic entrants; have internationally recognised standing as banks and should readily command the confidence of the Australian community; and are less likely to be deterred by the risks and uncertainties, and possibly less than average profit levels, associated with the early establishment years. The report continued in paragraph 25.15: It is true that foreign banks would have the advantage of a broad customer base in their home country and, internationally, greater familiarity with other economies, access to foreign capital, and the opportunity to specialise, and exploit their unique skills in limited market segments. On the other hand, Australian banks would not be at a competitive disadvantage over the long term; they would retain their own areas of comparing advantage-their better knowledge of local markets and established customer base-while at the same time sharpening and maintaining their skills in the international banking and trading finance. They would also have a strong incentive to adopt and maintain any appropriate new financing technology introduced by their new competitors from overseas and would be able to compete much more aggressively than they have in the sheltered, regulated environment of the past. Many Australian banks have been competing successfully with foreign banks in international capital markets. One need only refer to the change of name and policy behind the adoption by the former Bank of New South Wales of the name Westpac to see the sort of conceptual changes taking place in relation to Australian banks. The name Westpac, an abbreviation of Western Pacific, is an indication that it is expanding and developing its activities into the international field. Expand our activities internationally is something we need to do. There are two ways of doing this: Firstly, by encouraging and facilitating in any way we can our domestic banks to make that type of expansion and, secondly, by introducing to Australia banks which are already participating in the international finance world. Therefore Australia gets a double advantage with deregulation and the introduction of foreign banks. The Campbell report stated in paragraph 25.17: The Committee's view that a gradual entry of foreign banks, as banks, need not be disruptive to the banking system receives some support from the experience of finance companies in the 1970s: relatively free entry has not had an excessively destabilising effect. Paragraph 25.20 stated: Nor does the Committee accept that the entry of a number of foreign banks would weaken the impact of monetary policy, so long as the main instruments used are open market operations and a variable bank reserve requirement. . . . The Committee believes, therefore, that the concern about the loss of monetary control following foreign bank entry has been overstated. Paragraph 25.23 stated in summary: provided the appropriate prudent funds management standards are maintained in order to protect the security of Australian depositors, the Committee cannot support the present embargo on the participation of foreign banks, as banks, in Australia. At paragraph 25.50 the Committee recommends: (a) Foreign bank participation in domestic banking should only be restricted through the number of licences granted. (b) Banking licences issued to non-residents should carry no encumbrances additional to those attaching to licences held by residents; both resident and non-resident-owned banks should have the same privileges and responsibilities. The Campbell Committee report was supported by further investigation and consideration of the matters involved. Far from having the effect of forcing up interest rates I believe there can be no doubt at all that the competition which will be engendered by the introduction of the new banks to Australia-some of them being introduced for the provision of particular services because they have particular skills and capacities-will be beneficial. Not all of the banks will be providing the sort of services already provided by most of the trading banks in Australia. However, some of them will be coming with a view to providing specialty expertise and facilitation of financial and trading transactions between Australians and those in other parts of the world. In bringing that efficiency and experience and those contacts they will provide a competition that will make for a lowering of the cost rather than a raising of the cost to users in Australia. I believe that the Campbell Committee report can be accepted when it says that deregulation and the entry of foreign banks will have the effect of bearing down on interest rates and freeing up the amount of money available to home loan borrowers, as well as other borrowers, when fully implemented. I find quite incredible some of the things that were said by Senator Jack Evans as to why interest rates have gone up at the moment. They were so ludicrous that they do not warrant my spending any time dealing with them. Senator Walsh —When you stand on your head, the world is upside down. Senator PETER RAE —Senator Walsh has given one description which might possibly explain the view that was expressed. I simply say that I do not propose to take the time to respond to those comments. The reason why interest rates have gone as high as they have is far more to do with trade, it is far more to do with the American economy; it is far more to do with the mismanagement by the present Government and the loss of confidence and loss of authority of the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) than with the potential entry of foreign banks. I do not need to emphasise those points any further. The Opposition will support this Bill as being part of a package which it believes is highly desirable and which it has supported for the reasons that are set out in the Campbell report and to which I have adverted. These measures will, we believe, make the Australian economy a more effective part of the world trading and financial economy and will provide services to Australian depositors, Australian investors, Australian traders and Australian borrowers at terms and conditions which are far more competitive than those that have existed. I take the opportunity to wish our existing banks well in their fight to retain their market share against the competition that will come. I also look forward to seeing the competition, particularly in the specialist areas, that will come from those 16 banks it has been indicated will receive licences. As a personal view, the selection of the 16 banks was not quite what I would have preferred in one or two instances, but the selection was broad and it did represent our trading partners and our financial associations, both historically and in present terms. It was a sensible selection in terms of the breadth that was covered and the recognition of the history of associations which Australian industry, commerce and finance have with other countries. The Opposition supports the Bill and is glad to see that we are developing into the modern world. This is one of the necessary steps and we applaud the Government's action in overcoming the attitudes of the troglodytes within its Party who did not want to see any such action taken. I congratulate those who were able to win the argument and to ensure that action has been taken along the lines that were started by the former Government and will be carried on by the next Government after the next election, when we will be back in office and will be able to complete any of the necessary steps that have not yet been taken by the present Government. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(11.04) —I do not intend to speak for very long, but I think it would be appropriate to make some comments with regard to what Senator Jack Evans said. The references to the very heavy lending that some foreign banks have made to Third World countries and the possibility of repudiation or default of those loans have no relevance to this debate. The foreign banks that will be allowed to operate in Australia or be substantial shareholders in banks in Australia are required to have a separate corporate identity from their foreign cousin or sibling, and they will be subject to exactly the same prudential controls as are other Australian banks-prudential controls which, incidentally, were strengthened by the Reserve Bank only this week. Frankly, I could not understand Senator Evans's comments about foreign banks and currency fluctuations or speculation or manipulation, and I could not understand them for a number of reasons. To the extent that that could possibly happen, it could happen with or without the changes proposed in the Banks (Shareholdings) Amendment Bill 1985 because Citicorp Australia Ltd, to take one of the banks he mentioned, has operated as a merchant bank in Australia for some time and has been able to do all of the things Senator Evans apparently believes that it has done. Alternatively, if he chooses to disregard that point, he seems to me to be arguing that the influence of foreign banks will be not only malevolent and powerful, but also retrospective. That is, the prospect of substantially foreign-owned trading banks operating in Australia will cause the currency to fluctuate retrospectively. The argument I found most difficult of all to follow, if one accepted the conspiracy theory to that point, was that the foreign banks, by buying up Australian assets when they realised they would be given an opportunity to have substantial shareholdings in Australian banks, had caused the Australian dollar to depreciate. I would have thought that it would have the opposite effect. However, it is clear that the Bill will be passed and I propose that we proceed to that stage. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. McClelland, DouglasBaume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. Boswell, R. L. D. Maguire, G. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R. Childs, B. K. Primmer, C. G. Coates, J. Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterColston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Cooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Elstob, R. C. Sheil, G. Evans, Gareth Short, J. R. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Walsh, P. A. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Jones, G. N. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Zakharov, A. O. Lajovic, M. E. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Evans, Jack Mason, C. V. J. Haines, J. Vigor, D. B. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Consideration resumed from 9 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a first time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.16) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE BILL 1985 The primary purpose of this Bill is to consolidate the existing export inspection charging Acts for primary products other than meat, where charges are imposed on the basis of an export permit. The Bill does not encompass export inspection charges for inspection of livestock and wool as these are not readily amenable to consolidation. The Bill is a consolidation of the Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1982, Dried Fruit (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1981, Eggs (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1982, Fish (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1981 and the Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1979. Its provisions will provide a consistent basis for the imposition of charges. The Bill also includes provisions which will enable charges to be imposed for inspection of canned and processed fruit or vegetable products. Honourable Senators will recall that last February the Government announced its intention to impose such charges for the 1985-86 financial year. Consolidation of the ten existing charge and collection Acts is consistent with Government policy to reduce the total volume of legislation which comes before the Parliament. This consolidation builds on proposals for the consolidation of research legislation. I believe that this trend is particularly desirable in relation to the quite large number of Acts that are administered by the Minister for Primary Industry. In relation to the imposition of charge on canned and processed fruit or vegetables, the provisions of the Bill apply in the same way as for other products. The Bill provides for the maximum charge that may be prescribed in relation to the products. With respect to fruit or vegetable juice the maximum charge that may be prescribed shall be 1 cent per litre or per kilogram, whichever would result in the lesser amount of charge becoming payable. Over the past two years the procedures for inspecting non-meat products have been under review in close consultation with the industries concerned as well as staff. For a number of products covered by this Bill, inspection is progressively moving to a system whereby the intensity of product monitoring is varied according to the performance of individual firms in complying with export requirements and standards. Orders under the Export Control Act introducing the new procedures and covering dairy products, eggs and fish were introduced on 29 April. Under this Bill each product can be divided into classes specified according to the type of packing, the form in which the commodity is exported, and the inspection regime applicable in its manufacture. After some experience with new inspection procedures this will allow charges to be varied according to the intensity of product monitoring undertaken by the Inspection Service. Such a system of charging should lead to more cost effective use of inspection resources with the potential for an overall reduction in the cost of inspection to industry. The weight or volume of goods on which the charge is calculated does not include the weight of any covering in which the goods are packed. Where goods to which the Bill applies are packed in a can with another substance to which the Bill would not otherwise apply, the weight or volume of the other substance will be regarded as goods to which the Bill applies. These other substances are of course subject to inspection during manufacture. Before closing this speech I should give the background to the reasons for charging for export inspection of fruit and vegetables and for the omission of honey inspection charges from the Bill. Honourable senators will recall that inspection charging Bills for honey and canned and frozen fruit and vegetables were deferred in the Senate on 1 May 1984 until reports on export inspection arrangements for these commodities were received from the Interim Inspection Policy Council and the Department of Primary Industry. The Senate resolution also sought consideration of the IAC Report on Honey. The Minister for Primary Industry received the IIPC and departmental reports in July last year and preparations were advanced to have them tabled in the Senate when Parliament was dissolved prior to the 1 December election. As far as the inspection of export honey is concerned both the IIPC and Department of Primary Industry reports recommended that the need for inspection should be kept under review. Honourable senators will recall that the Minister for Primary Industry recently announced that the export inspection of honey ceased from 4 March except where inspection is a requirement of an importing country. It is worth noting that the IAC report on the honey industry has no real relevance to export inspection matters. As far as canned and frozen fruit and vegetables export inspection is concerned the IIPC and Department of Primary Industry recommended inspection regimes which reflect technological advances and would enable a reduced intensity of inspection. In this regard honourable senators will be pleased to learn that a system of inspection involving less intensive monitoring of product, premises and processing operations will shortly begin field trialling. I table both reports. I now turn to the financial impact of the proposed legislation. It is expected that the Bill will come into effect on 1 July 1985. The operative rates of charge in relation to products that are already subject to export inspection charging will not change. The operative rate of charge for canned and processed fruit or vegetable products is expected to be 0.5 cents per kilogram or per litre which would recover $330,000 in a full year. New rates of charge to apply from 1 October 1985 will be considered in the Budget context. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE COLLECTION BILL 1985 The purpose of the Bill is to provide for collection of charge to be imposed as a result of the enactment of the Export Inspection Charge Bill 1985. The person to whom an export permit is issued for goods upon which charge is imposed will be required to self assess and record the particulars on which the calculation of charge is based. This continues arrangements that already apply for dairy products, dried fruits, eggs, fish and grain. Returns containing these particulars will need to be lodged with the payment of charge at a specified office of the Department of Primary Industry. Twenty eight days after the month of issue of the export permit will be allowed for payment of the charge. The Bill provides that no further export permit will be granted to an exporter who has not paid charge by the due date in relation to a past permit until payment has been made. Provisions in the Bill dealing with penalty for non-payment of charge, access to premises and recovery of unpaid charge are in similar terms to existing inspection charge collection arrangements for primary products. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. EXPORT INSPECTION LEGISLATION (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1985 The purpose of this Bill is to amend and repeal certain Acts in consequence of the enactment of the Export Inspection Charge and the Export Inspection Charge Collection Bills. The last mentioned Bills will consolidate existing export inspection charge and charge collection legislation that applies to dairy products, dried fruits, eggs, fish and grain. The consolidated legislation will come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation. In order to be able to continue to collect charge imposed before the coming into effect of the new legislation, the existing charge and collection Acts will remain in force but the Charge Acts will be amended by this Bill so that charge will not be imposed under them on or after the day on which the consolidated legislation comes into effect. The Bill will also repeal the Edible Oils (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1982 and the Edible Oils (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1982. There is no charge outstanding in relation to edible oils inspected for export. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(11.16) — We are dealing with three Bills which form basically one piece of legislation to replace the existing 10 pieces of legislation. The Opposition will be moving the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bills: At the end of motion, add ', but the Senate is of the opinion that excessive increases in export inspection charges over the past 2 years have seriously damaged the export competitiveness of Australian agricultural industries in a period of intense world competition against other nations which do not impose these export cost burdens'. The existing charges will remain in force until this legislation is proclaimed. Therefore, any blocking of the legislation that the Senate might wish to do would really serve no purpose. I indicate that we will be supporting the legislation and I will be moving the amendment which I have just read out. I point out that this does not have anything to do with the meat industry. The export inspection charges on the meat industry are not covered by this legislation. We went down that track last year when the Government increased the export inspection charges imposed on the meat industry by a considerable amount, to the detriment of one of our great export industries. The current charges will apply until the new charges take effect in October. I think it is quite opportune to point out that our agricultural export earnings have increased from $4.2 billion in 1975-76 to $8 billion in 1983-84, a quite substantial increase. Agricultural exports play a quite substantial part in our export earnings. It is important, therefore, to have a high quality export product and to maintain that high quality. It is also interesting to note that our agricultural exports earn $8 for every $1 that the farmers spend on imports; so there is a beneficial ratio to Australia and to our very poor balance of trade situation of 8:1. I think it is important to remember the contribution that the rural industry makes to the overall economy, to employment, and, as I have indicated, to assisting to overcome the very parlous state in which our balance of trade finds itself. The industries which are covered by this legislation-as I have indicated, the Bills do not cover all of our export industries-earned $3.5 billion in export income in 1983. I want to commend the point alluded to by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) in his second reading speech, that our export industries are moving to a system in which the intensity of inspection processes is varied depending on the record of individual firms. I commend the Minister for that statement. There is no need to go down the track of setting up a large bureaucracy that will result in higher charges if it is not necessary to do so. Indeed, in many instances, the firms that are operating in our export trade have their reputations at stake. They would not want to see a situation in which their product deteriorated. Their reputation is on the line and it is in their interests, as well as the interests of all Australians, that the top quality of their product be maintained. The Minister has indicated that this will be taken into account. If firms have top quality products and they are maintaining that top quality, there will be less necessity for the inspection process to take place. I compliment the Minister and the Government for looking at that situation because this proposal should lead to a reduction in bureaucracy and a resultant lessening of charges. Of course, all industries should be looking at this self-regulatory process. They should take into account the need to maintain their own good names both in domestic and overseas markets. It is interesting to note that every time we fly in an aircraft-we in the Senate, along with our colleagues in the other place, do that quite regularly-we are flying in aircraft inspected by a self-regulatory industry. The industry inspects maintenance and engineering work. Of course, there is currently no higher standard of engineering in airlines than that in Australia. As I have said, that industry is self-regulatory. I support the method that the Government has indicated it will adopt in regard to inspection. Of course, we are concerned about the damage that extra charges could devolve to our export industries. As was indicated last year during a debate on the beef industry, we are exporting in a very competitive market. We are in competition with other countries which have far lower cost structures than we have and which do not impose export inspection levies on their producers. I think it should be remembered-and this is taken up in our amendment-that our agricultural export industries are of such benefit to this community in terms of the income they create and the jobs they provide, that any export inspection charges that are necessary, and I reiterate necessary, should be borne by the community as a whole who are the ultimate beneficiaries of what is produced by these industries. We are concerned about these export charges. They make our export industries just that little bit less competitive, considering all the other costs which are currently facing our primary producers. I might add that they are costs beyond the farm gate over which primary producers have no control. I refer to on-costs such as the costs that result from our high wage structure and, dare I say once again, the high cost of our fuel compared with the price paid by many other exporting countries, which has gone up considerably because of the horrendous handling of the economy by this Government which has affected the way in which the rest of the world sees the value of our dollar. Some of these charges have gone up considerably. I understand that some have gone up by 1,000 per cent and that is hardly fair to our export industries. I think that is something that we should remember. It is interesting to note that recently the Government called a farm cost summit which I think broke up in disarray because the Government would not accept the propositions which were put to it by the National Farmers Federation. I understand that the NFF left that meeting in complete disgust and disillusionment because the Government would not accept the high cost that devolved to the rural industry, in particular from government policies. Dare I mention-and this will be mentioned again many times in the debates that will take place on the large number of rural Bills that are coming before this chamber-that secondary industry is still receiving considerable protection while very little protection has been left for rural industry. If rural industries are going to have to compete, we do not see why our secondary industries should be sheltering their inefficiencies behind a protection rate which is currently running at around 25 per cent. So I point out that the NFF is not at all happy about the costs that are devolving to rural industries, particularly those costs over which the Government has control. I move this amendment to the motion that the Bills be now read a second time: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate is of the opinion that excessive increases in export inspection charges over the past 2 years have seriously damaged the export competitiveness of Australian agricultural industries in a period of intense world competition against other nations which do not impose these export cost burdens'. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.28) — The Senate is debating cognately the Export Inspection Charge Bill 1985, the Export Inspection Charge Collection Bill 1985 and the Export Inspection Legislation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985. As Senator Collard has already pointed out, these Bills have a history going back to the previous Parliament. Indeed, in October last year the Senate was faced with an enormous number of Bills which related to the collection and imposition of a variety of levies. At that time, the Government was intent on extending export charges to a variety of other primary products that had previously not been subject to the imposition of those charges. At that time the Government propounded the basic philosophy-indeed it was a philosophy which had been initiated by the Fraser Government-that we should move to a point of 50 per cent recovery of inspection costs. The difficulty with that concept, of course, is that inspection costs are under the control of the Government whereas the actual payment is made by the producer. This situation leaves itself open to abuse. Indeed, it has been abused. There have been instances in which a variety of items have been counted to the export charge when they should have been counted to other parts of administration. I have referred to some of these items in previous debates, particularly the debates that were held last year with regard to meat export charges. I think the approach that has now been adopted by the Government, to consolidate legislation so as, as the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) said in his second reading speech, to reduce the amount of legislation that is necessary, is sensible, given the fact that in previous debates we have tended to deal with a whole range of Bills in a cognate way anyhow. There does not seem to be any reason why those particular pieces of legislation ought not be able to be consolidated as the Government intends here. However, this operation goes beyond consolidation. It actually includes items which appeared in legislation for the first time at the end of last year-items which at that stage were not passed in to legislative form, for a variety of reasons. Some of them were deferred and others were withdrawn by the Government. I do not disagree with the way the Government has chosen to proceed, in technical terms. We did look at moving some technical amendments, but the difficulty of time eventually overcame our efforts in that regard. It is useful to point out that we are now under a considerable amount of pressure in terms of the legislation that is now available and that will become available in the Senate. It is possible that we are now looking at trying to pass in the next week or so more legislation than we have passed in the rest of the year. That stop-start flow of legislation-undoubtedly caused by a number of factors which are not all under the Government's control-makes the legislative task excessively difficult when one wishes to give thorough coverage to legislation and to look in detail at the various clauses that are proposed, particularly with this piece of legislation in which we have a departure from our past practice, hence requiring closer consideration than other pieces of legislation which merely reiterate or change a schedule. In clause 7 of the Export Inspection Charge Bill in respect of 'Rates of charge' we find that 'The rate of charge in respect of a prescribed commodity . . . shall not exceed'-and then we have a variety of the items in respect of which there cannot be an excess. In each of those cases it is the prescribed limit set in other types of legislation, except in regard to a couple which are new items. The Senate engaged in an exercise some years ago, under the Fraser Government, when it was presented with a request from that Government to raise charges with regard to honey inspection. This matter is alluded to in the Minister's second reading speech on one of the Bills that are before us. That very interesting exercise was engaged in by the Senate through its committee structure. A committee looked in detail at how and why charges and costs of inspection were incurred. I believe that such an exercise by a Senate committee with regard to all inspection charges would reap similar benefits to the producer. I am not one who is complacent about the fact that we are told by the Government through the Department of Primary Industry that these are the costs that are being incurred and that these costs have to be incurred. The fact that these costs have been incurred in the past does not seem to me to be a good reason for their continuation into the future. I am not at all confident that the costs we are now proposing to charge to the producer are costs which need to be incurred in the inspection of those goods. In this exercise we are essentially continuing the imposition of considerable charges on producers of various commodities, many of which do not even have a stable or established international market. In fact we are seeking to sell some of these commodities into an international market that is glutted. We are seeking to establish new markets for some of the other commodities. I would have thought that in those circumstances primary producers ought be treated in the same way as manufacturing producers who seek to establish new markets in other countries for Australian products. They should be given support instead of an additional charge. Seemingly, that suggestion has fallen on deaf ears. I have raised it on a number of occasions. The Opposition parties have indicated that they are unwilling to support any moves with regard to winding back these charges. Hence, I indicate on behalf of my Party our continued opposition to this type of exercise without thorough consideration and some substantiation by the Government as to where those costs are being incurred and why, and some justification in respect of each item that indeed those costs have to be incurred by the inspection service. Having obtained that information, at least this chamber would have some basis for saying that those costs are being incurred and should be incurred. The next stage is one of policy and that is a stage in respect of which the Opposition parties concur with the Government. There is probably little point in reiterating that I do not believe that we have heard reasonable justification for a policy stance of recovery with regard to a number of the primary products that we are dealing with in these Bills, when at the same time export incentives are being paid to manufacturing products and export charges are being charged to primary products. As I expressed under the Fraser Government and in the last Parliament, we have not heard any justification for that policy decision and why there is a discrepancy between the two areas. Until we get some justification of that area, my Party certainly is not willing to give its support. On the grounds that we do not have information, that we do not have a detailed breakdown, that we do not have detailed justification of where the costs are being incurred and that we do not have any justification for the discrepancies between the primary and secondary industry sectors in Australia, I indicate that we are opposed to the passage of these Bills. While acknowledging that in almost every case, even if such opposition were carried, it would not affect the imposition of these charges, it still seems to my Party that this chamber would do well to express its opposition to an exercise that has so little and such barren justification. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(11.38) — Today we are debating the Export Inspection Charge Bill 1985, the Export Inspection Charge Collection Bill 1985 and the Export Inspection Legislation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985. The effect of this legislation is to consolidate the many existing export inspection charges and Acts for primary produce other than meat; that is, where the charges are based on an export permit, but not including livestock and wool. The legislation consolidates the dairy products export inspection charges and those for dried fruit, eggs, fish and grain. New provisions in the legislation impose charges for the inspection of canned and processed fruit and vegetable products. In February 1985 the Government announced its intention to collect the new charges in the 1985-86 financial year. The legislation states that the maximum charges that may be prescribed are 1c a litre or 1c a kilogram, whichever is the lesser. The rate for canned or processed fruit and vegetable products is expected to be half a cent a litre or kilogram. The Bill is intended to collect $330,000 a year from the fruit and vegetable processing industries. At the outset of the debate, I reiterate the Opposition's commitment to do away with all forms of inspection levies when the Opposition parties are returned to government. We commit ourselves to abolishing all inspection charges and levies on exports of primary products. We see these export charges as a complete disincentive to exporters of primary products. At a time when mining commodity prices are meeting heavy and increased competition Australia will have to rely more heavily upon the export of our rural and primary products. It is to be noted that at the moment Australian overseas borrowings are $50 billion; that is, $455 for every man, woman and child in Australia. Ironically, this week a Bill was put through the Senate giving the car industry $150m over a five-year period. Yet the Government, through this legislation, is imposing a cost on a very small and very sick export industry. The canned and frozen fruit and vegetable industries will have to absorb a cost of $330,000 and, under the provisions of this legislation, that amount can be doubled. The inspection charges imposed on the fruit and vegetable industries will be applied to 186 registered establishments and 270 storage establishments. As I mentioned, the frozen and processed fruit and vegetable industries are in decline. In 1970, 234.6 tonnes were produced and exports amounted to 132.8 tonnes. There has been a decline in the 13 years to 1983. Only 996 tonnes have been produced and 55 tonnes exported. The main reason for this is that Australia is under intense competition from the European Economic Community countries. Of course, all our primary industries-not only this one-are facing that intense competition because the EEC is heavily subsidising the producers in its countries. It is giving them all possible incentives to export. Of course, this Government is not. We are putting up barriers and adding on-costs to our products so that we cannot compete on even terms. That is why the farmers are upset with this Government. The farmers-we have seen many dairy farmers around Parliament House in the last two weeks-are completely upset with the double standards of this Government. This Government has given $326m to prop up the steel industry and $150m only this week to prop up the car industry. This Government has given some of the biggest multinationals such as Ford, Nissan and General Motors-Holden's Ltd $150m. It is ironical that today we are imposing a $330,000 charge on one of the smallest export industries in Australia. I believe that the Government should stand condemned for its double standards on these export levies. If people in the sugar industry-an industry which has provided so many thousands of jobs not only for farmers but also for mill workers-ask for help their requests are met by the Government with deaf ears. Senator MacGibbon —They are not only getting no response; but also they are not even being listened to. Senator BOSWELL —That is exactly what I said. I know that Senator MacGibbon is concerned with the sugar industry, being a senator from Queensland. The dairy industry has provided $300m a year in export earnings. It has provided many thousands of jobs not only for the dairy farmers but also for the thousands of people who drive trucks and work in the dairy factories. Yet the Government is not prepared to help them one bit. The Australian Dairy Corporation put up a plan that would not have cost the Government one cent to implement. It was prepared to submit its own restructuring plan and to finance the plan itself. All it wanted was a bit of legislative support from the Government. It was turned down again on the basis, I suppose, that the industry has to stand on its own two feet. The dairy industry of Australia is providing the second cheapest dairy products in the world. Only New Zealand is capable of offering the people of New Zealand cheaper dairy products. Australia produces the second cheapest milk in the world, the second cheapest butter and the second cheapest cheese. Yet, because the dairy farmers do not vote for the Government, it completely rejects them. The sorts of decisions which the Government is making at the moment in relation to the sugar and dairy industries will come home and haunt them in two years time. The Government will deserve everything it gets. Over the last 12 months we have seen a 200 per cent increase in inspection charges for meat. These added charges have made our meat exports less attractive in an intensely competitive world market. Most governments are bending over backwards to help primary exporters achieve sales and provide jobs and foreign currency. Yet this Government seems not to concern itself with Australian competitiveness. It is prepared to add cost after cost on to the costs of primary producers. The price of oil and fuel is up by 32 per cent and the excise increase is 56 per cent. It must be noted that government assistance in primary industry has fallen from 28 per cent to 8 per cent over the last 10 years while government assistance to manufacturing industry has fallen from 36 per cent to 25 per cent. Farmers are continually complaining-justifiably so-that the tariff protection offered to their city brothers is bankrupting them on the farm. Yet we have a government which says we will let the free market forces reign in relation to rural products but we will heavily protect and subsidise secondary industry. If the Government wants to deregulate I am sure that everyone on this side of the Parliament would actually support it, but there cannot be selective deregulation. If the Government is to deregulate it should do so right across the board. Then farmers would be able to meet competition. They would not be charged another $4,000 or $5,000 for their Toyota Land Cruisers or their Land Rovers or another $15,000 or $16,000 for headers, steel posts or fencing. The deregulation would even itself out. I am sure that if the Government wanted to do that all those on this side of the Parliament would be the first to agree with it. This Government must address itself to the cost of primary products on a world market. It cannot continue to ignore the fact that Australia's agricultural products earn $8 billion per annum for Australia. Since this Government has come into office its treatment of the rural industries has been shameful. The farmers and graziers thought that the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, was not a bad sort of bloke. One heard the comment in country areas: 'Kerin's not a bad fellow. He is prepared to listen to us and we think he is all right'. The same people will now say that he is a trickster. He will listen to them, tell them what they want to hear, but will never come back to Canberra to fight for them. He will go out and agree with everything. He will take the easy way out in the rural areas. But one cannot think of one thing the Minister has ever done for primary industry, except tell untruths. I refer for example to the sugar industry. Before the 1983 election the Minister went around Queensland and promised underwriting schemes. That was a 1983 election promise. In 1984 he promised a floor price plan. The sugar industry has received neither. The Minister increased meat inspection levies by 200 per cent after telling the farmers and graziers that he would fight the matter in Cabinet. He did not even take the recommendations of the farmers and graziers to Cabinet. He then told them that, because of tight budgeting, he would not be able to fight for their case. Now we see the demise of the dairy industry. The dairy plan has not been accepted by the Government and the Kerin plan has been put in its place. It should be called the Kerin massacre. It will massacre 20,000 jobs and the livelihoods of 3,000 or 4,000 dairy farmers. There is no reason for this action except to provide cheap milk to some people in Melbourne. The people of Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney do not want cheap milk. They are prepared to pay their share to keep dairy farmers out on the farm. They do not want to rob their country cousins. This is all about getting the consumer price index down. No regard is being paid to the dairy farmers and rural producers. The message is: 'Get the price down, and do not worry about the consequences'. The dairy industry provides $350m in export income. That will go too. The dairy plan was put up two days before the Victorian State election and was agreed to by every State dairy council and every State government. It was agreed to two days before that State election and was abandoned three days after it. How can a government justify action of that sort? It broke the promise completely in five days. It is a firm commitment of this coalition that on its return to government it will abolish all export inspection charges so that the primary industries can compete on equal terms for primary industry world markets. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(11.53) — The Senate is discussing the Export Inspection Charge Bill and two allied Bills. The Opposition does not oppose the Bills, because to deny the Government the legislation would serve no purpose at all. The existing legislation that puts these imposts on industry will stay in place until these Bills are proclaimed. Therefore, even if we had the support of the Australian Democrats-I do not know their position on this legislation-it would serve no point. Nevertheless, we shall seek constructively to criticise the failings and misdirections inherent in this legislation. These Bills serve no useful purpose for Australia. In fact, they damage Australia's economy by putting added imposts on our export earnings. No other country puts imposts on exports of agricultural products. Australia does and Labor has applied excessive imposts. In our exports we are competing on price around the world. Loyalties mean nothing. This is a simple commercial transaction. The powers of trade unions to impose bans and the cost of the sorts of monopolies that they impose within the country stand for nought. When we sell products overseas, they sell on their quality and price. The costs borne in producing them have no relevance to what people are prepared to pay for them. Australia is competing in a world which has an oversupply of agricultural products. What is worse is that the oversupply has been heavily subsidised by countries such as those in the European Economic Community. Therefore, it is a very difficult market for Australia to compete in. However, Australia must maintain its market share because it is worth at least $8 billion a year to us. As I have said endlessly in this place, we cannot live by taking in one another's washing. We must earn money on the overseas markets and the rural export industries of Australia are the most important means of obtaining export earnings that we have. The first in the list of Bills we are debating this morning is the Export Inspection Charge Bill, which consolidates 10 existing inspection charge Acts relating to primary products, other than meat, where charges are imposed on the basis of the existence of an export permit. It includes provisions which enable charges to be imposed for inspection of canned and processed fruit or vegetable products. The second Bill is the Export Inspection Charge Collection Bill, which provides for the collection of the charges imposed under the Export Inspection Charge Bill. It is interesting to note that the legislation specifies that the charge will be payable 28 days after the last day of the month in which the permit was granted. The export permit will be revoked unless the charges levied under the Bill are paid promptly. Here is a Labor Government bringing in legislation to demand payment with 28 days, yet at the same time the rate of payments by the Commonwealth to its creditors is so bad that a member of the Liberal Party has been forced to bring in a private member's Bill requiring the Commonwealth to pay its bills in a reasonable time. It is common knowledge around Australia that the minimum period of payment by the Commonwealth of its debts under Labor is 90 days. There are many people, including people in this city, who are writing to the Liberal Party stating, in effect, that they are waiting between four and six months for payment after presentation of accounts. There is one law for the Government and another law for the poor people outside the Government. Senator Collard —A disgraceful state of affairs. Senator MacGIBBON —It is absolutely disgraceful. How would I be regarded if I got up in this place and said: 'Do not worry about paying income tax or the interest that will be put on the fine and the amount outstanding. Do what you like and follow the same line as the Government does in paying its accounts'. If that were to happen, the gaols would be full overnight. If there is one law for the Government in respect of debts owing to it, it is good enough for the Government to follow the same principle in paying its own creditors. Returning to the legislation itself, the third Bill with which we are dealing is the Export Inspection Legislation (Consequential Amendments) Bill, which amends and repeals certain Acts as a consequence of the two allied Bills. These Bills impose costs and in the first instance they are borne by farmers. It is part of the great mythology of the Labor Party that farmers are rich land owners driving around Australia in their Rolls-Royces, with sheep breathing over their shoulders and all the rest of it. However, the average yearly income in the Australian farming community is $7,000, which would put farmers almost in the peasant category. It is certainly far less than the average unionist earns in industrial Australia. The fact that these three Bills will load the already high costs that farmers are bearing is intolerable, but one cannot expect much else from this Government. As I took the time to inform the Government yesterday, Labor members are not just bad economic managers; they are bad managers, period. The Labor Party cannot manage anything. Beyond the effects on the farmers, there is a major effect on the whole industry. Because this cost is added to our export commodities, they will cost more in the intense, white hot heat of competition overseas. This is part of the Labor pattern. As Senator Boswell said, there has been a 200 per cent increase in the beef inspection charge. The Government claims that that increase, which will put a meat inspection charge at about $6-$10 a beast, is 50 per cent of the true cost. That may be so under the mismanagement of Labor, but as a beef producer I can tell the Senate that one can very carefully and competently do an inspection of beef in abattoirs at no more than $3.50 per carcass. That is not 50 per cent of the charge; that is the whole charge. I would think that with efficient systems we might get the inspection charge down to about $3 per beast. Under Labor the cost of inspection of an export beast is, on the Government's own admission, between $12 and $20. That is absolute financial irresponsibility. Since this legislation was introduced it has come to light that one of the things the Government has been sitting on and been very quiet about is that the export inspection charges for oysters have gone up 1,000 per cent under Labor. We know that we are living with the legacy of Whitlam inflation and that high figures are great news for the Labor Party, but really, a 1,000 per cent increase in the charge in 2 1/2 years strains the credulity of even Senator Archer, who is inured to the irrationality of Labor Party operations. One of these Bills provides for an export levy on canned fruits. The Australian canned fruit industry has a reputation around the world for quality. It has been exporting for 60 years absolutely unencumbered by any inspection charges. It conforms to high standards of hygiene and quality for the Australian home market-the highest standards in the world-and we do not need any inspectors telling us that something has to be done to keep that product up to quality for the overseas market. It is already meeting some of the highest standards in the world and it is quite superfluous to put in inspectors to look at it. Let me deal briefly with and destroy the defence of these Bills by the Labor Party. The first claim it makes is that because we trade overseas we need to ensure standards, we need to ensure the reputation of the Australian product. No one on the Liberal-National Party side of this Parliament does not agree with or support that to the hilt. Because we support it does not mean that we have to go down this cost ineffective and bureaucratic machinery road to bring it about. Quality and reputation are not bought with money. They are not bought by just issuing cheques drawn on the account of the Australian taxpayer, which is what the Labor Party is trying to do. While on the subject of overseas trade and its importance, the point lost entirely on the Labor Party is that supply is every bit as important as quality. By supply I mean the reliability and the consistency of supply. When have we ever seen one thing from the Labor Party to guarantee supply in our overseas contracts, particularly in the minerals field? How often have ships been tied up off Hay Point in Queensland or off Newcastle while unions, whether they be coal mining unions, transport unions or the unions responsible for loading coal on to the ships, carry on with some pointless and selfish little squabble, tying up millions of tonnes of shipping for weeks on end while they fight for their selfish little goals? That is the sort of thing that destroys Australia's reputation as an exporter and loses markets for us, and when we lose markets we lose them either forever or for a very long time. We do not see one bit of recognition of that in this legislation before us today. While I am on the subject of strikes, I turn to what is very much part of our export earnings-the tourist traffic to this country. No tourists will come from countries such as the United States and Japan, where they have only a week or two weeks holiday per year, and be held ransom by such people as the refuellers at Australian airports who may tie them up for days or even weeks with pointless strikes. Tourists have to be able to come into the country knowing that on an appointed day they are going to fly out and that, except for the extremes of weather, which are very unlikely, they are not going to be held up by some senseless strike. Again we see nothing from the Labor Party to control the obvious in this respect. Over and above everything else in relation to overseas trade, as well as looking after our reputation and the supply, the very first thing to do is to maintain the market. There were overseas markets for commodities that the Labor Party inherited when it came into office in March 1983. Sadly and tragically, a large number of those markets have gone, and have gone for many a year, because of the sheer incompetence of Ministers for Trade and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in the Labor Party Government. I will give just one example of that. When the Labor Party came to power in 1983 Australia was providing 50,000 tonnes of beef to Korea alone. In 1984 Korean imports of Australian beef had fallen from 50,000 to 10,000 tonnes. In 1985 exports of Australian beef to Korea will probably be very close to zero. In other words, we have lost 50,000 tonnes of beef to Korea under the benign neglect and sheer incompetence of the people on the other side. That is what I mean by maintaining the markets. If we do not maintain the markets we will not get back into them when we have a change in government, however careful and effective our diplomacy and our Trade Ministers might be, because we will have to fight and dislodge others in the market. We will dislodge them only by having a better quality product at a lower price, which means that we will earn less for our exports as we fight our way back over the years into that market. The second justification the Labor Party has brought up is that the previous Government imposed a meat levy. That is perfectly true, and we have never resiled from that, but we did not put a disproportionate levy on the beef trade. We certainly had none on the canned fruit trade, which is one of the principal parts of this legislation. Having put on those imposts we very definitely did not lift them by 200 per cent or 1,000 per cent. Over and above everything else, this Government has been in power for 2 1/2 years of economic mismanagement. If it did not like the charges, did not approve of them or thought they were not justified, it could have removed them in the way it has removed housing interest subsidies and many other factors during its term of office. I return to the central point that sticks with the Opposition and is the reason why we will have no bar of this legislation when we get into power; that is, it affects our competitive position and our export earnings. The coalition has made this very clear in its policy statements. The relevant document says: A coalition government will . . . ensure that a high standard export inspection service is maintained where the circumstances of trade require that certification by the Commonwealth be provided. The Commonwealth will co-operate with industry bodies and the States concerned to ensure that the inspection is efficiently conducted without duplication and at the Commonwealth's expense. In other words, a coalition government will meet the costs of any export charges, and that is the way it should be, because we come back to the point of the value of export earnings for the development of Australia. We are part of the western rim of the Pacific where huge potential food markets are available for us. They are not markets that are going to be captured or penetrated without a great deal of thought and careful analysis. It is going to take a lot of hard work to get a place in them. Furthermore, they are specialised markets that differ from country to country. The type of product we can supply to Japan will be different from that we can supply to Korea or to Taiwan. But the markets are there if we can get our act together. Earlier this year I was in Japan and made a particular point of going through supermarkets in Tokyo. While the beef trade to Japan is a specialised field in itself, I believe that the canned food market in Japan is wide open to Australia if we can market there in a competitive and aggressive way. I must say that while going through the supermarkets I could not find one Australian canned food produce on the shelves. There were products from many European countries, including Sweden, Switzerland and Britain, many products from the United States and a few from New Zealand, but I could not find one product from Australia. One of the keys to getting into that market is, of course, to be cost competitive. We cannot be cost competitive if we are going to load up these prices with bureaucratic charges for inspections. If the Labor Party wishes to go ahead with the imposition of these charges, the correct thing for it to do is to privatise the inspection processes. Rather than having them done by a bunch of public servants who have no incentive to work and no incentive to keep costs down, the inspection processes could, quite realistically, be put out to tender. The terms under which the inspections have to be carried out and the standards which have to be met could be defined and very heavy penalties could be written into the legislation so that any backsliding, any failure to observe those standards, would meet a very heavy deterrent penalty. If we did that we could put these inspection processes to tender. I would guarantee, particularly in the case of the beef inspection charges, that the amount we would pay would come down to a figure well under a quarter of what we are paying at present. I see no difficulty with the Australian Labor Party going down that path but I suppose it is too innovative and too creative for it even to consider. In conclusion, I will look at Labor's position on this matter. I go back to the ALP agricultural policy document of February 1983. Page 4 states: . . . Labor is fully briefed on the state of Australian agriculture . . . It also states: We realise industry want less government involvement but where the Commonwealth must be involved and producers are paying, eg export inspection, Labor will ensure value for money. What a hollow claim! What a beauty! Labor will ensure value for money! Have we ever got value for money from any government decision coming from the Labor Party? Further on in Labor's agricultural policy document of February 1983 is a section entitled 'Horticultural Industries'. Here the policy states that the Labor Government will facilitate export expansion and facilitate market extension. It also states: Labor's approach to policy making is centred on full consultation. I can assure the Senate that there has been no meaningful consultation at all on this matter with the export industries in the primary sector. Dictates may have been given to them that the legislation was coming but there has been no assessment of the need for, or the consequences of, this legislation. The final piece de resistance happens to be the introductory part of the document in which the Labor Party states: A dynamic farm sector is essential to the social and economic well-being of all Australians, particularly the one-third of our people living outside capital cities. Just as agriculture is vitally important to the Australian economy, what matters most to the nation's 170,000 farmers is sound economic management. That promise of sound economic management is as valid as the promise made on the steps of the Opera House by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that this year he would build as many houses under the housing grants scheme-we debated this matter yesterday-as he did last year. It is as valid as the promise that Mr Integrity made to the United States Government that he would allow MX missile tests to take place here. The Labor Party has no concern at all for rural Australia; the Labor Party has no concern for the rural export earnings of this country. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(12.14) —I take this opportunity to speak to the Export Inspection Charge Bill 1985 and allied Bills to cover several aspects of a whole group of rural Bills which will come before the Parliament over the next week or so. As usual, we have this group of Bills all turning up in the last weeks of a session and we are expected to rush them through. Seldom do we get an opportunity to have a reasonable debate. The Bills before us are as much a matter of attitude as of detail. They demonstrate a lot to us about the philosophy of the Government. They show its general attitude towards the rural sector of Australia. The Government fails to take into account Australia's trading nation status, which is a matter that is forgotten not only by the Government but also by most people in Australia. We have become so introverted as to believe that what we do in Australia is really all that is important, whereas what is done overseas has a far greater impact on the prosperity of the country than is generally conceded. As a result, we have reached the stage where we are now having real difficulty in competing with other countries, and it is all for a variety of self-inflicted social reasons, not economic or trading ones. We work too little, we pay ourselves too much and we hold our hands out for far too many fringe benefits and side benefits. We are simply out of step with our trading partners. When the Government looks at the sort of problem we get ourselves into, what it does is call the undertaker instead of the doctor. We all know what the symptoms are. We know we have the cure at our disposal but we prefer to write off the patient. Australia has a collection of very highly efficient, very useful, primary industries spread over the length and breadth of the continent. They operate in widely spread areas; they produce a wide range of skills, crafts and social benefits. They seek very little from government. They contribute very much to a wide variety of communities. The people involved invest their skills and capital and provide employment for a very extensive range of people all over the country. They are the true representatives of the productive sector of the nation. However, that sector is seen by this Government as being there to attack, to tax to destruction, to accuse on various tax issues and to deprive of services by removing facilities and fundamental services, such as health, education and pensions. This city-based, centralist-minded, union-motivated Government simply would not know what I am talking about. The productive sector of Australia exports the goods that keep this country alive and what consideration does it get? Absolutely none. Every time some wildcat or demarcation strike is called to put genuine workers out of work, the nation pays. For instance, in Queensland it is the Electrical Trade Union of Australia; in Victoria it is the Builders Labourers Federation of Australia; and in Tasmania it is the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australasia. What a sorry state to tell. What about the incomes of the so-called wealthy farmers whom the Government wants to tax to oblivion? According to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, this year they can each look forward to the grand income of $7,000. In city style one cannot start off a 15-year-old for the money that country people are expected to raise a family and run a business on. The farmers pay all their rates and taxes and they pay to maintain the nation's true wealth, and all of this is done on a third of the average weekly wage of $20,000 a year. Who consults them on increased costs? Who consults them on their decreasing competitiveness? What say do they have in whether the price of fuel goes up 25 per cent without notice? What say do they have on wages or all of the other costs that they have to contend with? All they have to do is again trim their expenses to meet the costs that are involved and their lack of income. Let us look at dairying as a typical example. The Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, has the answer, as he does, of course, for the dried fruits people. It is probably best that I quote from Mr Kerin's Press release of 7 May. In part, it states: ''Clearly, there will be a range of actions taken by farmers over the next twelve months as they make decisions on their future . . . ''They may reduce the number of cows they have in production, they may change from dairy to some other form of agricultural production, they may remain on the land but seek off farm employment or they may want to leave the farm,'' the Minister said. ''Likewise, factories will make individual decisions about employment levels, product mix, marketing and so on,'' he said. Of course he is right; they do have those choices. They can reduce the number of cows, but if they do reduce the number of cows so what? Will that still buy food, and pay their doctors', dentists' and chemists' bills? Will it still provide education for their children or transport to get them in and out of the towns? As the Minister says, they have the option to change. Perhaps they would like to change to growing sugar, blackcurrants, dried fruits, peas and beans, peaches and pears or oil seeds! There is a great choice as to what these people can change to! The Minister says that they can seek off-farm employment-they and 700,000 others. What are the jobs that are available in rural areas for these people who the Minister so glibly says can seek jobs in off-farm situations? The Minister says that they may want to leave their farms, but who may want to buy them? Who are these buyers who may want to buy one of these farms that he says they may wish to leave? I am sure the banks and other mortgagors do not want 2,000 dairy farms around their necks either. The Minister says that the factories can do something else as well. I am not quite sure what they can do. The Minister has not told us that, but he gave them the choice to do something else. This is the help we get from the Minister who is leading this debacle. What sort of choice is it when our producers in the dried fruits and dairying industries have expertise, technology and efficiency at least equal to that in any country in the world and the attitude of the Government is to dispose of them with insensitive and ridiculous legislation that will eliminate them either totally or mainly in the very short term? What does the Government intend to do in both these cases? What it is doing is selling out Australian producers, the efficient, high quality Australian producers. It is selling out their jobs, their properties and their family's futures to efficient, highly subsidised producers of dumped goods from the European Economic Community and other places. Why do we want to destroy our most efficient and innovative industries when at the same time the less efficient are being left to survive? With this attitude all we will do is continue going round wiping off one of Australia's primary industries after another. Presumably, when we have wiped off all those industries we will start on secondary industries, starting with the better ones, of course. We can, and I presume we will, continue to accelerate this process by supporting all sorts of demands for extra union wages and more fringe benefits, by embarking on more anti-rural cuts and by imposing a new range of capital taxes. This is the part of the economy from where all our nation's wealth starts. If we start by cutting expenditure in that area wherever will we make it up? Already in Australia there is an enormous, extravagant transfer of money away from the rural industries to the city dwellers. I would have thought that by now we would have started to see that this was the case. It is time that we thought of seeing what the highly paid, over-pampered city sector is getting and how some of that should be transferred to the place where the nation, when it again realises it, depends entirely for its future; namely, the rural areas. The rural areas used to be the environment in which the Australian character was really developed, but this Government will make it the place where Australia's hopes and endeavours are destroyed for good. Unless there are changes of thinking by the designers of this Government's economic policies, all we will need to do is to hang up a sign on the edge of what used to be the productive rural areas saying: 'Bob Hawke, John Kerin and Peter Walsh went this way hand in hand'. The producers of canned and frozen fruits and vegetables will have to find another $330,000 out of their diminishing return. We are told that all this has been agreed and that everybody is happy, but it just so happens that I received a telex, which was sent not only to me but also to Mr Kerin and Mr Hawke, saying: ACFA strongly opposes proposed legislation to recover 50% export inspection costs of canned fruit. Because of strong export competition, all canners apply strict quality control inspection systems beyond that exercised by government. Proposed inspection cost recovery will result in $6.00 per tonne imposition on canning fruitgrowers adding further burden to cost/price squeeze. The telex was signed by P. A. Pullar, President of the Australian Canning Fruitgrowers Association Ltd. What is $6 a tonne to the Government? It is not very much money to the Government, but to the industry it is another row of nails in the coffin. What will replace this industry if we put it out of business? Right now all of these industries are under the hammer, not because they are inefficient or backward in technology or because their product is less than the best in the world, but simply because Australia has opted for a domestic cost structure that is unsustainable anywhere in the world. When it comes to price we are under threat from everyone. We import fruit and vegetables from about 40 countries, such as the United Kingdom, the United States of America, France, Rumania, Taiwan, Japan, Canada, Israel, Hungary, Italy, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Indonesia and so on. We have a system of product standard second to none. It is excellent and we are proud of it. What do we know about the standards of those countries from which we import? How much inspection do they have? Do we know? Do we ask? How much money do we spend on checking which imports Australians eat? Is it as much as we spend on seeing what we export? Let us take cheese. We have a very rigid health standard as to the use of nitrates as a cheese preservative. The use of nitrates is banned totally in Australian production. This makes cheese production much more costly and much more technically exacting and places our exporters at a great disadvantage on export markets. If that is not bad enough, we allow cheese to come into Australia, to compete here against our own, that clearly does not comply with our production requirements and when, clearly, we have done nothing either to prevent it from coming in or to deal with it when it gets here. Every year we import about 10,000 tonnes of cheese that does not comply with Australian health standards. Why do we sell our Australian jobs to overseas producers? Why do we not do more to look after them here? Let us put Australia first. As I said a week or two ago, what is wrong with Australia? If we had a virile fifth column in this country dedicated to destroying all forms of production and distribution it would be doing a very worthwhile job at present. It could not be more proud of its work. Those who trade and those who export should be regarded as the truly great Australians. We should raise our hats to them. We should encourage them, not tax them into obscurity. We should ensure that the nation gives them a reasonable chance to compete and that we keep them profitable, and, hopefully, make them more profitable. What are we doing to our efficient primary industries? We have only to look at citrus. I refer to a sheet which was issued by the Australian Bureau of Statistics a day or two ago. In 1982 we imported 1,792 tonnes of oranges, tangerines, mandarins and clementines. In 1983 we imported 4,993 tonnes. In 1984 we imported 10,030 tonnes. We imported 4,416 tonnes of the juiced product in 1982 and 11,515 tonnes on 1983. In 1984 we imported 14,628 tonnes. That cost Australian growers $10m in the first year, $26m in the second year and $33m in 1984, the third year. There is no reason why every drop of that juice could not have been produced in Australia by the best fruit growers in the world, yet we buy that quantity overseas. Every cent of that is at the expense of the Australian producers. There are many such examples. One has only to look at the blackcurrant, frozen pea and other markets to see that this is so. This is the way that Australia works. One processor recently made it clear to me that he felt it was ludicrous that he was paying to have inspectors coming through his place who had nothing like the qualifications of his own highly qualified professionals. These people could not determine what they were there to do. Of course that producer is concerned about the quality of his product and of course anything he exports will be of the highest quality. He knows what the situation is in the real world. But no, we send inspectors through that place and make the producer pay for it. I refer now to the problem of ministerial orders. I have had this problem with other sections of primary industry. I am totally opposed to anything that permits orders which have not been subject to parliamentary scrutiny and which have not been made available to the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances to look at. This is another case when there should be recourse to members of parliament to have some say about what goes on. Of course, I support adequate and appropriate inspection. I accept the conclusions of the report of the Department of Primary Industry Advisory Committee on Export Inspection Arrangements for Canned and Frozen Fruit and Vegetables. The Committee concluded in paragraph 2.43 of the report that for Australia to maintain its export markets it had, firstly, to ensure that international obligations and importing country requirements were met; secondly, that the product was processed, packed, stored and transported under adequate standards; thirdly, that the product itself complied with minimum standards of quality; and, fourthly, that the product description was adequate. Of course we all believe in that. However, I am in no doubt that this is being done by every reputable exporter in Australia. Whether these industries should be charged with the cost of doing so is the point on which I have a difference of opinion. I believe it is absolutely ridiculous to kick our rural export industries even further when it was we Australians at large who created the situation that has put the producers in the difficulty they are currently in. I believe also in penalties. Wherever there is fraud, carelessness, complicity or incompetence that could prejudice the good name of an exporter and of the country I believe there is no penalty too great, right up to the loss of licence. I certainly believe that if there is any such activity these penalties are the least we should have. Adequate penalty as a deterrent is far preferable to inadequate inspection and inadequate penalty, which seems to be the alternative. I believe that the whole philosophy behind charging exporters, when the nation itself has put exporters in a difficult situation, is just about as silly as it could be. There is no way I can support that philosophy. I guess that we have no alternative at this stage but to allow the legislation to pass. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.35) —Thank you, Mr Deputy President-- Senator Boswell —The rural expert. Tell us how to milk a cow. Senator GRIMES —I told the honourable senator all about that. There is a character in Joseph Heller's memorable book Catch-22 named Major Major. Major Major's father was described, if I remember it rightly, as a rural representative from the mid-west of America who believed very firmly that all public expenditure was bad, socialistic and destructive except that which went to the rural industry, which was always good, very effective and which was the opposite of socialism. I suppose he was the original agrarian socialist. Having listened to Senator Archer this afternoon, and Senator MacGibbon to a lesser extent, one cannot help being reminded of that. The second thing I would like to say-as I have told Senator Boswell many times-is that I grew up in the bush. My colleague Senator Walsh, so frequently attacked by honourable senators on the other side, was an extremely efficient wheat producer, unlike the real estate agent and the dentist we have just heard lecturing us on rural affairs. I think we had better get some facts straight. Firstly I remind honourable senators opposite that it was the policy of the previous Government and it is the policy of this Government to recover from industry some 50 per cent of the costs of export inspection. I confirm what Senator Macklin pointed out to the Senate early in this debate. He is correct. In this context, what the Government has done, as have previous governments, is to recognise the broad community benefit to Australia-that benefit that Senator Archer talks about-of the maintenance of our export trade. For that reason 50 per cent of the cost of export inspection is charged to the community as a whole. However, we have been told this afternoon that that policy is the cause of the destruction of our export industry in this community. I remind Senator Archer that since 1949, when I was a boy in the bush, there have been Labor governments for only three years-between 1973 and 1975 and from 1983 to 1985. For the remainder of the time we have had conservative governments. Those conservative governments told their voters in the country: 'We will save you; we will stop the move to the cities; we will introduce all these subsidies for the bush'. In that time the relative number of people in rural industry in this country plummetted. At the same time Sir John McEwen, beloved of Senator Collard, introduced the protection to the manufacturing industry in this country which Senator Archer tells us also is causing great difficulty. With regard to the claim that there have been excessive increases in export inspection charges in the past two years, it should be noted that the actual costs of inspection have risen from $98m in 1983-84 to $105m in 1984-85. When the Government took office the charges actually recovered represented a far lower percentage of cost than the 50 per cent expressed in the previous Government's policy. We have increased that cost component. It has been suggested by Senator Archer and Senator MacGibbon that other countries do not charge for export inspection and that, accordingly, our exporters are being placed at a competitive disadvantage on world markets. Senator Archer —I did not say that. Senator GRIMES —I am sorry, Senator Archer did not say that; Senator MacGibbon said it. That suggestion does not reflect the real situation. Perhaps Senator Archer would like to hear the facts. The latest survey of Australia's major export competitors reveals that, except for New Zealand, all such countries currently recover a significant proportion of the cost of export inspection by one means or another. In Europe it varies between 50 per cent and 100 per cent. In the United States Senator MacGibbon's hero-sometimes I think he is his representative in this place-has a Budget proposal which will obviously be expected to recover 100 per cent of export inspection charges over the next three years. The policy announced by the New Zealand Government is that sixty-six and two-thirds of the full inspection charges will be recovered from industry. That policy will be phased in over the next two years. Senator Archer —Tell us what their costs are. Senator GRIMES —For heaven's sake! In New Zealand the figures will be about the same as ours because it has the same thing. With regard to competitiveness on our world markets-- Senator Boswell —Where is Senator Walsh? He knows what he is talking about. Senator GRIMES —I would hate to compete with Senator Boswell. The more recent movements in the value of the Australian dollar mean that even Senator Archer will benefit from the competitive position of our industries. Senator Boswell made a number of points regarding the competitive position of Australian exports on world markets. His suggestion was that we need to deregulate the industry, particularly-- Senator Boswell —As long as you deregulate all industry. Senator GRIMES —Senator Boswell said particularly that we needed to deregulate in respect of export inspection. I ask him to read his speech when it appears in Hansard. Senator Boswell —I did not say that. Senator GRIMES —That is what you said. Senator Boswell —No, it was not. You were not here. Senator GRIMES —Our export inspection is being imposed-- Senator Boswell —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Boswell, you will have to wait until Senator Grimes has finished speaking. Senator GRIMES —Our export inspection is being imposed because our overseas importers, the people who import our goods, demand it. We are not doing it, as Senator Boswell suggests, to bedevil industry, or something like that. The second point about which it is worth reminding people is that overseas countries, to take up Senator MacGibbon's point, do not accept export inspection undertaken by private organisations. The USA, the European Economic Community, Japan and all our major customers will not accept anything less than certification by government authorities based on inspection undertaken by government authorities. Senator Archer —Done under contract, just the same. Senator GRIMES —Based on inspection undertaken by government authorities. That is what they demand, and Senator Archer knows that that is what they demand. It is no good for him to babble on about something which he does not know anything about. Senator Archer —I do not know. I know more about it than you do, mate. Senator GRIMES —Senator Archer is the man who got into this place having flogged off all those houses on the north-west coast. If honourable senators want to hear about it, I will tell them again about how he gained pre-selection. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes, you should stick to the point. Senator Macklin —I haven't heard that one. Senator GRIMES —Has Senator Macklin not heard that? He bought it. He donated a house to the Liberal Party in Burnie. He replaced a very good senator in this place named Senator Bessell, who was a farmer. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes, you are diverging from the purpose of the Bill. Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator whom he replaced was a real farmer and a really decent bloke, which is something that I cannot say about this gentleman. Senator MacGibbon and Senator Archer gave us a long and sad story about the canned fruit industry in this country. It is a long story, it is a sad story, and I happen to know something about it. Senator Archer —So what did they get? Senator GRIMES —But the problems of the canned fruit industry go way beyond export inspection charges, and Senator Archer knows it. The rate proposed to be charged is 0.5c per kilogram, less than 0.25c a can. The recent advantages gained from the depreciation of the Australian dollar are far greater than this amount. We will also introduce a risk listing system so that the good performers pay less and the bad performers pay more. I thought that that would have been right up Senator Archer's alley, because he is such a great fellow for competition in the community. The simple fact is that we have all sorts of problems with our exports in this country, and we know it. But to suggest, as has been suggested here today by people like Senator MacGibbon and Senator Boswell-but not Senator Archer; he blamed everybody else in the world-that export inspection charges are the cause of this problem is nonsense. I have decided that Senator Haines is right and that I really should wind up before the suspension of the sitting for lunch, although I could continue for another half an hour. But I am talking to only two people who would understand what I am talking about. Senator Haines —Three. Senator GRIMES —I am sorry, three people. The rest of them are like Major Major's father and have closed minds. We reject the amendment. We urge the Senate to support the Bill because it is important to follow the policy of this Government and the previous Government. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Collard's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Macklin, M. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Mason, C. V. J.Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Chipp, D. L. Parer, W. R. Collard, S. J. Puplick, C. J. G. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Evans, Jack Sheil, G. (Teller)Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Short, J. R. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E. Jessop, D. S. Vigor, D. B. Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. Black, J. R. McClelland, DouglasBolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. 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. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Coleman, R. N. Carrick, Sir John Button, J. N. Knowles, S. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Messner, A. J. Georges, G. Rae, P. E. Zakharov, A. O. Walters, M. S. Walsh, P. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the Bills be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Aulich, T. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter McClelland, DouglasBlack, J. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Bolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. Boswell, R. L. D. McKiernan, J. P. Brownhill, D. G. C. Maguire, G. R. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Childs, B. K. Parer, W. R. Coates, J. Primmer, C. G. Collard, S. J. Puplick, C. J. G. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reid, M. E. Cooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Elstob, R. C. Sheil, G. Evans, Gareth Short, J. R. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jones, G. N. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Zakharov, A. O. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Evans, Jack Mason, C. V. J. Haines, J. Vigor, D. B. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —Does the Minister for Finance agree with the proposition of his factional convener, Senator Peter Cook, that the introduction of a broadbased consumer tax could mean an inflation rate as high as 20 per cent by late 1987? Further, what is the Minister's view about Senator Cook's suggestion that it might be preferable to broaden the direct tax base, including a capital gains tax, to avoid problems of compensation and the effect on prices of indirect taxation? Senator WALSH —I have not read all of Senator Cook's speech and I am not sure, in the context, how 'inflation rate' was defined. However, he and I know very well that if there is a major increase in indirect taxes the consumer price index rises. Whether that ought to be regarded as an increase in inflation or not is open to some argument. My own view is that provided it does not feed through it should not be regarded as an increase in inflation. When the previous Government made that sort of change in the late 1970s it did so without any assurance at all that the CPI effects would not flow through into wages. Indeed, in the end it had no wages policy at all. Therefore, the substantial movement to indirect taxation by the Fraser Government, principally by way of the crude oil levy, caused an increase in the CPI which was then transformed into a new and higher threshold of inflation. That, of course, was one of the major policy failures of the Fraser Government. I have a copy of Senator Cook's speech, which I have glanced over. My own view concurs entirely with what he said in the last paragraph of his speech, which states: It is premature to close off options before the tax summit. The process of consultation with the community would be best served if both the indirect tax and direct tax routes to tax reform were canvassed at the tax summit without the Government giving any prior commitment to either approach. Senator AULICH —I address my question to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the deaths in custody of two more black South African citizens, Sipho Mutsi and Andries Raditsela. I refer, further, to the post-mortem finding that one died as a result of a blow to the head whilst held in custody. Is the Government concerned that a strong Australian stand against South Africa's apartheid policy is being weakened by the actions of some Opposition members accepting free airline tickets and other enticements from the South African Government? Is the Government concerned about the activities of the pro-South African lobby aimed at destroying the bipartisan approach to South Africa that has been a feature of this Government's and the former Liberal Government's foreign policies? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government is aware of the deaths of two black South Africans in police custody in recent days. According to reports, Mr Andries Raditsela, an official of the Chemical Workers Industrial Union and Vice-Chairman in the Transvaal region of the Federation of South African Trade Unions, was detained on 4 May following his release from police custody. Mr Sipho Mutsi, a member of the Congress of South African Students, is also reported to have died in hospital on 5 May while in police custody. The South African Police Commissioner has ordered an immediate inquiry into these deaths. An independent pathologist is reported to have said that Mutsi's death was due to a 'haemorrhage in the head'. The circumstances of these two deaths of black South Africans in or immediately after their release from police custody have provoked strong and perfectly understandable criticism from trade union, academic, political and church leaders in South Africa. The Government is not at this stage in a position to confirm whether the deaths occurred as a result of injuries sustained whilst in police custody. Were it to be established that these deaths took place in police custody, the Government would, of course, deplore this situation in the strongest terms. We are appalled that the deaths of these two people are so tragically reminiscent of the death in detention of the black consciousness leader, Steve Biko, in 1977. The latest incidents can serve only to increase tensions and anger within South Africa and undermine the sincerity of the South African Government's claims to be seeking political and constitutional reforms for black South Africans. I am not aware whether there are members of the Opposition accepting free trips to South Africa. It would be entirely consistent with the stance taken in public by a number of members of the Opposition were that to be so. I exempt, of course, from any suggestion of criticism people such as Senator Missen, who paid for his own fare in order to examine at first hand what is happening there, and also the Opposition Foreign Affairs spokesman, Mr Macphee, who, I gather, much to the disgust of some of his colleagues, is also proposing to visit South Africa at his own expense to make some informed judgments about the situation there. Our position on South Africa is perfectly clear. We regard the apartheid policies of the South African Government with nothing short of contempt. We firmly believe that now is not the time to relax international pressure against the apartheid regime. Senator SHEIL —I refer the Minister for Finances to the release yesterday of the Forward Estimates of Budget outlays and to his accompanying statement. Why was it necessary for the Department of Finance to conduct its own analysis of administrative costs and staff growth rather than rely on estimates from functional departments? How realistic are the Forward Estimates as they apply to future staff levels, given that the accepted growth of 0.3 per cent is less than one-sixth of that proposed by the departments? Senator WALSH —There is nothing unusual about that. I believe that the Forward Estimates last year contained the same sort of information. I have been aware of this for as long as we have been in government. I would expect that something similar happened even under previous governments. Departments put in a bid for what they regard as a staff entitlement, much the same as a money bid, and the Department of Finance at a Public Service level is charged with the responsibility of protecting the general public interest, I suppose, rather than the sectional departmental interest. Almost invariably, even after some prolonged discussions or negotiations, there is not bilateral agreement as to precisely the number of staff that should be required. In those circumstances the question is settled in the first instance by me or by the Expenditure Review Committee or by Cabinet should the other Minister concerned decide to take it there. Senator ELSTOB —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of recent reports that have shown a huge projected cost in the United States of America for the treatment and care of acquired immune deficiency syndrome victims? Is the Minister of the opinion that sufficient emphasis has been placed on the role and responsibility the public will have to play in dealing successfully with AIDS? Does the Minister have any plans to run a preventative education campaign to try to prevent a similar outbreak to those being experienced overseas? Senator GRIMES —The Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, is aware of the huge projected cost of the treatment of AIDS victims as determined by the Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta. The costs are indeed startling. Partly they reflect the costs of health care in the United States of America. The Centre believes that the cost will be $US140,000 per patient, excluding the detection and social services programs which will be needed. For instance, after diagnosis AIDS patients require on average 167 days of hospitalisation at an average cost of $US829 per day excluding physician fees, outpatients visits fortnightly at a cost of $US250 to $US300, and home care nursing visits which cost $US65 each. They need Medicare. Investigation costs have not yet been established but they are under active study. We are very much aware of the need for a public education program, and particularly of the significance of a public education role in preventing the spread of AIDS. Since last November the Minister has announced an allocation of $5.4m to deal with AIDS. About $2m has been paid to the States as a one off payment so that State health authorities can provide information and establish community education, support and counselling services. These services are for the public but they are also targeted on high risk groups. The speed with which the money was made available by the Government and taken up by the States reflects the Commonwealth-State co-operation that exists in dealing with this very serious threat. The Department of Health and the committees established by the Department have also been talking with high risk groups in the community and they are co-operating in minimising the further spread of the disease. The need for an ongoing education program is recognised by all governments and future funding for AIDS will be shared between the Commonwealth and the States. For 1985-86 the States have put forward proposals for community awareness and education programs which total approximately $1.9m. We should pay tribute to the work of Professor Penington, all of the members of the AIDS task force, Miss Ita Buttrose and all of the members of the National AIDS Advisory Committee for the bipartisan approach which has been taken. I emphasise that AIDS is very much a public health problem and all public health problems involve public education and public co-operation. As long as we recognise that it is a public health problem and treat it as such-and not treat it, as some would do, as a visitation from on high-I think we will be successful in overcoming many of the problems which faced, for instance, the United States, France and West Germany, which did not have the warning that we had as to the potential problems of this disease. Senator MACKLIN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I refer to the tendering on 20 November last year to the Evatt Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam of a list purporting to be a list of Vietnam veterans who have died since the Vietnam war. Was that a true and accurate list of the figures held by the Department of Defence at that date? Is there any evidence that the Department misled the Commission in the tendering of that list? Senator RYAN —Although Senator Macklin had given some warning of his interest in this matter, the Department has not been able to provide me with the information yet. I will refer it to the Department and ensure that Senator Macklin receives the information as soon as possible. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Is it a fact that Mr Peter Garrett, late of the Nuclear Disarmament Party, claimed at a peace rally in Hobart's Franklin Square on Palm Sunday weekend that in 1983, 19 United States Navy vessels visited Hobart, 12 being nuclear-powered attack vessels and seven being nuclear-powered missile cruisers? Is this accurate? Could this have happened unbeknown to the citizens of my home city? If not, does the Minister agree that it is vital in this area of public policy that truth not become a casualty in the contest for public support? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen the Press reports in which Mr Garrett made the claims that Senator Tate referred to. The short answer is that those claims are not accurate. Figures supplied by the Department of Defence show that only three nuclear-powered American warships visited Hobart in 1983, two of which were submarines. The 12 nuclear-powered attack vessels and seven nuclear-powered missile cruisers referred to by Mr Garrett could not, accordingly, have slipped into Hobart unbeknown to Australian authorities. As to the larger issue of visits by American nuclear warships, I draw the attention of the Senate to an answer I gave to a question on notice from Senator Chipp which is printed in the Senate Hansard of 8 May and does contain those statistics. Senator DURACK —Does the Acting Minister for Aboriginal Affairs agree that the Commonwealth's so-called preferred model for national uniform Aboriginal land rights legislation is not preferred by the Aboriginal people, by the State governments or by the mining industry? In view of the unanimous rejection of the so-called preferred model of the Commonwealth, will the Government reconsider its position on national Aboriginal land rights? Senator RYAN —At this stage of the discussions about achieving national objectives in land rights legislation the preferred model is preferred by our Government, but it is the subject of discussions and negotiations, mainly with Aboriginal organisations, but also with State governments and with other parties that have a legitimate interest. Senator Durack's question as to whether we will reconsider our position is really an irrelevant question because the whole matter is under constant consideration and discussion. Senator DURACK —I ask a supplementary question. Can the Acting Minister tell us which Aboriginal groups are being consulted about it by the Government? The Minister did not answer my question as to whether it is a fact that the model has been rejected by Aboriginal groups. Senator RYAN —I understand that all national Aboriginal organisations have been involved in discussions and continue to be involved in discussions- Senator Chaney —Which ones? The health organisations? Senator RYAN —All organisations that wish to be involved in the discussions are involved, including the National Aboriginal Conference. Senator Chaney —Name them. Senator RYAN —It would have been evident to anyone who is interested in Aboriginal organisations that a number of members of Aboriginal organisations, such as the NAC, the Aboriginal Land Council and the Federation of Land Councils, have been in and about the lobbies and committee rooms of Parliament House for weeks. Obviously there are ongoing consultations with all major Aboriginal organisations and those consultations will continue. Senator DEVLIN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of statements made by the Tasmanian Minister for Health, Mr Cleary, that a decision on the establishment of a private hospital on the north-west coast of Tasmania is entirely up to the Federal Government? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether the statement by Mr Cleary is correct? Has Mr Cleary co-operated fully in attempts by the Federal Government to make a decision on where the hospital should be sited? Senator GRIMES —I did read the statements by Mr Cleary which were reported in today's Examiner and Advocate in Tasmania. This is not the first time Mr Cleary has made such statements. The statements are not only deliberately misleading but also obstructive to the attempts by the Federal Government to make a decision on the establishment of a private hospital on the north-west coast of Tasmania. There are two applications-one for Burnie and one for Ulverstone-and there is considerable local interest in this matter. Mr Cleary is well aware that the State Government is responsible for approving the construction of private hospitals and for issuing hospital licenses. Commonwealth approval is essentially necessary to facilitate the payment of Commonwealth subsidies and to facilitate the payment of health fund benefits. In fact, Federal legislation insists that the Federal Minister shall not grant an approval in principle for a private hospital anywhere unless he has consulted the relevant State Minister and received the Minister's advice on the establishment of the hospital. In fact, in every other State there would be considerable furore if the Commonwealth Government went ahead and approved private hospitals without consulting the State Minister. The Commonwealth Department of Health wrote to the Tasmanian Director-General of Health on 13 March seeking formal meetings with the Department. Mr Cleary wrote to Dr Blewett on 27 March saying, in essence, that this was a matter for the Federal Government. Dr Blewett wrote back two days later advising Mr Cleary that which hospital, if any, received approval should be based on assessments by both departments. It is the recognised procedure in every State for Commonwealth and State officers to consider jointly such applications. All other States represent their responsibilities in this area. Dr Blewett has today telexed Mr Cleary once again pointing out that to enable a decision to be made there needs to be this meeting and this co-operation between State and Federal authorities. As Senator Devlin well knows, Mr Cleary's problem is a political problem. There are two competing groups in two towns on the north-west coast of Tasmania, in a seat that the Tasmanian Government is absolutely certain to lose in the next State election, and Mr Cleary does not want to make a decision about which town should have the private hospital. Judging from Mr Cleary's past record, it is not Mr Cleary's decision at all; it is the decision of the State Premier, Mr Gray. Quite clearly, Mr Gray has instructed Mr Cleary not to enter into this debate at all. The Federal Government is fed up with this attitude of Mr Cleary. He is attempting to pass the buck and to avoid his responsibilities. He really should end this senseless ban on his officials consulting with the Commonwealth Government. If he ended the ban at least his officials could act decisively and stop this nonsense which has been going on for some time. I have great sympathy for the competing groups who wish to establish a private hospital on the north-west coast of Tasmania where there are no private hospital facilities. Quite clearly, there will be no private hospital facilities for a considerable time if Mr Cleary continues with his attitude. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct a question to the Acting Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Having in mind that it was the National Aboriginal Conference which requested the Auditor-General and the Australian Federal Police to investigate problems it saw within the administration of the NAC, and also the fact that the organisation requested trained accounting staff, what personal efforts did she or Mr Holding make to resolve the difficulties of the National Aboriginal Conference before she decided to freeze the NAC's funds on 30 April? Senator RYAN —I must start by answering the last part of Senator Kilgariff's question and say that there has been no freezing of funds going to the NAC. I think it was on the second or third day that I was acting in Mr Holding's place that I was able to approve the release of funds to the NAC for a number of purposes. Senator Chaney —You froze them on the first day, did you? Senator RYAN —There was no freezing of funds, as Senator Chaney's irrelevant interjection causes me to repeat. A release of funds was made on advice from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to meet a number of purposes. One of those purposes was the holding of the conference which is currently being held. Another of those purposes was to enable the NAC to employ a journalist of its choice to work for the NAC until the end of the life of the organisation. There has been no freezing of funds in respect of wages. In fact, last night I had a very successful meeting with unions representing employees of the NAC, the NAC and officers from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Arrangements had been made so that wages are being paid and will be paid, so there has been no freezing of funds. What there has been, as a result of the agency arrangements, are certain requirements whereby DAA officers must have access to certain relevant information before it can be agreed that funds can be paid. There was a disagreement between the NAC and the DAA as to interpretation of the terms of the agency agreement. Because of that disagreement there was a time in which funds for particular purposes were not approved. However, the matter has come much closer to resolution. As I said, funds have been approved by me for a number of purposes and wages have been and are being paid. For example, last night I approved a further release of funds for the holding of State level meetings in relation to the NAC. The advice I had last night was that the necessary information for DAA officers to be able to release certain funds was now able to be gained by them under new arrangements agreed to by the NAC and DAA officers. So the situation has been substantially resolved. I express my hope that the NAC, in its last period in office, will be able to wind up its affairs satisfactorily without any further disagreement. Certainly the meeting last night was very harmonious. I attended a further meeting with NAC representatives today. It seems to me that whatever disagreements there may have been about the terms of the agency agreement, they have been substantially overcome at this point. Senator MAGUIRE —Does the Minister for Finance have any information on the growth of public debt in Australia in the late 1970s and early 1980s? If so, what is the estimated addition to the annual interest bill of the growth in the public debt in that period when government operated on the time payment plan? Is the growth in the public debt in the late 1970s and early 1980s now restricting the expenditure priorities of the current Government? Senator WALSH —There are no figures available which give the growth of the Commonwealth public debt between November 1975 and March 1983. However, figures are available on a financial year basis. As the purpose of Senator Maguire's question is to identify what happened when the Liberal Party dog was being wagged by the Country Party tail and both parties were in government, one can go to either side of the period when they were in government to get the figures on a financial year basis. I will go both ways. Between 30 June 1975 and 30 June 1982 total Commonwealth public debt increased from marginally under $6 billion to marginally under $18 billion. However, the Liberal and Country parties were not in government for all of that period, so I will select, alternatively, a shorter period. In the shorter time period between June 1976 and June 1982, the total Commonwealth public debt increased from $9 billion to again marginally under $18 billion. Of course, that occurred entirely during the period the Liberal and Country parties were in office. I add that during that same period they changed the capital funding arrangements for Telecom Australia. Had that not been done there would have been a higher increase in that figure. As for interest liability, the annual interest bill paid by the Commonwealth was $568m in June 1976. It had grown to $1,635m in June of 1982. That is almost a three-fold increase in the interest payments on Commonwealth debt. That, of course, was by no means the end of the story. In the financial year ended June 1983 there was a further very substantial accumulation of Commonwealth debt because of the irresponsible Budget that the discredited former Treasurer had produced just before he left office. At the end of June 1983 the total interest paid on Commonwealth debt was almost $4 billion. That $4 billion represents more than 6 per cent of total present Commonwealth outlays and over 7 per cent of Commonwealth outlays at that time. It follows from that, logically and inescapably, of course, that the escalation in interest payments on Commonwealth debt, which occurred during the periods the previous Government was in office, has significantly reduced the flexibility in outlays of future governments. Before Senator Chaney says how much Commonwealth debt has increased since, I say that yes, it has continued to increase since at a very substantial rate, partly because of the prospective $10 billion deficit which we inherited from the discredited former Government by courtesy of the discredited former Treasurer, and also because it follows inevitably that when an economy is in the depths of recession, as this economy was when this Government came to office, it cannot be turned around overnight. Outlays automatically increase substantially and receipts automatically fall substantially when an economy is deep in recession. In the period we have been in government we have in each year reduced the deficit in money terms, let alone in real terms. We have the same commitment to do so in this financial year. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Acting Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I remind the Minister that on 14 October 1982 she said in this place: One of the first acts of that Federal Labor government-- that is the one which she was predicting would be elected and which was elected- will be to pass my private member's Bill, which will be Labor legislation, to grant freehold title, not any other form of lease, over to the Aboriginal and Islander reserves in Queensland . . . I ask the Minister, having noted her Government's failure to keep that promise, whether she holds to her 1981 position expressed in this chamber that the Federal Government can secure land for Aboriginal people, that this is the first and foremost obligation it has, and that the Federal Government has the moral responsibility to do so. If the Minister holds to that position, is it the policy of the Hawke Government to obtain freehold title to land for Aboriginals in Queensland and other States? Senator RYAN —I think it is a matter of fact that since Labor's first days in office we have been addressing the question of land rights, and that my colleague Mr Holding, very early in the life of the first Hawke Government-of course a second one has been elected since then-has developed, in consultation with Aboriginal people, a national approach to land rights legislation. It is the view of this Government that Aboriginal people should be entitled to land, and it is the case that this Government, and particularly Minister Holding, has assiduously pursued that objective since our first days in office, and I believe he will ultimately be successful. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I point out to the Minister that she did not say that the Government would negotiate. She said that the first act would be to pass the legislation. She specifically did not answer the question I raised about whether it was the policy of the Hawke Government to secure freehold title to reserve lands in Queensland and other States. I ask her specifically to answer that simple and direct question. If it is not the policy of the Hawke Government, does she not agree that in the speech I have quoted and elsewhere she raised expectations among Aboriginals to unrealistic and unachievable levels? Does she accept that as shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs she played a major role in misleading the Aboriginal people and now, as Acting Minister, is playing a major role in the betrayal of those promises? Senator RYAN —I will leave aside the melodramatic language in which Senator Chaney chose to cast his question. Our Government has a commitment to land rights for Aboriginal people. Senator Chaney —Does it mean freehold title? Senator RYAN —To freehold title for Aboriginal people. Senator Gareth Evans —Inalienable freehold title. Senator RYAN —Inalienable freehold title. I thank Senator Gareth Evans. Whether that is to be secured by State legislation or Federal legislation is still a matter for discussion and consultation among interested parties. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in our Government has pursued this matter in consultation with Aboriginal organisations and State governments since the early stages of this Government. I believe the outcome will be successful. Whether it takes the form of Federal legislation or co-ordinated State legislation is still a matter to be resolved. Senator Chaney —But it will be freehold title, will it? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chaney has already asked a supplementary question. Senator RYAN —Yes, Mr President, and I think he has had the answer. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Has the Minister read the article in today's Press on the Royal Far West Children's Health Scheme in New South Wales? Does the Government intend to take any action as a result of the reports it has received on this organisation? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I saw the article this morning and I have seen similar articles in recent weeks. The Federal Government provides a substantial amount of funds, in excess of $2m a year to the Royal Far West Children's Health Scheme. I am concerned to ensure that proper standards of care and administration are maintained at that institution and by that organisation, and also that the organisation's activities are appropriate in this day and age in the light of changes to medical care in outlying areas. I have had discussions with Mr Mulock, the New South Wales Minister for Health, and recently copies of the reports of the inquiries into the scheme conducted by the New South Wales Government have been forwarded to me. They are now being examined by me and my Department. In fact, today the Secretary of my Department is having discussions with the Secretary of the New South Wales Health Department about the scheme. When I am further briefed and we have had further discussions, I will be in a position to determine appropriate action to be taken at the Federal level, having regard to our responsibilities in the area. The organisation, as well as receiving a considerable amount of funds from public contributions and investments, also receives funds from the State Department of Health and the State Department of Education, so we are all involved in this matter. I expect to be in a position very soon to see what action we will take about the reports that have been current for some time. Senator PETER BAUME —I direct my question to the Minister for Education. I remind her of the emphasis she has placed on equity and overcoming disadvantage as the underpinning of her education policy. Will she undertake that if these principles are breached in any way, for example by expenditure cuts, she will resign from the Ministry? Senator RYAN —Wait and see. Senator COOK —Has the Minister for Resources and Energy seen the Press release by Senator Durack urging the Government to drop all consultative processes and move immediately to a free market in crude oil? Is the Government about to take Senator Durack's advice? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen a rather frisky Press release from Senator Durack in the last couple of days suggesting that the Government stop vacillating on the question of crude oil prices and move immediately to make a decision about the implementation of a free market. It is interesting, because at the time I received that Press release I also received a Press release from his colleague David Connolly, who purports to be the shadow Minister for the Environment and who, so far from suggesting that the Government move immediately to a free market, suggests that this step be treated with the utmost caution and that a long series of questions be closely addressed in the Government's proposed discussion paper. I am reminded in the circumstances of the Opposition careering downhill like a skier not able to make up its mind which side of the tree to go past and, in the process, wiping out large portions at the centre of its anatomy as a result of that particular indecision. It is symptomatic of the impossibly disorganised condition of the Opposition, not least in its policy approach to the resources and energy area, an area where it was waxed indignant and eloquent in the past. The Government's position, by contrast, on this matter is quite straightforward. We acknowledge that there are many policy difficulties that have to be carefully and sensibly addressed before we make a decision to move to a free market-a decision which we propose to make, if we possibly can, before July and not, as according to Senator Durack's Press release, some time next year. It is a decision we will make in the light of the responses to the discussion paper which was released yesterday and which addresses all the issues that Mr Connolly would like us to address, and a few others besides. It enables us to create a climate for informed consultation, debate and discussion with the industry and everybody else. I hope that the industry notes finally the disregard Senator Durack obviously has for the consultative processes which are so important for sensible policy making in this and other areas. Senator TOWNLEY —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Finance, follows a previous answer. I refer also to some figures on page 9 of the report on Forward Estimates of Budget outlays and staffing for 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. Does the Minister agree that the figures in this estimate of Budget outlays are based on conservative figures, yet they indicate that the public debt interest that this country will have to pay will be 8.8 per cent of outlays this year, 9.5 per cent of outlays next year-more than defence, health and education individually; not cumulatively-10.1 per cent in 1986-87, and these are conservative figures, and in 1987-88 will be 10.7 per cent? The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is giving too much information in his question. I ask him to ask a question. Senator TOWNLEY —I ask then: Does the Minister agree that these interest payment trends show what some of us on this side of the chamber have been saying for quite a while-that the borrowing by this Government to fund government spending in this country is out of control and that, unless this Government takes real action to cut government spending and reduce borrowings, we will soon be the poor country of South East Asia? Senator WALSH —If Senator Townley has been saying for some time that governments should not be accumulating net indebtedness, it is a pity that he was not saying it when his Government was in office. Earlier today I gave figures which, by the strictest definition-that is, leaving half a year off either end of the term the previous Government was actually in office-show that public debt doubled and interest payments on public debt trebled. The reason for the difference in those ratios is that when Senator Townley's Government was in office interest rates hit all time record high levels; interest rates hit the highest level ever. Inflation and unemployment were both in double figures, and both were going up. We had the highest interest rates ever and negative real growth of a magnitude that had not been seen since the 1930s. That was the sorry record of his Government. If he has been saying that governments should not be incurring further debts, I just wish that he had been saying it between 1976 and 1982 from whence came the figures I have just cited. It is correct that, because of the very depressed economy that this Government inherited from Senator Townley's Government-an economy in the grip of recession, the like of which had not been seen for 50 years, with a prospective deficit of $10 billion-it would have been quite foolish to try to bring in a balanced Budget. But economic growth has been restored and Budget deficits are progressively falling. It is true that total public debt outstanding is likely to increase in the next few years, as are interest payments on that debt. I have given Senator Townley about four lectures on this subject so far, and I do not know whether it is my shortcomings-- Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! I am finding it extremely difficult to hear the melodious voice of Senator Walsh, and I would like to hear it. Senator WALSH —I do not know whether it is because of my shortcomings as a lecturer or shortcomings or deficiencies somewhere else, but he continues to run the line that, because there is a huge public debt, the country cannot afford it. Senator Townley —That is right. Senator WALSH —He confirms that. What he fails to take into account-and I will try to speak slowly and in monosyllables-is the vital difference between a debt owed abroad and a debt owed internally. If all the debt was owed internally, although the payments from that debt restrict the options that governments have available to them in the spending area because that debt might be a significant component of the total, exactly the same amount is received as interest paid as is spent by governments and recouped from taxpayers. There is a symmetry about it, senator. Oh, sorry! Senator Ryan —Say a balance. Senator WALSH —There is a balance about it. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to reduce the lecture to a short answer. Senator WALSH —The overwhelming majority of Australia's public debt is owned internally. I can incorporate now answers to questions from Senator Townley, Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Jack Evans over the last month or so on this very subject. I seek leave to incorporate that document in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Questions concerning the impact of the recent devaluation of the Australian dollar on the interest costs and repayments of the Government's overseas debt were asked by Senator Townley on 25 March 1985 and by Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Jack Evans on 22 April 1985. Senator Townley and Senator Sir John Carrick asked questions concerning the impact of the devaluation on overseas debt servicing costs of Federal, State and local government. Senator Jack Evans asked, in addition, for similar information with regard to Commonwealth enterprises. It is estimated that the decline in the value of the Australian dollar between January and early April 1985, if sustained, would add about $140 million to interest costs in a full year. Repayment schedules for overseas debt vary from year to year; however, with the existing maturity profile, the additional cost of repayments in Australian dollar terms due to the decline in the value of the Australian dollar would be around $130 million for a full year. These estimated additional costs will not necessarily be reflected in actual payments which are at rates prevailing when the payments become due. Comparable data on foreign denominated debt of Commonwealth enterprises, State and local government, and on private borrowings are not available. Senator Townley asked what percentage of the interest on public debt is paid to overseas banking organisations. At the time of the last Budget it was estimated that the interest liability on debt issued in foreign currencies comprised about 12 per cent of total interest on debt issued by the Commonwealth Government. In addition, overseas banks or other organisations may tender for loans, denominated in Australian currency, issued within Australia or purchase securities on the secondary market. It is estimated that at 30 June 1984 total interest payments overseas comprised about 14 per cent of the total annual interest liability of the Commonwealth Government. Comprehensive data on the total interest paid to overseas banking organisations are not available. Senator Jack Evans asked to what extent currency hedging was undertaken by the Commonwealth Government and Commonwealth enterprises. The cost of servicing the Commonwealth's external debt is offset to varying extents by the interest earned from the Reserve Bank's management of its international reserves, which are held in a number of currencies. Thus, while the Commonwealth does not undertake formal hedging operations, the existence of reserves held in appreciating currencies provides some natural hedge against debt servicing costs in those currencies. Senator FOREMAN —Has the Minister for Community Services seen references this week to the report released by the Western Australian Government or policy directions for the aged to the year 2000? As the report suggests that most elderly people are choosing to live on their own or with their families, does this incline the Government to cease the funding of age pension hostels and nursing homes as they can be helped under the home and community care program? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I have seen the report released by the Western Australian Government. I can tell the honourable senator that the aged and disabled persons accommodation program, which started last year, is going to continue under a forward planning model. The organisations which are successful in their applications will be given advanced notice before the funds become available so that they can begin planning ahead. For the first time money will be available for upgrading existing facilities and to meet current construction standards and all the other requirements in this area which frequently change under State regulations. We are also providing assistance for the construction of some new facilities directed to particular needs groups such as migrants and Aboriginals and we are increasing the number of self-contained units and hostels as distinct from nursing homes, although nursing homes will obviously still be needed. With regard to the question of how these are now to be assessed once the home and community care program comes on stream, the Commonwealth-State co-ordinating committees will take into account initiatives and services under the home and community care program when recommending approvals. Of course, when the HAC program people recommend home services they will look at the range of services already provided by local government in the direct delivery of services, the number of places in the community and accommodation sponsored by non-government organisations. There is no reason why the two major needs in the services for the aged and disabled-that is, for accommodation and for help so that they can remain in their own homes-should not go hand in hand. In fact, it is essential that both schemes work in co-operation with each other. For this reason it is terribly important to get co-operation with State, local government and non-government organisations to ensure that we have a full range of services of this type with the ultimate aim of getting away from the concentration on institutional-type accommodation we have had for some years. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. With the extra competition generated by the entry of 16 new banks, does the Minister foresee the eventual demise of existing savings banks, building societies and credit unions? Senator WALSH —Not unless they cannot compete. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a report in the Brisbane Courier-Mail of 5 February 1985 in which former directors of Queensland Television Ltd, operators of QTQ Channel 9, claimed that they had been told that the Queensland Premier, Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, would have a hand in appointing their successors? Subsequently were Sir Edward Lyons, a trustee of the National Party, and another member of that Party, Mr Peter Gallagher, appointed Deputy Chairman and a director respectively following a takeover of the company by the Bond Corporation? Has any investigation been undertaken by either the Federal Government or the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to ascertain that political appointments have not been made to boards of television and radio broadcasting companies, notably QTQ Channel 9, as alleged in the Courier-Mail on 25 February? Senator WALSH —I have been told of the article in question. I understand that Sir Edward Lyons and Mr Gallagher were appointed to the Board of QTQ9 following the takeover by the Bond Corporation of Queensland Television Ltd. I also believe that Sir Edward has since resigned his position, along with another more significant resignation from another position. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal commenced a public hearing on 1 May into the acquisition of Queensland Television, which was the holder of the QTQ9 licence. One of the issues being investigated by the Tribunal in that inquiry is the manner in which new directors have been appointed to the Board and the background and experience of those directors in relation to the operation of the station, as distinct, I presume, from the operation of a few other things around Brisbane. I understand that this includes whether there was any and, if so, what, government or political involvement in the appointment of the directors. The hearing was adjourned on 2 May and is scheduled to recommence on 23 July. Senator PUPLICK —My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services and refers to an answer he gave yesterday in relation to the appeal proposed by the Government following the decision regarding the status of Mrs Artwinska's age pension. I ask: In the event of the Government's appeal in this matter being successful, will his Government undertake to legislate specifically to exclude from the operations of the social security system and the taxation system the income derived exclusively by those people who are in receipt of compensation payments as a result of their suffering at the hands of the Nazis during the last war, given his admission that it is a very small number of people and that the amount of money involved as far as they are concerned is likely to be very small. Senator GRIMES —I cannot give any such guarantee to Senator Puplick because such a decision would have to be considered in the future. This problem has been around for a long time and it has been considered by governments of both persuasions. Each time until now the Government has received advice from departmental sources and has considered the implications not just of the small number, as Senator Puplick says, of people who would be affected because they receive compensation payments from the Federal Republic of Germany as a result of the Second World War, but also of the possible flow-on to the many other people who received compensation payments as a result of war or persecution of this type. The estimated payment to that group of people is, I think, in the region of $80m to $100m. In those circumstances the Government would have to consider very seriously whether it could exclude one group in this area. I also remind Senator Puplick-I am not referring to Mrs Artwinsaka's case or to any other specific case-that some people do receive such pensions and compensations as a result not of persecution or difficulties of their own but of their parents and others. I think it would be stretching it a little to extend to them compensation of that type. It is a matter that has worried governments for a long time; it has worried Ministers for Social Security for a long time. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Social Security to see whether he wants to add to my answer. Senator CHILDS —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation confirm reports that air services to Queensland will be affected due to various bans being imposed as part of the blockade of Queensland by the Australian Council of Trade Unions in protest against the dismissal of 1,000 South East Queensland Electricity Board linesmen by the Bjelke-Petersen Government? Senator RYAN —The ACTU indicated, during the afternoon of 7 May 1985, that its affiliates would implement the following bans as part of a continuing campaign against the Queensland Government's industrial legislation: A 24-hour ban on domestic and international passenger flights to and from Queensland from 0001 to 2359 hours on Friday, 10 May and Friday, 17 May 1985; and a 48-hour ban on air cargo into and out of Queensland from 0001 hours on 9 May to 2359 hours on 10 May 1985. The Transport Workers Union of Australia has also announced a ban on the loading and unloading of all goods moving by rail and road into and out of Queensland at the same times. I have been informed that both Trans Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia have been advised by unions representing their flight attendants and licensed engineers that their members will not provide services to aircraft operating into or out of Queensland on Friday, 10 May. Both airlines have cancelled services to and from Queensland on that day. I also understand that Qantas Airways Ltd and other international airlines will recognise the bans by overflying Queensland for the 24 hours concerned. The Department has been advised by the Professional Radio and Electronics Institute of Australasia, which covers flight service officers, that its members will not be taking any industrial action. However, flight service officers briefing pilots proposing to fly to Queensland will be asked to advise those pilots that ground services may not be available at their destination because of industrial action being taken by other unions. The Civil Air Operations Officers Association of Australia, which covers air traffic controllers, has also advised that its members will not be taking any industrial action. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I ask the Minister to table the paper from which she has quoted. I am sure that there would be an interest in it. The PRESIDENT —The Minister has tabled the paper. Senator VANSTONE —My question is to the Minister representing the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has the Government had an estimate made of the cost of the coming tax summit? If so, what is the total estimated cost? In particular, what amounts are estimated to be incurred to cover: firstly, the production and distribution of papers for consideration by participants, including the cost of any consultant authors; secondly, any travel, accommodation and living expenses of participants; and, thirdly, any overtime and casual employment of staff in servicing the summit? Senator GRIMES —I have none of the information requested by Senator Vanstone. I will have the question put on notice and get such information as is available as soon as I can. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment seen an item in today's Age referring to the Ballarat Council's decision to reject its bust of the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser? Is she aware of Mrs Fraser senior's comments that her son 'had too much on his mind' and that 'some people are difficult to paint'? Given that public figures do have their portraits painted at public cost, does the Minister suggest that public figures who are difficult to paint ought to be excluded from high office, or should they, in the interests of both the arts and the environment in this country, be less concerned at their oily images, which could never accurately reflect them? Senator RYAN —I am not entirely sure that public money, via the portfolio of my colleague Mr Cohen, has been used for these purposes. Certainly with regard to the rejected bust for the Ballarat Council, I do not know who paid for that, but I do not think it was paid for out of Commonwealth public money. I suppose its fate, while of general interest to politicians, is not of particular interest to me in my representational capacity. I think another portrait of Mr Fraser, which was similarly found to be unacceptable, may have involved Commonwealth funds. I am not quite sure. My colleague Senator Walsh is always much more able to regale the Senate with details of expenditures in these matters. I have only a hazy recollection that a publicly commissioned portrait of Mr Fraser was regarded as being unacceptable. I think the real difficulties for Mr Fraser were not that his portraits were unacceptable but that his policies were. Senator JESSOP —I direct a question to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to an earlier answer he gave in relation to the unfortunate deaths of two black South Africans who were apparently in custody at the time. As the Minister is apparently a full bottle on this subject, can he inform me of the number of deaths that occurred under similar circumstances yesterday in Libya, Ethiopia, North Korea, Angola, Kampuchea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Siberia? Can the Minister say whether coronial inquiries are carried out in any of those countries? Senator GARETH EVANS —I cannot answer the honourable senator's rhetorical question, but what I can do is acknowledge that that question on his part demonstrates once again the supreme insensitivity that he and so many of his colleagues, but he in particular, have had towards the appalling situation that prevails in South Africa. The apartheid regime is a contemptible regime and its undermining is not advanced by apologists for it in this place. Senator JESSOP —I ask a supplementary question. Is the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of the coronial inquiry that is taking place in South Africa and are coronial inquiries carried out in similar circumstances in any of the other countries that I mentioned? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am well aware of the results of some earlier coronial inquiries in that country and the way in which they have been assessed by objective observers outside the country to have been somewhat less than assiduous in their pursuit of the truth of the circumstances of the deaths of the men and women in question. I do not resile at all from anything that I said in my previous answer nor in my reaction to the questioner. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Chipp asked me about reports in the media that a member of the public in Sydney was held up at gunpoint by masked men during a counter-terrorist exercise known as Operation Blow Wave. I have some further information that I promised the Senate. I wish to make it quite clear at the outset, lest there should be any misunderstanding, that the exercise which took place last weekend in Sydney was a New South Wales police exercise. It was not a Defence Force exercise nor one within the ambit of the Australian Federal Police, although members of the Defence Force did participate in it at the invitation of the New South Wales police. Senator Chipp seemed to assume in his question that such masked men as may have been involved in the exercise were members of the Special Air Service Regiment. I am assured that this is not true. I have now had further advice from the Minister for Defence and I can reaffirm for Senator Chipp that no member of the Defence Force took into custody, interrogated or threatened with weapons any member of the public. Senator Chipp also referred to the Sheraton fiasco. I can assure him, as I had hoped to be in a position to do yesterday but now can do, that no member of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service was involved in the exercise which took place in Sydney last weekend. Perhaps I should also mention for the record that honourable senators will no doubt have seen some Press reports flowing from a Press conference yesterday by the New South Wales police officer in charge of Operation Blow Wave, Chief Superintendent Lance Stirton, which put a rather different complexion on that aspect of the exercise which is alleged to have involved masked gunmen than the report originally made in the Press. Senator GARETH EVANS —I wish to add some further information to a question asked yesterday by Senator Kilgariff relating to a report in the New Scientist about the black mist phenomenon. All I can say in reply to Senator Kilgariff is this: The Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests is examining a series of allegations. In the circumstances this is not a matter on which the Government would wish to report or comment in any detail. However, the New Scientist article refers to evidence given by Mr David Cotgrove during the Royal Commission's London hearings. Mr Cotgrove referred to the incident, which occurred in 1960, as being part of an Army exercise in the Maralinga area. The black mist which is reported as having been seen close to Walatina station arose as a result of the Totem I test at the Emu test site on 15 October 1953. Emu is about 200 kilometres north of Maralinga. The PRESIDENT —During the adjournment debate on Wednesday evening Senator Missen complained about the delay in the printing of the Senate Hansard for Tuesday, 7 May. Yesterday morning I transmitted Senator Missen's complaint to the responsible Minister, the Hon. J. J. Brown, and last night I incorporated in Hansard the prompt response I received that day from the Minister. This morning I received a letter from Mr C. J. Thompson, the Government Printer, on the same subject. Because of the interest of honourable senators in the matter, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard Mr Thompson's letter to me. I add that I also appreciate very much Mr Thompson's early personal response. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Senator the Hon. Douglas McClellandPresident of the SenateParliament HouseCanberra, A.C.T. 2600 My dear Mr President I am aware that Mr Brown has advised you of the reasons for the recent delays in the publishing of Hansards. Because of the very close and traditional association the Government Printer has with Parliament I wish to advise you personally of the difficulties we are encountering with the production of Parliamentary work this Session. Staff ceilings, repetition strain injuries, sick and long term leave and a shortage of trades staff coupled with a record number of Bills have caused serious bottlenecks in our typesetting section. We are taking all steps possible to alleviate the situation and anticipate improvements in deliveries as from next week. I would like to assure you of the commitment of the Printing Office towards the timely and efficient production of Parliamentary publications. I take this opportunity to advise that we have purchased our new computerised phototypesetting and are expecting delivery within the next few weeks. The Penta system is of the latest technology and will provide for a more efficient and effective operation. Our staff will be undergoing training over the next few weeks and we will be operational with the new system for the oncoming Budget Sitting of Parliament. My officers and myself will be liaising with your staff regarding the introduction of the new system in due course. Yours sincerelyC. J. THOMPSONGovernment Printer 10 May 1985 Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I give notice that, on Thursday next, I shall move: (1) That a Standing Committee, to be known as the Selection Committee on Bills, be appointed to consider all Bills introduced into the Senate or received from the House of Representatives, except Bills which contain no provisions other than provisions appropriating revenue or moneys, and to report- (a) in respect of each such Bill, whether the Bill should be referred to a Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee; and (b) in respect of each Bill recommended for referral to a Standing Committee- (i) the Standing Committee to which the Bill should be referred, (ii) the stage in the consideration of the Bill at which it should be referred to the Standing Committee, and (iii) the day which should be fixed for the Standing Committee to report on the Bill. (2) That the following provisions apply to the Committee: (a) the Committee consist of the Government Whip, the Deputy Government Whip, the Opposition Whip, the Australian Democrat Whip and one Senator nominated by the Chairman of the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees; (b) the quorum of the Committee be three members; (c) the Chairman of the Committee be the Government Whip, and the Deputy-Chairman be the Deputy Government Whip; and (d) in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote. (3) That, where the Committee reports on any sitting day, the report be presented after the presentation of papers by Ministers pursuant to Sessional Order. (4) That, following the presentation of a report by the Committee, the Chairman of the Committee, or a member of the Committee on behalf of the Chairman, may move without notice a motion, in accordance with a recommendation of the Committee, that a Bill, at the conclusion of any stage of the consideration of the Bill, stand referred to a Standing Committee. (5) That, following the disposal of any motions moved in accordance with paragraph (4), a Senator may move without notice a motion to refer to a Standing Committee any Bill of the kind referred to in paragraph (1) which is not the subject of a motion moved pursuant to paragraph (4). (6) That a motion moved pursuant to paragraph (4) or (5) shall specify- (a) the Standing Committee to which the Bill is to be referred; (b) the stage in the consideration of the Bill at which it is to be referred to the Committee; and (c) the day on which the Committee is to report. (7) That upon a motion moved pursuant to paragraph (4) or (5), no Senator shall speak for more than 5 minutes, and at the expiration of 30 minutes, if the debate be not sooner concluded, the President shall put the question on the motion and any amendments before the Chair. (8) That where a motion moved pursuant to paragraph (4) or (5) is agreed to, at the conclusion of the stage of the consideration of the Bill referred to in that motion, the Bill shall stand referred to the Standing Committee referred to in the motion, and the further consideration of the Bill shall be an order of the day for the day fixed for the presentation of the report of the Standing Committee. (9) That in considering a Bill referred to it pursuant to this order, a Standing Committee shall have no power to make amendments to the Bill or requests for amendments, but may recommend amendments or requests for amendments which would be in order if proposed in a Committee of the Whole. (10) That a report from a Standing Committee relating to a Bill referred to it under this order shall be received by the Senate without debate, and consideration of the report deferred until the order of the day relating to the Bill is called on. (11) That when the order of the day relating to a Bill which is the subject of a Standing Committee report pursuant to this order is called on, the following procedures shall apply- (a) a motion may be moved without notice that the report of the Standing Committee be adopted; (b) if a motion under sub-paragraph (a) is moved, following the disposal of that motion a motion may be moved by a Minister, or, in respect of a Bill introduced into either House of the Parliament other than by a Minister, by the Senator in charge of the Bill, that consideration of the Bill be an order of the day for a future day, or that the Bill not be further proceeded with; (c) if no motion under sub-paragraph (a) or (b) is agreed to, a motion may be moved without notice that the Bill again be referred to the Standing Committee for reconsideration, provided that such motion- (i) indicates the matters which the Standing Committee is to reconsider, and (ii) fixes the day for the further report of the Standing Committee, and if such motion is agreed to the Bill shall stand referred to the Standing Committee, and the further consideration of the Bill shall be an order of the day for the day fixed for the presentation of the further report of the Standing Committee; and (d) if no motion under sub-paragraph (b) or (c) is agreed to, consideration of the Bill shall be resumed at the stage at which it was referred to the Standing Committee, provided that, if the consideration of the Bill in Committee of the Whole has been concluded and the Standing Committee has recommended amendments to the Bill or requests for amendments, the Bill shall again be considered in committee of the whole. (12) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing and Sessional Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing and Sessional Orders, but without limiting the operation of Standing Orders 36AA and 196A. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I give notice that, on Thursday next, I shall move: That the Order of the Senate of 22 February 1985 relating to the routine of business be amended by inserting after '(2) Notices of Motion' on each day '(2A) Presentation of papers by Ministers, pursuant to sessional order (2B) Presentation and consideration of reports by the Selection Committee on Bills, pursuant to sessional order'. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Collard proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to ensure Commonwealth services are available to the people of Queensland and to end the blockade of that State by the ACTU. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders have risen in their places- Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(3.07) — Today, for the second time in less than a month, there is a blockade of a sovereign State of this Commonwealth. There is probably no instance since Federation of a sovereign State of this Commonwealth being blockaded by anybody. Why has this occurred? It has occurred for the very simple reason that a State government has been prepared to stand up and guarantee that its citizens have a continuous power supply. It is quite noticeable that, once again, the Government will not put up a front bench member to speak in the debate. During a previous debate on this subject the Government was represented by Senator Jones and no front bencher from the Government took part. During the debate that took place after that there was one front bencher-the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button-and no senator from Queensland took part. It is quite obvious that the Labor Government is embarrassed not only by what is happening but also by its lack of action in the matter. On 19 April there was a blockade by airline and transport workers. Today, 10 May, there is another blockade by the airline workers. It is running concurrently with one that started yesterday of all transport and postal services. Telecom Australia workers have talked about going into it also. The significant thing about this is that Australia Post is a wholly owned statutory authority of the Commonwealth Government. The Department of Aviation, which controls flights, is a department of this Government. Trans Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd are both wholly owned by this Government. Similarly, Telecom is wholly owned by this Government. We have a unique situation with this blockade of Queensland and all that it could ultimately do, if it continues, to that State and to the rest of this country because of the supreme importance of Queensland to the Commonwealth with its balance of trade figures and what they do for the whole of Australia. If the blockade goes any further tourism could be affected. Tourism is one of the major growth industries and one of the industries that we are trying to encourage. There is also talk of the miners going out on strike as part of this blockade. If ever there was a senseless action, a death wish, by a group of people, it would have to be by workers in the mining industry of Australia in going out on strike over something so senseless, particularly over something that guarantees an electricity supply so that they can continue to mine. If the message of the parlous has not got home to the mining unions it certainly has got home to the mining industry. This parlous state is a result of all the things that have gone on before-our high cost structure and the many industrial disputes. The message should be loud and clear now that the people to whom we export not only want good quality coal, but they want it at a reasonable price and they want regularity of supply. At this point we are not guaranteeing that. It is no wonder they are looking to countries such as South Africa, Canada and the United States of America. We are in a rather unique situation. I mentioned this in a previous debate. We have a Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who has been elected twice to govern this country, who has had an all time high popularity rating-with which we are constantly bombarded by this Government-who is an ex-President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and who, when he was running for election, claimed he would make a great Prime Minister because he had 'a special relationship with the union movement'. What have we got? We have a complete lack of direction, complete lack of authority and complete impotence on the part of this Prime Minister who claims this special relationship, and who has been elected twice to govern this nation. Of course, the ACTU is concentrating its efforts on the State of Queensland. It is completely overlooking what has happened in the past. I remind the Senate of what happened when Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone was out here. There was a rail strike, and all the rest of it, which blocked the supply of coal to our ports and its export to Japan. We have seen the selective state of emergency in Victoria-the state of emergency that is all right. We cannot have a state of emergency in Queensland but we can have one in Victoria. Certainly industrial unrest is not unique to Queensland. Since this Government came to power it has quoted us figures on the number of days lost as a result of strikes. However, the Government certainly has not told us of the effect of those lost days on Australia in general. Every day this Government is proving that it is trade union dominated. This is a government which came to power saying that it had a special relationship with the trade union movement. This Government said that it would be doing the governing and nobody else. Of course, we now know that the people with the real power, those behind this Government, are not answerable to the people of Australia; in other words, the trade union movement, the ACTU. They are the puppeteers behind the screen. Nobody can see them but they are there pulling the strings. When they pull the strings this lame duck Prime Minister jumps and all his Cabinet jumps with him. We have the situation of a trade union movement not being answerable to the people of Australia but being the real power behind the throne. In one of today's papers there was a headline: 'Without the ACTU there can be no indirect tax'. Already we know that the tax summit will be a charade. It will prove more and more of a charade because unless the trade union movement agrees with what is decided those decisions will not take effect. I think we have 27 members of the trade union movement invited to this charade of a tax summit. Only one or two people from the business community have been invited. We have a Constitution that is supposed to guarantee the free movement of people and commerce between States. What is happening? This lame duck, impotent Government is standing by and watching a sovereign State blockaded. Senator Reynolds —Are you talking about the Bjelke-Petersen Government? It is the lame duck Government at the moment. He doesn't know where he is going. Senator COLLARD —I am sure that if someone had had time to write Senator Reynolds a speech she would be taking part in this debate. Obviously there has not been that time so she will not be speaking. As I said, we have a Constitution which guarantees free movement of people and commerce between States. That is not happening in Queensland. We now have a hit list of companies because some firms support a certain political party. Those firms are being alienated and singled out for special treatment by the trade union movement. We are now beginning to see why some sections of the electoral legislation were amended. They were amended so that all could see who was supporting what political party. Those who are supporting the National Party of Australia will be singled out for this special treatment by the ACTU-that non-elected government of this country. It all starts to add up. It is no wonder the unions are worried about who supports the National Party of Australia at this time. The unions want these firms in their sights so that they, as the non-elected government of this country, can take out their revenge. For too long in this country the union movement has been immune from the consequences of its actions. It beats me that this nation has tolerated for so long the union movement taking action which puts people out of work and breaks companies and small businesses and yet being completely immune from any penalty for its actions. If anybody else did so, by way of breaking and entering or stealing, or something like that, they would immediately have the full weight of the law on them. What has happened to this once great union movement? It is quite interesting to note that in the Canberra Times this morning there was a report on the unveiling of a memorial to the Tolpuddle martyrs. In that article we see that the Minister who unveiled the memorial had the temerity to compare the Electrical Trades Union in Queensland with the Tolpuddle martyrs. Everybody sees the trade union movement as beginning with the Tolpuddle martyrs. Quite significantly, the Tolpuddle martyrs were farm labourers and five of them were Methodist lay preachers and one a lay reader of the Anglican church. How is it possible to compare those people and what they had to put up with in those days in industrial England with the electrical trades workers who earn $23,000 plus a year and who work a 36 1/4 hour week and a nine-day fortnight? What temerity to compare those Tolpuddle martyrs with the people who wanted to take Queensland to the cleaners and hold it to ransom. Unfortunately the end result of this action-the end result of most union action-is more unemployment. If we look further down the track we will see that if these blockades between the States, such as the blockade of air services, continue taking into account what happens to tourism and mining and other industries as a result, quite obviously we will end up with more and more people unemployed. Indeed, it has been acknowledged by Cabinet members of previous Labor governments that the union actions in this country are responsible pretty generally for the high unemployment in this country today. When I was a member of a union it was the done thing to try to keep as many people as we could in jobs. No matter what we did, all the action we took was centred on keeping as many people as possible in jobs. I paid a tribute to Sir Jack Egerton before, and I will do it again today. He never put anybody out through the gates unless it was absolutely necessary. He did not go into a fight that he could never win. His main concern was to keep people in jobs. This once great union movement now wants to get what it can for those who are fortunate enough still to have jobs and let the rest go on the dole. Of course, that is precisely what is happening now in Queensland where, as I indicated at the start, we have a group of mavericks who tried to hold the State to ransom and who did not get away with it. The ultimate result of all that they have done will be that this State will be able to employ fewer people in tourism, mining and all the other areas. 'Get what you can for those who have a job and let the rest go on the dole'- that seems to be the banner of the non-elected government that we have in Australia. Originally, 1,550 people employed by the South East Queensland Electricity Board were involved in the dispute. It is quite interesting to note that 650 people went straight back to work. Two hundred people went back under the new conditions. In other words, 850 out of 1,550 people-I suppose in any sort of democracy that would be construed as a majority-were quite content with what they had or with the new conditions. Since then, almost 300 people have obtained jobs with private contractors. They are doing the jobs that they would have done previously with SEQEB but they are now employed by private contractors, and 100 people have other jobs. So that leaves a rather small minority-probably, I dare say, the hard core of that section-who are now out of work. The lesson for the Labor Party and for the union movement is that the people of Australia are completely fed up with what has been happening. If it were not for the Press reports, this would be a non-event in Queensland. I will end where I began, by saying that if it were not for the impotence, the lack of direction and lack of authority of this Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and this Government, Queensland would not be blockaded today. But the puppeteers, the non-elected government behind the throne, are the people who are pulling the strings, and not the rightfully elected government of this country. Senator JONES(Queensland)(3.22) —We have just listened to Senator Collard. We have before us a proposal under standing order 64. I think that during his speech he failed even to touch upon some of the things that he mentioned in his proposal. The proposal reads: The failure of the Government to ensure Commonwealth services are available to the people of Queensland and to end the blockade of that State by the ACTU. We ought to look very carefully at what has happened in Queensland. We should look at the view of the Premier leading to the dispute in Queensland. I believe that what is now happening in Queensland sets the stage for the blockade by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. If we look at the legislation that was put before the State Parliament by the Premier of Queensland, we would have to say-we would not have to say it in my words; I will quote a number of people who make the same points that I intend to make in a moment-that the sort of legislation that has been put before the Parliament of Queensland and which has been placed on the statute books interferes with the right to strike, the right to work, and the right to decide working hours and the conditions under which one works. The action that was taken by the Premier certainly created a position in which the trade union movement-not only the Trades and Labour Council in Queensland or the unions that are affiliated with the Trades and Labour Council, but also the ACTU which is affiliated with the Trades and Labour Council and any union organisation that was worth its money-would have had to have reacted against what was happening and the sort of legislation that was being enacted in Queensland. Senator Collard spoke a moment ago. He is a former trade unionist who worked on the railways in Queensland. He did not for one second say that there should be some discussions between the Government of Queensland and the trade union movement. Did he say that we should sit around a table and have some discussions to try to arbitrate the dispute that is before us? No. He said that we should continue the confrontation, we should continue to fight against the trade unions, we should continue to make the unions feel as though they must blockade Queensland to try to bring about some change to the legislation that was introduced into the Queensland Parliament by the Premier of that State. Let us look at what the Premier said prior to and in the course of that legislation being brought before the Parliament. I refer to a transcript of the 60 Minutes program. Jeff McMullin was the reporter. The introduction to his interview with Bjelke-Petersen outlines fairly clearly what was happening in Queensland. The transcript states: The political career of Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen is littered with the ruins and wreckage of war but his latest battle may be the biggest yet and one that has implications far beyond Queensland. Sir Joh was hitting the unions with some of the toughest, anti-strike measures seen in Australia since the 1940s. His immediate target is to curb the power of the power workers, to make sure the lights stay on, but the new laws he's ramming through Parliament have much wider potential, setting the stage for huge fines, for sackings, for law suits, for a whole host of actions that could stop a union from walking out or even imposing bans. The Labor movement, of course, is fighting back. A little further in the interview he asked this question, which I suppose is a reasonable question to ask the Premier of Queensland: 'Did you ever belong to a union yourself?'. The Premier's answer was: 'No, no way'. I think that that shows his attitude towards the trade union movement in Queensland. The Premier stated: They walked into the trap, that's quite clearly. But you've also got to recognise and remember that we were not only up against this issue, we were up against a lot of thugs. The Premier continued with a whole stack of untruths. I quote Bjelke-Petersen: Well, I'm not against all unions; I'm against the militant ones and very many of them are militant, very, very, militant. They threaten your life. They threatened my life many times; they threatened to shoot me; they threatened to dynamite our home; they threatened to kidnap my children; they threatened to shoot my grandchildren, again and again. Has there been any report or investigation into those allegations, or can we say that that is the type of man that we are dealing with? Is that the type of man who is building up a confrontation? Is that the type of man who has put Queensland into its present position? He now has his thugs in this place trying to argue that we should make the unions pull back from their attempt to try to change the legislation in Queensland. Jeff McMullin continued: The new Queensland laws have outlawed strikes in the electricity industry. The old work to rule and go-slow tactic will also be banned as if they were strikes too. Any worker who complains about the rules could be sacked on the spot and you won't be able to look to the union to protect your job because Joh has outlawed compulsory unionism in this key industry. To enforce the new rules-- I think this is the important factor- there will be a tribunal and the strong arm of the Queensland Police Force. Let us look at some of the other views that were put forward during the same interview. Dr Fitzgerald, an academic from the Queensland University, who wrote A History of Queensland, stated: These particular laws-- talking about the laws of Bjelke-Petersen- I would have thought, are the greatest threat to the trade union movement in Australia in the last 50 years. I state very clearly that the trade union movement is reacting to the greatest threat in 50 years. I hope that it continues to react. Dr Fitzgerald continued: In the main, this sort of legislation is more likely to happen in a country-- I wish Senator Jessop were here to hear this- like South Africa than any other western country. You see, there's a very close tie-in between the police force and the law and politics here, that the police force has been strongly politicised in the way that the police force in South Africa is strongly politicised. So the police are seen as being an agent of the Government. Those are not my words. They are the words of Dr Fitzgerald, an academic who was speaking about the history of Queensland and what had been happening in Queensland. A little further in the interview, Jeff McMullin asked this question: What can the ACTU do to you in this situation? The Premier stated: Nothing, absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing. I told them to jump in the lake when somebody suggested they wanted an answer from me on a certain date in relation to pulling back. That is discussion; round table discussion! The Premier continued: I said: 'Just tell them from me, jump in the lake'. That is the attitude of a State Premier who is supposed to be trying to resolve disputation in his State. Instead, he is causing the confrontation to continue. Much more can be said about that interview. Bjelke-Petersen has said on a number of occasions that he brought in the legislation and attacked the power industry unions because he wanted to make sure that the people in Queensland had a power supply. But his motives have changed. In an interview on AM on 9 May 1985, he was asked the following question by Mr Thompson: I suppose there's some feeling that perhaps your interest is bringing the Hawke Government down might be above your interest in resolving this dispute. Let me tell honourable senators what the Premier said: Well my main objective is to get rid of the Hawke Government. There has been quite a change in the objective of the Premier of Queensland. At first it was to make sure that we had a power supply; now it is to defeat the Hawke Government. Matters of public importance relating to this matter have been proposed in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, in similar terms. Senator Collard has proposed a matter of public importance stating that the Government is letting the unions carry out a blockade of Queensland and is not acting. Honourable senators opposite are saying that the Federal Government should be brought down. That is the main motive of Bjelke-Petersen. Let me go a little further. The Premier now has Jennings, a State member of parliament, putting out a statement in the Gold Coast Bulletin headlined 'Sack Hawke'. He has the same motive that is now put forward by Bjelke-Petersen-to defeat the Hawke Government. He is not worried about stopping the dispute in Queensland. He is making no attempts to see that people get power or to correct what is happening in Queensland to industry, small business, large business and imports and exports. All he is worried about is playing politics and creating a situation in which he can defeat the Hawke Government. But that is not all. After the Premier made that statement, in a program on another Brisbane radio station Haydn Sargent said that he had a tape of Bjelke-Petersen saying that his main objective now was to defeat the Hawke Government. Do honourable senators know what Bjelke-Petersen's answer was? He said: 'I will send the solicitor. We will sue the person responsible. Many people are imitating me now and maybe that recording was an imitation. I have not heard the tape'. Did we ever hear anything so ridiculous? Because a statement he made on AM was raised on a talk-back program by Hayden Sargent, he said: 'My golly gosh, too many people are trying to interpret what I have to say. I cannot believe that the tape is correct. Someone may just have imitated my voice and said that it was me, the Premier of Queensland, talking'. That is the man who is running the State of Queensland. I come back to the matter proposed under standing order 64 which referred to the Federal Government not doing anything in relation to the supply of electricity to Queensland. It is quite obvious that Senator Collard has not even bothered to gather his facts together. The following question was asked in the House of Representatives of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy): Will the Minister inform the House what powers are available to him under section 8 of the Postal Services Act in respect of mail bans currently affecting postal services into Queensland? The material that the Minister used in answer to that question was the material that was used some time ago by, I think, Mr Sinclair, the present Leader of the National Party of Australia, in answering a similar question. The Minister said: . . . this morning in this place the Leader of the National Party of Australia demanded that I issue a direction under section 8 of the Postal Services Act requiring the Australian Postal Commission to perform functions specified in section 7 of the Act. The Leader of the National Party suggested that the failure of the Government today to indicate that it would take that step would show that the Government was unwilling to take . . . a legally available option to bring that dispute that is, the current industrial action- to an end . . . it is necessary to explain the position according to the advice available to me . . . This was the Minister for Communications talking about the bans in Queensland. He continued: The fact is that no direction can be given by me which interferes with the Commission's function of forming a subjective judgment which is antecedently connected with the exercise of a power or duty vested in the Commission. In other words, it is very clear that the Minister for Communications received advice that the Government had no right to interfere in what was happening. Let us go back and look at what the Premier said. He said, at first, that he was declaring a state of emergency and enacting legislation, which had been condemned by the Human Rights Commission, which talked about forced labour and which caused the sacking of 800 people in the Queensland electricity industry, because that would guarantee a supply of electricity to the people of Queensland. Since then he has had a change of mind. He has now decided that his main objective is not to settle the dispute and not to enable the people of Queensland to have a continuous supply of electricity but to defeat the Hawke Labor Government. That is what he is trying to do. He does not mind if he uses the people of Queensland as pawns in the game that he is playing to try to defeat the Hawke Labor Government. He is saying that this Government has not taken the steps that it needs to take. After Dr Fitzgerald said-- Opposition senators-Doctor who? Senator JONES —Dr Fitzgerald, who is an academic with the Queensland University, stated very clearly that the Queensland legislation was the worst since 1940 and a disgrace to a democratic society. He also made it very clear that the Queensland Government's legislation was very much akin to the sort of legislation that has been enacted in South Africa. There is only one difference between what is happening in South Africa and what is happening in Queensland. There have been arrests in Queensland and it has passed the same sort of legislation. The difference is that in South Africa people are being shot. But in Queensland people certainly are being arrested, fined and sacked by the Premier of that State. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(3.38) — Senator Jones once more has demonstrated very brilliantly why the colleagues who sit around him this afternoon tell me in private that the Australian labour movement has written off its Queensland colleagues. The matter of public importance before the Senate this afternoon is of great importance to Australia. We are dealing with a tragic and highly dangerous situation in which the lawlessness that exists in Australia today is being condoned and supported by a properly elected and legal Federal government. It is absolutely unbelievable that this state of affairs should exist. We have a Ministry and a Prime Minister who take no recognition at all of their oaths of office to uphold the laws of the land. As I said, this is absolutely unbelievable. A non-elected, non-representative body in the form of the Australian Council of Trade Unions is running this country. For years it has been nibbling at the running of the country by failing to load ships, interfering in our foreign affairs and doing things like that, but now it has declared war on a whole State of the Commonwealth of Australia. Even more importantly, that happens to be the State that I represent. This lawlessness by the ACTU is being encouraged and supported by a Federal government which does not do a thing to control this body. The Federal Government will not control its own employees. It will not control the unions. Yet it has the legislative power to do so. It is not attempting in any way at all to end the blockade of Queensland. It is very interesting to look at the origins of this dispute. A group of people in the electrical unions in Queensland went on strike without any reason at all and maintained that strike in defiance of the findings of the Queensland Industrial Commission. This small group working in an essential industry held the people of Queensland to ransom. They were in the business of supplying power. The interesting thing, and the acutely discomforting, embarrassing and excoriating thing for the Australian Labor Party, was that it was a double cross from the ACTU that broke the strike in Queensland. Mr Kelty scurried up to Queensland on 21 February. At 4 p.m. on Thursday, 21 February, the strike was set to run until at least the following Sunday or Monday. Mr Kelty pulled the plug. By 6.15 p.m. on 26 February, the electrical strike in Queensland was over. In so doing, Mr Kelty, the lion of the ACTU, broke the first and fundamental rule of union relations in the Australian Labor Party. He let his mates down. It does not matter what has happened in the past, whether a strike is legal, illegal or criminal. The Labor Party and Labor governments have always stood beside the group on strike. Kelty broke it. But it was not Kelty alone. Dolan knew because Dolan gave him the orders. Dolan gave him his orders because the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes and the Federal Cabinet said: 'Stop this nonsense. We can't have this going on much longer.' Senator Grimes and his colleagues, in a rare flash of brilliant perception and understanding, broke the strike in Queensland. What has happened since then? We have the absurd situation of the ACTU trying to cover up the unconcealable. We had the ACTU talking big to cover up its double cross. Muddying the waters, of course, we have Mr Simon Crean's ambitions to follow Mr Dolan as President of the ACTU. Mr Simon Crean, to use a Shakespearean phrase, has to out-Herod Herod. He has to be more extreme than anyone on the Left so that he gets the votes in September this year as Mr Hawke's nominee for the presidency of the ACTU. If this is a fair indication of Mr Crean's abilities, God help us and God help Australia. In mid-April the ACTU moved a bit further. It decided to cover up by calling on its 160-odd associated unions to form a hit list against Queensland. The business of a body of 160 unions taking on 51 companies, and later, by extension, a whole State, is quite breathtaking in its lawlessness. The first thing they did was to try to blockade Queensland. Senator Robert Ray —What law have they broken? Senator MacGIBBON —If the honourable senator listens he might follow what I am saying. I do not guarantee that he will, but he could make the attempt. The blockade that was imposed on 19 April was an abject and total failure. Nothing happened on 19 April except causing a little discomfort for a few people who are long suffering. Now we have the other business of the blockade which has been imposed today and the three days of strikes which will be imposed next week. I want to know what the ACTU is up to? What is it doing? Why is industrial action being taken now? What is the effect likely to be? What has the Labor Government done? Is the blockade being held to threaten the jobs of the people who have them at this time? It might do that, but it will not work. Is the blockade being held to try to get community support? This action is having a direct converse effect not only in Queensland but all around Australia. The ACTU is turning everyone against the unions by this silly dinosaur type of attitude. What effect is the blockade going to have, apart from the anti-union feeling it has generated? It is going to have a genuine effect on the average Queenslander and, to some extent, the rest of Australia. Mail is going to be interfered with. The delivery of mail, by Telecom Australia, which is a government monopoly, is going to be cut on at least three days next week. This action has the support of the Federal Government which is doing nothing to tell the employees of Telecom that they should obey the law and go to work. There is going to be a travel ban tonight on all land, rail, road and air travel into Queensland. I do not suppose that too many people in the ACTU have mothers. However, the very real point can be made that Sunday is Mother's Day in Queensland. A lot of families will be denied that family reunion because of the selfishness of the unions. A lot of school children who are finishing their school holidays will not be able to travel home. The blockade will also affect commerce because tourism will be hit. What has the Labor Government done? What has happened to this big man who is always talking about us all being Australians-one people and one nation? What is he doing in pursuing such a divisive course? He has not done a damn thing. He will not apply the law. He will not apply section 45D of the Trade Practices Act which gives him absolute power to deal with the secondary boycott which is operating on a massive national unprecedented scale. He is doing nothing to uphold his oath of office. He is supporting this union bullying. He is doing nothing to uphold section 92 of the Constitution which provides that trade between the States shall be free. What has he done? He has put on special VIP Royal Australian Air Force flights tonight so that the Queensland members can get home. I believe that this has caused enormous problems within the Labor Party. A VIP aircraft was to be put on the last time we had industrial trouble in Queensland on 19 April. However, the Government-backed off. It thought: 'It is strike breaking to do that, so we had to stay here another day'. At the moment a RAAF aircraft is to take Queensland members of Parliament home tonight. As I said, the last time there was industrial trouble an aircraft was not made available. After I have finished my speech the Government might change its mind again and we might not have one. However, it is interesting and amusing to note that an aircraft will be provided at 5 o'clock tonight for the Liberal and National Party members of Parliament. However, the aircraft for the Labor Party members will not run until 11.30 p.m. Members of the Labor Party, who do not want to be scabs or strikebreakers, are going to sit up half the night before they board their plane to Queensland. How stupid can one get? If this were not such a serious issue, it would be funny. The Government has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to handle the unions. The revenue strike by public servants cost us millions of dollars at the start of the year. Now we have the blockade. We have all this talk about the Government being in partnership with the ACTU. It simply is not true that there is a partnership in any sense of equality between the Government and the ACTU. Anyway, I take very strong exception to a partnership between a Federal government and a special interest group like the ACTU. A Federal government has a responsibility to all Australians, not to any special greedy selfish group like the ACTU. However, if we are talking about a partnership, we are talking about a perverted master-servant relationship between the ACTU and this Government. We are talking about an ACTU master and a Federal Labor servant, and a servile servant at that. Why does the ACTU have access to Budget Papers before they are presented, which always happens under a Labor Treasurer? Why are one-quarter of the people who are coming to the tax summit unionists? Why should they rank a place in Australia that entitles them to a one-quarter attendance? Why cannot we have tax reform without ACTU approval? Only yesterday we had Mr Dolan saying that there would not be any tax reform because the ACTU did not like it. Yesterday, of course, the great unionist, Senator Cook, said the same sort of thing. The last time Mr Dolan and Senator Cook got together was on the matter of uranium exports. Once those two have spoken, of course the uranium stayed in Australia. So I take it pretty clearly that if Cook and Dolan are getting together on this there will be no tax reform later this year for the people of Australia. Why are we not getting any benefits from the devaluation of the Australian dollar? We are not getting anything because of the selfish and greedy attitudes of the ACTU. What the devil is the ACTU? Who elects the ACTU and what right does that body have to dictate the executive powers of the Australian Government? The ACTU lives because of compulsory de facto unionism in this country. It forces employees to collect subscriptions for unions. It does not recognise at all that it has any responsibilities to the Australian community. The ACTU does have a duty to be responsible for the welfare of Australia, not only for the welfare of its own workers. That means that it must recognise civil rights in Australia. There must be a recognition of the right of the people of Australia to essential services. It means the right to free association-that is, the right to join a union if one wants to and the right not to join a union if one does not want to. It means the right to work if one wants to and not be blocked by bully boys in a picket line. Those things will never come from the ACTU without a bit of guidance from a Federal government. There is no sign at all that this Government will ever have the backbone or the integrity to lay down those guidelines for an ACTU. There could be no more important matter ever to come before a Senate, a States House, than this disgraceful business of a blockade of one State of Australia tacitly supported by the resources of a Federal government. The lack of action from this Government is totally intolerable and totally unacceptable to Australia. Senator BLACK(Queensland)(3.50) —It is no coincidence that this matter has come before the Senate today. The April unemployment figures were released yesterday and, surprise, they show that once again Queensland has the highest unemployment rate in Australia and that Queensland is still the only State or Territory in the Commonwealth with double digit unemployment figures. Some 10.4 per cent of the Queensland work force was unemployed in April. That is a slight improvement on the March figure but it is still well above the April 1984 unemployment rate for Queensland, which was then 9.9 per cent. It was almost two percentage points above the present national average of 8.6 per cent. To divert the public's attention from the economic shambles the Queensland Premier and Treasurer have created in the once prosperous Queensland economy, he is now using his National Party of Australia colleagues and their supporters, such as they are, on the other side of this chamber to debate the consequences of this industrial dispute rather than the causes of the dispute and the ways in which we can solve it. The Australian Council of Trade Unions blockade is not the real issue. Commonwealth services are not the issue. The real issue in this debate, bubbling just below the surface, is the cover-up of the ineffective, inefficient, corrupt, divided and hopelessly out of control National Party Government of Queensland. The whole industrial dispute has been carefully constructed by the Queensland Government to throw a smokescreen around the economic decay that years of National Party maladministration have produced. It has poured money into resource developments of little value and little long term benefit to the people of Queensland. It has underspent on social services and, while it claims to balance the books, Queensland now has the biggest per capita debt of any of the mainland States. Any turmoil it can produce for the Labor movement, any concessions it can win from the unions, are of secondary importance. The main thing is to cover up for the Queensland Premier and Treasurer because the National Party knows that nothing turns the electorate off like a major economic downturn. I do not believe its strategies are working and neither do the people of Queensland. The Morgan gallup poll published on Wednesday shows that support for the National Party in Queensland continues to decline. It is now down to 35 per cent-4 per cent less than the vote it achieved in the October 1983 election. The Premier's personal approval rating has dropped by 5 per cent since this dispute started. The National Party is declining in popularity as Queenslanders see that its performance does not match its promises. The more the National Party complains about the union unrest that it has produced, the less the people of Queensland will be fooled by its pretence at having some skills in economic management. The Queensland Premier has come up with his next step, something to rally the troops when morale begins to lag. A new target is suddenly visible-the Hawke Government. The unions are still of secondary importance to the Queensland Premier. He now has a much more worthy adversary in his sights-the most popular Prime Minister Australia has ever had. The Premier has made his new target clear to journalists and to observers in some quite extraordinary off the cuff remarks over the last few weeks. The Brisbane representative for the Sydney Morning Herald, David Monaghan, taped an interview with the Premier on 26 April in which, amongst other things, the Premier said that he had instigated the Queensland power dispute as a means of bringing down the Hawke Federal Government. The Premier said: It was the only thing you could do to embarrass the Commonwealth Government, to put a time bomb under them. I find it difficult to take the substance of this matter of public importance all that seriously. The second Hawke Government is not yet six months old but already the Queensland Nationals are after another election. On behalf of the Australian people I say very clearly that the last thing they want is another general election on an issue such as this. They do not want the expense or the inconvenience of another election. What they want is for this Government, with the support of this Senate, to get on with the urgent economic reforms that are needed to prepare Australia for the future. I find it hard to take the Opposition seriously when it talks about the availability of Commonwealth services for Queenslanders. They would be much better off, and in fact they would be doing the people of Queensland a favour, if they spoke to the Queensland Premier about the quality and availability of his Government's services. The people and the economy of Queensland are now suffering because the National Party Government in Queensland spends the least per capita on social services of any State or any Territory in Australia. Things are so bad that last Wednesday the Queensland Combined Professional Emergency Services Organisation, which represents police, fire fighters, nurses and ambulance drivers, made a public statement saying that the lives of Queenslanders were now at risk because of low staffing levels and a lack of effective equipment to handle emergencies. Even such stout supporters of the Queensland Government as the officer in charge of the bomb squad, Chief Detective Sergeant O'Gorman-not a radical leftist-took the opportunity to point out to the Government how serious matters now are. That organisation laid the blame for the situation fairly and squarely at the feet of the irresponsible State Cabinet. Irresponsible is a good word for them because they have run down Queensland's social services with absolutely no regard for the people of Queensland or their welfare. That is why in 1983-84 Queensland was the State with the lowest expenditure on health, education, welfare services and police. While the economy and the Government of Queensland are now falling apart, it comes as no surprise to learn that the Premier is having his problems too. When excerpts of the interview David Monaghan conducted with the Premier, which I mentioned earlier, were played on Brisbane radio stations yesterday morning, the Premier, who was apparently sick in bed with a virus, immediately decided that it was the work of an impersonator. Apparently he is having difficulty telling the difference between himself and the impersonators these days, as indeed we all are. He commenced distributing dire threats about actions he was going to take against the persons concerned. The Premier denied that he had ever considered using the power dispute as a tool to bring down the Hawke Government, contrary to a number of the recent public statements he has made. He then went on to threaten legal action against the alleged impersonator and the talk-back show host who had played the tape. The Premier is reported to have said: I will have him on a hot plate so hard his bottom will be singed. He will have a writ so big he won't be able to jump over it. I will not stop until he does not have a skerrick of skin left on him. I will relieve him of a lot of money and it won't be pennies and shillings. Apparently, in the Premier's mind at least, we are are back to the pre-1966 days. He said further: We are really out to skin these fellows. The Premier then said that he hoped to return home to Kingaroy to recuperate from his present indisposition. I sincerely wish him all the best because I think Queenslanders are hoping for some recovery of his faculties. He may need a good deal of time to recover. Because his retirement is near I understand that the Queensland newspapers are now praising the leadership qualities of his son, John. It amuses me to see Liberals such as Senator David MacGibbon jumping on the National Party bandwagon on this issue. It will not do them any good because the National Party, in Queensland anyway, as Senator MacGibbon well knows, has stolen a march on the Liberals. The Nationals, not the Liberals, now control the conservative political terrain in my home State. It is pathetic to see that the Liberals are now trying to get whatever mileage they can out of this issue. When the Liberal Party was in coalition in Queensland it did manage to restrain the excesses of the National Party, but not by the sort of rhetoric we have heard from Senator MacGibbon this afternoon. The former Industrial Relations Minister in the State conservative Government, Fred Campbell, who was a Liberal Party member, was a positive force in Queensland industrial relations. He appreciated the need for balance and debate, and I expect that he is totally disgusted by the confrontationist stance of the present Queensland Government, which goes against the principles of tolerance and reason that are allegedly the basis of liberalism. I will now canvass some of the causes of the current industrial dispute in Queensland. As a former industrial advocate of some three years experience I point out that a lot of my time was spent fighting causes against the State Government. Whenever we became involved in a claim against the Queensland Government it immediately became a political issue rather than an industrial one. This dispute did not start over excessive wage claims or over any attempt to improve working conditions. It started over attempts by the Electrical Trades Union of Australia to secure stable employment for its members employed by the South East Queensland Electricity Board. All that the ETU wanted was guarantees that its members would not be displaced by contract labour. The dispute was originally about job security in a time of high and increasing unemployment. By going for the union's jugular over this dispute the Premier is attempting to cover up the disastrous state of the Queensland economy and the dealings of some of his Ministers and their associates. As a result of the State Government's legislation, conciliation and arbitration is now a meaningless concept in my home State. Unionists have lost the right to strike and new working conditions with increased hours have been directly legislated for by the State Government. Not even Margaret Thatcher tried to reduce the wages and working conditions of the British miners when that dispute ended recently. Amendments to the arbitration Act impose enormous penalties for unions and workers who advocate industrial action. They enable the State Government virtually to deregister unions at will and allow for the confiscation of the private property of those found guilty of breaching certain provisions of the Act. The precedent has now been set. In the future the Government may legislate to regulate all working conditions throughout the State. Perhaps we will see legislative action to abolish the minimum wage, penalty rates and leave loadings. This legislation contains provisions which directly remove the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and impose civil conscription of labour in Queensland. These provisions are aimed directly at the trade unions and other pressure groups that oppose the Bjelke-Petersen Government. Any person in Queensland can now be directed by the Electricity Commissioner to maintain electricity supply. If anyone in the community advocates industrial action deemed to be in conflict with the Act, he or she may be liable to severe penalties. The rules of evidence have also been changed so that a party is presumed guilty until proven innocent. Unions can now be sued out of existence if they engage in any form of industrial pressure deemed to be in breach of the Act. If they want to engage in industrial action they are required to give seven days notice. Anyone engaged in an alleged breach of the Act is presumed guilty until proven innocent. The power of arrest without warrant is provided against anyone engaging in industrial pressure. The Bjelke-Petersen Government introduced this legislation with the full knowledge that it would create significant industrial conflict. Without doubt this industrial conflict has hurt the international economic reputation and standing of Australia. It is frightening away capital investment, it is damaging confidence in the Australian dollar and it is producing business uncertainty. It is therefore hampering higher economic growth and higher employment growth. In conclusion, I refer briefly to some of the comments made earlier by Senator Collard about the Australian Council of Trade Unions being the unelected government of Australia. I would simply point out to Senator Collard and to the other National Party representatives in this chamber that when a union official runs for office these days it usually involves the conduct of a ballot by the Federal Electoral Commissioner and he has to get 50 per cent of the vote in order to attain office. I just point out that Senator Collard's colleagues in the State Government attained office with 38.9 per cent of the vote. Many union officials who were allegedly elected undemocratically would not mind winning office under that sort of margin. I also express some concern at the mental convolutions of Senator David MacGibbon, who, in his eagerness to out-National the National Party, indicated at one stage that we controlled the ACTU and that we cancelled the original strike by picking up the phone and telling the boys what they had to do next and then implied later in his speech that we were under the ACTU's thumb. I assure the Senate that neither is the case to the best of my knowledge. In the longer term this dispute will be settled, as all disputes must be, by negotiation and discussion between the parties concerned. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the fifth report for 1985 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —I present the 227th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts on HMAS Tobruk and the Government's response. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator MAGUIRE —by leave-I have a short statement to make on the report. I seek leave to have my statement on the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Report 227 contains the Government's response to the Committee's 223rd Report on HMAS Tobruk. Honourable senators will recall that the Public Accounts Committee was very critical of the Defence Department's Tobruk project last year, especially the quality of the ship's construction, the Department's overall management of the project and the tragic death in 1981 of Naval Reserve Cadet Kenneth Dax, on board HMAS Tobruk. I would like to draw your attention to the first of the three chapters in this report. In this chapter the Committee has departed somewhat from its usual practice of making brief comments on the Government's responses through Finance Minutes. Instead there is a detailed critical analysis of the Minister for Defence's observations and the Government's responses. The Committee is pleased to note the Defence Department's general agreement with the Committee's findings and recommendations on HMAS Tobruk. In particular the many rectification actions, current and planned, are welcome. The payment of $35,500 to the family of Naval Reserve Cadet Kenneth Dax is also welcome, despite the extensive delays and poor handling of this family's case by the Department. However, the Committee does not believe that the Minister for Defence's observations which preface the Finance Minute are warranted or based on sound advice. Chapter 1 of Report 227 clearly shows that the Department is fully cognisant of the deficiencies of the Tobruk project and that the findings of the Committee's 223rd Report on HMAS Tobruk are vindicated by departmental documentation and analysis. The Committee's current comprehensive inquiry into the Defence Department's overall project management and associated administration reflects the Committee's concern for improvement in this area. I commend this report to honourable senators. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave-I wish to make a statement on the 227th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. Because of the time factor, I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Report No. 227 of the Public Accounts Committee represents in effect the third inquiry by this Committee into the management of the Tobruk project since 1982. This report responds at unusual length to the Finance Minute concerning Report 223. This was felt to be necessary by the PAC because the Finance Minute was prefaced by supplementary observations-the criticism of the Committee's conduct of its inquiry. It is surprising that while the contents of this Minute were critical of the Committee's conclusions, the Defence Department agreed in general with our criticisms and has since acted to rectify many of these problems. During its first inquiry, the Committee found that many witnesses were not forthcoming in giving evidence. Subsequently, the lack of information meant that the Committee's inquiries were reopened in 1983. A few sensitive witnesses give their evidence to the Committee 'in camera'. It is the Committee's right by statute to take selected evidence 'in camera', subject to strict guidelines. However, the Defence Department's comments on the Finance Minute seemed to imply that the Defence Department should have the right to identify and judge the professional standing and competence of witnesses. Such a tactic is strange since most of the Committee's trenchant criticisms have been subsequently acknowledged by rectifying the problems, where possible. While there were many specific problems in construction of Tobruk, such as its weight, beaching ability, air conditioning and sewage systems, it is more interesting to 'highlight several characteristics common to many aspects of the project': unsuitable original equipment poor installation of original equipment poor testing, quality assurance of original equipment and pitting method slow diagnosis of problem but the development of an ability to cope with unsatisfactory equipment repeated attempts at rectification work and current uncertainty as to the success of rectification work. Many of the problems with the design and construction of the Tobruk are clearly worked to its status as a 'first of class' and a 'one off class'-and the first built in Australia for a considerable period of time. Australia must take her maritime industry seriously and there must be an industry capable of building and maintaining merchant and naval vessels of reasonable size and sophistication, and this can only be encouraged by an ongoing program of ship building and design in Australia. In all circumstances the Committee of Public Accounts Tobruk inquiry was necessary and with the aid of the Navy the Committee exposed a number of weaknesses in the workings of the Defence Department. The Committee anticipates that it has a further role to play in this matter through its Defence Project Management inquiry. The PAC is pleased to note that the Defence Department has, despite its criticism of the inquiry, acted on many of our criticisms-and in closing I would add that the Committee was pleased to be able to address one family's real need: in the case of the family of Naval Reserve Cadet Kenneth Dax whose unfortunate death was of great concern to this Committee. We acknowledge that adequate compensation has finally be paid to the Dax family; but far more important to them is that the whole truth has now been brought to light. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —by leave-I present the report by the Australian parliamentary delegation to Mexico and Central America dated July 1984. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator MAGUIRE —The report of the parliamentary delegation to Mexico and Central America has been made available today to the Senate. I thank the secretary of the delegation, Mr Derek Abbott, for his excellent work during the visit of the delegation to that region. I also express on behalf of the delegation my thanks to the staff of the Australian Embassy in Mexico City who briefed us and prepared our itinerary of travel through Latin America. Our staff in the Embassy in Mexico work under very difficult conditions. They service not only Mexico but also the countries of Central America. They have a very large brief indeed. I express the thanks of the delegation particularly to Australia's former Ambassador to Mexico, Mr Kevin Hogue, who is now the Australian representative in New York, to his First Assistant Secretary, Mr Jeff Hart, and to Mr Max Hughes of the Department of Foreign Affairs who accompanied the delegation on its visit through Latin America. We were confronted by a most disturbing situation in the region. There was military conflict and incursions across borders. It was a very serious situation with disturbing international implications. It would seem that the only solution to the problems of the region is that proposed by the Contadora group of countries-Mexico, Columbia, Venezuala and Panama-which are trying to defuse the military situation in the region and provide a political solution. I believe that most of the problems in Central America stem from poverty and deprivation. I believe that in essence the problems of that region are essentially those of the North-South. They involve the lack of resources in the region compared with other parts of the world. Certainly, I believe that the problems in Central America do not stem from East-West confrontations, as people would suggest, but essentially relate to access to resources. I think it is very important that the super-powers be kept out of the volatile situation in Latin America in order to ensure that there is peace in the region. The situation in El Salvador was of particular concern to me. A large number of people in the community carried firearms. There was no indication of who they represented or to whom they owed allegiance. It was a most disturbing situation. It is very important that we in the developed countries which have democratic systems of government keep pressure on the countries of Latin America, particularly El Salvador, to ensure that the extrajudicial killings are stamped out and that people's freedoms are not trampled upon by armed mercenaries. I was most impressed by some of the achievements in Nicaragua. I believe that in a number of senses the Government there had brought in a genuine social revolution. It was not just a political revolution. Throughout the community there were a number of very impressive improvements in the standard of living, including adequate urban water supplies, nutrition and education. They are very impressive achievements. On visiting the region I was most concerned about the solution to some of the financial and economic problems faced by these countries. These solutions have been proposed by the International Monetary Fund. It seemed to me that everywhere we went we heard the same recipe laid down by the International Monetary Fund for rectification of the economic problems of the region. Those working for the Fund did not seem to have any ability to discern differing environments and economic situations in the different countries. Everywhere the recipe was the same-cut public expenditure and cut state economic activity. Of course, in all cases those who are the most affected by those cuts were the poorest members of the community. I instance only the case of Honduras where some priority had been given in the past to reforming land ownership-titles to land. One of the things in that country which was cut as a result of the IMF recipe was in fact the budget of the land reform administration. That just goes to show how shortsighted are some of the policies laid down by international organisations. There was a very disturbing finding that the allegedly high priority activity of land reform was one of the first to bear the brunt of the cuts laid down by the International Monetary Fund. In the region there are probably some opportunities for Australian companies to trade more actively. Certainly at present Australia has limited trade with Central America and Mexico. In fact, our trade is almost negligible with the countries of Central America and I am sure that there are opportunities for Australians to trade more profitably with that region. It depends on the ability of the countries in the region to finance imports and a higher level of activity in that area. Of course, at present the area faces significant economic problems. With those remarks, I am happy to table the report of the delegation. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —by leave-Because of the lateness of the hour my contribution to this debate will be brief and therefore will hardly have very much intellectual depth. The report of the parliamentary delegation to Mexico and Central America is balanced and written with sensitivity and in a way that is designed to accommodate a consensus point of view amongst all who were delegates. If I had been the architect of the report, I might have written it in a different way. The delegation visited Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and Costa Rica. At the time of our visit it is fair and reasonable to say that the two countries in greatest turmoil were Nicaragua and El Salvador. As to those two countries one was left with a very clear impression that El Salvador holds out perhaps the greatest hope for some sort of transformation to a state of democracy-at least a state of democracy by definition within the Central American system. A little time before our visit to El Salvador President Duarte had been elected to that office, although at that time the Assembly was controlled very much by Major d'Aubuissan and the ARENA party. Since our visit a further election has taken place and the Assembly is now firmly in the hands of President Duarte's party. I believe one can be optimistic in that one can see reforms of the type and nature to which Duarte has committed himself. One of the clear and real problems faced by President Duarte is to keep Major d'Aubuissan and the ARENA party within the political framework. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- Refer to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations the following matter: The relationship between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory with respect to the arrangements under which the Commonwealth has provided and will in future provide the Northern Territory with financial capacity to meet the employer liability under the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme; and that as part of its considerations, the Committee study the findings and resulting arrangements of the 1984 Joint Task Force Group Report into the Northern Territory Superannuation arrangements and make recommendations in relation to the implementation thereof. 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)(4.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill proposes a range of measures to enhance the role of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. One of the earliest initiatives taken when this Government came to office was to confirm our commitment to retain HLIC in public ownership. At that time the Minister for Housing and Construction indicated that we would be looking for further ways in which the Corporation could play a greater role in assisting with the Government's housing objectives. The HLIC is a government-owned commercial enterprise which operates in competition with private mortgage insurance firms. It is the largest mortgage insurer in Australia and insures lenders against loss on loans for owner-occupied housing, rental housing, land development and housing estates, as well as loans for the purchase, construction or refinancing of non-residential buildings. The Corporation has been instrumental in gaining industry acceptance of mortgage insurance as a substitute for large deposits, conservative valuations and short repayment terms. This has directly assisted many Australian families to achieve home ownership. HLIC has earned an outstanding reputation throughout the housing and finance industry. It has matched these achievements with a first class record of commercial success. In 1983-84 it returned a net profit of $5.4m and paid a dividend of $2.5m to government revenue. This Bill includes four major initiatives which extend the Corporation's charter and a number of other operational changes. The Government is very grateful for the support given by industry organisations to these initiatives. The first and perhaps the most significant area of new business for HLIC relates to the emerging secondary mortgage market. There is now wide acceptance of the potential for such a market to attract new funds into housing. That potential was recognised by the Martin Committee Review of the Australian Financial System and has motivated recent initiatives by State governments. This Government places a high priority on ensuring that there is an adequate supply of housing funds to enable Australian families to satisfy their home ownership aspirations. We consider it important that the secondary mortgage market develop in a rational, orderly way and that it have the highest possible standards. We accept the view of industry organisations that HLIC can make an important contribution in this area and we expect to see it complement and support initiatives already taken by State governments and the private enterprise participants in those ventures. The Bill provides for HLIC to facilitate the development of the secondary mortgage market by insuring pools of mortgages against loss. At present the Corporation is empowered to insure only single mortgages. With this new insurance, investors in secondary mortgage securities that are backed by an insured pool of mortgages can take comfort that their security position is unchallengeable. It is stressed, however, that under the Government's proposal the Corporation will only be insuring the performance of the underlying mortgages. It will not be guaranteeing those who pool mortgages for sale or the market securities themselves. I also stress that HLIC will conduct this new business on a strictly commercial basis. The corporation's powers to insure traded mortgages in this way are to be found in clauses 4 (b) and 4 (d) of the Bill which define an 'approved dealer' and a 'negotiable mortgage security' and clause 9 (a) which authorises HLIC to insure against losses as defined by regulation. These provisions of the Bill have been broadly drawn so that the Corporation will be in a position to respond flexibly to new security instruments as they emerge in the evolving market. I repeat, however, that the Corporation will be confined to the insurance of losses on the underlying mortgages and not the range of other commercial risks that form part of any market transaction of this kind. On behalf of the Government I acknowledge with thanks the positive industry response to this measure supporting the development of the secondary mortgage market in Australia. A second major initiative involves extension of HLIC's insurance services to include all loans secured by mortgage, including loans where the purpose of the loan is not directly related to the mortgage security. This initiative is in line with recently announced changes to State legislation involving widening of the lending powers of permanent building societies. While the legislation makes clear that the major focus of the corporation's business will relate to housing, it also provides for HLIC to more fully meet the wider insurance needs of its clients. This further extension of HLIC's operations is provided for by amendment of the definition of 'insurable loan' in clause 4 (c) of the Bill. The amended definition will remove some existing restrictions which unduly limit HLIC's operations. It will permit HLIC to insure loans where the mortgage is vested in a party other than the borrower or where the mortgage security is held against some other property or where part of the loan not presently provided for, for example, home loans that extend to the consolidation of existing debts on furniture and furnishings. Removal of the present restrictions also has important policy consequences. Amongst other things it will enable HLIC to provide mortgage insurance services which will facilitate the development of more innovative mortgage instruments by lending institutions. As such this initiative is a positive response to the Martin committee which suggested development of alternative mortgage instruments as a means of assisting low income families to achieve home ownership. The third initiative provided for in this Bill is to empower HLIC to act as agent for other insurance companies underwriting mortgage repayment insurance for borrowers in the event of death, sickness, unemployment, et cetera. This kind of insurance cover can be important in the first years of mortgage repayment. It is of course a service which will continue to be utilised at the discretion of the borrower. Power for HLIC to operate in this area is provided for under clause 9 (c) of this Bill. The Bill provides for HLIC to operate in the same way as some private mortgage insurers already do by entering into agency agreements with general underwriters operating in the field. Introduction of a new 'special interest' provision is the fourth major initiative relating to the Corporation's charter. This is covered under clause 9 (c) of this Bill which provides power for the Minister to direct the Corporation to provide insurance of loans falling within a specified class of loan deemed to be of special interest in terms of the Government's housing policies. The Bill provides for prior consultation with HLIC and consideration of its advice. It also requires that all directions issued by the Minister will be tabled in Parliament. The Government envisages that use of the 'special interest' provision will be strictly limited. It will only be used where proposals have particular importance in terms of the Government's housing policies and where mortgage insurance would not otherwise be provided because of the application of strict commercial principles. There is a precedent with a similar national interest provision in the Export Finance Insurance Corporation Act. Examples of proposals that might be covered by a special interest determination include housing in remote areas and multiple occupancy developments including communal housing. Operational changes covered by this Bill include introduction of a new special annual payment by the Corporation to place it on an equal commercial footing with other mortgage insurance firms. This is covered by clause 16 of the Bill which requires payment by HLIC to government revenue of an amount related to the reinsurance costs of other mortgage insurers. In all other respects HLIC already competes on an equal commercial footing with other insurers. In line with a similar amendment made under the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Act 1984, this Bill involves amendment of the terms of the Government guarantee of HLIC. The amended wording is provided in clause 15 of the Bill. Clause 6 of the Bill introduces entitlement to age 55 retirement for the two full time statutory office holders of the Corporation. This entitlement is already available to HLIC staff and is standard throughout the Australian Public Service. Finally, clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill revise provisions relating to membership of the Corporation and disclosure of personal interest by members in line with the recommendations of the Bowen Committee of inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest. The Government's standard procedures for appointment to statutory office and the revised provision relating to disclosure of interests by members provide comprehensive protection against any possible conflict of interest by members of the HLIC Board. It is particularly pleasing to advise the Senate that the very positive measures covered by this Bill are also expected to result in a net gain to government revenue. It is possible that some minor losses may be incurred by HLIC in connection with business written under the new special interest provision. However, any such loss should be more than offset by other initiatives. The net gain to government revenue will be achieved in part by increased taxation and dividend payments by HLIC arising from growth in business volume. The overall result will be further enhanced as the result of introduction of the new special annual payment covered by clause 16 of the Bill. This Government has worked with industry and unions to bring about the most impressive housing recovery in Australia's history. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation and this legislation are integral to continuation of that proud record. The past success of the Corporation in assisting Australian families achieve home ownership deserves our recognition. We are confident that the measures provided in this Bill will ensure that it retains vitality and is responsive to the challenge ahead. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 4.15 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(4.15) —I rise for the third time in just over one year to defend myself against scurrilous allegations. All honourable senators will by now be aware of an article which appeared in the Sydney Telegraph on Sunday, 5 May. This article contained allegations by a Ms Virginia Perger that a cruiser, the Kanzen, was used by her and six Australian Labor Party officials and members of parliament for sexual romps of which photographs had been taken. I was amazed that allegations from such a dubious source could have been given such prominence by the Sunday Telegraph and, subsequently, by so many newspapers around the country. I cannot believe that without seeing the photographs so many newspapers and other media outlets could continue running the story. Surely it is time for the media to demand that the perpetrators of this nonsense put up or shut up. Apparently, a further allegation has been made today that, through a third party, I attempted to organise a meeting with Ms Perger yesterday in Sydney in an attempt to prevent the publication of a photograph of my naked self. There are those who would consider it a public service if I did prevent the publication of a photograph of my naked self, but on this occasion I did not. Apparently, it is claimed that the meeting was aborted when I did not turn up. It is this absurd suggestion that prompts me to rise today. If anyone bothers to check with the Party Whip in the Senate, Senator Robertson, he will find out that I made no attempt at any stage this week to organise a pair for any day this week. Obviously if I seek to organise a pair, I hope that it will be for a somewhat more important purpose. The suggestion is bizarre to say the least. But if I had met Ms Perger yesterday, it would have been for the first time. The only time I have seen her or been in the same room as her was several years ago during the hearings of the Enmore conspiracy case, when I attended the court room. There were, as I recall, 20 or 30 people present at the time, and they all had their clothes on. To the best of my knowledge, I have never exchanged a word with her. The only time I have seen a cruiser identified as the Kanzen was in the photographs that were published this week. I have never seen it and I have never set foot on it, with or without Ms Perger. There is a new McCarthyism which is evident in the Parliament, the media and the nation itself. If a rumour is floated and people are named, the speculation as to who might be named is allowed to run wild. While your name is not published, you know that every friend, every acquaintance and every work colleague is made aware by the rumour mill that your name is being floated in the rumours. Expectations are built up of shocking revelations to come. If those who have concocted this piece of nonsense, however, think that anyone will be jumping out of windows because of it, they can think again. It is a sad commentary on the state of journalism in this country that this nonsense-and it is nonsense so far as I am concerned-can have been allowed to run and be rerun. That a cheque book was used to buy the original story and at least one of the follow-ups this week disturbs me even more. I am told that $60,000 is the asking price for the so-called photographs, and that even those who are being asked to part with the money have up to this point in time not seen them. I wish someone would pay it. I give the Senate an unequivocal assurance: If any incriminating photographs exist, and I am sure that there are none, there will be no photographs of me on that boat or in close proximity to the woman concerned. By the way, I issue a friendly warning to the media outlets: If any photograph is produced, they should be very careful that it is genuine and authentic. If it is not, I will be able to retire from the Senate a very rich man. I am angry, I am hurt and I am concerned. I am angry that I have to stand up here and deny once again an allegation from a source that can best be described as dubious, and at worst I am sure there are other objectives that would come to mind. I am hurt because I and members of my family have to put up with this sort of rubbish. I am concerned that we have got to such a state in this country that allegations of no merit from people of less merit can gain such publicity. I hope that until these people put up-and I am certain that they cannot-this story ceases to run. It should be consigned to the garbage heap where it should have been consigned a week ago. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 4.21 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Acts Interpretation Act-Correspondence relating to a further extension of specified period for presentation of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board Annual Report 1983-84. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, dated 6 May 1985. Telecommunications Act-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 55. Telecommunications (Telex Charging Areas) Amendment No. 1. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 70) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Are many applicants for Australian passports being inconvenienced and required to resubmit applications because their applications have been witnessed by an employee of a statutory authority; if so why are such people not classified as 'public servants' for purposes connected with the issuing of passports. (2) Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs take steps to clarify the position of employees of statutory authorities acting as witnesses for purposes related to the issuing of passports. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Department of Foreign Affairs does not keep records of the number but some passport applicants have been required to resubmit applications which contained a Certification Regarding Applicant provided by employees of statutory authorities. The categories of persons eligible to certify the identity of passport applicants was determined by the former Government in 1982 as one of its responses to recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. These responses were supported by the present Government when in opposition and we have proceeded with their implementation. It was agreed that the categories of persons entitled to provide the Certification Regarding Applicant should be restricted to those persons who clearly meet the following criteria: (i) the group should be wide enough for each applicant for a passport to know at least one person in one of the categories, (ii) the categories should include people on whom passport offices can check readily and with whom they can make contact fairly easily to confirm the bona fides of the passport applicant, and (iii) the categories should be limited to people whose careers would be affected if they were found to be involved in fraudulent practices. Because of the nature of their duties, which would make them difficult to contact during normal operating hours of Passports Offices, a large number of employees of statutory authorities would not meet criteria (ii). Consequently employees of the statutory authorities are not recognised as coming within the category of 'public servants' for provision of the Certification Regarding Applicant. (2) The position of employees of statutory authorities will be reconsidered in the review, to be carried out in mid-1985, of passport procedures introduced as a result of the recommendations of the Stewart Royal Commission. I agree that clarification would be helpful and will arrange for this to be done as part of the review. (Question No. 168) Senator McIntosh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) What was the wording of the East Timor resolution voted on during the 41st session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva in March 1985. (2) Which countries voted for, against, abstained or were absent for the vote. (3) Apart from voting, did Australian Government representatives make any contribution to the Commission's consideration of East Timor and, if so, what was the contribution. (4) Did the Government receive submissions from concerned Australian individuals and organisations advocating an active role for Australia at the Commission in support of East Timorese rights; if so, how many such submissions were received and which non-government organisations made such submissions to the Australian Government. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (2) and (3) The resolution on East Timor voted on during the 41st session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights was considered under the confidential procedures of the Commission. The procedures are based on ECOSOC resolutions 1503 (XLVII), 1235 (XLII) and 728F and enable the Commission to consider in closed session communications from individuals and non-government organisations which appear to reveal a consistent pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights. To preserve the effectiveness of these procedures and the cooperation of states with them, members of the Commission undertake not to disclose details of closed debate or decisions. The Australian Government regards the confidential procedures as a useful mechanism for constructive dialogue on human rights and remains committed to their protection. As however the fact of consideration of East Timor at CHR 41 has already been the subject of articles in the press, in Indonesia and elsewhere, it would be proper for me to advise in general terms that the consideration proceeded on the basis of a recommendation from a working group of the Commission that the human rights situation in East Timor be kept under review. The recommendation foreshadowed possible termination of such consideration at next year's session. Australia voted for the recommendation, explaining this position in the context of our broader human rights concerns, including the need for proper international access to East Timor. As to the other matters of detail which these questions raise, particularly the voting patterns of member states, the Government is bound by the rules of confidentiality not to disclose them. (4) The Minister for Foreign Affairs has received 34 letters from Australian individuals and organisations concerning consideration of the human rights situation in East Timor at the Commission on Human Rights. Four of the letters were from non-government organisations, these being the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, the Australian Council for Overseas Aid, the Committee to Reconstruct the Communist Party of Australia and the Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia. (Question No. 194) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 15 April 1985: Given that the Australian Government has announced its support for the Contadora peace process in Central America, will the Government ask the Contadora Governments, in particular the Mexican Government, what, in their view, Australia can do to assist the process. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Australian Government reaffirmed its support for the efforts of Contadora countries in a statement issued by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 16 April. The statement has been brought to the attention of the governments of the Contadora and Central American countries. Through its diplomatic representatives in Mexico City and Caracas, Australia maintains regular contact with concerned governments over developments in the Contadora process. Australian Embassy officers in both cities held discussions with Mexican and Venezuelan officials when conveying the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In both cases, officials commented that international support was an important factor in maintaining the Contadora process and expressed appreciation of Australia's position. During their discussions, Australian diplomatic representatives reiterated the Government's desire to assist the Contadora process to Mexican and Venezuelan officials. At this stage, no specific suggestions, other than for continuing expressions of support, have been put forward. (Question No. 64) Senator MacGibbon asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 17 March 1985: In respect of grants made to Queensland tertiary institutions under the residential colleges subsidy scheme: (a) how many institutions received grants under the scheme in 1985, and which were they; (b) how much funding was granted to each institution under the scheme in 1985; (c) how many institutions received assistance under the scheme from 1980 to 1984, and which were they; (d) how much funding did each individual college receive for each year from 1980 to 1984 under the scheme; and (e) have grants for the 1985 academic year been allocated under the scheme or is assistance for needy students being phased in. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (a) 25 residences (see table for names.) (b) Details are provided in the attached table. (c) 1982 to 1984-25 residences; 1980 to 1981-24 residences (see table for names.) (d) Details are provided in the attached table. (e) (1) Yes; (2) Yes. The recurrent subsidy for collegiate residential accommodation will be phased out by the end of 1986. The special assistance scheme for needy students will be phased in over the same period. STUDENT RESIDENCES-QUEENSLAND Payments in Grants period to Payment of assistance Tertiary Institution for 30 April and Residential College 1985 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Brisbane College of Advanced Education- Residence 33,700 12,962 49,500 59,500 55,400 50,643 42,966 Capricornia Institute of Advanced Education- Residence 36,000 13,846 52,900 63,100 58,600 55,606 48,313 Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education- Davis 16,500 6,346 24,200 29,200 27,000 26,027 22,613 McGregor* 35,200 13,538 51,800 62,900 60,400 58,302 50,363 51,700 19,884 76,000 92,100 87,400 84,329 72,976 Queensland Agricultural College- Community Centre 3,700 1,423 5,500 7,200 5,900 N.F.(1) N.F.(1) Shelton 18,400 7,077 27,000 39,900 29,700 26,309 21,047 Pitt 17,600 6,769 25,900 39,000 29,000 25,813 21,910 Thynne 16,100 6,192 23,700 35,600 26,500 23,827 20,530 Riddell 17,600 6,769 25,900 38,400 28,600 25,515 21,910 73,400 28,230 108,000 160,100 119,700 101,464 85,397 Total-Colleges of Advanced Education 194,800 74,922 286,400 374,800 321,100 292,042 249,652 The University of Queensland- Emmanuel* 36,300 13,962 53,800 66,800 64,100 65,463 56,158 St John's* 31,700 12,192 47,000 58,500 53,900 51,977 44,883 King's* 33,800 13,000 50,100 62,800 57,900 58,548 49,720 Women's* 30,900 11,885 45,900 57,500 52,800 50,673 43,980 St Leo's* 28,400 10,923 42,100 52,900 47,800 43,958 39,353 Duchesne* 26,400 10,154 39,100 48,900 45,000 40,338 34,787 Union* 47,500 18,269 70,600 88,000 81,900 83,584 71,864 Cromwell* 32,000 12,308 47,500 59,700 54,900 53,781 46,225 International House* 28,000 10,769 41,500 51,200 46,800 42,576 36,246 Grace* 26,000 10,000 38,600 48,100 44,200 39,490 34,296 321,000 123,462 476,200 594,400 549,300 530,388 457,512 James Cook University of North Queensland- St Raphael's* 12,700 4,885 18,900 22,600 22,300 22,760 19,774 St Marks* 27,800 10,692 41,300 51,500 46,400 42,298 34,296 John Flynn* 24,300 9,346 36,000 38,700 35,000 31,257 26,702 St Paul's 26,600 10,231 39,500 36,300 23,500 24,042 19,533 University Hall 32,900 12,654 48,800 60,400 55,000 50,842 42,276 Townsville 30,100 11,577 44,600 55,500 52,700 (2)45,680 (2)39,689 154,400 59,385 229,100 265,000 234,900 216,879 182,270 Total-Universities 475,400 182,847 705,300 859,400 784,200 747,267 639,782 Total-Queensland 670,200 257,769 991,700 1,234,200 1,105,300 1,039,309 889,434 Notes: * Affiliated colleges. (2) Up to and including 1981 this residence was administered by the Townsville College of Advanced Education. (Question No. 88) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Has the committee which was established in 1984 to investigate and report on the establishment of new non-government schools submitted a draft report; if so, was the Australian Education Council the only group which had an opportunity to comment on the draft report and does this Council comprise only people associated with government schools. (2) Will the non-government school sector have an opportunity to comment on the draft report before the Government adopts any recommendations. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Panel of Commonwealth Schools Commissioners appointed to investigate planning and funding policies for new non-government schools has now reported. In the course of undertaking its work the Panel held widespread consultations with both government and non-government school authorities and with groups representing various interests in the education sector. I also consulted with the Australian Education Council which comprises all the Ministers for Education in Australia. (2) On 21 March 1985 I announced that the Government has accepted all recommendations included in the report of the Panel of Commonwealth Schools Commissioners. (Question No. 141) Senator McIntosh asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: (1) Under the revised arrangements for the residential subsidy for higher education students, due to begin in 1985, has the Government transformed the system of grants to students, via residential colleges, by imposing a mandatory limit of 10 per cent of the available money as able to be granted to students. (2) Does the Government expect universities and colleges to bear the administrative costs of the scheme within existing budgets, raising the threat of students paying for these costs through higher interest rates on the loans. (3) Does the Government expect tertiary institutions to maintain the real value of the funds, raising the possibility of debt collectors pursuing the needy students the revised scheme is designed to aid. (4) Has the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee determined to resist the scheme on the basis that it is unworkable. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Government has replaced the previous system of grants to students with a new scheme of loans and grants which unlike the previous subsidies directs assistance to students on the basis of need. The guidelines for the new special assistance for students indicate that in exceptional circumstances special grants can be justified and that these should not exceed 10 per cent of the total assistance to be made available in any year. (2) The guidelines for the special assistance make it quite clear that the funds provided are not to be used for administrative purposes. Many institutions already operate schemes of loans and grants for students and the established mechanisms for conducting these schemes should assist in the operation of the new scheme. The Government considers that if any additional administrative costs are incurred, they should be borne by the institutions so that students should not be required to meet such costs through higher interest rates on loans or any other means. (3) Tertiary institutions are required to maintain the real value of funds. However, the guidelines make it quite clear that concessional interest rates are to apply thereby allowing students to benefit from loans at less than commercial rates of interest. In cases of particular need the scheme allows for the provision of grants. The administrative policy adopted by institutions in instances where defaults occur is a matter for the institutions themselves, however, as the scheme is designed to assist needy students it would be expected that institutions would apply terms and conditions that are appropriate to individual students' needs. (4) I am unaware of any determination by the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee to resist this scheme. However, I have already announced that it will be reviewed during its first year of operation and this will provide an opportunity for all interested groups to bring forward any views in the light of their experience with the scheme. (Question No. 165) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: (1) Will the Minister for Education instigate an inquiry within her Department about the criteria for geographic isolation as detailed in the Assistance for Isolated Children 1985 booklet. (2) How many Australian children, by State, are receiving assistance under the assistance for isolated children scheme. (3) What is the breakdown of these figures in relation to: (a) distance from nearest school; (b) availability of appropriate transport; and (c) special conditions. (4) Is there a need to look at the sliding scale, which genuinely recognises isolation on the basis of distance from school or transport, rather than a uniform allowance, which pays the same amount regardless of whether a student lives 16 or 160 km from appropriate schooling. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) There are no plans to set up an inquiry within my Department into the criteria used to determine geographic isolation for the purposes of the assistance for isolated children (AIC) scheme. Any move to direct resources to such an inquiry would need to be based on evidence that the criteria currently being applied were inappropriate. I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that those criteria, which were determined in close consultation with State and Territory authorities, are not operating satisfactorily. (2) The latest figures available to me in the detail requested by the honourable senator are those for 30 June 1984. The numbers of children, by State, attracting 1984 benefits under the Scheme by that date are shown in Table (i) below: Table (i) TOTAL STUDENTS ASSISTED New South Wales 5,261 Victoria 860 Queensland 5,983 Western Australia 4,913 South Australia 792 Tasmania 629 Northern Territory 881 Australian Capital Territory 46 Australia 19,365 (3) Of the 19,365 students attracting benefits by 30 June 1984, 13,559 met the normal distance requirements for geographic isolation. Table (ii) below provides a breakdown of this figure according to distance from school and distance from available transport. Individual State breakdowns are then given in Tables (iii)-(ix). (There are no children qualifying on these grounds in the Australian Capital Territory.) The remaining 5,806 were students who qualified for boarding, correspondence or second home allowance under special conditions (about half of them handicapped children needing access to special facilities), or who attracted one of the two minor allowances (the Pre-School Correspondence Allowance and the Short-Term Boarding Allowance). A breakdown of these by State is given in Table (x). Table (ii) STUDENTS MEETING NORMAL ISOLATION CRITERIA-AUSTRALIA Distance from school (km) Distance from transport (km) 16-18.9 19-55.9 56-60.9 61 and over Total 0.0-4.4 . . . . 209 550 759 4.5-6.4 49 579 71 126 825 6.5 and over 50 1,878 380 2,286 4,594 No transport 72 1,271 342 5,696 7,381 Total 171 3,728 1,002 8,658 13,559 Table (iii) STUDENTS MEETING NORMAL ISOLATION CRITERIA-NEW SOUTH WALES Distance from school (km) Distance from transport (km) 16-18.9 19-55.9 56.0-60.9 61 and over Total 0.0-4.4 . . . . 96 173 269 4.5-6.4 22 310 31 52 415 6.5 and over 27 784 135 732 1,678 No transport 25 193 46 638 902 Total 74 1,287 308 1,595 3,264 Table (iv) STUDENTS MEETING NORMAL ISOLATION CRITERIA-VICTORIA Distance from school (km) Distance from transport (km) 16-18.9 19-55.9 56.0-60.9 61 and over Total 0.0-4.4 . . . . 8 11 19 4.5-6.4 1 42 7 5 55 6.5 and over 3 65 15 32 115 No transport 3 27 11 47 88 Total 7 134 41 95 277 Table (v) STUDENTS MEETING NORMAL ISOLATION CRITERIA-QUEENSLAND Distance from school (km) Distance from transport (km) 16-18.9 19-55.9 56.0-60.9 61 and over Total 0.0-4.4 . . . . 39 84 123 4.5-6.4 15 106 16 19 156 6.5 and over 9 530 121 764 1,424 No transport 32 645 154 2,140 2,971 Total 56 1,281 330 3,007 4,674 Table (vi) STUDENTS MEETING NORMAL ISOLATION CRITERIA-WESTERN AUSTRALIA Distance from school (km) Distance from transport (km) 16-18.9 19-55.9 56.0-60.9 61 and over Total 0.0-4.4 . . . . 44 140 184 4.5-6.4 2 85 16 42 145 6.5 and over 6 335 82 611 1,034 No transport 2 225 80 2,005 2,312 Total 10 645 222 2,798 3,675 Table (vii) STUDENTS MEETING NORMAL ISOLATION CRITERIA-SOUTH AUSTRALIA Distance from school (km) Distance from transport (km) 16-18.9 19-55.9 56.0-60.9 61 and over Total 0.0-4.4 . . . . 10 7 17 4.5-6.4 3 26 1 3 33 6.5 and over 4 96 10 42 152 No transport . . 70 17 164 251 Total 7 192 38 216 453 Table (viii) STUDENTS MEETING NORMAL ISOLATION CRITERIA-TASMANIA Distance from school (km) Distance from transport (km) 16-18.9 19-55.9 56.0-60.9 61 and over Total 0.0-4.4 . . . . 7 135 142 4.5-6.4 6 8 . . 5 19 6.5 and over . . 58 14 68 140 No transport . . 22 6 149 177 Total 6 88 27 357 478 Table (ix) STUDENTS MEETING NORMAL ISOLATION CRITERIA-NORTHERN TERRITORY Distance from school (km) Distance from transport (km) 16-18.9 19-55.9 56.0-60.9 61 and over Total 0.0-4.4 - - 5 - 5 4.5-6.4 - 2 - - 2 6.5 and over 1 10 3 37 51 No transport 10 89 28 553 680 Total 11 101 36 590 738 Table (x) STUDENTS OTHER THAN THOSE MEETING NORMAL DISTANCE CRITERIA Special Pre-School Short-term conditions correspondence boarding Total New South Wales 1,938 - 59 1,997 Victoria 581 - 2 583 Queensland 727 575 7 1,309 Western Australia 859 28 351 1,238 South Australia 339 - - 339 Tasmania 151 - - 151 Northern Territory 110 33 - 143 Australian Capital Territory 46 - - 46 Total 4,751 636 419 5,806 (4) No. Once it is established that a child does not have reasonable daily access to government schooling, the degree of isolation of the family home is not an essential factor in determining the cost of obtaining access, except insofar as travel expenses are involved. The AIC scheme has never been designed to provide assistance with travel costs; by agreement, these have remained the responsibility of State authorities. The scheme assists with the costs of boarding, of correspondence study or of maintaining a second family home from which the child can attend school daily. The costs involved in obtaining access to schooling for a particular student depend largely on which of these three options is chosen. The scheme recognises this fact by providing different types and levels of allowance in each of the three situations. There is also provision in the framework of the boarding allowance for taking into account the different levels of boarding cost incurred for individual students, as well as the capacity of their families to meet those costs. (Question No. 131) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Aviation aware of the allegations contained in the book Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom by the prominent Australian aviator, Mr Dick Smith, which indicate that the regulations governing aspects of aviation administration in Australia are out of date. (2) Are departmental regulations preventing the use of aircraft within Australia which are safer than those operating at present. (3) Will the Minister consider ordering a full and independent inquiry into the Department of Aviation's operations and procedures, as is called for in the book referred to in (1) above. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) On 1 March 1985 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure announced that it had decided to form a sub-committee, chaired by Mrs Ros Kelly, MP, to investigate the matters raised in Mr Smith's book. As a first step in this inquiry, the sub-committee has advertised nationally inviting submissions by 10 May 1985. The sub-committee will report to the Parliament at the conclusion of its investigation. Senator Button —On 28 February 1985 (Hansard, page 334) Senator Jones asked me the following question without notice: I ask the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce whether his attention has been drawn to a joint statement by the Executive Director of the Queensland Motor Industry Association, Mr Jim Harris, and the Queensland State Secretary of the Transport Workers Union of Australia, Mr Len Ward, published in today's edition of the Brisbane Daily Sun, claiming that Federal freight subsidies for oil transportation to country areas were the subject of malpractice and profiteering by some independent wholesalers who are selling petroleum products in Brisbane at vastly inflated prices. What is the level of subsidies? What measures have been taken to investigate claims made in the statement? If the claims have been investigated, what is the result? What steps if any, have been taken to ensure there is no abuse of the federal freight subsidy scheme? The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The levels of payment under the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme for the State of Queensland have been: (a) for the current financial year to 28/2/85- $31.1m; (b) for the financial year 1983/84-$39.5m. A continuing field investigation program based on risk assessment techniques is conducted by officers from the Australian Customs Service which is responsible for the administration of the Scheme. I have arranged for the Collector of Customs Queensland to have officers contact Mr Harris and Mr Ward to obtain any information they have on these allegations of abuses of the Scheme so that their claims may be investigated and any appropriate action taken.